Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SentientContrarian (talk | contribs) at 17:49, 3 April 2012 (→‎Regarding the Takis Fotopoulos entry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ISBNs

It may amuse you to know that I have once again fired up Helpful Pixie Bot (as SmackBot is now known) to fix up ISBNS. It is much harder than last time, for various reasons, such as cite templates taking "id = 8427394892" and Googlebooks having ISBNs embedded in the URL, but on the other hand I am using a programming language instead of AWB. One of the first things I found is that some of the 979 range has been allocated, namely 979-10- to French books. (Also about 10 more "small" countries have ranges.) Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'd be interested to see a log of the new ISBN results. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first pass is fixing hyphenation mainly. The errors are being categorised in Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs. We picked up one that was wrong on 3000 pages, so that was a good fix. Next dump I'm going to try and work smarter, and a report could be part of that. Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Potential SA IP socks

Are being discussed on WP:ANI#Dreadstar in classic turn of the WP:BOOMERANG. Whether they warrant any action is another matter. Based on your blocking of his work IP addresses, I though you're probably the most familiar with the case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are similar to SA, but that's all I can say. The IP is not in the correct geography (Boston vs. New York). The closest relationship to SA's IP is the exchange at the bottom of this page, where the two IPs find themselves in agreement and in opposition to Dreadstar. The 128.* IP is obviously SA. The writing style does appear similar, and the disavowal of being a sock seems forced. 'I just happened to drop in here with my perfect knowledge of Wikipedia procedures to make a small improvement.. ' If there is more of this kind of behavior on fringe articles then semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 7xxx are in Boston, but 69.86.225.27 is in NY. Although it hasn't edited in a month, I don't thing anyone else has used it. I think it's his home line net, probably with static IP. The Boston ones could be a friend/relative etc. given that they were seldom used. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the NY IPs, IP 69.86.225.27 is not used at the moment, but another IP with the same New York geolocate and with the same behaviour is currently active on "cold fusion". Regarding the Boston IPs, it may be noted that the Boston and NY IPs never edit at the same time and the Boston IPs tend to be on weekends. How to proceed ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing just
If you know of others, please list them. The urgency of any SPI report may depend on the volume of controversial edits. SA tends to draw attention to his own socks by using them to make complaints at admin boards. He often expresses great indignation and makes negative comments about Wikipedia policy. That might explain his use of 76.119.90.74 at ANI. If it's my decision to make, I am unlikely to take any action on a sock that is not currently active. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--POVbrigand (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far the evidence against 24.215.188.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems of most concern. I am not sure of doing anything yet, myself. You could file at WP:SPI if you want. In the recent ANI, nobody stated that this is a correctly vanished user who shouldn't be mentioned by name, so you might consider opening an SPI under the editor's original name. I can see the logic of blocking 76.119.90.74, 69.86.225.27 and 24.215.188.24 for abuse of multiple accounts. I would not do so unless it turned out that others believed this was an appropriate step. So if you want anything done in the near future, an WP:SPI is best. I offer no prediction of success in such a venture, it's just a step that is open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your attention

