User talk:EdJohnston

My new editing restrictions

As I said in my last post in the AE thread, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for editors topic banned in the R&I case to also be disallowed from participating in other discussions related to these articles, so I’m not going to ask you to completely undo the decision you made in the AE thread. However, I do think it’s unreasonable for this sanction to be applied unequally between me, Ferahgo and Mathsci, because as far as I understand Mathsci has caused just as much continued conflict in this area as Ferahgo and I have. Based on my understanding of this situation, what I think would be reasonable is for him, Ferahgo and myself to be treated equally in this respect.

The reason why the question of whether topic bans from this case should be extended originally came up is because of Mathsci’s several recent AE threads, and Timothy Canens stated here that he believed all of this behavior was unhelpful, referring to Mathsci’s AE thread specifically. Your initial proposal there also called for this restriction to apply equally to me, Mathsci and Ferahgo. However, after Mathsci privately contacted you and Timothy Canens via e-mail, you changed your position to say that you think Ferahgo and I need to be prevented from participating in further discussions related to this topic, but that Mathsci does not. I’m not a party to your private correspondence with Mathsci, but as per this decision from ArbCom, you have a responsibility to explain your reasoning that led to treating me and Mathsci differently in this respect.

With that in mind, there are two questions that I’d like you to answer about the decision that you made.

1. The only two admins who participated in the discussion about this sanction were you and Timothy Canens. Both of you were in contact with Mathsci via e-mail, and neither of you discussed the situation with me or Ferahgo, even when I asked you here how you thought Mathsci’s behavior towards Cirt was acceptable. Can you explain how in a dispute between two users (me and Mathsci), you consider it reasonable to let your and Timothy Canens’ decision be influenced by private correspondence with only one of the two users, without any input from the other user or the rest of the community?
2. Mathsci’s private correspondence with you presumably had to do with his suspicion that Sightwatcher, who posted the RFC, is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Mathsci has been discussing this suspicion with ArbCom for the past two weeks, but it’s clear that ArbCom has not yet decided that this is the case, or else Sightwatcher would have already been blocked or topic banned. Given that these allegations have not yet been proven, can you explain why it’s unproblematic for Mathsci to complain about the RFC at AE, and complain in an unrelated discussion about Cirt’s agreement with the RFC? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for him to just wait for ArbCom to make a decision about whether Sightwatcher is a legitimate user?

As stated in the arbitration ruling about user responsibility, if you aren’t able to justify the decision you made about this in public, you should not have made it. I also think you should modify your decision to treat me and Mathsci unequally if you aren’t able to justify it here. If you aren’t willing to either modify your decision or answer my questions about the basis for it, I’ll probably be appealing it further. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not influenced by the content of any emails received from Mathsci in arriving at my closure of the AE request. One was a general comment, complaining about some edits by Ferahgo, that did not seem to have much to do with the AE request. I did not look to see what those edits were. The other was some speculation about a new sock (other than SightWatcher or Woodsrock). I have not looked into that either. Mathsci said he had already sent the sock information to Arbcom. Perhaps I should start returning unread any mail I receive about an AE case while it is still pending.

Personally, I would welcome any clarification you can give as to whether you think SightWatcher or Woodsrock could be anyone you know personally or have communicated with electronically. Apologies if you have already addressed this point. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I neither used the word meatpuppet or sockpuppet in the second email, which was for your information only. Deleting it would be fine but talking about the contents without my permission is not. Please could you be more careful in the future and have a little more consideration for other users? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, I think my comment accurately summarizes the drift of your email without revealing anything confidential. ('Sock' does not refer to anyone in particular). When I first got email from you, I should have considered the wisdom of closing your AE request with no further action, and told you to go directly to Arbcom, which handles confidential information. How did you expect the other participants in the case to react, knowing that you were contacting the admins ex parte? They would be rightly concerned about being negatively affected by secret information. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) EdJohnston, I’ve already addressed this point in response to an e-mail from Shell. More importantly, if you’re just leaving it to ArbCom to investigate the charges of sockpuppetry, I really don’t see what this question has to do with your decision in the AE thread. If there’s some way that your question about this is important to discussing the outcome of the AE thread, then I’ll answer it, but otherwise I’d prefer that this discussion stay focused on the new sanctions you’ve imposed.

