User talk:EdJohnston

Question from EmmanuelM

You banned me for two months from editing articles on Israel and Palestine. I spent 4 hours writing my response to Judith. The least I expect from you is an explanation, detailing the WP policies I violated. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You have now been reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement twice (once in January, once in February) for breaking the WP:1RR rule on Israeli-Palestine articles. Links have been provided to you that lead to the relevant policies. Please read WP:ARBPIA and WP:Edit warring and then come back here if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Read this. I am appealing. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed -- Emmanuelm appears not to have gotten the message that he's banned from talk pages as well (e.g. on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations). Perhaps this aspect could be reinforced. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reminded him on his user talk, and told him how to appeal the topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-history

Thanks for your mediation on the Shugborough Inscription war. I am so thoroughly appalled by Elephantwood's conduct that it smarts to see his revision remain locked permanently on the page, when several other users have objected to his behaviour and his revisions.

Would it be possible to remove his edits, return it to the last good edit (whatever that might be), and then lock it again? His reasons for the edits, and the edits themselves were unbelievably misleading and he's been caught manipulating not only me, but the community and the admins of wiki.

He also doesn't appear to have a single supporter for these edits. Boing has criticised him, as have Paul B and DeCausa. So has Lerdthened. And S.G. And Doctalk. So have you. So have I. Yet he cannot find any support for his views or his edits (which were made without any consultation, and which reverted an edit made by Paul Barlow an award-winning wikipedian).

Surely wiki wouldn't allow Elephant's unmoderated edits to remain locked against consensus (8 vs 1) like this? The page is exactly how EW wants it to look. That alone is annoying. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I do not necessarily endorse the new subheading for the Morton Solution (though I don't see why not - and I do not know a single reason to oppose it), but I do propose that EW's edits, now and in future, be removed and filtered. At least 8 wiki users have publicly accused Elephantwood of poor conduct, and his claims re Morton have been discredited as misrepresentation and manipulation. If he wants to revert Paul Barlow's edit, he needs to supply a good reason. In the meantime, EW's edits probably shouldn't remain locked on the page. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is an RfC at Talk:Shugborough inscription#A J Morton's theory - what importance to give to it? but it seems to have only two participants, you and Elephantwood. Neither of you has ever edited about any topic other than the Shugborough inscription, so you are not exactly regular editors. (Consider creating an account). It is possible you can find a WikiProject where you can tell people about the RfC and ask them to comment. It may take longer than a week to collect enough opinions. Try to avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've contributed to dozens of pages over the years, though I still do not have the knowledge Elephantwood has. I've been honest about my IPs, my identity and my opposition to pseudo-edits from fans of the Grail. If the only way to get this kind of nonsense removed, or at least get it further clarified and classified as nonsense, is to go around the halls of wikipedia asking people for support, I don't think I'm up for that. Sounds a little demeaning under the circumstances. I've written a fairly comprehensive appeal on the talk page of the Shugborough inscription. 85.179.76.167 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand "I've been honest about my IPs, my identity and my opposition to pseudo-edits from fans of the Grail". Can you say more? It is easy to create an account, and it is easy for you to link to your previous IPs from your talk page if you choose to do so. The tone of the debate at Talk:Shugborough inscription is so nasty that other editors may not feel comfortable dropping in there to offer their advice. We have a number of regular WP editors (with accounts :-) who are experts in history who do show up sometimes when they are asked nicely. I observe that User:Boing! said Zebedee has been working with you on that page and I encourage you to listen to any advice he may provide. I noticed that you removed some of your intemperate comments from the Shugborough page and that was certainly a good idea. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I know...I am so sorry for bringing this to your talk page. Lesson learned. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the formal Longevity notice

Just to let you know, I have replied back to you on my talk page about your request for clarification on my activities to date. In particular, I would like you to justify your statement, "I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Wikipedia' ought to receive this message." That may be construed as generalization and a violation of several guidelines, which I'm not trying to seek out... but at least Assume good faith and maybe unacceptable behavoir since you misrepresented me by clumping me together with other members of The 110 Club without quoting an actual violation of mine using a particular diff that showed that I may be participating in unacceptable behavior. That was partly why I asked you why SirFozzie hadn't given me the same notice, while you did. Not trying to put you into a corner or anything, grins, but since you sent me a formal notice, you naturally have to justify your action. I hope you understand that. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that blocks and sanctions may be appealed, but not notices. SirFozzie is a member of Arbcom, and I am an admin who chooses to work at WP:AE. Our roles are different. I have replied on your talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I belatedly saw your comment here on your talk page before I already replied again on my talk page. Apologizes as I did not know that I cannot appeal a notice even if an administrator may have done it after coming to an incorrect conclusion that a notice would be needed (where one may not be needed). I will keep that in mind in the future and hope to be able to recommend somewhere that a notice can also be appealed. Thanks for the clarification about your role as well as SirFozzie's. Much appreciated. Thanks, CalvinTy 21:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Longevity RfE

