User talk:EdJohnston

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for protecting the article Aurora (Telenovela)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ARBPIA 3

I can't think of a situation where soemoen has accused you of bad faith recently, but would you care to help shape this request? Or alternatively you could tell me why I am asking for trouble and no one would want a new case anyway.

Golan Heights

Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

Flavio Briatore

Can you please have a look at the edits of Avaya1 at Flavio Briatore, he has re-written the lead section to highlight some 30 year old convictions. I think the changes are a clear attempt to portray the subject in a negative light, his notability is not in anyway related to this, they are mentioned in the body (as they should be). There has been some discussions between him and I on the talk, but no other editor. He is now warring over it. He also wishes to add the subject to Template:Con artists, which again is not appropriate as his notability is not related to the subject. Mtking ^(edits) 01:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Also see the discussions. Here: Talk:Flavio_Briatore#Convictions_and_WP:LEAD.2C_WP:UNDUE_and_WP:BLP. The discussion on my own talkpage User_talk:Avaya1#Flavio_Briatore. And the (now deleted) discussion we had on the editor's talkpage [[1]]Avaya1 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that both of you qualify for a block under WP:3RR. I strongly advise both of you to stop reverting. With the permission of Avaya1, I would like to revert the article back to the version that does not mention the older crimes in the lead. (The 23:14 version of 8 December). Please find a proper forum where you can get some outside opinion on the article. WP:BLP/N would be a good choice. I advise you to declare a standstill between the two of you on editing this article (with regard to crimes) until a talk page consensus including other editors has been reached. If not, admin action is very likely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, you will notice that I did stop editing the article and came here and have not edited it since awating your input. Mtking ^(edits) 02:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been adding contemporary sources as per talk. However, feel free to revert in the meantime. The discussion, which seems to be getting somewhere finally, can be continued from the talkpage, hopefully with some arbitration. Avaya1 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your responses. I've now restored the 23:14 version of 8 December. Rather than arbitration, I think you need some outside opinions. You could try going to WP:Dispute resolution, or to WP:BLP/N if you prefer. BLPN does not always produce a quick answer unless the problem submitted is a horrible issue, which this one seems not to be. It is a question of possible undue weight rather than defamation, if I'm understanding it correctly.

• Having looked at the article, I observe that it reads in a choppy fashion, like a collection of news bulletins stapled together. This man is a colorful character, and surely some papers must have written feature-type articles which summarize his life. He has been in and out of trouble numerous times. Can't you find summary-type quotes that give an overview of his career and legal difficulties? That way you might be able to improve the quality of whatever summary is written for the lead. You don't want the article just to read like a true-crime report or a police blotter. Surely not every one of his wrongdoings needs to be individually itemized. We are an encyclopedia, we are allowed to summarize, especially if we can reflect how some reliable source has summarized his life. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The page needs a lot of improvement (I'm not really interested enough to do it now). When I found the article, I saw it was muddled and unsourced, so I tried to read the sources, and then add the facts in a piece-meal way at the same time as I was reading them. In the middle of the process, all my edits started getting completely reverted. If edits are Undue in some way, then it is preferable to modify them - or to modify the phrasing etc, rather than to revert them. Even if the article gets undue during the unfinished process of editing, the edits are clearly contributing to it in a piece-meal way. I don't understand the motive behind the edit war. Mtking (who has never edited the article, but merely found my edits on huggle, because my computer was logged me out and I was an anonymous IP) seemed to be treating it as vandalism, rather than piece-meal editing. Avaya1 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you look at this again, Avaya1 has started reverting again with no attempt to continue the discussion Mtking ^(edits) 01:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look at this ? Mtking ^(edits) 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to continue the discussion on the page itself, but have been awaiting your reply. If I don't get informed, I won't necessarily find the notes you leave on this page. In the meantime, after waiting 48 hours, I attempted to make compromise edits. In lieu of other editors joining in the discussion, I assume the best way to resolve this is surely to modify the sentences between us. Avaya1 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Mtking, I did look at this again. While Avaya1 reverted my last change (which I had put in as a temporary version, pending discussion), he then modified the lead substantially. Take a look and see if you still have concerns about the lead. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I do, Flavio Briatore's notability is derived directly from managing the F1 team Benetton (later re-branded Renault F1) and the race fixing at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. To include details about 30 year old convictions and the word "fugitive" violates both WP:LEAD and WP:BLP, I believe restoring :

Flavio Briatore (born 12 April 1950) is an Italian businessman. He was manager or principal of Formula One racing team Benetton, later re-branded Renault F1 . He was also part-owner and chairman of London's Queens Park Rangers F.C. from 2007 to 2010. On 16 September 2009, Briatore was forced to resign from the ING Renault F1 team due to his involvement in race fixing at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. After the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) conducted its own investigation, Briatore was banned indefinitely from any events sanctioned by the FIA, although this ban was later overturned by the French Tribunal de Grande Instance.

