User talk:EdJohnston

Me being blocked

I have stopped editing on Barry Hall as soon as I was given the warning, I haven't made an edit on the article since only on the discussions page. So why am I going to be blocked when I have followed the rules and not made a single edit since? GuineaPigWarrior 22:00, 17 August, 2010.

Result for Brews_ohare

Hi Ed:

The conclusion of the recent tribunal is at this link. It says:

“Closed with a warning. Every admin who commented believes that Brews' action violated his topic ban. The admins here did not reach a consensus to block, but several of them predict that the next similar violation will produce a block without further ado.”

As you know, I requested clarification of the nature of the violation several times. Here is one of them:

Baffled: I am being given a "pass" this one time and warned not to do "it" again. No-one has explained the rules better, or just what the infraction is. Apparently "it" is so obvious no-one can believe I don't understand "it". However, my question above is not disingenuous; I'd like an answer. I'd like to know what "it" is that I am to avoid in the future. An explanation of the charge would help to avoid "it" in the future, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you understand a bit of confusion to find that using the appeal system to try to correct an action can result not only in denial of the appeal, but in a further tribunal that use of the appeal system is in itself a heinous offense? In other words, don't try to appeal, because appeal is a crime in some cases; you won't know which ones until it happens, and even then you won't be told why your particular appeal is one that will lead to retribution. Brews ohare (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this action is brought under the remedy cited by Headbomb: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions, Motion 6; If there is in your minds a different basis for your ruling (and I can't think of one) Headbomb's action should be denied and he can be invited to do this all over again under the correct remedy. In particular, there is no remedy in force that restricts me from taking an action to AN/I. Brews ohare (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my paranoia, but I believe the refusal to clarify the matter despite my repeated requests indicates the deliberate intention to take a future complaint as a "similar violation" and to cite this warning as indicative that no hearing is needed and no recourse can be taken.

What can be done to get some light on this subject? Brews ohare (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom ruled as follows, in their Motion 6:

"Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months. Passed 9 to 0 on 16:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)"

Headbomb claimed that you had violated this restriction by opening up a complaint at ANI about his archiving of some comments from Talk:Matter. The admins at WP:AE agreed with Headbomb's complaint. They decided that your ANI post about the archiving of a physics-related page is forbidden by your topic ban from all 'physics-related discussions, broadly construed.' If you abstain from any future physics-related threads at ANI (or any talk page whatever) you should be OK regarding this particular issue. As I read the Arbcom Motion 6, which was very recently passed, your physics-related topic ban continues in effect until 22 August, 2011. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Any talk page whatever"? Do you mean any "physics related talk page whatever" or something more general? Brews ohare (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only go by the wording of the Arbcom motion. It does sound to me that you should not discuss physics on any page in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ed I understand you are in a predicament and cannot attempt a clarification yourself that might turn out to be different from the intention of ArbCom. ArbCom has elected to be deliberately vague, leaving little point in asking them again for clarification. So we're stuck with the same-old same-old: put your foot in it and then try to wipe it off. When that happens, if they are in a good mood, ..., and if they aren't, ... Brews ohare (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We can ask ourselves if page type X is included. But I don't see that the uncertainty affects you very much at this point. Are you really uncertain of what the restrictions allow you to do, in the area of physics? EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed: The whole idea that appeal of an editor's premature and selective archiving of threads is a "physics-related topic" is a mystery to me to begin with, and ArbCom has adamantly and repeatedly refused to clarify how this classification seems to them absolutely obvious. Personally, I find it difficult to reconcile deliberate obtuseness with good administration.

Their action basically reinstates the ban that was in force a few months ago with the same wording. The term "physics-related" has proved time and again to be something that no-one agrees upon. For example, DickLyon suggested that the definition of a mathematical term for a property of an ellipse was "physics related" because planets move in elliptical orbits and so it was physics. Another block resulted because I made some comment that referred to Talk:Speed of light as an example of a dysfunctional Talk page, and use of the page name was a violation because it referred to a physics-related topic. You may well take the same view, that these are violations, and that this entire meta-discussion is a violation because the word "physics" has occurred in it.

In my opinion, there are two problems at work here: first, there is a cadre of editors that will use pretext to invoke the ban, in full knowledge that it is simple harassment (DickLyon's example is an obvious instance) and second, there are a great number of admins who have no clue what "physics" is: is it math, is it chemistry, is it something you drink? Without a thought about whether my edit is a problem for WP, they will jump in and block based upon the most nit-picking and stupid apparent violations under the broadly construed provision, which simply opens the door to ignorant objection.

So yes, there is a lot of uncertainty how the ban will play out; past history indicates that it will rain stupid interventions all over the place. Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding notification of discretionary sanctions

Both previous contributors to this thread seem to have withdrawn their comments. I will take a moment to respond anyway. Actually reading through WP:DIGWUREN persuades me that only admins are permitted to issue Digwuren warnings. Perhaps that is more strict than needed. But that's how Arbcom chose to handle it in this one decision, which dates from 2007. 3RR warnings (on the other hand) can be issued by anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Celts

About you last message :

• are you an administrator of the french wiki ? No ? So, don't talk about things you don't understand. Or come on the french wiki, I will have pleasure to discuss with you.
• about your quote : you willingly ignore the provocations of the portuguese user who used the words "gibberish" about my contributions, or said that he wouldn't answer to my "non-sense" contributions. Thus, you willingly ignore that Catfish Jim made joke about me, talking about a "personnal agenda".

