User talk:EdJohnston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thomas.W (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 17 April 2015 (→‎Problem with semi-protecting Urdu: added link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Request for reinstating indefinite topic ban on User:Ohconfucius

Greetings, Ed. I'd like to bring to your attention some edits by User:Ohconfucius, who was previously indefinitely topic banned from Falun Gong-related page. I believe his behavior warrants reinstating that ban, which was provisionally lifted last year (subject to some conditions).

In addition to several POV edits, a 3RR violation, and general inability to work constructively with other editors on these pages (details below), Ohconfucius has also reinstated an anti-Falun Gong personal essay in his user space against the explicit instructions of a member of the arbitration committee. This essay is wholly inappropriate, and insofar as it contains attacks against named individuals, groups, and specific Wikipedia editors, it also appears to violate several policies and guidelines including WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, and WP:POLEMIC.

Let me first remind you of the background. In July 2012, Arbcom voted to indefinitely ban OhConfucius from Falun Gong-related topics due to repeated edit warring, incivility, and violations of WP:NPOV (e.g. edits that misrepresented the positions of reliable sources). The direction of his edits was generally to improve the image of the Chinese government.

In April 2014, Ohconfucius appealed to lift the topic ban. He assured the arbitrators that he would not return to editing Falun Gong, but said he only wanted to restore his good name.

Seven arbitrators agreed to provisionally lift the ban with a probationary period of one year, stating that any admin could re-impose the indefinite topic ban if Ohconfucius again ran afoul of policy. One arbitrator added that his agreement was conditional and asked Ohconfucius to "steer well clear of matters of controversy" related to Falun Gong. [1]

Within two weeks, Ohconfucius reneged on his promises to Arbcom and returned to making controversial edits to Falun Gong-related articles.

He was brought back to Arbcom. The arbitrators again warned him again to apply caution. One arb asked him to "move on" from editing Falun Gong, and another (Seraphimblade) told him that he must permanently delete all of the anti-Falun Gong essays that he kept in his userspace or else he (the arbitrator) would request reinstatement of the indefinite topic ban. [2]

Ohconfucius again deceived the arbitration committee. He deleted the offending essays in his userspace, but soon after the ArbCom case was closed, he simply reposted a permalinked, older version on his user page, where it remains. [3] This only recently came to my attention.

He has also made several more edits that appear to violate WP:NPOV, some of which very closely resemble the edits he was initially banned for. Most of these edits involve deleting reliably sourced information on the Chinese government's human rights abuses, claiming material is not supported by sources when it actually is, and otherwise misrepresenting the sources. I can provide more details if needed on why these edits are problematic, if it's not obvious otherwise.

[4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Ohconfucius also violated the 3RR in a two-hour period on a Falun Gong-related topic Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. The other editor involved tried to start a discussion on the talk page, but Ohconfucius opted not to discuss.

These were the edits where he violated the 3RR:

Revert 1:

[17] – Misstates facts about the history and mandate of the 610 Office. User:TheBlueCanoe then did a partial revert and explained why on the talk page. [18] – Ohconfucius reverts without discussing (apparently convinced that he's right on points of facts. He's not.)

Revert 2:

[19] (at bottom of diff) – deletes information about the Chinese government's propaganda initiative because it was unsourced. [20] – a source was added, he deletes it again (bottom of diff).

Revert 3: [21] – deletes information that casts doubt on the Chinese government's narrative [22] – deletes again

Revert 4:

[23] – adds quote from Chinese government and omits Ownby views [24] – repeat

Revert 5:

[25] – deletes information about Mr. Tan in Chengde (he's actually right about this one, but a revert is a revert) [26] – deletes again

Finally, his conduct toward other editors doesn't seem to have improved. This talk page discussion is quite illuminating: [27]

