User talk:EdJohnston

Mailness

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.

betsythedevine (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do (and refrain) as you suggest. betsythedevine (talk) 02:31, 5 May 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.

Hope this is ok but I have a different question. betsythedevine (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Response

Ed, you are right sir and I've removed my gratuitous comment. Thanks for watching out and doing your job. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Giulio Clovio again

Sorry for all this nonsense. Luciano di Martino is now adding a long diatribe and insults to the talkpage:Talk:Giulio Clovio. I did a google search. There is no Professor Luciano di Martino at any American University. There's a music conductor, but I have no idea if this is the same person or not. I suspect these are entirely false claims of expertise. Same thing Davide41 did actually. Having to deal with these (Personal attack removed) is really trying. They continually misrepresent the literature and there's not much of a discussion possible. I am losing my patience and have a hard time staying civil when confronted with such people. I may bow out of the "discussions" for a while. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Idiots ? Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Davide41 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You sure have a lot of nerve bringing up personal attacks. Considering the insults I have received, you should not be surprised I loose my patience at some point. After being told my comments are "ravings" and further continued insults you should take a close look at your own behavior before approaching others about theirs. --AnnekeBart (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Shame --Davide41 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope that's an expression of what you feel at this point, anything else would be a case of unbelievable of hypocrisy.[1] (ravings?),[2] (Hallucinating dilettante episode), [3] Or the charming little putdowns [4] ("ask your teachers"; really? Talk to others as children now?)

Not to mention this "charming" little tidbit from your buddy Luciano [5]

Yes, I would loose my temper. I would have to be a saint not to ...

Sorry EdJohnston for mucking up your talkpage with this kind of stuff! --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the removal of the text Ed. You may want to take a look at Davide's talkpage. There's a whole section now aimed at me. [6] I hope you understand where my frustration is coming from at this point --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Luciano di Martino has now been blocked per the 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston! Hopefully things can get back to normal now. --AnnekeBart (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban question

Hi Ed, May I please ask for your permission to comment on AfD request and maybe to add some more sources to this old article of mine that was just nominated for deletion? This article is not about I/P conflict, but it does mention Israel a few times. Of course I will respect your decision whatever it is going to be. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Abraham Reuel falls under ARBPIA. You should be able to participate in the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

One more topic ban question

Hi Ed, I have bothered you a lot lately, haven't I? Sorry about that. May I please ask for your permission to write an article about Israeli emergency bandages? user:Gatoclass has approved my request, and user:2over0 said "probably", requested more info ,and promised to get back to me by the "next weekend", but the "next weekend" came and went, and... So here, I am asking you. Thank you for considering my request.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that 2over0 has now replied. His answer should be the one to follow. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello. Do you know is there a superior/higher instance to which i could try and appeal regarding the sanction imposed on me? I regard that the case wasn't sufficiently examined, and that was ruled upon even with predisposition - presumably because of predilection towards me being "POVed". This appears as impartiality in arbitration on your behalf, especially when considering some other editors' comments regarding the arbitration in question at the very case's discussion and at response to third opinion request at the Kosovo article's discussion page. I specifically wish to acknowledge your hastiness, therefore thoughtlessness, and all in all, arrogance - in my opinion. Because of that i will protest against first two of those displayed characteristics, i noticed and mentioned. The third characteristic of yours, which i noticed regarding this case, is up to you and you only. Why am i being so harsh - because you ended the discussion regarding the arbitration of this case without answering my question where the discussion should continue. Now, according to your ruling i am forbidden to comment even to talk pages with touch the Kosovo topic. This i find very inappropriate and even more damaging. And that damaging not just for me. With sincere hope that this issue will be resolved soon, have my regards, --biblbroks (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You have three options for appeal:

1. You can ask me, as the closing admin
2. You can file a Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal at WP:Arbitration enforcement
3. You can appeal to Arbcom

I'm willing to listen to your request to have the ban lifted. The rationale for your ban is here. If you are willing to make some assurances about your editing about Kosovo in the next three months, the ban might be reconsidered. In the original WP:AE request, I was concerned you were not taking the matter seriously; for example, "you simply have to choose whether to trust me or not."