You’ve answered the first question I asked you about this, but not the second. You initially proposed that Mathsci receive the same sanction you were giving to me and Ferahgo, then later changed your mind about this, and you’ve said that your reversal of opinion wasn’t based on Mathsci’s e-mails. In that case, can you tell me what caused you to decide to sanction me and Mathsci unequally? As I said in my second question to you, I don’t think Mathsci has acted appropriately with regard to the RFC even if he suspects Sightwatcher and Woodsrock of being socks, and this behavior continued (with his comments to Cirt) even after your initial proposal to give him and me the same sanction. But evidently after you initially proposed that, something happened to make you decide that you should be more lenient with Mathsci than with me and Ferahgo. Can you explain what that decision was based on, and why you think Mathsci’s behavior with regard to the RFC was less problematic than anything Ferahgo or I have done? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci has started a thread at WP:A/R/CL which will allow the Arbs to consider his topic ban directly. If they wish to do so, they can strengthen it. If have posted in that thread so that the arbs are aware of the AE action against you and Ferahgo. It is possible that thread will be closed by Arbcom with no action, in which case Mathsci's future behavior on R&I will continue to be scrutinized by admins, to see if his topic ban also needs strengthening. Appeal processes are there so that people can appeal their own sanction. There is no accepted way to appeal against someone else *not* being sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification and also for the advice that you and Timotheus gave on WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way: Because I think Mathsci and I should have been treated equally, I do object to your sanction against me and Ferahgo, and would like to appeal it. I think the sanction should have applied either to all of us or to none of us, and you have a responsibility to explain why you chose to sanction us differently when there didn’t appear to be any significant difference in our behavior. To put it another way, if Mathsci’s behavior wasn’t actionable, then I don’t think ours was either. You have to understand how this looks to me: you initially proposed that Mathsci, Ferahgo and I all receive the same sanction, a few days later you changed your mind and decided to sanction me and Ferahgo without sanctioning Mathsci, and the only thing I’m aware of that changed after your initial proposal was Mathsci e-mailing you. I would like to assume good faith about you not having been influenced by Mathsci’s e-mails, but that’s really how this looks, especially if you don’t provide a specific explanation of why you changed your mind about what you’d proposed originally.

I agree with your comment above that after Mathsci started e-mailing you, you should have closed the AE thread with no action. Even if it really is the case that your decision wasn’t affected by secret information, you must understand that this is how it looks, and I don’t think it was a good idea for you to make a decision in the thread which gave that appearance. If you agree that it would have been a good idea to close the AE thread as no action after Mathsci started e-mailing you, can you reverse your current decision and make that decision retroactively?

If not, then as I said you have a responsibility to explain what caused you to change your mind about your initial proposal. If you’re reluctant to explain what caused you to change your mind about this, that strengthens the impression that this change was influenced by Mathsci’s e-mails, whether that’s actually the case or not. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think the situation is not equitable, why not add your own comment at WP:A/R/CL, so that Arbcom can consider it? At least one arbiter has proposed reviewing the topic ban situation: "It may also be that we need to review the behavior of various editors on these articles since the case closed." I think I have answered all the questions that I am expected to answer per policy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, I’ve posted about it there.

I should mention, though, that what you’re doing here seems kind of irresponsible. You said in your response to Mathsci that it might have been a better idea for you to close the AE thread with no action, and you’re also not willing to explain the basis for your decision to sanction me and Mathsci unequally. In a situation where an admin is unsure whether they made the right decision by sanctioning someone, and doesn’t want to explain the basis for that decision, the most appropriate course of action is to undo the decision. Reacting by saying that the decision ought to be examined by ArbCom really seems like passing the buck. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it’s now been a week since we asked ArbCom about this in the request for clarification, and they haven’t responded to either of our questions there. One of the arbitrators has left a new comment there, but it’s only addressing Mathsci’s original question.

When you suggested asking ArbCom about this there, I was actually predicting this was a likely result, although I figured it was worth trying anyway. In general, I’ve found that ArbCom tends not to answer complex questions like this unless they’re part of an open arbitration case.

So, it looks like we’re back where we were before. When I attempted to appeal your decision in the AE thread by discussing it with you, rather than answering me directly you suggested that we get ArbCom to consider this question in the request for clarification. But ArbCom is apparently not willing to consider it, or to provide an answer either way. As I said in my previous comment, I already think it’s unfortunate that rather than discussing your decision with me when I wanted to appeal it, you deferred responsibility to ArbCom. But now that it’s clear we’re not going to get an answer about this from ArbCom, I think you definitely have a responsibility to discuss it with me when I’m wanting to appeal your decision. Do you accept that? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have declined to undo my action, and I think I've answered all the questions that I am expected to per policy. Your other options for appeal are WP:AE and Arbcom. In any appeal, you are better off discussing your own behavior than in complaining that others were inadequately sanctioned. The confidential aspect now appears to be minor, and Mathsci's emails did not cause any action to be taken against you that would not otherwise be taken. If you insist that all confidential data be reviewed as part of your appeal, then you will have to go to Arbcom, since AE can't deal with that. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I’d like to state, again, that it hasn’t yet been explained to me what specific behavior from me was considered problematic here. Off the diffs provided by Mathsci in the AE complaint about me, one of them was pointing out to Maunus that he was misquoting me, and the others are from a discussion that I was asked to initiate by an arbitrator. I never received any warning that either of these things was a problem, even though warning the user in question is a requirement before they’re sanctioned under discretionary sanctions. If I had been warned in advance, I would have been willing to abstain in the future from whatever specific behavior was a problem.

I already complained once about your lack of an explanation for the basis of this sanction, and in response you told me to go to ArbCom about this. If you’re still not willing to provide one, then I suppose back to AE is where this needs to go. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a new argument. At the top of this thread you said, "As I said in my last post in the AE thread, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for editors topic banned in the R&I case to also be disallowed from participating in other discussions related to these articles, so I’m not going to ask you to completely undo the decision you made in the AE thread." At that time, your only complaint seemed to be that Mathsci was not equally sanctioned. It is unclear how the encyclopedia is served by allowing you and Ferahgo to continue to make dispute resolution posts about R&I, an area where Arbcom has banned you from editing. Arbcom seems to be leaning toward lifting Mathsci's topic ban, so they appear to be less concerned about him at present. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The way I think of this, there are three different options here. The first is to not sanction anyone. That’s what I would prefer most, because it implies that neither Mathsci nor I have done anything that requires additional sanctions. The second option is for admins to make a blanket statement that everyone who’s topic banned from these articles is not allowed to participate in discussions about them anywhere on Wikipedia. As I said above, I would be okay with that also, because this doesn’t imply specific wrongdoing on anyone’s part either—it would just be a general statement about the scope of topic bans from this case, and what’s least likely to lead to additional conflict in this area. Since this is what you and Timothy Canens proposed originally, I figured you were more likely to be willing to change your decision to this than you were to undo it entirely, which is why that’s what I requested here initially.

