User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Dispute resolution survey

I've deleted the survey notice, now that I completed it. The survey encounters the usual ambiguity as to what is or is not dispute resolution. So WP:ANI is considered not to be dispute resolution, while arbitration is. Yet 'incivility' is listed as one of the problems that dispute resolution might be able to address. Policy violations and content matters seem to be mixed up together. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My reply and posting

Ed, I posted a comment on WGFinley's talk pages on your proposal [1] for your information as well. Winterbliss (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment about 9/11

You mentioned on User:John's talkpage that I appeared to be under an indefinite civility restriction on 9/11 pages...that notation in the case was made by User:Tango...who not only unilaterally imposed that restriction, but was subsequently desysopped by the arbitration committee for his block on me as well as other issues, but his excessive block is what did him in. A discussion at AN/I and elsewhere indicated at that time that Tango alone did not have the authority to impose any restriction against me at all. I never bothered to have the issue adjusted so it still languishes there from years ago...if I am able to provide the diffs to you and other admins, would you be willing to make this correction to the case in the log section?MONGO 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll adjust the case log if you can find a diff showing that the restriction was lifted. If the situation is not 100% clear then a discussion at WP:AE might be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm on slowish I'll add diffs below as I dig them should be noted that Tango tried to use the 9/11 arbcom case as a means to impose a unilateral civility parole on me across the entire pedia...anywhere...I don't know why, after he was desysopped, that arbcom didn't then amend his notations on that case, since part of the reason he was desysopped was due to his actions against me.
  • No clear-cut diff that I can see, but my guess is that consensus would lift your civility restriction if the question were raised. Consider posting at WP:AE if you want to pursue that option. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Can I ask a question? What does a civility restriction mean? Aren't we always supposed to be civil? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • See WP:RESTRICT#Types of restriction. Civility restrictions are claimed to exist. Also, such restrictions have often been handed out by Arbcom, as you can see from the table further down on that page. Arbcom must think they do something. A useful exercise would be to check Arbcom case logs to find any examples where people have been blocked for violating such a restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It means the usual warnings before a block can be bypassed as the editor should already be aware of civility requirements and there is a history of incivility. It helps uninvolved admins deal with problematic editors without having to waste time. It prevents people with an incivility problem from gaming the system and always pointing out they need to be warned before being blocked. Like everything else it has a good side and bad side. It's like being on a 1RR restriction. We're not supposed to edit war either but we have tools and methods to deal with those that do and routinely do it. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Just interjecting, Arbcom case statement by Tango says it wasn't supposed to be "forever" but obviously his desysopping would prevent him from lifting it. Also, this opinion by Arbcom member [User:Sam Blacketeer] was stated but never ruled on (sorry but the page was moved and I couldn't find actual diff but his comment is easy to find). It's probably an open question as to whether the civility restriction was ever lifted but basing any block or action on the original Tango civility restriction would be problematic so as a practical matter it's moot as to whether it was lifted. I don't know if arbcom has ever ruled on whether a single admin can issue a "civility restriction" indefinitely without community backing as Sam Blacketeer commented. Probably the best course is to either issue a new restriction if it's warranted and supported and free of the taint of Tango issue or treat the Tango one as moot as it would be unenforceable. My concern with it being "unresolved" is that an uninvolved admin might get baited into enforcing it by the kind of diffs shown. We can lose good admins that way as we've seen recently so if it's cloudy enough to be a moot restriction, that should be noted somewhere so an admin with good intentions doesn't get hammered thinking they are just enforcing a noted restriction. Those logs are supposed to help them, not set them up for a pounding by the community. Just my 0.02. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Digging into the ancient history could take a lot of time. It might be simpler for MONGO to just file an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} at AE. A third option would be to just ignore the whole thing, since it's unlikely to be enforced. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking along the lines of ignoring it but pointing to the Tango Arbcom under the civility restriction so an uninvolved admin doesn't stumble into something they are unaware of. Neither conforming or denying the civility ban, just pointing to the cloud so they have an idea as to whether the ground they are on is firm or loose. I will be bold and add it and see if anyone complains. --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I imagine EdJohnston is correct...I haven't been blocked since Tango blocked me...I don't think it's because anyone is scared to, but more likely that I'm not the same editor I used to be on 9/11 pages or elsewhere.--MONGO 00:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That is true, but it hasn't stopped people from bringing up the civility restriction. A truly unwary and uninvolved admin could be hoodwinked by that log and make an honest mistake. I think Tom's topic ban was an honest mistake made by an admin that was hoodwinked and found himself buried in criticism to the point he left. I'd rather they stay "uninvolved" than make a poor choice. A sharp comment and a link to that civility restriction might seem like a routine and uncontroversial block or temp ban to someone unfamiliar with the history. The result hasn't happened but there are those that still try to make it happen. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Not convinced that this is a technical matter of a previous error. WP:ARB911 has always provided for discretionary sanctions. If Tango were still around and were still an admin he would have the ability to lift his own restriction. In the absence of Tango, the only alternative is a community consensus. Of course Arbcom could have undone this in WP:Requests for arbitration/Tango but they may have not seen MONGO's restriction or forgotten. Another possibility is that they actually thought the restriction was an OK idea. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not a previous error and I am not suggesting correction. I am only concerned about the next "Look at MONGO's uncivil comment here and look at his permanent civility warning here" report. An admin may feel justified with those two pieces of information to make a block or other action and it would be a supportable action based on the immediately available evidence. As a practical matter, though, there will be much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments if that particular civility warning were used as justification because of it's history. The admin may be technically correct but there will be much criticism for them for not "knowing the history." Of course, the admin can undue his action and that would be preferred if the community weighs in against it but we all know that the criticism starts as a drip and the immediate response is to defend their actions, not change them. Tango case is an excellent example of it. If a link to that case makes an admin look for community input before enforcement, then that is a good thing. If an admin looks at the link, decides a block is still justified and defends his action knowing of the history, then that is also a good thing. If an admin doesn't know about the Tango case, cites the permanent civility warning and then makes a block, that would be a bad thing and would be a basis for criticism. Also, editors that cite the permanent civility warning as the basis of a complaint should also know about the history before using it as a basis for enforcement. Reviewing admins that know the history may not be kind to an editor that uses a cloudy and old civility restriction as the basis for a complaint and a good faith request could BOOMERANG on the editor. Lastly, a bad faith request by editors to rehash and reuse old arguments and restrictions should have a clear path to understanding why their complaint is considered a bad faith request and fair notice that some restrictions, particularly old ones, that have a cloud should not be the basis for discretionary sanction complaints. We have recently seen in this case a very experienced editor claim not to understand why their complaint cited a poorly chosen and old sanction. That should not happen again. We can table this until it does happen again, I suppose. I am only suggesting a link to the Tango case (and perhaps a link to the recently hatted MONGO complaint that cited this civility restriction), not language that would imply it has been overturned or was incorrect. This is my last comment on this as I don't want to enter the dead horse zone but I wanted to clarify that was not advocating that there was an error or that a correction was required. --DHeyward (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If anyone feels this discussion should be continued, they should open a request at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to pursue this any or elsewhere...appreciate you adding insight and advice on this matter.MONGO 14:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Demographics of Greater China

{{tb|User talk:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick#Continued edit warring at Talk:Demographics of Greater China}}

You must be referring to this post on your talk page. I've indeed seen it, but I remind you that any more talk page refactoring (not supported by others) may lead to a block. "I don't think any consensus is required to restore my own comments deleted by some other people." This seems to be an instance of WP:GAME. You are trying to protect your own controversial changes from being reverted by mixing some comments of your own into the change. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The only controversial part was the {{unsigned}} tags. I agreed not to restore the tags and I was only restoring my own comments. Please take a look at the edit history of the page before you mistakenly block anyone. Thanks. Jeffrey (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, let's look at the edit history. The ninth green box on the right-hand side of this diff (which got you blocked) shows clearly that what you just said isn't true. No mistake here on Ed's part here. NULL talk
06:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That particular tag is necessary because I was posting a question to Schmucky. Please make some sense here Null. Jeffrey (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

9/11 AE case question

Would you mind describing in more detail the edits and behaviors you think merited the topic ban?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

AE has gone over the issues in some detail. You can still file an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I would want to know what specifically you think justified it. That is not an unreasonable request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Appeals are not for getting explanations. Generally, admins are expected to explain why they took action.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
A full length discussion at AE that allowed plenty of room for evidence, statements and replies, and where three admins agreed on the result, ought to meet any requirement for justifying an admin action. If you think an error was made, you can appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Let me make this simpler, presuming that you read over all my comments (the ones in collapsed sections included), why don't you tell me why you did not find my arguments compelling while finding the arguments of others compelling?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Friday

Hi, The Crucifixion of Jesus may also do well with protection until Monday. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

AE Proposal

The more I think about this, and while I agree you've crafted something that could possibly address the N-K issue we are having, I think we should be going for something broader as part of WP:ARBAA. These constant fights go across numerous pages and numerous other areas subject to sanctions. I just keep thinking we should take the socking issue to ARBCOM for some input and direction lest we have incessant complaints from partisans of being censored or treated as second-class contributors. --WGFinley (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to find a broader consensus on what direction to take. What do you think you could ask Arbcom to do? Asking the community could be more promising. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. That was a community discussion, and the result got adopted as the blanket 1RR on ARBPIA which is still in force. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we should present the issue concerning socks and SPAs to ARBCOM with the suggestion you've put together and asking for direction from ARBCOM. Since this behavior is not unique to WP:ARBAA, N-K within that or otherwise I think we should try to come up with something that will more broadly address the problem that extends to ARBPIA and ARBMAC as well. Alternatively we could go for community discussion like was done on the 1RR on ARBPIA, maybe that blanket 1RR is the way to go. I don't think we're going to get a sound measure from the current AE report. --WGFinley (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you can offer to close the NK report on that basis. If you do, then we look forward to your eventual proposal. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I think it should be closed but would definitely want to work with you on something to move forward if you were interested. --WGFinley (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Make a draft of your new request (whether to Arbcom or community) and I could comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's consensus for your proposal so I closed it and put it into effect. I took the liberty of one slight change and that was substituting "seniority restriction" with "single reversion restriction" so as to avoid the appearance some special status is being created. This keeps it clean and simple that the restriction is there because of the sock and meat issues on the article and that's it. I'm going to mull over something broader for all these article but think I'll just see how this works for that article first. --WGFinley (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I may have not been clear enough that experienced editors are *also* under 1RR, though reverting low seniority accounts is an exemption to their restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Realized I missed some spots and cleaned it up a bit more. [2] --WGFinley (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's a bit different, let me fix that then. --WGFinley (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Now I think I have it. [3] --WGFinley (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Your final version at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh looks good to me. That is a better way of saying it than I had originally. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Fitzpatrick again

Hi Ed, even after your block expired it seems User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick has insisted on continuing to edit war at Talk:Demographics of Greater China, seen in this diff. What's the correct process here, should I make a new report at AN3, or at ANI perhaps? NULL talk
23:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This situation is getting a little out of hand. Jeffrey has reverted reverts across multiple pages in the last day and made three reverts at Category:Gondola lifts in China to try to force a C1 tag on the page despite being told it doesn't apply because the category is being discussed at CFD. He's also been going back and forth with SchmuckyTheCat over a link from 2004 that Schmucky fixed (as allowed by WP:TPG) which Jeffrey is inexplicably reverting. Admins so far haven't addressed the AN3 report, is there any chance you might be able to draw attention to it or call in a favour from another admin to get it looked at? NULL talk
00:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
If he breaks 3RR at Category:Gondola lifts in China that might justify a sanction. Since the report at AN3 is still open, we should wait until it is archived. If you have some time, look into the Instantnood sock connection. There is a limit to what any admin ought to do without concurrence from others, and shopping for a sanction is not advisable. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply canvassing, my apologies. I'm less concerned with the outcome of the report, I'd just prefer someone actually look at it. I'll try to look into the Instantnood possibility this evening. NULL talk
00:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I replied to you with some investigation results on my talk page. If you can offer your advice on whether the evidence is sufficient, that would be great. NULL talk
09:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Are you saying that every source could be used even if WP:RSN says its unreliable?There are only one editor suggested that biased sources(and I agree with him actually) should be used with attribution he did't even speak about IRMEP specifically most of the editors said that its unreliable and shouldn't be used in Wikipeida because its not "an institute", not everyone that setup webpage and call him "institute" is really is.--Shrike (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if I mistaken about the policy my AE report was in good faith so I don't think should be sanctioned just because my misunderstanding--Shrike (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're still not getting this. Facts and opinions are different. I don't personally see IRMEP's opinion in this case as being terribly interesting, but they are a reliable source for what their own *opinion* is. That is not in doubt. EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Its not just their opinion its factual statement about their donors.In case of ADL it was attributed too nevertheless you thought than sanction is on the order. But what I don't understand how can your overlook the comments of uninvolved editors in WP:RSN.--Shrike (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Haller's Blue Army

I'd like to ask for assistance in resolving a neutrality issue on Haller's Blue Army page. As a anno IP, I understand that I'm at a disadvantage here. But, I do believe that I have a legitimate case against users Faustian and Malik Shabazz. Both of them are re-adding text that was deemed as inaccurate through discussion on the "Talk" page, and when I tried to remove the disputed phrases, they both went on the offensive, accused me of war editing, and threatened to block me. Yet, they totally disregarded any fault in their own actions. I also bought up a legitimate issue that the entire "Controversies" section is written in a language that holds a "POV" and the linguistic style used is sensational in nature. To illustrate my case, take the US military in Iraq, you could fill an entire Wiki page full of individual cases of war time brutality against civilians, and call the US military "anti-Islamic crusaders". But, you don't find that kind of language used on such a page. Same standard should be applied in the Blue Army articel. Some soldiers did commit brutality against local Jewish and Ukrainian civilians. But, as user Faustian himself noted on the "Talk" page, they viewed them as Bolshevik collaborators, and to further prove my case, Polish-Jews who were loyal to Poland, served with-in the army's ranks, so you can't just call this a case of anti-semitism, and you can't frame this narrative in such a blunt way, only seeing things in black and white. So, in the end I ask for assistance in this matter, and ask that we bring in neutral parties to look at this issue. -- (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This false claim about "re-adding text that was deemed inaccurate" is debunked, with links, here: [4]. Blaming the Jewish victims by claiming they were all Bolsheviks is not nice, either.Faustian (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no... Faustian, here is what you are intentionaly leaving out. You continue to insert this statement in the introductory paragraph: "Some soldiers from the Blue army were involved in antisemitic actions during the struggle in the east".
Yet, back in January you yourself agreed that such a statement is out of place in the introductory paragraph. Please see what you wrote below:
Discussed on the "Talk" page: I will look over this again in more detail later. Taking a quick glance for now, it does seem like the sentence in the lede "While fighting in the East, soldiers from the Blue Army also engaged in antisemitic violence." implies that this characterized the entire formation and all the soldiers of the army. Given that Haller and others condemned whatever excesses happened and made efforts to stop them this does not appear to be an accurate implication.VolunteerMarek 05:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Changed!Faustian (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I changed it by adding "some", and VM accepted that change. You were edit-warring to remove the version with "some." Please stop wasting others' time.Faustian (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
No further comments. -- (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Per the 3RR report here you have violated WP:SOCK by carrying on a dispute at Blue Army (Poland) with multiple IPs. Come back and ask your question here again when you have acquired good standing, for example by registering an account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect... I'm using a commercial net-service, if they have an alternating IP address, than I can't do anything about that, and ask that we focus on the dispute itself, not trying to label me a sock puppet. -- (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You've already violated WP:SOCK and are eligible for a block right now. Editing any disputed article with an IP is frowned upon. A fluctuating IP has no usable talk page on which people can leave messages. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem, going forward I will set up a profile. But, just to prove my case, user Faustian just added that disputed sentence back into the article, right after you restricted the page. Why is he not blocked for edit warring? Please excuse my direct tone, but that is why many people out there see Wikipedia as losing its credibility. I think that my case is legitimage, and if user Faustian was truly committed to creating a neutral, and informative article he would have requested help form a un-bias third party as I requested, instead of engaging in edit waring, and then blaming it on me.-- (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I re-added something that had already been accepted by a neutral third party, Volunteer Marek (who can hardly be accused of anti-Polish bias!), as described here: [5] and which is well-sourced.Faustian (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
No, you changed it by removing the entire statement back in January, please see your own edits... then when everyone agreed and left the discussion you went back in and added the sentence with the word "some"... But, that's just disingenuous, to say the least, and that's how you are discrediting yourself. -- (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The nice thing about wikipedia is that lies are easily disproven: [6]. Please stop being disruptive.Faustian (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Faustian, I understand that you have contributed to Wikipedia in the past, so excuse my blunt language, but you are lying to cover yourself. Look at your last edit dated 15:24, 9 January 2012‎ Faustian (talk | contribs) that is also the last edit for January that ended the discussion, you removed the disputed phrase, and the neutrality tag. -- (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ConfirmAccount extension

Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for removal of protection on Gold Standard article

It seems that page protection is being used for "content control" on the article. In the latest version I am supposed to have engaged in synthesis and OR. Several attempts to get the complainer to state exactly what I synthesized have been ignored for the plain and simple reason that I did not synthesize anything. Pretty mush all the material I added was in the Legal Tender Cases article. The complaint of synthesis was a fallback position to a complaint on the use of primary sources which I demolished.

and (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from opening a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. If editors agree with you there, then it is expected that the change will be made in the article. Before semiprotection was applied, your own changes to the Gold standard article seem to have been routinely reverted. This suggests you do not have consensus for the reforms you desire. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the general run of wiki editors LOVE to shove wiki policy down ones throat without having read those exact same policies. This current tempest is one in a long line of that kind of conduct. For instance one editor deleted material because it was based on a book review and he thought it was against wiki policies to include references to book reviews. Wiki policies do in fact allow references to book reviews. One editor even deleted material which stated that higher interest rates reward savers and punish debtors because he disagreed with it. He must never have had a bank account or taken out a loan. From that experience I firmly believe that wiki should cull the terminally stupid from its ranks of editors. While not as severe, this current dispute involves material on the US gold standard which is already included in the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases. If it is included in that wiki article, with acceptable references, why is it OR or synthesis or some other made up excuse, when included in another wiki article, with pretty much those exact same references? (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to persuade the other editors at Talk:Gold standard that you are right about this. Your own record does not suggest that you understand or respect consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Consensus does not mean that I have to accept a looney's opinion that savers get PUNISHED and debtors REWARDED by higher interest rates. See wiki policy on fringe opinion. (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston/GKOS keyboard

Hi Ed, I've moved all the edits that you userfied on this page back to the main namespace, because I thought there was no reason not to restore the old history. I came across this page while importing old edits by Css. Graham87 14:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You put the deleted revisions under the redirect. Seems harmless. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

More problems with gold standard

A bias tag has been removed with NO, ZIP, ZERO discussion of the issues that caused it to be placed there. This removal is in violation of wiki policy, which requires discussion of the issues raised.

