Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

Request for Arbitration withdrawn

Hello EdJohnston, this is a message to inform you that an Arbitration request in which you were named a party (which can be found here) has been closed as withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why deleting Hungarian contributions?

Lengthy discussion about Magyarization and the neutrality of our articles about Hungarian history. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, you banned me 2 days ago based on one guys complaint, who does not know how to post a comment (look at his empty comment page, where he messaged me, without writing who and whenn), and did no contribution to wikipedia, besides of deleting comments he do not likes. You can follow our discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radezic. Besides this he lied that I deleted his contribution on the Magyarization, about that Latin was the official language of Hungary between 1000 and 1844. You can check for yourself that this is a lie! So, he based on this lie, wanted a revenge on me, and started to delete my posts. I did not know that it is in wikipedia's to delete others contributions because of revenge... This is why I posted back my contributions deleted by him, because it was obvious that he did this on revenge of something I did not know... Other question: you wrote that I was banned because I reposted my contribution. So it means that if somebody deletes your contribution he has the right to do it, without explaining why (I didnt received any reasonable explanation from him, except that he wants a revenge on me), but if the victim repostes the deleted contributions, he is banned. This is not fair you know... Why the deleters have more rights than the posters? Why do they need no reasonable explanation for it? I am Hungarian and I see many articles which present, in a very partial way (only the negative parts) the „sins” of the Hungarians, like this "Magyarization" article, but when it comes to personalities or events in which the Hungarians were massacred, disciminated, etc., you cannot find anything about them, and when you try to introduce a contribution, presenting the anti-Hungarian acts, your contribution is deleted, like it was for example with my contribution in the article on Avram Iancu, who is presented ın the article as Romanian national hero, but when you try to write that, besides of this, he is guilty of massacrating many thousands of Hungarian civilians of every age and gender (look here: http://hungarianhistory.com/lib/kosztin/kosztin.pdf, p. 32-42), your contributions are deleted constantly by those Romanians, Serbians, Slovaks which follow these page, and you are lucky if you are not banned, like I was a day before. This happened to me in many times, like in the above mentioned „Avram Iancu” article, my contribution being deleted. the guy who deleted my contribution explained that Avram Iancu was not guilty of the massacres, because he did not led the armies. But in the same article you can read that he defeated the attacking Hungarian army. So he did not led the army when it comes to massacres, but he led the army when it defeats the Hungarian army... If we accept the fact that Avram Iancu, the overlord of the Romanians did not knew anything about what almost every one of his locotenents did, which in my oppinion is impossible... He was the leader, but he was not guilty at all... Well... Can you believe this? But why you cannot find nothing about the massacres in the articles about his locotenents (Axente Sever, Ioan Buteanu)? Do you find it fair that in the article about Avram Iancu nothing to be found about the massacring of almost 10 000 Hungarians? Without even mentioning that his troops, lets say, „without his knowledge”, massacred thousands of Hungarian civilians, burned towns and villages, libraries and other cultural values? Or again, in the Horea, Closca and Crisan article you cannot find anything about the massacring ot thosands of Hungarians by them (http://hungarianhistory.com/lib/kosztin/kosztin.pdf, p. 24-31),). Why is this? Why do you ban those who are Hungarians and try to keep the readers of Wikipedia free of demonisation of a nation, like the Hungarians, by Romanian, Slovak or Serbian contributors, and allow the latters to clean wash their historical personalities from the anti-Hungarian acts, which they did? I see on wikipedia that Hungarians and Hungary are victims of many accusations in the articles, without having any articles for example about the autonomy system in Hungary and Transylvania before 1867 (http://hungarianhistory.com/lib/hevizi/hevizi.pdf), unprecedented in Europe’s hitory. Of course who knows, maybe it was an article like that, but it could be deleted by Romanian, Serbian or Slovak people, who do not want the people of the world to know about this, because they want to keep the knowledge that the Hungarians did only bad things, and oppressed, repressed, „magyarized” them, etc... After these, I find meaningless to make any contribution which has link to Hungarian relations to Romanians, Serbians, Slovaks, because it is certain that my contributions will be deleted, and if I protest, certainly I will be banned. Because nobody in Wikipedia controles the nationalist bullying here. I am sorry that people like you only listen to them, and you ban those Hungarians who are triying to keep a balance here, fighting against an overwhelming antipaty of contributors from these nations, who try to present them to the readers of wikipedia as the black sheeps of Europe. Will this end sometimes?