I read your comment about possibly topic-banning NickOrnstein.[1] We'll see how Nick responds but I hope that that is something that we can avoid. He seems to be very knowledgeable about this topic and if his conduct issues can be corrected, he could be a valuable contributor to these articles. Again, we'll see how Nick responds, but I'm hoping for a 0RR or 1RR restriction or perhaps a ban from articles themselves but still allow him to participate on the talk page. Perhaps this will get him into the habit of discussing things with his fellow editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears as though Nick engages in slow-motion edit warring and does not like to give reasons for his edits. If he is willing to address that, something might be worked out. If you have some diffs of good edits he has made, perhaps you could add those in a comment at WP:AE. This would help to give a fuller picture, since his own defence is quite unpersuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe I take that back. The first 'good' edit I look at seems good at first.[2] For some strange reason, he puts the cite in the flippin' edit summary and not the article itself. Now we have an unsourced claim about a living person. Grr.... This isn't the only time he's done this.[3] But to be fair, he occasionally puts the source in the article.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Did my redactions address all your concerns? Say if you need me to take more out. Thanks for your notification. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he only wanted you to remove the third name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis

Ed, I recently took a break from Wikipedia at 04:07, 5 March 2011[5] after Medeis filed a 3RR report against me over BLP issues I reported. Imagine my surprise to find upon my return, that Medeis has been engaging in edit warring over the exact same BLP issues on Mark Steyn during my absence: [6][7] Please see the talk page discussion. Medeis is still edit warring over poor sources on BLP articles and does not show any understanding from his last round of edit warring over at Jaron Lanier. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add your views at Talk:Mark Steyn. Medeis has already commented there. If you feel that BLP is being violated at Mark Steyn you could make a report at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:AN3#User:2.89.119.157 reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Semi)

Hello, EdJohnston. I don't mind the result but I'm just curious: Don't admins in Wikipedia block Sockpuppeteers? Fleet Command (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The 2.89.* IP seems to be providing actual technical content at Talk:WebM. If you think his contributions are disruptive to the talk page, let me know. It is seldom worthwhile to block an IP-hopper. If you believe his edits are creating a serious problem on the talk page, semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is all I have to say on the edit war debate going on

[8]. You can also view [9]. Quest is absolutely correct on this score. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic Bans, Longevity, and Off-Wiki

EdJohnston, I generally find you to be a reasonable, neutral, third-party admin. That's why I'm asking to discuss this below comment and proposed further sanctions:

"Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted."

Now, we can understand what "editing" means on Wikipedia...changing what articles say. Commenting on...involves talk pages. "Participating in any Wikipedia process"...understood.

But I don't see making comments on the 110 Club or elsewhere to be "participating" in a "Wikipedia" process. It's a 110 Club process.

And the reality of it is the above ban is unworkable when both David in DC and Itsmejudith continue to taunt me, for example here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryoung122#I_object_to_your_longevity-related_announcement

I'd like to mention that I think the ArbCom failed to resolve the current dispute. Why is that?

1. I correctly noted that "David in DC was part of the problem, not a part of the solution." But despite his long history of edit warring, wiki-stalking, canvassing, making fun of others, etc., as usual Wikipedia policies seem only to apply to those who have something going on in real life outside Wikipedia. David in DC was involved front-and-center with JJBulten and Itsmejudith, canvassing in AFD "votes" to "win" results contrary to Wikipedia's best interests...and that continues.

David in DC has insisted that the GRG was not a "reliable source" for months. After the RS noticeboard decided it was, he is now saying that just because a source is reliable in itself doesn't mean the "lists" are. That's like saying that MLB.com is reliable, but not the list of home run hitters on the site. Nonsense.

I also note that I originally ran into David in DC on a non-longevity-related topic, and one that I "won" (he wanted to delete the article on Sebastian Bonnet, but I recreated it...he then made a comment that was offensive), and thus I do feel that he had a personal grudge and has been carrying it out.

2. Itsmejudith has, until this week, been somewhat more reasonable in her comportment with others. Yet her proposals have been mind-bogglingly bad, basically a "let's delete everything" argument.

Now, someone might say I'm digging the hole I'm in deeper...but the real point here is that I tried to follow the ArbCom topic ban decision in good faith, and the result was that David in DC and Itsmejudith abused this result to continue to talk about me, taunt me (again, check out several David in DC comments on my talk page), make false or exaggerated claims against me (yes, I made some comments on the 110 Club, but guess what? that doesn't make Wikipedia editors whom I met first on Wikipedia "meatpuppets") and potentially damage my professional reputation (including claiming that I was not quotable...he's confusing Ryoung122 with Robert Young, not the same...Ryoung122 may have been topic-banned, but Robert Young, the Guinness expert on longevity, is a real person, not an avatar). What has been done to me on Wikipedia by these two is not acceptable. But the real issue is the damage they are doing to the topic area. My main concern is that the subject of human longevity has only recently (since 1979) swung in favor of the scientific position on human longevity as opposed to the mythical paradigm of human longevity. It's important for those growing up now and reading Wikipedia to get some understanding that when they see news reports of "130" year-olds in (former Soviet) Georgia, they should approach such claims cautiously and skeptically...not for example, Antisa Kvichava's son is only 70 years old, a huge generation gap, and she has no birth record. Further, a list of 100+ cases where a person claimed to be 110+ but turned out to be less than 110+ is a great way to get the message across that, um, maybe just maybe that claim to age 130 up in the mountains somewhere might not be believable. And most of all, the data from verified sources well-confirm that.