Please restore the tag or unprotect the article so that I can restore it. (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Come back after you've gained consensus for your changes at Talk:Gold standard. You don't seem to be getting any traction there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate an answer to the question I asked and you deleted. Does or does not wiki policy state that a bias tag stays on until the issues causing it to be placed are resolved? When were those issues resolved?
And I would really really like to know WHY I was banned for a reporting a 3rr violation? which was in fact a 3rr violation. A violation on which the only action you took was to ban the person that reported that 3rr violation. Seems a bit biased to me. What do you think? (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
An article tag is like any other piece of content in the article, and the decision on whether it stays or goes depends on editor consensus. It is fairly common for submitters of 3RR reports to be sanctioned, if it turns out that the problem is more with them than with the other party. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
So the guy who actually did engage in a 3RR violation is not guilty of a 3RR violation and doesn't get punished, while the guy NOT having a 3RR violation and reporting said violation is guilty and has to be punished. Sounds like brainwashing straight out of Orwell's 1984. Congratulations on your contribution to the world's insanity.
and I believe the guy who did engage in that 3RR was the same guy who removed the bias tag, contrary to wiki policy. Let someone get away with one violation and he figures he can get away with another. Isn't that the way the world works? Again thank you for your support of the jackasses of this world. (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup! same guy

Again thank you for your support for the jackasses of this world! (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Probable block evasion

Further to this AN3 report where Darklordabc (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and an Australian IP were blocked, since then Australian IPs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have carried on edit warring on the article. Don't know if you want to extend Darklordabc's block or not? Thanks. 2 lines of K303 13:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Another admin has semiprotected English Defence League for three months. If Darklordabc resumes at English Defence League with the identical POV that would strengthen the case, and a longer block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for locking my page! Tboii99 16:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if you are going to reply, please reply on my talk page, because I'll get it immediately. Thanks again! Tboii99 16:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello EdJohnston, yes, you understood correctly, will accept your suggestion as a good faith effort as the topic area is so full of content disputes. I do however not appreciate that the closure does not reflect that it was no violation. If you think it was a violation you should tell me why exactly you think so, as to know what to expect in the future and to fully understand the ruling in this case. This would be appreciated. Further, I have a dislike for threats (as I understand your last sentence) especially when they are based on the outlandish accusations and suggestions by someone who - as I told him personally countless times - should be as far away from anything involving me as possible, writing stuff like

  • "we live on the other side of the globe and don't give the tiniest of shits about their stupid border and ethnic rivalries" (What is my ethnicity? Where am I from? What is my border? And what the heck is my rivalry?)
  • "get him the hell off the back of the community ... If we go to ANI with diffs about his disruptive behavior, then we're in for a party" ("Party"?)
  • "he does basically nothing on Wikipedia other than complain and stir the pot of controversy; even when he does make edits, they are so blatantly bad" (Really? Wow.)

I know you have friendly relations to him, but maybe you can still understand that this person - over whom I went to arbitration remaining respectful saying I consider him a good, hard-working administrator who just slightly lost his way in this one dispute - should not deal with anything related to me but leave it to everyone (anyone) else. Yet, he keeps bringing up my name everywhere even when I am not involved in a dispute the slightest like in the ANI case between DS and TG. Yes, I do not consider the blocks issued by Magog against me valid, and I have presented my arguments. The same goes for some other editors. If you ask Bwilkins and others, I never did that when he issued a well-balanced block. I have never been involved in any disrupting dispute with any other editor but TopGun and sockpuppet master User:Lagoo sab in the past. So, I'd appreciate you taking what I say more seriously. Privilege (everywhere, not only on this online encyclopedia) means responsibility, also the responsibility to listen to another person may he be titled editor or administrator. Still respectful regards, JCAla (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Your 30-day restriction at Pakistan is now in effect. All restrictions can be enforced by blocks. You and I are not in agreement on the other things you have mentioned above, but I am content to leave the matter where it stands now. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Range block removed?

With regard to this discussion, somehow this person is editing again, with the same disruptive pattern as before. Radiopathy •talk• 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs of edits that are clearly incorrect or against consensus? EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. He's on a campaign of some kind, he makes many unsourced changes and hardly ever uses the same IP twice. Violates WP:SOCK in my opinion. Reblocked for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for protecting my page! MONGO 05:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


You probably meant malik not magog.--Shrike (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library
New York Public Library Lion May 2011.JPG
Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch.
  • Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227).
  • Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street.
  • Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)

The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!

Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification about WP:AC/DS

{{talkback|Malik Shabazz|Your request for clarification about WP:AC/DS|ts=19:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)}}--[[User:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 09:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your advice


The user:Iloveandrea have left very problematic message on my talk page[7](that is also a blp violation).How should I proceed with it if at all?I have left message on his talk page [8] but he deleted it.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I note that he previously wrote this on your talk page.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I have logged a warning of Iloveandrea in WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The following ANI mentions don't exactly paint Iloveandrea in a good light:
Still, he has over 3,000 edits and he must occasionally do something useful. He seems to have done serious work at Mau Mau Uprising. You can see him participating a few times on the talk page in a normal tone of voice. But then you also get this comment (to VolunteerMarek): ''"Blah blah blah. I couldn't care less what you think, you arrogant fool." This led VM to open the 'Need a clue' post at ANI on 8 March 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come along

The only reason people like Strike complain is to get people like me banned, so s/he and his hasbara slime can run amok with their hasbara. The description 'slime', aside from being ridiculously mild, that I applied to Regev was in a private comment made on Strike's talk, not in an article. The guy just overreacting for the reason I explained at the outset. I am perfectly entitled to hold my low opinion of Israel's hasbara chief. I made one silly edit to one article, and this is the hysterical reaction I get? Maybe a bit of perspective is required at your end, as well as some maturity at mine?
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to take a break from I/P, if it is so upsetting for you. It's not what I usually edit on anyway.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've issued a 48-hour block and explained the details at User talk:Iloveandrea#Personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Slightly confused and seeking advice

Hi Ed,
I'm a little confused COI issues, and was wondering if I may ask for your advice on something, as I am worrying myself into a state of frenzy about it. I'm currently a Games Maker (aka volunteer) for the London 2012 games, and have also been contributing in small doses on the London 2012 articles, wherever necessary. After reading WP:COI I have now got myself in a state of panic that some of my minuscule contributions may be encroaching onto conflict of interest, due to my volunteer status for the games themselves. Would it be possible to shed some light onto this, and inform me whether or not my volunteer status would be classified as COI or not. Many thanks in advance - WesleyMouse 02:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please give examples of some articles where you think you could have a conflict. Are you likely to get into any editing disputes on any of those? EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
There are only 2 articles really in regards to London 2012. They are; 2012 Summer Olympics and 2012 Summer Paralympics. I'm only a volunteer at the games themselves, but being a volunteer does mean I am privy to some inside knowledge about preparations etc. As a volunteer I have access to some London 2012 sites that aren't available for public viewing; but as I signed a privacy protocol, I wouldn't be able to use these sites as a ref source. The likelihood of getting into editing disputes would be very slim, as any edits that I have made thus far, have only been correcting errors that I notice on the articles, and using sources that are A) reliable and B) accessible to the general public. If there are edits that I think may be questionable, then I do tend to post my concerns on the article talk pages first. WesleyMouse 03:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like you have much of a problem. If you encounter a dispute and anyone questions your status, you could open a thread at WP:COIN to get advice. In the meantime, consider explaining your status regarding the Olympics on your user page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Phew, on reading that, I can relax a little and not panic too much. I do have on my main user page a userbox showing that I'm a volunteer at the games, and my talk page has wikibreak-type notices to show when I'm away for volunteer training sessions - hopefully they cover all angels. I have noticed though on both articles, the host location is listed as "London, United Kingdom"; when the International Olympic Committee actually have it listed as "London, Great Britain". I questioned this on the talk page, but only one person said it should really reflect the official IOC listing (Great Britain), and not the official geographical terminology (United Kingdom). I didn't correct the articles yet, as I noticed COI, and thought it best to seek advice first, before stumbling myself into COI troubles. WesleyMouse 03:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not up to the Olympic Committee to decide whether we should use GB or UK in the article. That is a matter for WP's style rules. The issue should be avoided unless you want to open a stressful debate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I fully understand that rule in respect of WP's styling. Although British Olympic Association uses GB and not UK; as does Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Information at WP:UKPLACE isn't exactly explanatory enough to clear the confusion up, although Wikipedia:Official names#Where there is an official name that is not the article title tends to imply that GB would be used first in this scenario, and UK afterwards. Ahh well, I'll leave it up to the project community to decide, after all there is a discussion on there about it for people to mull over. Thank you anyhow, for helping me with my initial query. Much appreciated. WesleyMouse 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi Ed. I responded to your comment at my talk, and also started an RFC, as you advised. Regards, Grandmaster 12:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

With regard to your request at NK talk, should I start a separate RFC on every source or paragraph that is in dispute, or I can create new sections on the same talk page? The problem is that the dispute is not related to just one source or one paragraph. The rewrite was very large, and included a lot of questionable interpretations of the primary sources, and dubious secondary sources. Any attempts to make any corrections were reverted, which led to further escalation of the dispute. Therefore I think in addition to RFC, it makes sense to request a peer review of the proposed rewrite. Grandmaster 14:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make a subpage in your user space that lists all the questions you want to cover. Then just start out with one or two of them in the RfC, to get the discussion going. I have mentioned on the NK talk that one could propose removal of all the primary sources. See if you agree with that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I can do that, but it is going to take some time because of the volume of the text added. And I would agree to removal of all primary sources that require interpretation, as per WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, if we have a text of a legal document, we can use it saying that it states this and that, but any interpretation of the meaning would require a secondary source. For instance, we can quote the resolution by EU parliament as saying certain things, but without any interpretations. Historical chronicles are a bit more difficult, like in the case with Schiltberger, we can say that he said this or that, but that would not add anything to the quality of the article, because it would require a specialist source to explain what is true in what he wrote and how trustworthy as a source he was. So legal documents probably need to be treated slightly differently than historical chronicles, even though they are both primary. Grandmaster 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you think of any primary documents that have reason to stay in the article? If not, consider asking for their removal. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I rolled back most of recent additions, but there are still a few primary sources in there, like this line: Tigran the Great, King of Armenia, (ruled from 95–55 BC), founded in Artsakh one of four cities named “Tigranakert” after himself. It refers to Sebeos, but needs a third party secondary source. I think this article needs a lot of improvement, but it needs to be built slowly. You cannot just come along and dump 30K of text into the article that was a subject to a couple of arbitration cases. It is one thing to create an article from scratch, and another thing to contribute to a highly contentious article. Every paragraph added needs to be throughly discussed, if there are objections to its inclusion. Grandmaster 09:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I replied on talk pages in the article but overall I am not happy with how this article is being handled by sysops. First, the allegations on primary sources by Grandmaster is a bad faith mis-characterization of what is in the article; see my comments on talk pages The added material that Grandmaster removed is based on secondary sources which comment primary sources. Primary sources are used for reference to the original source as illustration so that the reader could learn from where the secondary sources derive their comments from. That is it. Second, Grandmaster's stance on sources is bad faith. I will bring Winter's example with Guba mass grave which Grandmaster edited. This indeed is an absurd article completely based on Azerbaijani hate websites and state propaganda sources. Grandmaster never bothered to question the validity of those sources whereas here he kills himself posing as a super-expert in WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY. You need to create a level playing field for a true discussion to take place. I propose to unblock Winterblist and Dehr since their violations clearly donot merit a block. And you need to put Grandmaster under sanctions for essentially impersonating an administrator, and for his removal of text agreed upon by several editors. Instead you give him and his ruwiki meats a pat on the back. Zimmarod (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It's reasonable to assume that some number of socks are still operating on both sides of this conflict. That poses difficulties for trying to resolve the issues at Nagorno-Karabakh by simply counting the number of editors who vote for each side of a question. It may be appropriate to focus in on a small number of issues for review and try to put them before a broader community, among whose numbers there will be fewer socks. The question of usage of primary sources could be one such issue. From the article talk page I can't get much insight as to the degree that primary sources are currently being used. The quality of the discussion on the talk page doesn't seem very high. Somebody who doesn't work in this area would have a lot of trouble getting oriented as to the main issues. In your comment at the article talk you argue that "interpretation [of primary sources] is allowed with the support of secondary sources." There are examples in the article of primary sources being used directly (with no filtering through a secondary source). For example the Ancient Greek author Strabo is cited as an authority for a matter of fact in reference 10, regarding the name Orkhistene. I agree that use of both Armenian and Azeri primary sources ought to be scrutinized. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep, Grandmaster risks a bonfire of his own primary sources. The blocking of Winterblist and Dehr is extraordinary, but nobody invents a new weapon without having an overwhelming desire to try it out as soon as possible and those two were available targets. Meowy 01:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Edit Warrior...Warrior Award

Halo Legendary Helmet Gold.jpg
Slakr's Anti-Edit Warrior...Warrior Award

For your work in frequently patrolling edit warring reports, I hereby award you this anti-edit-warrior combat helmet. It's come in handy many-a-time when dealing with warriors of all sorts, and it's no doubt prevented many-a-concussion...though it doesn't seem too good at preventing the headache in the first place. :P

Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakrtalk / 02:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A reply

to your message to me can be found on my talk page....William 13:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Prostitution in South Korea

'Chinese Prostitute in korea' Is a pre-existing data. but User Azload(Smiling Demon Lord) again and again Blindly deletes it. and 'Chinese Prostitute in korea' is far from Human Trafficking . therefore, 'Chinese Prostitute in korea' Preserve this section plz, — Preceding unsigned comment added by OOggii (talkcontribs) 04:21, 11 April 2012‎ (UTC)

User:Vikas.insan fresh off block and back to old tricks

Greetings, fresh off a block for for abusing multiple accounts (which he moved to after getting called out for long-term edit warring), User:Vikas.insan is back and playing the same WP:I didn't hear that all over again in Dera Sacha Sauda and Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. Both articles about an Indian religious group whose interests Vikas appears to be advocating in a clearly POV way.

He's adding honorifics like "Saint... Ji Insan" as we've constantly said not to do on Talk pages of articles and his own Talk page, removing clearly cited mentions of past criminal cases as Not everything is historically important, the major incident of Dress that caused riots and was in highlights is as-is there and I have not removed from there, but other were proved by High Court of Haryana & Punjab as fake allegations, etc.

He's reverted each of my reverts, so I had to back of 3RR. And despite my posting specifically for this on the Talk page, he ignored my post and just said you still disagree? please prove me wrong on talk page, then put it here. This user has a long-term pattern of being an SPA to defend the interests of Dera Sacha Sauda and its founder Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. There may also be another sock, User:Yogesh.insan978 who was SPAing on the same topics during the block.

I've been dealing with this lot for around a year now, and the exact same arguments over over where they insist on giving the leader a bevvy of glossy titles, and hand-waving away murder and rape court cases. Yes, charges were dropped, but they were all over the media, the article mentions their being dropped, and they're still frequently cited my academic writers as evidence of the controversies surrounding the group. Thanks for any help!

I tried filing this at NPOV Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tampering_by_advocates_of_Dera_Sacha_Sauda_.28Indian_religious_group.29. But honestly the pattern is so blatant I figured best to bring it to the attention of the last blocking mod (sent to DeltaQuad initially, but he's on break and also more of a sock-hunter). MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. I hope you will be watching for possible socks. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this up Ed :) Saved me some time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Any possibility we could wrap this up?

