User talk:EdJohnston

Template:History of Morocco

hi

i answered about it here: [1]

Dzlinker (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cockaboose Railroad

In 1990, cabooses renovated in Gamecock colors and decor became part of the already famous South Carolina tailgate scene. They sit on a dormant railroad track just yards from Williams-Brice Stadium and have taken on a life of their own, in terms of parties on game days. The Cockaboose Railroad has contributed to Carolina's gameday atmosphere being named "Best in the SEC" twice by SECsports.com.

Above is the text I copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Gamecocks_football in the traditions section. Can you add the reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caboose#Preservation_and_reuse_of_cabooses. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famu98ee (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have already added the information at Caboose. You might consider adding a link to http://gamecocksonline.cstv.com/trads/scar-trads.html#Cockaboose%20Railroad as a reference in Caboose. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Do what you volunteered for

ARBPIA says nothing about needing a template to notify an editor. However, it is clear that there should be counseling before action. You have blocked someone without even explaining why. I agree that the block is probably the best course of action but you should at least attempt to offer support before something that is completely negative to an editor's growth. SCptnono (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Conventional ARPIA sanctions need a warning in advance, but Arbcom agrees that 1RR violations do not need any preliminaries. He was even warned explicitly that he had violated 1RR and asked to self-revert, but would do not do so. Article 1RR restrictions work the same across all of Wikipedia. We only require that the person have had a reasonable chance to become aware that article was under a 1RR at the time they crossed it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then there is the duration... is 72 hours for a first block not excessive? Lirika filosofskaya (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if you allowed to do it. It matters if it was right or not. You volunteered to help out the project. It is often considered more beneficial to discuss with an editor than to template and block. Asking someone to self-revert and a generic template is much different than actually breaking down what is going on in the topic area and why their actions are so frowned upon. And four months is not around that long. You do not have to promote a more hospitable editing environment but as an admin you should want to do more than what you did. But if you chose to be defensive instead of considering the criticism then so be it. And I agree that 72 is excessive and counterproductive.Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would like you to comment as an interested party. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help...

..with regard to the category issue but how do you suggest I approach editing of Anti-Estonian sentiment and the tagging and AfD that I linked in my last AE statement? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your questions here. I see no reason why you can't vote in an AfD and give your opinion. You are still not able to reply to him directly, or ask him any questions in your AfD comments. In any article, you can't revert his changes, but you can advocate for changes on the talk page, and possibly some other editor will take care of it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just to clarify, if I understand you wording of the closure correctly, in future if I am minding my own business and my changes are reverted out of the blue I should do nothing otherwise I may be subjected to a symmetrical sanction if I report it. Is this what you suggest I do if this happens again? FWIW, the EEML case was about offline co-ordination with editors piling on to sway concensus, and none of that happened in this case which was a legitmate concern brought by an individual. I would have thought application of WP:IBAN#Enforcement by reverting would have provided adequate disincentive without having to flip-flop between doing nothing and blocking. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I considered restoring the category 'Far-left politics' myself, but it would have been awkward to do that when I had no understanding of the rationale for the category. Then I found that no other editors supported it and it wasn't consistent with usage elsewhere. If it had been a simpler revert (with less worry about it being inaccurate) I might have done it as an admin action, but subject to correction by regular editors. You should still be able to ask individual admins to undo reverts by Russavia that seem to violate his ban; they might do it. You could also ask other editors who work on the article in question; they might do it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. As I said in the AE case I wasn't wedded to this particular category, it was a matter of general principle. This probably needs an ammendment to the enforcement provisions of the relevant cases so you guys don't have to be burdened with a judgement call. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing when you are subject to an interaction ban poses some difficulties, but surely it's better than having a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but I've been minding my own business editing in my circle of interest, keeping to my end of the mutual "bargain", and yet my edits get reverted out of the blue... --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you assume that Russavia would have no interest in Estonian topics? EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I have no problem with the close, however, I do have a problem with suggested future sanctions (see my comments on Canens talk page for those). I also have no problem with Tammsalu "interacting" with myself, so long as comments are on content ONLY, with no comments directed at myself as an editor (i.e. accusations, etc, etc). This is the way that Carcaroth suggested things should be as per the link I have provided, and it is the way that I have adjusted my editing on WP since way before then anyway...focus on the content...if this is done there is no reason that "interactions" can't take place in a collegial way. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

...and another sock attack at WT:NORWAY

Hi EJ, please have a look at the new additions to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav. Ønography (talk · contribs) and Hirzflag (talk · contribs) are constantly asking odd questions about notability of Norwegian individuals. Not very different from Kollibris (talk · contribs) actions a few months back. --Eisfbnore • talk 08:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would work on this but the latest addition to the SPI report is not in the proper form. It looks like someone just went in and edited the old report instead of filing a new one. (It is missing the usual headings). It will take some time until I can go and straighten this out. Or, you could refile the SPI report yourself if you have the patience :-). EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like things have settled. Thanks for your effort. --Eisfbnore • talk 07:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi Ed. I held off commenting on your sanction because I was a bit upset with your decision and didn’t want to say anything rude that I would later regret. In light of the fact that I generally held to the provision of the initial ban and made one error in judgment I was wondering if you would reconsider your 2-month extension or perhaps shorten it to one month. Either way, I’ll obviously respect your decision with no hard feelings. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your topic ban was extended at AE per a thread in which several admins participated. I'm not inclined to change a group decision unless something is different now. In that AE thread, people pointed out you had done practically no Wikipedia editing since your last topic ban was imposed. Is there any chance you could become active in the mean time and start making well-sourced contributions to non-I/P articles? This would help establish your good faith. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay Ed no problem and thanks anyway. I'll make an effort to edit in other areas within the limited free time that I have. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban

How do my edits violate my topic ban? I concentrated on Kahane's political history, and on Olmert's corruption scandals. I did not put in a single piece of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict.--RM (Be my friend) 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

See mine and Chesdovi's replies on my page.--RM (Be my friend) 23:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs

