User talk:EdJohnston

Issue on Armenian Genocide talk page

Apparently IP:24.27.71.3 does not understand WP:NOTFORUM and has reverted my removal of a non-constructive statement(s).[1] Would you like to help this individual have a greater understanding of editing on Wikipedia? Since it may be Christmas where you are, there is no rush. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note at User talk:24.27.71.3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand theoretical perspective of the wikipedia but it is just in theory! NOT IN FACT!!!! I have looked many references of the article and most of them belongs to Armenians!!! So is this neutral view!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fall_of_Constantinople#The_Sheeps_as_.22pretext.22_reason

The discussion in the above link, is appropriate or not for wiki? What the heck the relation between Fall of Istanbul and ARMENIANS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

So another EXAMPLE: WHY THIS LINK http://www.hyetert.com/yazi3.asp?Id=341&DilId=1 is in the reference list? I do not think so this a scientific paper????? web site itself also not in a neutralview??? SO DO NOT TELL ME WIKI IS ALWAYS IN NEUTRAL VIEW.... 24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

I have some concerns about your post on the AE report on Tuscumbia.[2] Whereas you mentioned the rampant sockpuppetry, you failed to mention the anon IPs which infest Armenian-Azerbaijani-Iranian-Turkish articles.

These IPs[3], [4] have canvassed to have edits reverted on articles that fall within AA2 guidelines. The most recent canvassing has initiated an edit war[5] a possible 2nd edit war[6] and these reversions[7],[8]. Undoubtedly, once Verman1 is reverted then the others that have been contacted by these anons(and any I have not found) will revert back to Verman1, thus initiating another edit war.

Shouldn't these IPs be blocked, since in all likelyhood they are editors involved in AA2 that have simply logged out? Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look at these users[9],[10],[11] they seem to be quacking. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, please leave this post here for me to consider. Don't withdraw it unless you have changed your mind about these edits violating policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous IPs[12][13][14][15][16] calling for reversions(on pro-Turkish/Azeribaijani editors talk pages) and reverting the work of editors that are attempting to follow policy and procedure. If they appear stale, it is because the individual(s) are using a different IP. Lately, I have noticed numerous ones from Ankara, which are calling for reversions and adding information that does not have consensus, while not engaging in discussion. There are also a few that lead back to Baku.

Back in April 2011, I encountered numerous IPs originating from LA(and surrounding areas) that posted on pro-Armenian editors talk pages.[17] These IPs appeared to be associated with user:Phoenicians8[18]. Though Phoenicians8 was indefinitely blocked, the IPs continue to post on pro-Armenian editors talk pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider if there is some simple action that could be taken in response. The canvassing doesn't look good. Do you know anything about past socks that were based in Ankara? These IPs often don't appear very sophisticated. Getting a solution for the Kars article might be a step forward. If we knew what articles were involved, semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally do not know of any past socks based in Ankara, though my interaction with AA2 is limited to the medieval era(writing references) and reverting the removal of references and referenced information(past & present). I have seen edits done by user:Noraton which later have been canvassed by an IP from Ankara and vice-versa. Since the IP that has done the reverting on Kars is doing the same edit as user:Noraton[19]. It seems to be too much of a coincidence, at least to me. I do know that my edits are being watched since the latest IP is now writing in Turkish to hide his/her canvassing[20].

Semi protecting Kars will not force Noraton or the IP to discuss anything on the talk page, since they already have added what they want. Noraton had already asked for a 3rd opinion and since that opinion did not tell him/her what he wanted to hear, he had decided to insert the information regardless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that some admin action might be justified:

• Kars (possible AE complaint)
• Alternate names of towns, buildings and geographical features (Armenian vs Azeri) in a variety of articles (possible AE complaint)
• Editing by IPs who are engaged in canvassing for one side of the ethnic divide or the other. This might go to SPI if it were convincing.