Best regards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheSoundAndTheFury. You're concerned about recent edits by User:Ohconfucius. Consider reporting this at WP:Arbitration enforcement. If you do so, I recommend shortening your statement. I have to notice that many of these diffs are from 2014. You have argued that User:Ohconfucius broke 3RR in September, 2014 but I only see three reverts there. I agree that Ohconfucius sometimes leaves intemperate edit summaries. If it were up to me, I wouldn't do a topic ban, though some kind of warning might be justified. Some people claim he is pro-PRC, but my own review suggests he is more anti-Falun Gong, and he labels some of his opponents as 'FLG editors' when they may not be. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like your response, Ed. Yes, this is mostly rather old news, which makes it a little puzzling. When it came up before, I chatted with OC about his attitude to the topic, and noted that he felt perplexed as to the interpretation by some editors of that attitude: to him, there was unexplained tendency to frame him as being biased on either one side or the other, with precious little evidence. My own understanding from our conversations was that he's keen to seek balance between the pretty emotional arguments that sometimes engulf this topic. Tony (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ed. I left off a couple of the reverts. There were two more, which I've added above. Had a 3RR complaint been filed in a timely manner, this presumably would have resulted in a block. And per the terms of OhConfucius' parole period, any block in this topic area would automatically result in the restoration of the indefinite topic ban. See clerk's note here.
I'm happy to go to AE if necessary, but brought this directly to you because a) the terms of his "parole" say that any administrator can reinstate the ban if Ohconfucius again runs afoul of policy (presumably without going to AE, unless I've misread), and b) the one year mark of his parole period is ending soon. I think there should be some kind of review of his behavior before he is let off, hence the diffs from 2014. Also, see these words by @Seraphimblade: "If Ohconfucius' pattern of commenting on editors rather than edits continues or speculating on their motives, I'll be in favor of reinstating the topic ban. In that vein, I will be requesting reinstatement of the topic ban if you do not get rid of all of your userspace material on Falun Gong and leave it gone."
I also only recently noticed the restoration of the userspace essay in which Ohconfucius makes personal attacks against myself and several other editors (among other things). Restoring a polemical attack essay after being told to remove it (on two occasions, by two members of the arbitration committee) seems like an actionable offense. This edit was from just a few hours ago: [28]
I may ask some other arbs who instituted his one-year probation about how we may go about evaluating this and the user's other contributions to this topic space over the last year. Maybe it is AE. Either way, appreciated your input. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with your claim that he violated 3RR in September. Your counting is off. A string of successive edits counts as no more than one revert. Here is the listing of everyone's edits on September 9 and 10 at Tiananmen square self-immolation incident:
  • 21:54, 10 September 2014‎ Zujine (t | c)‎ . . (+836) (+836)‎ . . (Per talk page. I'm restoring info to lede, resolving a historical anachronism, and adding sources for previously removed detail.)
  • 05:28, 10 September 2014‎ BG19bot (t . c)‎ m . . (+2) (+2)‎ . . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix. Section heading problem. Violates WP:MOSHEAD.) (×)
  • 07:27, 9 September 2014‎ Ohconfucius (t . c)‎ . . (-1408) (+2)‎ . . [13]
  • 03:21, 9 September 2014‎ TheBlueCanoe (t . c)‎ . . (+743) (+743)‎ . . (Restoring some info to lead, restoring deleted info and resolving NPOV and factual issues (see talk))
  • 03:15, 9 September 2014‎ Ohconfucius (t . c)‎ . . (+376) (-19)‎ . . [4]
  • 02:51, 9 September 2014‎ TheBlueCanoe (t . c | block)‎ . . (+100) (+100)‎ . . (partial revert. Not the place to be propagandizing on behalf of the PRC government. Also adding source for deleted info.)
  • 02:45, 9 September 2014‎ Ohconfucius (t . c)‎ . . (-2202) (-1)‎
The above listing combines groups of successive edits. Since there are only three groups of edits by OhC on September 9, he made at most three reverts per the language of WP:EW. It takes four reverts in 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has not been involved in that content for some time, having recused myself from it, I have to say that based on my memory there were serious questions expressed regarding not only Ohconfucius, but other editors involved as well, and that, although I as I said have recused myself from that content, I believe it has rather degenerated into being more one-sided than it had been earlier. This raises questions at least in my eyes, about this being an attempt to "win through sanctions" in a content dispute, and I would suggest, possibly, that if the request here is found to itself be dubiously supported, that perhaps the requester be at least advised to not engage in perhaps dubious attempts to perhaps intimidate others, if not, in fact, to try to get a "win" through litigiousness. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I hadn't realized that multiple reverts performed consecutively – with no intervening edits – count as a single revert. I was just looking at the fact that he reverted different material each time. I'll be sure to characterize it properly going forward. Thanks again. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston, perhaps you could have a look at Organ transplantation in China - Ohconfucius added a copyvio template on 27 March, rendering much of the page invisible, and the issue hasn't been resolved since then. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Acknowledgment' sources of Mufaddal Saifuddin

You previously wrote "See my previous message where I explained how you can appeal. Your ideas for reaching neutrality, while they might seem like common sense to you, are not how it is understood on Wikipedia. We go by what the reliable sources write. Your theory that the article should basically be written by the Dawoodi Bohra is nothing like our policy. See Wikipedia:List of policies#Content. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)"

I have repeatedly used reliable sources and repeatedly pointed out that current sources are not reliable as per Wiki requirements. My sources included the Indian Prime Minister. Is that not reliable? I now give you the verifiable, reliable source that reports widespread 'acknowledgement' of Mufaddal Saifuddin as Syedna (leader of the Dawoodi Bohras) - as I had edited and you placed the ban as a result. This was not a 'declaration of a winner'. It should be quite sufficient now for the repeal of the ban you imposed.

Please also note that at no point have I stated I am a Dawoodi Bohra or not or whether I have any allegiance in this matter or not. Nor should I be required to and nor should it be assumed of me.Noughtnotout (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided to this newspaper article suggests that a court will begin to consider the succession on April 27. I suggest that we wait and see how that comes out. The Indian Prime Minister can only be accepted as a source for his own opinion. The 'widespread acknowledgment' you claim is only an assertion in the affidavit of one of the parties in the court case. This can't be taken as a dispassionate third-party assessment of the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Prime Minister is giving 'his opinion' in his official capacity as the Indian Prime Minister - on the web site of the Indian Prime Minister. That is quite a substantial endorsement. The acknowledgment of Mufaddal as 'Syedna' is now in several papers that refer to him as Syedna. How the court case goes in April does not change the acknowledgment (widespread or not) of him as Syedna today although it might do after the case is concluded and the Wikipedia entry can be amended to reflect that if that were to happen. All in all the fact remains that there is acknowledgment of him as a Syedna here(http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/others/US-court-gives-custody-of-Syedna-Saifuddins-grandkids-to-the-fathers/articleshow/46658075.cms) here (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Late-Syednas-grandchildren-custody-row-Bohras-split-over-US-court-order/articleshow/46668508.cms) here (to name just a few) (http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/syedna-row-hc-restricts-entry-of-bohra-muslims-for-hearing/article7007774.ece and that's really all that my edit said. The Hindu actually states 'plaintiff Khuzaima' and 'incumbent Syedna' as Mufaddal Saifuddi'. I don't see what waiting for the court case has to do with allowing me to continue editing given that I have substantiated that there is acknowledgment.Noughtnotout (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to appeal your ban from the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra, see the advice that I previously left for you at User talk:Noughtnotout#Topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. Until your ban is lifted, you should not be discussing the Dawoodi Bohra anywhere on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the ban says. It says Dawoodi Bohra or related pages. Your talk page is not a related page.