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I regret I have too much on my plate currently to expend effort on WP procedures. I'm posting this to insure awareness I have communicated to you. Thanks & best, VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, with a suggestion to make your views known somewhere on the wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, is this what you had in mind when you gave that advice? You know there are interaction bans in place, right? I see no need to go thru normal WP procedures for this, as I too have too much on my plate. But I am asking you, openly, to act upon this. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 03:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is still within your power to limit the drama, if you are willing to do so. Should I block him for ten minutes to spare your sensitivities? Your creation of the cartoon risks offending some people and evidently it has. When I replied to him I should have remembered that he couldn't post about you anywhere on the wiki due to the IBAN. That was my mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba. Additionally, I am regarding you as involved in this instance due to private correspondence between you and Vecrumba on this matter, and due to what you have posted to him and myself on your talk page above. It is likely inadvertently involved, but involved all the same. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am still WP:UNINVOLVED since I have participated in this matter only in admin capacity. You are still welcome to file at AE and see what reaction you get. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting that you no longer use the tools on myself due to your refusal to sanction Vecrumba for a blatant personal attack on myself in violation of the interaction ban, whilst you suggest that I get a one week block for an edit which didn't worry you. You said yourself, you are expected to enforce these interaction bans, and you have refused to act when brought to your attention. Sorry Ed, but you have not shown yourself to be a neutral admin in this instance, and I don't feel comfortable with you using the tools when it comes to these interaction bans. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 15:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's where you said as such in relation to expectation to enforce IBANs. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 15:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not taken any action against you in this matter nor have I issued any blocks of anyone. Your preference that I not participate is not something I'm bound to recognize, and you seem to be going out of your way to pursue the route of maximum drama. (Apparently you no longer have 'too much on your plate'). Admins are never *required* to take action if they don't want to. In my opinion the cartoon you are working on is likely to cause controversy, and you ought to be attempting to calm the waters, not roil them. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the case that you cite above (from the November 2011 AE archive) you were charged with editing a whole bunch of articles in violation of your interaction ban. While I favored doing something, I was not the the admin who closed the case. If you had made an agreement to stop doing those edits, I would have been happy to see the case closed without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the semi-protection of my talk page. An IP hopping sockpuppet has been stalking my (and others) edits recently. Yobol (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If protection needs to be extended you can always request it at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Please, check my request for Sockpuppet investigation in lieu of Baboon43. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two IPs that you list seem to be Baboon43, but the registered accounts in your report seem unlikely to me. They are also very old (2006 or 2007), so checkusers would not be able to do anything with them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response. AmandaParker (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to Baboon43 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who claims that his / her IP address changes "constantly," if that is the case then why 70.54.66.158 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) shows up as static (See here). Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that 'whois' services could tell whether an IP is dynamic or static. I wonder what they are basing this on. Generally I use behavior to tell if something is static. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since he is still claiming to be a "newbie" and "naive." Please, check the following edits:
They are all the same and done by the very same user. I regret that my request was declined. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Snooker world rankings

Could you have a look at the recent edit history here? I count over 3 reverts by one editor, and would rather not issue a block or continue to warn myself since I am involved. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, this has been resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"low-seniority single-purpose accounts"

Hi, is this a term that you have just now coined, or has it been used before? And if the latter, do you know if there has been any other on-Wikipedia discussion about it? Meowy 23:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is my coinage. It's a way to refer to a class of accounts that are easy for sockmasters to create. There may also be some good-faith editors in that category, but the SPA aspect is easy to check, and the edit count is easy to check. I am planning to suggest a discretionary sanction that might restrict low-seniority single-purpose accounts from editing one or more articles in AA, such as Nagorno-Karabakh. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So really you are using it to define a category of user that could (if actual evidence existed rather than a suspicion) already be sanctioned using existing means. I was thinking a "low-seniority single-purpose account" was more along the lines of a genuine editor who edits almost exclusively in a very narrow range of articles, or even on just one article, and edits problematically because they have either some pov-buzzing bee-in-their-bonnet about the article's subject or they do not know much about the wider issues to realise their edits are problematic. Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles are, as a whole, not a very narrow range of articles - it is very loosely defined and there are probably hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that could, if an administrator was so inclined, fall under its sanctions. Perhaps there should be some general Wikipedia-wide guidance that could apply to all low-seniority single-purpose accounts who edit problematically. Meowy 02:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cases for which Arbcom has authorized discretionary sanctions are cases where admins are allowed to consider measures that are out of the ordinary. Admins are expected to have a good-faith belief that these additional sanctions might do some good. If you check the log of enforcement at WP:DIGWUREN#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions and other cases you will see some very specific restrictions that were adopted for particular articles. We already have WP:SPI to deal with blatant socking, but in the AA articles the debates at AE are full of sock charges which are difficult to confirm one way or the other. A WP:1RR restriction is one of the unusual means that is authorized and used for articles that are often subject to disruption. Arbcom has frequently mentioned the use of 1RR as a remedy, so the Committee is willing to consider article-specific restrictions that are designed to limit abuse. A restriction against 'low-seniority single-purpose accounts' is a new kind of restriction that enforcing admins might, in the future, be asked to consider as a discretionary sanction. Since it would be applied uniformly to all parties it would not be a partisan remedy. Whether it's a good idea is something that would need wider discussion. I have not yet officially proposed this at AE, though I've mentioned it at User talk:T. Canens#Next steps for WP:AE#Nagorno-Karabakh. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bad call