Hello, Ed. On 11 July 2011 you unblocked Wustenfuchs subject to a topic ban from "subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed)" for six months. On 5 August it was pointed out that the editor had edited an article relating to fascism, namely Crusaders (Ustaša). Wustenfuchs defended the editing on the (in my opinion) rather strange grounds that he/she thought "subjects or people related to fascism" meant "articles which have got WikiProject Fascism templates or fascism categories attached to them". The discussions of this are at User talk:Fainites#Ustaše (guerilla), User talk:Wustenfuchs/Archive 3#Your topic ban, andUser talk:EdJohnston/Archive 22#Wustenfuchs. On 23 August I discovered that the editor has recently made several contributions relating to the Spanish civil war, including six edits of Talk:Spanish Civil War/GA1 and at least two talk page posts relating to it. Since the Spanish civil war is quite unambiguously related to fascism, and since Wustenfuchs had already been given warnings about the previous breach of the unblock conditions, I restored the original block. Wustenfuchs has defended his/her edits, on the grounds "But I didn't edit the article. That was deal. I only asked for sourced informations, that is all..." I do not see the fact that the edits were not to an article as relevant at all, as the ban was on any edits related to fascism, not to article edits related to fascism. The fact that the edits were not in themselves objectionable, and were largely concerned with issues of reliable sourcing, might be considered a better defence. My own view is that in the Crusaders (Ustaša) case the editor made unambiguous breaches of the ban and made ridiculous excuses, and that having done that any leeway that might otherwise have been allowed for editing on the periphery of the ban has been forfeited. Consequently I think the reblocking is justified, even though I would not have blocked just for Spanish civil war case had the Ustaše not already happened. However, I thought I would consult you, since you did the unblocking. Do you think that the breaches of the ban are so minor that reblocking is not justified? (One other point: I would not have known that Crusaders (Ustaša) was fascism-related had another editor not pointed it out, as I had never heard of the subject. Wustenfuchs has also edited other articles I know nothing about, and for all I know there may well be more breaches of the ban.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment at User talk:Wustenfuchs. Thanks for informing me. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Message from AceD

I will certainly abide by your ruling with regards to the ATF decision by continuing in discussions on the talk page. I would like to note that I am not employing "socks" and would like that accusation lifted. This is my account, my only account, and I have never presented myself as more than one person. I reactivated an account I had forgotten I had even signed up for over five years ago, based on the advice of numerous people to register. I think further evidence that I am not a sock should be evident as an administrator- under my login name I post from many different locations as IP's. I could easy use that to truly be a "sock", but I don't.

Additionally, I did not utilize more than three reverts in a 24 hour period, or even in a 48 hour period. But I do thank you for your fair decision, and do hope that it does assist in reaching some sort of accord.AceD (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I apparently did not put this in the location I attempted, please move when when you can to where you deem it is appropriate. Forgive me, I truly am still very new to Wikipedia.AceD (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you restrict yourself to editing as User:AceD from now on, you should be OK. To edit a disputed article with more than one account violates WP:SOCK. It would be helpful if you would put a message at the top of user talk page like the one at User talk:VascoAmaral. This would acknowledge your previous use of an IP. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:AceD's defense has a hollow ring to it. He has admitted using multiple anonymous IP addresses and another registered name (AceD), and has engaged in an edit war for some time under these multiple IP addresses, apparently switching to a new address or name (AceD) only after being warned - and never notifying those affected. Further, until very recently as AceD, he has consistently failed to sign his many posts, even when requested multiple times. A very strange pattern for a legitimate editor..... I won't say it's more like a disruptive vandal, but there are similarities - especially when considering the name-calling and other non-Wiki techniques. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"He has admitted using multiple IP addresses"

Um, where? I suggest some lessons in reading comprehension, I stated that as AceD I have utilized multiple IP addresses. Can you only utilize a regular account from one IP address (i.e. only get on wiki at home and not work? Not on your Iphone? etc). Just, wow.

"and another registered name"

This is yet another outright, categorical lie. Please quote where this admission was made. You will not, of course, not only because you cannot but because you enjoy these shell games. To the content though- I have never had another wikipedia account outside of this registered username. Ne-Ver, just to break through your confusion.

I won't clutter up this user's page with anymore of this, suffice to say I could break down each and every one of your claims as the nonsense they quite clearly are but it isn't worth the effort. I sure Ed doesn't appreciate you bringing your anger and fustration over to his user page, I'm sure my page or somewhere else would be a far more appropriate forum.AceD (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The above vitriol being brought to you by an editor who, using more than one IP address, and since at least March, has spent the vast majority of his time on Wikipedia in personal attacks against the undersigned and in reverts of the undersigned's edits. I rest my case.

Computer Guy 2 (talk)

What case? And again, learn to comprehend what you are reading a bit more. I haven't used "more than one IP address". In fact, before I had an account, I made sure to use only one.

And you grossly overstate how much time it takes to respond to someone who literally says nothing substantively, merely attacks another. Nowhere were you mentioned on this page in my response to Ed, yet you absolutely had to come running. You literally haven't spent one hour today when you haven't been complaining or whining about me, be it the 10-15 posts you have made on the 3RR page, the ones here, the now new complaint you lodged at SPI, etc. It's actually flattering.AceD (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AceD if it is truly needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A/E Question

Hi Ed. Is it possible to withdrawal a request on A/E? -asad (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about WP:AE#Chesdovi, why not add a comment to your section, giving your reason why you want to withdraw the complaint. Since others have already commented, we should wait till an admin closes it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Goddessy

Since you have knowledge of previous issues, you should probably check ANI. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That thread is quite entertaining, but I don't think I could add anything useful. In the past the article was a festival of sock puppetry originating from Goddessy's PR department. It seems people are aware of that now. ANI is following its usual good judgment and sober reasoning and has reached a not-too-bad conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No Problem, just a reply

Hi Ed, I've posted a reply to your conclusions at AE and while I may disagree I'm more than happy to go along with them. I have left an example which I hope will support the concerns I have. Thanks again for your comments on the request I filed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing War?

The Editing war is not of my fault.