You have now been given ample material to reverse that ban. You invoked the ban with barely a moment's hesitancy yet refute ample substantative material in requests to revoke it, why? And now you are telling me not to talk to you about it even? I have respected the ban. But you will have to continue to ignore those sources as well as the following: the BBC The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra Shia sect is on a rare visit from India. Also the UK Charities Commission Dawat-e-Hadiyah Trust UK. It was petitioned to change the name of its sole trustee - ie Mufaddal Saifuddin - but has retained him as the sole trustee at this time. Last update of their site was Feb 2015, after the passing of Burhanuddin. Also at this time the Bombay High Court has denied a request for interim relief - ie a case filed to stop Saifuddin administering the affairs of the Dawoodi Bohras and management of all their worldwide assets until the succession case itself is heard. These matters should be shown in wikipedia if these pages are to be accurate and meaningful for both informed and uninformed readers.Noughtnotout (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian dispute

This thread is for any post-closure discussion after a recent AN3 complaint. I've copied the post-closure comments so far. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevani Axjik has not stopped with their nationalistic edits. Yerevani Axjik has continued vandalizing several Bosnia-Herzegovina-related articles with Serbian Cyrillic, and Serbian this and Serbian that, removing any mention of Bosnian anything. After the edits of Yerevani Axjik, the Bosnian language has been replaced with "Serbo-Croatian" (example: edits on Drvar), which has not been in use since the Yugoslav-era.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sabahudin9, you are on thin ice. I recommend you find an appropriate venue to have a proper discussion of which language template should be used. At the moment, you're the person who appears to most susceptible to nationalist editing. If you can't find a way to reach agreement on the language templates, I recommend that you work on something else. Many Slavic people in the Balkans speak a language that is often referred to as Serbo-Croation. See Talk:Serbo-Croatian and its archives for all the past disputes. The following appears in the page header at Talk:Serbo-Croatian:

In English, the language spoken by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Wikipedia.

Re-opening the discussion about Serbo-Croatian every ten minutes is not a welcome development. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yerevani Axjik's edits on Vasilije Kačavenda removed all reference to the subjects nationalist ties and replaced "underage boys" with "men" when referring to subjects recent sex abuse scandal, which is factually inaccurate, as supported by multiple sources. The user also added a poorly sourced addition to the article Osman Karabegović which claims the subject was a supporter of nationalist leader Slobodan Milošević. User has also continued adding Serbian Cyrillic translations to many towns and cities within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina including on Bosansko Grahovo and Glamoč. User has also replaced the ethnic term "Bosniaks" with the Yugoslav-era "Muslims", a highly offensive and dated term. I don't understand why I am the one being vilified here for simply reverting this users nonconstructive edits ? Apparently the Bosniak Avdo Humo is now a Serb, according to User:Yerevani Axjik. --Sabahudin9 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not one article mentions that Kačavenda abused underaged children, but only that he had sex with number of adult men. You or someone else misused the sources. Give me one source (link) that was used which claims he had sex with underaged boys. And the term Muslim is not offensive at all, it's your own personal view. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

one, two, three, four, five. These are just five sources, all Serbian, but there are many more if you need them to prove that this man is a nationalist and a pedophile.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And none of them was used in the article, right? :) --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yerevani Axjik's edits on Vasilije Kačavenda removed all reference to the subjects nationalist ties and replaced "underage boys" with "men" when referring to subjects recent sex abuse scandal, which is factually inaccurate, as supported by multiple sources. The user also added a poorly sourced addition to the article Osman Karabegović which claims the subject was a supporter of nationalist leader Slobodan Milošević. User has also continued adding Serbian Cyrillic translations to many towns and cities within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina including on Bosansko Grahovo and Glamoč. User has also replaced the ethnic term "Bosniaks" with the Yugoslav-era "Muslims", a highly offensive and dated term. I don't understand why I am the one being vilified here for simply reverting this users nonconstructive edits ? Apparently the Bosniak Avdo Humo is now a Serb, according to User:Yerevani Axjik. Emina, a popular Bosnian poem about a Bosniak girl, is now Serbian and a part of Serbian history. All mention of Džafer Kulenović being a Bosniak was removed, but User:Peacemaker67 reverted those edits. All mention of Bosniaks was removed from Čajniče. The Bosnian translation on Jančić's Revolt was removed and replaced with Serbian, although the event occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Just take a look at User:Yerevani Axjik "contributions" and you will see that this individual is a vandal and a nationalist.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are advised to work carefully, one step at a time. If you have a problem with a specific article, start by explaining your case on that article's talk page. If you wish, you can leave a message for me here after you have described the problem on the article Talk page. Be sure to include your references. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried but I am the only one who is being told this. User:Yerevani Axjik has been reverting, removing, adding info to their liking in countless articles.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples of where you've participated on article talk? EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yerevani Axjik simply enters an article, changes what they feel needs to be changed to suit their own opinions and beliefs, and leaves. Talking to this person is useless. Why hasn't this user been warned about their edits that border on vandalism. Since when is Avdo Humo a Serb? (That's just one example of many)--Sabahudin9 (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have never posted at Talk:Avdo Humo to explain your concerns. In fact, you removed the citation to Pinson's book, which another editor believed showed he was a Serb. If you are in a dispute, removing someone else's citation is not a good beginning. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I am being villain-ized by you, while Yerevani Axjik goes around vandalizing countless articles. Obviously my talks with you are going no where. I will be looking for assistance elsewhere. Good day.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to revert at Avdo Humo without clearly explaining your evidence you are risking a block. It might be simpler for you to explain. I was mistaken in saying you removed the Pinson reference. It was someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources used in the Vasilije Kačavenda article indicated that he had sex with underaged boys. I asked you to show me one - and you failed to do so. Why do you think that source used in the Osman Karabegović is bad? I use Serbian translation for populated places where large number of Serbs lives, previously removed by your sockpuppet master User:DemirBajraktarevic. Yes. I'm replacing Bosniaks with Muslims in order to correct the term, since majority of those people declared as Muslims in 1991 and it's not "highly offensive". Avdo Humo lived in Belgrade and did supported Slobodan Milosevic, and declared to be a Serb by himslef. Poem Emina was writen by one of the most notable Serbian writers Aleksa Šantić. I have only added that this poem is also part of the Serbia culture, as well as Bosnian. As for Džafer Kulenović, I just reverted your unsourced edits. If User Pacemaker67 reverted me, I have no intention to discuss this at this moment, but maybe later. I also left you a message so you can discuss with me about this, but it seams you wouldn't do that. What do you want me to do about it? And it is not true you're trying to make a discussion, as we can all see here: Talk: Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina and on your Talk page. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yerevani Axjik, according to your talk page, you get into edit wars often. You've been warned several times about edit-warring. As for Kačavenda, by law any sexual contact with a minor is rape. Statuary rape, but rape. He is also accused of sexual abusing a minor in the 1990s (which ended in the kids murder), as well as in the 2010s. 1990s reference. Bosansko Grahovo and Glamoč, both in the Federation, don't have a Serb population but you still added Serbian Cyrillic to the articles. A Serb presence does not automatically make the place a Serb land. It does not permit a Serbian Cyrillic translation. User:DemirBajraktarevic is not my "sockpuppet master". If you take a look, it says that user was BLOCKED. Also my name is Sabahudin Bešlija not Demir Bajraktarević if you haven't noticed, although I legally changed my last name in December to my moms maiden name. Aleksa Šantić was not a SerbIAN writer, he was a Serb writer from Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was a Bosnian Serb. All of his work was about Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nothing about Serbia. The poem itself is about a Bosniak girl. He belongs to the Bosnian culture not SerbIAN, as he was from Bosnia-Herzegovina, not Serbia. Not difficult to grasp. User:Peacemaker67 did revert your vandalism on Džafer Kulenović because that user also sees that your edits are not productive. The fact that you don't wish to discuss all the other people you've been in edit wars with and have been reverted by is interesting.