Ed, I have no idea why you have fired a shot across my port side. Does it strike as odd that Carlingford Lough page has suffered years of edit warring and pov pushing yet an RFc and DR have only been raised recently with both Domer and Bjmullan providing only a pov argument to oppose a a Change. A prime example where Bjmullan and Domer have forced through their opinion. [2]. I guess if you are warning me with a probabionary period, should I care? Given that Domer has been able to edit freely during this sanction. Hackneyhound (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found it odd that he classed that as an example of consensus building full stop. None of you have been doing any Wikipedia-style consensus building over there, but it appears you've been singled out because you're less experienced at this sort of warring than your opponents. Perhaps he is hinting to you that you need to become more like them to succeed? Who knows. Anyway, as the protecting admin, perhaps he can fulfill the request I've had to make because of the fallout from this nonsense, for an unrelated edit to insert some badly needed basic contextual information to the article. I could give my opinion on the actual content in dispute, but it's pretty clear that nothing anybody says about it would be listened to, that's for sure. Neetandtidy (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. While I can understand the logic and reasoning which prompted your actions both here and here, I do not think they have had the desired effect. Despite one of the SPA accounts being blocked for making a frivolous report, the other SPA continued with the same frivolous accusations. Regardless of the fact that the blocking Admin outlined the frivolous nature of the report, the editor has refused to disengage and instead made bad faith accusations against the Admin. With one SPA account blocked, we have another "brand new" editor show up, who has moved the dispute to yet another article with a clear battleground mentality. They too have now made a report at ANI against another editor. With another of Factocop's socks having just been blocked (I've outlined some of the history of socking here) this is exactly the same spillover situation which another Admin has had to address on Carlingford Lough. I fully support the blocking Admin's call for a CU, as the level of abuse is way out of hand. Thanks--Domer48'fenian' 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to file a complaint at WP:SPI, let me know in case I want to comment. My own tolerance for Hackneyhound and Neetandtidy is wearing thin. Further nonsense can be handled under WP:TROUBLES now that Hackneyhound has been warned. Do you even understand what this is about? What is the significance of Carlingford Lough? Incidentally are you still under Troubles probation? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep still under probation till April I think, which explains my lack of editing. Needless to say I was not at all happy about it. The short hand answer to what it is about revolves around the status of Norther Ireland. Is it or is it not a country. Hence the issue of "international boarder." On Carlingford Lough, it is like Sarek rightly noted, spillover from the Giant's Causeway article another Factocop targeted article. At least your in on the ground floor on this spillover article, having closed down the Carlingford venue. Hope that helps, and yes I can just see you throwing your eyes to heaven and saying "You can not be serious, that's what this is all about". Who on earth would waste that many socks on an issue like that. LOL. PS: LOL is laugh out loud, just in case it's suggested that it's Loyal Orange Lodge. --Domer48'fenian' 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch!!! Just what every Admin likes to here. --Domer48'fenian' 21:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, consider yourself informed that I am not a "brand new" editor, and have never claimed to be one. I am a returning editor who intitially just wanted to make an edit to the Loch article, having seen it come up via the NI talk page. It's protected no thanks to you though, so that's that. Right. Introductions over, now let's get to the holy shit bit. Just so I've got this straight. Ed, you're the one claiming to be the enforcer of the Troubles area right? Or so you told me a minute ago at my talk page. And Floquenbeam is another admin whose also dishing out blocks to people invloved in it at the behest of these rambling complaints from Domer which, while they include diffs, don't ever correspond to what's claimed as reality in the words. Yet Floquenbeam had admitted they know nothing about Domer's history at all, and here you are asking him to help you out in understanding the mess he has precipitated. Do either of you have any handle on this at all from a standpoint of being uninvolved but otherwise informed admins? Or are you just fucking winging it, with Domer pulling your strings left right and centre. I've been here 5 minutes and can see what he's all about. If 'SPA' means only using Wikipedia for one purpose, then he is IT. It warms my heart no end to see you to chatting about probations and when they're up, how he's not done any editting while under it, and presumably a veiled reference to what's planned when it expires. Can someone remind me here which one is the warden and which one is the inmate? Neetandtidy (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to tell Arbcom what your previous account was. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And my reason for doing so would be what exactly? I will not dignify such a bad faith request when editors with records like Domer's are given about as much freedom as they like in their chosen single-interest topic area. The more and more I look at his history (I've probably got through more in one day than you have in your whole editting career), the more obvious it seems that he is playing you like idiots. Are you sure he's still under probation? Have you independently checked it yet? would you even have a clue how to independently verify it? I notice you logged me as a suspicious user already. Cheers for that. If he confesses to all the times he's tag team reverted someone like Gravy on an article, all the times he's made a report to simply win a dispute while hypocritically complaining about such behaviour when it's done to him, every time he's bullshitted and fillibustered his way through a discussion simply to give the impression that he's 'consensus building' to gullible part time admins like you, or to the amount of times he's just cut and run from such discussions only to return and resume an edit war, and all the other games he's played with or without your help, then I might, just might, think about it. But we both know he's not going to do that, and we both know you aren't going to look for it for yourself, so we both know this was a joke of a request. A calculated insult at best, a pure pisstake at worst. As it is, I'm fine with being able to show to the outside world the difference between how I am treated and how he is, by the likes of you, in this topic area, on this encyclopedia. Not that I've done a fucking thing to an article yet, because you still haven't even fulfilled that simple uncontentious edit request. And that's another thing, you called me an SPA for having only done thing so far. I've been here one day. How many new editors do you really think work on more than one are on their first day (assuming as you did that I was brand new). You're a joke man, seriously. You treat everyone like shit on the basis that you can't figure out who does what, yet the worst offenders are the wolves in sheeps clothing chit-chatting on on very own talk page feeding you all kinds of half truths. Neetandtidy (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Dear! Could it be true (you).--Domer48'fenian' 07:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN policy discussion