Sylvain1975 (talk) 11:16, 01 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors on Wikipedia are urged not to personalize disputes. When you claim that editors have banded together to defend their ethnic interests, you face a high standard of proof. The arbitration case at WP:ARBEE was decided with the goal of obtaining neutral articles about topics in Eastern Europe in spite of the nationalist passions that risk having an effect on our articles. A multi-hundred-word posting like the one you wrote above that focuses on the tragedies of Hungarian history doesn't seem likely to improve the tone of these discussions. I hope you're aware that articles like Magyarization are going to present great difficulties to editors trying to achieve neutrality and a balanced perspective. A lot of patience is needed, and good use of reliable sources. Incidentally, you were blocked for edit warring, and not any issues regarding the article content. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you want neutrality on these articles, you should prevent nationally committed persons, like Radezic (from his name I think he is a Serbian) to delete others contributions. The editing of politically, nationally, etc. delicate articles should be supervised by neutral persons, who have nothing to do (nationally, politically, etc.) with that issue. And I think Radezic is not that kind of person. When it is an article about a Hungarian historical figure or event, the Romanian, Serbian, Slovak editors hurry up to present their anti-nationality acts, but when it is about a Romanian, Slovak person who did negative things against the Hungarians, and you write this, it is imediately deleted, and you can do anything, because you will be banned if you continue... Myself I experienced so many times bullying from editors like him, because, for example I tried to edit articles, which had wrong parts which demonized the Hungarians, or tried to present other nations in a better position than the Hungarians, hushing up things what they did, that I lost my willing to edit Wikipedia for a long time. For example when I tried to write that the Moldavian prince Stephen the Great payed tribute to the Hungarian king Mathias Corvinus, when a Romanian editor deleted every time my contribution, saying that this is not true, although I presented him tens of articles, even from Romanian authors, which demonstrated this thing. He wrote that the books I presented are not reliable, not in English, and he found every time a reason not to allow my contribution. When I presented English and Romanian books, he found another reasons not to allow my contribution. And finally I gave up. You know, it is hard to be Hungarian on Wikipedia... This is why I think that there are very few Hungarian contributors, who write in English, because they loss their strength to continue to edit, when Romanian, Slovakian, Serbian, sometimes even Ukrainian or Croatian editors are deleting their writings, or preventing them to keep a balance in national questions which regard Hungarians and others, for the sake of the readers who want to know the truth about these issues, and not lies and demonisations. It is hard to be 1 against 5-6, who want only one thing: to present their nations bigger, superior, better than the Hungarians, and to demonize them, and because of this they delete all that you write. I have a proposition for you and the other important editors of Wikipedia. In problems which regard Hungarians and the other nations (Serbian, Romanian, Slovak), in problems which regard national relations, events, etc., you should be more aware that the Hungarians are not liked by many contributors from these nations (not because they borne like this, but because they were teached in the schools like this by their history books, which are based mainly on nationalist mythology about the centuries of Hungarian rule and oppression, than the historical truth). This is why editors of Wikipedia have to be more attent on these issues, because otherwise you will have fewer Hungarian contributors, and Wikipedia will be dominated (partially it is true for today too) by articles which present the Hungarians as monsters, and hush up the negative things which they suffered from the others. I do not believe that you want this...