Is the best option. I have no issue with the criminal convictions being refereed to the body of the article, providing they are not given undue weight. Mtking ^(edits) 21:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not make this point on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

, I have done. What to do about the changes made already ?Mtking ^(edits) 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice User:Avaya1 followed your advice and has started an RfC, however he did not revert the changes as per the same request, this I feel is a attempt to game the system so that he can claim that his version is "current" and make it appear to be an established version, when it is clearly not. Mtking ^(edits) 23:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Any advice on this ? Can I make the revert ? Mtking ^(edits) 09:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono case

I think you should look at my comment on the case, if you haven't already. Cptnono's explanation for his edits on those articles is not entirely clear.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

John Tyndall

Would like to bring to your attention this edit [2] by the same user despite your warning on the article talk page. Sheodred (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Also the same editors have started a vendetta against me now look at this [3], note that Marcus has asked for the involvment of two admins that wrongly blocked me before and then had to revert their blocks, hence they have an axe to grind with me, one might worry that they might leap at an opportunity like this.Sheodred (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Sheodred's topic ban

Hello,

I've only just been made aware of this AN edit warring restriction, in which you were involved.

As a result of Sheodred's recent behaviour, I should like to bring the following ECCN report to your attention: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios and also raise concerns regarding the use of AN/I against two editors, one being myself, in bad faith over the "Anglo-Irish" situation: here and here. Despite his "agreement to cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month", he seems to have instead taken the opportunity to wage disputes regarding the use or relevance of "British" on several articles, which suggests to me that imposing a one month block will not curb his behaviour. Like being told not to "play on the grass" in one place, he has simply found another field to wage his nationality disputes over.

I have proposed a topic ban at ECCN, without stating a period, as that is an admin decision. Though I expect nothing less than 6 months will put a stop to the multi-thread issues he is creating across wiki, as well as attempts to undermine the neutrality of MOS.

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A loose end: oppose comments.

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at WP:AN3#User:JCAla_reported_by_User:TopGun_.28Result:_Declined.29.
Message added 06:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wiki:Harassment?

I do not want to bring this to the noticeboard, I'm sick of the response there and I would appreciate it if you replied, can you please do something about User:MarcusBritish, he is now claiming that one of the articles I was really involved in, violates copyright, which it does not, you cannot copyright historical fact. I am suspecting that he is stalking me now here Corcoran, everything is doing is causing me great distress here, must I endure this, does wikipedia really allow an editor to be subjected to this?Sheodred (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the debate at Wikipedia:ECCN#Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios. Widespread edits that change the nationality of a person should have a central discussion. By doing all of these changes without obvious consensus, you are placing yourself in an awkward position. Revert warring on Irish nationality may be considered to fall under the discretionary sanctions of the WP:TROUBLES Arbcom case. It would be better for you to wait to get agreement at a place like WT:IMOS before making any further changes of this kind. You personally can't make those changes until January 1 per our previous agreement, but I'm talking about what to do after that. It is possible that no consensus will be found at IMOS, in which case you should probably let the whole matter go, at least for a period of time. I left a note for Marcus regarding the supposed copyright violation at Corcoran. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Those changes took place before the self-restriction ban you told me to take in response to an admin who continued to edit-war against me, an admin who was not even penalised for his conduct, whilst I shouldered all the blame. It is difficult to get consensus when discussions are continually being derailed and literally transformed into a train wreck by the same editor User: MarcusBritish, I mean look at what how he made it crash and burn at WT:IMOS#Can we break it down and at Wikipedia:ECCN#Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios when he turned the issue and hence the page about only me, he proposed an INDEFINITE block/ban for me on Wikipedia:ECCN#Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios!, and for everyone to see and judge me, is that acceptable when a discussion gets devolved into that, how is this encyclopedia supposed to function when all this goes unanswered or ignored by admins.....He is claiming I violated my "topic ban" which was in reality a self-restriction on Irish nationalities you asked me to self-impose, which I have done and have not breached, it would be nice if you provided anykind of input in this vendetta against me on that page. Sheodred (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And for the record I see that you ignored the fact the Sean1111111 ignored you as well, [4] and that he has been free to force his POV on the article under the guise of consensus when there really wasn't any for those edits he made, I am growing weary of everything on wikipedia, this kind of stuff is endless, whats wrong with these people [5]....Sheodred (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Thanks for continuing to follow your restriction!
2. Sean is claiming consensus for his Tyndall change. It is at least arguable that he has more support.
3. I don't see a vendetta. Anyone who wants to edit in this topic area needs a very thick skin, and I don't envy you.
4. It is unlikely that an ECCN discussion will lead to a topic ban. That board is not the right place. If Marcus tries to take it to Arbcom, they are unlikely to accept a case, because community processes have not been exhausted.
5. If you think that User:Ruhrfisch has continued to edit war on this topic, you should let me know.
6. Discussions about Irish nationality tend to be awful. The threads at WT:IMOS do not look bad by comparing against some past debates. Admittedly the discussion at WT:IMOS is not favoring some of your positions. I personally don't like 'Anglo-Irish' being put down as a nationality, but as an admin I don't decide that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at MarcusBritish's talk page.
Message added 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Signing closure