Hi. Since you commented at the AE request, in light of User:Timotheus Canens comments there, please see the discussion here [3] (related to my comment here [4]).VolunteerMarek 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not being bold on WP:Be bold

Semiprotection of a WP page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was gonna decline the WP:RFP request for protecting WP:Be bold, but then my internet connection crashed and you protected the page. Basically, I think it is a bit ironic to prevent people from being bold on the Be Bold page. However, that aside, I agree a 2-month protection is the correct outcome, and I'm not gonna challenge it. Just trying to tell you what I think. Deryck C. 09:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omen1229

Hi there,

I would like to let you know that Omen1229 has begun edit-warring in the domain he is topic-banned from: [5]. I know well that this type of matter should be taken to WP AE, however, I got an AE block for a duration of a month for wikistalking in connection with this user[6] in last October, and that is why I do not want to go to WP AE. I discussed my edits with an administrator, and because I did not agree with everything he said ,especially about wikistalking, it resulted in me being blocked for wikistalking by one another administrator who had been a silent-reader of said discussion up to that moment. This does not make much sense, but because I did not appeal it, reporting Omen1229 to WP AE would not be a good idea on my part.

So that I might as well include some history related pieces of diffs with your talk page made by Omen1229, even if he is not allowed to do so in principle:
  1. 18:30, 13 March 2012 (edit summary: "deleted "sometimes", there are 40,100 results in google for "dowina devin"")
  2. 18:52, 18 March 2012(edit summary: "+3 references for Dowina - Devin"

  1. 14:20, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "del repeated info")
  2. 16:42, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "Name and ethnogenesis")
  3. 16:49, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "manipulation, Roshwald don´t mention Slovakia in a sentence about primordialism")
  4. 17:18, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "Are you kidding? This article is about SLOVAKS, not about nationalistic issues")
  5. 14:19, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */ new section")
  6. 14:26, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */")
  7. 14:39, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */")
  8. 10:18, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Slovak genetic background */")
  9. 09:25, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484492312 by Koertefa (talk) source was not removal")
  10. 09:27, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "Slavic mythology")
  11. 09:28, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "The statue of Svatopluk")
  12. 09:35, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
  13. 10:06, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "The statue of Svatopluk")