What I have a problem with is the option that you’ve chosen, which is to provide me and Ferahgo with a specific sanction that isn’t being given to any of the other topic banned editors. And the reason I have a problem with this is because it implies that Ferahgo and I have caused a specific and unique disruption in this area, and I don’t think we have. And if we have, we were never warned about it, even though we should have been if our behavior was sanctionable. As I said in my last comment, if we’d been warned that something we were doing was a problem, we would have been willing to avoid it.

The reason this matters to me isn’t because I have any actual desire to continue participating in discussions related to these articles. Ferahgo and I have said all that we have to say in WeijiBaikeBianji’s RFC/U, and if our sanctions get lifted I’ll probably just get back to editing articles outside this topic area. (There’s currently an unrelated article that I’ve been intending to work on for a long time, but I’ve been postponing it because I want this issue to be resolved first.) The reason I’d like this sanction to be overturned is just as a matter of principle: I have a problem with being sanctioned in a manner that implies I’ve done something wrong, when as far as I know I haven’t, and was never warned about it.

I think I’ve explained how I feel about this now, and what I’ll be doing if you make either decision. (Getting to work on other articles if you decide to undo your sanction, and otherwise taking this issue back to AE.) You’re kind of giving me mixed messages about your own attitude about this. Are you still unwilling to undo this decision? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't have an actual desire to continue participating in dicussions related to R&I articles. But if you appealed at AE, your appeal would say 'Please allow me to continue participating in discussions..' What am I missing? EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it not understandable to have a desire to not be sanctioned in a manner that implies I’ve been doing something wrong, when as far as I know I haven’t been? My sanction is logged on the arbitration case page. Whenever I decide to appeal my topic ban to ArbCom, which I will probably be doing eventually (although not anytime soon), the arbitrators are likely to assume from my being under this additional restriction that I was causing some sort of disruption that made it necessary. This is especially a danger for the new arbitrators who will be appointed in January, since they won’t be familiar with the background of this situation. I don’t want there to be something that causes people to assume this about me if it isn’t actually the case. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Incoming arbitrators are probably astute enough to know about the Climate Change decision, which caused some rethinking of the scope of topic bans. Anything that keeps the pot boiling after an Arbcom case has closed is likely to be scrutinized. I think you might be personalizing this case unnecessarily. There is a general trend to limit follow-on discussion from closed cases to things that are truly urgent. An editor was just restricted at AE due to a perceived excessive use of that board to complain about EEML violations. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is unique to the R&I topic area, but I’ve found that every sanction that an editor receives in this area ends up eventually being used as evidence against them, regardless of the circumstances under which it was received. To give one example in my own case, shortly after the arbitration case opened in June I received a two-week editing restriction from 2over0. However, when I and several other editors asked him for specific diffs of the behavior from me that his restriction was based on, he refused to provide any, and eventually Georgewilliamherbert decided that the restriction was unjustified and overturned it. But the editors who were presenting evidence against me in the case still brought up this sanction as proof that I had recently been engaging in disruptive behavior, and the original version of my finding of fact in the case also stated this, without mentioning that Georgewilliamherbert had later overturned the restriction. Eventually I convinced one of the arbitrators to modify my finding of fact to mention that the restriction was overturned, but convincing them of that was pretty difficult.

I can pretty much guarantee that when I appeal my topic ban, some of the same editors who were trying to get me topic banned will also be trying to prevent me from coming back. And based on past experience, I also am pretty certain that your new editing restrictions are going to be brought up in an effort to demonstrate that I was causing additional disruption after my topic ban. Convincing the arbitrators that this isn’t actually the case will probably be pretty difficult, if it’s possible at all.

Even if you don’t agree that this is a danger, doesn’t this at least answer your question about why I care about not being under this sanction? For someone with my past experience of similar situations, I think it’s definitely within reason for me to be concerned about this. You also don’t seem to be disputing my point that I wasn’t actually causing any disruption, and that I didn’t receive a warning even though that’s a requirement before someone is sanctioned under discretionary sanctions. If I have a reasonable reason to not want to be under this sanction, and there isn’t any specific misbehavior from me that the sanction is based on, I don’t think I should need to be under it. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please get back to me about this? Since I’m intending to appeal your decision at AE if you aren’t willing to reverse it, it’s important for me to have a definite answer from you about whether you are or not. You said a few comments ago that you weren’t willing to, but your subsequent comments make it kind of unclear whether that’s still how you feel.

If you aren’t willing to undo it, I also have a right to know what specific misbehavior this sanction is based on, and why Ferahgo and I weren’t warned beforehand. If the answer is that we were sanctioned not because we’ve caused disruption, but only as a way to avoid future conflict in this area, I’d like to be told that clearly.