LOOK! IN THIS VERY MOMENT I WRITE THIS TO YOU, THE RADEZIC GUY DELETED MY CONTRIBUTION ON AVRAM IANCU, WHICH I WROTE YESTERDAY! In the article above it was written that Kossuth was a demagogue in Nicolae Balcescu's thinking. I only added that the law on nationalities which the Hungarian Government made weeks after Kossuth and Balcescu agreed about the national rights of the Romanians, shows that Balcescu was wrong, giving also reliable sources on this. It is no question about the reliability of my source, because it is published by the Hungarian Academy on Sciences. And I am usually avare of this, being myself an assistant professor in an university. It is obvious, that this Radezic now hunts every of mine contributions and deletes them. WILL YOU ALLOW THIS GUY TO DELETE ALL MY CONTRIBUTIONS ON WIKIPEDIA?? Do you want to loose another Hungarian contributor? I hope not.

Sylvain1975 (talk) 10:44, 02 February 2016 (UTC)

So long as you direct your editing work to nationalist hot-button topics like Magyarization and the rights of Romanians you are risking frustration. If you are an assistant professor, you may have a base of knowledge about Hungary that will allow you to improve a non-controversial article. Many of us admins know the problems with Magyarization, and we are not keen to endure more suffering on that account. If you continue to tilt at the windmills of nationalism it will not be a very tempting prospect to try helping you out. Also, your extemely long posts (filled with indignation) tend to put one off. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

1. So let the anti-Hungarian people to bully Hungarians with lying or one sided articles (for example Avram Iancu was a hero, without writin that his armies killed thousands of unramed, peaceful Hungarians)? Let all the unsided things to remain, because nobody wants to end this unfair treatment? Why are we punished like this? While all the world must learn lyes about us, because we are forbidden to do anything against it? 2. Please explain me about which rights of Romanians you are talking about? The right to write everything what they please, even lies, against Hungarians, to push the "hot button" against us, as far as they want, while we are forbidden to do anything against this? We Hungarians are some kind of 2. class people here, in relation with the others? 3. In your oppinion is ok to a nation to be demonised, and when it tries to show the truth to be punished and called nationalist? I am the nationalist who tries to show the other face of the coin, or those who prevent me to do this? Or that guy who deletes all my contributions, upon whos willing to revenge on me on sometghing I didnt, you banned me, but you let him to continue anything he wants against me? 4. Is he allowed to be nationalist and to bully Hungarians, because of being a Serbian (based on his name)? Do you think this is fair? 5. Are you gonna do anything to stop him bullying me?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

PS. I am bothering you because you banned me, but I want a fair treatment, to see, that everybody gets equal treatment on Wikipedia. If I was punished, I expect that others who do bad things to be punished or at least prevented to continue harrassing my contributions. I would like to see the same correctness in the both cases. Sylvain1975 (talk) 01:48, 03 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe you aren't listening, so there is no point in my continuing to respond. It sounds like you won't rest until you get into a giant fight. People who try that don't usually come out of it well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You do not understand me: it is not about ME. It is about the fact that wikipedia is presenting a nations history and its relations with others in a one sided, unjust way, highlighting its "sins", while hiding, furthermore, deleting (!) the others "sins" against it. This is not an inessential thing. Billions of people are reading these articles, and get wrong knowledge about it, thinking that "look, these Hungarians how bad they were, while the other nations in its neighborhood were soo good, and did only good things to them", and this creates wrong perceptions in billions of people in the world! I am very pro showing all the truth, the bad things too, but I want to see that the bad things of the others towards Hungarians to be shown too! Showing the bad things of all nations without exception, can stop future conflicts (because if, for example a Romanian if he reads only that Hungarians killed Romanians,he will be filled with hatred, but if he finds articles about the same things did by the Romanians against Hungarians, he will say: we too did bad things, and will be not filled with hatred), but showing only the sins of one of them, leads to hatred against him/it. Have you heard about the Nazi Germany?... This one sided presenting of the Hungarians and neighbouring nations on Wikipedia, leads to hatred and wrong perception against the Hungarians in the whole world! I cannot accept this! And I cannot accept that you are supporting this! And I am not a nationalist. You can read my contributions on Wikipedia as a proof. But I cannot accept injustice against me and others, which is supported by your stance here. I cannot accept that all my contributions to be deleted by one nationalist kreep, who hunts my contributions on wikipedia (I am sure that if I write about the butterflies, he will delete those contributions too), and the fact that you do nothing to stop him! My last and only demand is this! Will you do this? You were so fast in banning me, but you do not move a finger when I am attacked. Sylvain1975 (talk) 10:57, 03 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