Hi Ed, I'm wondering if you or anyone else is in a position to wrap up this[9] AE thread, which has been open for over two weeks now with little movement and no actionable evidence. I'd also like to ask that the request to take action agains the filing editor be considered.Homunculus (duihua) 20:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The AE request has been closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: New message

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you - I just got back so will respond now. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: New message

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 23:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for notifying me. And, I assure you that I was in no way edit warring. As you can see in the Christopher Walken article, in the 1980's section you can read that all is resolved. I'm very sorry for the inconveince and do apologize to SudoGhost. Stoopsklan (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't resolved, and you were not only edit warring, but violated WP:3RR, disregarding the requests to discuss it on the talk page. - SudoGhost 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for you thinking I was disregarding the requests to discuss. I however wasn't and am very sorry. I have found more info on said article and wish for all this to be resolved as soon as possible. [1] Stoopsklan (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Flagrant violations of AA

Hi Ed. About three months ago, I brought to your attention editor Verman1's violation of the permanent topic ban you placed against him on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. I think you were away from your account for some time and my comment was eventually was archived by the bot. Well, he is still violating it, as seen from his recent history, and despite my friendly warning back in January, I think some action is warranted. All the best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: New message

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 07:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Posting addressed to you there from me. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding dispute resolution

Hi, you left a comment on elduderino's page stating that we should try Rfc? how does this work, and if you could advise, what is the best procedure to file a complaint that is very long, complex and detailed? If discussion and so on has already been tried and if the user is a known edit warrior as well in conflict with other users is Rfc on a user ideal? Thank you. JTBX (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to simplify your request. If you make an RfC about 20 things nobody may bother to respond. If you actually are hoping to find consensus it doesn't help to come to my page and badmouth the other editor. You might consider making a new draft of the article in your user space and then ask for comments. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
So the ideal thing right now is a concise RFC? Just trying to make sure because I have never been through the resolution process to this extent. I assume the Edit war claim I placed, as it is protected, is closed now? Thank you for your help and time.--JTBX (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the 3RR complaint is closed. Since User:Gareth Griffith-Jones is willing to assist with this article, why don't you propose your next idea to him, and see what he says. That might be a quicker way to reach a compromise than using a formal RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


I am happy to assist in forming the question. Issues relating to this are still being discussed here, and since there are not two clearly defined positions, forming a question may be quite complex.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There are currently discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#1929_Palestine_riots I think till its over article should be protected.--Shrike (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuing to edit articles regarding AA

Hello Verman1. Do you realize you are under an indefinite ban from the topic of Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute? Here is a recent edit of yours at Immigration to Turkey which mentions Armenia. The title of the reference you added refers to the Armenians' 'national grievances'. It seems to me that this violates your ban. Can you explain why you should not be blocked for a ban violation? EdJohnston (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. I have taken this material from another Wikipedia article and confined only with immigration issues. I did not mention anything about Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict. --Verman1 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I find this edit at Ghost town to be a violation of your ban. You introduce new text commenting on the actions of the Armenian forces regarding Agadam, which is a place in Azerbaijan. For example, you stated "the Armenian forces decided to destroy much of Agdam to prevent its recapture by Azerbaijan". This is a violation of your ban regardless of whether the material previously existed anywhere in Wikipedia. I intend to issue a block unless you agree to cease such edits in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I do agree to cease this type of edits. --Verman1 (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


Please clarify in the AE why you consider the lack of a RFC, when there is a disagreement involving over 7 editors, an example of my personal failings. I have heavily contributed to the Talk page and RSN, and readily engage in discussion.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 00:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

When it is clear there is disagreement among reasonable people, you should not continue to revert. That's the time to wait for consensus. Both you and Oncenawhile continued to revert major aspects of the article up to April 24, with no evidence of any closure of the issue on the talk page. You, Jayjg and Oncenawhile all made pure reverts on April 24. An edit summary of 'Restore verified material' is useless as a justification for your change in an edit war situation. It would have been more frank to say, 'Restoring a version of the article that puts my own side in a better light.' EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. It was quite shocking for me to have this abrupt regression in light of many Talk discussions, so I acted impulsively. Still, I'm inexperienced and learning, so thank you for your advice.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 01:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dave Winer

Might I ask you to keep half an eye on Dave Winer? NIrelan is back, it seems. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are the user links:
It may be logical to take this to ANI eventually and ask for an indefinite block. Some time may need to pass first. This editor may be a person who has had disputes with Winer in real life. Merely wanting to balance Winer's article is acceptable, but naked animosity will raise most people's eyebrows. Posting the issue at WP:COIN is another option, but it's a safer choice if the editor has already outed themselves somewhere on Wikipedia per a previous comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message Ed. Would you mind explaining whether in your view my misinterpretation of whether that edit constituted a "revert" was a "reasonable mistake"? I would like to understand so that i can learn from this and not make the same mistake again.

More importantly though, I think that if we went down the route you proposed for a case where the suggested transgression was uncertain or unintended, it would encourage more people to use ARBPIA as a weapon to remove from the debate any less experienced editors they don't like. I think protecting the spirit of ARBPIA should define the answer here. Noone has accused me of edit warring, in fact quite the opposite, whereas other editors (including the editor who brought the AE) have been accused of editing in an aggressive manner (for example, working together to get around 1RR without consensus, tenuous explanations for obviously pov edits, consistently avoiding direct talk questions, rejecting numerous attempts at real cooperation, unreasonable detagging, and now silly games with talk page early archiving). In other words, I'm being accused of accidentally tripping one of the Remedies of ARBPIA, whereas the AE-proposing editor and others involved have been flouting its four Principles.

Given the wider context, I just don't see how enforcing against an uncertain or unintended technical breach would be achieve anything positive for anyone except the AE-proposing editor. And a voluntary would just be an enforcement by another name. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible Vikas.insan block evade already

I really hope I'm not just ABF'ing someone who coincidentally just now appeared, but only one day after you indef'ed Special:Contributions/Vikas.insan, this new guy Special:Contributions/Realnews7 appears and starts adding, carefully, cited material about Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh that just happens to be all positive, refers to his opponents as "terrorists" calls Singh "Saint... Ji Insan", etc. Could be pure coincidence, but it is quacking a bit duckish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Realnews7 left an edit summary that suggests he could be a member of the sect. But his English is better than Vikras.insan and he uses the WP Reflinks tool. I did not notice him reverting back any honorifics -- let me know if you found a diff. Not clear to me that it's the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Musion Eyeliner

If you'd read any of the talk or the modified text, you'd see that I asked the user Xida2001 several times to clean up his edit. I finally tried to clean it up myself and he still reverted it. His edits are in poor form and poor english. Please remove the protection template. (I can't believe you'd grant protection so easily!) --Judgeking (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The two of you are having a content dispute. It looks like it would not be hard to find a compromise. For that you need to discuss with the other editor. Another option is for you to request a WP:Third opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
As I said, if you'd looked at any of the material instead of just doing what Xida2001 asked without question, you'd see that I did comprimise by rewording his edit to make it readable (english is clearly not his first language). He still reverted without responding to talk. Judgeking (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Admins do not resolve content disputes. You are expected to have some diplomatic skills yourself. If you are completely stuck, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It's pretty had to resolve a dispute when an admin locks a page for no reason. I've tried to get pages locked from actual vandalism before and NEVER got them locked this fast or easily. Please remove the lock so Xida2001 and I can compromise. Judgeking (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If you reach an agreement with Xida2001 you can ask me to unprotect the page and it will be done immediately. The article's talk page is not protected and you are welcome to continue negotiating there. Your remarks about his knowledge of English are not helping. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)]

As an independent observer, here is my opinion. Xida2001's edits repeat information already present elsewhere in the article, are poorly written, and contain unnecessary external links. By protecting this page, you have frozen the article with Xida2001's unconstructive edits included. I ask that you remove the protected status so that other users such as myself can fix the problem. If you are unwilling to do this, please let me know what I can do as a third party to get the dispute resolved and the page unprotected. Augurar (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not join the discussion at Talk:Musion Eyeliner. Perhaps you can suggest a compromise. It is hard for me to figure out what the dispute is about. It seems like moving one sentence from A to B could be enough to satisfy both parties. With three editors joining the debate perhaps a 2:1 majority at least might be found for what to put in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with JTBX

Ed, maybe you can advise me. JTBX has continued his personal attacks on me on the talk page for The Godfather, and now he has expanded his nuisance editing by marring the plot summary for No Country for Old Men (film). What avenues do I have to get him out of my hair and prevent the destructive edits? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not happy about the personal attacks, but it may be time for a different admin to review the problem. It seems to me that both of you have broken WP:3RR at No Country for Old Men (film) and you had better cool it there. If you want to improve plot summaries surely you can redirect your efforts to an article where JTBX is not active. And of course, vice versa. There may be ways for you to get feedback on the quality of your own summaries by people who know that kind of thing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand, Ring said he would talk it out on The Godfather page, but now he is saying I am using personal attacks as we are discussing it (which I cannot find). I had a full day of editing plots and that included No Country for Old Men as I came across it. I edited it because it was over 700 words and there was no clear consensus, contrary to what Ring stated, which would stop me from editing the article. I already listed my reasons on its respective page and a neutral editor stated he would help way his opinion on the matter. I am now thinking of opening a Rfc on this user. Again EJ, I do not see what counts as a personal attack, but I am merely pointing out this user's history if you go on his talk page and on an earlier discussion for No Country, that he is a known edit warrior and leads many editors in circles. (Check the relevant talk pages) I don't think he wishes to contribute to the project and is violating WP:OWN. That is from what I can see. And of course, then he seeks help, like he is doing with you now and to Gareth, to dress it up as if he is the victim. I do not think there will be a resolution on the talk page of Godfather either. I have written my plot and it conforms to WP:PLOT guidelines but this user continually reverts the plot back which is where the dispute arose. My point is this is not an edit conflict over opinion, this is a conflict between someone trying to uphold policy and someone (who is known to edit war) getting in the way. I am sorry you did not see it that way EJ, due to time constraints and I apologise to the lengthy battle on the resolution board which this user initiated. (My fault for falling for his trap and having you nearly sanction me). JTBX (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, actually, the shoe is on the other foot. I've worked on No Country for Old Men a couple years. JTBX only started editing there since the trouble on The Godfather. It seems that he is intentionally trying to provoke problems and be disruptive. I want to have as little to do with him as possible. Perhaps if you would advise him to stay away from articles he knows I am editing, that would solve the problem. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Is that a warning to me? These are pretty notable films and as I stated I came across it during the dispute from a fellow editor who reported you, seeing as the plot was over 700 words I cut it back and improved it, and have sought guidance from the talk page from another neutral editor who is helping. Again I do not see what I am doing wrong by being productive. You first pasted this message when I began editing the article, so perhaps you feel you own it? JTBX (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting weird. JTBX is reordering our posts here for some reason. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I simply placed your post below mine because of the time you wrote it. --JTBX (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
For some reason, JT removed the post I made here earlier. To reiterate, I have been editing No Country for Old Men for a couple years. He only started editing there since he started with the personal attacks. I have no interest in coming in contact with him, so maybe you could mention to him that the less contact the two of us have, the better. If that seems reasonable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Aagain, your posts are below mine. Stop moving them up and conflicting the time you wrote them. You are simply attempting to create another unnecessary squabble on an admin's page. JTBX (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't move the posts, JTBX. You did that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The two of you can request an interaction ban. If you both agree, I can get the process started. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
That's fine if he leaves me alone on No Country for Old Men (film). I think a reasonable person would have predicted it would be disruptive to start editing there at this time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: "As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!" -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the place to take this. You advised both me and JTBX to "ask the opinion of User:Gareth Griffith-Jones on any further changes they want to make" in your dispute resolution decision. Since that time, JTBX has made at least two edits on the page in question without consulting Gareth. I suggested that the three of us proceed on the basis of unanimity for the time being and there was no objection to that proposal (Gareth agreed to it explicitly). However, Here and here, JTBX has made changes to the article without consulting and without consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Why not ask User:Dennis Brown for advice. You still have the ability to open a WP:Request for comment, whether JTBX cooperates or not. Dennis might have other suggestions. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My response: I originally thought of engaging Gareth but as you can see on his messages to Ring-Cinema he has other plans, trying to court me along falsely so that they can continue editing the article as if they own it. Besides it was a suggestion to contact Gareth and not written in stone, especially if he is clearly no longer acting as a neutral memeber. I have been busy but will open a RFc as that was the original plan. Ring's so called violations of mine are a joke. Look at the history, a user called Chaheel edited an improvement to the plot, cutting out two unnecessary words which I already had cut out in my plot draft I had put forward. But if I had put those improvements forward, I would have been reverted, (which actually heppened by Gareth), the acting neutral editor but in reality colluding with Ring to violate WP:PLOT and policy. Meat-puppetry?

If that isn't enough, Ring took the issue to the Adminstrators noticeboard wrongly, but admin Captain Screebo noticed he was a known edit warrior by looking through his history. We have already discussed it at Dennis's page, who noticed the same thing. Despite all of this, I still wanted to remain friendly with Gareth and reached out to him on his talk page, after editing The Godfather Part II, the second film, which had a plot of over 2,000 words. I cut it down after a lot of effort to about 1,200, but Gareth reverted my changes as unacceptable. Okay, I thought. But then I saw this User Talk: Ring Cinema, he immediately notified Ring and didn't even leave me a message, even though Part II has nothing to do with the conflict.

Lastly, if personal attacks mean anything, look at how Ring responded on Gareth's page to me. Thanks JTBX (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Captain Screebo made a mistake that was immediately corrected. Now that Gareth doesn't agree with what JT wants to do, he is trying to badmouth him, too. Despite his bad behavior, Gareth and I are ready to engage him on a unanimous basis. He attacks us instead of working with us. {sigh} --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I endorse what Ring has just posted. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

List of vegans

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

SlimVirgin (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. 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. The thread is "Admin refusing to participate in dispute resolution". Thank you. Monty845 02:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing

I'm through with Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_refusing_to_participate_in_dispute_resolution. You could see what was happening was not fair, and you had the power to compel dispute resolution. There is no Wikipedia if there is no fair judgment of consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Matt Lewis RfE

Thanks for handling the Matt Lewis RfE so well. I too think that if it serves as a shot of cold water (which it appears to have done) then that would be sufficient. If the behaviour continues, I'll open another one. If you could emphasise how close he came on this occasion to very serious consequences, and that he has now burnt his get-out-of-jail-free card, it might leave the lesson more permanently in his mind.

One minor thing that I would ask of you is to comment on how I notified Matt about the RfE. He's got it in his head that I didn't inform him properly of it (see his comments in the RfE and on his talk). Matt has some 'quirks'. One of them is that he gets something like that in his head and then spins a conspiracy out of it and makes accusations (rather than, for example, simply double checking a link, as he could have done on this occasion).

I don't know how you could handle it, but if you could impress upon him that Wikipedia is not a place of cloak and dagger, I'd appreciate it. In particular, could you impress on him that he needs to think heavily before believing poor faith in another editor (or group of editors)? Thanks, --RA (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Iloveandrea again.

As you know this user have a history of BLP violation after I have removed his BLP violation [10] and after that user have left me this inappropriate message [11].What do you think the best course of actions in such situation.Does AN/I or AE is appropriate?--Shrike (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Must be another example of his unique sense of humor. His next edit to the article was fine and clearly improves the sense. Not worth going to ANI unless he loses it completely. Nuclear program of Iran may not be under ARBPIA. If you think he made a personal attack you can use WQA. EdJohnston (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
His post on Shrike's talk page is pure harassment. He took time out of his busy day to stop by another editor's talk page, for no other reason than he identifies said editor as Israeli, and asked when Israel's government spokesman will be replaced by this "hottie". It had nothing to do with editing an encyclopedia.
The "BLP violation" is egregious and gratuitous. It's not even sourced to someone's blog, it's the editor's personal opinion.
Also, check out the last sentence of this edit as well (he amusingly identifies Zero as a Zionist, as you can see in the previous discussion and the comment he made on Zero's talk page).
This guy should not be editing in this topic area. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
ANI is the place to take this if you want the personal attack to be evaluated. You would be asking for a block based on a single diff, supposedly humorous but a bit stupid. The editor's overall record does not inspire confidence but I really don't know what to think. "Being his usual reasonable self" for Netanyahu I suppose might be thought of as vandalism. Then you need the four escalating warnings for vandalism? I am puzzled. ANI can be roused to action by things that are frankly racist or tendentious, but this seems more like a warped sense of humor. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to take it to ANI. That would be a complete waste of my time. I just put it here for future reference. This is what the guy has been up to this week, and I think it's very obvious where it's going. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

New article Badminton Theater possible copyvio!?