I didn't close it as such, but amended the closure notice that another user had put on it, which seemed unnecessarily provocative, to simply state that there was no consensus. That one wasn't signed either, and I didn't realise they needed to be. What would you advise? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoever does a closure should be willing to take responsibility for it. If you don't want to have your name there, why not post at WP:AN and ask for an uninvolved admin to close it? They will probably come up with the same answer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem adding my name, where exactly should I put it? And should I mention that the actual closure was done by another user? Sorry for the questions, but this is the first time I have got involved in closing a debate. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not add your name right after your closing text. You could contact the previous closer and see if he wants to have his name included as well. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ed. I made a suggestion at the talk page of Katzrin concerning a sentence in the lede[6]. Nableezy’s response was try it on your blog. He then went on to attack me for opening up a discussion and referred to me as disruptive. Not being satisfied with that, on no less than three occasions he stated why are you deliberately wasting our time [7] [8] and finally, when I offered a compromise solution[9], based on some suggestions by uninvolved editors at RSN[10] he calls it pure horse shit. Throughout the discussion, I did not say one word that reflected on him personally but yet I find myself on the receiving end of his acerbic tongue. I was just wondering if this is acceptable behavior? Or perhaps I was out of line for discussing the matter at the talk page and RSN and trying to get opinions and thoughts on the matter from others. Best regards--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sweetness and light continue to prevail, I see. Good luck working it out on the talk page. There is an obvious compromise solution one could propose but I'm sure it would be rejected by both sides. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything would be an improvement over the current existing and misleading version Ed so I am open to any suggestion you may have.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone has proposed, ""MS is the largest Druze village, while Katzrin is the largest non-Druze city in the Golan." I must be missing why everyone thinks it is so important to know which place is the largest. If reliable sources disagree, the statement as to which town is the largest might be omitted with not much loss. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done[11]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And Undone I give up. White flag :(--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at MarcusBritish's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see my reply, and remove my name from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#List of editors placed on notice as soon as you have confirmed the truth of my reply. I will not have my name vilified or listed under false assumptions, not will I stand for you to "blacklist" me without supporting evidence that I am involved in articles related to "The Troubles". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're not being blacklisted; it's just a notice. It is likely that when Sheodred is reviewed on admin pages people will want your edits looked at as well, to ensure balance. Without the aggressive tone of your recent comments, more attention might be drawn to the impropriety of Sheodred's editing. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I know it's just a notice, but it's misplaced under a false premis, and I don't want my username listed as being involved in a controversial topic. People seeing that list are going to assume I'm a nationalist or some shit now, it's false listing because I don't do Irish history. I don't do anything after WW2 in general. I rarely even touch British history cos it's bloody boring.. I do Napoleonic and American Civil War. Say much for nationalism when I like Bonaparte and Lincoln more than any British leaders? Please remove it. I have removed the listing of my name at ArbCom WP:TROUBLES as I considered it libellous to be called a "nationalist" in the same breath as being compared with Sheodred's form of nationalism. That is not a legal threat, however, just as identification of and right to invoke WP:Libel and remove "false or misleading information" per "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons", which I am and have done accordingly. As such, I will remove the full post that you left on my talk page and we can consider the matter resolved, unless you consider the matter a rotten stick worth playing with? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please briefly compare [12] to [13]. Just take 30 seconds to scroll down each page and consider articles/summaries listed. Then draw conclusions. Wish I'd though of this method earlier.. so much easier. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 07:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus has now deleted your notice on his talk page, and his name from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#List of editors placed on notice. Sheodred (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that's your first breach of the voluntary interaction ban. And you lasted 7 hours. Well done! Not. Get my talk pag off your stalk list and leave me the fuck alone, as we agreed on AN/I. Capiche? Let's try to could higher now... One... Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You did not agree to anything you just threw it back in my face. As one will see below. Sheodred (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I thought they could tell the time in Ireland. In fact, I'm surprised you haven't taken credit for an Irishman inventing time and clocks and chronology. Let's see: I put support at 01:52, that's 16 hours ago. You put support at 06:24, 11 hours ago. Need help with your ABCs too or do you want to keep inventing more wheels to roll your nonsense out on? PS: Your talk page flagged {{db-attack}}. That text was a stupid move on your behalf. Big hand's on the 12, little hand on the 5... so, back to one... Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Extract from Sheodred's dispute resolution proposal on ANI