Page: Save China's Tigers Bengal tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nroets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an editing war going on with Nroets and many other members of the Wikipedia committee, Nroets keep editing and removing relevant information, huge chunks of them from the above stated page. Many users have tried to undo his edits, but he refuse to back down and led to editing wars. What is worse is that he is a Pot calling a Kettle black, complaining and asking his rivals to be blocked despite himself being one in wrong.

Nroets removed a fully referenced subsection, only to add 2 or 3 sentences of his own without references. I want to clean up and to just edit that subsection accordingly and has mentioned it in his talk page, but he just removed the entire subsection without valid reasons.

What he does is weird because the whole section and subsection has been there for over 3 years, just waiting for some minor clean up, and updates, however he is removing the whole chunk and adding his own little tales in it. How can the subsection be updated or clean up then? Can the administrators do something about this? He has caused another user to be banned just for trying to protect the page's integrity.

Bengal tiger:

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]

Save China's Tigers

• 1st revert: [4]
• 2nd revert: [5]

John Varty

• 1st revert: [6]
• 2nd revert: [7]

I tried warning him in his talk page, but to no avail.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:China's Tigers

Comments:

NicRoets could be a puppet of User:TigerAlert because what they edit is really similar.

I am just trying to save the page's integrity, to keep things constant and stagnant, and to improve them when neccessary. But NicRoets is removing the whole subsection and prevent other members to update or correct the subsection. Why am i at fault? China's Tiger (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

When there is disagreement, you are expected to reason with the other editors and try to find consensus. If you simply continue to revert, that puts you in the wrong. I do not see any posts by you to the talk pages of any of these articles. Until you have held a talk page discussion, admins and others are unlikely to take you seriously. I notice that User:Nroets has posted at least at Talk:John Varty, though not at the others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replying. However please look at what i stated every time i revert his wrongdoings. I stated the reasons clearly. Yes, i rarely speak in the talk page, however that is because i believe i have given sufficient reasons for reverting his edits when i am doing the revert. To just warn me, and to correct me only seems somewhat bias. Why haven't you talked to him about it -yet? It seems that it is always his rivals who are facing the blocks, and he gets away every time?

China's Tiger (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You believe you are right, however most participants in edit wars sincerely believe they are right. The fact that you give an edit summary when you revert is of hardly any interest. If the dispute is brought to a noticeboard, the fact that you have not participated on the article talk page will be held against you by admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not just me, the previous few users who were up against him thought so too. If he is right, why is he part of so many editing wars? I have know mentioned this in the various talk pages of the articles mentioned. Please do take a look if you are free, and advise me on what to do. Right now i just feel biased against, as though he is always favored by administrators while his rivals are always being blocked or banned. I am losing interest in contributing to wikipedia because of people like him, and biasness like this. That's how i feel sincerely, that's why i am here to ask for advice.

China's Tiger (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not listening to any of my advice, so I don't know why we should continue this conversation. People are being mean to you, therefore you are free to ignore the advice we give about edit wars? EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston,

No offence, but i am heeding your advice already. =) I already mentioned that i am now trying to bring across my points in the talk page on Bengal Tiger and Save China's Tigers but to no avail, he is still reverting my edits. I am already heeding your advice, and already going through the correct channels to get my point across. I am just asking why is it always his adversaries which are subjected to blocks and bans, while he is always free to go? Even though he himself doesn't talk in the Discussion page at all? China's Tiger (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

hello

could you send me the pdf data too. Krisztina Bodrogi, "Turks, Kurds, or a people in their own right?Wikisupporting (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the instructions on setting up your Wikipedia email which I left on your talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Zaza source email

Ed: Would you please email that Zaza article to my wiki email address: <redacted> Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A self-revert yet with more personal attacks

Ed, I am getting tired very quickly of this outright gaming and bullshit that is going on in this area. I am trying to formulate a response to you (on my talk page) about ways to get around this, but it is impossible to do so when Vecrumba self-reverts, but immediately engages in personal attacks on myself at User_talk:Vecrumba#Since_you_were_involved_in_discussion_of_this_in_the_past -- this is getting beyond a joke, and I am now asking that these personal attacks be dealt with immediately. Unlike borderline cases of editing which may or may not breach interaction bans, Vecrumba's outright personal attacks are a breach of his interaction ban in the most egregious way possible, not to mention a core principle, that being WP:CIVIL. It is obvious that Vecrumba has no intention of trying to work things out like adults, but will continue to engage in personal attacks on myself, making it more likely of WWIII breaking out, and this needs to be avoided.

I am also asking that you deal with Volunteer Marek's interjection into the AE discussion in which he is not a part, which is also a breach of his interaction ban on myself. He is not a party to the dispute, so it too is plain interaction ban. And his breach of interaction is also full of personal attacks on myself.

See, WWIII? I am not going to get involved in this any further, apart from what I will try to discuss with you (and any other interested admins) on my talk page. Hopefully in the coming hours. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Though V. may have put too much feeling into his response, it does not appear to be a personal attack. The one listed at WP:AE#Vecrumba really *was* a personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, two things.

1st. I consider Russavia's edit, which eliminated a source only because it is critical of Russia, to be harassment of all those editors who are interested in a reputable representation of the Soviet legacy through to Russia's interpretation of said legacy through to current foreign policy regarding the Baltic states. This is not a comment on content, it is a comment on my motivation for making particular edits, accuses me of harrassment, also accuses me in a way of POV editing - if you know the history of "reputable representation" you'll know what I am talking about. Considering that he has made these comments immediately after doing the revert only makes this yet another breach of his interaction ban on me. He could have simply reverted his blatant interaction ban breach, and notified. But instead, we get another rant with personal attacks on myself as an editor, with nothing to be said about the content.

2nd. VM has no valid reason to be present at the AE report; he is not part of any dispute, and he has also engaged in personal attacks on myself. I hope that this will be dealt with as well in an expeditious manner.

Please ask for a second, third, fourth, fifth opinion on this from other admins, and see what they say. FPaS and Jehochman may be of some use; as they are but two admins who I am aware of who were quite knowledgeable on patterns of behaviour and the like with myself and EEML.