If it’s the case that this sanction was not related to misbehavior, and was only intended a way to avoid future conflict, I think you also ought to consider whether it’s going to accomplish what you’re hoping it will. Since I’m not intending to participate in any further discussions related to this topic except where it involves my own editing, this sanction isn’t actually preventing anything that I’d otherwise be doing. On the other hand, I’ve already said that since I strongly object to being sanctioned in this manner if I haven’t done anything wrong, I definitely intend to appeal this sanction if you aren’t willing to remove it, and there’s a good chance that the AE thread about my appeal will turn into another one of the lengthy arguments there that you were trying to avoid. It seems like the effects of this sanction will be to cause more conflict, not less of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't see that granting your appeal confers any practical benefit, and I believe the original decision was correct, I am denying the appeal. I lack the stamina to continue a discussion with you to the length that you seem to expect. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, I’ll probably be posting about this at AE tomorrow.

If you had been willing to answer the questions I was asking you, this discussion would not have needed to be nearly so long. Are you unwilling to tell me what specific misbehavior Ferahgo and I were sanctioned for, and why we weren’t warned first? This is at least the third time I’ve asked you this, and explaining to an editor why they’re being sanctioned is supposed to be one of the first responsibilities for an admin implementing a sanction. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like you just aren’t going to answer my question about what specific behavior I was sanctioned for. I’ve now appealed this decision at AE. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AE

Wondering if it would be out of place to adds these diff from Edith [1] and [2] the AE on Littleolive oil? A warning was given here [3] for this previous edit [4]. This user has subsequently changed user names to User:Edith Sirius Lee 2 BTW. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though Will Beback thinks the complaint should be reconsidered later, when he has time to add more evidence. You are the submitter of this request. What do you think about that idea?

I am somewhat puzzled myself, after looking at the Arbcom decision, as to what the committee's thinking was. They authorized discretionary sanctions (a fairly strong step) but only admonished one editor specifically. Maybe they believed something was amiss on this topic but could not reach a clear picture of what to do. That could imply they noticed the going-in-circles business already and decided there was no conduct problem they could address. Since 'going in circles' isn't a new development since the case closed, I'm not sure how to proceed. The Scientology decision offers some parallels, but that one closed with 31 remedies, so they took many specific actions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no claim by any editor, and certainly no proposed claim or finding by you that I have violated any provision of the TM-ArbCom decison in any respect whatsoever. What is is that you think that I have done that would merit my inclusion in the TM-Org COI crowd for a 6-month topic ban?[5] Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am relying on Arbcom's analysis that you were one of the editors who was to be admonished. It seems unfair to lay out a new multi-editor ban without either (a) using the Arbcom findings + previous AE findings, or (b) doing a brand-new analysis of everyone's edits. In any event, there seems to be no support for my idea at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And, I was admonished. The end. What would be unfair is simply deciding that that sanctions imposed at the TM ArbCom and prior AE's simply didn't go far enough, and imposing additional sanctions without any evidence or claim of subsequent sanctionable action. I sympathize with your assessment of the TMArbCom decision. It was indeed puzzling, and didn't go anywhere near far enough. But, the decision did what it did, for good or bad, and an individual Admin or Arb doesn't get to revisit it to revise the sanctions. ArbCom was quite specific that it was closing the door on past conduct, and admonished every named editor (including a number of editors who you did not propose to topic ban) to conform their future conduct to the decision. The subsequent AE's resulted in a formal warning to David Spector, a 2 month topic ban for TimidGuy, and a collective 1RR restriction on TimidGuy, LittleOliveOil and EdithSiriusLee. Those sanctions were imposed for specific misconduct subsequent to the ArbCom in violation of that decision. I can understand your thought that sanctioning two editors for specific alleged misconduct might be unfair absent looking at the conduct of all of the editors on the subject. But, that could essentially involve a brand-new ArbCom - something that has already been turned down for good reason. I agree with you that your proposal is unlikely to gain any traction, which is why I'm commenting on what I view as the flaws in your reasoning here rather than there. The less entangled I am in these disputes, the better. Fladrif (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thank you for revising your recommendation at AE. Fladrif (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

When to provide the name of a Bollywood film in Urdu script as well as English and Hindi

Dear EdJohnston, I hope this message finds you doing well. Despite the fact that you have warned User:Mdmday not to remove Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles per the standstill agreement, he still continues to do so as evidenced here, here, and here. The user has also been warned on other occastions for various issues (record of his talk page). In addition, the user is also potentially using a sockpuppet to remove Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles (here & here). I have come to this conclusion because the latter edit summary is the same as User:Mdmday's. I would appreciate if you could please address this issue. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anupam. Some time has passed since the original 3RR case, and it may be time to post this problem for review by other admins. Would you have the patience to collect a set of diffs that is complete enough to document it since the beginning? If you can find enough diffs to show the problem, I may be able to supply the explanations, and I can post it somewhere for review. You don't need to find every film where the Urdu name has been removed, just try to get links to the talk pages where this has been discussed or where people have been warned. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply sir. In my first message, I provided you with links to the differences :) The current standstill will be discussed further when all of the parties are not busy and have more time to deliberate (potentially, in the summer). In the past, the consensus to retain both Hindi and Urdu scripts in Bollywood related film articles was presented in the following places: poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3; these affirmed that two scripts (Devanagari & Nastaliq/Perso-Arabic) used to transcribe Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani) were appropriate for Bollywood related film articles. The validity of these consensuses was confirmed by Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:Taxman twice: here and here. The last full explanation I gave on why both scripts (citing sholarly literature) should be retained can be found here. I hope this helps. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting but i dont have any SOCKS...i do share some of my work with my friends offline who share my ideas and whom i have introduced to WP, but not sock, i have a well established account myself that provides me a greater access to editing. Thank You.Mdmday (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Mdmday#You're being discussed. EdJohnston (talk)

19:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me but plz also tell the other party not to add the persian script on the pages which do not have to have them, we should maintain a status quo.Mdmday (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I must note that there wasn't any consensus on the issue before, and my analysis of those "discussions" clearly showed that. User:Taxman is not an authority who can take decisions and provide verdicts in this case, and he actually was not an uninvolved party as he himself once thanked Anupam for adding an Urdu script. The long (I mean l-o-o-o-o-n-g) discussion on Talk:Bollywood only showed a clear lack of consensus, and Anupam was actually caught canvassing other editors to participate in the discussion (I'm not being hostile, just providing a fact). No consensus was reached because many agreed and many disagreed to the inclusion of Urdu scripts, and the latest conclusion was yours. I myself did try to reconsider my stand, thinking it's not really worth so much energy, but I'm unsure as of yet. At some point I thought the best way would be to remove all scripts. I always knew no one would ever be happy with the addition of Urdu scripts, which was initiated and executed by Anupam and others. This has become really insufferable. I would want to improve articles, to make them better, to expand them, and not fight over some petty scripts. My theory always was, why add an Urdu script to a movie which is officially acknowledged as solely Hindi (I'm referring to official film certificates which are always shown right before the film's beginning)? The presence of Urdu in Hindi (Bollywood) films is similar to the presence of English in Hindi films. Like English, Urdu is used in Bollywood films to an extent and similarly in some films its presence is more significant, but it is not the lingua franca of Bollywood. Hindi is. The largest and most reliable book on Bollywood, Encyclopedia Britannica's "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema" does not even mention Urdu. That's tiresome for me, I'm unwilling to start the same discussion all over again. Best, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Expansion on "excessive vandalism" @ Tahash

I wanted to contact you before I withdraw from Wikipedia for the sake of my health. You used the phrase "excessive vandalism". I think it will continue. Please look at the reverting edits December 3-5 and compare with my comments about the fallacious reasoning behind those and others (Tahash: Discussion: Fallacies in reasons for deletion of material, "length of article" possible pretext). I agree with a statement there that I might not have clearly understood WP:RfC, but I think Wikipedia may have a serious problem with Pontificalibus / Joe407. Specific example:

insistence that Strong's Exhaustive Concordance/SearchGodsWord(same thing) and related sources (Gesenius, BDB)—sources cited for article statements of meaning of monosyllabic roots, quoted almost entirely verbatim in article—are "not verifiable sources". This is utterly incredible!

My proposal to undo reversions made for reasons I set forth in my comments about fallacies was met with the accusation that I want to engage in an "edit war". The legitimacy of a single revert of each apparently specious reversion of material, to allow for discussion by other readers, was then challenged. Insistence on detailed individual examples to be taken up one by one and analysed bit by bit, in what looked to me to be the beginning of an interminable debate, appears to be a strategy of "wearing out the editors". There is an evident "mocking" tone to the comment that it is unlikely that Semitic scholars would respond and that Wikipedia is able to get along without them. The listing of fallacies underlying the reverting edits is dismissed as "a distraction". I realized then that what I had said about "pretext" was not a mistake. I got the unmistakable sense that through all of this he was attempting to goad me into making multiple reverts as a pretext for petitioning the adminitrators to block me, so I decided not to "take the bait."

An "addendum" I had forgotten to include with my original comments about fallacies and had added at the end of them, was moved. As it reads now, out of sequential context, placed after the response by Pontificalibus, it appears to be contentious and argumentive. ("Chronological order" is the apparent pretext for doing this.) I decided not to undo the move—I don't think it would do any good.

I've read the procedure for giving warnings. I would have been willing to go through the recommended necessary steps to establish substantiating evidentiary cause for administrative blocking of this editor, but as a health professional I began to see in myself developing physical symptoms that preclude this. Please understand that I am not asking you to do my work, but to look at the behavior of Pontificalibus/Joe407. I do not think he is good for Wikipedia.

I wish you well. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For my own good, I will not be returning to Wikipedia to "see what happened". --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're here because I turned down a request for full protection of Tahash. I don't think you're being railroaded at Tahash. Editors are raising points about the brevity and relevance of the content you wish to add. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Tahash. Some of your language at Talk:Tahash sounds like you are promising to edit war. There are some reasonable people working on that talk page and it would make sense for you to negotiate with them. If you don't have the patience right now, consider working on some other article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi there, I see that previously you have been the one to go to about sockpuppets of User:BrianBeahr. I've found another obvious one, User:AAC1996. They have the exact same editing patterns on the exact same articls. Anyway, I was hoping you could block him, or refer me to the proper place to seek intervention. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the smoking gun (yet) to say sockpuppet myself, but I agree that there's something rotten in the state of Denmark Victoria with the pattern of editing. If you're familiar with BrianBeahr's MO and think a sockblock is in order, I'll endorse it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Found it! AAC's edits and a sock's edit to List of St Kilda Football Club records and statistics match up. I'm willing to affirmatively say he's a sockpuppet and support the block accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to change my {{sockpuppet}} tag on User:AAC1996 if you think it should be reclassified as confirmed. I've taken the liberty of blocking the account myself and deleting the file he created under CSD G5. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is the line between sockpuppet|blocked and sockpuppet|confirmed these days anyway? It used to be that confirmed indicated it had gone through a sockpuppet investigation and/or checkuser. Is that still the case? —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