I suggest you take a decision about the fact that whether Omen1229 is in violation of topic-ban by making these edits ,or isn't.--Nmate (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have topic-banning edits relating to Slovak-Hungarian history. I edit only article about Slovaks. So what is problem? --Omen1229 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Future Perfect said to Omen1229 on 22 November 2011, "I am therefore topic-banning you from all edits relating to Slovak-Historian history for a period of six months." I think Omen1229 should consider the Slovaks article to be covered by his topic ban. That article mentions Hungary throughout, so his edits there inevitably are connected to Slovakian-Hungarian history. I also notice this edit by Omen1229, which looks to be a purely nationalistic edit in service of the theory of continuity of Slovak identity. The edit removes a perfectly good quote from an academic source (a 2006 publication by Cambridge university Press) which claims that the national continuity is unlikely. Omen1229 made another edit here which specifically mentions Hungary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange and worrying, if article about Slovaks, especially Name and ethnogenesis is for you "Slovak-Hungarian nationalist struggles". About my Topic-banned: In the first sentence Future Perfect at Sunrise mentioned Slovak-Hungarian nationalist struggles and in another sentence mentioned "Slovak-Historian history". This is clear that he thought "Slovak-Hungarian history".
I also notice this edit by Omen1229, which looks to be a purely nationalistic edit in service of the theory of continuity of Slovak identity. > See again, I didn´t remove an source.
Omen1229 made another edit which specifically mentions Hungary. > This is my big mistake, because I quoted name H*****y up to three times.[7][8] Sorry. --Omen1229 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Omen1229, since you agree that you mentioned Hungary in one of your edits, I take it that you are agreeing with my proposal to avoid Slovaks? You are an editor who tends to favor the Slovak POV, and you are editing an article that mentions the Slovaks' history with Hungarians. I am afraid if you continue, you are risking a block. This is a black-and-white issue so far as I can see. Admins are allowed to widen your ban if they feel that you are engaged in nationalistic editing, under the provisions of WP:DIGWUREN. It is better if you will move to other articles. I can make suggestions if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Omen1229, since you agree that you mentioned Hungary in one of your edits > Yes, but this my edit in talk page is not controversial connection between Slovak-Hungarian history, but I agree it was my fault. I try to avoid Slovak-Hungarian history articles and I see nothing wrong if I want to edit article about Slovakia, because I´m from Slovakia. See Slovaks article again and maybe you will see what is nonneutral POV and who want to create neutral article.--Omen1229 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a warning on your user talk page. Please continue the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban violations

Hi Ed, I do respect you as an editor, and have generally respected your actions as an admin; there have been a few occasions where you have been blindsided though. But moving on.... I have made a statement about the interaction breach at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Interaction_ban_breach. Given the need to reduce drama in this area, in future when I see an interaction ban breach, do you mind if I simply bring it to your attention on your talk page for you to act upon? This might go some way to lessening drama, given that AE is simply another free-for-all-battle-everyone-until-last-man-standing like venue. Is that ok with you? Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I shall do that thanks. About the above threat, I generally do have a problem with editors contacting admins offwiki with things for things are obviously not required by privacy, particularly when it is 10 minutes after I am emailed (without having time for responses), hence why I was a bit pissed, prob not so much at you. Anyway, hope you understand that sentiment I held, even if you don't agree with it.
Also, on sentiment, have you had a chance to look over my statement at AE, and my comments on my userpage? Thoughts on that, outside of an AE setting would be welcome. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another thing, you stated in the above section that I created them. Just to advise you, I didn't create them. Refer to post by Greyhood on User_talk:Elen of the Roads for further info. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of having a discussion here eludes me. The AE is still open for any further comments. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the SPI

Hi Ed. No need for the SPI its all done and dusted. This is some list of socks and it turns out that the two SPA's were one and the same. I removed this foul mouthing attack, but it seems to only encourage more of the same. They have indicated that they will not be stopped from editing, so expect more socks, a lot more. Take care, --Domer48'fenian' 18:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about removing comments from his talk page, however ridiculous they may be. Blocked users are generally allowed to make speeches so long as they are limited to their talk page. Usually the person making the speech is unaware that they may be digging the hole deeper (and removing the chance of being unblocked in the future). EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh your right, let them vent! Lets see who can spot the new account first! Take care, --Domer48'fenian' 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be! It just can't!.--Domer48'fenian' 18:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick back at it again

