User talk:EdJohnston

Your noticing of an arbitration enforcement sanction

EdJohnston: You recently suggested sanctions upon me at AE, and then subsequently took the action to close them out. Your notice explained you would answer questions. The standard form says you will take the time to respond. As you know above, I had attempted to get information from you prior to you closing the AE. A follower of your page, took the unusual step of commenting there, and then moving over to an AE they have no involvement with and supporting your decision. That seemed odd. My Questions are:

• 1. Do you believe you are an uninvolved administrator, to me, and this AE? Take into consideration our prior actions, and my myself specifically stating your involvement with me, specifically, prior to this AE.
• 2. I asked for what edits or my actions were a cause of concern, you never explain which. Why the lack of specificity? Why not explain.
• 3. The AE was created by an long time editor, who has had a series of conflicts with other editors, including CFCF, which they created an AE about also....in the process of the AE did you examine any of their actions?
• 4. In the AE, the only items raised before your recommendations to other Admins (note you were the first to make the recommendations of banning me)....was a series of edits which were reverted out. You will notice that the editor who did the revert was not a common editor to the page ever before, and another related page just had a sockpuppet reverting me. More specifically the items entirely in the AE were reverted out, and those reverts remained, and the discussion was ongoing in TALK. I do not understand how the BRD method of editing...becomes subject to an indefinite ban? Again you never references any differences in my edits, it seemed more like your personal frustration with doing anything with Ecig pages. Is that fair to say?
• 5. The first action that was ever suggested toward my editorship, regarding any type of official action or warning was your suggestion of a 6 month topic ban. How did you arrive at that figure?
• 6. Do you have a person frustration with E-Cigarette articles?
• 7. There was no finding or otherwise that I was an SPA with a POVpush in the AE. Did you use SPA as the basis of your recommendation anyways?
• 8. Why did you have me explain in TALK that I was not a sockpuppet, and accuse me of being a SPA (in the negative sense). Why did you make that request? Did you ever do a sockpuppet investigation on me?
• 9. What policy did you use to make the following recommendation to other Admins "He edits aggressively, but lacks experience. People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite"
• 10.If you feel that I edited aggressively, what edits were those after the first AE was rescinded? Can I see the Differences? Is aggressive your way of saying Bold, in the BRD process? How is aggressive different than bold?
• 11. AlbinoFerret notified multiple editors of the first AE he created on me. However the 2nd he did not. Yet he claimed other editors were effected beyond himself. When I put notified a comprehensive list of active editors that an AE was in process. You decided to close out the AE without getting there input. I had said that Doc James had said he would look at this. And he is a frequent editor and reviewer of these pages. Why did you not allow editors to comment before you closed out that AE?
• 12. When I asked you the above questions, in the previous subject listed above, you never responded, why?
• 13. Where you aware that the requestor of the AE, opened up a section on Spartaz page shortly after the first AE wanting to immediately open another AE on me? Spartaz never replied. But DeltaQuad was forced to ferret out a sockpuppet who was the person that reverted me. Where you aware that a sockpuppet was reverting my edits?
• 14. Did you follow the ARB and its ruling, when you began asking that I be banned for 6 months and then indefinitely, or were you using a different policy? If different, what policy. And which edits?
• 15. QuackGuru was sanctioned previously. You asserted as did the first AE, that I was their sockpuppet. Was your determination of 6 months Topic Ban then saying it should be indefinately premised upon a belief that I was QuackGuru, a sockpuppet, or an associate of any other editor?
• 16. When I asked for Full Protection on the pages, to the AE, which was provided for by the ARB, why did you disregard the request, even though it was your suggestion that it could be done inside of the TALK pages. Why did you an none of the others in AE every respond to that request? Why did you find that request unusual, noting that the ARB called out for it as an option?