I'm often edit warring as seen on my talk page? Really? You're the only one who wrote that on my talk page. :) As for Kačavenda - we have finished that discussion. Non of the sources used in the article says he had sex with underage boys. Bosansko Grahovo and Glamoč do have Serb population, moreover, Serbs are majority there. I don't know why you hate Serbs so much. "Serb presence doesn't automatically make the place a Serb land. It does not permit a Serbian cyrillic translation". It does not permit? Really? We'll see about Demir. I couldn't care less about your real name, sorry. Šantić wrote much about Serbia, much of his poems were dedicated to Serbian patriotism, it's a shame you don't know this. If you continue talking nonsense, I'll stop discussing with you. I'm tired of this. You never, absolutely never respond to my messages. Good bye. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Romijn

Hi i am of plan that i make again articel Niki Romijn. But this turn with non bio and birth date and more okay? And every role she doing it i have hear it i know hear voice so good! Are you to according and accept? Answer please.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your listening to her performance can't be used as a source on Wikipedia. If you have worked on the Dutch Wikipedia, maybe you should work some more over there because you must understand Dutch better than English? If you are running into WP:BLP problems here that may not end well. Articles about living people really have to be done correctly. I see you have expressed doubts about continuing your work on the Dutch Wikipedia. You appear to have had sourcing problems there as well. Maybe you could find an experienced editor on the Dutch Wikipedia who you could use as a mentor? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have source problem there. But which link have a link from a living person? A website from actress don't lie it if her birth date her site says that she doing Clover and Bloom. But my idea was that I make it again but with non birth datr same idea of the beginning from articel rebecca soler. In the begin the articel not says her birth datr. Now you more know it?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdates are a special question, which I won't take time to answer. But the problem with your articles is they had *no reliable sources* whatever. The person's own website is not acceptable; but I've repeated that without your seeming to understand it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I understand you better then before! But the idea from me was that the articel Niki Romijn have a same things same it this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebecca_Soler&diff=181221486&oldid=179523770. This is was my idea. I typ it her name and say in the articel that she is a voice actress and her voice roles but next nothing according or not? And you don't to according ,why you not say it to the moment that the articel Rebecca Soler it was in the make with don't birth date?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was that i make the articel Niki Romijn with non birth date and more.. Example:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebecca_Soler&diff=181221486&oldid=179523770.This is my idea according? Non birth date and place.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still against recreating Niki Romijn until you have a reliable source that talks about her voice acting. The Rebecca Soler article is weak on sources but at least it has a USA Today interview. It also links to the web site of the publisher Macmillan which proves that the mentioned work exists. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have a source that Niki doing voice acting. This is a intervieuw with her on a blog and it's mention there that se doing voice acting. Translate this page on English. http://winxclubdutch.blogspot.nl/2014/07/interview-met-niki-romijn.html. It's Dutch. Example: Rebecca soler intervieuw.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today is a major newspaper, while that web site is not. It seems unlikely that winxclubdutch.blogspot.com would be accepted as a WP:Reliable source. Since it has 'blogspot' in its name some people may distrust it. If you wish, you can ask at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It appears that http://winxclub.com may be operated by the same people as the Dutch blogspot site. We do have a Wikipedia article on Winx Club. If Niki Romijn has acted in any Winx Club films you might be able to find her name in one of the publisher's web sites. Compare the short biography of Rebecca Soler found on the Macmillan site at http://us.macmillan.com/author/rebeccasoler. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haberstr, again (and Tobby72)

Hi Ed, above in the discussion concerning the behavior of Haberstr on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation article you state:

"The protection of this article gives a window of opportunity for User:Haberstr to show how he can work more neutrally in this topic area."

I'm sorry to say, Haberstr has failed to take advantage of this opportunity. While they have ceased edit warring (and bragging about it) on the Annexation article, they have moved onto a new one, 2014 Ukrainian revolution: [29], [30], [31], etc. This is the same thing as their actions on the Annexation article. Same POV pushing, removal of sourced content, changing the wording in a very non-neutral way and so on. The same stuff that was rejected by a strong WP:CONSENSUS on the Annexation article.

And of course, we get the same personal attacks on other editors on the talk page: [32], where Haberstr refers to other editors as "US State Department Hacks" and accuses them, falsely, of "spewing out insults and ridicule" (for the record I got nothing to do with the US State Department, and while I occasionally engage in ridicule, I do so in a calm, witty, non-spewing manner. And I don't do insults).

Frankly, this kind of behavior and these continous personal attacks make it impossible to have a productive discussion in this topic area. It also makes improving the relevant articles in a meaningful way very very hard, and extremely time consuming.

This is acerbated by the actions of user Tobby72, who's the editor that tag teamed with Haberstr on the Annexation article in starting an edit war in order to get the article protected, and who is tag teaming with Haberstr on the Revolution article. In some respects Tobby72's actions are even worse, as they are mindlessly reverting even minor and non-controversial changes to the article such as grammar, style and spelling improvements, and additionally restoring what are clearly non-reliable sources. In particular Tobby72 restored links to a fringe anti-semitic conspiracy website which contains links to malware. Apparently Tobby72 believes this to be a reliable source (the website was inserted originally by an anon account). Alternatively he is just reverting to revert. And with unintentional irony, they are of course demanding that changes be "discussed on talk" while completely failing to discuss anything themselves.