Sorry that I, and you, are being placed in this position. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My inclination is to think that V. could need a much longer block for the history of personal attacks. When the AE closes we will find out if that is the result. But such a block wouldn't solve the interaction between you and Tammsalu. One idea is to actually *lift* the interaction ban between you and Tammsalu, with the expectation that both parties would use the utmost diplomacy on articles that are of interest to both of you. If this gets any support, it would need to be approved by Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I regret that my observation that an editor showed up (in the midst of another dispute) apparently to remove content indicating criticism of Russia is considered a personal attack and not an objective observation regarding provocation. If the editors who allege I have personally attacked them can produce evidence of any constructive content they have created regarding the Baltics (or the Soviet-Baltic or Russia-Baltic dynamic) I would be more than glad to retract my apparently unfortunate observation. I would support lifting of the interaction bans so we can get back to discussing content. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I am now asking that Vecrumba be banned right now, given that he is continuing to engage in personal attacks. His initial personal attack is not grounds for him to make an additional 3 personal attacks against myself, and also engage in personal attacks against TFD and Nanobear. Given that this is problematic behaviour for Vecrumba, I am inclined to ask that Vecrumba receive a 2 month block for the personal attacks against myself, followed by a one-year EE topic ban under the general WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. As Vecrumba has a demonstrated long history of personal attacks against other editors, and because his behaviour doesn't appear to have changed since WP:EEML days and since receiving a 3 week block for extreme personal attacks on myself at an ongoing Arbcom case, a two-month block and a one year topic ban is more than warranted. Then myself and other editors who are not engaging in attacks can hopefully work towards a conciliatory solution.

Additionally Ed, if these personal attacks are not dealt with in a timely manner right now, I will be placing a notice at WP:AN/I for other admins to intervene, because not only are they personal attacks, but it is also WP:HARRASSment, and I have been thru this before with admins doing nothing about it, and I am not going to allow it to occur again. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, your idea of lifting the interaction ban is a good one. While ArbCom would need to approve any permanent lifting, perhaps your discretionary powers would allow a temporary trial? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The interaction bans come from WP:EEML and WP:ARBRB. Most likely this needs a motion by Arbcom. It would make sense to expand the offer to other named parties of the EEML case. If they say yes, their names could be included in a Request for Amendment. I might not support including all of the parties, but Arbcom could make that call. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Russavia, I think you should wait patiently for the result of WP:AE#Vecrumba. I suspect that there will be a need for further sanctions against Vecrumba, since he does not show much interest in collaboration on these articles and continues to inject these colorful personal attacks. If you resort to ANI why don't you take your chances there and I'll wash my hands of the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, as you say it is clear that Vecrumba isn't showing a collaborative attitude, and is demonstrating that he is part of a problem, not part of the solution. Engaging in a personal attack does not create grounds for "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" as per Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted. Instead of clearly and directly warning Vecrumba that personal attacks are not tolerated, he is being allowed to continue to engage in personal attacks on myself, which is clearly not conducive to creating an atmosphere in which editors who wish to collaborate and to try and work out a solution that will benefit editors within EE who wish to try and move forward within the WP:SPIRIT of why we are supposed to be here. The longer that he is allowed to continue, the worse it is going to be for all of us I fear.

If the AE case being open is the problem, I have no problem with it being closed of, with a one-week block of myself as suggested, whilst we continue to work towards a conciliatory solution, say on my talk page, so that I can still participate in it whilst being blocked. How is that for an interim solution? But I can't allow such blatant harrassment to be continued against myself under such blatant circumstances. I hope you do acknowledge that it is harrassment? --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks also for your intervening and trying to help work out a solution that could benefit many editors within this topic area. It's great to see. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, as we are all looking for a solution, and in light of the comments of FPoS[8], I don't think there is any benefit in this push for a finding of "harrassment" against Vecrumba, who only expressed his perception of the inapproriateness of that particular AfD. Afterall his perception was in part supported by TC and you proposing a block for both sides. The implied offer to accept a one-week block in return for a finding of "harrassment" against Vecrumba isn't necessary. My view is that in light of your constructive suggestion for lifting of the iBan, the support for it by the parties and FPoS' support for such a proposal, that the AE case be closed with no action on both sides (as it was in the previous case) and that an amendment request be brought to ArbCom requesting a suspension of the mutual iBan for all concerned. Let ArbCom decide whether particular individuals should benefit from the suspension or not. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the overuse of "blatant" et al. rather points out who is actually on the attack here. As my arbitration filings are years in-between, I am glad to support a true end to the "harassment," which is to implement an enforcement request ban on all who participated on both sides of the EEML debacle, so, in my case that would mean I can't file a request against anyone who presented evidence against myself (and others, to make it simple) @ EEML, nor can they file a request against me (and others). If you wish an end to hostilities, disarm the combatants. I've been advocating for this for years, perhaps someone will listen, finally. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If other editors initiate conflict, my defending myself or reputably sourced content is not disruption, and I am fully entitled to state my opinion of those who attack me, who question my motives, and who sully my reputation—and do so with a frequency which proves it's really just to get a rise out of me; of course, if I don't respond, they've then succeeded in running me off. So, has WP finally degenerated into a kangaroo court run by demonstrably anti-Baltic editors? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. I am glad to debate Nanobear, Russavia, or any other editor regarding what constitutes content which fairly and accurately represents reputable and reliable sources. That has never been an issue. It is when editors step over the line attempting to control content by means OTHER than intellectual debate that problems start. Being that I have personally debated paid propaganda pushers on other topics—at least they stuck to sources as they were being paid to create content—I'm 100% confident I'm not the problem here. (And for the upteenth time, I am not insinuating my current detractors are paid by anyone in an yway, as they have accused of making that "personal attack" as well in the past.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Russophobia#Latvian_section for an illustrative discussion over representation of a source which involves Russavia, BorisG, and myself. This is how content is discussed in the absence of enforcement requests. Obviously, I disagreed with Russavia's assertion of "...whenever I place anything in an article, it is meticulously sourced, and will be presented in an NPOV way, and will survive the most stringent verification...". That is neither here nor there regarding the conversation here, the point here being that there was no escalation of conflict because no one filed a Arbitration Enforcement request against either of us for interacting inappropriately, no one advocated for either of us to be banned. Obviously there has been some WP:GAME changer which has precipitated recent AE attacks while I, in no manner, have been the initiator of any disruption whatsoever. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And not like this. I am sure this is only poor timing instead of an assault on content about a reputable source which defends Baltic history against blatant myths, many continuing to be fomented by the current Russian administration. Bypass tagging an article with any concerns, go directly to deletion. And I can't say a damn thing because of the so-called interaction ban, Russavia got there first. I suppose I'll be attacked now for conspiracy theories and more personal attacks questioning an editor's motives. That article hadn't been touched in a year and a half, at which point now, in the middle of all this, Russavia nominates directly for deletion without even a mention on article talk. If you want an example of counterproductive disruption and polarizing provocation knowingly conducted under, and exploiting, an interaction ban to control content, it doesn't get any more clear than this. I bear no malice, Russavia and Nanobear are productive editors elsewhere, I have no need to outright ban them for months on end as they appear to advocate for me. Just take away their ability to dredge up conflict to the point that we're back to where we were two years ago. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nor is soliciting prior partisans into the fray a strategy for de-fusing the situation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, please remember, whilst we are talking of having the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu amended, and closing off the WP:AE request, please don't forget the reason for the AE request in the first place; that being the unnecessary and unwarranted personal attacks upon myself by Vecrumba. And not only that, but the continued personal attacks by the editor against myself. And not only me, but also on other editors. And this is over a long period of time. I am unwilling to allow that side of things drop, given that the editor has lied about the initial personal attack being directed towards another editor; regardless of the actual words clearly showing that it was a personal attack on myself. And the half-truths and complete fabrications that the editor has uttered since then about myself and others, shows that they are relentless.