Hi Ed,

A user who I intervened the other day for ArbMac violations across a variety of articles, as recently created an article called Badminton Theater, of which doesn't have any categorizing or sources within it. I've added the appropriate tags using twinkle; but I think I may have missed a few, and was wondering if you could have a quick glance at it, and take any action that I may have missed. There is a possibility that the article alone is copy/paste translation of details from the company's official website. The logo image too seems suspicious, and may also be a potential copyvio. Thanks - WesleyMouse 15:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It does appear to be a translation of the article in the Greek Wikipedia. I compared the Greek Wikipedia article against the information on the theater's web site at I didn't see any obvious lifting of sentences. If you want to look into this you can use your browser's Find button to look for corresponding Greek sentences if you want. Mostly what this article needs is a trimming of over-enthusiastic material to meet Wikipedia standards. The list of performances could surely be cut or summarized. It's not a terrible article, it's just a little over the top. Somebody might try to tie this article in with our other coverage of Athens Olympics buildings. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I didn't think to see if there was an article on the Greek project. Tieing it in with Athens Olympic buildings does sound plausible though. Had I added the right tags to this English version? The ones I places where "no sources" and "no categories" via twinkle. Perhaps a "clean up" tag would be appropriate too!? WesleyMouse 15:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Consider adding it to some categories. That should only take a few minutes, and might show the editor that you're willing to help, not just warn him of things. Though your warning about WP:NCMAC was clearly justified. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll look at articles currently under the "umbrella" of Athens Olympic buildings, which should provide a rough idea which categories would be suitable. WesleyMouse 16:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it looks like it could do with an article merge, as there is already a stub-article for the Athens 2004 Badminton venue Goudi Olympic Hall. I'm not overly familiar with article mergers, and how to go about requesting one. WesleyMouse 16:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The article on Goudi Olympic Hall is very short. Why not create a new section in Badminton Theater and add the Goudi information there. Ask me later if you think the old article needs cleanup. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, even though I've been on Wiki since August last year; this is the first time I've wandered into a merger situation like this; hence all the questions. I'm going to look for some help links, and have a read of them before plunging myself in at the deep end. Last thing I want to do is mess it all up, when I haven't a clue what to do. WesleyMouse 16:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, avoid the merge. Notice that Goudi Olympic Hall is included in some Olympic templates. It is best just to put in the necessary links from one article to the other. See if you can find some other 'recycled' Olympic buildings and see how they were handled. (How they describe the old use and the new use, and whether there is a separate article for the new use). EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin A

I would like to make some improvements and additions to Vitamin A but I see that you recently protected it due to vandalism. Vandalism sucks and I revert quite a bit through Huggle, but I am wondering if I am still able to edit the page? If you could leave a response on My Talk Page. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Can't stand when vandals make me jump in order to get things done. Thanks again for your comment. --Morning277 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Troubles Warning

I don't quite understand why you feel a need to issue me with a Troubles warning in an AE thread that has absolutely nothing to do with me, other than the fact that I made some observations on the current situation - and didn't "cast aspersions" against anyone by name. Maybe you can explain. Perhaps more to the point, could you explain this [12]. Cailil has complained about me but seems to have ignored the other editor (Bjmullan) who has carried out exactly the same number of reverts as me. I should point out that this is not the first time that Cailil has displayed an apparent bias in dealing with issues concerning Bjmullan and myself. Van Speijk (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Troubles decision states that "The editing of users who disrupt Wikipedia by aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be restricted." You did choose to participate in an AE thread about tendentious comments about Irish editors and criticize the behavior of the people you perceive as the other side. Expressing a personal POV about nationalist bad guys distorting Wikipedia articles obviously entails risks. You did actually violate the Troubles 1RR on April 8 at Northern Ireland. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A minor indiscretion when I was up against tag-teaming editors who were also reverting, and it didn't attract the usual, less formal, 1RR Troubles warning that would be normal in such cases for a user with a block free record. Given that Cailil continues to search for opportunities to remove me from the British and Irish subject area, as he has successfully done with other editors, I'm seriously considering retiring "this account" as he describes me, so that in due course, and with a clean break, I can set up again, away from his targeting. Have a look at the letter I sent to him, on his Talk page (archive now). While I went over the top describing him as an 'ass', I stand by my overall assessment of him, as laid out in that letter. Van Speijk (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Outdated Complaint

We have worked everything out on the talk page. I haven't edited the page since. Your information is outdated and I would appreciate if you message me in the future before filling complaints. Have a good day. Jakebarrington (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Mainland China

I don't really think 2 IPs totalling less than 10 edits over a span of 21 days, however disruptive they are, makes a good case for protection. But meh. Deryck C. 10:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I was mostly concerned about the WP:Requested move debate that was going on. The sock in question has disrupted things like that elsewhere. If you want to keep an eye on the page, feel free to lift the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for suspension

Uh, to avoid any humongous fuss and boredom, could you take a look at my page. I think I definitely have, and Scarpia's reliable, inadvertently (but the law doesn't admit ignorance, esp from a pro like myself who should know better) broken the I/P IRR rule. A sanction is therefore due. If any pettifogger or praetorian of stickler principles does make a complaint, could you just automatically say I confess to the error, and move to making a sanction, a week, a month, whatever. I don't mind. I can't really expect people to be law-abiding and fall short myself. No problem with any time you set for my stretch in porridge. Best Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider the two reverts to be unduly disruptive. However, another editor does and has requested a revert. It is your response to this request that, "since reverting would mean restoring a falsification of the source, morally, as opposed to technically, I can't do that.", that I find troublesome, and it would be much more helpful if you could accommodate his concerns.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Or we could step back and look at the bigger picture. Shrike could have left the article as it was and opened a discussion rather than revert, in effect, on behalf of an editor, Luke 19 Verse 27, who is very obviously hounding Nish. That editor is coming very close to the tipping point where the benefit of filing an SPI report (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lutrinae/Archive +1) outweighs the cost of preparing it and administrative overhead of processing it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You are quite correct in your assessment of the situation. However, this tumult could have been averted with a self-revert, which Nishidani appears to be ideologically opposed to.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to AnkhMorpork and Sean for their responses here. There is a discussion taking place at User talk:Nishidani#Broken 1RR. It is best to wait and see how that comes out. Nishidani, unless you see a BLP violation against a named person or an obvious falsification of sources it seems like you should revert your own edit pending discussion. If you think you perceive OR or synthesis, it's fine to make that point, but reverting those things is not an exception to WP:1RR. The Zeitoun incident occurred in January 2009 so there is no emergency in trying to get it right now. We can take the time for discussion and we can accept the risk of an 'incorrect' article for a day or two if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, bedtime here, just checked in and saw I forgot to reply. You're quite right. I did however open up a discussion on that page, and no discussion occurred precisely on this. Shrike never replied to my detailed examination of the edit he first supported, and then admitted was a bad one, and which I corrected. Morpork never replied either. Of course, I could have revert pro forma, to allow discussion on this, but really, there's nothing to discuss. I take the loud silence in the face of the evidence to be proof that they can't see any holes in it. Had those who asked me to revert reviewed my argument, and found it even marginally incorrect, then they would have had grounds to maintain that in doubt, revert and sort it out later. But since they haven't (and can't) any basis for denying my evidence that Luke falsified his edit, they are all saying: 'restore' the false information, and then, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, you can then cancel it after the expiry of 24 hours. Frankly that is dotty martinetism in my book. It's not a problem that a falsehood stays up for 24 hours (the place is full of that, far too much to handle). The problem is ethical. But wikipedia is not about ethics, it's about etiquette, and since I'm inside the tribe functionally but not mentally or ethically, the tribe has its rights to punish my punctilious dissidence on this piece of trivia. I don't mind wearing another scarlet letter on my log book. Another sanction to add to the 2 (not the others which were overturned immediately) I got in 2007 isn't going to ruin my life. Cheers, in anticipating of waking up to a springy morrow and a message I am on forced vacation from voluntary labour in this quixotic place.:) Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
No one hounding him this incident all over the news because of IDF decision.The Nishidani returned from indef ban has frightening block history and refuse to revert after pointed that he broke the 1RR.
Sean if you have real evidence against this user just file SPI don't throw accusation just like that.--Shrike (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Shrike, we are both culpable. I hotheadedly blanket reverted Luke after a snap glance told me he wandered to the page to cause trouble, and because he made an egregiously false edit. I had downloaded a lot of stuff on Zeitoun and put the two links to Hass's articles last night, which came my way during my daily read of Haaretz, hoping to comprehensively update the page. I thought I'd done my I revert, and could now work the page seriously. In the meantime, without checking what Luke had done, you back-reverted to restore his text, and what I at least knew to be damaging. You admitted then that Luke's edits were bad, in hindsight. But your own instinctive solidarity with someone editing against me got the better of you.
I hadn't realized that, once you reverted, anything added by Luke was untouchable for a day, pain 1 R violation. I just replaced his WP:OR fantasy with the only relevant element in the source that corresponded to the point he'd raised. I then started the slow work of reading all the sources, including the official UN report and getting a timeline, something that would have taken, in an off-wiki page, a week or two. And then I spotted you notification on my page. ("Here we go," I thought to myself. "You try and fix crap, and run into the bureaucracy") Once Scarpia made his point, I realized I was technically at fault. Two options, restore the false WP:OR passage to avoid being punished, an option you offered me, or take the rap. The third option, which is sensible, and commonsensical, is not considered. On my past practice, I have twice suspended myself for a month for a technical oversight, and perhaps this is what is due. I could do this, or wait for an official complaint to be filed, and take the sanction. The third option is sensible, but requires that potential plaintiffs feel that their right to punitive measures is satisfied. Would you and Morpork think a one-month self-suspension adequate for the infraction? or is that not absence enough? I won't revert. My ethics on purveying or supporting the purveyance of disinformatsia deny me that cheap lurk to save my skin.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for your response to the matter I posted on the noticeboard. -- James26 (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


He at first said that scores should not be placed. And then he stated that it should be done like Roger Federer's page. And then he stated that Roger Federer's structure page doesn't matter after I pointed out that Federer's page is very detailed. And to say what i did was a diary is untrue, as with other tennis player's page it is important to state there whole season as it shows how they have done, every round they have lost and tournaments won. It is our responsibility as editors to provide as much information as possible to the viewers. At least my informations are true to WTA Activity Section of Radwanska. For example he placed Myskina as the seventh seed as she was really the sixth seed. Dencod16 (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to work for an agreement with others on what should go in the article. Wikipedia is not a solo venture. If you continue to make unilateral changes (to which others object) you are risking sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


Hello EdJohnston! You blocked User:AA193 some days ago for edit warring on Afghanistan article. Now I see after returning from the block the user is again back on pushing his/her POV. After being blocked twice and warned number of times it looks like the user is not understanding the message which everyone is giving him. Probably a detail message from an admin may help him understand that edit warring is not going to help him. Kindly if you find time, please try to apprise the user of the relevant policies and making him understand the issue rather than an escalated block. Thanks --SMS Talk 11:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of mistreatment at YPF

Mr. Johnston:

I appreciate your observations regarding the ongoing controversy on the YPF article.

The incident at hand is indeed false. I have this source from a major newspaper in Spain quoting a first-hand witness as stating unequivocally that no such incident took place, and that to the contrary, the 16 dismissed executives were treated with the proper formalities and were chauffeured home after their dismissal. The newspaper is a conservative publication in Spain (making them one of the least likely in the world to write anything in defense of the renationalization of YPF), and the witness was at the time of the events (April 16) Repsol's own spokesman at YPF (Repsol owned YPF from 1999 until April 16th last).

The source reads (I'm translating): Operation YPF found no resistance in any of the executives, Argentine or Spanish. Nor in Sergio Resumil, then-Director of Communications (spokesman). They complied with instructions given to them by Baratta (Roberto Baratta, state representative in the YPF board of directors prior to the takeover) who (according to Resumil) "was formal in his demeanor. There was no physical struggle, no pushing, or violence of any kind. The 16 dismissed executives left in their respective company cars, chauffeured to their residences."

Whether the Spanish story is repeated in the Financial Times, Economist, or anywhere else in the media echo chamber, they are anonymous claims that directly contradict of a quoted first-hand account (by somebody obviously opposed to the takeover, as he was among those who was laid off).

Thanks again for your time. I look forward to your thoughts.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not me you need to convince; it's the other editors at Talk:YPF. I urge you to try to reach agreement on the talk page. Continued warring could lead to sanctions. If there are conflicting sources, in some cases the right thing is to quote both. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, contradictory RS should mention both and the issue is NOT content but the 3RRLihaas (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking under the bridge


If that's a problem, you might like to see this. Please understand that it was an appropriate description of anyone who insists on inserting anonymous rumor and innuendo on a Wikipedia article (or anywhere else). As things stand now, I can't even add the spokesman's own first-hand account of what happened (and remember, he was the Repsol spokesman). Nor can I add the news that the Lower House approved the takeover earlier today, a far more relevant entry than this rumor being tacked onto the page.

I could have added numerous editorials supporting the nationalization (including some from British and Spanish periodicals), and unlike these other two, never attempted to. I was hoping we could stick to real, verifiable events and official statements.

I should have looked more closely under the bridge.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update

Hey EdJohnston/Archive 26 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your advice

Thank you for your useful comments and links that you provided. Can you explain to me the correct procedure for me to take, if I have grave concerns regarding an admin's decision making? A quick query, I note that you stated, "Singling out T.C. for special attention might be perceived as an attempt at admin-shopping". Since T.Canens professes neutrality in judgement, I am uncertain how questioning his decision making can be perceived as 'shopping' as he is not sympathetic or unsympathetic to my cause.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You want action taken against T. Canens because you perceive he is being mean to a certain group of editors who you refer to as a 'camp'. You can complain at WP:ANI, but a good quality of evidence would be expected there. You might run into people who would ask about battleground motivations on your part. Another option is to discuss this with one or two admins that you trust. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually if you think that some admin is not fit for AE only ARBCOM can remove him the other option could be WP:RFC/ADMIN.In both cases solid evidence is needed.--Shrike (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I shall try and proceed with this issue in the correct manner. I am fairly certain that people who question my "battleground motivations" will realize that I have not been previously sanctioned by any editor, let alone T.Canens, and that the suggestion that I have undue motivations implicitly acknowledges that T.Canens' decision-making could be viewed as partisan, for I have no reason to impugn a fair admin.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid your argument is a non sequitur. You have offered yourself as a spokesman for a WP:FACTION, so you should expect whatever consequences that brings. You have not even waited for WP:AE#Nishidani to close, so if you want to proceed in the correct manner, you've not made a good beginning. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


Ed, out of interest, do you (or ARBCOM) have a set of conditions that if met, would trigger another arbitration case for the I-P topic area ? I'm starting to think it may be necessary at some point, but I don't really have a firm set of tests based on actual evidence of editor behavior and interactions, source quality/WP:V/NPOV compliance, edit warring or whatever, as opposed to a general impression of things getting worse by the day, on which to base a view. The constant tension between just writing an encyclopedia and advocating for belligerents in the conflict seems to be approaching a breaking point (but it may subside, who knows, it's like the weather). Perhaps someone has asked about these ARBCOM criteria before and you can just provide a link to the discussion. I'm familiar with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration although I've not taken part in one but really I'm interested in what specific criteria would apply in the I-P topic area given that there has already been a case. Either way, no rush and feel free to ignore if you have better things to do. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask AGK too nevertheless you should ask yourself what do you want that ARBCOM will do about I/P area.--Shrike (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the first thing is that I wouldn't want ARBCOM to do something about I-P area because I want them to do something about I-P area. This is at the core of my question, that I'm interested in objective criteria, criteria that exclude any subjective opinions I might have. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Well some language from {{uw-sanctions}} may be of interest:

Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. .

If you were asking to open a new ARBPIA case, it sounds like you would be stating to Arbcom that large groups of editors were "failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" and that the community could not handle it. My personal opinion is that asking the *community* for help is the quickest way to deal with something like this. The community has surprising resources. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles for the community discussion that led to a 1RR being placed on the I/P articles in November 2010. It takes a lot to move the AC into action, and usually if the sky is falling but very gradually there will not be enough motivation to start a case. The AC might also ask themselves if there is one single decisive thing they could do to make everything better. It's hard to see one here. If you are thinking of starting a case be aware that cases take a long time and are not very pleasant. Consider other options first. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I shall have look at the resources and options and have a ponder. I wasn't thinking of starting a case. That's way beyond my red tape threshold. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


I don't know if you are friends with James26 (talk)or what, it might be the case. It is because he has been getting into edit wars with a lot of tennis editors he is even using football bios as reference on how tennis bios are suppose to be done. Isn't it that when a complain is pressed you should check on the actual article which i dont think you have done. Editing is about compromising and meeting in a middle ground and he hasn't done that in any article that he edited. It's either his way or no way. Dencod16 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And remember Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. In Wikipedia:What is an article? it defines articles it as

  • A Wikipedia article, or entry, is a page that has encyclopedic information on it. A well written encyclopedia article identifies a notable encyclopedic topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, contains references to reliable sources, will have a reading list, and will link to other related topics.
  • Taking note of the summarizes that topic comprehensively, comprehensive in turn mean So large in scope or content as to include much. Dencod16 (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Ed, I won't turn your talk page into a battleground. However, I think it's clear that Dencod is holding a grudge. You can review my edits for yourself if you want (I haven't cited "my way" in a dispute with one other editor; I've clearly cited Wikipedia policy).
It's also clear that Dencod has ignored your warning to seek consensus. -- James26 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
James, in the original 3RR report, you said: "Dencod16, who has a history of disruptive editing, keeps restoring a far longer version which contains unverified claims about a living person (heroics regarding qualifying matches and other "accomplishments"), and is full of grammatical errors, over-linking, and comma splices." Can you be more specific? In fact, what 'unverified claims about a living person' do you see? I don't think reverts over comma splices are exempt from 3RR, but BLP reverts might be. If not, it's just you against him and you need at least a third party. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I've checked the sources (many of which I added myself), and they don't verify many of the claims in Dencod's version -- namely the stuff about her topping the ITF rankings, winning qualifying matches, receiving wildcards, or that the players she beat were of a certain rank or certain seeding. According to policy, anything that's questionable and unverified doesn't belong in the article (I know you're already aware of this), regardless of whether it's positive, negative, big, or small. Besides that, much of these details, and others, were quite unnecessary IMO, and were accompanied by repeated grammatical errors that I'm not willing to clean up. Thank you again for your assistance. -- James26 (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Holding a grudge, as it's quite clear that your are taking sides. I didn't edit anything for a while cause i was waiting for you to say something, after the report, which you didn't. First of all there are two things i have compromised on first the scores and the shortening it. And can you tell what User:James26 has compromised on. I asked him if he wants to do this layout as he used Roger Federer then he should make it like Federer with 2008, 2009, 2010... separate articles for Radwanska as he was the one who changed everything that a lot of people edited [initial revision] and he said it was my responsibility, he edited it based on Federer but didn't want the load of doing the separate pages. I have agreed to a consensus, however the consensus only consensus is his way, and the fact that he said that my 2012 edit before was good then eventually he edited everything out. And as I stated before if you even cared to view this page Wikipedia:What is an article? WIkipedia is an encyclopedia that provides comprehensive summary. Dencod16 (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
First of all i wasn't the one who edited topping the ITF rankings, winning qualifying matches, receiving wildcards, or beating players of a certain rank or certain seeding, It was part of James26 edit, not mine, i only added more information. Dencod16 (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this debate. Note: That stuff wasn't orignally added by me. Doesn't matter who it was added by. Bottom line is that it doesn't belong in the article if it's unverified.