In fact, the data on supercentenarians is so overwhelming that there's little room for rational debate. On one side, we have science; on the other, we have fiction. It's like evolution versus creationism. One side is based on science, on tested observation. The other side is based on believing what we want to believe because it makes us comfortable.

So, Mr. Johnston, when banned am I and gone, what will Wikipedia do with the two cabalists who have pushed against outside-source consensus, all in the hysterical attempt to "tear down a walled garden." Their idea of pruning is akin to clear-cutting a forest:blatantly irresponsible and mismanageable. You said yourself...what is to be done if Wikipedia won't allow sources to be cited, even when those sources come from the acknowledged experts in the field?

David in DC has clearly stated that he thinks experts should go to Citizendium. May I remind you that when Wikipedia was in its early stages, it SOUGHT experts to write articles...long before people like David in DC came along.

Since that time, Wikipedia has allowed itself to be degraded from its original encyclopedic mission. What SHOULD matter is that the content be encyclopedic and reflect reliable-source consensus outside Wikipedia.

Instead, what we have is that editors like David in DC and Itsmejudith, who have personal biases against the topic and have vowed to "tear down", have ruled the day. Why? Because it's a lot easier to tear down that to build up, and few are going to invest quality time when their work is only of ephemeral value.Ryoung122 07:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryoung122

Regarding the current discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, I think a reminder to Ryoung122 about his topic ban ("is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted") may be needed. Due to User talk:Ryoung122#Arbitration enforcement it is obviously allowed for his to explain why his ban should not be made indefinite, but I do not see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#More comments from Ryoung122 (and elsewhere in the various confusing ongoing discussion threads) as actually doing that. Perhaps you could remind him to only discuss his proposed ban? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, thanks for clarifying, O Fenian. It was David in DC and Itsmejudith that prompted me to come to the ArbCom. "Indefinite" is in some ways potentially worse than 1 year; it could be forever. Considering that the recent discussion was supposed to be about Nick Ornstein, I'm going to object to any additional punishment as "unfair" being as it was unsolicited and off-topic.Ryoung122 02:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out it out: A longevity page has an item removed by an IP editor. The item cited to a blog
VERY shortly thereafter, RYoung122 advises Nick about blogs as reliable sources.
My crap detector is tingling. What say ye? David in DC (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP 82.233.248.188 (talk · contribs) geolocates to France. He or she is also active on the longevity articles on the French Wikipedia, going back to February 2009. The diff that you cite above (removing a blog reference) seems legit. At least, the blog in question would need to be researched to see if it is under the newspaper's editorial control. If you think the IP is edit warring, let me know. Or, ask the IP for his reasoning. I did not notice anything unusual about the IP except that they never participate in discussions. Perhaps you could ask NickOrnstein what he thinks of the validity of the blog reference for Maria Richard that the IP removed. Anyway this is a 'work page' and it may not need the same standards as an article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear. I'm not concerned with the deletion. I'm concerned with the advice to Nick, by RY, about blogs, less than half an hour later. David in DC (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In these diffs, Nick explains edits on longevity pages by saying that Robert Young is advising him about using blogs as reliable sources: [10], [11]. David in DC (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing enough to take action on. Nick explained the situation in his edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for being obtuse. I had thought Robert Young advising contributors to longevity articles about how to source them violated the ArbCom sanctions, and the AE resolution you proposed that was the basis for the final AE resolution. I appear to have been mistaken. I regret misunderstanding the boundaries. David in DC (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how it goes from here. This particular incident is in a gray area. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions

-Ed, you are writing that changes to promote the same ethnicity are usually in bad faith but as you can see in my statement [12] unlike my opponents I was promoting various nationalities. Even in the summary prepared by Sandstain [13] you can see that I have added a German name into the Gdansk article. My name edits were in good faith. Are you going to take that into consideration while reaching your decision?

-Are you going to address the incivility issues [14] directed at me by my opponents as well?

I'm also planing to ask on the noticeboard other uninvolved administrators to look at this particular case, can you wait with your desision for their opinion? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear how you could ask for other admins without it being perceived as canvassing or forum shopping. (You don't like the first answer, you would like a different one). WP:AE is the normal place where such disputes are heard, and there are currently enough admins there. Any uninvolved admin who is so inclined may participate. The outcome is most likely going to be a judgment call as to who is exceeding the bounds of common sense regarding the alternate languages. In my view, there needs to be a really good reason for a user who was previously sanctioned to get involved with alternate names. (It's the quintessential ethnic dispute). Staying on the talk pages would be much safer. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As you can see here [15] Sandstain did not have any objections as far as asking other previously uninvolved administrators for their opinion and even advised me how to do it without being accused of canvassing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you guys may not be fair, in fact I think you are doing very good job on AE Enforcement. However you can see that I'm already getting two different answers from you on one simple question. That is why I'm almost sure that if somebody previously uninvolved gets familiar with this important case you would get some fresh ideas on how to approach the problem in order to effectively resolve the situation. I personally think that sanctioning one, two or all editors will not solve the problem of removal names for nationalistic reasons. Sooner or later this will come back on the AE board with different editors involved.