Some patient person would have to write these up with a full complement of diffs. Not likely to be done by me unless you can wait a couple of months until I have the time. If you desire to organize this I could advise you on when you have enough data. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would gladly accept any help regarding this issue. I do not have any experience writing up complaints at AE or SPI. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kars appears to have some kind of naming issue. If you are familiar with it, can you tell me what you think would be a reasonable compromise? Also, do you consider yourself an involved editor for purposes of AA? I have noticed that you sometimes edit on the same side as pro-Armenian editors but you seem like more of a content contributor who just happens to edit in the area. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand, to have another name in a different language there has to be a cultural connection. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), "Relevant foreign language names(one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." I have yet to see evidence on the talk page that proves Azerbaijanis used to inhabit Kars in the past(since neither Verman1 nor Noraton seem interested in presenting facts and the IP is not required to discuss anything!). If the issue of "sister city" is to be the deciding factor then the German, Norwegian and Georgian names should be represented as well. I was involved, but only to indicate that the IP in question does have a connection to user:Noraton. To file at AE or sockpuppetry would be futile, since by the time it was "considered" or "acted upon" the IP would have changed(as already indicated) and continued on with its canvassing. This is all moot, since the IP has added the information back and I am quite sure there will be no discussion regarding any facts on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Something which WP:AE could easily do would be to forbid changes to alternate-language names by anyone who had been notified or sanctioned under AA. If I remember correctly this was once done in an Eastern Europe case, for people mentioned on the WP:DIGWUREN page. Unfortunately it would restrict you from making such changes, since you were notified under AA. The restriction might conceivably be extended to IPs since this is an area plagued by sockpuppets. Do you think this would do any good? EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, since I have no real issue with alternate language names, despite my reverting Noraton and his/her sockpuppets. If editors that have been notified and sanctioned under AA2 are restricted then IPs should have even more restrictions covering AA2 articles, including canvassing. What also should be added is anyone reverting/editing in response to IP canvassing should also face sanctions. I believe this will halt many edit wars that seem to flare up out of nowhere. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we are discussing Kars, perhaps you would like to notify user:Erlik.khan of AA2. His/her edits[21], appear to be battleground mentality. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the reason for Erlik.khan's edit.[22] What irony. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

NLP

Sorry to bother you, but you have previously warned Encyclotadd about personal attacks. The same attacks were repeated on the NLP talk page but replacing my name with "the most active editor". Its pretty obvious this is not going to stop. I asked him/her to strike the comments yesterday with our a result and s/he has been actively editing since.

In addition we have another SPA account Congru in attack mode here. Again I asked for those comments to be struck, but my request was deleted with the comment "You are becoming beyond a joke".

A brief glance at the edit history of the NLP talk page will show the way they are editing in support of each other. I don't think its sock puppetry, but there are a series of external NLP sites which have been making similar accusations to those of Encyclotadd and we have had a whole series of SPAs over the years. I have been collecting evidence for a possible meat puppetry case but this is a difficult one. We are currently in the middle of a spate of attempts to modify the article and these come and go every few months. As it gets to the point where an ANI case becomes appropriate things go quiet.

That is for context, at the moment we have a very disruptive pattern of comments on the talk page - not using evidence, making various accusations etc coupled with the personal attacks by these two editors. Given that one has been warned I wondered if you would take a look at it. Any other advise appreciated. Thanks for your time. --Snowded ^TALK 04:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And today we get this set of accusations, repeating the same old nonsense yet again. He hasn't even done his research properly, the wikipedia article on me makes it clear where I was born and neither myself or my family have ever owned property in the location specified. Oh and repetition by editors here. At the moment we have four SPA accounts, three created in the last few months all making identical accusations --Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a thick skin as does anyone who edits on those articles, but sometimes it gets a little too much. --Snowded ^TALK 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Ban

Hi ED. Could you please reply to my post about my Topic Ban evasion clarification? I think I didn't evade my ban until 10 September, and I find this sanction irrelevant. --Verman1 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please review my request?--Verman1 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I've been out of town. After checking the original sanction notice left on your talk page on April 9, I agree that the terms of the ban were a bit mixed up. It was said to begin on 9 April and run for six months, but the ending date was said to be September 10. The ban was clearly intended to run for six months, and it was unambiguously entered in the AA2 log with that term. If you had noticed this at the time, you should have asked for clarification. I am not impressed by your immediate removal of the ban notice from your talk page, which seems to violate the rule about not removing sanctions currently in effect, at WP:BLANKING. Since getting the matter clarified was within your control, I am not convinced that your current ban should be set aside. If admins become convinced that you are able to edit neutrally elsewhere, you might be able to ask in the future to have your ban lifted. Over the time that I've been aware of your edits, I see no improvement in your approach. The advice that admins have given seems to make no impression on you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of Sheodred

Ed,

Just a question about your indef block of Sheodred. Was this based on some community consensus? I saw repeated discussions around concerns about both Sheodred and MarcusBritish (including proposals for topics bans) but I didn't see anything conclusive come out of it.

Without community consensus, don't you think that an indefinite block for a single edit in a wider content dispute is just a little OTT (regardless of the editors narrow contributions)? One consequence of an indef block of this sort is that they can appear to vindicated battle field-like behavior in other deitors.

I am involved in discussion related topics at the IMOS, so I am not about to reverse the block (and I'm no fan of wheel warring).

--RA (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for community review of the block if you wish, but I would prefer that the initiative for unblock should come from User:Sheodred. He already knows how to file unblock templates, and he is the only one who can make assurances about his future behavior. If you check User talk:MuZemike#Query you will probably conclude that I'm not the only admin who has run out of patience. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer it also. However, I would sympathise with his comments left in reply to the block. It takes two to tango and the behavior of Sheodred's dancing partner did little to raise my admiration.