AN

Information icon 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. prokaryotes (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please give some input, the other guys only judge per Tryptofish. I can accept a temp ban, as you suggested, but suddenly indefinite, besides MastCell fist mentioned no action, feels bad. prokaryotes (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A big thanks for your help at the X-Files Season 10.

Dear EdJohnston, I believe you did very very well to rename The X-Files (miniseries) back into The X-Files (season 10) without the word TV in that parenthesis.


For the history, the Page Move request initially started as:

Previous TV Name: The X-Files (miniseries)

Proposed TV Name: The X-Files (season 10) (note: the TV wasn't initially in the proposed name's parenthesis)


but during the discussion it was discovered that there was already a page about a comics with very similar name: The X-Files Season 10.


So we decided to alter slightly the Page Move request to the following:

Previous TV Name: The X-Files (miniseries)

Proposed TV Name: The X-Files (TV season 10) (note: the TV is added)


and at same time we started a new Page Move request at the comic's talk page, which was successful and the rename was done without problem:

Previous Comics Name: The X-Files Season 10

Proposed Comics Name: The X-Files Season 10 (comics)


Now, with the comics having a disambiguation on their title: The X-Files Season 10 (comics), i feel that the The X-Files (TV season 10) is no longer necessary and that the name you chose today: The X-Files (season 10) is simply perfect and doesn't cause any problems anymore.


Thank you for everything, and have a nice day! -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at California University of Business and Technology

A few days ago you blocked Truewiki2016 for continued edit warring at California University of Business and Technology. He or she is apparently using a sockpuppet to continue the edit war. Can you please block that account, too, and reset or extend the block on the master? And perhaps it would be helpful to semi-protect the article, too. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ed! ElKevbo (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion headers

I have no idea. I already removed the CFD template from the other template, figuring that it was okay because it was an obscure template (nobody knew about it except for the creator and me), and the CFD template was causing a mess, but I thought I shouldn't remove it from {{la}} because that was much more heavily used, and advertising the CFD there was better. I've just noincluded the CFD template on {{la}}, so hopefully that will solve the problems you mention. If not, let me know or leave a note at WP:HD; I'll do what I can to help, but my know-how is limited. Nyttend (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the headers at WP:COIN are looking normal again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Penelope37 again

I'm sorry to bother you with this a second time, but Penelope37 (talk · contribs) is still edit warring on Chappie (film) to remove sourced content from the article, as she did the previous two times that she was blocked. It has been explained to her that MOS:FILM tells us to include the country of production in the opening sentence of the lead, but she is insisting on removing it. I'm beginning to think that she's an SPA created to edit war on this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and a question