Could you address my other questions I asked:

Are you going to take into account that I was promoting various nationalities unlike my opponents and if you are you going to address the incivility issues? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry one more question, since Sandstain does not have any objections of me asking other administrators for an opinion but you do, would that mean NO or this can be still discussed? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to post at a noticeboard to ask other admins to participate, go ahead. Try to phrase your request in a neutral manner. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will. Once again Ed, please don't take it personally. I really think that you and Sandstain are doing tremendous job on the AE enforcement and I don't want in any way sabotage your judgement. All I want is a third opinion because I and almost most others think that the proposed sanctions are too excessive/counter productive and the real problem lies deeper. The whole thing should be looked at from the different prospective, not just AE Enforcement "regulation box". Banning editors will not solve the problem of adding and removing names for nationalistic purposes. There needs to be a clear guidelines drafted and involved users strongly encouraged to participate in the discussion that is going on right now and which for the first time is really productive. As you can see, unlike my opponents, I was adding names in different languages, following original guidelines but this was not taken into account in the proposed sanctions. Instead my history of participating in the EEML and previous bans were taken into account. If the proposal of indef. ban is be backed by you, I will be eliminated from participating in this project two others will not participate for a while but the window for nationalistic edit warring over names will remain open. Of course I understand that my edit warring thinking that it is ok because I follow the naming guidelines and do not revert more that 3 times was not right thing to do but at that time I thought that it was justified. Kotniki's comment [16] who is a very reasonable guy and who is familiar with the problem accurately describes the situation and points out to the right solution. Anyway, thanks again for letting me ask others for the third opinion, I will do it sometimes tomorrow. Thank you also for your time spent investigating this case. Best--Jacurek (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at AE

[17] This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases - Ed, can you please explain to me why you are including me in this group? It appears you are doing so only because Sandstein included me there. But if you actually look at the list and read the comments, then you will notice that out of the six articles listed by Sandstein, two I've never edited in my life, and on the other four I made a single edit, sometimes long time ago (I have over 20k edits, I've even forgotten some of these) and when I was reverted, I ceased making any further edits.

There's no way that making a single edit on an article can be in any way construed as "edit warring" or anything else. I have also supported the inclusion of German names in Polish articles (within reason), and have added Lithuanian names to Polish articles [18] as well as Yiddish and Hebrew names to Polish articles (like I said, I got over 20k edits and I'm not going to waste my time going back and looking for the odd diff or so, but they're there). I've consistently applied WP:NCGN policy, regardless of the places involved. Of course I've mostly edited Poland related articles - I don't speak Portuguese, Yoruba or Nahuatl! At no point have I edit warred and in fact I asked for third opinion and discussed things on talk, and am currently in process of working on naming conventions guideline [19] in order to sort out this mess. Can you explain at all what would justify your proposal to sanction me?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1. You're listed for modifying alternate names on four articles, three of them recently (in 2011).
2. The alternate names for Bernardine Cemetery have been under dispute, since they've been reverted in both directions
3. Your edit summary seems to admit that your own edit does not have consensus.

Reverting because you claim that the other guy does not have consensus does not win you any points for being cooperative. I would consider recommending that editors not be sanctioned if it could be shown that their name-changes were made per an actual talk page consensus. The purpose of Sandstein's tabulation is to be sure that all editors who have warred over alternate names in Eastern Europe get an equal chance to have their behavior reviewed. The pro-Lithuanian editors will be looked at as well, since their names are in the table. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, so? Since when is this grounds for sanction?
2. Yes, so? You seem to be saying that making an even a single edit to an article that is controversial is sanctionable, even if that edit follows policy, simply because the article itself is controversial. It isn't - you can't sanction people simply because they happen to edit controversial articles. In case you haven't noticed, I'm actually the one who build that article to a large extent, so it's not surprising that I'd edit it [20] [21].
3. I have no idea how you get your conclusion from the edit summary. My summary clearly states that the talk page discussion supported the edit: the talk page discussion pointed the other way (i.e. for inclusion).

Reverting because you claim that the other guy does not have consensus does not win you any points for being cooperative. - where have I done this? Or are you just contradicting yourself with what you said in #3?

their name-changes were made "per an actual talk page consensus" - no, the name changes made by Jacurek where made per WP:NCGN, which represents Wikipedia wide consensus. The fact that a couple of editors insist on ignoring Wikipedia policies and are holding consensus hostage on individual talk pages is neither Jacurek's fault, nor mine.