No further editing has occurred since 29 March. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Ed, I made an edit warring report a few days ago regarding User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick, which you resolved by issuing a warning. Jeffrey did nothing for 5 days but has returned and immediately resumed edit warring at Talk:Demographics of Greater China: [9][10] (oops, meant to be [11]). Should I file another report at AN3 or is alerting you to this continued behaviour enough? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a warning on his talk page. What exactly is he doing on the article talk page? Is he opposed to the move? EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what his position on the move is, but he's been warring to try to insert unsigned templates on tags placed by SchmuckyTheCat. The tags are basically (this user was blocked for sockpuppetry) added after the comments of a blocked sock and both Schmucky and myself have tried explaining to him that the unsigned templates aren't needed and make about as much sense as putting an unsigned template after an unsigned template added by someone else. Tags don't need signatures, basically.
He seems to think that if he mixes in some token 'extra' edit like adding a space in the signature of one of his previous comments or adding an extra question mark somewhere, it means he can also add the unsigned templates back in and that when he's reverted he can claim vandalism because we 'removed his edits'. I separated out his template additions from his good edits before (you can see in the history and I linked it in the original AN3 report here), but he made another edit mixing them back in again afterwards. He's not an inexperienced editor, he knows how to use diff templates, argue policy and reference past ArbCom decisions. He knows what he's doing and he knows he's being obnoxious when he mixes the stuff we've told him not to add back in again and again. As I mentioned above, I removed only the bad parts of his edits previously and he added them back in again, I don't have the good faith to do so again when he'll just turn around and put them in again, mixed in with another token edit to try to make it harder for us to revert him. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 20:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No more lies please, Null. The diff links clearly show that Schmucky and you deleted all my newer comments. And even after I told you that I don't care about the unsigned tags anymore, you and Schmucky kept deleting all my newer comments. And.. even if I added back only the new comments without the unsigned tags, you two are still deleting my newer comments. This is clearly disruptive. You may not agree with my position, but that doesn't mean you can disrupt Wikipedia and delete my comments. Jeffrey (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've accused me of lying multiple times now without cause. I'd appreciate if you'd stop doing so. The page history and edit summaries of Schmucky and myself tell the facts quite plainly. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 20:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Try argue with these diff links that neither Schmucky nor you removed any of my comments: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] (and pretend that the timestamps 15:03, 22 March 2012 and 07:22, 20 March 2012 don't ever exist). Jeffrey (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point in responding? You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge what the problem is. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 22:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:NULL

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

Your report at WP:AIV has been declined

Declined an AIV report
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See this edit. The edits of Aymatth2 are not vandalism. The two of you are having a content dispute. Consider using the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can u reconsider the request. Go thru the history of his changes please.18:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.vikram.b (talk • contribs)

This is for you to do. Sorry. You have provided no single diff that is vandalism. Only cases of simple vandalism or sockpuppetry should be taken to WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Hello Ed. I replied to your concern on my talk page. Thanks! Dehr (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I always wanted to ask administrators like you of you are a salaried employee of WP or a volunteer or a user like me but promoted to the rank of administrator? Will be glad to receive an answer. Winterbliss (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't receive a salary. There's a few people around (like User:Moonriddengirl) who are employees of the WMF but also happen to be admins. Such people usually have a separate ID that they use when acting for the WMF. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE case

I left a comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of your objectivity

Your objectivity in the case of Omen1229 is challenged. They are evidences that you and other administrators acted after canvass of users (for example: [18]) whose are permanently in opposition against other users. And the result was always on the side of the canvassing users. They are standard processes how to solve problems like this - for example in the case of Omen1229 here: [19]. Or you could also move this case to Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. But for them its easier to contact biased administrators and the result is sure - liquidation of opponents. You had no effort for a deeper analysis of this case. You can react here: User talk:Omen1229#You were reported.--Samofi (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting a topic ban is not a hard task. Individual admins can do this. I've listed some appeal options that the editor can pursue at User talk:Omen1229#You were reported. Boards such as Mediation or COIN would not be the first choice for an ethnic dispute in Eastern Europe. That is what Arbcom made their WP:DIGWUREN decision to address. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help over this article : Kurdish people

my dear friend we need a little help here : kurdish people ,this guy(iranic) made the page semi-protected ,so kurds are not able to show their own sources that shows they are not indo-iranian for example : our genetis tests ,many other References, that shows we are different from persians. can you help?? http://selenasol.com/selena/struggle/kurds.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.185.118.56 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've made this report using an IP. Due to the current socking issues at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kermansh, I do not plan to look into this unless you can post here using a registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

500 edit proposal

Why not implement in other areas like I/P?--Shrike (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools day

Is this another April fool day. --Domer48'fenian' 12:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three edits is not much to get an impression from. But if you think that is Hackneyhound, consider filing an SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting my skittles in order, just in case an SPI is required.--Domer48'fenian' 13:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just test edits. I noticed this one earlier, and I remembered this observation by -Sarek. --Domer48'fenian' 14:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, just a heads up on an SPI I've filed. --Domer48'fenian' 20:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quack quack could you take a look please

Could you have a look at the edits] of this new user please very strong indication sock of recently blocked editor. Mo ainm~Talk 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A chara, flagged this editor in the above tread! --Domer48'fenian' 20:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Al-Ahbash

Baboon43 (previously, he has used 70.54.66.158), has removed edit-warring messages twice (here and here) from his talk page, constantly ignores and discredit all the peer-viewed sources provied by the other editors. He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind:

Currently, he is engaged into edit-warring in the name of "expansion" without even getting consensus from the other editors who have been on that page for years. Please, looking into that. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been handled at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

undoing others work?

i am not undoing anyones work they are the ones undoing my work im trying to contribute to the article and i keep getting reverted..amandaparker is not discussing anything the user has not even approached me on why they object to my edits Baboon43 (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are not listening. You are continuing to ignore the requirement of WP:CONSENSUS. If you edit the article one more time (without getting someone to support you) I will file a new edit-warring report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we understanding you correctly?