These two users have become a serious problem in this topic area and they make work there a huge headache. They are clearly acting against WP:CONSENSUS and both seem to be acting in a purposefully disruptive manner. The fact that at least Haberstr has been warned repeatedly by administrators about both the non-neutral nature of his edits and his repeated insults directed at other users makes it worse. I would really appreciate if something was done to improve the situation. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be flabbergasted if this sort of request received anything but disdain (for wasting his/her time) from a normal Wikipedia editor. What, precisely is the offense committed? Editing? Editing in a manner that one user doesn't like? Critically, I note that there is no evidence provided regarding what WP:CONSENSUS is. In addition, the complaining user is displaying his routine assumption of bad faith, in the statement that Tobby and I are "tag-teaming." Let me argue this time by example: When Marek and another editor edit in a similar POV and in closely spaced time, as takes place very frequently in the Ukraine articles, I don't accuse them of tag-teaming. Why don't I? Because (1) I assume good faith, and (2) I have no evidence that they are tag-teaming. Marek should learn from my example.
But really it just seems useless to point out to Marek that the assumption of good faith is a core principle here. I mean, just look at his "this is ridiculous" [33]. The entire entry is essentially 'I accuse you of bad faith' in every variation I can think of.
In conclusion, obviously Volunteer Marek is putting a lot of effort into pushing me and other editors who do not share his point of view away from editing Ukraine-related articles. This is part of a long-standing practice on his and like-minded editors part, and the results are horribly POV Ukraine-related articles. He and like-minded editors do this through these repetitive, hostile, and time-wasting appeals for administrative action, through creating extremely toxic, abusive-language filled and bad-faith-assuming environments on talk pages, and by reverting even the most innocuous edits by editors who do not share their POV. I suggest surveying his style and behavior and applying sanctions on Marek in order to deter his worst excesses. He seems otherwise seems completely out of control and perhaps getting even more anti-Wikipedian in his games playing.Haberstr (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that when I wrote ""the US State Dept hacks or whatever" I was responding supportively to a comment by -2601:8:BD80:F3F:5DC0:D1D:DA5C:47E9' that was by the following bad faith, insulting and completely irrelevant remark by Volunteer Marek: "WP:NOTAFORUM. RT TV comments section is over that way." -2601:8:BD80:F3F:5DC0:D1D:DA5C:47E9 was obviously upset by the rude and disparaging comment and responded rudely himself. I am also sorry I got caught up in that cycle of insults started by Marek.Haberstr (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The offenses are:
  • Adding non-neutral changes to articles, as noted previously by Ed.
  • Removing well-sourced content per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, also with a view towards POV pushing
  • Repeatedly insulting other editors despite multiple warnings. The latest one being referring to other editors as "US State Department hacks"
  • Repeatedly making false accusations against other editors which make discussion impossible. The latest example... well, the latest example is your comment right above, where you accuse others of "abusive-language", where you accuse them of "creating a toxic environment" etc., without providing any evidence.
  • Engaging in WP:POINTy disruptive behavior such as purposefully starting edit wars in order to get article pages protected, then boasting about "mission accomplished"
  • Failing to discuss proposed changes in good faith, but instead repeating the same suggestion, already rejected by WP:Consensus (as noted by User:Iryna Harpy) over and over and over again. And when that fails on one article moving onto another article and doing the exact same thing.
That's just quickly off the top of my head.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer, please note I have expanded my comments immediately above your latest comment. On your latest comment, I and I think Ed or whoever is considering your request would appreciate links to what has offended you in recent days. That will support an evidence-based discussion. Otherwise, at this stage all I can say is, "No, I didn't do any of that."Haberstr (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The links are already given above. But let me put there here again: [34], [35], [36], [37]. That's just the most recent. The problems with your previous edits on these articles were already noted when Ed referred to the fact that page protection of the Annexation article gave you an opportunity to show you can edit neutrally. You failed to take advantage of this opportunity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's sort of bizarre to claim that you don't recall calling other editors "US State department hacks", since you made this comment less than a day ago, and you made a comment about it only half an hour ago [38]. How you can claim "I didn't do that" in light of this is beyond me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also appreciate it if you stopped modifying your comments after I've responded to them. You say one thing, I point out that it's not true, you then change your comment to make it seem like I'm making stuff up. This is... dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the confusion, but there was an edit conflict. My point still stands: please provide links to what you are claiming so we know what you are referring to. Otherwise I am sorry that all I can say is, "No, I didn't do any of that."
No, the links were not provided 'above', those are the first time you have provided links. Now, you have a list of seven charges. And several paragraphs down from that list of charges you provide a list of links to my edits. Which edits are connected to which charges?Haberstr (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haberstr, either you are just plain not reading what I wrote above, or you are... I don't know what it is you're doing. The very same links are provided in my comment above. Please actually read it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Marek's POV-blanking can be on a massive scale: [39]. It's very frustrating to have everything you've done, down to the most innocuous smoothing out of clumsy passages, deleted. It is a really effective way of discouraging good faith editors who disagree with Volunteer Marek from engaging in Wikipedia editing. Of course, substantively, the complete, 100% disappearing of Victoria Nuland from the pre-coup narrative is outrageous POV.Haberstr (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't "innocuous smoothing" edits. These were POV changes, removal of sources, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. as outlined above. Against consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I said is that, when you reverted everything, included in that were many innocuous 'smoothing' edits. It's rude to do that, and very off-putting to those of us making good faith efforts to improve an article.Haberstr (talk)
Diffs which show that these weren't "innocuous smoothing" edits:
Again, I didn't say all the edits were "innocuous smoothing" edits!Haberstr (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
POV original research based on primary sources. No consensus for inclusion of this info. These are POV edits which a whole slate of disruptive anon-IPs, and now indef banned users have tried to cram into the article. Same edit - inserting a poll despite consensus at the Annexation article strongly opposing it.
Restoring an anti-semitic conspiracy website as a source. Enough said!
Removing well sourced material for no reason except POV.
Do these look like "innocuous smoothing" to you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not previously aware of globalreasearch.ca. But I notice it is harshly criticized by some commentators according to Michel Chossudovsky#Criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This website should not be used as RS anywhere. It tells: [40] "Did you know that Kiev’s anti-Russian regime installed in a February 2014 coup by the U.S....". This is their editorial position, but they publish exactly the same: "The racist-fascist (or “nazi”) anti-Russian regime that the U.S. installed in a February 2014 coup" [41] - I am simply looking at their most recent article today. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, please include this entire subsection -- in particular whatever this wild stuff immediately above me is or is about -- in my complaint below about Volunteer Marek. This entire toxic attack against me is based on the false notion that I said ALL the edits he reverted -- when he reverted all my previous edits of the previous couple days in one massive revert -- were minor smoothing edits. I obviously didn't say that but now I am obliged to respond to some ridiculous production related to a website that is non-RS and that I didn't put into the article. Tobby did. But unfortunately Volunteer Marek has constructed a conspiracy between Tobby and I, based on nothing other than the usual: assumption of bad faith. Attack, ridicule, create toxicity, alienate good editors; can we do something about him/her please?Haberstr (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How come? You just put it in the article [42]. The meaning of of the edit is obvious: you are trying to (mis)represent US as a side of the conflict using a conspiracy website as a source. The burden is yours. But this source just has been discussed by VM on talk page of the article (this thread). Did not you read it? So, instead of taking part in discussion, you decided to edit war by including this questionable source to the page without consensus. This is not "smoothing". My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It seems as if Haberstr didn't even bother to read what they were reverting, only WHO they were reverting (me), in an attempt to purposefully start another edit war which would lead to article protection, as they did on the Annexation article. This is clearly disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the edit summary [43] says ("Restored edits by 2601:8:bd80:f3f:5dc0:d1d:da5c:47e9 for chart at top, added Geoffrey Pyatt name"), I was restoring the edit by "2601:8:bd80:f3f:5dc0:d1d:da5c:47e9" that I had inadvertently erased with my immediately preceding edit [44]. Did you not notice my VERY CLEARLY WORDED edit summary statement? Is that incredbible oversight why you have been attacking me endlessly for that website? Waiting for an apology.Haberstr (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of Globalreasearch.ca. After User:Volunteer Marek removed my additions and started edit war (see diff, diff), I 've reverted back his massive changes - "undo massive POV changes, discuss first on the talk page" (see diff)