Literally, no, we don't have to trust you. We can wait to see if you will make reasonable assurances about editing within policy, and then see whether a sanction is needed. Your responses were hard to understand. They suggested not only a language barrier, but that you weren't understanding the rules about editing in contentious ethnic areas. You also made very long posts on talk pages, which is something that is often a trademark of WP:POV editing. Extremely diplomatic editing is needed, and a willingness to patiently work with others to agree on compromise wording. If your position could be clarified, we might get somewhere. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Literally, you are right - as far as your statement is concerned. You personally don't have to trust me. As neither of any other wikipedians and/оr Wikipedians - or "wikipedianesses" and/or "Wikipedianesses" for that matter - have to trust me. But you personally (as well as any other person for that matter) had - and have to - _choose_ whether to trust me. Or not. And i stated that. And i believe i stated it very clearly. I admit that this statement of mine was given in a moment of exasperation, and this i believe was the product of a topic ban for me being even requested at all. Although i understand and admit i acted rather hastily when excluding de, bs and la interwikis, so a topic ban might be formally justified when considering that change of mine. Truly, maybe not just formally, but i too can be enthusiastic - even then, can i? So there does lie my mistake, but not in many more other places - i strongly believe.
• As for you, as far as i can tell, you did chose _not_ to trust me. And that even before discussing the matter properly. This was when you were claiming: "We need to be assured that he.... will stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV". I apologize for taking the liberty to freely excerpt words from your wordings, but i think your message was and is still clear - and that is that you chose not to trust me. Why, because your claim represents hastiness in giving your opinions, which on the other hand represents insufficiency of thoughtfulness on your behalf - all in the case in matter: arbitration regarding a topic ban on me. Why: because i believe you haven't considered the discussion at Kosovo article enough.
• Also, if my responses were hard to understand, that can't be simply my fault only - perhaps you should have invested some additional effort and "perspect" the thing from a different perspective - than i understand you did perspect. It appears to me that you didn't invest that additional effort - be your own judge for yourself whether you did or not. And everything what you claimed about policies, potential language barriers, perceived long posts, etc, is very well known to me and even more clearly understood by me. So bear in mind that in that highly "contentious ethnic area" - as you call it and as i may agree with you to call it (but currently i am not keen to agree with you even on few things) - well, in that Kosovo article as well as Kosovo article discussion, i remained (and that i very strongly believe) very neutral or to the least i managed to be so very neutral that it was evident to many contributors. But, but when examining the courtesy i exercised in the discussion comparing to some other editors' manners - to some editors' manners involved in the dispute in matter - so when examining the level of my courtesy, well i honestly believe that you had a complete failure. I believe my courtesy was unequaled - or to be completely fair - unequaled as compared to some other editors' manners. That is not all of course, but unequaled to some editors' manners. That courtesy (if true, or at least, if verified as such) could demonstrate a very high level of tact and diplomacy on my behalf. Tact and diplomacy which you claim is needed in that willingness you mention. That's for my willingness. As for your willingness, i will state lastly and only two things more. Firstly, I think my position is very clear now, and if you still think that the option which you numbered with 1. isn't viable, i will certainly try my luck with other options. Secondly, I hope you will reconsider _your_ position since:

1. i don't think my luck will betray me with my position, but i am not certain about yours with your _current_ position,
2. and because i believe in your good faith.