As you know, I am tremendously disappointed, feel that processes were not followed, that yours and others acted like "hanging judges", and that your actions were exceedingly overkill, and indicitive of your prior involvement with me, to which you should have stepped back, and not twice said I should be banned for 6 months, when none of the other admins had remarked of any sanctions at both AEs. Being a person that believes in good processes, and knowing that Wikipedia can only function well if Admins take processes with due care, I am sure the time it takes to answer the question I have listed out, will be well spent for you. I can say I wish I did not need to spend the time on my side, but you know your decisions require the time of others. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff, the notice I left on your talk page explains your options for appeal. AE is one of our most heavily-documented processes, and I hope you can answer some of your questions just by reviewing the AE record. The most recent complaint about you was opened on Jan. 2 and closed on Jan. 9, which is enough time for a reasonable discussion. Three admins participated in the closure, and all of us supported a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, your instructions that you posted, offered that you would answer questions, and that I could appeal directly to your talk page, prior to do the appeals process. So I believe my questions are germane. There was not a dialogue or any questions asked in the AE, and while it was open for days, on an item that was already resolved in the TALK pages, there was no discussion of anything within the complaint made by AlbinoFerret. I do not know the basis for which you made your decision, beyond generic comments that could have been made about any editor, at any time. I was engaged actively in a dialogue with editors, and my edits were already reverted out, without 3RR The ARB did not place a 1RR on the pages. Nor was one placed on me. And I did not edit war. This is why number 9 above seems to be significantly excessive, but it is what your first recommended. I do not know why. This then would be my appealing to you, for you to rescind the sanctions or in some way make them appropriate to what you actually see in my edits. I have to say that it is unclear if you reviewed them to me, especially since they were resolved at the time the AE was generated. I want to make full availability of my options, so I am first appealing to you, and asking for clarification here. I think clarification is appropriate. Please let me know. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

To aid in my seeking clarification, and reconsideration, I would like to know if you were aware of this exchange started by Spartaz, with comments by the requester of the AE AlbinoFerret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:S_Marshall#Mystery_Wolff

Now S Marshall now resumes what were previously described by S Marshal as "drastic edits here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&oldid=699194574#Smoking_cessation

Of note is the removal of this from the article which is an important Study, that existed prior to any my editorship here. "A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group. "

That sentence was removed by S Marshal, I had replaced it, S Marshall agreed to not remove it. It was removed again, and then replaced by Doc James. It then became a proposal to have it removed again, which was abandoned, when I AE rescinded. It now has been taken up again. That is a very important study, and it was reviewed by Doc James. There have been no assertions I have been pushing a POV. Doc James reviewed the edit and kept it in, what is ironic is the complaint in the AE that your ruled on, was related to removing MEDRS content.

I do not believe you took any of these factors into your consideration, and perhaps were unaware that there was a tag team operating.(shown in links).

I fully agree that ECIGs is contentious, but this was/is long standing without regard to myself. I have operated well in this area, and my edits have for the most part not been challenged. The AE and your recommendation of 6 months does not seem to factor in any of this, and mistakenly attributes long standing issue, with my editing. There editors believed me to be a sockpuppet of QuackGuru who was an individual who was sanctioned out the the ARB. Ironically one of the editors who did revert me, was a sockpuppet, who DeltaQuad replaced and blocked, before the 2nd AE, in the same complaint made by AlbinoFerret to Spartaz on his talk page. CFCF also sanctioned in the controlling ARB was brought to an AE, and CFCF was given a warning. This is why, in part, I feel that your AE recommendation and ultimately the action, is far in excess of what my contributions merit. And why I would like you to reconsider. The ARB itself did not prescribe such harsh treatment as remedy, in its documentation. The first AE was on a different matter than the first also. My preference is to resolve this with you, and am open to some amounts of middle ground, 6 months is simply extreme, and not a fair reflection to my actual contributions to Wikipedia. Surely a through review for such a large sanction would talk into consideration these factors, and efforts by AE requester, making the assertions Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion my previous answers satisfy WP:ADMINACCT. None of your comments since the closure persuade me that the decision was wrong, so I urge you to pursue your other routes of appeal. If you continue to post here about the ban, you probably won't find my answers very satisfying. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You pointed me to a section which says "Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)." I have mostly been asking questions, have your read X, did you consider Y, what part of my comments did you have an issue with. Thats the real basic one you have not responded to, which edits, what things in talk. Those are reasonable questions. And yes I believe you should have responded, and I think it reasonable for me to be seeking those answers. Editors like myself, deserve more than just a rubberstamped TB across our foreheads. Your refusal to answer questions, has exasperated this entire process, from a non-admin's perspective. But yes I do understand you won't be examining this further. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please note, I have opened up an Appeal regarding your recommendation, you closure, and you involved nature to an AE where you indefinitely topic banned me. If you would like this notification to be done in a alternative format please tell me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Mystery_Wolff Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Feedback about page disputes