Thank you for your response and close of that ridiculous AN3 report. I have to ask though for clarification, I'd had always assumed that 3RR is for back and forth edit warring, where two users continually revert each other on end without discussing. Per WP:3RR, it states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material...", does that literally mean you are unable to, for example: revert editor A for adding unsourced content, revert editor B for adding content that's non-compliant with guidelines, revert editor C for adding bad grammar, and revert editor D for adding different unsourced content. The way Cebr1979 was making it seem is that because I reverted three times (two separate occasions involving different editors), I am somehow unable to correct mistakes made by other users, in which I removed unsourced content and corrected a user's thought that content wasn't sourced. Any clarity would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:EW, all reverts count toward 3RR whether it is about the same or different material. In case of doubt, it is better not to go too fast. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
However, since Ed brushed it off without even a warning and turned it all around stating only edit wars and the conversation has now been archived as such... everyone has that to link to as the current consensus by an admin should we ever need it by accidentally losing count. Wikipedia:Hypocritic Oath supports that so it's nice to have things to fall back on when/if needed. Policies should be followed but, sometimes, as was brought up in that very thread as well, things need to be overlooked when building an encyclopedia and, of course, mistakes can be made.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Cebr1979, you would like to count copy edits as reverts even when nobody seems to disagree with them? How about this one, which you included in the list of 'reverts' at AN3. Was that a 'warlike' change? If you had put more care in preparing the report, and taken the time to use the article talk page yourself, the outcome might have been different. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't have, Ed. You're only saying that now. You didn't say it then even though you were on page all day. Nothing of the sort. What you said is what's archived.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
What I said in the now-closed report was "If there is a revert war here, it's hard to see." As the submitter, it was your job to make the revert war evident, assuming there was one. I am not going to study a complaint for hours trying to make up for deficiencies in the original submission. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You didn't "study" anything for even one second, Ed. There never was any edit war for you to see. There were more than 3 reverts made to the page in 24 hours and even a 4 year old would have seen that based on my report. Every time you talk to me, you act like only edit wars can be brought there but... when you talk to DTG privately, you confirm he did wrong meaning you did understand my report after all. So... why did/do you keep saying you didn't/don't? It's just you being dramatic again, Ed. That's unfortunate. This is my last comment to you on this.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Arb

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Prokaryotes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, prokaryotes (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Darek555 is at it again

The user you warned[1] just a few hours ago is back, edit warring to restore his edits against consensus at Permanent death.[2] He also continues his barely coherent ranting and refuses to hear about WP:V.[3] Please do what must be done. 75.129.197.146 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Every is in talk, he continuously remove part about Path of Exile, problem is described here, please read carefully my explanation :[4]--Darek555 (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    If only you had extended to us the courtesy you're asking of us... It's still not too late to undo your restoration of the content you re-added against consensus, promise to never do it again, and avoid a block, you know. 75.129.197.146 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

AN3 and ARBPIA

See my little fiasco. I've been wracking my brain to figure out what I did. I know I looked at a Talk page and saw the ARBPIA notice. I also know that I saw the editnotice warning on an article. However, they're not on the Talk page or the article itself, List of state leaders in 2016. Why would I have looked at some other article? I'm a bit tired, but on my personal spectrum of insomnia, I'm not that tired that I would have imagined the whole thing. Don't spend any real time on this, but if you spot something obvious I overlooked, please let me know. This is what happens when I drop in sporadically at AN3. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Technically, List of state leaders in 2016 is under 1RR if people are reverting about Palestine. But you're right there is no banner on it currently. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand, but I wouldn't have blocked without a banner and an editnotice to users who had never been alerted to the DS sanctions. It wouldn't be fair.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
If there were an edit notice, a file should exist at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of state leaders in 2016, but there is nothing there. It's also possible to search under 'Template/Editnotices/Page' with Special:Prefixindex to see which other articles have such notices. On the content issue, we have an article at List of states with limited recognition that treats Palestine in detail. I hope that whoever is publicizing the RfC will notify the Wikiprojects that are listed at Talk:List of states with limited recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I've created editnotices myself. It's true that List of states with limited recognition has an editnotice but not an ARBPIA notice. Spirit Ethanol is publicizing the RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanction to Jaqeli