The pro-Lithuanian editors will be looked at as well, since their names are in the table - I'm not asking about them, I'm asking why am I being included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been a recent upsurge in reverting of alternate names in Eastern Europe. You are one of the people doing the reverting. How do you propose that the matter be resolved? EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It is/was ALREADY being resolved, which is why this whole AE report by FP@S was such a bad and counter productive idea to begin with. See [22], [23] (please do note my last comment there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And I am *not* "one of the people doing the reverting" thank you very much. Single reverts to 3 articles, combined with me completely ceasing to edit an article after *I* get reverted is not "reverting"Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I ask something very similar here. In particular, I would really like to see a rationale under which a user with no current sanctions can be sanctioned for adhering to 1RR and BRD. The last I checked, the definition of "edit warring" involved making more than one revert to the page in question... ("editors... repeatedly overrideeach other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion"). VM was neither reverting repeatedly, nor was he ignoring the talk page. PS. In order not to sound too negative, I also want to note that with the exception of including VM in your proposed sanctions, I think your solution (restrictions on adding/removing names) seems helpful (and so I thank you for taking time to join this discussion with some constructive comments). I still hope, however, that incivility in this incident will be looked into (because preventing editors from edit warring will not prevent them from making battleground through uncivil comments, as some are in a habit of doing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed in your lack of reply, Ed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Marc Mysterio Page Vandalism

Hi, I noticed you placed a protection on the Marc Mysterio page in 2009. It came to my attention that a user with the handle KWW is, and has been for over 2 years, needlessly butchering this article of sourced info.

I have now reverted his edits on a few occasions and added sources but this fellow is intent on killing this article, and this is a very known musician on major labels and major press.

Can you please place the article under a loock status to prevent this KWW from further vandalizing and revert the edits he may make in the interim between now and the time you get this.

He is even deleting sourced notices of the artist collab on a Grammy winner new album (Roger Sanchez) and other chartings.

This is one of the better sourced articles on this web site to it seems this KWW may have some personal issue or obession with the artist.

marc mysterio page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Mysterio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.159.213 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the history, and I'm sure you will notice that the edits I am reverting are puffery, unsourced information, and questionable charts. The anon here is either Marc Mysterio himself or one of his promotional staff. It's been a running problem on the page for several years.—Kww(talk) 03:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Marc Mysterio. Based on that, plus the recent IP edits, I've semiprotected Marc Mysterio for one year. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't realised that other people had already figured out that we were dealing with Mr. Mysterio himself.—Kww(talk) 04:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed, can you please revert the edits of KWW as they are valdalism and were done prior to your protection and is the exact cause of the valdalism which requested the edit. @kww, I am not Marc Mysterio. Why would you think he is the one making these edits? You sound to have a personal gripe with the artist? Information that was removed, was all sourced and I even spent 20 minutes sourcing it myself. It appears info was even edited out that was previously talked about on discussion page. Sourced collaborations with Grammy Winners, MTV Awards, etc. I suggest a revert of the last edits of KWW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.159.213 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You've not yet posted anything on the article's talk page. Please explain why this new information is of interest, and why you want to use charts that are not recognized by Wikipedia. If you have a connection to the subject of the article we could take you more seriously if you would explain that. (Your IP is from Toronto). This article has been the subject of past abuse. Your use of the term vandalism is incorrect. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not new information. It is information that has been present on the page, apparently for over 1 year and sourced that KWW has removed, out of the blue, 2 days ago. Im not speaking about the charts, per se. If you go to the page and note the last reversion KWW did (to his own revert) you will see that everything is properly sourced including sourced collaboration with grammy winner, mtv, etc.

I actually reviewed the talk page and there was a notation about a quote by Judge Jules that was agreed by the editors at that time to stay yet KWW came by two days ago and has butchered the article.

Why you havent bothered to even review this is puzzling to me. I am not connected to the artist or article. I did not make this additional content. I simply am defending it as its properly sourced. Feel free to take a look at reverting the last change of KWW and see all the sourced things removed. Even a sourced notation that a song of the artist appeared on an album that was top 10 on the dutch national sales chart (TMF Dance 2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.159.213 (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