SO, IF YOU WANT TO QUOTE, QUOTE ALL !!! I meet everydays some guys like you. You are bad faith, I know, it is an international feature...But if you think that you are a clever manipulator, just remember that you are just a stupid puppet. --Sleeping water (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we have this guy permanently blocked yet? He's using offensive language on my talk page as well. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have warned Sleeping water against making personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Violation of semi-protection policy

You have incorrectly used semi-protection to prevent edit warring between an IP editor and a logged in user on Chiropractic. This is unacceptable. Please re-read the policy WP:SILVERLOCK and note: "Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are anonymous or new editors (i.e., in cases in which full-protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved.".--Anon 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As you may be able to see from my entry in the protection log, there was more to this than just a generic edit war involving both IPs and registered users. I provided data suggesting offsite coordination, i.e. meatpuppetry. In any case the semiprotection will expire on 3 September. Note that the article has been protected 12 times in the past, so there is a long history of edit warring. If everyone starts behaving exceptionally well, and everyone will wait for consensus before changing the article, perhaps it can be left fully unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an unreliable reference from a random chiropractic website. This is clearly a violation of WP:RS.

The same editor added even more unreliable references. This time from 1978.

Per WP:MEDRS: Under "Use up-to-date evidence": * Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.

Sir Anon is not waiting for consensus before changing the article. More problems are explained on the talk page.

EdJohnston, this is just another typical content dispute that will make the chiropractic article just another random article if this continues. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

sent

sent. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Celts

Catfish and the soap...24/07/2010 (10:39) : "It's interesting that a majority of those references are in French..."

It was completely false. Most of them were european : spanish, portuguese, french, german or british...

"Is this a growing trend amongst French academics, or is this simply the work of a single person with a personal agenda?"

Is it not a personnal attack ?

IP user 08/08/2010 (5:24) : I got fed up of reading so much gibberish i am not going to comment on every senseless thing you wrote"

Is it not a personnal attack ?

These are just some examples among a lot of bad faith. Since two monthes, I have brought academical sources, from books or universities. But because their conclusion don't match to some users'fantasy, they have been qualified as "amateur" by Catfish or a lot of things else. I had to copy-past them because almost no-one of them had read it. After that one user searched the smallest detail to disqualify them (and failed in this aim), I have been blocked.

You want to spread your propaganda ? Do, it. In some years, wiki will be nothing else than a stupid teenager bullshit. Just because your rule of "consensus" (you can be 10 users with the same opinion, it won't give you right anyway). But don't say that I make personnal attacks. Don't confuse attack and defense. And please, stop playing the manipulator. If you want me to be polite, send the same messages to Catfish and the portuguese IP user. --Sleeping water (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fastflow AfD

Hi, EdJohnston. Apologies for dragging my feet re my promise back in June about this, and especially for not informing you immediately when this came up at AfD. I've had a tab open to your talk page for hours, meaning to do just that, while I was watching our friend descend into apparent lunacy at the AfD, and trying to determine how best to respond. See here and here if you're interested in what I decided. Feel free to step in right away, if you disapprove, however. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I'd like to run an idea by you for advice. Regarding fastflow, it seems to me that the notability issue is getting tangled up a bit with the question of socking (and of course, the basic question of notability of the software per se bears no direct relation to possible socks). My thought is that I could withdraw the AFD nomination for the time being, and then check out the socking issue in the appropriate venue, while also asking some other editors involved in similar areas such as the Smith-Waterman article for help in improving the references. If we can't find any, of course, this could come back to AFD, but it seems to me that we should not be in a rush. What are your thoughts? Also, Ohiostandard and I have both received direct correspondence from Marco Aldinucci (or at least someone claiming to be him, although I think it is him). If you are interested in copies, please let me know. Thanks for any guidance you can provide. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed someone offered a new article that is apparently not written by the Fastflow team, which mentions Fastflow. Later this afternoon I will see if I can download the article. Meanwhile, I think the AfD debate is useful, and the AfD won't be closed simply due to nominator withdrawal (since others have expressed a Delete opinion). You can !vote as you wish, of course. The socking will have little effect on the result of the AfD, since any admin who knows what they are doing will make any necessary allowances. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that all makes sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My Appeal

You stated at my appeal: "I support the indefinite ban from article + talk page."

Come now, and let us reason. You have not substantively addressed the basis for my appeal. Moreover, you have not offered anything in the way of substantiation supporting your opinion by demonstrating that I'd done anything inappropriate or in violation of Wikipedia policy that warranted this ban. If I have done so, I would be happy to acknowledge my fault and apologize to anyone I may have offended, but it would seem incumbent upon you, since you are supporting an indefinite ban against me, to at least offer a single example. Please show me where you think I've erred, so I can be aware of whatever actions of mine you think were inappropriate and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Please do so at my appeal (not here). Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what I've already said at WP:AE. Reasons why people might be uncomfortable with your editing behavior have been clearly explained in many other comments which are already there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You're supporting your opinion by citing other opinions, similarly and equally unsubstantiated, at best, and, at worst, consisting of demonstrable falsehoods and mischaracterizations (Wgfinley's stated pretext for the ban in the first place). Is it too much to ask that you substantively address the basis for my appeal, and is it too much to ask that you offer just a single example of something I posted on the talk page that would warrant this ban? I'm not asking you to judge one way or the other. All I'm asking of you is that you be reasonable, and that your judgment be reasonable. This is not too much to ask. JRHammond (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)