• Potiskum Emirate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed previous Wiki pages for Mai Umar Ibn Wuriwa Bauya had been deleted from wiki. I would like to remind you all that his royal highness was awarded a national honour of officer of the order of the Niger (OON) for the federal republic of Nigeria. I believe we should respect such exemplary leadership especially at this time when the region is facing adverse crisis. It is of concern that a group of people have set up this page 'potiskum emirate' just for the sake of spiting the good works of the potiskum emir and its supporters against oppressive groups in the area. We must all understand that we cannot use Wikipedia to spite the good work of other people. Wikipedia page for 'potiskum emirate' should be short and clear and without relating to the works or benefits of the Fika emirate. I believe the cause of this dispute is due to lobbying by the fika emirate followers which is hugely sad as it is spiting the good works of Mai Umar Ibn Wuriwa Bauya. I believe EDJohnston and SchroCat especially are using articles from the daily trust, Nigeria, and writing from a circular group which cannot be relied upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga.gatto.sa (talk • contribs)

If you want changes made to Potiskum Emirate you need to get support for your opinion by discussing on Talk:Potiskum Emirate. That article has been semiprotected after report of edit warring (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi EDJohnston thanks for your reply, I am glad to hear you are the administrator here - cheers! I am not here for a campaign but alerting you that you already have one going on already. Hence the on-going disputes. Both pages should be clear and simple if you agree.

Amendment request archived

The amendment request for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Vsevolod Chaplin and Patriarch Kirill

Hello. I was blocked illegally and ask you correct this. If you think that Im violator - you need delete this article totally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vsevolod_Chaplin (our team has relation to the ROC in Smolensk region and this article was started via our team). We use remote administration software - including. Does not exist any sock. You can ask User:Alex Bakharev https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vsevolod_Chaplin&action=history who can explain you (IPs are common team - not one man). I ask you unblock me. And I ask restore my contribution in the article ("under protection of RonaldR" - an admirer of Leon Trotsky and Marx). He created situation when began war of edits. Wikipedia must keep independence instead be slave of the 4-th International. The Russian Patriarh is not an agent of the KGB in English Wikipedia (via our team totally - by the way). He is living person and no of good proofs to write something other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaccy_Jaydy = 95.29.88.195 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC).

It looks like you are part of a campaign of sock editing at Marxism. Other admins have now issued blocks and semiprotection to curtail this. If you are here to boast about your ability to evade our defences, I don't see why I should humor you further. Your personal attacks against User:RolandR do not strengthen your case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaccy Jaydy. The use of 'ROC' as an abbreviation for the Russian Orthodox Church, and the use of 95.* IPs from Smolensk, was also seen in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you about Valenciano - it is very fun person (he uses the Need1521 for "all cases of life"). But you must remove any edit of Need1521 (by the way). Article about Chaplin (90% or even 100). Besides, Kirill must become an agent of the KGB again!, not only this issue. We saved reputation of Kirill on very good level. The ROC (if you believer - you will be sent in hell because you act against almost prior + you defend RobertR (who respects Red terror anywhere). You don't respect victims of Marx. He is worse than Hitler in 4 times. Iron fact! If you normal man - you need act as normal man (not supporter of the 4-th International and RobertR). Unblock me or - see above. Removal of Chaplin and Kirill - including. 95.29.88.195 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hello. Do you wish additional references for the article? 95.29.128.59 (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hello. Platform of European Memory and Conscience - project of the European Union (belongs to the EU). It was speech of Ján Čarnogurský (politician of the world level). Additional source can be used for the respecting this rule of Wikipedia on best level (original source to check). Having the original source, Wikipedia is sure that the EU is not against compare Marx with Goering. It was historical discussion. Exists even paper book. And exist opinions of many researchers, which say that Marxism has great relation to very bad things. The crimes of communists have relation to the Marxism forever. This is encyclopedic information. If Marx made something useful in other scope, nobody urges forget this. Additional source: the agenda (5 June, 2012), http://www.memoryandconscience.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Crimes2.wav.ff.mp3 (0:13:18 - 0:13:59) - Ján Čarnogurský says that Marx and Trotsky is nothing good (audio). - 95.27.113.132 (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