Trust me, that comment about your luck wasn't meant as any kind of threat, but a mere expression of utter exhaustion that such long posting of mine was perceived as needed at all. Good luck to you, --biblbroks (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me there's an appeal in there somewhere? I was hoping for some assurances for the future, if you were to resume editing on Kosovo. Note this comment which was made in the original AE thread: "We need to be assured that he will follow 1RR in the future, will stop adjusting the interwiki links and will stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV." I would also add now "will agree not to make changes that could be contentious without getting consensus first on the talk page." Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope i don't understand your pardon. I think you understood what i was trying to say with "you did chose _not_ to trust me ... when you were claiming ....we need to be assured that he will ...stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV." Where in those words was neutral arbitration? That is my question to you - as direct as i IMNSHO think it can be. Why - because i find that you weren't able to read between the lines of my appeal. Because if you still think that you were arbitrating neutrally and on the other hand almost at the same time claiming that i was editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV, i think you should carefully think again. If you have already thought over, than give me an example of my edits to Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV. I think that at least this i deserve. Because i still hope i don't have to explain what was my appeal about. You were pleading to me for telling you that there was an appeal there somewhere - or where you just sarcastic? Since i believe it is the second possibility that is true, i will plead no more (if i were pleading at all) - i don't think you deserve to be pleaded to. For now. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind this case. All I'm asking is that you'll agree to those four things:

1. Observe 1RR/week in the future on all articles related to Kosovo
2. Not modify any interwiki links on articles related to Kosovo
3. You will try to ensure strict political neutrality for any edits you make to Kosovo-related articles
4. You won't make any controversial changes without first getting consensus on the talk page.

The deal is that you would observe these limitations for three months. If you agree, I will lift the ban from Kosovo-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the revert limit above to 1RR/week, since that is the current limit for all editors at Kosovo. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD's AE discussion

Hi Ed, you have been doing a mavellous job of corralling the admins to comment on this case, but I do wonder why you haven't offered any comment yourself. Having been involved in past AE cases falling within the scope of "Eastern Europe" you might have saved some discussion on matters such as to whether this case actually falls within the same scope. --Martin (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am eager to see this case closed. The numerical !vote of admins is against the ban, so in my opinion all that is left is a matter of wording. I would like to see the interested admins make a deal if necessary, but get it over with. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well some of the admins opposing any remedy appear to be operating under the misapprehension that this is unrelated to EE. TFD's has been warned time and again before, and it seems evident that he will again be given yet another warning. Having backed down and offered to replace TFD's topic ban with a warning, some admins are even disputing Fred's wording of this warning. I sure hope this apparent lenience on TFD has been worth the apparent impact on Fred caused by this lack of support. --Martin (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

AE can't solve all problems. TFD's atttitude regarding Lia Looveer attracted a bunch of criticism, but it's not clear that it is bad enough to deserve sanctions under DIGWUREN. RFC/U is available to those who feel the issues with his editing are not sufficiently addressed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ed, I echo Martin's sentiments. I was disappointed that the situation was viewed as

• the same-old same old, and
• a joke about someone who doesn't deserve an article anyway and that making out someone of Baltic heritage to be a Nazi in Wikipedia content when there is no reliable source for same is no big deal, and
• unrelated to the EE dispute when all editors who showed up have strong POV's regarding Russia right or Russia wrong on its version of Baltic history.

Frankly I found the dismissive wave of the collective admin hand troubling. Not treating the matter seriously is going to encourage further aggression against content and editors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling your finger out and resolving this. After effectively serving a ten day topic ban I hope TFD finally gets the message and returns to more productive editing. --Martin (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation!

Re [7]: You're a brave man and an unusually useful human being! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur. That action required some guts. (Igny (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC))

No guts required, just a brain. --Martin (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

It was really nice and helpful of you. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Harassment and censorship

You warned me this way

Please be aware that nationalist edit-warring about famous people who seem to have both Croatian and Italian connections is not new on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee has handled similar cases in the past. If you continue your program of 'Italianization' you will most likely be warned under WP:ARBMAC, which covers nationalist editing on topics related to the Balkans. This could lead to a permanent ban from your making any edits in this topic area. If you hope to be here long term, please listen to feedback and work with others. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

then you blocked me for, as you say, 'you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring.'