THIS IS A PASTE OF THE PAGE WITH ALL THE SOURCED INFO PRIOR TO KWW NEEDLESS EDITS (COMPARE IT TO CURRENT VERSION): Marc Mysterio is an artist/dj/producer.[1] Marc Mysterio runs two labels - World Class Records & Amerada Music[2][3], while also being signed as an artist to various labels globally, such as Spinnin Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Joia Records, and more! Marc Mysterio has toured internationally, as well as having appeared as an invited guest dj on global radio station, including: as a guest dj on BBC Radio 1 with Judge Jules.[4] on BBC Radio 1 presenting Marc's guest dj set on his show, on Y100 in Miami with Cato K, Mix 96 in Montreal, and Radio FG in France. His upcoming album release "Redemption" includes collaborations with Samantha Fox, Gary Pine, Lillix, Tiff Lacey, Dhany, Chris Willis Sandy Vee and Yardi Don. Contents [hide] 1 2007 2 2008 3 2009 4 "Tomorrow" Marc Mysterio feat. Samantha Fox 5 2010 5.1 "Shout It Out" Breach of contract lawsuit 6 "Shout It Out" Success 7 Selected discography 8 References 9 External links 2007 Marc Mysterio first became recognized in 2007 for his first single "Answer This" (featuring Linda Newman);[5][6][7]. 2008 Marc's debut release, 'Roll Wit It' was released in 2008 by Spinnin Records and featured the vocals of Chris Willis (singer of Guetta Anthems ‘Love Is Gone’ & ‘Gettin Over You’). The song charted in the UK [8], Canada and Netherlands, while a who's who of the club scene from Roger Sanchez, Laurent Wolf, Bad Boy Bill, Fedde le Grand, Dennis Ruyer, and Legendary BBC Radio 1 Presenter Judge Jules supported the track, noting:[9] [10] "In a short time, Marc has managed to conquer the cold face of dance in a very big way and is about to enter the elite level of artist/producer/dj" [11]introducing Marc Mysterio to millions of listeners prior to his guest dj set on the legend’s show known as the 'Warm Up'.[12] 2009 On January 2, 2009, Marc Mysterio and Téo Moss released a cover version of "One More Time" featuring the vocals of Yardi Don.[13] In a press release, Mysterio noted his reasoning for producing the cover was his difficulty in mixing the original in his DJ sets due to its slow tempo. He and Moss consider "One More Time" to be a great influence in their work and intended to create a version of the song with a "2009 feel".[14] "Tomorrow" Marc Mysterio feat. Samantha Fox Marc Mysterio released "Tomorrow", featuring Samantha Fox, which debuted on radio worldwide on August 7, 2009 on stations worldwide, including: NRJ, Power 106, and Radio 538.[15][16][17] It has since been signed by Sony Music.[1] 2010 "Shout It Out" Breach of contract lawsuit TMZ[18] & Popeater reported that on August 23, 2010, Marc Mysterio filed a lawsuit against Brandy Norwood [19] seeking up to $6,000,000 in damages.[20] According to reports, Brandy had been paid $10,000 as a side artist fee to feature on Marc Mysterio's Debut Album's Lead Single,[21] 'Shout It Out'.[19] The invoice and an email from her manager Ryan Ramsey confirming receipt of the funds have been published by British Tabloid, Anorak.[22] but then backed out of the deal.[23] The lawsuit is ongoing, and a subpeona was issued by the court ordering copies of videotapes of conversations between Marc Mysterio and Brandy which were recorded by VH1 for her Family Business Season 2 Reality Show.[24] "Shout It Out" Success The single without Brandy has thus far reached number 2 on Mediabase's New Airplay Top 40 Chart for the week of October 3, and peaked at #47 on Mediabase Canada Hot AC Radio Chart[25] , appeared on two top 10 compilation albums in Holland including the TMF/MTV Dance 2010[26], Top 10 on France's DJ Buzz Chart, Top 10 in Cyprus (#5), Top 20 in Russia. The music video has been featured globally on MTV [27], Much Music[28], M6 (France)[29], TMF [30] and more with a German and Australian Release on the Horizon in Q1 2011 while international djs featured the Mysterio Hit frequently in their playlists, including: Paul Oakenfold, Roger Sanchez[31], Judge Jules, Stonebridge, Paul Van Dyk, DLG, Benny Benassi, Stonebridge, Thomas Gold and more. Indeed 2011 shapes up to be an even bigger year for the charismatic Canadian as he has collaborated with Roger Sanchez to co-produce and co-write a title for Roger's new artist album[32], not to mention that his newest single, 'Let Loose', a collaboration with 2x Grammy Winning Katy Perry/Rhianna producer Sandy Vee is set for 2011 global release. [33] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.159.213 (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hill & Knowlton

Would appreciate it if you could help get some of the factual information accurate on the Hill & Knowlton page for which I have a COI. Have added to the relevant discussion. Thanks. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Hill & Knowlton. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mefloquine neutral point of view issue

Ed,

Thanks for the response on the Mefloquine article.

The author of the two papers under "external Links" with the NPOV conflict is Patricia Schlagenhauf. She is a paid consultant to the drug company that maufactures Mefloquine and is probably one of the biggest paid apologists for the drug. If she were paid to support Thalidamide, she would. SHe is not a medical doctor and does not have clinical experience dealing with people injured from Mefloquine.

The article "The position of mefloquine as a 21st century malaria chemoprophylaxis" is authored by employess of Hoffman LaRoche and Shlagenhauf. It is essentially a paid advertisment for the drug under the guise of a reserach paper.

Unfortuantely this is the current state of affairs with the medical journals. The large drug companies fund these papers that appear as legitimate peer reviewed research. As long as the authors post their conflicts of interest, the medical journals publish them. It is definielty a fox in the hen house scenario.

I have posted numerous papers that provide an update on the current research. None of those authors are in any way connected to the manufacturers of the drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moewackit (talk • contribs) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions about LM/E editing restrictions

The following is copied from User talk:Phatius McBluff, where, because Phatius had upbraided me for raising such questions on an article talk page, I put my request. Unfortunately, Phatius is inactive at present, so I am turning to you for advice. Esoglou (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As you well know, it was agreed that

LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice.

LoveMonkey may add information about Eastern Orthodox commentary (positive or negative) on Roman Catholic teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice.