The discussion then began, and Globalreasearch.ca. was removed.

See links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Ok.2C_this_is_ridiculous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tobby72#Opportunity_to_self_revert

-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek creates serious disruption and toxicity in Ukraine-related articles. This is due to a long tradition of insults and ridicule toward toward other editors with whom he disagrees, and his vocal assumptions of bad faith against those same editors. This behavior is displayed on article talk pages and in his edit summaries. I hope you can do something about this, or advise me on next steps. Below are some examples of Marek's toxicity from the past few weeks or months just at the 2014 Ukrainian revolution talk page[45] (Assume (correctly) that the comment preceding Marek's was a non-contentious comment directly relevant to the editing of article content):

  • [46]: WP:NOTAFORUM. RT TV comments section is over that way
  • [47] And this mindless reverting of any and all changes - *in addition* to changing text in a very POV way - looks like a straight up provocation, meant to start an edit war. (Announcement of assumption of bad faith, assumption that I am working with another editor for nefarious purposes)
  • [48]Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere else.
  • [49]Please don't misrepresent sources, please stop wasting our time, please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies (the ACTUAL policies, not what you imagine the policies are), please stop using the talk pages of Wikipedia articles as a forum.

Recent edit summaries, again just at 2014 Ukrainian revolution:

  • [50] undo POV changes which include introducing wacky fringe conspiracy websites ... (While the website Marek dislikes is non-RS, there's no evidence it is a "wacky fringe conspiracy websites." Calling a website "non-RS" is preferable because it is non-toxic, while calling it a 'wacky fringe conspiracy website' is extremely toxic)
  • [51]undo nonsense - man, the pov pushing is hoppin' (describing another editor's (innocuous but with a POV with which he disagrees) edits as "nonsense" is rude; and, again, voicing his assumption of bad faith)
  • [52]undo massive POVing ... Please stop this disruptive editing. (again, simply because they make edits with a POV he dislikes, he announces that editors are guilty of bad faith "disruptive editing.")Haberstr (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmmmmmm, adding stuff about "Barack_Obama_admits_the_role_of_US_in_regime_change_in_Ukraine", based on a fringe anti-semitic conspiracy website IS idiotic nonsense. Note the other commentator agrees.
Likewise the other editor's "innocuous edits" consisted of.... adding nonsense based on a fringe anti-semitic conspiracy website. Haberstr, you might *really* wish to reconsider whether you want to defend edits such as these by calling them "innocuous", or restore them. It does not reflect well on you.
This is just Haberstr mud slinging to divert attention away from themselves.
Oh and there *is* a difference between criticizing someone's edits (for example, calling them nonsense when they are in fact nonsense), which is what I do, as I am expected to per Wikipedia policy, and criticizing/insulting another person, for example by calling them a "hack" or falsely accusing them of bigotry, as you've done repeatedly. It's the ol' "discuss edits not editors" mantra which you seem to have so much trouble with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above by Volunteer Marek can be added to the pile of evidence for the points I am making about him/her. Toxicity. Volunteer knows I didn't contribute that website, but attacks me with terminology like antisemitic, fringe, conspiracy, and wacky. This kind of behavior makes dealing with him very unpleasant. And why the accusation of mud slinging? ('Mud slinging' definition: "the use of insults and accusations, especially unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent.") I'm providing direct unedited quotes and describing those quotes accurately and soberly. And no, Marek, that edit you describe as "nonsense" was not, it was simply of a POV you didn't like (it added the USA and 'Victoria Nuland' to the long list of those who played a role in the Ukraine 'revolution'). You have every right to disagree with that or any other edit, but how about lowering the ridicule and increasing the accuracy in your rhetoric?
Anyway, we've been over this before: his characterizations assume bad faith and are non-factual and are at best tenuously related to what I or others have actually contributed. I admit, being attacked over and over and over and over for what I haven't done DOES upset me and at times it has led me in the past -- not recently -- to attack back in a manner similar to Volunteer Marek's. For that I have apologized and apologize now to all Wikipedia editors.Haberstr (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not edit this page, but the meaning of this your edit is very much clear, and not only based on changes in the infobox, but also based on the names of inserted US officials. VM was right by reverting this per WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for apologizing! Oh wait, you're not saying "sorry" for attacking me for no reason? In any case, as the edit summary CLEARLY SAYS: "Restored edits by 2601:8:bd80:f3f:5dc0:d1d:da5c:47e9 for chart at top, added Geoffrey Pyatt name." I was restoring the edits I had inadvertently erased by reverting in the immediately preceding edit. I have no opinion on the site inserted by "2601:8:bd80:f3f:5dc0:d1d:da5c:47e9".Haberstr (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "antisemitic", "fringe", "conspiracy", and "wacky" all refer to the website, and are accurate descriptors of it. You are trying to pretend, by saying "(VM) attacks me with terminology like...", that I am using these terms to refer to you. Please stop being so blatantly dishonest. And as far as the fact you are the one that kept restoring this website as if it was a reliable source, that's your problem, not mine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are your OR regarding the website, and you have no RS stating same. Does that jar you a little, make you step back a bit, recognition of the fact I have just stated? In any case, why not LOWER THE TEMPERATURE and just call it a non-RS website? That's all that matters in Wikipedia editing. Why throw around those extreme labels, especially when you have no RS supporting your perspective on that website? You do realize it is extremely upsetting for me to be accused of inserting an antisemitic website into Wikipedia, don't you? When you and your like-minded editors throw around your OR and extremely negative characterization of a website, that is an example of behavior that makes Wikipedia a toxic place. Please stop doing so.Haberstr (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Those are your OR regarding the website" - do you really wish to keep on defending this website? Do you really think it's a reliable source?