There is no doubt issues around a small circle of editors warring over this issue. It is an odd one because the level of disruption caused to the wiki is very small: it doesn't really matter if Tyndall is described as "British" or "Irish" and having the article flip-flop between the two is of little consequence. However, it is the behavior between editors that is very worrying. More than the edit warring, IMO it is that which needs to be addressed.

My concern regarding Sheodred's block is that it is not only out of proportion but, since it is applied to only one belligerent in this issue, it doesn't address the real issue: the hostile behavior between editors. Indefinitely blocking one does little to correct behavior in another, and may even embolden them.

What's your view? --RA (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the actions of editors towards each other should be looked at and sanctions given. From what i seen, MarcusBritish was very much in Shoedred's face as he was in return making matters worse. I'd safely assume that MarcusBritish is currently feeling like he got one over Shoedred and pleased that he escaped sanction for his own poor behaviour. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

While I think Sheodred was silly (and told him) it is the case the MarcusBritish went over the top in sustained provocation. The thing which disturbed me was when he threatened to contact Sheodred's University to get him disciplined. I almost made an ANI report on that one, but it was all over by the time I got home from a trip so I let it go. However that sort of threat is not good news --Snowded ^TALK 11:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

MarcusBritish entered this case in December as a kind of self-appointed nemesis of Sheodred. I was unhappy with his actions but so far as I can tell he did not get involved in any revert wars on Irish nationality. Since the December 1 AN3 case my focus has been on taking all reasonable steps to be sure that the nationality revert war stopped. When Sheodred came back from his one-month topic ban he plunged right back into the revert war on John Tyndall, That is the new information which I felt justified the block (I had been hoping that Sheodred would change his approach when his ban expired). If others feel that the behavior of MarcusBritish needs an admin response, they can raise that issue on the noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the block of Sheodred and the behavior of MarcusBritish. Thank you. --RA (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi EdJohnston. I am trying to clarify a question for me these days. Could you please have a look at this thread. It seems to me there is some problem in proficiency of dealing with situation where WP is being used as a vehicle for ethnic conflict. Questioning reliability of a source or judging about its biasedness based on mere ethnicity criterion is something very new for me in WP... I would appreciate your opinion. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 05:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder about my question. Please respond as soon as you have time. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 14:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE

FkpCascais's request for review of his topic ban from ARBMAC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I apologise EdJohnston, but as I was indicated by WGFinley to appeal my sanction at WP:AE, however, I found more reasonable to try first to explain the events to you and him, as you were the ones who agreed for my sanction. I left a message at WGFinley´s talk page and I please ask you both for just 5 minutes of your time. FkpCascais (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) The thread which you filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Trolling and disruptive behavior in discussion does not make me more sympathetic to your position. You are one of the participants in a mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic that went on for more than a year. It is easy to believe that one or more of the participants in the mediation aren't very good negotiators when something runs that long. The mediator, Sunray, asserted on the article talk page on 22 June 2011, "The main reason the mediation has lasted a long as it has relates to the inability of participants to conform to WP behavioral policies." EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC) As you can see, Sunray was responding to another user (the same I am complaining at the report you mention, coincidence?), and I ended up working closelly with Nuujinn, the editor who ended up making the final draft and who had extreme difficulties dealing with the same user I complained. Perhaps we should ask Sunray about it, would you agree? Regarding the report, how can you be sympathetic (or not) to a report I fill to report obstruction of discussion that took place for 3 days while the article was protected, and where trolling was included? What do you mean by that? Anyway, I was still not presented a single diff of anything out of policies that I have done. I completelly fail to understand your position, as I was the one who didn´t edit-warred, didn´t added tendentious edits, limited myself to discussion, and reported when nothing else was possible. I did absolutelly everything as the polices recomend, please confirm it. I am sorry to say, but I am starting to see bad excuses to justify my intentional removal from the discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Over a period of time, we see that there are editors in certain areas of ethnic dispute that do not seem able to reach compromises with others. It is not always a simple matter to see who is more responsible. But editors who follow the correct steps of WP:Dispute resolution can usually get to an acceptable outcome without resort to admins. Admins are not referees; editors are expected to have their own negotiation skills. The lengthy post at User talk:Wgfinley#Please... is not persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC) I was sanctioned for WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:TE. I didn´t done any of them. I never doubled any venue (it was allegedly for my Jimbo´s thread, which is different from any other), and I didn´t edited the article... I am the one being obligated to loose time, while none of you provided me a sigle diff where a specific policy can be seen as broken, and by now, both of you seem to be ignoring the diffs I presented where is clear than none of my actions were disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Come on EdJohnson, by now is pretty clear both of you are avoiding to review this sanction of mine, and you are completely unable to provide any single diff of mine to justify the sanction simply because there is no diff to be presented, as I didn´t done anything wrong. You are just making games with me, telling me to be concise so you can give me generalistic excuses, and when I get into details, then you say you have no time to read it... I presented you both a detailed chronological diffs of the events. Both of you just give me weak excuses, "you forumshop" when I show you that I didn´t, you say "you made tendetious edits", when I demonstrate you that I didn´t even edited, you find allways something else... now you even go as far as "disliking" a report of mine, or blaming me for the lenght of the mediation... come on, ridiculous. You can´t demonstrate my foult in even one of these accusations, and even if you could, lets suppose, in one of them, do I deserve a 6 months sanction? I already suffered an unfair sanction from FPS, and I took it bravely without having one single problem with 6 months 1RR/48 limit. Now, I am not here to be sacrificed again. I am really not sure why are you doing this... I notece now how the two of you were preparing the ground at my AE, and naive me, I didn´t bothered to paint you the picture as I had consideration for you and I thought you want ever do a mistake as this one... I am allways repeating, I am able to clarify you whatever doubts you have, but I start to think that you don´t want me to clafify anything, you just want to stick with this unfair punishment. FkpCascais (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC) It is fine if you want to ask User:Sunray and User:Nuujinn to comment here. I've already asked User:Causa sui. He is the admin who decided to protect Yugoslav Partisans for three days on 20 December. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Having checked the discussion between you and Causa sui at User talk:Causa sui/Archive15#Further protection needed I think I see a problem. You admit that the people on the other side have 'advantage in numbers.' Per the principles of WP:DR it is up to you to work with others and see if you can persuade *them*. In your discussion with Causa sui you admit you are in the minority, but you want Causa to keep the article protected anyway: "Causa sui, I just want someone to help me to enforce a discussion in order to archive consensus and avoid the same old situation that lead us here." What do you mean, 'enforce a discussion?' If you try to persuade the others but do not succeed you might consider opening up a WP:Request for comment to bring in more people. Asking admins to enforce the *minority* position that you favor is not part of their mandate. If the attitude you present in the Causa sui discussion reflects your usual approach to these matters, it does suggest why it might be hard for you to negotiate successfully. If you find yourself not convincing the others after a thorough and wide-ranging discussion you should let the matter go. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC) If I come to be hypothetically completelly wrong on the discussion, how can I be punished so severely for having only discussed? I didn´t edited the article, I didn´t edit-warred, and I took a break long before you punished me. I only discussed. How can I be punished for discussing? That was the first part, the second would be if you are willing to see if I am "wrong", or not, because I am certainly not some maniac ignoring sources, I have my reasons and they are backed by policies. Also, the other users took the opportunity to add that edit while User:Nuujinn was on hollydays, a long standing editor who shares the same concerns about the same edit and sources, as seen Talk:Chetniks/Archive_5#Discussion_of_content (see bottom). The issues are not that simple. First there is an issue about having only a minority of sources describing events as such, and second, and what was mainly in question here, would that be enough for WP:LEDE?. You can´t punish me for following the policies and discussing. If you notece, I never opposed adding the content into the article (I said it repeatedly), but I did opposed them to add it streight to the lede. Neverless, I was always open and favourable for a 3rd part to check things and help us. I have been very carefull there. I can explain you everything, sumarised of course, about the sources problem. However, even that doesn´t change the fact that even if I come to be wrong, how can I be punished if I limited myself to discuss? FkpCascais (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC) You have been a participant in more than one long-running discussion that failed to reach a conclusion. That tends to reflect discredit on some or all of the parties, since we expect people to be able to work through the system to reach agreement, without any need for admins. The case at WP:AE was a complaint about your participation at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans. It stated: It is evident that FkpCascais is gaming the system and does not wish to participate in a proper discussion, but get users who disagree with him blocked by any means necessary and coerce admins. This is just the latest episode, but Fkp has a history of using whatever evasive techniques possible in order to dismiss sources and sourced information: he misquotes policies, seeks further protection, and flat out ignores sources. When all this failed he went on this spree you see above. Although you edited the article itself only minimally, it is hard to see you as participating in the discussion in good faith. Your complaint at ANI on 22 December seems particularly misguided. Then you went to Jimbo's talk asking for AniMate to be *sanctioned* since he responded to the ANI and did not favor your position. It seems you are prepared to attribute bad motives to anyone who disagrees with you. The original complaint that you were gaming the system appears justified. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) (If I can just post a quick comment here, I do not intend to further participate in this thread.) While I am, of course, a participant in the discussion myself, I think it is an objectively demonstrable error to generalize guilt with respect to the length of this dispute. I submit that FkpCascais' activities in all these discussions, unlike those of most other participants, consist for the most part of attempts to suppress, manipulate, and even blatantly ignore sourced material brought-up by others. No similar claim can realistically be made of any other participant. In all these months and years, I dare say I cannot remember the user ever bringing-up a single source he has researched himself, and I cannot recall a single occasion when he wrote an even marginally noticeable contribution to any of these articles. Yet he sees fit to repeatedly, again and again, attack even the most acclaimed publications and scholars on the most inappropriate, personally-invented, and offensive grounds (such as that of their ethnicity, e.g.). But that of course is just the first line of defense with FkpCascais; as one can note on this talkpage as well: he is incredibly persistent and motivated. There are threads and threads dedicated to FkpCascais' various source-evasion tactics as even a cursory glance can show. The fact that the user is agenda-driven is blatantly apparent, and I am not afraid to say he is a textbook-definition POV pusher who cares very little indeed about actual facts and sources. I do not care if he's sanctioned or how severely, but no matter what this fellow simply must be warned to adhere to WP:V. The problems will resurface again and again until this user's immensely disruptive problem with adherence to sources is solved one way or another. When someone brings up six sources he needs to know he won't have to argue for days with FkpCascais because he personally thinks their claim is "exceptional". The hours upon hours of wasted effort towards "convincing the unconvincable User:FkpCascais" need to be diverted towards improving the article. -- Director (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC) OK, instead of responding to this propagandistic essays, let´s see events chronollogically: INTRO: Article Yugoslav Partisans, discussions Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation, Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Content_dispute and Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Protection. 1 - DIREKTOR insers porly sourced material and edit wars to keep it in place. 2 - I notece it and open a discussion. 3 - "Others" get upset with me. 4 - I analise the edit and expose its flaws. 5 - DIREKTOR intentionally avoids content discussion and diverts into personal remarks. 6 - I keep cool. Peacemaker admits sourcing problems in the edit. 7 - DIREKTOR&co. keep on loosing time and making personal remarks, waiting for the protection to be lifted. 8 - After ANI, he rushes and brings the same sources Nuujinn has already expressed concerns for. 9 - Causa sui has good faith and recomends discussion instead of edit-warring. 10 - Just as I suspected, only 5 hours after the protection was lifted, DIREKTOR reverts and restores the same challenged [porly sourced edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yugoslav_Partisans&action=historysubmit&diff=467461484&oldid=467432783] (notece the nationalistically based edit, adds ethnic cleansing to Serb Chetniks, and makes a separate section "Croatian Partisans" where he removes in top of that, the source about ethnic composition about Serbs being majority among Partisans in Croatia). 11 - I take a break, I don´t revert, I don´t edit, I´m fed up. 12 - Knowing I´ll be a stone in their shoe and challenging their unsourced edits, Peacemaker makes an effort to improve the article. However, their will to eliminate me and make total possession of the articles make them to continue to try to eliminate me: first at ANI then on Wp:AE 13 - (13, coincindence number?) Some admins, for unknown reasons, decide to give them all credit, and none to me, and I got 6 months of topic ban without even knowing well why, and without breaking a single policy. About DIREKTOR, I need nothing to say, better leave others non-involved to do it. EdJohnson, DIREKTOR is a highly tendentious and problematic editor, who never works towards consensus, but allways to eliminate editors disagreing with him. He has a constant win/loose approach that makes working with him impossible (many can confirm this). Over this issue, many had left, not because he prooved them to be right, but because they simply don´t have time to constantly fight with him. One rightfully opposing him with policies should never ever be punished just because that is the easier solution. This is