I don't think it was a direct violation of the agreement for LoveMonkey to restore a vandalistic edit that I believed it was my duty to undo. (I can find no reference anywhere to the supposed "Sir Raleigh Atra Arzon", who allegedly burned numerous cathedrals, actions resulting in a hatred and revenge that gave rise to the Church of Rome under Charlemagne and his successors!) But I do not think that LoveMonkey's restoration of that edit, with a claim in the edit summary that I know John Romanides made this strange statement and it can be sourced, was, to say the least, good Wikipedia practice. Admittedly, LoveMonkey soon removed the reference to the curious Sir Raleigh Atra Arzon, but he then inserted the claim, "It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose", an unattributed claim about the Roman Catholic Church that I suspect is a violation of the agreement. (Before LoveMonkey's editing today, the unsourced statement was that it was then that the Church of Rome "arose out of obscurity", not that it was then that the Church of Rome "arose". That statement was questioned since March 2009, but now LoveMonkey has removed the "citation needed" tag, having inserted as a footnote a long quotation from Romanides that does not say that the Church of Rome arose only under Charlemagne and his successors, but is instead an attack on Augustine, the "Franks" and the "Franco-Latin papacy".)

With this edit LoveMonkey inserted eleven paragraphs, which I presume are a long quotation from Romanides, but he did not "in the body of the article" clearly attribute the eleven paragraphs to Romanides, nor did he clearly identify them as opinion, rather than as factual information about the Franks and the "Romans".

Was it perhaps a violation also to insert as factual information the statement that the Church of Rome arose "under the school of Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin"?

What am I allowed to do with regard to obvious errors such as LoveMonkey's "Frankish Empire of Goths"? The Franks were not Goths, and Romanides, whom LoveMonkey cites, does not make the curious claim that they were.)

Did I do wrong in undoing vandalism? LoveMonkey himself claims to be free to revert edits to the article, but that I, on the contrary, am not free. Perhaps, in view of LoveMonkey's reaction, it would ideally have been better for me to ask you or someone else to undo the vandalism, but when I saw the need to make that correction (which was not about the Eastern Orthodox Church, a topic that I have undertaken not to comment on, in the same way as LoveMonkey has undertaken to limit his comments on Roman Catholic teaching and practice), I did not at all advert to my offer of a long time ago to refrain from editing that article, an offer that, as I have here indicated, did not elicit a reciprocal promise from LoveMonkey. I just didn't think of that offer. Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that one way to get LoveMonkey to correct some of his claims is to mention them here on your talk page. Since I wrote the above, he has, with an edit summary referring to "typoes and grammar", corrected his classification of the Franks as Goths and altered his claim that "the Church of Rome arose under the school of Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin" into a claim that it is fact that the Church of Rome thus arose as a church based on Augustinian theology almost exclusively. It would be excellent if this method could work for all his mistaken edits and if it could work also for those that I think may be exclusion-violating ones. Esoglou (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey has stated in the article, as fact, that "These Frankish Popes where (LoveMonkey means "were", not "where") military leaders according to Saint Boniface known to 'shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans'." In a footnote, he quotes Romanides as saying: "many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were military leaders who, according to Saint Boniface, 'shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans'." It is only wishful thinking that makes LoveMonkey believe that Romanides was speaking of popes, not of other bishops. I have looked up what Saint Boniface actually wrote - not all that easy, since Romanides gives the source as "Migne, PL 89: 744", when the real source is column 745, not 744. Boniface is writing in the year 743 to the newly elected Pope Saint Zachary, who was a Greek, not a Frank, about an initiative by Marcoman, leader of the Franks, to get rid of abuses such as clergy, even bishops, "having four or five or more concubines in bed at night" and other bishops "who, although they deny that they are fornicators or adulterers, are drunkards, law-breakers, engage in hunting or, bearing weapons, fight in battles as part of an army and by their own hands shed human blood, whether of pagans or of Christians" ("qui, licet dicant se fornicarios vel adulteros non esse, sed sunt ebriosi, vel injuriosi, vel venatores, et qui pugnant in exercitu armati, et effundunt propria manu sanguinem hominum, sive paganorum, sive Christianorum"). Naturally, Pope Zachary responded granting the request of Marcoman and Boniface to have authority to hold a synod to remedy that situation, and ordered the deposition of any clergy whom Boniface found "... to have spilled the blood whether of Christians or of pagans or to have become subject to canonical sanction for other reasons" ("... aut si sanguinem Christianorum sive paganorum effuderunt, vel etiam aliis capitulum canonum obviasse eos reperit tua sanctitas" - the text is in column 919 of the same volume). It must have been wishful thinking on the part of Romanides too that made him interpret Boniface as saying that the battling bishops were "many".