• There is no my program of 'Italianization'. Giulio Clovio was an Italian painter and his place of birth was dutifully mentioned. That's a scholar attitude valid across the academic community worldwide. Here the 'Italian' attribute is used purely academically: Clovio belonged to the Italian medieval civilization and culture.

• I was not involved in any edit warring. My reverts, questions and clarifications were support to prof David's academic approach to this biography. Also, edit warring if existing has at least two sides. Selecting one arbitrarily, as you did, is a harassment.

• Giulio Clovio was not "Julije Klovic" no matter which "references" might be used. To understand this, you have to have proper knowledge and academic background. Entering such nonsense only harms Wikipedia's credibility. Good insight into the "name" problem is given by me on the article talk page.

• The other participants in this discussion used words "professor", idiot, then baseless disqualifications of my and prof. David's academic credentials. How come that such people are not warned and blocked for that behavior? How come that you do not see it or you do not want to see it?

• Why you are not paying attention to the fact that AnnekeBart and Philosopher12 are falsely referencing books in order to support false claims?

• As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability, 'Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.'. So, please, do that here.

--Luciano di Martino (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You reverted the article on Giulio Clovio three times. The case was reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive157#User:Luciano di Martino reported by User:AnnekeBart (Result: 72h, ARBMAC). In arriving at a decision to block your account, I was most influenced by your removal of the following reference from the article:

• John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans: a study of identity in pre-nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the medieval and early-modern periods, University of Michigan Press, 2006, p 195 Google Books.

This is a modern scholarly reference (2006) which is surely going to be helpful to editors working on the article, in deciding what role the different nationalities played in the makeup of this artist. Can you explain how it makes the article *better* for you to remove a reference that seems to support the side you are arguing against? Do you think this is a good-faith action on your part? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that you either did not read what you are referring to or you do not understand what you've read. What prof. Fine says is quite clear:

Thus, we cannot read into the labels of clear ethnic messsage. ... Whether Coatia was just an identifying mark, separatnig him from many other Juliuses in Italy, or whether he took his place of origin as a serious or ethnic-type identity, of course, cannot be determined from signature alone.

which denies what you are trying to prove. Clearly the opposite side is not supported by prof. Fine. As I said above, it was dutifully mentioned that Clovio's place of birth is in today's Croatia. But when talking about Italian medieval culture and civilization, Clovio was always mentioned as and Italian painter in the sense that he belonged to that culture and civilization. Moreover, there is no Julije Klovic, there is only Giulio Clovio. If you do Google advanced search, then you'll learn that it gives:

• Giulio Clovio Advanced search About 18,100 results (0.13 seconds)
• Julije Klovic Advanced search About 551 results (0.19 seconds) ---> these results are coming from sources prof. Fine disqualified as serious in his book.

As you see, I can use prof. Fine's point of view against you and your friends and add his book as proper reference against not-so-serious scholar attitudes of Croatian historians named in his book on page 195. Then the next question for you is: why you are not sanctioning uncivil language, personal attacks, and arbitrary disqualifications used against me and prof David?!--Luciano di Martino (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As an admin, I am not going to give my own opinion as to how the nationality of Giulio Clovio should be described. That is for the editors at Talk:Giulio Clovio to decide. You will see at User talk:AnnekeBart#Personal attacks that I advised her to be careful with her language. You did not reply to my question as to whether your removal of the reference was in good faith. That is, do you sincerely think it makes the article better to exclude the John Fine reference? EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You have a reply

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

Communist terrorism

Is already under 1RR -- and, absent vandal edits from IPS, I do not see any actual reason for semi-protection there. One editor who has complained has also weighed in on SPI accusations which were not well-founded, and I would suggest the rationale that he thinks all IPs who disagree with his POV are socks is insufficient. Cheers. BTW, you might also look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Lia_Looveer to see the nature of the colloquy involved. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP is probably a sockpuppet of blocked User:Marknutley/User:Tentontunic.

