User talk:EdJohnston

Consistency and fairness???

I have left a message for you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiqi55#Your_unblock_condition_from_December --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The indef block of Wiqi55 will hopefully address your concerns. All parties should learn something from the recent discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Chesdovi AE Appeal

Chesdovi is specifically mentioning you in his appeal over on AE, although I'm certain you would see it on patrol, I thought I'd let you know. --WGFinley (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Family Murders

Rvoight (talk) has again deleted refrenced text from the article despite it being semi-protected by you on March 11. I have tried to get him to provide refs to support the deletion without success. Can you suggest the next step to take? Thx. Wayne (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Make a report at WP:BLP/N. Some of the published material appears tabloidish. If a dispute exists as to whether a certain source is reliable enough for inclusion, you can ask about it at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User Lvivske at Rinat Akhmetov article

Hello, EdJohnston,

I would appreciate your comment on user Lvivske actions at the article about Rinat Akhmetov. To my mind, he has been violating Wiki BLP policy via POV pushing in the article, namely flooding the article with rumours, POV statements and unproved allegations served as facts. He's been putting criminal accusations almost everywhere in the article, grounding mostly on external sources, disputing at he same time my contributions. Thank you in advance, --Orekhova (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 24#Rinat Akhmetov appears useful. I recommend that you try to respond there to the questions by User:Sleddog116, who in my view is expressing mainstream Wikipedia opinion on how this kind of dispute should be resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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).

I'd be interested to see a log of the new ISBN results. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Are we discussing just

• 71.174.134.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• 76.119.90.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ?

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)

• 24.215.188.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.86.225.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) see "editing from home" [1]

--POVbrigand (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 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)