If LoveMonkey is authorized to insert such material, am I allowed to respond in some way? Esoglou (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Phatius McBluff has replied, telling me I should contact an administrator. That I have done here. LoveMonkey is continuing to edit the articles that contain contentious material, but most recently in a not really objectionable way. I have thought it best, for now, not to respond to any of his actions. Esoglou (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have renamed this section 'Request for guidance', to be 'Questions about LM/E editing restrictions.' Left a note at User talk:LoveMonkey#Editing at East-West Schism. I asked him to revise his text at East-West Schism to clarify he was only adding an opinion by John Romanides (an EO scholar) and not factual information about the Western Church. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I attributed the information to John Romanides. The edit shows that. If you don't like the wording "according to John Romanides" please provide me with what wording will satisfy the pointed out requirement. Please don't focus on an Eastern Orthodox scholar here on Wikipedia in a way that will make it look like that Orthodox scholars' work is being treated differently than other "scholars" on here. It is and I have stated time and time again, more and more obvious that Esoglou wishes to censure Eastern Orthodox theologians and or discredit them. I would hope that Ed as a Wikipedia administrator would not want to have it so every time I add an Orthodox theologians opinion (let alone one like Romanides whom taught at Yale) that Orthodox theologian is to be noted as somehow "different" or indirectly marginalized because Esoglou is more important than Romanides or any of the other Orthodox theologians (i.e. Lossky, Nellas) that Esoglou has attacked here with his WP:OR. As using "according to" is right now how the article stands regardless of which side a given scholar may represent. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are technically in violation of your editing restriction. If you can't think of any rewording that pleases you, I suggest that you remove the entire section (containing Romanides' opinions) and ask on the article talk page for how it should be phrased. If you leave the text unmodified in the article, you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide wording that you find acceptable for me to modify the edit to. If not where can I open a report to get this addressed to someone above you. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How about putting 'Romanides states that..' in front of

It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose, under the Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin (735-804) as a church based on Augustinian theology almost exclusively.[30]

I am also surprised by the very large direct quotes of Romanides in footnotes 26 and 30. The first of these is over 700 words. Though I suppose it doesn't violate any editing restriction, it may be stretching the copyright rules. According to the web site which hosts his material, Romanides' text is under copyright. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Where can I file a formal complaint about this kind of stuff Ed. As this is what is driving me and other editors away from Wikipedia..No matter what I post I just can't seem to not violate some policy. As I posted that much of the article just so Esoglou would not complain that it was not sourced or that what I posted was not found in the source. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou has engaged in a long and protracted edit war with some of the articles I edit. Esoglou has a long history of edit warring with other editors on other articles not just with me. Heres another small example [24] One of the things Esoglou is allowed to do on Wikipedia which is disruptive to other editors and no administrator will address is that Esoglou like to invalid ones sourcing by claiming that what was posted is not reflected in the source or sources given. Esoglou likes to engage in source tag abuse. [25] Here is just one example [26]. The length of the sourced material was to keep Esoglou from complaining about but even with this much of the source in the article Esoglou complained anyway.

"With this edit LoveMonkey inserted eleven paragraphs, which I presume are a long quotation from Romanides, but he did not "in the body of the article" clearly attribute the eleven paragraphs to Romanides, nor did he clearly identify them as opinion, rather than as factual information about the Franks and the "Romans"."[27]

So what is it? Does the source I provided not cover the information I posted? Is it enough? How much of it is enough? Is it a copyright vio? If so how can I put the information in the article and stop Esoglou's complaints that obviously get peoples attention and suck up all my time on here. How much is needed so that Esoglou's privileged status on Wikipedia finally gets put in check? As if I copy the information word for word it is a copyright vio but if I put the entire section of the source for which my contribution is a summary showing that I can attribute the information to the source then I have added to much of the source and that too is a copyright vio. Which is it and when can a balance be enforced on Esoglou? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

LM asked me to comment here. First, about the specific sentence. one point first: a/c ODNB, Alcuin was not a Saxon. Our article calls him "English"; if one wishes to be moire specific, he was from Northumbria--which was an kingdom of the Angles, not the Saxons, and he had family connections with Anglian nobility. I suggest the following. "The Eastern Orthodox theologian Romanides states that it was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors, and the influence of the Palatine School established by the Englishman Alcuin (735-804), that the Church of Rome became almost exclusively committed to Augustinian theology. " (personally, I'd say we could even omit the a/c Romanides, because as I worded it I think it's a fair summary, but I'm no authority.) To say that the RC church did not arise as a distinct church till then is an incredible oversimplification. To say that the theological orientation became much sharper at that period makes more sense. Personally, I would agree that Charlemagne fostered the increasing separation of the theology as way of distinguishing the Western and Eastern churches primarily to assert his equal standing as Roman emperor by having control over the Western church, but this would need to be ascribed to a more neutral writer than Romanides. Romanides shows his bias by making the unwarranted extrapolation that this proves the error of RC theology--as if political influences had no role in the EO tradition also.

More generally, I interpret LM's editing as an attempt to continue his involvement as the interpreter of the RC tradition, and suggest he not attempt to do so in any manner in any article. I am not able to judge whether he has sufficient understanding of the range of EO church history and thought to interpret the EO tradition, nor can I judge if Romanides is representative of all of contemporary EO scholarship. (though a priori I think it unlikely that any one scholar is fully representative, I do not know the degree to which his views are central). However, I think it's clear from all the above , & earlier, that he is not able to write properly about the Western position, & I think the over-reliance on a single source is a symptom of this.

LM, you've asked for the next step in dispute resolution, 3rd Opinion, and I've given it. You could proceed to an RfC, but I think you would do very much better to let this rest and simply edit with your real sphere of knowledge and interest--I'd suggest articles on individual EO theologians and prelates, an area where we are really deficient.. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)