Hi EdJahnston, I figured out that you are the person that imposed a saction related to georgia to the user Jaqeli, i don't know if that saction is still in force, but if it is, please could you remove it, I'am Gustavo 200.000.0 and i need his help to translate a article about a georgian monarch, the point is that i am the creator of the article about the royal personality in portuguese and i use english to translate my articles from english to portugese, the reason of the help is that i want to finish my translation to portuguese and the georgian article is much better than the english one, and i don't know georgian, so please remove the saction, unless that you have other expert in georgian to show me if you don't remove the saction i will have any help, and he didn't sent me here.Gustavo 200.000.0 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless this Georgian monarch has some connection to Armenia then Jaqeli's restriction won't affect anything. Who is the monarch? Though Jaqeli is not active here since 24 January he seems to be editing the Georgian Wikipedia. You can perhaps leave him a message over there. This link will show you some members of WP:WikiProject Georgia (country) who have edited recently. It seems that User:Giorgi Balakhadze is from Georgia and has been active recently. Maybe you can ask him for ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

More edit warring at Permadeath

Remember User_talk:EdJohnston#User:Darek555_is_at_it_again? I think he's back, on another account. Same MO - adding incorrect info about Path of Exile against talk page consensus and edit warring (see the page's recent history), refusing to hear what's being said to him, ranting and raving on the article's talk page[5]... the username he uses this time (User:Icameheretolaughatyou) is enough to block him IMO, he's clearly WP:NOTHERE. 95.57.188.117 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being another person with no evidence whatsoever? Your personal opinion is not evidence.
Icameheretolaughatyou (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Once a user gets blocked, another user immediately appears such that his editing pattern is an exact match for the editing pattern of the blocked user. What is more likely: that this is a mere coincidence, or that we're dealing with the blocked user under a different pseudonym? In other words, while we have no hard evidence that you are Darek555, you certainly pass the WP:DUCKTEST with flying colors. 46.105.88.106 (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:ThePlantList

Hi, thanks for moving {{ThePlantList species}} and subpages to {{ThePlantList}}, but can you move Template_talk:ThePlantList species to Template_talk:ThePlantList as well? Thanks. --MCEllis (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this is done now. Can you check if I missed anything else? EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks.--MCEllis (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Schism edit

Hey I am here asking for your opinion. This edit [6] removed a very small passage about the Time of Troubles. The passage referred to the time that Poland invaded and conquered Russia killed 10 of thousands of people and tried to initiate a large scale forced conversion of the Orthodox to Roman Catholicism (Polish–Muscovite War (1605–18)). This caused Russia to unity and establish the Czar under the Romanov family dynasty and actually make a holiday that is still celebrated in Russia today. It is one of the ugly historical set of events that informs the Orthodox as they struggle against various historic campaigns at different times throughout human history where their country or allies were invaded by European forces attempting to assimilate them into European Culture and Roman Catholicism. If there is an issue of space and constraint then mentioning the struggle between the Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox in the Ukraine seems to be of even less important than the mention of a full scale war and invasion and conquest of Russia by the country of Poland. It seems like the recent edits on the article want it to appear that the conflict and schism is one sided and in a vacuum that there is not aggression on the European side toward Greece (Axis occupation of Greece let alone the story of the Junta and Operation Gladio) or Russia or Eastern European Russian allies. That the various mass killings and invasions (like the Northern Crusades and the whole story of Alexander Nevsky can't be mentioned next) let alone what Napoleon did or recently Nazi Germany can not be mentioned even though these inform the motives behind the general peoples of those regions rejecting ecumenism and perpetuating the schism. I mean its even the basis for modern war films like 1612 (film). LoveMonkey (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You're still under an unblock condition that keeps you from writing about East/West theological and historical disputes. If this IP was you then your edit at East-West schism was a violation of your unblock condition. I recommend that you find another topic to work on. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well the IP wasn't mine. I have not edited on the article at all since the block was established. I have from time to time made comments on the talkpage but I was told that I could do that. I can contest the block and or asked that it be modified or changed? How do I do that? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The East-West schism was central to your previous problems with Wikipedia editing. I would oppose lifting of the restriction, but you can request it at WP:AN. The tone of your above post about Time of Troubles is probably not a good argument for lifting the ban, since it suggests a vague grievance that is based on original research. The Nazi invasion of Russia as a form of 'rejecting ecumenism'? It is hard to see the East–West Schism as a major factor causing Hitler to invade Russia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh my there is the entire history of this. It is more so about Europeanisation if you will, but Wiki has allot of articles already covering this subject that I have nothing to do with. Like this one here Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše. I mean I didn't write the article. Also there are actual terrorist groups whom have killed people over some of this like Revolutionary Organization 17 November whom murdered Stephen Saunders (British Army officer) for example and even on some level the Black hand (which in retaliation to the Crimean War being lost by Russia, killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and trigger World War 1, as both groups oppose "Europeanisation" of their respective countries. Again I did not make this subject up and I mostly do not involve myself in their articles. However THEY DO EXIST. And there is much that they do to influence the people's of their respective countries and it seems that part of understanding a conflict would be as much as neutrally as possible outline the positions of any of the involved belligerents. Rather I agree or not these groups and their ideas are active as one of the articles I have decided to back off from creating (Eurasianism and Global Politics) deals with all of this all the way up to current Kremlin politics. Thing is I don't really agree with allot of it per se but it does permeate the Eurasian perspective all the way down to how Vietnam was perceived by both Russia and China and even India for example. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