Your record at SPI is a teensy bit poor, alas. Collect (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Both editors used dynamic IPs from England to edit-war and exceed 1RR over the POV tag on this article. TFD (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of where the IP came from, he broke the 1RR restriction. He also reverted the neutrality tag while making no appearance on the article's talk page. If anyone believes this is Tentontunic, they are welcome to open an SPI. Hopefully the semiprotection takes away most of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually a block on the IP is sufficient. The accusations cover a substantial number of UK ISPs <g>, which made the accusation that they are all one person quite unlikely. In fact, an IP in Portugal was accused, and now one in Hong Kong. A50000 was also accused - so far the accused IPs have not been MarkNutley AFAICT. So we have an article semi-protected due to a handful of edits TFD dislikes (sigh). Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See the archives for WP:OP. mark nutley btw admitted using IPs. TFD (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Managing never to use one you IDed with any evidence at all? Like from Hong Kong, Portugal and three different British ISPs? I rather think that the "boy who cried 'sock' at SPI" is a new fable for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue for this thread is whether semiprotection is a good idea. Since the focus has moved elsewhere, so should this discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you help please?

Hi Ed, you have dealt with user:Ohiostandard on my behalf already, but the user still continues to hound my contributions and assume a bad faith. You remember that when you asked the user to reconsider its unwarranted language about me, the user responded to you with rather long [...], in which it named an article that I wrote more than a year ago as being under-sourced. The user found this article while hounding over my contributions, and I am 100% sure of it. Then user:Roscelese saw the mention of this article at user:Ohiostandard's talk page, and nominated it on deletion. Both users took a great effort to delete the article. If you are to look at the history of AfD you will see that user:Ohiostandard made 30 edits on it, more than any other editor did, but that comment is way too much. In that comment user:Ohiostandard is quoting the comment made by user:Roscelese at my DYK nomination: "Oh look, one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again to approve a severely flawed article. Fancy that." and than adds from itself: "Also, it seems relevant to observe, since the fact hasn't been mentioned previously: As was also the case when Hodja Nasreddin showed up and supported her previously, Mbz1 is the creator of this article".

Ed,user:Hodja Nasreddin is not my buddy, actually quite the opposite. May I please ask you to take a look at only two most recent communications of me with user:Hodja Nasreddin #1 and #2. Do they look like communications of buddies to you? But even, if user:Hodja Nasreddin were my "buddy", does it mean that they should not vote on AfD only because I am the author of the article? Ed, to me the conduct of user:Ohiostandard as I described it here, and in our email exchange that includes hounding and making a false accusations is the worst type of harassment. From my own sad experience I know that if I am not dealing with the false accusations on the spot eventually they are used to make me unfairly sanctioned. May I please ask you to impose an absolutely equally applied interaction ban between user:Ohiostandard and me, or if you would not do it, could you please tell me how to deal with such users? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have been clashing with Ohiostandard and Roscelese due to matters which originated at DYK. We expect that editors who often participate at DYK will be skilled at working with others to find consensus. Please employ your diplomatic skills to settle the current matters. Your message does not mention anyone violating any Arbcom restrictions. You must be aware that the possibility of tag-team approvals at DYK has been floated, though I don't know how valid the complaint was. With a good approach, you could work these things out without constantly resorting to admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What tag-team approvals of DYK are you talking about? I was not even talking about a bad faith decline of my absolutely valid DYK by Roscelese. I was talking about a bad faith comment by Ohiostandard at AfD concerning an article I started.I was talking about this comment. Where is DYK tag-teaming approval here?

Who said that interaction bans should be used only if somebody violating Arbcom restrictions? Have I said somebody violated Arbcom restriction? I was talking about persisting hounding + false accusations = harassment by Ohiostandard, and asked for your help.