Sheodred's Responses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will turn the other cheek Marcus in this particular situation (despite everything), you have made no attempt to resolve the dispute between ourselves on each other's talk pages or privately and you skip to procedures where you hope I will be subjected to punitive measures, what begun as a disagreement about Wiki:IMOS you transformed into some sort of vendetta, however I will extend the hand of reconciliation and request that you self-impose an interaction ban, indefinite or non-indefinite I don't care, I will do the same...but that is only if you accept my proposal. Sheodred (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC) You haven't made any proposal that hasn't already been made by me. You've simply attempted to foot the blame on me and slip silently away so that you don't get anymore undue attention. You have not accepted any responsibility for your own actions. You have accused me further of a vendetta, though you are simply using Errant's words there rather than voicing your own. As for the interaction ban, I already proposed it and support it. If you do the same, that's good, start now and leave me the fuck alone! But that doesn't mean a topic ban isn't worth considering based on your lack of competent edits, denial of having engaged in only one form of editing, and numerous assaults on other editors. Regardless of if they apologised or forgave you, that does not excuse your behaviour. And given the one-sided proposal here, i.e. interaction ban and you try to get away with blue murder by appearing civil, then I say no... let the community review your edits and make the decision. A couple of days ago you considered me unworthy of closing a heated debate on MOS and reverted the closure twice, plus numerous other reverts and cocky edit summaries today. No reason why you should expect me to assume good faith and want to close this one and trust you to go about your business with a mind to being more neutral. Thanks, but no thanks. You trusted in Errant to do the right thing. He opened this AN/I thread. Now I'll trust in the outcome of it. There is no "only if you accept" ultimatum crap when the community supports it. :) Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 05:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC) So I try to resolve the issue between us and you throw it up back in my face, on top of that you make accusations of bad faith on the proposal I made? I should have expected that to happen, how naive of me to think otherwise, it is clear that I am talking to a wall here, keep on digging a hole for yourself, I have nothing more to say. Sheodred (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC) 3 headings up... Vote "support" interaction ban. That is the same goal we have, is it not? I didn't throw anything in your face. I wouldn't know which face to choose. Your resolve is only out of self-interest. So glad you have nothing more to say. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 06:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

But since you have now confirmed you actually want to, very well, it starts now.Sheodred (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Race and intelligence decision

What is exactly the meaning of your decision here? To avoid further trouble, am I to refrain from editing some article(s), for how long, and does it apply to articles other than Race and intelligence?--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Like everyone else you are expected to work for consensus for your edits. Race and intelligence is protected for three days, so nothing can happen there for that period of time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So I'm not under any specific sanctions. Okay.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Memri

I think there is now slow edit war going in this MEMRI article with usual players maybe it should be protected.--Shrike (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If that's an edit war, it's a very slow one. They are also doing a lot of discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi EdJohnston. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mukharjee Author

Help Needed with advice! I have restored Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals with advice of deleting user. But i am now stuck with very volatile artilce, ie. I have made all my effort to be neutral but the topic is very abused on wikipedia already! Please have a look at user page: User:Mukharjeeauthor/Taj_Article, although i have worked too much on this but still not sure about it as all the company websites are also blocked and it seems like stockpuppets have already tried very hard in history, but above all the group seems noteable but i am unsure about that, as you adviced i am also using google books for articles. please reply, Thank you for your time!Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Links to WikiProjects on Wikipedia page