becoming a serios matter on WP, and he continuosly gets to manipulate the situations with support often using unfair methods, turning him from disruptive into a victim. One alone finds itself really in an extremely hard situation, and this is really too much, as I did (as mostly) absolutelly everything by the guideline, and even so, you got manipulated, incredible! For God sake, I counted him over 80 reverts on Chetniks article alone, and I was lazzy to go further! Please check it on the edit history of the article. The same situation happends in all other articles he choosed to own. FkpCascais (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (Older post now, as DIREKTOR has commented above. This was the answer to your last comment directed to me) - The fact that consensus is not archived at those discussions is my fault? Should I ignore WP policies just because many other users want to? I don´t think so. You are taking the words from a user who is actually in disagreement with me (without any valid diffs, btw), giving him all the credit, and ignoring my reasons. I had all the right to ask for help at ANI (notece I never asked no one to be blocked, another missinformation), as I was the only one by then who analised the sources. Even Peacemaker agreed with me at the discussion itself! I asked them to bring the sources, and they didn´t bothered, bringing them only after I complained at ANI, something I waited until the last moment (hours before the protection will expire), and the same one Nuujinn already expressed many concerns (they were actually gaming the system by not bringing the sources until the last moment, so I couldn´t actually see them). Also, you can see how the only uninvolved user commenting actually said the exact opposite and was way harder than even myself towards the user I complained about. Now, what happend afterwords at the report is simply not my fault. An admin simply should not privide direct phalse statements at ANI reports (and AniMate insisted and made it twice!). As it is a matter of sysops, I asked for advice at Jimbo´s page, is there a policy against it? Anyway, what do you mean that the report was "misguided"? FkpCascais (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC) The editors who complained at AE seem to be saying that you argue endlessly and tend to evade the issue. What you have presented here on my talk page seems to be an example of that. Let's go back for a moment to your protection request to User:Causa sui. You seem to think that it was unfair that there were more people on the other side of the debate, and you wanted the article protected in the version that you favor. Frankly, this is silly. I have been told by User:GiantSnowman that you make good contributions to football articles, and I would urge you to continue your work there. You do not seem to be able to reason calmly and persuasively in these nasty ethnic matters about former Yugoslavia, and it seems unlikely you will be able to do good work there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC) EdJohnson, numbers don´t matter, arguments do. You didn´t presented a single valid diff showing my contributions violate any policy, neither that my complain was not rightfull. I am as equally good editor at any area of WP because my approach is based on policies, only that here seems to be a particular reason to remove me, even without having any valid diff for that. It didn´t matter to me which version was in place, I just wanted to reach consensus and get help from some admin to assist us. It is all but fair to say that "I avoid the issue", as I am the only one directly adressing each and every issue and allways supported by diffs. You are very pretentious to "send me" to edit football, while punishing me without being able to present a case against me. Your last excuse is that you beleave I wan´t be able to make good work there, no words for that. I was direct in my answers to your questions, please see them. FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC) As Fkp has requested "valid diffs", here they are: 1. Laz makes a series of edits in which he inserts information previously discussed and removes paragraphs of referenced information. [23] He is reverted. 2. You are then canvassed by Laz into the matter. Him being fully aware of your views. 3. You then proceed to policy shop in order to have information which you simply dislike not included. You use whatever possible "roadblock" you can, but despite this all these attempts fail: First you said it was an exceptional claim [24] Then you ask for more sources: "Is that the best source? You need further backing" [25][26] Then after another source is brought in you claim it's unreliable. [27] [28] Then you claim that there is "no scholar consensus" while failing to present sources of your own at any point. [29] Now you argue WP:LEDE. 4. You go to Toddst1 and request intervention. [30] 5. You report DIREKTOR for "trolling and disruptive behavior" and urge "adequate actions" be taken against him. [31] This leads nowhere. 6. AniMate voices his opinion on the matter. You do not take a liking to this and accuse him of "misinforming" and "lying" [emphasis in original]. [32] You report him to Jimbo Wales and state that your "attempts" at the Admin's noticeboard were "sabotaged". [33] 7. You open an SPI on participant, Peacemaker67. [34] This also fails and you ask the admin who closed the SP investigation to "reconsider". [35] Again it's evident that Fkp games the system: He policy shops using whatever reason to get rid information he simply dislikes. He rampantly admin shops and attempts to coerce admins into doing his bidding: first to Causa sui page for protection, second to Toddst1 for intervention, third to Jimbo Wales' for the sanctioning of AniMate, and then to HelloAnnoying for the SPI of Peacemaker. It's also evident that Fkp sees Wikipedia as a battleground. He views "DIREKTOR&co" as a collective opposing force who carry out "offensives" [36] and even considers the Yugoslav Partisans article to be in our "possession". [37] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC) I discussed with you the sources, and I mentioned the polices to be applied, even Peacemaker agreed your edit was not good. It doesn´t matter if LAz called on my talk page, or not, because I had already been active on discussions on that article, and I had it on my watchlist for some time, despite the edit being from an exact area we were discussing earlier. About the reports, please present reasons why you beleave the reports are wrong (you too EdJohnson, as you said one of the reports was "misguided", please explain). PS: I see no braking of policy in any of the diffs you presented. FkpCascais (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC) While I was writting this comment, you closed the thread without me knowing, so don´t charge me now for "not respecting your closure" or something (I wouldn´t be surprised by now)... I wouldn´t have written this comment if I knew the thread was closed. Just as note... FkpCascais (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AE 2