'Confirmed' seems to mean that some experienced person is sure. (Usually an admin, but not always). Many SPI cases are closed on behavior, but we still do 'confirmed' (at least I do). It is annoying when accounts randomly split between the confirmed and suspected categories, so I try to do one or the other all the time, for a given sockmaster. BB is mostly confirmed due to how consistent he is. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you for how quickly you cleared this up. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse response/76.205.27.234

This guy is back on 76.203.72.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I completely missed the identification because it has been so long since he edited because we keep blocking his ranges (as seen here).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

76.203.72.0/22 I think covers it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I will look back over the case and see if we received any contact from his ISP as a result of the Abuse case listed. I'll also ping for an admin to block the range. AndrewN ^talk 01:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong: That case was rejected. I'm going to re-evaluate the case, and see if it meets the criteria for acceptance now. AndrewN ^talk 01:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got a full list of IPs in my sandbox if you need them. I'm pretty sure they're most recent to oldest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryulong/Sandbox only lists nine specific Power Rangers articles which have been hit by the vandal. Why not put six months of semiprotection on these nine articles? A set of large rangeblocks would also discourage good-faith IPs, and we need to strike a balance. I seem to recall that rangeblocks have been used in the past for this problem. Do you have a record of which rangeblocks were tried? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the articles get beneficial edits from IPs otherwise. And I've asked you to deal with this vandal in the past as seen here, here, here, and here. He obviously waits to get on a new IP to perform these deleterious edits. The past few days are the ones on a new range.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think that you may often need rangeblocks in the future, it would be helpful if you would use Soxred93's tool to check out the recent contributions of each range you want to block. I like to know if you can see non-vandal contributions in the output of that tool, and about what percentage they are. When I looked into the tool output for your proposed rangeblock I thought that nearly all of the problem was coming from the single IP who is already blocked, 76.203.72.184. There is no problem getting a longer block of a single IP, even as much as 3 months if you think the abuse is consistent across time. A rangeblock takes more planning. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Sales and Market Share on WikiPedia

I've made an official request for editorial assistance to stop the removal or white-washing of sales and market share data from the Windows Phone 7 page.

Please, before finding any fault with my insistance that it be included, please look at all other Microsoft product pages. Sales and Market Share data are prominently featured, including data on initial sales results.

See Microsoft Office, for example. It's in the first section. So too on Windows 7.

In contrast to past product releases, Microsoft has not yet released sales results. That in and of itself is interesting. But, given that, certain legitimate journalistic enterprises such as The Wall Street Journal and eWeek have done great work at finding out, indirectly, the sales results. It's called journalism. And, the information gleaned deserves a first-class place in WikiPedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbdSeattle (talk • contribs) 03:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've documented five editors who have contributed to the Windows Phone 7 section on Sales and Market Share. But, in the last two days, user llegal Operation has reverted it three times, and has removed the work of others multiple times.

Please, I understand the rules. Now, please act as quickly as you did in my case. Thank you. MbdSeattle (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have warned Illegal Operation about edit warring about 'Sales and market share.' But if you yourself restore that section before consensus is found on the talk page, you could be sanctioned. I recommend you wait to see if other editors want to put that section back. EdJohnston (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/Noticeboard question

Hello Ed,

I noticed you replied to my question in the NPOV noticeboards [6]. You were partially correct in the subject I was trying to address. I've gotten on a roll of fixing non-neutral titles, but I was actually focusing this question on the one in the English wikipedia (Ceviche, which I have been improving as of lately; you can check the history of that article). However, since you mentioned the situation in the Spanish wikipedia, it would help clear up some matters if you could please answer a general NPOV question regarding one of the many points in that awfully long discussion. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at WP:NPOVN#NPOV and Article Titles (Help!). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there ED, VASCO from Portugal here,

for reasons that escape me, vandalism has been afoot at both Simão Sabrosa and Manuel Fernandes (footballer born 1986), with English "user" inserting players play with one team when they DON'T (last time i checked it was vandalism). The past few days, some more "users" have been inserting stuff (at least in the latter article), which included obscenities.

Can you please offer the poor Fernandes and Sabrosa some wiki-solace? Thanks in advance, have a nice week, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Both articles semiprotected. When the vandalism is so obvious that ClueBot is reverting it, it may be time to act. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Corticopia... Chipmunkdavis and the anonymous IP

I just saw that you semiprotected the article Americas. I just want you to notice that, again, the anonymous IP is Corticopia (same IP range, same city, same edit pattern) and very very interesting is the fact that Chipmunkdavis jumped to revert and help the anonymous IP in his POV pushing [7].

As I always thought, and I believe I have provided enough evidence, they are the same person. That time when Chipmunkdavis was "user-checked" I'm sure he had been using a VPN to prevent being related to Toronto based IPs.