Would you mind commenting on Nug's interpretation of your post at at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#IBAN_wording? I think Nug is right, but you of course would be the final judge on what you meant to say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have suggestions for how WP:IBAN could be made more precise? Ideally it would become something like WP:3RR where anyone who has learned the technical definition can enforce it without needing to use any discretion. Perhaps IBAN needs to be revised to list out specific items like DYKs or AfDs. Or, in the other direction, it could require that editors succeed in staying out of disputes with one another. That would tend to require more discretion. If they *do* get into a dispute, how do we tell whose fault it is? EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think IBANs are precise enough now (note I am not saying they are wide enough, just that the current definition seems precise). The problem we see, IMHO, is due to editors trying to interpret them more widely. This creates a problem like, hypothetically, would interpreting 3RR as "editor X did not remove/readd the same content, but his new paragraph/edit to a new paragraph adds/removes related content". Now, I am open to discussion if IBANs should list more specific examples of a forbidden interaction, but I am a strong believer that we should not bend/blurry the existing rules, not unless there is a clear and uncontroversial benefit to the project (which I rarely see with arguments for blocks, but I digress here). Anyway, since it is a repeated issue, we do need, IMHO, a clear ruling (in IBAN) over whether ibanned editors can comment/vote on one's another AFDs, DYKs, FAs, and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think such bans are already precise enough, then, do you think it is acceptable for two ibanned editors to participate in the same AfD? Explain your reasoning :-) What if one of the parties has created the article? EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the iban is currently worded, it seems to me they can (provided that there is no commenting on one another, or direct replying; the latter does raise a question if voting is a reply?). Now, that does not mean they should, and I think we may want to discuss the pros and cons of adding a provision to ibans specifically forbidding this. The question of authorship is related, but I am wary of the "first mover" gaming. What is editor A creates an article related to favorite subject of B - in essence extending the iban into a topic ban? On the other hand we have to consider when an editor is trying to circumvene ibans by a form of tedious editing. I am still not sure about this myself, but I'd think that the latter can be dealt with through regular procedures regarding whether an editor A is stalking B or not, in other words, is he targeting B's articles often, or rarely. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette B

Consider making a request at WP:REFUND. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been unsalted. Thanks. :) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My posting in AE

Ed, i posted mu thoughts on Nagorno in AE forum [20]. Take a look. My basic points:

  • by keeping this AE request that exists that long risks inadvertently creating an common identity for all the accounts you dubbed SPAs. They can spread their editing activity to articles other than Nagorno - will you then propose your 500/1RR for all articles where I, Winterbliss, Nocturnal781 and Grandmaster's group are likely to lock horns??
  • Contagion is setting in. [User:Shrike] suggests to use the 500 edit thing [21] in Israeli-Palestine area. Opa! Dehr (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue this discussion at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further update

I filed this report previously which you correctly identified as needing a thorough and patient look. The pattern of undue POV pushing is persisting and the editor in question has made further edits of this nature. Editor's modus operandi is unilateral deletion of unfavourable material followed by unnecessary demands on Talk page without reference to Wiki policy. See previous report where no discussion was broached multiple times. [22] Removed Islamic radicalisation content [23] Removes term French Muslim used by many sources [24] Removed Islamic radicalisation content
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate it if AnkhMorpork discussed more often. For example, on April 1, the user repeatedly reverted my edits in the lead, but did not respond to me even once on Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Lead, where I explained my edits/expressed concerns about the user's edits 3 times (the user finally responded to me April 2).
I also think we need a third party commenting on these issues. (You can find my specific responses to AnkhMorpork's specific objections on the article's talk page).VR talk 21:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of people working on that article. You could open a WP:Request for comment on the talk page if you want to get consensus on a specific question. Admins will not make rulings on content matters; that is up to the editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I just want to know something. Would the above message posted by AnkhMorpork be considered a non-neutral description of the content dispute? If so, would be considered an example of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning? I want to also contact users who have recently edited the article for comments, so I'm just wondering how to (or how not to) describe the dispute. Thanks,VR talk 21:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can anything be done to make the RfC more clear? What exactly are people supposed to agree or disagree with? They can't really write 'Support' or 'Oppose' when there are so many questions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are a lot of questions.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but the questions seem clear. E.g "Is it or is it not UNDUE to mention that Merah was a Muslim, Salafist and Islamic in the same paragraph?" Users can answer to this by either agreeing with the current lead, or suggesting ways of improving it.
How would you improve the questions?VR talk 22:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could draft up an a new version of the paragraph in question. Make a new section for it on the talk page. Ask people to comment on it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you help draft the RFC question and finally rid yourself of us squabbling on your Talk page. I'm dissatisfied with current RFC question which is misleading, and would really appreciate experienced involvement. Please.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.VR talk 23:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Takis Fotopoulos entry