By "good," I was referring to the 2012 section only. I later felt differently. The burden is yours to create spin-off articles, with sources. Please try reading up on some of the policies we keep mentioning here, instead of endlessly latching on to "Federer this and that." Again, not the place to debate. Bye. -- James26 (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that a discussion is now taking place at Talk:Agnieszka Radwańska#Radwanska contents. Dencod16 should not add claims about Radwanska's performance that can't be verified from the sources. The amount of detail to be included in the article is subject to normal editorial consensus. But precedent from other tennis articles is quite relevant. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh article's improvement

Hello Ed. Just wanted to continue our talk on how to build a better article. You mentioned before that there were concerns about the use of primary sources as direct references. This is an understandable concern (if mentioned in good faith, of course) and it can be addressed. I tend to agree with other users that there is no need to get rid of mentions of primary sources, all we need to do is to add secondary sources to those references that rely solely on primary sources. That is doable since many good quality secondary sources exist. In an extreme case we can place primary sources into the text of secondary references. Also, I found a great quick guide on which sources should be used in this and other disputed article. It is Cyril Toumanoff's quicklist in in the foreword in Robert Hewsen's most recent historical atlas. See this [13]. Cyril Toumanoff, an American and one of the world's foremost experts on the Caucasus endorsed by WP, listed academics with the largest contribution to the field. I left my comments on this on NK's talk pages here [14] and you can take a look. Zimmarod (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Assistance required


When you have a spare moment, could you cast eyes over at Cute (band) and the talk page for it too. A user created the disambiguation page which currently only has 2 articles linked to it. I've nominated it for G6 speedy, as A) its an orphan, and B) its a partial-duplication of a disambiguation page Cute (disambiguation) which already exists. The same user keeps removing the deletion template stating there is no criteria that fits its deletion, despite the fact I have clearly informed them of the criteria. Thanks - WesleyMouse 17:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Luckily I delayed so long to look into it that the issue appears resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, we managed to get things sorted out, albeit long-winded. One good thing came out of it all, it pushed me to be productive and expand Cute (Maltese band) that only had 3 lines of context. Now it is a mini-masterpiece haha. But an IP placed a PROD on it a few hours ago, giving the reason "one-time only event". This does concern me, as a few other Eurovision/Junior Eurovision articles have faced similar PROD's and we (members of the project) end up repeating ourselves like parrots explaining that WP:GNG covers them, and that ESC and JESC are obvious one-time events that happen annually, and majority of the time an artist/band will represent once in their careers. Is there anything that needs to be done to prevent these issues from reoccurring? In the long-term it would save a users waste of time, planting a PROD only to have it removed again, and also prevent potential edit wars too. WesleyMouse 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I think I'll delay responding to this item as well, because you seem to find solutions anyway :-). If it's an editor conduct problem we'll know soon enough. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I do seem to stumble upon solutions somehow. Will see how this one pans out; although I am thinking of looking into new ideas that could possibly be implemented to prevent these wasted PROD's from happening in the future. Perhaps a Eurovision tag on the top of articles to inform users that its an annual event, and under most circumstances an artist/band will only participate once. WesleyMouse 16:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Update - Don't know how I did it, but problem is solved. I am a little upset though if I'm to be honesty over an old issue that has reared its head again. I think that another user may be victimizing/bullying me and other editors. I've had several sly comments thrown at me such as "Wes, unlike you, I'm not racing my way along the fast lane to administrator status" and "I think you are here primarily to enhance your future administrator application". Comments towards a new editor such as "Krosenstern - it is YOU, with your day-old account and edits in only one page, who is the single issue stalker". A few people have noticed a possible Wikihounding; and there is some evidence of that, but both I and the other user feels intimidated to escalate matters further, in case of backlash and manipulation from the attacking editor. A lot of the users comments also seem to portray a "hatred" towards admins in general, which I find disturbing too. The user is well known at WP:ARBAA2 for repeated battleground-like comments on several occasions. What should I do? I know I've come face-to-face with some scary moments on here in the past, and haven't thought twice about reporting someone for doing wrong. But this one has me fearful on a different level that I've never known on here before. WesleyMouse 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
WesleyMouse has actually been making things worse rather than better. He seems obsessed with procedures rather than content and has already alienated Aregakn, an editor who had worked on the article over the past year. His language seems to alieneate and antagonise (with use of insincere "mate" and "friend"). He is also exhibiting ownership issues, arbitrarily closing discussions and saying that editors who do not wish to agree to his proposed mediation request should leave the article. Even though the article is under no protection, he is attempting to freeze the entire article and revert all new edits made to it to - edits made in sections that are unconnected to the specific issues detailed in the mediation request and unconnected to any ongoing talk page discussion. The problem with the talk page discussion has been a lack of sources to back up any claims, I now have access to a decent source and was attempting to make some changes - but all I got for my efforts was a revert from WesleyMouse. Meowy 19:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Right Meowy, I've had enough of this. Twice now you have just shown clear signs of stalking an editor by commenting on two different pages that I have also recently posted a message on, and you have had no prior interactions with either pages. This is beyond a joke, and needs to cease immediately. WesleyMouse 19:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you get it? If you are being critical about another editor (and you are doing it behind their back - and are doing it in multiple talk pages) then that editor has a right to reply. Meowy 19:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
But how did you know I had posted a comment in here, if you wasn't stalking me? It is clear as the sky is blue Meowy, that you have had to stalk me to even know which pages I've been to. And it ain't just here but on a few others now. WesleyMouse 19:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

List of sovereign states in the 1980s

As you know there a currently DRN process about this ussue nevertheless reverts still continue [15] though user:Night w was explicitly warned on the sanctions[16] and still he reverted.--Shrike (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, can you explain why you singled out Night w ? From my perspective the situation over there is more complicated and involves several editors engaging in edit warring both before and after the 20:51, 7 May 2012 filing at DRN. If you are going to report anyone can you please report them all. One of those editors, Shanghai Sally, is a NoCal sock in my opinion by the way, but I think they are editing in a way that can't be dealt with using the current SPI methods because from the perspective of the tools available they will appear to be on different continents despite not using a proxy. That user has already been shown to use sockpuppetry via the Shen, Then? account (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive#02_November_2010) but for reasons that I cannot understand at all the sockmaster was allowed to continue editing in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I see you point I didn't noticed that users user:Chipmunkdavis and user:Shanghai Sally reverted after DRN have started so what I said applies to them also.I think user:Shanghai Sally didn't received a ARBPIA warning--Shrike (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The people who have argued that Palestine *is* a sovereign state don't seem to have found any reliable sources to confirm that. An argument based on constitutive theory of statehood looks like original research. If there is a widespread view that Palestine is sovereign it would have shown up in reliable sources which we could simply quote. It is not advisable for editors to go around around reverting various lists of sovereign states. If that continues you might expect the problem to wind up at AE. The criterion for list inclusion stated at List of sovereign states in the 1980s says that they are either 'widely recognized sovereign states' or 'de facto sovereign.' I'm not aware that Palestine is generally believed to be de facto sovereign. The obvious place to discuss the sovereignty issue is Talk:International recognition of the State of Palestine. Our article called List of states with limited recognition also reviews the status of Palestine in detail. EdJohnston (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The State of Palestine is not a sovereign state, end of story as far as I'm concerned, but I'm staying out of it. This is one of several flash fires springing up across the topic area where the "normal editorial process" is apparently not being followed. More of these winding up at AE might be a good thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted to the status quo ante bellum and added sources. It is not "original research" if I have added sources. If a state is recognised as a state by one other state then it is a state as far as one perspective is concerned.

As the State of Palestine is in fact recognised as a state by the majority of world governments (sources are in the article)—the view that it is a sovereign state is (and has always been) the majority viewpoint. I've gone through dozens of lengthy discussions and two mediations on disputed states and the outcome is always the same. Our long-standing criteria on the list of sovereign states is that we represent all viewpoints. A three-year mediation determined that criteria would stay, and that's why I reverted—because that is the consensus. Unless consensus chages, there is absolutely no reason to ignore those viewpoints. We don't ignore the 82% of states that recognise the State of Israel, we don't ignore the 68% of states that recognise the State of Palestine, and we don't ignore the >1% of states that recognise South Ossetia. They're significant viewpoints, but we present them all in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.

Ed, that you say "it would have shown up in reliable sources which we could simply quote" suggests that you haven't looked at any of the sources I added (with quotes) before you labelled my arguments "original research". Nightw 03:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Night w, the page that I noticed you reverting was List of sovereign states in the 1980s. There is no comment by you on the talk page explaining your revert. Consider adding your rationale there. If you believe this issue was fully settled by some mediation, please link to that. You also have not participated at WP:DRN. If this matter ends up at WP:AE it may turn into a mess and there could be demands for sanctions. It is best if everyone behaves as well as possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I will leave a comment on that article's talk page if that is what you want. But it appears that there are about five articles in dispute here (only one of which I've reverted on), so I have instead left my reasoning at the DRN (contrary to your claim) where the discussion seems to have centralised. In the future though, I would appreciate it if you would look at the edits in full before making a judgement on them. You claimed "no sources offered", but I quite clearly added multiple references to the article in that single edit. I added the sources because that was what was requested in the last few edit summaries. Nightw 13:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my search did not find your signature at DRN because it is Nightw not Night w. There was a mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List of sovereign states but it was closed by the mediator in May, 2011 as 'No apparent possibility of consensus.' That does not seem very convincing as a rationale for your revert. If someone undoes your revert and also says 'per mediation' should we believe them as well? EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't just say "per mediation", did I? I gave an 1,800-byte rationale here and 4,000-byte rationale on the DRN. I cited SQ and WP policies to back up my arguments, gave a link to the most recent discussion over the matter, and acquiesced to a request of sources within my edit and on the DRN thread. So why is it not convincing?
If you take a look closer at your link, you'll see that the closing statement was in regards to a proposed change to the sorting critera, which was the final aim of the mediation. We later achieved consensus on that in a series of RFCs (see the last archive in my link). A change to the inclusion criteria (established in 2005) was rejected early on and was consistently rejected through the course of the debate. I'm fairly certain that if someone actually made another proper proposal at the main list rather than removing single items from these obscure spin-off lists, it'd be shot down quite dramatically.
Of course, I should probably be saying all of this on the DRN page, but you're arguing against my rationale for restoring the page. Nightw 15:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New sock

You may be interested in the activities of User:; whose editing seems to revolve around removing {{sockpuppet}} templates from socks of User:Caleb Murdock... I leave it to your discretion as to whether you ignore, file an SPI or block outright. Yunshui  08:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this. That IP is already blocked, though only for a short time. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


I have reported you on WP:AN. 86.** IP (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

JCAla/Massoud case

Thanks for the protection. It does give some relief for the moment, but of course it doesn't really solve any problem, and I have to say your recommendation of considering an RFC/U leaves me a bit puzzled. Seriously, can you point me to any RFC/U that has ever resulted in anything useful in a case of nationally motivated agenda editing? I'm not aware of any. Invariably, national agenda editors edit the way they do because they truly can't even imagine any other way. A process that isn't geared towards sanctions, and that relies on parties being able and willing to take constructive criticism on board and voluntarily change their ways is patently a waste of time in such cases. And if people at the ANI thread the other day were already too damned lazy to check those two simple online sources, what would make anyone think there'd be more useful input at an RFC? For now, I've filed for assistance at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but I'm not optimistic about that one either. This is a patently obvious conduct case, not a content dispute case, and the only thing that can help here is admin intervention. Fut.Perf. 19:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your posting at WP:DRN#Ahmad Shah Massoud is a good idea. It follows the advice of many ANI participants that dispute resolution should be tried. My understanding of your argument from the article talk was that you thought Roy Gutman was doing his own summary and interpretation of Massoud's actions, sort of an expert opinion on what probably happened. It appeared you thought that Afghanistan Justice Project was the hard data that we ought to be summarizing. If you can ask for other contributors to the article to weigh in, perhaps you can find someone who wants to draft up some prose. If a third party who actually been following along would enter the discussion, it might be helpful. Failing that, even having the DRN regulars look at it may be useful. If others want to work on the article, I can imagine a deal where you and JCAla would agree to stay off the article for a period of time so that others could try to improve it. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea where you are getting the notion from that Roy Gutman ever entered the equation. Gutman is a different source, expressing a different opinion, and I have never objected against summarizing his opinion too, on the same terms as that of the AJP. The question is how to summarize the AJP report. JCAla's original version pretended to be doing just that, but ascribed to it the exact opposite opinion of what it actually says. And he is now spewing out kilobytes upon kilobytes arguing that we shouldn't be saying what it quite patently is saying. It really is as simple as that. It's all extremely obvious; you only need to read three or four paragraph of text in the source. I cannot for all the world understand how anybody who has taken a look at that source could possibly continue to treat this as a legitimate content dispute. Did you read the source? Fut.Perf. 20:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, since you mentioned "other contributors to the article": I don't think there ever have been any. The whole edit history of that article is filled up with socks, banned users and throwaway IPs, each of them as bad as every other. This is par for the course for Afghanistan-related articles. In fact, I don't think we have ever had a single native Afghan contributor who was active on these kinds of political articles and who wasn't deserving an indef ban. Fut.Perf. 21:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I found Roy Gutman's name in the second line of JCAla's response in WP:DRN#Ahmad Shah Massoud discussion. JCAla has managed to create an example of what he considers to be your disagreement. Look at what he said in his DRN statement, above the collapse boxes. Is it your argument that we should (a) summarize what Afghanistan Justice Project says, and (b) summarize Gutman? Then include both for balance? So JCAla's argument (which you object to) is that he wants to revise what AJP says since Gutman disagrees with it? EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's basically it. He is saying that if source A says X, and source B says !X, it is okay to claim that source A also says !X, because source B is correct. About my attempt at summarizing, that's of course exactly what I did in the edit under discussion ([17]); see the very next sentence (Other observers have argued that atrocities in this and other events were the responsibility of individual elements in his forces and that Massoud personally did all in his power to prevent them; I would have provided more detailed sources if JCAla had provided any.) Fut.Perf. 22:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear you confirm that this is a disagreement. The ANI might have reached a different outcome if the uninvolved readers had been shown a simple example that was easy to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
With respect, the example right at the beginning of the ANI report was even more obvious and easy to see through than this. Fut.Perf. 05:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
My 2 cents, but the ANI seemed to be a case of TL:DR. If it is so patently obvious that there is a conduct issue instead of a content issue, an article RfC (DR) usually will help clarify that; it is after that point that an ANI may have been more successful in getting a binding solution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The TL:DR was itself part of the disruptive conduct, and also quite easily recognizable as such. JCAla has been using that WP:SOUP tactics all over the place. He has made the talkpage of the article unreadable, he is now making the DRN thread exactly as unreadable again (not surprisingly, it hasn't drawn any outside comment so far); what makes anyone think an RFC – be it a content or a user RFC – would fare better? Fut.Perf. 05:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
User RfC requires people to comment in their respective sections, and so long as it is presented well from the outset, it may fare better. The hurdle here is (and please correct me if I'm wrong EdJohnston, but I figure you allude to this above too) that the ANI (including the beginning) was not sufficiently well presented as it needed to be more succinct/cogent/concise/simple to follow. That is not intended as a criticism, but it's just how it seems on reflection. A similar outcome can emerge where user RfC is not presented well. Unfortunately, in order to present well, you may need to invest more time/effort than you are willing or able to. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Dear Ed, no, that is not my point of disagreement. Either Fut.Perf. doesn't understand what I am saying or he is purposefully mispresenting it to create a false impression. My points of disagreement are very easy and do all relate to what this one source (AJP) actually says. 1) Fut.Perf. described the forces that committed "mass rape" and "massacre" as "Massoud's forces". But this very source (AJP) explicitly identifies the force that committed "mass rape" and "summary executions" as "Sayyaf's Ittihad-i Islami forces". (please see page 87 i. e.) The Pashtun Wahhabi Ittihad are not and were never the anti-Wahhabi Tajik Massoud's troops (they just happened to fight a common enemy at that time which was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's alliance, later Ittihad was even involved in Massoud's assassination). Shura-e Nazar/Jamiat-e Islami are Massoud's forces and they are not described as committing "mass rape" nor "summary executions". So that would be a falsification of the source and misleading as generally what is understood as "Massoud's forces" are Shura-e Nazar. That is why I propose to replace Fut.Perf.'s "Massoud's forces" with exactly what the source (AJP) says, which is "Sayyaf's Ittihad-i Islami" which were working "in coordination" with Massoud's troops (Shura-e Nazar) in the legitimate part of the military operation. Roy Gutman (who is also explicitly referring to the AJP as his source and explicitly summarizing this very same source that Fut.Perf. has tried to summarize) just backs my take on the first, original source (AJP) up. 2) Fut.Perf. completely left out that the source (AJP) also says Massoud's meeting ordered a "halt to the massacre" but it continued. This needs to be added. I hope I have now managed to make my points clear.