Quicklinks to WikiProjects(Wiktionary, WikiNews etc) are needed on Wikipedia and vice-versa, in the header or on the left-margin column. Please consider including these to the existing links for the convenience of users navigation from one project to another.Rockin291 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

AA2 warning

Could you issue an AA2 warning to anon IP:213.172.82.180 following his/her three edits[14]. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Also semiprotected Ganja, Azerbaijan and Julfa, Azerbaijan (city). EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

VanishedUser314159 ?

Hi,

a lot of complaints about sock puppets [15].

I don't know how to investigate or alert the noticeboards.

Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the editing style of VanishedUser314159, you can make a list here of articles where you think he is evading his ban. Though I'm busy for a few hours, I will try to look at the matter later. You will need behavioral data to show the connection. I might consider semiprotecting the affected articles if it is convincing. Or if you have the data, you can open a complaint at WP:SPI. In your report there you can include a link to the AE case. It appears that User:William M. Connolley is also editing on at least one of those articles. You could ask his opinion as to whether this is actually User:VanishedUser314159. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not able to collect the evidence. I see that 128.59.169.46 got blocked. I guess that 128.59.169.48 is the same story, but again I don't know how to use the tools to collect hard evidence. Please also see this "threat" promise [16]. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know 140.252.83.241 has been editing in the same style as the above IPs, but at intervals. The 128.59.169.48 traceroutes to astra.columbia.edu, 140.252.83.241 is registered to National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, Arizona. Without digging deeper with the risk of an outing, there seems to be a connection. Is there some way to easily keep an eye on the 140.252.83.241 IP in case future edits show the same behaviour ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Tucson IP has not edited since August. No need to block at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree to that. Is there an automated way of keeping an eye on the IP, through "my watchlist" or something like that ? --POVbrigand (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no feature for watchlisting someone's edits. The concern is that it might lead to harassment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

He is at it again [17] this time IP Special:Contributions/128.59.171.184

User:POVbrigand is a sock of User:LossIsNotMore who was banned for cold fusion POV-pushing. Just so you keep everything straight, Ed. 128.59.171.184 (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

edit warring on filioque

Why is it that Richard [18], [19], [20] and Esoglou [21] can wholesale delete my contributions? Why is that OK? Why not move them or rewrite them how is differing justification for censoring historical facts from the article? (i.e. I deleted it cause it was written wrong or in the wrong spot) There was no talkpage anything but now there is inflammatory comments calling my contributions -rants- after the fact. [22] I even have compromised and deleted half of it for now. [23]

Why are these two allowed to continue to do this to a growing list of editors on here including me?

Like Phatius McBluff points out Esoglou feigning incompetents to justify his disruptive behavior but is sharp as a razor when finding someone else in opposition. [24]

-Or Esoglou/Lima edit warring with user:Taiwon boi

[25]

-Or Esoglou/Lima edit warring with User:Leadwind

[26]

-Or Esoglou /Lima edit warring with User:Swampyank

[27]

-Or Esoglou edit warring with User talk:Hashem sfarim [28]

And still nothing gets done to them. However I peep and its ban time? I had not reported Esoglou as committing an edit vio because what I contributed and he deleted is a series of actual historical events not opinion on Roman Catholic this or that.

"People are entitled to their opinions, they are however not entitled to their own facts."

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ip stalking me

This IP is stalking me. Can you give him a range block please? His IP changes pretty quickly. Its the same person who was stalking me about a week ago Pass a Method talk 02:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please list all the IPs that you believe he has used. That would save time if admins decide that a range block is necessary. It says he is coming from 'Amazon' which is peculiar. Maybe he is using Amazon AWS which is probably a server farm. (They have a /14 range which is too big to block). This might justify a proxy block since web servers should not edit Wikipedia. Consider reporting this at WP:OP. Amazon has an abuse-reporting system. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunni Islam

Is it possible if you can warn user:Pass a Method to stop reverting my good faith edits? [29] I have presented that specific information in the best way possible (with NPOV) but his version again destroys another important article. He keeps putting 75% without the word "over" in the front. The Demographic section should explain a little about why there is no accurate percentage and name some of the leading experts on Islam and the their estimates. This is normally how Wikipedia articles supposed to be written.--Kiftaan (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you because your edit violates WP:UNDUE. Why should Britannica and other sources be given special mention while other sources not? Pass a Method talk 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are an unmanageable number of sources which present different numbers ( no matter what it is about basically ), and they are all of RS status, then it is good practice to state the lower and higher bound of those numbers attributed to the source they come from. Assuming that the edit represents that lower and higher bound then it seems sound. un☯mi 13:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You could potentially list all the numbers given by known RS sources as a footnote, thereby allowing the reader easy access to the data, without having to wade too far into the deep waters of "why this if not that". un☯mi 13:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Overzealous?

