User talk:EdJohnston

How anonymous editors can leave messages If you want to leave a message for me and you are unable to edit this page, post at User talk:EdJohnston/Anontalk where I will see your comment.

Looks like Velebit, smells like Velebit...

Hi EdJohnston, Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.[1] refers.

Talk back

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

data

see User_talk:Sean.hoyland#Data behind your ANI post. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's interesting. A few points:

• The data probably needs footnotes to show how certain things were determined. E.g. how did you figure out which edits should be marked as sock edits?
• Can you interpret the history since April 2012 to say whether the article was making 'progress' by some criterion?
• Can you tell from your data whether more 'progress' was made during the periods of semiprotection? It looks like protection was applied three times.
• Can you characterize the IP edits. How often did IPs make changes that were not vandalism, not socking, not obviously POV, and seemed to be well-intentioned. This might help determine if long-term semiprotection should be considered.

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at these points. Footnotes/sock identification etc and a more detailed breakdown of the IP edits should be possible (although see my comment here about Special:Contributions/SquidooSepul and the ineffectiveness of semi-protection). I'll see if there is obvious uncontroversial evidence of progress but I'm keen to keep decisions about the data as deterministic/repeatable as possible. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know I'm still working on this although I've hit some snags that complicate things (e.g. User_talk:Pluto2012#1948_Arab.E2.80.93Israeli_War). I'm including talk page edits over the same period too for a fuller picture. I would like do the same kind of analysis on a couple of other articles in the topic area to get a broader overview. I'm not sure whether 1948 Arab–Israeli War is atypical/exceptionally prone to disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, see below. I haven't had much free time for Wikipedia recently so it took a while.

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - article results (PDF)
• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - talk page results (PDF)
• 1948 Arab–Israeli War OpenOffice spreadsheet
  • The spreadsheet contains the following sheets
  • article results - same as the PDF
  • talk page results - same as the PDF
  • article data
  • talk page data
  • sock details
  • non-sock IP details

As before, you can view it with Excel (although it will reformat the results graphs, whereas the PDFs match OpenOffice). I've included details for the socks and non-sock IPs as background information for the categorization. I've also tried to look at differences between semi-protected and unprotected periods. I had a go at subjectively classifying the 60 edits by non-sock IPs to break them down into 3 sets, vandalism, inconsequential/minor fixes etc and improvement, but only for the article data, not the talk page data. Identifying vandalism was easy, whereas the difference between inconsequential/minor fixes etc and improvement was fuzzy and there would probably be slightly different results if I or anyone else repeated it. I haven't been able to see whether the article was making 'progress'. The diff between the start and end date contains too many changes for me to be able to say anything meaningful about that. I haven't had a chance to do something similar for a few more ARBPIA articles to get a broader view. I still think that would be useful but my time is a bit limited at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a start at looking at your material. A significant point may be that 1948 Arab-Israeli war was placed under PC2 protection on 11 January, as a result of the ANI thread that you started. This may have a dramatic effect on sock editing, because it will be tough for socks to ever get the 'reviewer' user right. Also there are only a few reviewers, apparently between 1,000 and 2,000. (I can't find the actual number). It will be interesting to see if PC2 makes the overall editing better or worse. Better, due to lack of socks, or worse, because it raises the barrier for people who might otherwise want to contribute. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

When articles are protected like this, socks will just go elsewhere. The topic banned editors who sock in ARBPIA aren't going to stop and SPI reporting doesn't stop them. The sample from this particular article includes AndresHerutJaim, Lutrinae and NoCal100 socks. All three of those topic banned editors are active much of the time in the topic area. Special:Contributions/190.16.238.155 is AndresHerutJaim from yesterday, Lutrinae is probably currently active as an editor I won't name as there isn't enough evidence for an SPI (or at least there isn't enough time to look at it properly) and NoCal100 is always around, usually with multiple active accounts, participating in AfDs, at RSN, following editors in the topic area etc (see User:Sean.hoyland/socks for blocked accounts but there will certainly be many more that haven't been blocked). Yes, it will be interesting to see the effects of PC2. What might happen is article development slowing down (assuming it was happening in the first place). I think a large proportion of edits in the topic area are reactive, made in response to socking and POV pushing, rather than related to actual article development and building an encyclopedia. The disruption probably reminds editors that they have an article watchlisted and makes it more likely that they will edit something else in the article. Perhaps the 1RR restriction has a similar side effect of speeding up article development because it only restricts the actions of individuals rather than forcing the entire set of editors involved in a dispute to follow the D part of WP:BRD once the BR parts have happened i.e. edit wars attract editors, and once editors are there, other things in the article get fixed by people who know how to fly below the 1RR restriction. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