Fut.Perf. is also wrong in claiming that the article was written only by blocked users or socks. In fact, it was also written and watched over by editors such as User:Raoulduke47, User:Redthoreau, User:Afrique or me. JCAla (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released

Hey EdJohnston! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

VanishedUser314159 / SA socking

see also User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#Potential_SA_IP_socks.

Every now and then (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is editing Cold Fusion and other articles typical for VanishedUser, the edit behaviour and the geolocate fit. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This IP from ColumbiaU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is pretty obvious, using identical arguments as the IP above in the same thread. And urging the "good folks" at the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Heads_up Fringe Theory Noticeboard to continue to keep WP mainstream. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you open an SPI against VanishedUser314159. The evidence itself is quite convincing. An alternative is to notify Jpgordon, since he is the admin who did the indefinite block of VU314159 which is still in effect. My logged blocks of the previous IPs are in Wikipedia:ARBPS#Log of blocks and bans. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


You have a request at RFPP [18] Dennis Brown - © 18:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Handled. EdJohnston (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Xmike920 and 9/11-related articles

Hi. I noticed you placed a serious warning on the talk page of related to his editing of 9/11-related articles. Just in case you find it relevant, he added unsourced material to one of the victim articles. I reverted it. Nightscream (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi! Can you help again at Teramo? The arrogant troll who keep reverting the article to his poorly formatted and often semilliterate version is back. As I see you helped with him at the time, I kindly ask you again to help if you've time. As you can see from the talk page, he's already started to offend and show immense, injustified arrogance (especially if one consider how poor adn horrendous is his version). Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You must be talking about User:DDF19483. I will inform him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
PS: Thanks very much Ed. He keeps deleting beahvioural warnings from his talk page, which I think it'd be forbidden. Isn't it? Ciao e grazie. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
If admins are asked to look at this dispute, there is a problem because only two of you are reverting each other. Generally, resolving a dispute requires bringing in additional people. Consider asking User:Johnbod if he has an opinion, because he recently edited the article. Also it would be helpful if you could neutrally summarize what the issue is on the talk page. That page looks more like an exchange of personal attacks, and it's hard to know what is being argued about. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I already called Johnbod in. Thanks for suggestions; for now the troll seems over. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Be careful of abusing others on talk pages. Your request to Johnbod seems to be a personal attack against DDF19483. If the two of you go to ANI you could both be blocked. Please try to behave better than he does. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it allowed what he's doing here? He keeps deleting your comment, and all the rest by the way. Anyway, luckily, the situation seems to have normalized at Teramo. I called Johnbod for help and he added some useful additions, I think the article's OK now. Ciao and thanks! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyone can remove a notice from their own talk page. I'm glad to hear the article is OK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania article

Hi Ed. Could you please have a look at this report: [19]. It was at AE since 6 May, and archived by the bot, which I undid. It is time someone makes a decision and formally closes the report, because there could be an edit war over unarchiving. Thank you. Grandmaster 18:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You are again assuming the powers of an administrator you are not entitled to. You should have left the article in the archive, and alerted the sysop about the bit action. That's the way to go. Now I see you have unarchived it twice. You are taking liberties and privileges that are way beyond your scope of rights. Only yesterday you vandalized the Nagorno-Karabakh article by removing material based on the consensus of 9 editors, and arrogantly declared about the "New start." Your actions prompted EdJonston to close the article for consensus building. You completely ignored his advice and instead tried to game the system by making sham, phony and laughable excuses to exclude the works of internationally renowned academics Patrick Donabedian, Claude Mutafian, Bagrat Ulubabyan and even Thomas de Waal from the article. And you are again deploying your meatpuppet cabal - Brandmeister and Parishan - and that you used in ruwiki to support you disruptive actions. Zimmarod (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I've restored it back. I don't know if it is true or not that only an administrator can unarchive a discussion, but if that is true then it must also be true that only an administrator can re-archive it again! However, I don't consider that my restoration unarchives the discussion, it just restores Grandmaster's edit that unarchived the discussion. I would also like an answer to the request, for someone to make a decision, and if it is hidden in an archive that is not likely to happen. Meowy 23:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
And it says on the AR page "Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between tags, after which a bot should archive it in 3 days." This request was not resolved, so I don't think it should have been archived. Meowy 23:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the bot needs some tweaking so that it would only archive formally closed reports. It would save us some arguments over unarchiving. Right now it archives inactive discussions, even if they were not closed. Grandmaster 10:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Potentially problematic user

Ciao! Ok for Teramo, I didn't know the matter. Now I watned to notify you this guy, User:Sfan00 IMG: he's adding a host of small images, logos. I doubt he holds the copyrights of many as he declares, and also the status of the rest of them looks dubious. Not to speak the disaster he made at Pieve Vergonte. Ciao e buon lavoro... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to link to a specific image that you believe is not properly licensed for its use. It is best if you start out by drawing his attention to it on his user talk before reporting to a noticeboard. If you are not satisifed with his answer, try posting at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Regarding Pieve Vergonte, it appears that User:Sfan00 IMG self-reverted all of his May 26 changes. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

AE question

Hi. There is an AE case here that I filed that is rather big and growing wildly out of control.

1) At this point it is long and confusing and seems impossible to understand or deal with (length, back-and-forth). I wonder if it would be a good idea to scrap the whole thing and refile it, with interested parties bringing only their diffs and minimalist explanation? That might simplify the process. Who makes that call?

2) Would you like to take a look if that is done?The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you propose this in your own section of the AE? You could then notify any of the admins who have commented on their talk pages that they should look at your request. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it would be good to have wide input from admins; we're talking about the refactor option, too. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#IBAN and AFD

I left a note on an issue you have previously discussed, and would welcome your input. Dennis Brown - © 11:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Verman1 routine violation of parole

Hello Ed. Verman1 has been routinely violating of what appears to be his indefinite topic ban [20]. I am not suggesting that you are intentionally lenient toward pro-Azerbaijani WP violators but your inaction is hard to explain. Verman1 made highly partisan AA2 edits here [21], [22] and here [23] and especially [24], which discusses Armenians. Sprutt (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


Please see this AE which as The Blade of the Northern Lights states: "Comments from other admins would be really nice too." Ankh.Morpork 12:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

COI issues

Hello EdJohnston, I hope you do remember me. The combat against Sju hav's sock farm seems to be nearing an end (there is a ban proposal for him at wp:an currently). There is, however, another issue I came here to talk about.

Toresbe is a member of AUF, the largest (left-wing) youth wing in Norway. While acknowledging his affiliations with the party on his user page, he engages in quite biased editing, both on the English and Norwegian Wikipedia. This editing includes additions of unsourced and undue POV to the article about FpU, the second-largest right-wing youth wing in Norway, and the article about its mother party, FrP. It also includes removal of sourced criticism from the article about the former leader of AUF, Eskil Pedersen. I have collected a representative number of problematic edits (i.e. diffs) from Toresbe at WP:COI/N#Workers' Youth League (Norway)‎‎ (the thread was not started by me). However, I've not been understood at said noticeboard: the user answering me did only look at a very few of the diffs that I had compiled, and suggested that I take the issue to WP:NPOV/N. I would be grateful for your elucidation in what to do with this issue, whether it be to continue the discussion at COI/N, take it to NPOV/N or start a RfC/U. --Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 09:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Any progress thus far? Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 15:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the COIN discussion which is now archived. Also checked Talk:Workers' Youth League (Norway). In the COIN discussion you included forty diffs, which I think no admin is ever going to read. Better than going to NPOVN would be to open a WP:Request for comment on the article's talk page. This would require you to focus on a small number of points where you disagree with Toresbe. RfCs allow a dispute to be advertised on the central RfC list and possibly at WT:NORWAY as well, which could bring in outsiders to help weigh the issues. You've made useful contributions to Norway-related articles and your work in finding puppets of Sju hav is clearly worthwhile. I am sorry to see that you have got into disputes with User:Meco, for instance here. The two of you can hopefully work together for improvement of the Norwegian articles. I notice that further study led to No parking here (talk · contribs) getting blocked anyway. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. However, I do actually believe that his edits to the Workers' Youth Leauge article are the most innocuous of all his edits (I don't think that any mentally sane person would like to see an article in a such condition); it is the unrepentant and vindictive POV-pushing on the Progress Party's Youth article that really puts me off. A quick news search[25][26][27] confirms that Tore Sinding Bekkedal, aka Toresbe, has been very heavily interviewed in press regarding the 22 July massacre (he even states that he was on Utøya at the day of massacre). If you add that to his membership of AUF, I would think it is pretty obvious that he has a COI when edit-warring on the FpU article to keep Breivik's name in there.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] Which would be the appropriate forum to deal with this sort of problematic editing? Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 02:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Usually admins won't sanction people for editing with a COI unless there is some obvious disruption. At Progress Party's Youth I see only two edits by Toresbe in the last six months. Where is the 'unrepentant and vindictive POV-pushing' that you perceive? EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi, sorry I was somewhat distant to your suggestion. But I set it up archives anyway. And another one of those persistent COI parties showed up the other day. So, maybe.... History2007 (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at 1929 Palestine riots

Hi Ed, on 27 April 2012 you fully protected 1929 Palestine riots following edit warring (see the log. The edit warring has started again (see history) and the page is attracting edit warriors. I reverted a new editor who joined the edit war with their first edit and left the following message on the article talk page (Talk:1929_Palestine_riots#Edit_warring_and_socks). It didn't help. I think the article needs fully protecting again to force everyone to stop and either walk away or use the talk page. Last time you protected it for 2 weeks. How about a month this time or whatever it takes to make it stop ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

...the edit warring has started again triggered by AnkhMorpork's 10:33, 17 June 2012‎ edit without discussion. There appears to be sock too. What do you think is the best way of resolving this ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. I filed a query at RS/N in response to the disagreement over the reliability of certain sources. Pursuant to the RS/N upholding the validity of several sources, I then attempted to re-add the content. Once again I was reverted on spurious grounds. See here for further details. The hiatus in the editing of the article was because I was awaiting the third party views at the Noticeboard and for you to term my behaviour as "triggering edit-warring" is prevaricative delusions. Since when is opening a RS/N and editing in response to its findings called "without discussion"? Please stop talking shit misleading people, its unbecoming of a seasoned editor like you. Ankh.Morpork 11:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Your edit triggered edit warring. This is a fact. If it had been another editor it would no doubt have also have triggered edit warring. I am not interested in opinions about who is right. There is disagreement about that and I don't care in the slightest about it. I am only interested in how to stop the edit warring and ensuring that everyone, including you, complies with WP:CONSENSUS. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Ankhmorpork continues to edit war the same disputed content into the lead of the article while totally ignoring the ongoing talk discussion and requests for him to respond to the proposed solution or suggest an alternative. On his own this would cause limited disruption, but unfortunately his edit warring has been consistently supported by numerous battlground sock accounts, making normal editing processes on the article all but impossible.
Personally I think the ARBPIA sanctions need to be looked at again, because as it stands they are consistently being flouted by numerous sock accounts to edit war and enable the activity of battleground/advocate editors while at the same time being used as a weapon to attack and intimidate good faith editors who are attempting to improve the project.Dlv999 (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
My question to Ed is in the the context of the ARBPIA sanctions possibly being looked at again. This article and the ways things have unfolded there is a good test case to see what might work. Another important aspect is the sockpuppetry of course and how best to make the topic area immune to it, perhaps by introducing new constraints. Shrike and I have been discussing that a bit off wiki. It would help if AnkhMorpork could try to see the bigger picture and its cost to the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in. I think it's good sense for all sides to agree that in the I/P area, editors of whatever persuasion should just revert on sight first time IP edits on any articled page, transferring the suggestion to the talk page under an appropriate header (Suggestions etc.), where they can be discussed. It's hard enough getting consensus among experienced editors without this atmospheric disruption. Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I won't be taking action on this request. Suggest you file at AE or RFPP, or ask an admin who has recently been active on I/P enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, no problem. Thanks anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


Hello EdJohnston. Since you have done AE blocks of SA's IPs in the past, I'm hoping that you will have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist. I've never done an AE block myself and am not sure how to proceed. Between the IP locations, one belonging to Columbia University and the other one belonging to RoadRunner in NYC, and the edits, the IPs in the SPI are almost certainly him. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I responded in the SPI report. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


One month ago User:Theirrulez has been warned by you after having "added highly partisan language" into the article on Alessandra Kersevan. On 26 May User:Presbite, a mate of Theirrulez on it.wikipedia and (what are the guesses) also active on "Balcanic fields" restored the "more balanced version". I don't want to take part in any edit war, I just thought it might be a good idea to let you know... -- (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You might consider adding your views to the talk page at Talk:Alessandra Kersevan. Since that article is off the beaten track, it is hard to get attention to any problems that may exist. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

AN3 complaint

Hello. Regarding (talk), I was actually about to just go ahead and block this editor for blatant edit-warring and tendentious editing; I think the editors at X-ray computed tomography have probably put up with more than enough already. In particular, the IP's response at WP:AN3 wasn't encouraging.

Of course, you're more charitable/less burnt-out than I, and I noticed your note stating you wouldn't block the IP unless they edit the article again. I don't want to step on your toes, and I have total confidence in your clue and handling of the situation, so I just wanted to touch base to make sure that we're on the same page that things can't keep going as they have been with this IP. MastCell Talk 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that a block is correct, please go ahead. I was expecting that the MEDRS brigade would show up sooner or later to address this editor's creative work, and I'm glad you're looking into it. Technically a 3RR block seems justified. He has certainly been adequately warned. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, the IP hasn't edited for the last 8 hours or so. I'll wait to see what the response is to your efforts before doing anything. I don't want to put the editors dealing with this IP in the position where they have to choose between removing the material (thus subjecting themselves to edit-warring complaints) vs. allowing misleading/inappropriate medical content to remain in the article. I noticed this unilateral sequence on the talk page, which pretty much sums it up:
Anyhow... thanks for looking at the report. We need more admins at WP:AN3, although I guess I'm as much to blame as anyone, since I could go help out there... MastCell Talk 18:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, the edit-warring resumed, and I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for tendentiousness and edit-warring. MastCell Talk 04:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Ed, can I ask you to please act on your suggestion and put this article under 2 months semi-protection? Thanks. Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 20:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. We are not shutting out the IP editors from having any influence, since they can still join the debate on the talk page. But it's reasonable to expect them to participate on Talk rather than simply revert the article to include material that's been rejected in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It's unlikely to be a coincidence that we are getting these SPAs. Sir Shawn did say he'd recruit others Dougweller (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


Hello EdJohnston,

There is a user who has some problems with. In this Hungarian written edit summary [36], user Maxval called User Koertefa's mother a harlot to follow Miklós Horthy's agenda and is affiliated with the Arrow Cross Party. Furthermore, within the same edit summary, user Maxval threatened user Koertefa that in case he (Koertefa) should not calm down, he will be hanged on a gallows. Additionally, user Maxval left an English written message on the talk page of the article Miklós Horthy that also does not appear to comply with the policy in Wikipedia [37].

For the same behaviour,viz. ribaldry, and calling other users facists, Maxval already received an indef block on the Hungarian Wikipedia last year [38]. In response to her/his ban in the Hungarian Wikipedia, she/he placed this picture on her/his talk page [39] in the English Wikipedia. Also, in the past, Maxval harassed Hungarian users on their English wiki talk pages advising them to masturbate in front of a statue of a famous Hungarian writer Albert Wass whose writings are preferred to read by those that are affiliated with certain right wing political movements in Hungary [40][41] (these messages are also written in Hungarian).--Nmate (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This comment by Maxval (in English) does sound like a personal attack ("little shitty Hungarian Nazi pigs are trying to deceive the whole world"). I've notified Maxval of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
And what about the (Hungarian) message in this edit tag [42] in which Maxval called me a 'nyilas' (i.e. Nazi) 'son of a bitch' and threatened me that I would be 'hanged'? It sounds like a pretty serious personal attack to me. When I warned Maxval and wrote her/him that this behavior was unacceptable on Wikipedia, she/he edited my message [43] and replaced it with "Hungarian-Nazi comment deleted". It's quite humiliating and such disruptive behavior should be avoided on Wikipedia. Anyway, thank you, EdJohnston, that you took time to write Maxval about the problem, your work is appreciated. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Maxval has now been warned under the Eastern Europe arbitration case. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


You will remember editor Sheodred who you Indef Blocked on 4 Jan 2012. The block is still in effect. On 3 Feb 2012 Sheodred requested to be unblocked and the request was denied by administrator Tnxman307 on grounds of (among other things) block evasion by sockpuppets:

On 29 May 2012 I opened a CheckUser request and sockpuppet investigation on an editor named Killmallock1 who behaves like Sheodred. The CheckUser request was denied on grounds that "all of the accounts in the archive are Stale":

The edit history of the editor Killmallock1 consists of (A) changing the nationality label of John Tyndall from "British" to "Irish" eight times in the last three weeks; and (B) four other edits, of which two insert deliberate falsehoods (lies) into Wikipedia and those two edits are:

For those two disruptive edits, and for his Sheodred-like behaviour on John Tyndall, I say he should be blocked. I was planning to open an AN/I request for a block. It would be my first time to file an AN/I request, and after the failure of my CheckUser request (which was the first time I made such a request), I know I could benefit from input from someone with more experience.