I am in the unfortunate position to inform you that, following what went on regarding the 3RR thing with User:Nikosgreencookie on the Takis Fotopoulos page, I have come under an ad hominem attack by a rather vocal (please see the talk page on the Takis Fotopoulos article) supporter of Mr. Fotopoulos and his Inclusive Democracy movement, User:John Sargis. Seeing that other people (such as User:Nihilo 01 - see his talk page) have come under attack by supporters of Mr. Fotopoulos and the Inclusive Democracy movement, I am being led to believe that there is a behavioural pattern that might constitute various forms of abuse (such as WP:OWN and even harassment of other users). Could you please offer some assistance? Furthermore, I would be grateful if you could point me to Wikipedia administrators or prominent editors that are fluent in both Greek and English, so that they can offer you some reliable information (as I might even be partial or I may misunderstand what I have read) on certain positions of Mr. Fotopoulos and his supporters that are only available in Greek (and are therefore flatly denied by his supporters here on Wikipedia - the language barrier seems to be put to rather good use). Thank you in advance and I hope this issue will be resolved soon. SentientContrarian (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try making a report at WP:COIN. That is a good place to get advice in cases where people connected with an organization might be editing its article. If you can post links to the Greek-language material, some of us may be able to figure out what they are saying. The person you are complaining about is John sargis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Be sure to spell his name correctly if you are asking for assistance. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SentientContrarian (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have also notified User:Esparcadia, who is fluent in both English and Greek. I suppose this user can provide testimony on the Inclusive Democracy movement's and its leader's (Takis Fotopoulos) Greek-only announcements and their actions on the Greek-speaking internet. It's a pity that these announcements are so incredibly long and that there are so many of them, thus making their translation a very tedious task. You might also find this announcement, which is basically an attack on Wikipedia that does not let them treat the articles on Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos as mirrors of the articles on their own websites, quite interesting and revealing of the way they believe things should be done. If you could be in touch with User:Esparcadia and discuss their findings, I think it would be extremely helpful, not only regarding my own case, but also to protect other users from abuse by Inclusive Democracy members and supporters, and to prevent and discourage further behaviour from organisations that might feel like repeating the Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. SentientContrarian (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you arrived on Wikipedia on March 20 you have paid special attention to the Takis Fotopoulos article or its talk age (You've made 13 out of your 51 edits there). If you came here with the intention of making some reform in this article as well as Inclusive Democracy, it might be better to declare openly what you have in mind, and if you've had a personal connection to those topics in the past. It hardly works to claim that real-life supporters are editing the article if you also have a real-life connection to the topic that you don't declare. Your user page speaks of articles edited by a fan club, and this hints that you see yourself as here on a mission. The link you supplied above is from 2006, a date so far in the past that it does not suggest any imminent threat to the neutrality of our articles. It would also help if you could state whether you have used any previous accounts on Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A previous dispute about Inclusive Democracy is described at User:JWSchmidt/Talk from 2006 first half#On Inclusive Democracy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are getting at and I can't blame you. I think I got a bit carried away; with the benefit of hindsight, I think I should perhaps handled the whole issue in a different manner. As far as having had previous accounts goes, no, this is my first account here. And also, I have no connection to any particular movement of the Libertarian Socialist family; what led me was pure curiosity, as these movements were first mentioned in an offline discussion I had with some friends of mine; they suggested that I do some research and see if I find something that I can relate to. I hoped that by adding that tag I could get other people, more knowledgeable than me, to help improve that article. I never thought it would lead to an edit war and I am honestly sorry for becoming part of a problem. SentientContrarian (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

  • Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
  • Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=485368998"