What will happen with the second AE report on Son of Setanata here, as you have mentioned it in closing the first will I remove it or do you just archive it? Mo ainm~Talk 17:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have closed it as moot. The editor is already blocked for behavior that includes his edit warring on 13 January, so new inquiry is not needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Mo ainm~Talk 17:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AECOM page edits

Regarding the AECOM Wikipedia page, this is user Ekr219. I understand where you are coming from regarding company-generated content on the AECOM page. Our communciactions are frequently picked up by top-tier media outlets. To meet your objectivity requirements, we will begin to link to AECOM items from these news outlets so there can be no mitake that these publications trust our content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekr219 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban clarification

Hello. Could you please clarify me if flags and emblems are within the scope of the topic ban imposed to me? FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What FkpCascais is asking is whether his Balkans-subjects t-ban prevents him from opposing my recent edits on the subject of Yugoslav flags and emblems. I know this because he told me so on my talkpage and tried to avoid the sanction by starting one of his conflicts there [38] (since obviously my talkpage it isn't technically a Balkans article). For the record, I would not be at all surprised if FkpCascais continued such activities as this for the next six months. -- Director (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop stalking me around? Your edit warring and breaking of WP:BRD on those articles is enough. You immediatelly took advantage of my ban to change what was established by the intervening admin back then (the separation of articles) and now you are edit-warring a completelly different user (actually a hr.wiki admin). You ask him to discuss, while it is you who was reverted and should not edit-war and discuss instead. Try to be a policy following wikipedian for a change. FkpCascais (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

FkpCascais, the wording of your ban means you must avoid the *topic* of the Balkans anywhere on Wikipedia. Thus it includes the discussion of any flags used in former Yugoslavia. You are not allowed to discuss Yugoslavia-related issues with anyone, even on user talk pages. Thus you should not have asked this question of DIREKTOR. You can still ask questions about the scope of your ban with admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruslik defacing RfC

Hi slakr, Salvio, & Ed,

User:Ruslik0 is now defacing the RfC, and even edit warring over it. Could you speak with him? There's something very wrong here.

1. As the RfC page recommends, I set aside a section for "Threaded discussions". I also created sections for references and quotations. I specifically asked that comments be kept to the discussion section, because we need to keep the refs and quotes spare and accessible so we can refer to them easily, and I knew there would be someone like Ruslik who would not be able to allow a ref or quote pass without pasting his POV all over it. (Actually, I figured it would be him, because he has in the past said that quotes are "lies", even when they are accepted as legit by everyone else, and linked to their sources online, as these are.) And voilà, he pastes his comments all over the quotes. (He is, of course, welcome to add any bits I overlooked, or to correct any errors I made, or to add completely new sources that support his POV: that's what these sections are for.) And he posts comments like "You are again lying here" where I literally clipped and pasted the lines out of the ref. Does he not understand what a quotation is?

2. There is a discussion section dedicated to the tables and 4 bodies Brown says are DPs but the IAU does not. It's called "The tables"—a neutral title, where people can say whatever they like. Ruslik added a new section, called it "Remove Orcus, Sedna, Quaoar and 2007OR10", and put it at the very top, presumably because he thinks it's the most important. It says the same thing he already said in the tables section, and so is completely redundant except for pushing his POV into the structure of the RfC.

And, of course, when I clean up his mess, he edit wars over it.[39][40] (I didn't do his work for him and separate out and save his legit edits. He can do that himself.) If we cannot have a serious RfC, we'll need to go to mediation. But maybe I'm unduly pessimistic and he really doesn't understand how this works, or is one of those people who comments on references without actually reading them, and might respond to instruction from you? — kwami (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi EdJohnston, I briefly forgot about the TBAN and made an edit to Catholic Church and abortion in the United States which I promptly reverted. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Every day a new problem with the same user...

I will please ask you to either remove my topic-ban (as there is scarse evidence of any disruption by my side; and you even ended avoiding to answer my questions earlier where I still fail to understand why am I topic-banned at all), or otherwise at least warn DIREKTOR about his every-day incidents. The latest one is directly related to me, as he abusively cites me in discussions:

---

DIREKTOR´s comment:

@Joy we had two disambiguation pages, two flag articles, and two coa articles - now we just have two articles. The reason why the articles remained separate for so long is that FkpCascais (who's now topic-banned for tendentious pro-Chetnik editing) really liked to have an article where the royalist Yugoslav coa was displayed as prominently as possible. That's why I call them POVFORKS. No matter how you look at it, its nonsense to have six or four utterly insignificant stubs instead of two marginally useful articles - especially when that is common practice. By the logic used to seperate those two we might also add two more articles for the semi-royalist/semi-socialist WWII Democratic Federal Yugoslavia as well, since it too had a whole seperate set of flags and emblems along with a different political system... -- Director (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ex13, I have to ask, are you restoring the Karađorđević symbols article at the behest of the pro-Chetnik user FkpCascais? I have to ask since he has been lobbying all over the place. -- Director (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