I was wondering if I could get you to look at this edit. [7] I wonder if this could be used as an example of how what the actual person says and how their perspective was completely misrepresented while also sourcing them. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not ask about this on the article talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
And it was reverted [8]. I am posting this because it appears that the article has an edit warrior on it whom is engaged in [WP:OWN]. Where can I report this? As this is an example of how Wikipedia is used to disseminate misinformation. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you remove your own addition from the article until you can get support for it at Talk:Andrea Dworkin. Your point is not clear, and you are not even adding a complete sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I have asked the editor for clarification on the talkpage. I have also constructed a sentence from comments made by Cathy Young in the source provided and added them to the article body. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
As a person who returned to Wikipedia after a long block, it's to your advantage to be more patient on talk pages. At Talk:Intercourse (book)#Recent revert in article text it is hard to tell if you have any support whatever. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well you can say all that you want about my past editing however the advise you gave me (and I followed) to reword the article's passage appears to have resolved the issue, at least for now. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Good to hear that this is resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:TheManchMan vs. User:TheManchoMan

The block log for 68.194.58.163 lists him as a suspected sock of TheManchMan, when it is TheManchoMan. This typo, although minor, might hamper any future admin considering unblocking this IP in understanding why he was blocked in the first place. I have given the same notification to Ritchie333 because he also blocked this IP with the same typo. J♯m (talk | contribs) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I reblocked with a change of spelling in the block message. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User 107.107.57.156 Article: Shari Redstone

Need some help on a user who seems to have an agenda in claiming that Redstone's ex-husband got a substantial severance package when he left the company - but it's not true; his source is an article quoting a lawsuit against Redstone's father by her brother alleging that, and the allegations were found not to be true and the lawsuit dismissed. The same user is intent on removing the ex-husband's title of 'rabbi', when it was clear that's how he was referred when Redstone married him. As I said, seems like there is an agenda and POV but this user keeps reverting. Anything that can be done?

PS - and how is that severance issue relevant to Shari Redstone's article anyway? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChosidFrumBirth (talk • contribs)

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive306#User:204.195.144.134 reported by User:64.134.64.190 (Result: Semi). Use the article talk page at Talk:Shari Redstone to make your arguments. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you if it is hard to reach agreement. At present the article is fully protected by another admin. If you continue to revert about the name of Mr. Korff when protection expires it won't look good. It is to your benefit to wait for consensus. Otherwise, people will wonder if you are the person who has 'an agenda and POV.' Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Right now the version that is locked is 107's edits, so as you suggest I'll wait to see if 107 or anyone else comments before editing again and may be back to you for advice again if that's ok. ChosidFrumBirth (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

ADVICE please - it doesn't look like user 107.107.57.156 is going to discuss this, but if I correct the article again I assume he'll just revert and we're back in the same back and forth reverting. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChosidFrumBirth (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ChosidFrumBirth (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What change are you considering? And have you made your proposal at Talk:Shari Redstone? There is a section at Talk:Shari Redstone#Concerning recent reverted edits where I don't understand either your position or anyone else's. The question about the severance might be raised at WP:RSN if you can express it very clearly. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a couple of extra eyeballs on a couple of articles.

