User talk:EdJohnston

VanishedUser314159 ?

Hi,

a lot of complaints about sock puppets [1].

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 [2]. --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 [3] 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)

Incidentally, it is very difficult to follow the Wikipedia policy I'm following when POV-pushers like POVbrigand get all snotty. You guys should think about reigning them in sometime. 128.59.171.184 (talk) 17:41, 23 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 [4] and [5].--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

Question

Are edits done on the Genocides in history article subject to AA2, if the changed information pertains to either Armenians or Azerbaijanis? This anon IP changed the word from "genocide" to "conflict" with no explanation in the edit summary.[6] Granted this is only one edit, but I thought I would alert you to this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, have a Happy Holidays, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

About the Edit War complaint that I've filed, I think you may want to look at this: ([7]) Regards. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Issue on Armenian Genocide talk page

Apparently IP:24.27.71.3 does not understand WP:NOTFORUM and has reverted my removal of a non-constructive statement(s).[8] Would you like to help this individual have a greater understanding of editing on Wikipedia? Since it may be Christmas where you are, there is no rush. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note at User talk:24.27.71.3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning for Reaper7?

I made a warning, and immediately wonder if that was something that only an Arbitration Enforcement Administrator should have done. Reaper7 left an attack on the 2nd Macedonia Arbitration referees on my talk page (on the basis of their nationality with this edit), and I responded sharply, and issued an ARBMAC warning. (I do not believe we had any prior interaction before he came to my talk page). If I am wrong, please correct me and do let me know if there was a right way, or better way, to proceed. Jd2718 (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw your warning at User talk:Reaper7 and logged it in the WP:ARBMAC case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since writing that comment I notice he was sanctioned by name in WP:ARBMAC2. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I questioned the policy, not the judges themselves so the warning is null in reality as there was direct attack on anyone, just as the title of my entry suggested correctly, 'A question.' I understand your mind has been convinced to my 'severe and repeated violation (what that warning describes). However I also believe it is never to late to learn from one's mistakes and admitting it to yourself is just as important. Please ignore or read the reasoning for why this warning was ridiculous and dangerous. Either way, I will sleep well knowing at least I tried to offer neutrality to this correctly doubted warning which was for a post that never carried an attack severe, or repeated of any kind. Thanks for updating me on my warning and putting Jd2718's mind to rest for the warning he issued. here is my defence, pointless now I am sure, but truth is should never hide:

I was asking Jd2718, personally, if referee's nationalities matter in a abritration because I could not find any reference to this anywhere else and saw he was happy to answer questions to other editors on your talk page. I assumed good faith on his part to answer my question. I was in no way challenging the encyclopedia or committing repeated and serious violations in asking him this which sadly for this mistake is what warnings should be reserved for, not those seeking information from a superior member, which is what he and you are. I do not care what side he voted on/believed was right - there is no need for him to tell me this in his response and this in itself shows me he and you still believe I am interested in persuading you to do something of some sort which confuses me, that was not my aim or question and I am not interested in your personal beliefs on the topic at all - why would I be, only what is allowed and considered the status quo on wiki and I am would like a definite answer if a referee's nationality matters in an arbitration. For example if an Israeli editor is allowed be a referee on a Palestinian editing war arbitration for example - does that question deserve a warning - is it alone a severe and repeated violation? The warning is unfounded and it was an abuse in itself to warn me over this. I take great care in what I write and am offended by the warning and the doubt it brought out in Jd2718 as soon as he issued it. I simply believed he acted too fast and has obviously been over battled-hardened on the topic to the point which for a second he could not differentiate a serious violation in bad faith from a simple well constructed question by someone who considers you 'to be in the know' concerning Wkipedia policy. If you cannot answer my question or direct me to someone who knows the formula or rules on which referees can be assembled/ chosen to solve conflicts from the nations directly involved it is not a problem. From a simple football game referee to a assembling a grand jury, nationalities and beliefs of a referee or judge/jury are key and taken into consideration. Of course asking if this is the case in wikipedia is not something more serious than ad hominem as he posted on my talk page. It is a simple question regarding the process, policy and rules and regulations which I am clearly not familiar with concerning a wikipedia Arbitration. I have learnt not to assume good faith on a stranger's talk page, trust me - but it is not like I have made a habit of asking strangers policy either - which even then would not justify a serious violation. We both know what constitutes serious and repeated violations on Wikipedia and we both know this question which he even admits was in good faith on my talk page and does not justify any type of warning - at all as I am not question the judges or referees - simpley whether there is a policy which negated said judges/referee being allowed to rule over an issue that directly involves the nation they are a citizen of, really no debate here.