Regardless of whether you take the time to reply, I send my thanks to you for what you do here.Seanwal111111 (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I left an edit warring notice for Killmalock1. Don't have time to investigate this at the moment. If your sock complaint had included more persuasive data, it might have led to some action. You were quite complete about Sheodred, but not so convincing that Killmallock1 was the same person as Sheodred. Sheodred's editing pattern was to change people's nationality from British to Irish in mass quantities. Killmallock1 is not up to that level yet. So long as he makes small numbers of edits, people may ignore him. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sander Säde

It seems rather unfair to suggest a 3 month topic ban, given that Sander apologised for his remarks here at AE[44] and at Paul Siebert's talk page[45], which Paul accepted[46], before any admin arrived here to comment.

In the past when I was attacked as a "right wing extremist" espousing "ethnic nationalist POV" and that person refused to apologise, I brought that person to this page[47] and after a long discussion he finally apologised to me after the admins here threatened to sanction him, then the matter was closed without action but with a reminder to stay civil.

Therefore for the sake of consistency the Sander Säde matter should be closed without any action against him given his voluntary full apology before being asked to by any admin. Paul Siebert stated he strongly objects[48] to any sanction against Sander and will appeal immediately if such a sanction is given, so will I. --Nug (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. Punitive measures just increase general aggression, and I doubt that is what admins are for.
One more comment. Since all of that was a result of Nug's AE request, Nug also should learn due lessons from that story. By writing that, I do not request for any additional sanctions against him except update of WP:ARBEE and WP:EEML.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "Since all of that was a result of Nug's AE request, Nug also should learn due lessons from that story", regardless of the result I would have written exactly the same AE report. Despite the fact you had no issue with Sander's comment on your talk page, Igny lodged a report against him in typical battleground fashion. Despite you having no issue with his comment, Sander apologised anyway. That Sander, who mainly patrolled articles for vandalism (check his contribution history), be topic banned for three months rests entirely upon EdJohnston, it was his suggestion. No one is indispensable, however this pointlessly punitive sanction injures the project more than anything else as it removes a reasonably effective vandalism patroller and Wikiproject Estonia coordinator. Good job Ed. Shrug. --Nug (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:AFC on Marathonios

Note: The following post by an IP about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tiberius Claudius Hipparchus Marathonios has been copied here from User talk:EdJohnston/Anontalk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my proposed article! As the source of the wealth of Herodes Atticus probably was his grandfather, i thought some sentences could exist for him, having also an interesting story. His name is (or almost is) as set in my article, through many sources (of which a mentioned in the article only one):
Marathonios shows descent from Marathon, a famous town of Attica. It was usual at the time to always add the town to which one was belonging. So, most of the times one was using only his first name, but among faraway people the town was used as well (Thales of Miletus or Miletios etc). Whether Wikipedia's policy is to use the full name or just the first i cannot tell and i would appreciate your advice.
But.. in this article (see Ancestry) Wikipedia already uses that exact name!
Probably the right spelling might have been Marathonius, as all the name in in latin, but mostly is mentioned as Marathonios, so i would vote this way.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. If you create future AFC nominations, the record-keeping is easier if you will create an account, instead of using a variety of IP addresses. My original AFC comment was based on the linked sources not supporting your submission. It appeared to me that bits of information about different ancient figures were being mixed up together. This runs of the risk of an article misinforming our readers. In your above post, etc are not considered to be WP:Reliable sources for Wikipedia. The Google Book is OK but it only confirms that Herod Atticus's grandfather was known as Tiberius Claudius Hipparchus, without the word 'Marathonios'. So your information has no reliable source. Herod Atticus may have had a relative known as 'Marathonios', but that seems to be a different person who was born after the death of Hipparchus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


Hello. 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. It is regarding unvanishing ScienceApologist. Dennis Brown - © 17:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Troubles case

I seem to have waded into a kerfuffle regarding identification of the nationality of Daniel Day-Lewis at the behest of a rather peculiar IP. I hadn't planned to respond at first, but took a look at the article. Being a Day-Lewis fan, and an American, I though I might be able to offer a more neutral stance on the situation and possible help with a recent edit war. Or so I thought. In reviewing the history of one particularly strident editor, I noted some reminders on his/her talk page regarding the Troubles ArbComm case. So I'm writing to double-check whether the Day-Lewis article falls under the umbrella of that case given his roles in a couple Jim Sheridan films. I wouldn't have thought so, but better safe than sorry. Thank you in advance! --Drmargi (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Edits relating to places of birth such as Irish/English/Northern Irish are covered under the arb ruling and as such are subject to 1RR Mo ainm~Talk 23:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Drmargi, I've replied on your talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. I've replied on my talk page as well, and appreciate the perspective. --Drmargi (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Kongo

On a separate issue, would you look at the article Kingdom of Kongo? It appears two editors are in dispute. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your comments on the Folding@home talk page. I have no problem with you adding information, pulling in resources, or helping improve the article however you can. Although I wish there were more regular editors on the article, I'm basically the only one. I'm in support of what you're suggesting, but I'm not certain how you expect things to pan out. Are you 1) wanting to take the lead here and I can support you where I can, 2) thinking that we could work together equally, or 3) you're proposing changes that you'd like me to take care of. I'm completely willing to assist you whichever way, but I am lacking a background in computational biology, protein folding, and biochemistry, so it sometimes takes me a while to understand the citations. But I enjoy the challenge and learning about the subject. Not sure what your background is, but I'm hoping we can continue the discussion and move on to edits. Again, I very much appreciate your feedback. Jesse V. (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request of Sheodred

Hello EdJohnston. Sheodred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, RA (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I came across this request quite by accident. I am involved owing to our previous exchanges on the issue and the related ANI thread. So, I will not participate any further in this request except to notify you. --RA (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've given my opinion at User talk:Sheodred. Thanks for the notice. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in Ed, but as Jonchapple states on Shreodred's talk page, that Shreodred's suggestion of 1RR is merely to work within the existing 1RR of WP:TROUBLES. Even if we see that suggestion as being made in good faith, Shreodred's disruption was of such a level (editwarring, sockpuppetry, pointy edits, incivility) that I would suggest a ban under the terms of either the Troubles RFAR and/or British Isles topic probation is the only workable solution for unblock. Your wording on Shreodred's page about Ireland is good but in my view of Shreodred's past conduct would probably not be sufficient - any restriction would need to be from any edits and discussions relating to Britain, Ireland, or people connected with them widely construed (including policies, style guides or noticeboard threads) anywhere on wikipedia for an indefinite period. As usual if Shreodred can show the community he can work with this then the ban can be eventually lifted (indefinite is not infinite) but given the serious and long-term issues I only see trouble if Shreodred is tempted to go back into the topic area.
I also note the last entry in the SPI archive re: User:Killmallock1 (which I see above you were made a ware of). It's worth noting that I've seen a general resurgence of Single purpose accounts from both sides reappear since May (e.g. User:BritishWatcher, Factocop socks, User:Northern Arrow) and the area has been simmering since last December, with biographies of various ppl (notably Cecil Day-Lewis) being subject to semantics edit wars. User:VanSpeijk & User:Bjmullan are banned for editwarring over similar issues and the British-Irish semantics dispute has spilled over from Cecil Day-Lewis to Daniel Day-Lewis, which again I see you've had to deal with.
Again sorry to be butting in but with all due AGF to Shroedred it's a "hell of a coinky-dink"--Cailil talk 13:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


I'd be grateful if you could offer further thoughts on how JournalScholar's first set of reverts to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen didn't constitute a 3RR violation. I genuinely don't mean this as a complaint against your close -- I'd simply like to try to understand your thinking, so that I don't waste the community's time with reports to 3RRN that work out not to be founded. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is a BLP article under ARBCC and any negative material needs to be accurately quoted. The first dispute seemed to be about whether something was accurately presented based on the sources. I can't swear that there weren't four reverts by JS the first time around (it would need more study), but no admin had taken action in two days, so whatever happened on June 30 is now stale. If the dispute continues the article should be protected. I urge you to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and not continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I do think JS is likely to feel emboldened, under the impression that 3RR is optional as long as he's confident he's right. If so, he'll likely end up blocked at some point; no skin off my nose -- but it would be nice if we could avoid the disruption to the project this would entail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
One option would be to impose a 1RR on JournalScholar under WP:ARBCC, which would prompt (or force) him/her to work on gaining consensus instead of trying to edit-war the material in question. But I haven't looked at this question in enough detail to say for sure whether that's warranted, nor have I looked at the BLP question. MastCell Talk 18:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
It's worth noting that JS is now repeat-reverting material into the article -- so that BLP has nothing to do with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Since reverting continued after the 3RR closure, I have fully protected the article for three days. Please discuss on the talk page what ought to be done. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

More detail

Hi EdJohnston. Would you please provide more detail at Sock on your statement "Since mid-April, under a variety of IPs you have continued to try to force your new thinking into the X-ray computed tomography article."[49] None of the four accounts identified by Nenpog[50] go back as far as mid-April. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed that all the 79.* IPs which have edited the X-ray computed tomography article since April 1 were the same editor, based on similarity of viewpoints. The two you haven't yet included in your sock report are: (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs). It is my guess that your sock report will be closed with no action unless you can provide more rationale for doing something. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:UP#POLEMIC at user talk:Nishidani

I suggested[51] to the user that this section falls under WP:UP#POLEMIC this allowed but for limited time but this sections exist since 20/06 [52].I will appreciate you input if this indeed a polemic or no.--Shrike (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This post on Nishidani's talk page does not concern me enough to take a position one way or the other on its removal. EdJohnston (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you think it will be appropriate if I will ask other admins?--Shrike (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Feel free. Though Nishidani risks a hit to his own reputation by posting this stuff, your complaints about it run the same risk. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

TTT has continuing editorial attitude problems

Here [53] User:TeeTylerToe not only asserts absolute innocence of edit war, he then attacks three editors at the same time. Even though the report was "stale" I consider his attacks to be a continuation of his improper editing practises, and should be addressed. [54] is typical of his attitude, as does [55] Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In the same way your behavior would be in question if three editors made demonstrably false accusations against you and you were so brazen as to deny the accusations? And here you are trying to create more conflict?
Show me where I violated 3RR or stop accusing me. Cheers!TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

1RR Kosovo business

Ed, thanks for your judgement on this horrible issue. I've read the policies and guidelines and you know there will be no infringement from me in future. I know what to expect if I effect a U-turn. I was saying to Bwilkins that although I edit Kosovo and other sensitive articles, I do make contributions elsewhere and have now touched 9,000 articles, three quarters in mainspace. The subjects are slightly wider than the confines of my key areas of focus which for your interest happen to be the former Yugoslavia (the six republics and Kosovo) as well as Bulgaria. Some of this is in the Balkan, some in Central Europe. Some parts sensitive, others less so. I was pleased you made note of the good intention of the edits, so thanks for that too. Just out of interest, is that section likely to be closed any time soon or is it still open? I believe it was far longer than it should have been because of the personal exchanges between my detractors and me but the summary is very short: evidence of my contravention, my initial disclosure of ignorance coupled with the pledge to observe such measures in future. The rest is largely pointless and there is nothing new that can be added because the section pertains to events of 3 July 2012. I only ask because I don't know, I've seen others open and close more quickly, can it be archived? Or does it need a second admin to conclude matters? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


Apparently I've been too focused on reverting spam lately, that I think I got too focused on something that may not have been what it looked like through my tinted glasses. I've stopped posting on the talk page to see what other editors thought, and it looks like they've reached a consensus at Talk:Bitcoin#Consensus for External links section. Would you be willing to unprotect that page so that they can make their proposed changes? - SudoGhost 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. It would be helpful if you can summarize on the talk page whatever you think has been agreed to. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring investigation

Hello. Could you please take a look again at 3RR, Doktorbuk, bearing in mind the discussion he started at User talk:Boleyn, where he has stated that he plans to go to Preston (UK Parliament constituency) and remove redlinks to MPs - undoing hours of my work? Please help me. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this was given a result, Doktorbuk has reverted my edits on Devizes (UK Parliament constituency), Preston (UK Parliament constituency), Radnorshire (UK Parliament constituency) and City of York (UK Parliament constituency). These have been reverted (for now) by User:Avanu, and discussion has continued at my Talk page. Can you help? I have no intention of restoring my edits if he continues to edit war, not to create more red links to MPs, but I'm very frustrated, and would appreciate some advice and help. Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Kilometres per hour

I am a volunteer at WP:DRN. In my opinion, we have reached a point where protection can be removed without further disruption. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Kilometres per hour. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd lift the protection if I thought either (a) a consensus was reached, or (b) the parties had agreed to stop unilateral reverting. Since the DRN continues to sizzle and pop, it seems that unprotection is not yet reasonable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Black Dahlia Murder (band) article

Hello, on May 12 you semi-protected the above article until November because auto-confirms and anons kept on blanking cited information in the article (WP:GENRE WARRIOR). [56] Currently, a user (Xombie) who is neither an auto-confirm or an anon is doing the same thing. In addition to a long history of blanking messages by other users on his own talk page, he has been blanking cited information in The Black Dahlia Murder article and has provided no rationale, other than his own opposing POV or the opposing POV of the article's subject. This has been an ongoing issue on the article for at least 7 years and the article has been protected in various ways since. Is there anyway you could intervene before this gets out of control again? Thank you. --Danteferno (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Xombie is not a new editor. He's been around since 2005 and has 600 edits. There seems to be a genuine controversy about the band's genre. The current talk page, as well as the talk archive, are full of discussion of their genre. Can somebody produce compromise wording about it? If their genre is really so uncertain, there may be reliable sources that have discussed that uncertainty. The genre could also have changed in the last seven years. The options of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I've suggested a compromise in the Talk section of the article, I welcome Danteferno's input on it. Xombie (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


I am perfectly glad to leave this issue alone. I expressed that intent to Sarek in my last message to him. I will be glad to stay away from the issue and related article unless and until consensus for the changes arises. I do have some concern about the vigor with which Sarek is pursuing this issue. He used the threat of a block and his position as an admin in a case where he is an involved admin. He seems to have a real ax to grind on this issue and is currently making a lot of edits on this and related issues. I know he has previously, on at least one occassion, blocked a user where he was an involved admin (on the one occasion I noticed he did end up reverting himself). I don't know whether admin's are prohibited from threatening a block when they are involved or merely from actually blocking, but it seems to me they should not be using the threat of admin tools when they are involved. I think admins using their status to bulldoze when they are involved is a real problem. Maybe it's perfectly acceptable, I don't know, but it shouldn't be. WP:AN3 does state "When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized." Is there any scrutiny of Sarek's behavior in order? Mamalujo (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for notification of discretionary sanctions