I do apologise if I have come across as a little bombastic, but unless you have been the victim of serial harrassment, as I have, and still am by the looks of it, you don't know what that does to ones self. And when it is being allowed to continue unabated on your talk page, only makes me think that you are condoning their despicable behaviour and personal attacks. If that is not the case, I will apologise, but as it stands at the moment, it appears that way to me.

So, no, I am unwilling to allow the personal attacks on myself by two editors to go unpunished, as I have not done such a thing to them. Please remember that when closing the AE. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As this relates to the dispute and resolution thereof, I regret to observe you were the one who initiated the disruption, stirring the Baltic/EE/Russia conflict pot in a manner guaranteed to bring reaction. And even if such reaction were indeed a surprise the first time, you subsequently repeated such stirring since you filed your AE against me, per my diff at same. It is only because I despise tit-for-tat pouring of gasoline on fires that I have not filed an AE counter-suit regarding that disruptive conduct. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Continuation War

Can you please explain what exactly am i allowed to do given the sanctions you so kindly posted to my talk page? The edit war started right after block ended and i don't know what can i do about it. The discussion is still ongoing in the talk page but like here [9] he insists of resetting the result box regardless that nothing has been agreed in the talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I just made a new 3RR complaint about an IP you recently blocked

FYI, [[10]]. Hope I read the tea leaves right. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Review Requested

Hi Ed, hope you're well. When you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, could you review my closure of this AN3 report? User: Debresser, the user who filed the report, has contested my closure on my talk page. Despite numerous attempts to explain my rationale, he has continued to badger me and is now threatening (empty threats more or less, but still threats) me with some sort of community action. As an admin who regularily patrols AN3, I was hoping you could provide an unbiased third opinion on my closure. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing for you to answer; there is no formal review open anywhere. I suggest allowing Debresser to have the last word, and let it go. You've already pointed him to ANI if he wants followup. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice! Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Draft amendment

Ed, it would be great if we could draft something up, or at least try to do so, so that we can present it to the Committee for their consideration. I suggest a motion to amend both relevant interaction ban remedies to be amended, with the wording presented as such:

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Tammsalu. Both parties are directed that their interactions must concentrate only on content, at the risk of draconian measures being taken to enforce deviation from this directive.

At this stage, I am only willing to discuss the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu, and a number of other editors. My reasons for not wanting to include certain editors at this stage is pretty clear I think, and I am certain you can understand why.

This suggested amendment would allow for what is needed, and also makes it crystal clear to editors that content is the only focus, and I don't believe it is gameable, whilst of course it allows for content to the focus and get back to editing. Which is essentially what WP is all about anyway --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, Ed, please retract User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Trying_to_lift_one_of_the_EEML_interaction_bans immediately. VM is under an interaction ban with myself, and he is not party to any dispute with myself, but has rather used the AE to break the interaction ban with myself. It is unbelievable that you could ask an editor whom I have made clear is only engaging in personal attacks to a discussion, when they are NOT party to anything. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I need to make this very clear. I have been a victim in the past of harrassment by numerous editors, which is why there is an interaction ban. I have made it clear that I am willing to have the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu looked at, and have also made it quite clear that I have no interest in seeking an amendment in relation to two editors who have broken the interaction ban with no good reason (i.e. interjecting themselves into something that has nothing to do with them, and in doing so have only engaged in personal attacks). I am only willing to discuss anything with those editors who have shown a propensity to concentrate only on content, rather than those who have only engaged in outright attacks on myself. Volunteer Marek has also made it quite clear:

Quite honestly, I basically want Russavia to stay the hey away from me

and

STAY AWAY FROM ME PER YOUR INTERACTION BAN, as I have stayed away from you all this time. Then you can have all the good faith in the world.

So why on earth are you now inviting him to be a part of discussions on how to move forward in this area, when he is on record at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia?