• Hello. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/FeaturesManager-View-EN.asp?ID=349 (number of victims and other information). - 95.29.138.156 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC).

TBAN violation again?

Since you were involved in this TBAN violation discussion [1] I wanted to ask you about this edit [2]. The link added is to the John_Birch_Society article. JBS is a conservative advocacy group founded by the Koch family. I would think that is a violation of both the post 2009 conservative politics and the earlier Koch topics ban. I wanted to ask your opinion in case you thought I was off base. Thanks Springee (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific

You said you wanted me to make a "voluntary offer to forestall a ban." I'm afraid I find this a bit vague. You need to be more specific. If I'm to agree to something, I need to know what it is in advance. As I said earlier[3], if you think that I did something wrong, please say what it is or else I can't address it. The response that I gave in the AE thread is the result of my guessing at your mind, and I'm pretty sure it's just muddying the waters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Lists" and whatnot...

Hi, Ed!

What about the rest of these pages? "Per consensus," shouldn't they all also be reverted to include the former "List of" title? I feel it would be best for all of the pages to follow the same lead... do you not agree? I look forward to hearing from you and also from Fortdj33 as well. Thank you (both) in advance for what I'm sure will be a prompt response. Cheers for now!Cebr1979 (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That move discussionwas closed by User:Jenks24. His closing message may give you some ideas on where to go from here. He suggested an RfC, since many articles on soap operas would be affected. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ya, but it was you who started it, remember? So... in essence... he was only following your original wishes so... What do you think? I mean, all of those pages were mentioned in the talk you originally alerted me to on my talk page... I think the consensus is to have them all reverted back. I'll wait for your next response before pursuing it further. I do find it odd, though, that you defer to Jenks24 without giving a response... "List of" is how you wanted things, no?Cebr1979 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please give a link to where you and I have discussed this previously. Also, if there were any other RMs or RfCs can you identify them. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Olympiacos B.C.

EdJohnston first of all I'd like to thank you for your admin work and your timely response. I'd like to ask you, should I revert the last edit by the ip user (he has blatantly violated 3RR) or should an admin take care of this? Thank you very much for your attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not offer your proposed change for consideration on the talk page? If nobody objects, go ahead and do it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't clear, I didn't revert the ip edit because I didn't want to violate the 3RR myself. As you can see I reverted it twice and I stopped there in order to report his violation. An admin also reverted it once, but the ip user kept going. Nevermind, I'll revert it myself, I am pretty sure the 24 hours have passed. Gtrbolivar (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding topic ban of Darkfrog24

I am contacting you because of your involvement in the topic ban that was placed against me. I would like to make the best of the next six months and am requesting your input on how best to do so.

What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule? My own take was to initiate no new threads or RfCs but participate in those started by others (which happens once or twice a year). This clearly was not something that you guys consider acceptable. What do you think I should do instead? Is it just that there was too much of it?

I notice that my offers to engage in a voluntary restriction were not accepted. What would you have seen as more suitable? Is it that I was asking you guys what you wanted me to do instead of making my own guesses?

What can I do over the next six months to give you guys confidence that I can be allowed to return to work?

I am understanding the topic ban to cover both MoS pages, articles concerning quotation marks, and their respective talk pages. Is this the case? Before I became involved, both Quotation marks in English and Full stop contained significant amounts of unsourced material and I am worried that that content will be returned. If I should happen to see such a case, am I allowed to notify someone else that the unsourced material is there?

I also feel that user SMcCandlish was not honest with you and should be treated as an outlier. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)