I declined to notify Activism1234. The complaint was moved to WP:AE#Activism1234.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Ed, I hope you are well. I'm requesting that Activism1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) be notified of the discretionary sanctions based on the contents of this page. Thanks, nableezy - 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed I was wondering if you'd have a look at this. Nableezy is barely six days off his 6-month topic ban and he's got his hooks into a relatively new user, peppering that user's page with all sorts of accusations and innuendo, including implications of sockpuppetry [57] To me it is clear that he has identified this user as a potential opponent and he is trying to do one of three things, 1) To tire the user so that the user quits or 2) To intimidate the user into silence or 3) To bait the user so that the user, in frustration, says something that gets it into trouble. Frankly, Nableezy's conduct here is over the top (even for him) and constitutes harassment. Earlier on, I noticed that the user was having some technical difficulty in posting its edits so I provided some technical advice. Rather than harassing a new user, Nableezy, an experienced user should be offering guidance and assistance and not engage this account in what can only be described as a prosecutorial tone. I'm asking that you set aside your opinions about me and intervene because Nableezy will devour this account, who may not be familiar with all the nuances.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I am deeply concerned over Nableezy's request. His link to the sandbox reflects material that was discussed between him, me, or other editors and in which clarifications were made. Reusing old material after having discussed and agreeing on what steps to take about it, and even recent material (see the last section on my page "Arabic sources") is regrettable and distressing. Furthermore, as JJG said, it is worrying that he has a specific intent on following all my edits and harassing me about them, even when I make it CLEAR in the summary section why I did it, he will still ask condescendingly and state I did something wrong (as seen in "Arabic sources," I explained that is false, although he had a hard time comprehending and continued on. He concluded making assumptions, which I denied, but reappeared on his sandpage, which is also distressing).--Activism1234 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, it wasn't my intention to bring this much drama to your talk page. There is a problem that, going forward, needs to be resolved, and unfortunately AE is often the only place equipped to do so. Knowing that any future request will being *cough* wikilawyers in spades claiming that such and such process was not followed and no valid notification was given, I'm just asking for that notification to be given at this point. If you would rather not deal with this, I completely understand. However, to briefly address the absurd accusation offered by JJG above, if you look at my initial interaction with this user, I was more than accomodating. It is only after I found the repeated distortion of sources and lying about the source of material that I created the sandbox to document the issue, and only after I saw yet another example such issues that I asked for notification of the case. That isn't me trying to "devour" anything, or "silence" anything, or do anything at all. That's me trying to deal with a problem. Oh, and the user him/herself said that he/she had used a prior account, see here. Thanks, nableezy - 19:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The user was open and honest about that, volunteered that information and said that it took a year long break from editing and forgot the info from its old account. That is a plausible scenario. Not every one "cough" is on wikipedia 24/7 like "cough" some people we know "cough." (Damn! where are those Ricolas when you need them). Also Nab, I'm curious. you pleaded with Ed to give you a ban rather than a block because in your words "there is some work I would like to put in elsewhere." Well, you got your wish. You were banned for 6 months and what contributions did you make during that period? Where is the "work" that you wanted "put in elsewhere"?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Uhh, elsewhere? But how exactly is any of that relevant to whether or not this user should be notified of the ARBPIA case. And why exactly is it a problem if he or she is so notified? Why all this argumentation? What is the goal here? Do you really think that a user should be misrepresenting sources? Or not abiding by WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? Because if not, the cause for such a notification, hell the cause for a sanction, should be readily apparent. At least to somebody whose primary concern is the encyclopedia, and not protecting what they view as an ally at the expense of the integrity of the articles. nableezy - 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Break 1

I find it distressing you continue making assumptions about where I found a single article. The case Wikipedia provides of Saywhereyougotit is one where you cite Smith, but you never read Smith, only Paul, so cite it as Paul citing Smith. Except in this case, I read Smith and I cited Smith. This is not either a case of original research, as even if I got it from the blog you ASSUMED (creating a donkey in the process) I did, that blog pretty much linked to the article and copied the last paragraph. Do you know how many bloggers do this, in any topic?? Even media outlets frequently copy directly other media outlet's stories, such as those from AP. Is that a case where only the person at the computer for that media outlet was capable of doing the research to find the AP article, and no one else?????!!!! Do you think that only one person is capable of finding an article??? If so, that is immensely distressing. This attempt, blatant or not, to censor the free flow of relevant information is dark, ominous, distressing, regrettable, and troubles me to an extreme extent. Hopefully Ed will understand this, and what I said before (I don't deny that I am a human who made mistakes, but each time those mistakes were corrected or self-reverted and not repeated, to the best of my ability). I am happy to work with other Wikipedia users of different views (see my talks with Al Ameer Son, for example, on the page Mahmoud Abbas), but not when I am harassed, intimidated, followed and harassed, and when I am the subject of ridiculous assumptions that have no basis. I am more than happy to work with other Wikipedia users who have a problem with an edit I make. For example, see the WIPO talk page, in which an editor misunderstood one of my edits, opened a talk, and through the friendly and polite talk we added more information to the page and enriched it, adding articles that the other editor agreed on and was fine with, and agreeing to work together in the future if the information pops up again. Tragically, and it is indeed very tragic, Nableezy rejects all such efforts. --Activism1234 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If you read Smith and Paul, explain why you repeated Paul (elderofziyon blog) claiming that Smith (a UNRWA school) has a "Quranic agenda" and cited a page that says no such thing? That is one of the many examples of the repeated distortion of sources that you have engaged in. There are several examples of you taking, word-for-word, material from a blog and citing it to an Arabic source. I can Arabic, and I can see when your sources are completely made up. And I can google quotes to see where you got the initial material from. Lest we forget, I'm not an idiot. nableezy - 21:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Sigh this is exactly what I mean Ed. I'm discussing my most recent edit that he had a fit on, and he goes off and talks about an edit I made a few weeks ago where I ended up acknowleding the mistake and letting it be. It was fairly simple I was referring to that, as I was discussing the "saywhereyougotit" bit, which he brought up on my page in reference to a recent edit relating to 1 primary source. Quite frankly, you can see how distressing and irritating this is. It's impossible to have a rational conversation. --Activism1234 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Nableezy, your aggression is palpable and your tone on Activism's page was condescending. Frankly, I commend Activism1234 for mild manner in which he/she responded to your threatening and overbearing tone. I would have flipped you the bird but maybe that was your intention, to piss him/her off so he/she says something stupid and then you go for the throat. How many countless editors have your burned by baiting them and then burying them. That you are still allowed to edit shows how really dysfunctional this topic area is. It's interesting to note that your collective topic bans exceed one year but you have more edits to AE than nearly every other editor[58] You have one purpose here on Wikipedia and you know what that is, don't you. I hope those who monitor these boards will one day see you for what you are.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Im going to go with my better judgement and ignore you. Ed, I again apologize for bringing this to your door step. If you would rather, I'll post my evidence to AE and just ask for the notification there. Thanks, nableezy - 21:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If the conversation is hopefully over, as it appears to be (if you won't respond to him that pretty much ends it), I see no reason for doing so. Ed is a good administrator who can review what has been said here and reach a decision, and I am confident that decision will be the correct and understandable one. Obviously if he wants you to post it to AE that's one thing... But I'm sure it won't be an issue. --Activism1234 22:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This started out as a complaint about Activism's editing at Hamas. It's funny there is no discussion about any of this on Talk:Hamas. I have looked at one recent edit by Activism1234 that gives a statement about the ongoing struggle that is cited to a URL that begins with I.e. this was a statement by Hamas that was published on their web site in Arabic. It seems to me that a statement coming from the Arabic that is going to be translated by one of our editors is on tricky ground, if the thing being quoted is a complex political statement. Since any such statement by Hamas would be of high interest in Israel, it would be surprising that one could find no English translation published in a reliable source such as an English-language Israeli newspaper. The thing is still in the article, and that is the only source that I see which is provided for the words of Salah al-Bardawil. To find it, go to Hamas and search for 'Bardawil'. Please discuss on talk what should be done with this quote or its alleged translation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for the response. I don't believe Nableezy or I had any problem with the translation - I know Arabic somewhat and used Google Translate and asked friends who speak it fluently, Nableezy also said same translation, and a person on the page who made an edit to it had same translation. The issue here was that I wrote the statement by Hamas, the specific part that I felt was most relevant. My statement was

"On 1 July 2012, Hamas published a report in which political bureau member Salah Bardawil states that "armed resistance" will remain the main form of "resistance" used by Hamas until the "liberation of Palestine." Bardawil was responding to a question whether Hamas would shed their arms and engage in a process towards a political settlement."

All quotes that I used, such as "armed resistance" are the exact words of Hamas. I wouldn't write, for example, "Bardawil states that terrorism will remain..." since some users have an issue with those words. I wouldn't write "Bardawil states that armed resistance will remain..." since users such as I have an issue with those words (it's pretty much a eumephism used by Hamas). However, if I write "Bardawil states that "armed resistance" will remain..." then I'm quoting Hamas and that should be fine. Another editor came along and changed my statement to this:

on 1 July 2012, responding to a question from the new Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi on whether Hamas would engage in a process towards political settlement now that the Muslim Brotherhood was in power in Egypt, Hamas affiliated Palestinian Legislative Council member Salah al-Bardawil stated that as long as Israel continued to use force and committ acts of terrorism on the Palestinian people, armed resistance would have to "remain at the top of forms of resistance used by Hamas until the liberation of Palestine."

Now you can see why I wrote the above. This person wrote "as long as Israel continued to use force and committ acts of terrorism on the Palestinian people." That is an opinion, not a fact, and one which I and many users disagree with. You can't put that stuff into the article. If he would've written something like, "Bardawil stated that as long as Israel "continued to use force and committ acts of terrorism... armed resistance will remain," that would've been more appropriate since those are Bardawil's words. It is a FACT he said that, NOT an opinion. But the user wrote the article in a way that an OPINION was stated, NOT a FACT. After I changed this back, Nableezy apparently had an issue with me doing so. After I clarified it to him the first time, he repeated the same thing, so I explained it again. He then asked a different question, regarding the source where I got it, assuming I got it from a blog, which I did not. However, I explained here that should not have made a difference anyway. Nableezy then filed a report with you even after I clarified why I changed the user's edits and after he moved on to a different question. I am certain I acted in full compliance with Wikipedia's policies. --Activism1234 22:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed, since we're here anyway, can I request clarification on whether it's appropriate in the future to publish such references if there aren't, as you say, other media outlets such as Israeli English ones reporting on it? Or should this be handled on a case-by-case basis? Is it also acceptable (in any case, not just related to my first question) to be taken to this type of website from a blog, email, Twitter link, etc, that simply copied and pasted part of the article for more people to see (rather than compiling a list of other statements and research and analyzing them), and to publish this in Wikipedia (the website I mean, not a reference to the blog or Twitter link etc)? I'm sorry if this is confusing, please let me know if it is! --Activism1234 23:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
For the policy on non-English sources, see WP:NONENG. I don't see why we would trust a blog to copy and paste accurately from the original. If we are attributing material to some original source, we should be able to cite the actual words of that source. There is such a thing as a 'convenience copy' of an article that is not freely available online but I would not rely on anything like that for hotly-disputed material. If you yourself are getting talking points from a partisan blog, you should be aware that the world view of the blog author may be reflected in your edits. The blog is probably not bothering to feature or report on any material unfavorable to its own side, so Wikipedia will end up with an unbalanced article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Break 2

Well just quickly, I don't get talking points from a partisan blog necessarily, there are a few blogs I sometimes check that have opposing views, and other times I get links in Twitter or email etc to that... I meant in a case like this (i explained before i didn't get it from a blog, as Nableezy assumed, I'm merely hypothesizing), where the blog copies and pastes part or all of the article, and links to it. I go to the link, and it takes me to the Hamasinfo page, and I read the Arabic and translate it, and use only that (not the blog) as a reference, as though I had never read the blog to begin with. My question was whether THAT would be allowed. That type of case would reflect what you said of "if we are attributing material to some original source, we should be able to cite the actual words of that source," as the actual words would be cited. I understand I was a bit confusing before, I hope this cleared it up. --Activism1234 23:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I haven't touched the anything on Hamas, I just observed another rather obvious, despite the protestations of the user, use of a blog to provide a spin on a primary Arabic source. That there are no edits recently to Talk:Hamas is something that I have nothing to do with and don't plan to have anything to do with. The reason I think it was obvious that the user lifted this, without translating the Arabic, from this blog is both due to the next revert in which the user removes what another user, who actually read and translated the cited source, added, and attributed to al-Bardawil, the portion of the statement elided by the blog, and the language used in the blog and the edits. Compare the following:


The Hamas Information Office has published a short report on some of the recent statements by political bureau member Salah Bardawil.

Most of the questions deal with Egypt, and Bardawil praises Morsi as he says that he hopes his victory will further the Palestinian cause.

In the last paragraph, Bardawil’s answer to the question of whether Hamas will shed their arms and engage in a process towards a political settlement is provided.

According to Bardawil, “this is impossible.” Bardawil says that because of Israeli actions, “armed resistance will remain the primary form of resistance used by Hamas until the liberation of Palestine.”

On 1 July 2012, Hamas published a report in which political bureau member Salah Bardawil states that "armed resistance" will remain the main form of "resistance" used by Hamas until the "liberation of Palestine." Bardawil was responding to a question whether Hamas would shed their arms and engage in a process towards a political settlement.
This is exactly the same thing as when, in this edit, an article I was involved in (and participated in discussing on the talk page), the user copies, nearly word for word, much of this blog entry. I won't go through the whole diff, that is on the sandbox page linked in my initial message, but I'll go over two of the more egregious issues with that edit.


The Maghazi Prep School for Girls makes everyone know it has an explicitly Quranic agenda. It also mentions that its vision is to help the girls raise a generation of people who will "defend their country."
The Maghazi Prep School for Girls states that they have a Quranic agendacite, and its vision is to help the girls raise a generation of people who will "defend their country."cite
The sentence The Maghazi Prep School for Girls states that they have a Quranic agenda is nonsense. The link is to an electronic Quran. Nowhere on the page does it identify any agenda. This is completely fabricated, and it was in an encyclopedia article because a user lifted material from a, well I'll leave my description of the blog to your imagination. This has happened repeatedly, and in order for anything to be done about it in the future, the user needs to be notified of the sanctions regime in place. That is all I am asking for, and that request alone should really not have brought out these protestations. nableezy - 02:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Break 3

Nableezy, this needs to move to the article talk pages. You will have difficulty getting admins to understand something that needs a thousand words to explain, and seems to involve very complicated misbehavior. Why don't you work with others to fix whatever problem you perceive at the Hamas article. The above dispute seems like a fine point compared to the present contents of the Hamas article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, fine, the actual content needs to be discussed on an article talk page. I don't see how that factors into whether or not the conduct of copying material from a partisan blog and inserting blatant untruths into articles supposedly based on sources that most people on Wikipedia will be unable to read merits notification of ABRPIA. That is all I am asking for. I'm not trying to get you or any other admin to deal with the problem with the content. I'm just asking that a newly registered account, though an admittedly experienced editor beyond this account, who has performed problematic edits in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions be formally notified of the arbitration case. There is a lot of misdirection above, twisting what I see as obvious into something that very different from an honest portrayal of the events. I felt obliged to try to correct the record on what occurred, not drag a "content dispute" to this page. But no matter, I still have a straight-forward request. Based on several instances of inserting material from a blog without citing that blog, and in the process inserting outright untruths in to articles, I request that the user be notified of the case. I'm not asking for anything beyond that. nableezy - 02:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
If I were to warn him, I would have to know what I was warning him about. That would require that I understand your argument, which I don't at the moment. It is fine if you want to ask some other admin, so long as you mention that we talked about it here. At present it doesn't violate ARBPIA to be a completely single-minded advocate for one side or the other. I wish that were changed, but we are not there yet. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks anyways. nableezy - 02:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, WP:AE#Activism1234, nableezy - 03:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

WHy do you persist? Ed already clarified this above, when he wrote "I don't see why we would trust a blog to copy and paste accurately from the original. If we are attributing material to some original source, we should be able to cite the actual words of that source." Both of us agreed the actual words of the source were cited. This is silly.--Activism1234 03:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you ok with these...

...restrictions as agreed to? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I see that you have unblocked Sheodred. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
As I have had little sleep in the last couple of days, and table code is looking like Lithuanian to me right now, could you add those restrictions to WP:RESTRICT and put in his listing at WP:TROUBLES as well? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see User:EdJohnston/Sandbox for a draft of what would be posted in WP:RESTRICT. If this is OK let me know, or you can copy it over yourself. Regarding WP:TROUBLES, I suggest that this is not absolutely necessary. It would be a belt-and-suspenders approach, and the edges of what Troubles can cover are not 100% clear. Sheodred is already notified. If you are confident in your approach, just add whatever you think is correct at the bottom of Wikipedia:TROUBLES#2012. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks excellent to me!'re welcome to copy them after all your work on those! I acknowledge the challenge with Troubles (the trouble with Troubles? The Trouble with Tribbles?) I mean, is an author who once wrote about the Troubles related? Yup. I will add something there (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I've now updated WP:RESTRICT with the unblock conditions that Sheodred agreed to. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a question that is bothering me currently in relation to the restrictions, is it possible that the indefinite topic bans will be lifted when I have demonstrated and proven to the community that such restrictions would be no longer necessary for me as an editor? Sheodred 14:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems like all your restrictions will have expired in six months time, except for the one on changing 'British' to 'Irish', and the one on observing 1RRs which actually is just policy. If you can do reasonable work in other areas for six months, in my opinion it could be OK to appeal the British/Irish restriction then. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ScienceApologist back again?

Help! I flagged before that I suspected ScienceApologist was deleting sections on Plasma cosmology. You helped investigate and it was confirmed that it was indeed ScienceApologist (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive#09 June 2012). Unfortunately, I think he's back. First, the same section was deleted on July 3, 2012 by (who did the deletion in the main article) and (who commented on the talk page), who are closely linked IP addresses belonging to Boston Public Library (BPL.ORG; MVA.Net). I reverted the deletion on July 6, 2012, but the section has been deleted again on July 9, 2012 by a single-purpose account Goodsheard1. The SPA is the same as the person who used the Boston Public Library network, as he states at Talk:Plasma cosmology#Litany of things wrong with the galaxies section: "I have removed the content once again and started a user account so he won't be upset with me having an IP address". If you think it is justified, could you protect Plasma cosmology from IPs, and SPAs too if possible, please? Should I report this again? Thanks Aarghdvaark (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Plasma cosmology as you suggested. If you have time, it would be helpful if you would file the two new IPs at WP:SPI, by reopening WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist. You can go to WP:SPI and type the name of the case into the blank at "Investigation (case) to create or re-open." They will not do a checkuser, but the data can be kept for the future. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I've opened a new case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist. Many thanks for your help. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • ^ Daily Mail reporter, "Christopher Walken stays quiet over reopening of Natalie Wood drowning case",, 11:13 EST 23 November 2011