Any differences of me "constantly resorting to admins" please? (highlighted by me)

Your comment is more than unhelpful. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past I helped you because your topic ban kept you from taking certain steps that are open to regular editors. It is hard for me to see any difficulties here, in your new request, that are not the kind of thing you could negotiate yourself. I did see a complaint that Broccolo was approving a lot of your DYKs at WT:DYK#Articles in contentious topic areas: "we have a COI problem with users who belong to a particular political faction attempting to verify articles submitted by their ideological buddies." A situation like that is eminently within your control, and you shouldn't need any help from me to arrive at a solution. The comments by Ohiostandard and Roscelese that you included above seem to be a follow-on to that dispute, which I'm not closely following. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I hope that you'd agree that it is not a good practice to talk about something that from your own words you are "not closely following". It is anyway as talking about something that you know nothing about.

Ed, what Broccolo has to do with user:Hodja Nasreddin? In case you did not notice they are two different editors. Do you believe that anybody who approves my DYK could be called my buddy? Really?

When was the last time Broccolo approved my DYK?

How many times user:Hodja Nasreddin approved my DYK?

What this article Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler story has to do with "contentious topic areas",and what " particular political faction" it belongs to?

What this article Reuel Abraham has to do with "contentious topic areas",and what " particular political faction" it belongs to?

If I am being harassed am I allowed to ask for the help by an admin only at the matter that is covered by my unfair topic ban? What steps should I be taking? In the past I tried to talk to both users, but in response I got only more trolling well, should not use the right word, but not sure what word to use instead.

What the disgusting AfD comment made by Ohiostandard has to do with tag-teaming of DYK?

Ohiostandard behavior around this AfD, Ed, notice, not DYK, AfD, has been disgusting all over, and now after AfD was closed the user goes on at the closing admin talk page.

Once again your comment is unhelpful. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban from Iranian articles

I did not have time to visit Wikipedia in the past week, but I have to say that in my absence and inability to comment, this hasty conclusion is the most biased, unfair, imbalanced and WP:POV judgment I have ever encountered from AE. Restricting users based on their opinion, using WP:HARASSMENT, evidence obtained by hacking email accounts in violation of WP:PRIVACY, accepting forged and frivolous claims from hack sites targeting users for their editing opinion is something not quite worthy of encyclopedia or administrating behavior. It is a rather tacit approval for exercising the same violations against users in future to target and push them away from editing articles. Atabəy (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the rationale for the closure of the AE request which was given here. I'm afraid that neither you nor Khodabandeh14 explained yourselves very well. I did invite you to propose how to reach agreement on the article. I hoped you would then:

• offer to open an RfC or advertise the questions for wider input.
• promise not to make any more reverts at Safavid dynasty until a consensus was found.

I was disappointed in your answer. (The whole discussion is archived at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 21#AE case against Atabəy). It was frustrating that both of you spoke at such length but your arguments made so little sense. But you were the one with all the past blocks and sanctions as logged in the ARBAA cases. You keep complaining about people hacking into email, but that did not play any role in how the case was decided. I recommend that you stop using that as an argument. (Arbcom did not make any official response to the data given to them, and they said nothing to me).