I know this was meaningless, but truth should never be ashamed, especially in light of obvious mistakes. Thank you for your time and explaining why you agreed with Jd2718. Reaper7 (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Talknic - 6 Months ban

EdJohnston - Big deal. The record shows your minds were made up before I had a chance to respond. You have completely ignored those who conspire to undermine by consensus to retain clear violations of Wikipedia policy. You and your fellow administrators have shown ample evidence of what can only be seen as collusion, as I've suspected all along. It will make a nice write up ... talknic (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy "Palestinian" sanction

In case you haven't noticed Nableezy has been accused of violating the ban you imposed on adding "Palestinian" to articles. Although he self-reverted he on two occasions asked in the edit summary for someone else to make the revert. His defense has been that asking someone to make the change for him is not a violation of the ban. My thought is that it would be a clear-cut violation. Would you explain on the case whether you consider it a violation of the restriction to ask for such edits?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Were edits in category pages exempt from the restriction?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

when to warn

Hi Ed, as you are active actioning 3RR reports I was wondering what you think, and if you would comment if you see fit, about my comments here Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring#when to warn - my aim is to clarify and tighten the reporting timeline with a focus on pointing back to discussion in preference to reporting when the red line has not been crossed. I have seen a lot of reports where the warning template is simply given with the link to where the report has already been made, negating any value to the warning. Discussion is always the only thing in edit wars over wording or weight or inclusion or exclusion that finally resolves the dispute, and after a block the users almost always have to return back there. I am attempting to cut out all of the weak reports and push them back to discussion, avoiding the middle man (the block, which is a very negative experience for users and imo should be avoided if possible) by giving the warning template more weight and "authority" in a report. - by moving to a position of, warn before you report and do not report unless the user makes a further revert after receiving his warning. - Youreallycan (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - as one of the most experienced admins there perhaps you could expand a bit in regards to, what do you see the 3RR warning templates primary purpose as ? Youreallycan (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We want people to be warned so that they are aware there is a problem. No point in sanctioning someone for breaking 3RR if they are unaware of the rule. Even knowing that somebody objects to your edits is sometimes enough to get a conversation started. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the template works well when it is used on that way, in many cases it stops a user making another edit, it is valuable in that way. When it is added by a user in the diff prior to them making a report is is valueless as a warning and in fact it is worse than useless in that case a proper notification of a report would be more useful to the person being reported. He can easily just think ok I got a bit excited and I have had a warning and I will log off and have a cup of tea, he has had a warning template and has paid attention to it, but meanwhile, he has been reported to the noticeboard without notification and without him making another revert after the warning. Youreallycan (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not clear to me what problem you are trying to solve. Are you aware of anyone being sanctioned recently at WP:AN3 who you think was not sufficiently warned? So far this sounds more like a theoretical problem. In many cases the submitter of the report doesn't follow the steps anyway, and the admin has to piece together what actually happened. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent case but I have seen this "warning" template used poorly since I started editing here. If my suggested trial was in place then if the submitter did not give the user a warning then the report would be void. This would stop users being reported that had not had the opportunity of being warned and backing off. The need for the user being warned to continue the edit war after the warning and make another revert after the warning before he can be reported will give the warning template its true value in stopping revert wars and returning the editors to discussion. This will imo reduce the reports, and reduce the numbers of contributors that have their ability edit removed, and reduce administrative work also by removing their need as you say, to "to piece together what actually happened." The reporter either gave a warning or they didn't and if they did the 'reportee' either made another revert after they received it or they didn't - It will set the red line even clearer and push the weight back towards discussion - all in all creating a more congenial environment. Youreallycan (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please give an example of where the warning template was 'used poorly', in your opinion. 3RR admins already try to push disputes toward discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I will make a bit of a study and collect some diffs and get back to you. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting the the admins are making wrong decisions. Just that in many cases there is no need for them to have to make those decisions, and that the making of a in-actionable report, without any warnings to the reportee is better avoided. My small change will eliminate the vast majority of those reports. Even a report where a user has made four reverts without having been offered the good will benefit of a warning notice that gives him clear warning that he will be reported if he makes another revert, or the other good faith opportunity to self revert, benefits no one at all. Currently the emphasis of the format is on 'report' and 'block' and I think it should be more focused on 'warn' and 'step back' and 'return to discussion'. I will collect some data over the next few days. Regards. Youreallycan (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

I have some concerns about your post on the AE report on Tuscumbia.[9] Whereas you mentioned the rampant sockpuppetry, you failed to mention the anon IPs which infest Armenian-Azerbaijani-Iranian-Turkish articles.