If Vecrumba and Volunteer Marek are not removed from any discussion forthwith, please note that I will withdraw myself from any discussions immediately. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. If we need to have a meta-discussion about the future of the bans, and if the bans are interpreted so strictly as to prevent any discussion, then we are stuck in a loop and will not make any progress. (Trapped in our own net). If you are not in support of my initiative, I will drop out and you can go it alone. Here is my proposed revision of your above text:

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Tammsalu. The editors are reminded to use the utmost diplomacy on any articles which they choose to edit in common. If any edit warring occurs, it is understood that some of the topic bans previously imposed or the interaction ban itself might be restored through the discretionary sanctions process. Admins may choose to allow short-term exceptions to any interaction bans still in place under EEML or ARBRB on a case-by-case basis if they consider it helpful for resolving an issue which is open on a noticeboard.

— EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, proposed amendments are okay with me and will endorse it. In my experience Arbcom tend to come up with their own wording anyway, so I wouldn't agonise over the precise wording here, what matters is the intent. Being an admin ArbCom will take your suggestions onboard in drafting a motion if you make a comment at the amendment request. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I am ok with that in the most part. The part about concentrating on content only is part of WP:CIVIL policy, so any comments or insinuations on actual editors is banned by part of that policy. I also only support this motion in regards to myself and Tammsalu. Plz notify of the amendment, and I will comment there. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the part in relation to:

Admins may choose to allow short-term exceptions to any interaction bans still in place under EEML or ARBRB on a case-by-case basis if they consider it helpful for resolving an issue which is open on a noticeboard.

needs to be scrubbed I believe, as it isn't pertinent to the amendment request in question; that being the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu. And as one can see, it hasn't worked at all, but has rather resulted in a barrage of personal attacks against myself by a couple of editors. Other than that, I am in agreeance with the rest. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnston's proposal sounds like a sensible solution, for now. But in general, I think more sanctions, not less, is the way to go. What concerns me is the persistent incivility and battleground behaviour (a good example is this), which never stops, despite all the warnings and previous (now lifted) sanctions. I think comprehensive interaction bans (forbidding commenting on editors but allowing commenting and editing content) and 1RR restrictions for all editors mentioned in the EEML case (including both the EEML members as well as their critics) are what we need. If such an ostensibly draconian sanction is not admin-politically feasible right now, then at least the more heated and most incivil editors should be restricted, pending consensus among admins for a more general solution. Nanobear (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nanobear, as a person who was indefinitely site banned for posting private information about former EEML members, I'm not sure if you have clean hands in regard to your accusations of battleground behaviour. I note that while you appear to contribute very little to Baltic topics, you seem to initiate or appear in almost every AE case about a Baltic topic editor. Must you turn every thread into a drumbeat to sanction your latest target, Vecrumba? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, in order that this isn't held up any longer, post your draft to the amendment requests, and any pertinent comments can be made after the committee themselves have a look at it, and make their first round of comments. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could comment

On my question here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion spinned off

Since you suggested we move the discussion here, those are my brief thoughts on the i-bans. I think that we do not need on content article and discussion content; I see no reason why any editor out there should not be allowed to edit the same articles as I do, and review and discuss my edits, up to and including reverting my edits or nominating my content for AfD and such. Or why we should not be able to discuss other things, and interact on talk pages directly.

At the same time, I am strongly worried about a tendency some editors to snipe, stalk, harass and poison the well; such an attitude greatly contributes to radicalization and battleground creation. I explain this in more detail here. Bottom line is that editors may and often are able to act in a constructive fashion on content, and when they cannot, 3RR usually forces them to. What we had and still have (look at current AE threads) problems with, was people trying to win the content disputes through wikilawyering or commenting on others (personal attacks) with the intent to make them miserable enough they'd leave Wikipedia so they don't have to hear more vehemence directed at them.

Therefore I'd strongly suggest that the i-bans are clarified/reworded in such a fashion that permits the editors under them do everything, with the singular exception of discussing others. Comment on content, interact with others, but do not comment on the others. I think this should be simple enough to achieve. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This, certainly, is not very effective in situations where lone archer comes and whitewashes the whole article like this. Taking advantage of the pending bans and muted opponent benefit. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Settlement articles

Hello Ed. There has been a surge in sock-puppetry on settlement articles, all focused on removing the sentence on the legal status of the settlement (see the most recent EvilZionist (talk · contribs)). Dealing with these one at a time is not feasible, as multiple accounts are created each day making the same reverts over and over with different usernames, stepping by the 1RR. There is an explicit consensus for the material, yet it is continually removed. What should be done in this case? I asked at an earlier AE thread if such edits could be treated as vandalism and reverted without regard for the revert restriction. That query went unanswered, so I ask again. Can these removals be treated as vandalism? Or is persistent sockpuppetry allowed to trump that consensus? nableezy - 03:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want an official change in how these reverts are handled, you should file an SPI with some examples, so we know how big the problem is. There seems to be a discussion at Talk:International law and Israeli settlements which is being held in good faith. If we open the gates wide to reverting changes in the lead (by registered accounts), it could reignite some of the previous disputes. Reverting edits by IPs still doesn't count against the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe again