Any hint of your being sincerely open to dialog with others at Safavid dynasty could change the situation, and could make it possible to lift the ban. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I was simply away from Wikipedia for nearly 10 days, on personal business reasons. While I understand the need to close AE report, I don't think the lack of answer from myself due to being away justified a ban decision taken based on Khodabandeh's allegations. I believe the Safavid dynasty article in its current version reflects the language transliterations that I was seeking (with exception of Kurdish and Georgian irrelevant spellings). So why did have to cost my ban to get that? I believe there is a ground to move on with other editing discussions on talk page, if I am given an opportunity. As far as using evidence from hacked sites, well the fact that alleging user (Khodabandeh14) was not restricted for rather grave and repeated violations of WP:HARASSMENT, while the user he accused of "battleground mentality and nationalism" based on that forged evidence was restricted, tacitly implies the support for those allegations. And as already indicated, all my edits referenced by Khodabandeh in his frivolous AE report were from the period preceding ArbCom case that drew judgments and applied restrictions on those. Why ban me now for those again? Atabəy (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this looks to me like more of the same rhetoric that was so unpersuasive the first time. Even in your last answer, you continue the attacks on Khodabandeh. The phrase 'forged evidence' is not helping your case. If you don't want to sound like a nationalist edit warrior, you could be speaking differently. I'm sorry not to be more helpful. You can appeal your ban at WP:AE using the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. If unsatisfied with the response there, you can appeal to Arbcom. If you want to begin a real conversation, I'd consider lifting the ban myself, but I don't perceive you as being interested in a real conversation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I indicated clearly above that I am willing to discuss the issue on the talk page, and the fact that the requested transliteration now remains in the page, means there is a progress. I have not personally attacked Khodabandeh14, I was only subjected to one based on clear violations of privacy and harassment rules in AE, none of which seemed to be enforced. But if a decision is made to lift my restriction without AE appeal, I am willing to forget and to continue working towards consensus as I did for years on Safavid dynasty, a lot of material in which is a result of my contributions. If you could be a bit more clear about what is meant by "real conversation", that would help too. Atabəy (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my two suggestions above:

• offer to open an RfC or advertise the questions for wider input.
• promise not to make any more reverts at Safavid dynasty until a consensus was found.

To those suggestions I would now add:

• Stop speaking about 'hacked email' or 'forged evidence' unless you wish to communicate directly to Arbcom by email about that. In that case your ban would remain in effect unless Arbcom sees differently.

Let me know if you would agree to those three things. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As far as the evidence in violation of Wikipedia rules, I did relay my concerns about that to the ArbCom via email 10 days ago. Will follow up. Regarding reverts on Safavid dynasty. Say, hypothetically, if I inserted a POV tag and substantiated it with a comment opening a discussion thread, while another anonymous IP shows up reverting and removing the tag without any discussion, what's the procedure for preventing that other than reverts? Atabəy (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting to hear your answer on point #3. You need to agree to stop using the phrases 'hacked email' or 'forged evidence' on any page of Wikipedia. This is a condition of my lifting your ban from Safavid dynasty. If you don't agree to this condition, you can try the other appeal steps. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, however, on a condition that my agreement shall not imply in any way my acceptance of the evidence provided in AE report alleging links to me as editor to be true. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That takes care of #3. Next, can you offer some ideas for what form of discussion could be used to reach consensus at Safavid dynasty? Do you know of any experts within Wikipedia, or any WikiProjects that might be consulted? It should not be hard to get some ideas. That page has 12 archive files, and it has some project banners on it. You might also look in the edit history to find the names of some people who have added new content to the article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls

Just to let you know that I posted to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls & User:Westbankfainting before you protected the page.

I am not sure that the page should be protected as I am not sure that the whole "Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls" is really a notable event and am still considering sending it to WP:AfD on the grounds of that. Mtking (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to ANI. I'd be surprised if you can convince people this event is not notable. Check the reference list: Time, CS Monitor, New York Times, etc. But getting the article correct won't be a simple matter. If you are considering AfD, why not wait until the protection expires. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As you suggested, I did post a request at WP:RSN. Thanks for your very constructive help and feedback concerning the article. betsythedevine (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Mibelz

Hi! I would like to inform you that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus leads a personal campaign against me (vide Mibelz AE request). The problem is that he and some other Polish editors prefer rather Polish than English names (for example: Kraków, not Cracow) in English Wikipedia, and often ignore historical facts which are inconvenient for their point of view. As a scientist, I am interested in truth, not propaganda. -- Warm regards, Mibelz, Ph.D. 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have written about some Polish editors because of their "national historic policy" in English Wikipedia (i.e. The Rebellion of vogt Albert, and a reaction to the information on vogt Albert - of German origin - and bishop Jan Muskata - of German-Silesian origin). -- Mibelz, 14:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)