And you *did* insert this website into Wikipedia. And then you pretended that my criticism of this website was an "attack" on you. Dishonestly. Look, you don't want your actions to be criticized then don't go inserting fringe conspiracy anti-semitic websites into Wikipedia. And if you do, then don't be surprised that you're called on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek – 2

Almost every time I have attempted to edit articles related to the conflict in Ukraine, my additions have been removed. Certain editors are constantly involved in edit warring over this issue. User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the most aggressive.

The main issue is the removal of well sourced material.

My recent edits (April 2015): diff, diff, diff diff

Removed (April 2015): diff, diff, diff, diff

This disruptive behaviour has been going on, and on, and on, and on... diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff. Diff speaks for itself (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Leftcry, User:Herzen, User:Haberstr, and User:HCPUNXKID seem to agree with me)

And, of course, there is a blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

For example, I've tried to add the latest Crimean public opinion poll, but was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek and User: RGloucester (see diff, and diff) − "not adhering to NPOV". And User:Tlsandy joined here − "Poll in wrong article because article about annexation exists".

Everything has been discussed here, and clearly no consensus was reached.

Thank you for helping. A discussion pertaining to NPOV is currently taking place here. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to apologize for the fact that I've removed tendentious POV pushing from these article. The fact that numerous users in good standing, like User:RGloucester, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Kudzu1 and a whole bunch of others did the exact same thing strongly suggests Tobby72, that it's you (and Haberstr) who have a problem, as you are trying to cram your own personal POV into these articles against WP:CONSENSUS. The talk page of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation shows this pretty clearly. And you're probably not doing yourself any favor by mentioning the support you've gotten from users who have since been topic banned or sanctioned for tendentious editing in this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please desist from your accusatory and threatening approach to this discussion? The fact is that there are two main perspectives on editing the Ukraine-related articles. Basically, me, User:Tobby72, and User:MyMoloboaccount disagree with User:RGloucester, User:Iryna Harpy, and User:Kudzu1. Believe it or not, we believe we are 'pushing' NPOV, just as I'm sure you and your like-minded editors believe you are pushing NPOV. Unfortunately, however, you disagree with the first part of the preceding sentence, and consistently (example in your latest comment) call our editing efforts "POV pushing." That's an assumption of bad faith, and that's the wrong kind of assumption for Wikipedia editors to make. And, once again, speaking of ad hominem attacks, what WP:CONSENSUS am I violating? When you make such an accusation, you need to provide the anti-consensus diff you are concerned about, and the related talk page discussion where a consensus is found. If those don't exist, and I don't believe they do, then how about not making such an accusation? Not making such accusations and not assuming bad faith would reduce the severe toxicity of the Ukraine-related-articles editing environment. After you've provided so many examples of it, and I have pointed them out for you, are you beginning to understand the problems with your behavior toward editors with whom you disagree?Haberstr (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You tell: "we believe we are 'pushing'". How can you speak for other users? Did they ask you to represent them or talk on their behalf? I did not. I can not speak for others, but I am not a part of any "we" or "us", and I am not pushing anything. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say other than reiterating that there is no "us" per My very best wishes. It's a pretty wishy-washy cabal considering that I've worked in a collaborative and congenial manner with Leftcry and Herzen. You're engaging in your trademark disruptive methodology of shifting from content issues to personalising the issues in order to deflect attention from your own failings as an editor. If you have a real or imagined group of consorts you work with, that's your problem. I try to think and evaluate sources and due and undue content independently, but listen to and engage with any GF editor over appropriate and inappropriate content. Articles about current affairs are inherently POV in accordance with what the POV of RS is. As I understand it, as editors it is up to us to carefully parse and weigh what RS are telling us in as neutral a manner as we are able. Without leaving a wall of text for EdJohnston to have to wade through, there have been ample diffs supplied demonstrating the hysteria of even the tone of the sections you open on talk pages, as well as ES, to make it clear that you conflate RS POV with the editors who are following it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Tobby72, could you give us an indication of how much more forum shopping you intend to do regurgitating the same diffs as if it genuinely encapsulated a year's worth of editor discussion and 'proved' that NPOV was really an issue? If you're going to reproduce the same arguments on numerous talk pages, I'd like the opportunity of setting up a similar template for my responses based on my response on the Donetsk People's Republic article. Wow, I dread to think of size my wall of text will be by the time I've trawled through the talk and article history for the mountain of evidence of discussion and consensus belying the magnitude of the molehill you've constructed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-inclusion of a child sexual abuse case