Chipmunkdavis wasn't been active in that article, until the anonymous IP started imposing his POV. Interesting how Chip jumped in only to help anon. IP. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Americas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 76.67.16.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note that the IP was also reverting Chipmunkdavis. The tone of their comments is different; I don't see the resemblance. In the last SPI, the closer was not convinced of the behavioral case for them to be the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving comments

I have no problem with my comment being moved, in fact I asked for it. But can you tell me why the comment of an obviously involved admin is allowed to stand in the uninvolved admin section? Is there any reason why it is not moved to that editor's own section, just like mine was? I hope that in the phrase uninvolved administrators both words are treated equally, not only one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Deacon to indicate whether he is an uninvolved admin for purposes of that case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So is he involved or isn't he, according to your reading of the situation? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

He said that he wouldn't issue blocks himself. Except for that, I didn't perceive a clear answer. I don't think there is enough evidence to move his comment out of the 'uninvolved admin' section. He does have knowledge of some past issues, so I hope he will continue to participate. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It was my understading that the uninvolved admin section is there for discussion by editors who are uninvolved and not prejudiced towards the parties. Admins who are involved (by, let's say, being parties in the same ArbComs as the party/parties) are not supposed to comment there, to avoid giving the mistaken expression that they are neutral/uninvolved. Would my understanding be incorrect? Where can I seek the clarification of the definition of the uninvolved? I also ask because years back when I was still an admin, I recall I was criticicized for commenting in that section as an "involved" admin under similar circumstances (then I started commenting in a section with a clear disclaimer of how I know the editor(s) involved). I wonder if our standards have changed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

For a recent statement of Arbcom's view of 'uninvolved' look at WP:ARBSCI#Enforcement. Admins lose their uninvolvement by having strong content opinions, or getting into edit wars with others. 'Not prejudiced' is just good practice but I don't know if you can reason formally from that. Here is the passage from ARBSCI:

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you've read the archive, you'll probably be able to work out that he just wants you to give him a good diff so he or one of his EEML meats can post it in some future thread I'm participating in. He's not really interested in your opinion or your evidence for it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I love you too, Deacon. Ed, thanks for the clarification link. Does it mean that involved admins can still post in the uninvolved admins and offer their views/suggestions, and it is fine as long as they do not impose the sanctions? Should I ask for clarification at the talk of the page you linked? I do consider it a serious issue, as I am afraid that prejudiced admins can pose as neutral and try to swing the discussion, without imposing the sanction themselves. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee." Some of us are hoping that the EEML problems will die down when many of the topic bans expire on 22 December. If they seem to be going in the other direction, then the admins who follow those issues won't be happy. Your phrase 'prejudiced admins' does not clarify the matter, since it is obvious that admins may acquire different opinions about a long-running issue. By itself that does not make them involved. I have to observe that you haven't supplied any evidence that Deacon is involved per the definition used by Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also hoping the EEML-blaming will end, but I have my doubts, as the editors sanctioned recently for wikihounding their adversaries have yet to apologize, and others seem quite happy to step in their shoes (as the good faithed, friendly comment above indicates). Regarding the evidence of involvement, I thought I did in the very comment you moved (although I am rather surprised that the definition of involvement covers content disputes only, and not dispute resolution participation). In case you don't have time to analyse the entirety of the several arbcom cases I linked or the AE requests and such Deacon and I participated in together (on opposite sides), let me provide you with the summary of the highlights: see my evidence here (and the statement here), an arbcom case launched by Deacon and originally named by him "Piotrus 2", in which he complained about my actions in an article he was also editing (and when he was reverting me) (evidence: talk discussion, reverts: [8], [9]). He was named (admonished) in the findings and remedies of that case (as so was I, to be fair). Please note that at the time of that ArbCom case he had a habit of not only commenting, but also of taking admin decisions in the AE threads I was involved in (example, see the evidence links for others). If this, combined with the long pattern of him appearing in dispute resolution discussions concerning me, offering criticism of my person and supporting others critical of me (diffs and links in my comment on AE you moved) is not enough to prove significant (and dare I say, prejudiced) involvement, I don't know what would be. I hope you an understand my concern with regards to him offering "neutral" comments in the "uninvolved administrators" section on my person now. If you think that I should bring this matter to ArbCom attention and ask for an interaction ban, let me know (please note that I have never initiated a DR procedure against Deacon, nor have I ever commented on him unless he commented on me first; years of seeing him appear in Piotrus-related discussions and hearing his critical opinions on me, often conveyed in a fashion where he tries to portray himself as neutral and unbised towards me, are however slowly getting to me). PS. Given the evidence I outline above, I would appreciate your advice on what - if anything - I should do, and whether you agree or disagree with my opinion that Deacon is involved when it comes to my person. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks for the detailed response, which gives me lots to work with. I did look at User:Piotrus/Piotrus 2 (the full version of your statement in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, closed in December 2008) and was quite displeased to find there this section:

I resent the accusations that he is my meatpuppet. I also resent Deacon's other unproven accusations, ex. "Piotrus has been shown to use off-wiki IM and email to recruit edit-warring help". No, Piotrus has been claimed to do so by tag team members who proposed this motion in the arbitration (here and here), and the motion has not been picked up by arbitrators, which as far as I am concerned means "Piotrus has been found innocent"...