Here is something I think you need to look at [11]. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be handled for now
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have left a note at User talk:Hashem sfarim. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Hello. Yes, I'm aware, and I would not throw that term around so lightly. I said it because it arguably was happening, and I have discernible (and common sense) proof that said user was doing it. He never went on those articles before, and now is, after seeing my recent edit history, after a disagreement in another article (where another editor sees POV in this editor also). It's not a coincidence what happened. He purposely checked my edit history out of animosity or bias, then went into a few articles that I contributed to recently, and then reverted much of what I put, due to the same bias he displayed elsewhere. There was following around going on. Don't assume I said it lightly. I wouldn't do that. LoveMonkey was out of line here in this "Maybe again" stuff. Why assume that I said what I said "lightly"? Why knee-jerkly think I'm incorrect and the other person is totally perfect? Listen carefully, please. This person has been known for POV-pushing and has been reverted a number of times by other editors, on a specific article. This editor should be scrutinized, not me. (Or not only me, if that's the case.) But I appreciate your concern, and I will be careful. I was merely saying that I don't want to be hounded from now on by this editor, simply because of some disagreement or problem on another article (where other editors actually agreed with me on.) Because this editor did not even bother with these other articles until he saw that I contributed to them recently, and right after a dispute on another article. Following someone around, and pushing POV, and changing or removing good-faith and accurate edits, simply because the person "Does Not Like It", and showing clearly established provable POV bias in other articles, where he has been reverted many times by other editors because of it, etc, and then checking on someone's history because of hostility and bias, is against WP policy. The evidence is clearly there. It was not said lightly. And I was saying that I don't wish arguable hounding to continue. I have that right. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I don't perceive a serious complaint here (there are no diffs). Please convince me that you are working in good faith. What I know of you from the admin boards is not positive. LoveMonkey has a track record. It seems that you do have some knowledge that could be of value to Wikipedia. The fact that you are getting into disputes here is worrisome. We could miss out on some good edits from you if you get off the track and wind up leaving because of conflicts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I understand. That's why I say to be careful not to be knee-jerk here, or hastily see things incorrectly, because of some unfortunate bias (that may not even be totally warranted). Trust me. I'm NOT chopped liver. Or someone to be hastily or unfairly viewed as "not positive". On the word (or assumption) of someone like "LoveMonkey." Yes he said "maybe", but even so. (Which also shows that LoveMonkey is checking on me also, because otherwise how would he know? Which obviously I don't appreciate.) I'm a fair and careful editor, of various articles. And I try to clean things, revert obvious vandalism, source unsourced statements, etc. I am very careful and serious on Wikipedia. No one's perfect every second or every syllable. Anyway, as far as "good faith", I've been dialoging with said user just now, in a gentler (yet still firm) tone. But the problem is this: PLEASE believe me when I say that this other user does have unwarranted bias and POV-pushing, as can be corroborated by other editors (more established than I am, and whom you might know and like). Again, I would never say the word "stalk" or "hound" lightly or with zero warrant. I don't do things like that. I just don't appreciate being (obviously) followed around by unfriendly biased editors, who have been (beyond me) proven to POV-push, and who have been reverted for POV bias already by other editors. All of what I'm saying here is easily verifiable and provable. But again, I'm trying to compromise, but this individual (trust me, I don't say it lightly or dishonestly) is not easily reasoned with or compromised with. But I'm trying. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien family again

Hi Ed, with regards to the Tolkien family you might want to know that I've just opened an SPI for Christopher Carrie and Klone'it. It looks much like Carrie is back with this new account despite being blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christopher Carrie. Regards, De728631 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A separate thread on interaction bans

I would like clarification which states that if editor A and B are under an interaction ban, if editor A gets to an article first, A has exclusive access to edit that article and B is banned from editing or commenting on that article in any manner which touches upon A's edits. That is what it appears is being advocated at the moment. By extension, as there is no time expiration, that also means that if editor A creates or contributes to an article, editor B can never nominate it for deletion, e.g., if A creates something B considers to be an "attack page" (and A would of course be fully aware of the potential of such interpretation), B is powerless to respond in any manner. These would all appear to be the unintended consequences of inappropriate interpretation of the interaction ban and not the intent or purpose of the interaction ban. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Such an irony... Peters, if you really support this view, you should perhaps then visit this? Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm, this makes even less sense than Vlad's AE request on me. Vlad and I are not under any kind of interaction ban - unless there's something I don't know about. He's just banned from the topic area, that's it. I am having trouble understanding what these comments/requests are about and apparently so does the administrator User:Heimstern Läufer (though that's probably because he's secretly part of the EEML ;) too).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Vlad, I tire of the cynical EEML WITCH! screaming. After all, I had shown up, said what needed to be said, and departed on WP before ever reading any of the Emails that I allegedly responded to. But so be it. When you have some content you'd like to discuss, point me in the right direction—I do genuinely miss our exchanges where you inform me my ignorance is legendary. And how would our ensuing debate have been enhanced if I had filed an AE accusing you of a personal attack (or anything else)? If I were Oxford-educated, as you indicate you are, I would put my intellect to better use than filing AE requests. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And I did forget about the topic ban, meaning the only way you can participate in said topic area is for the purpose of necessary dispute resolution. Coincidentally, it seems, your first contribution in nine months to WP is to invoke your only means to influence content in a topic area in which you formerly participated. So, to clarify the above, I invite you to point me to any content which you can rightfully contribute. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a complaint

This isn't a complaint, nor a request that you act, but just a concern that there's something I ought to know but don't. I know, of course, that each sysop makes his own decisions for his own reasons in evaluating a listing at EWN, but is there some overarching or generic reason why this one, which I listed, would not have received a response? I acknowledge that just making the complaint appears to have chilled the tag war, is that it? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was too hard. Seems to be a case of long-term warring where neither side behaved perfectly. It would maybe have taken an hour's work to figure it out and be sure the response was fair. (The report listed 22 reverts). I was hoping that some other admin would get to it. If the war continues, resubmit. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and it helps. Much appreciated, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Appreciate the heads up and for your volunteering on wikipedia! Have responded in detail on Yunshui's original post. Iluvkolkata (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Final draft prior to submission

Removed draft amendment. The one that was filed can be seen at Wikipedia:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments on above

This looks good. Perhaps you could also suggest to ArbCom that they change the motion to "any two (or a specific few) uninvolved administrators abrogate an interaction ban restriction we imposed on Russavia, subject to our review"? I'm not sure if they would be willing to go along with it, but it might prevent you having to go back to the Committee in the future? NW (Talk) 18:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How about if this comes up in the discussion with the arbitrators? I might propose something then. I have noticed that some amendments take a long time to be acted on, so I was hoping to keep this one as simple as possible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine. NW (Talk) 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not gonna believe this...