---

This is pure abuse and provocation. I have explained numerous times to that user that I am not a Chetnik simpatizer, and if that user doesn´t have any other arguments at those discussions but needs to bring derrogatory (in his way) labeling of me, than really seems to be something wrong here. I will openly and directly tell you that you sanctioned the wrong person here. While there is not even one clear diff to explain my t-b, this user collects every-day incidents... and this one on my expenses. FkpCascais (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

He is also providing phalse information, because I never lobbied no one over that issue, what I did was just opening a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology a long time ago, and you are free to confirm if I ever lobbied anyone as DIREKTOR claims. This is what I am confronted every day here on WP, and that type of comments and provocative phalse presentations is what is the base of all unhealthy environment that the Balkans topics have. FkpCascais (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FkpCascais is on safe ground as long as he makes no Yugoslavia-related edits and does not discuss Yugoslavian issues with other editors. If he were to request someone else to make an edit for him that would be bad, but I see no evidence of that. I encourage DIREKTOR not to refer to anyone as a 'pro-Chetnik user.' User:DIREKTOR might be losing his temper at Talk:Flag of Yugoslavia and perhaps he could take a break from that discussion. The best possible place to have a nationalist or ethnic dispute is on an article about flags, and I assume that we'd all rather avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I am mentioned by name I feel I have to say something. I myself am surprised that FkpCascais is somehow offended at being described as "pro-Chetnik". I do not think that is a personal attack, the Chetniks were a war faction - its like saying someone is "pro-British" in his dispositions. And moreover, I think just about anyone involved in the previous Chetniks discussions can attest to the fact that the user is indeed always, and I mean exclusively, very strongly disposed towards the Chetniks. Its all he does at those discussions and I believe it is very obvious on every single talkpage where they took place. Personally, I very much doubt the user is indeed offended by the comment, at least to the degree he professes. I suspect this is simply the latest attempt to prevent developments on that article. After trying to discuss on my talkpage, and trying to get permission to edit "flag articles" (without mentioning they were Yugoslav flag articles), it seems he's now actually trying to get me blocked so I can't introduce the changes.

I mean, its as I said, FkpCascais is likely not going to stop coming here and trying to get his sanction lifted or trying to take "revenge" on me and others who participated in his having been topic banned. Far from taking a break from Yugoslavia-related articles, he's continuously scanning them and trying to influence them. I am personally sick of seeing the user lobbying with this or that admin to have me and others sanctioned. It is a continuation of his forum-shopping behavior and admin-coaxing. -- Director (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki evidence

I just saw your comment about user:TrevelyanL85A2 at AE and your warning to him in his user talk. You say that you would consider sanctioning him based on the conclusion that he's an acquaintance of mine. Please clarify something: When I was first accused of being a meatpuppet in this thread, both admins there agreed that in the absence of any existing Arbcom ruling about an editor being a meatpuppet, AE cannot create a finding of fact about it. Ultimately I was topic banned based on a technical connection to Captain Occam due to WP:SHARE, but that obviously isn't the case with TrevelyanL85A2.

As far as I know, all arguments for TrevelyanL85A2 being a meatpuppet rely on off-wiki evidence, which can't be discussed in public. Standard policy for any decision involving off-wiki evidence is that it can only be made by Arbcom, not at public noticeboards like AE. Arbcom is already aware of the evidence in TrevelyanL85A2's case since Mathsci has emailed arbitrators about it numerous times, as he stated in the amendment thread. Being aware of this evidence, Arbcom has declined to take any action. Stifle and Slp1 explained in the earlier AE thread why only Arbcom can make a finding of fact about someone being a meatpuppet, and that's doubly so when the decision relies on off-wiki evidence.

This matters to me because I've had many problems with WP:OUTING directed at me in the past, and the reason why off-wiki information can only be examined by Arbcom is to avoid outing issues. Arbcom is aware that this has been a problem for me in the past, and I was told here that they've decided I should not have to answer questions about TrevelyanL85A2 in public. I'm very concerned that your suggestion to handle off-wiki evidence at AE is going against policy as well as against the decision Arbcom has made, and that it will encourage more of the same outing problems that these things were meant to prevent. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer that you make any arguments of this kind in the AE thread. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea - posting about this at AE will just encourage more of the same outing problem. In the comment I linked, Jclemens said that people shouldn't be asking questions in public that involve off-wiki info. But if I post something about this at AE, other editors will likely view it as an invitation to challenge me about this, and ask more of the personal questions that they shouldn't be asking. This happened once already in the amendment thread, and I don't want to encourage it to happen again. Since you are suggesting that an editor be topic banned at AE based on off-wiki evidence, I think it should be your responsibility to make sure this decision conforms with policy and with what Arbcom has decided. In this case it doesn't look like it does, so I am politely requesting that you reexamine your decision. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)