I've just filed my third report of edit warring of the evening. I'm actually a little concerned that there may be a connection between these cases but that I may be missing it. In each case, the editors seem to have stopped just within the 3RR rule. Am I perhaps being a little over-zealous in reporting these cases? Longwayround (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed three cases you recently submitted. No obvious problems but be sure you count *four* reverts not just three if you are reporting someone for a WP:3RR violation. One of your complaints was about PeeJay2K3. If you work on football articles you should know that User:PeeJay2K3 is one of the most active football editors and has produced many featured articles. It is always worth trying to negotiate with him even though patience may be required. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I continue to learn. Longwayround (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikireader41

I've replied to your assessment on my talk page. I don't agree with it, the common element is NPOV. However, this user continues to edit my talkpage after repeated warnings and pastes contentious content.

Comments on RFCs: [30] & [31] (the latest after warning).

Comments on talk page: [32], [33], [34] & [35] (the latest after repeated warnings of not editing my talk page while he continues to barge into discussions he did not start or was invited to).

He's escalating to personal attacks inspite of repeated warnings and needs to be checked. All his RFC comments are containing personal attacks (being more on me than on the content). This, as I previously showed you, would be another example. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be good if you reply here (if no action can be taken or if the actions are not a violation). Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan

I would appreciate, in fact, if you would comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Doncram reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ). It seems to me that Sarecofvulkan is deliberately causing contention, repeatedly. --doncram 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

"If your only purpose on Wikipedia is to carry on a struggle against the spokesmen for the other side, people may get tired of you." Even the most casual inspection of User:Jiujitsuguy's edit history, not to mention the new articles he's written since returning from his topic ban, confutes any possibility that his only purpose on Wikipedia is to carry on a struggle such as you've attributed to him. Even if you intended it as constructive criticism, I feel your comment was unwarranted and unduly harsh.—Biosketch (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy Nazareth case

A comment on User:AGK's talk page compelled me to re-examine the case. I mention there something that might be cause for re-opening the case due to a more serious conduct issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for new user.

Hello I think the user:WiPhi should be warned about WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions becouse of this two push poving edits [36] and [37].--Shrike (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Left him a note. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.I ask you to to correct yourself.I didn't say that he is obvious POV pusher as it goes against WP:NPA I only talked about two particular edits.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have revised my comment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Kindly note; discussing issue at All_Rows4 and Sean.hoyland, any reason why Shrike doesn't contact me directly? Regards, wiφ 18:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC) - WiPhi (talk)

I didn't contact your directly because other users already given you a good advice.I thought you should be aware that your are editing in very problematic area and given an official warning because of your edits.--Shrike (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This leaves little to the imagination: "becouse of this two push poving edits" - preceded by "discretionary sanctions." So who will apply what discretion, and on what grounds? Shrike accuses me of POV-pushing to some 3rd (behind my back as it were), but what if my alleged POV is closer to the truth than the wiki articles? In other words, where and how is the truth arbitrated - for wiki to include non-truths = lies debases the entire wiki project. I only intend to edit again after I line-up 'cast iron' substantiation; Shrike can have a relax. wiφ 19:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC) - WiPhi (talk)

If I may add my two-penn'orth: I appreciate that you are trying to contribute to an area of Wikipedia which covers an exceedingly emotive topic. I think you may find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Truth. In brief, if you can find reliable, third party sources which support your edits then you are generally welcome to add them. If you cannot find such sources then, no matter how convinced you are that a statement may be true, you should not make the edit. This can be frustrating in circumstances where you know something to be untrue. Generally, however, it is easier to find reliable sources for truth than for fiction. Longwayround (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI Not to clutter your talk with my verboseness, you may kindly continue any business pertinent to me (= sending me a message, say) at my talk here or here.
rgds, wiφ 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) WiPhi