Hi, Ed. I have to tell you. It looks like I may have misunderstood LoveMonkey. When he first put "Maybe again" on here, it looks like he may have been pointing to Esoglou as the problem, and not me! (I wasn't sure at first.) LoveMonkey just posted on my talk page the following below:

Esoglou has a history of disruption on Wikipedia and has done a great deal of disservice to opinions and stances he does not like and he has repeatedly been given a free pass. I support Hashem and state that Esoglou does exactly what Hashem is saying he does and I have the diffs to prove it. All anyone has to do is read the list of articles esoglou has distorted the Eastern Orthodox opinion on (theoria (talkpage), filioque, [[12]] and a list of contributions [13] just search esoglou for clarity)and then how he and Richard rewrote those articles to undermine the Eastern Orthodox opinion. WHILE REFUSING TO READ VALID SOURCES ON IT. That and look at the RFC that Taiwon boi created about Esoglou. [14] This is just Esoglou continuing his abuse of contributors here on Wiki. I refuse to edit here as Esoglou has broken his agreement with Ed Johnson at least twice and got NOTHING. Now I got a 24 hour ban, for me standing up to Esoglou and his buddies on the filioque article. Just letting you know Hashem. As this is typical par for the course-- Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

When I said that this person Eso is a problem, POV-pusher, and a hounder, I was not saying it "lightly". I thought you should know what happened here. Why is this happening to LoveMonkey, and nothing seems to happen to Esoglou for his POV and hounding? I'm confused here. I'm sure that LoveMonkey was probably not perfect, but it takes two to tango. Why does it seem that Eso gets away with so much junk? Is it perhaps because he's a bit slicker maybe, and slyly (many times not always) builds some kind of "consensus", while ignoring solid sources and facts? But regardless, do you know how many times Esoglou was reverted and corrected on the "Jehovah" article, for his nonsense, inconsistencies, loaded wordings, and POV-pushing, by a number of reputable and solid editors. Ed, please tell me. What's the deal here? Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou (or whatever he changes his name this time) is completely the problem and he needs to leave Hashem alone. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for being baffled. Will somebody present diffs and say exactly what they are unhappy about? Recent events are more interesting than long-ago events. If you think Esoglou broke an agreement, where did it happen? EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind...

Good Morning. Would you mind taking a look at this...

Abortion

• 14:31 . . (+1,145) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (→Mental health: supplanted uncited & incorrect statement with "British Journal of Psychology" meta-analysis )
• 14:45 . . (-1,145) . . NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) (Undone (WP:IAR on the 1RR issue; I don't consider my previous reversion to be an issue). I will explain on the talk page.))
• 14:48 . . (+2,239) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (→Mental health: removed superfluous word "the"; qualified statement with additional reference ) A rather disingenuous edit summary IMHO.

Abortion and mental health‎‎

• 14:50 . . (+3,860) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (inserted study from "British Journal of Psychology"; corrected statement to reflect two reliable sources )

• 14:52 . . (-3,860) . . NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) (Undid revision 447865397 by Anupam (talk) -- hold off one second please, I will be placing a statement on Talk:Abortion and Talk:Abortion and mental health.)

Talk:Abortion and mental health‎‎

• 14:59 . . (+813) . . NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) (→Coleman's new meta-analysis: new section)
• 15:45 . . (+526) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (→Coleman's new meta-analysis: comment)

Opposition to the legalization of abortion

• 16:43 . . (+2,385) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (→Overview: added information + reference )

Anupam does not seem interested in discussing his proposed edits and might be in violation of 1RR sanctions. Please let me know if there is other action I should take. Thanks. So this baby seal walks into a club... - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't seem to have enough time to look into this. Since the admin User:NuclearWarfare seems to be working on some of these articles, you could ask him if he thinks that any 1RR problems have occurred. He can advise you on how to follow up if you are concerned. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Message added 03:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have read your answer there. Perhaps User:Cs32en will have more to say. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Appeal Part II

Hi Ed. I have adopted your advice and recommendations as you outlined here[15] In addition, I will strive to be less argumentative and more collaborative in the topic area. Given my recent edits, the acknowledgement of poor judgment and the promise to engage in a more collaborative approach, is there a small chance that perhaps now you can reverse your two-month extension to the original expiration date of September 4? Any consideration would be greatly appreciated. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's barely a week since our last conversation. I'm not inclined to lift the topic ban now. You are allowed to use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} to ask for your ban to be reviewed. Be aware that you are only banned from ARBPIA topics. There are many articles on Israel which do not mention the I/P conflict that you could improve. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding. I do appreciate your feedback. If you feel that I'm being bothersome, please let me know and I will refrain from posting here. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a complaint, redux

You said, "If the war continues, resubmit." See this resubmission. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note for Lambanog at User talk:Lambanog#Edit warring at Coconut oil and hope that he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you...

Can you please get involved in the discussion concerning a 3 months-infinite long topic ban I got? The admin who banned me seems to log in only once every 3 days or so and my request will soon be archived without a result. In short, I got the topic ban because on my talk page I wrote in Hebrew "Who uses the word "Palestinian Talmud" except for anti semites like Nableezy?" during the ban you gave me. Then, a few hours after that ban ended another admin (T. Canens) gave me an at least 3 months long and very wide (all middle east related articles including talk pages) topic ban. I'm asking you to get involved in my topic ban since you seem to be the only active admin in the ban/appeal requests page-- Someone35 (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding coconut oil

My answer to Yobol's criticism is on Talk:coconut oil. Basically 2 of the 5 people he claims are editing against me made procedural edits. One requested talk page discussion first, not seeing the previous sections that had been archived; when a new section was started no more was heard. Another editor as Yobol's edit clearly shows added the NPOV section tag, seeing my disagreement with the others. Ronz, WLU, and Yobol have a distinct POV patrolling editing pattern that intentionally or not results in tag teaming, as such I think their assertions of consensus are questionable. Since in the main they do not build articles (I think I can claim to have significantly contributed to more GA/FA class articles than all of them combined) they are not tied down and freely flit from one article to another. On any particular article they may represent the majority at any one time but given the number of editors they edit against over an article's history and across Wikipedia they are actually a minority.

It might be useful to see what happened at another tangentially related article Mary G. Enig, where Ronz, Yobol and one of the other editors Yobol claims to support their stand mediated a little. Maybe after seeing what I was up against there when I was attempting to improve that article that editor decided not to involve himself much further in this one. As I see it one either supports the editor with a track record of building articles or one supports the clutch of editors who have a record of obstructing articles and alienating editors. Lambanog (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)