You haven't responded at Talk:Tolkien family so I'm posting about what happened to the investigation here. I've found out about what happened to the cajrges against him. This Sunday Mercury news article which is archived on HighBeam Research http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-105600313.html does confirm that Tolkien wasn't charged because of being ill. The article says that a police investigation was launched into the sex abuse allegations and the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was enough evidence to put Fr Tolkien before the courts. It also says that they however decided that he was too ill to be charged. Also it says that due to this, Mr Carrie decided to launch his own civil lawsuit against the Church and the Church paid £15000 compensation to Carrie and settled the matter out of court. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the wider research. We now have awareness of how this should be covered, if consensus finds that it belongs in the article. But the whole Tolkien family article risks being deleted on grounds of notability, if anyone were to study it carefully. A segment on Father John that was occupied almost entirely by the charges and the non-indictment would probably be considered excessive. See Talk:Tolkien family#Protected for a 2010 dispute about the same issue that led to protection of the article for two weeks. The BLP issue was explained at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive93#Tolkien family. An editor who had been making the charges here on Wikipedia was indefinitely blocked and their talk page was deleted. We are not eager to see that material return to the Tolkien family page. Should Wikipedia have articles on everyone who was ever investigated by the police, but not charged? EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: I think you're missing the point. There was enough evidence to charge him, however due to his ill health and age he wasn't. Also I think you're misinterpreting what an article is. He has a separate section in an article, he does not have his own article of his own. He was a head priest in many churches, helped build many schools and was also a co-author of a book. I think that his credentials are notable enough to be mentioned in the "Tolkien Family" article.KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to add to what was said in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive93#Tolkien family. If you want to continue the discussion I suggest you take this elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need assistance from users who know well the MOS:LEAD policy

Extra opinions are necessary at Talk:Székely_Land#The_name_in_the_Old_Hungarian_alphabet regarding the inclusion of the name DLÖFLYEKÉSZ. Thanks in advance for your help. 109.230.28.210 (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a Warning

Mr. Johnston,

Thank you for offering me additional help here. Your request at WP:ANI has been closed. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking deletion of a Warning. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My intention is not to drive anyone crazy at Wikipedia; I feel I have a valid request to have a Warning removed (the warning appears on my Talk page under "Campus rape"). I am requesting this because it was an honest error- I was re-submitting my edit not realizing that MaterialScientist was deleting them simultaneously. I feel I do my part in contributing to Wikipedia and don't like a Red Flag on my history. Is that unreasonable?

Could you help me get this done?

Scottlovessue (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Scott scottlovessue[reply]

The original ANI which caused you to be warned was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Seeking deletion of a Warning. This is all water under the bridge now. We are not going to undo the ANI. If you want to remove the messages that others leave for you on your own talk page, please do so. If you have difficulty editing Wikipedia from an iPad, try something else. This episode will quickly be forgotten if you can do good work in other areas. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Deletion Requests.

I have a few more pages I'd like deleted.

TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:TheGRVOfLightning, I'll be going offline soon. Can you put WP:CSD#U1 tags on these? Then they'll be taken care of by the admins who patrol CSD. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

Hello, Ed,
Now that I'm an ARBCOM clerk, I check AE fairly often and saw this request today. Since it is an admin board and not under ARBCOM per se, it's not my place to hat the request or talk to the editors involved so I'm hoping that you or one of your talk page watchers can act on this ill-formed request. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That request is not going anywhere, but I wouldn't close it just for being ill-formed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your opinion. Much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 10:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


Hi, Ed. User:Lowercase sigmabot III has archived the OhC AE request, yet no decision was made. What should be done? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the archiving since no AE action has occurred yet. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Nihal Atsiz and Pan-Turkism

Thanks for the information. But what is the exact "sanction" on these articles? If my addition revert again by another user, (or other possible edit wars and etc.) what should I or anyone do?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AC/DS. You are merely alerted that these sanctions exist. On certain topics, admins watch any edit warring with extra care. If you make effective use of the talk page before any controversial edits you should be on safe ground. The sanctions allow editors to be topic banned by any administrator and they allow placing WP:1RR restrictions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with semi-protecting Urdu

User:Thomas (or whatever his name is) removed several informative external links that were already there. This does not give IP editors a fair chance to contribute while allowing the user to repeatedly removes links without fair justification. He has made it a point to scan for anything linking to Omniglot, an online encyclopedia of spoken languages and scripts. This is also despite the sites main page using valid academic sources as citations. Prior to this the user made several excuses for removing external links and comes up with a new excuse each time to do this. I would appreciate that the article be unprotected or the user be at least informed to stop removal of informative external links. I also presented the argument that individual articles on movies use IMBD as an external link which he keeps evading or even once bluntly lying, claiming that it's used as a reference and not an external link. I'll even provide the diff if you require.

Previously he claimed that adding it on a few articles is OK (which I did- I added it to Finnish, Hindi, Urdu and Carrebean Hindustani, all which were removed). As you can see his stubborness and evasiveness makes it very hard to avoid this problem. Please unprotect the article or at least warn the user to stop blanking out informative external links; especially when they are in no way or form "advertising" which he insists on calling them.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider proposing your links for consideration at the WP:External links/Noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I never had any contact with the IP until well after reverting the first link I saw, on Finnish language, and right after that also removing them from a few other articles I found them on, so the claim that I have said that it's OK to add it to a small number of articles is a blatant lie. And I don't call the links "advertising", they were reverted because they clearly violate WP:ELNO (it's a personal website, run by a single guy from his bedroom: http://www.omniglot.com/about.htm ; a guy who is just a hobbyist, and not a recognised expert in the field...). Thomas.W talk 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=656941608"