I assume you are willing to revise your thinking on this now that the EEML decision (closed December 2009) found that you had engaged in offsite coordination:

8) 10.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring...

-- EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not much to revise there, because when I wrote that, it was true. EEML was created after EED ended (late Dec'08), when the failure of official dispute resolution exemplified in the mostly useless EED remedies which did not sanction the really disruptive editors and failed to bring peace and quiet to the EE area undermined mine (and others) trust in the official procedures (which, please note, are still failing us, as the constant stream of EE disputes continues, even in the wake of the harsh EEML remedies...). Ironically, EEML was inspired by the claims of certain editors that it already existed :> That said, in hindsight, getting inspiration from that bunch and allowing ourselves to become radicalised (and "engage in offsite coordination") was a costly mistake, one for which we all have paid dearly (and are still paying). I am now trying to see if the official dispute resolution system can indeed work and end the conflict - which brings me back to my original question about how one is supposed to defend oneself from personal attacks by an editor with an old axe to grind (particularly if that editor is an admin who offers seemingly "neutral" input in the section for uninvolvd admins on AE)? To rephrase the situation: I made errors, paid for them and want to move on, but the animosity from certain former antagonists who seem to be incapable of WP:FORGIVE and keep making bad faithed accusations seems to me aimed (intentionally or not) at recreating the old battlegrounds (a poisonous yet highly successful strategy I analyze here and that forms, IMHO, the biggest danger to the project). Both sides must be ready to move on; if only one attempts to do so, as the other tries to get more "licks" in, the situation will quickly deteriorate again, as de-redicaliztion will fail and radicalization (fighting) will continue (see my thoughts on how to pacify the EE area here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For Piotrus' claim that EEML was a natural reaction by some previously decent heart guys to terrible bad faith, check out for instance the following archived messages, which show that documented EEML was just an advanced stage of similar earlier off-line collaboration: 20090702-2349, 20090719-2258, 20090402-2358; if Piotrus will allow me to quote them I will. The first one states that Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was a member of the group until he got desyssoped [2007]. On a related point, as you may note, Darwinek recently blocked Loosmark (talk · contribs). I actually suspect Loosmark had been acting on Piotrus' behalf until his the infamous ArbCom run/sockpuppeting scandal; Piotrus' recent increased activity has, perhaps coincidentally of course, followed this banning. Of course, just my bad faith. The recent incident where Biophys, Volunteer Marek and Piotrus simultaneously responded to a post I made in AE should make no-one optimistic that a more secured form of co-ordination hasn't replaced EEML (why wouldn't it have anyway, the only thing wrong with the project was a few weak links!). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Standardization of section header and A.K.A.s

Hi,

I'm afraid I'm not very knowledgeable regarding format standards[10]... but at the same time I felt it would be helpful for other editors more familiar with Wee Curry Monster's older names (Justin, Justin A Kuntz, or Justin the Evil Scotsman at the time of the topic ban) to have some way to find the section in the AE. The change is so recent (less than a week ago[11]) that many won't make the connection between Wee Curry Monster and Justin. So I have a question: would it be possible to include the previous names somewhere near the header or something without contravening the format standards? Right know there is no place in the AE that helps make this connection...

Thank you very much for your help. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• WP:AE#Wee Curry Monster

I was concerned that the title for the section would become very long, and it may be quoted in various places in the future. Why don't you add all of his aliases to 'User against whom enforcement is requested'? If you are afraid that others may not be aware of the connection, you are welcome to notify all the recent editors of the Gibraltar article of the filing of the AE, and all the participants in the Arbcom case, assuming you have the patience. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! One more question about standards: I see I have my own section at the top of the request to post my comments. I have answered in that section the comments you and Vassyana made in the area reserved to admins, but I don't know if I should keep answering other editors in my section or just below their comments (to make the thread clearer). What should I do? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that I have changed my username from my real name, because of a) hassle I have had from infantile editors on Wikipedia and b) harassment off-wiki resulting from wikipedia, is it really necessary to plaster my real name here? Admins know who I am, so does everyone involved, this simply smacks of insensitivity bearing in mind the crap I've had to put up with. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Wee Curry Monster's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wee Curry Monster talk 16:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AE query

I see you have posted recently as an admin at AE. Perhaps you could have a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Delicious_carbuncle? Jayen466 (talk · contribs) (who previously has a history of making almost his entire evidence presentation in the Scientology arbcom case be an attack against me) is attempting to use my report against Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) as a desperate tactic to railroad in yet another irrelevant attack against me. Thoughts? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

More edit wars

Hi,

I realized Justin/Monster had fought in Gibraltar articles a couple of edit wars where I had not been involved, so I've added the diffs to the request. You can check them up if you want[12]. Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster AE

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wee Curry Monster
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Wee Curry Monster

Could you look over that again and let me know what you think of my proposed solution? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have replied at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

One of Wee Curry Monster's main opponents (Richard) suggested he be allowed to remain in discussions. That is fairly persuasive to me. I have suggested a 0RR and specific warning about bad faith accusations to replace the topic bans. Please let me know if that seems appropriate to you. Vassyana (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam appeal at AE

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Captain_Occam

Captain Occam is appealing your decision. This is a courtesy note to make you aware of the request. Vassyana (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)