These IPs[10], [11] have canvassed to have edits reverted on articles that fall within AA2 guidelines. The most recent canvassing has initiated an edit war[12] a possible 2nd edit war[13] and these reversions[14],[15]. Undoubtedly, once Verman1 is reverted then the others that have been contacted by these anons(and any I have not found) will revert back to Verman1, thus initiating another edit war.

Shouldn't these IPs be blocked, since in all likelyhood they are editors involved in AA2 that have simply logged out? Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look at these users[16],[17],[18] they seem to be quacking. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, please leave this post here for me to consider. Don't withdraw it unless you have changed your mind about these edits violating policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Request

• Hi, you suggested that I be checked for sockpuppetry. I have no objections, actually I welcome it. I have filed one myself, but it was turned down. I also asked Tuscumbia to file it, but he refused. I guess he wants to keep calling me a sockpuppet, without any proof. --George Spurlin (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

FYI

Ed, hope you have noticed this clarification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have modified my comment to reflect that MN did not use bold face in the original. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, thank you updating your comment. Hope you have time to review diffs in my comment here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Makaton

You recently fully protected Makaton because of edit warring however it was not an edit war but it needed to be fully protected. The ip 85.237.211.189 has been making personal attacks against me and has been evading previous blocks by resetting his ip address. This person has been removing sections unexplained from Makaton. I have tried to resolve it on the talk page a long time ago. Could you please restore the section that the person has removed as the person got to remove it just before the full protection was issued. I also heavily suggest autoblock as this user has been evading persoanal attack and vandlism blcoks by resetting their modem. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean blocking ip address range. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please obtain consensus at Talk:Makaton for the change you want to make. It seems to be a legitimate question whether your material belongs in the article. If you feel that other editors support your change please list their names on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What about his block evasions and previous personal attacks against me from previous ip addresses. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I provided the sources on the discussion. The sources were in the original section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramaksoud2000 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The user is using a new ip address now since his the other got blocked. 85.237.211.184 Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That account might be a "Good hand" and "bad hand" account because some contribs are constructive from that account. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mere sourcing is not sufficient. Other editors are saying that your material is not important enough to deserve inclusion in the article. You need to actually persuade other people that your material belongs there. See WP:Dispute resolution for other steps you can try if you are stuck. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you at least put a temporary ip block range on the block evader. Like maybe block ips 85.237.211.180-190? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramaksoud2000 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried something. We'll see if it works. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection templates

Just a heads up that you don't have to add protection templates to pages you protect, because a bot is doing that automatically. →Στc. 21:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The bot would not know whether the large or the small protection template is better in a specific case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Although you are incidental here, and may not have even seen the posts, I'm required to notify: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI mentioning you

While it isn't about you, you have been mentioned in an ANI thread. See "Mayday, Mayday, Block-evading harassar".Jasper Deng (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify

Hi Ed. On my talk page, you expressed concern about these two edits. Could you please clarify which edit you meant, the removal of posts or the adding of a note? The second edit, the one that isn't stale, is unrelated to the dispute. It's not me marking any problems as fixed, but a note to make it easier for volunteers. The volunteer later checks off the item (as in here). Thanks, Nightw 05:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned about your removal of the other editor's comments. Had that removal been formerly checked by admins, it is quite unlikely anyone would agree those were personal attacks. For him to give his opinion that you don't understand copyright is not very surprising in the middle of a CCI. (If he thought the opposite, why would he be there?) EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understood you about that; I thought you were accusing me of marking off problems myself. Thanks for clarifying. Nightw 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of my topic ban.

Hi EdJohnston. Since I can't edit result part of my AE request, I decided to write in your talkpage. I just wanted to clarify a moment regarding your post in here. When I was topic banned in April, it was said that my topic ban will be in force until 10 September ([19]). I did not make any edit in AA dispute until that date, except this one, which I made accidentally, and deleted again when I noticed my mistake. I hope this will help you to reconsider your view. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)