request for documentation of an edit

Hi,

I expect that this will come up again, so I request that you document why you made this edit.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian already declined to block Reyk in his response on 8 January, with the suggestion that you pursue dispute resolution if you were not satisfied. If a discussion at AN3 continues many days after closure, that is usually a sign that the matter should be submitted somewhere else. The only remaining possibility for admin action was to start enforcing WP:NPA on the continued sniping (including 'tiresome windbag' from Reyk), and closing the report seemed the better option. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a t-shirt

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Your 3RRN posting reminded you what a bitchin' admin you are. Have a t-shirt! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, WLU! EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Sock Puppetry

User:Serafin
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding the IP numbers in the discussion section all are mine enters. I do not register myself as an user since the miserable characters who make revenge on all you Wikipedia works wherever you go. Let me know where is the rule about IP entires as sockpupetry. It would be unconsistent. I need not to register as user, and I do not pretend at my entires as diferent persons. I think I express myself clearly - If i do not pretend to be multiperson I am not sockpupet. I hope the restiction on History2007 are equal and he can not follow his will in present sytuation. The issue I will disscuse on talk page of the article hopping for administrator resonable final. I provided the modern resources which set the date of bird and date of death. It is also clear that the lost years are between the age 12 to the year(s) of ministry. I am going to introduce the time table of Jesus' live - and the reader can count himself. History2007 had been asked about the 15-18 digits - how they were counted. He however did not reveal if he counted it himself or the method used in the old sources 1989 and 1999. In that condition I feel only his stubbornness and self fluffiness only. Regarding Joshua Jonathan I will not comment very much, it is amusing that so many people assuming that number of votes NO means something in scientific work. Facts and logic are deciding – this is the rule of independent experienced editor to judge the facts and logic not the numbers of NO. I do not think the short entrance by Joshua Jonathan is factual, as well as others editors who do not provide detailed scientific info. Finally because Joshua Jonathan follows so callously History2007 I have filling the History2007 and Joshua Jonathan are the same person.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC) This must be about [2]. See WP:SOCK. We sometimes make exceptions when people are new, but you seem to be experienced. You are certainly capable of registering an account if you want to participate in hot disputes. If you use a fluctuating IP, you have no permanent talk page where people can leave you messages. Your suggestion that History2007 and Joshua Jonathan are the same person raises questions about your judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Dear Sir, I ask for section (apropirate text)about sockpuppetry, also the exception you sugest is not writen fundation so any word of this kinde is, let say overgrow. The hot dispute is, and should be (in my opinion) better in Talk Page in whole, so I resigned from registering as a result from personal "followers" of my future work. As you can see people do not like logic and answer to simple questions. Thery are vendictive (the closer example is Joshua Jonathan) who ask if more restiction will be on IP. My judgement about Joshua Jonathan and History2007 is base of several momentary apperance of both when I was envolved in conversation with only one. are they only so close "friend" in spiryt? The conflict was put on the pinhead about the citation by History2007. The citation gives wrong number thus I removed digits (not authors) after he decided to remove description of counting with different resources. I was hoping that will end the conflict. I did not. I will live the citation and digit but I will introduce appropriate table for reader to count. If History2007 will oppose I will return to you. This is unreasonable from History2007 to block any newer approach, I hope that time you will be able judge also his character.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC) What an amazing waste of time after all. It was the indef user:Serafin anyway. History2007 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

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.

PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Read and replied. The situation does not appear to be a current problem. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I sent you another inquiry on a semi-unrelated matter. Sorry to bug you. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Good Olfactory's talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmlov Zappa

Hi Ed, remember I promised to keep you posted on Mmlov's edits at Zappa? Well, I seems that I had accidentally removed Zappa from my watchlist, but I still had Mmlov's talk page on it, so I just now noticed that he got blocked for this edit and summary. Needless to say, I undid the edit and added Zappa to my watchlist again. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Herrera

Dear EdJohnston,

You should see what's happening. Like, for example Salvador Dalí, he's also the 1st Marqués de Dalí de Pubol, so that is in her first page. Well, I think that we maybe could not mention her husband at the first part. So, I think that this way, please, see now the article, would be better. You should understand that that's a millennial tradition, and Carolina Herrera, as Salvador Dalí, even not using it, she is, and so the title must be mentioned at the first part. I think that now would be better. Also I recommend to you, to see about the Duchess of Cadaval on the Talk:Carolina Herrera (fashion designer). 'cause there we've lots of sources about the Duchess ( the highest title in the Portuguese nobility). Also, I would like that you read what I said to DGG:

" The Duchess of Cadaval came out constantly in the social press in general, especially in the royal magazines, because, as The Duchess of Cadaval, she's the Head of the House of Cadaval, that descends of the Portuguese Royal House, and that's relative of all the European royal house, including the House of Windsor, and therefore relative of your Queen (the Queen of the Americans, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II); and she's also married with Prince Charles-Philippe d'Orléans, that's a grandson of the Count of Paris, the King of France de jure, and also very very well-known in France and Europe. Also her sister is married to the heir of Hermès."

That's very important, besides the links of the page that I put here (the Carolina Herrera article's talk page), 'cause there are lots of links about Her Excellency The Duchess of Cadaval, as she's also The Duchess of Anjou and Princess Diana of Orléans, by marriage - but The Duchess of Cadaval in her own right, and as she's known worldwide. About the US First Ladies, I put the two, and I never retired Jackie Onassis, just Michelle Obama, but now I put her one more time. I expect that you have a mind focused on the world, not only in the US world, 'cause the world is very big.

Regards,

--TheEconomissst (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, I've blocked Economissst for 48 hours because they did not respond to your warning on their talk page and reinserted the material. I would have delayed had they not continued the edit-war, even though their response above is, in my view, inadequate, but they chose to reimpose their own view on the article. Feel free to take any action, including unblocking, if you disagree with my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You're too quick for me! I was just getting set to do the same block. I'm specially impressed that he identifies Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of the Americans, above. I wonder if he is up to date on the last few hundred years of our history. The King of France de jure is also a nice touch. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you're gonna weave a tale ... Besides, there are probably still some Brits who believe America is part of the Commonwealth. The rest of what he says is gibberish to me. I have trouble even understanding what he's trying to say, let alone whether it's historically accurate. Nixie9 is being generous and praising his knowledge (after, of course, reverting him). I suppose we'll get some more historical tidbits when Economissst's block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Followup - in case you missed it on AN - Carolina Herrera does not even hold the noble title TheEconomissst advocated so vigorously on so many pages. It was retracted in 1992. I guess this is why we insist on reliable references. I have learned a lot about titles though, and did add the appropriate citations to the article. Without the constant reverting, I managed to rewrite and reference it more substantially last night.--Nixie9 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• BTW - Thank you both for interceding.--Nixie9 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi EdJohnston, FYI I've the block you logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review to the original case page. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

If you could spare an eye for Aaron Swartz it would be welcome. Two problems particularly strike me:

• Some people are very eager to insert categories and text to say that the subject was Jewish as prominently as possible. This began with comments on the talk page about the subject's "physiognomy". I think in this case it's inappropriate.

• We're also having a small edit war as editors seek to add denigratory material and remove favorable comments, citing various rationales.

This is a sensitive page and also conspicuous.MarkBernstein (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The user Arcillaroja

Dear Wikipedian,

I am Marina. I am writing to you in order to clarify my fears. One of the users have been reverting my edits on Western Europe, as well as other European-related issues. I noticed, that his or her page is full of talk page entries related just to that. Would you mind to stay in touch with me? I read about vandalism on Wikipedia and I fear this is one of these cases... I hope, of course that I am wrong but... the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. By evidence I mean Arcilla's talk page as well as entry, and the fact that rather than move a critical comment from user page to a talk page, it was simply reverted. --Martina Moreau (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)