...but let me start off with just one: Mine Seed

Since this contains, above all, simple competency issues, I'm not sure where to start. Anmccaff (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There has been a discussion at User talk:Anmccaff#Deleting references. The book Mine Seed appears to be self-published, and the references are sketchy. It is hard even to confirm that all the reference publications exist. For example, a search for 'Anthracite History Journal' doesn't find anything. It is claimed that Howard Zinn put in a good word for this book, but no reliable source can be found to confirm it. (The author's blog post is not acceptable for that). Worldcat does show that the book is held in two libraries in Pennsylvania. Your next logical step might be WP:AFD. The guideline which applies is Wikipedia:Notability (books). EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The "Anthracite History Journal" was on-line only, gone about 7 years, and only some of it got Waybacked. The last curator of it, who had kept it online after the originator had stopped keeping it up, said that she might be making it available again. The parts I could see were competent....but, it was clearly a one-man operation, a local thing. The Wikipedia Mine Seed article formerly claimed a review from a book it wasn't even mentioned in, both by my search, and by contacting the author directly. (He had reviewed it, fairly favorably, in "Anthracite History Journal", and he has appropriate standing, a professor of English at Penn State Scranton. [Here's the wayback page]; you can clearly see this is a local review of a local author.) One of the other cites is a give-away local rag, the sort of weekly that's at least 75% insert ads, as near as I can tell.
The book in turn was used by the same user as a citation of fact or notability on at least three other articles, one of which is at AfD now. Anmccaff (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

you, EJ with a request for a few minutes of your time. I happened to read 2 articles that, en passant mentioned Oliver Kamm, and so looked at his article, and thought there were a few points worth adding. I have been reverted, I don't think on sound policy grounds (I will of course, stand corrected on this), with a link to your remarks. I wonder if you could spare the time to evaluate the issue, and see if there is any merit in my proposal to include the 2 new sources? Of course,feel welcome to ignore this (as I have been advised to by a reliable 'head' on my talk page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope this is now resolved. You and others have been working to clarify and make correct a paragraph about Oliver Kamm and Noam Chomsky that may be too confusing to include in a short biography. If reverting continues, an RfC might be next. One editorial correction: the article spells 'Kamm' as 'Kamn' in one place. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. And I will check that spelling.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

The user who you banned for 48 hours is now using a different IP address from the same city (L.A) to vandalise the Flo Rida page. Here's the new IP: 107.72.96.34 BlaccCrab (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotected My House (Flo Rida song). Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin

Hi, I saw the messages you left at EtienneDolet's page and MyVeryBestWishes page. It is going to be really hard to achieve any kind of agreement on that article as, at least from where I'm standing, one side has decided to dig in and revert any changes to the article they don't like. Dispute resolution in the form of DRN or mediation could work but the disagreements are over so many little issues that it would take forever. Maybe possible if the mediator was very good at it.

On the other hand I do think a 1RR restriction for the article would be a good idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived

The amendment request regarding the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case has been closed and archived (without action). For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

3RR

Not all those editors who violate the policy will face block? I know about the exemptions, of course. Mhhossein (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this about a specific case? EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, to be honest.This case I meant! I'd like to know if I've missed a point. Mhhossein (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Since full protection is enough to stop a war, we usually don't issue *both* blocks and protections. With some exceptions. The IP who filed the report didn't help their case by using a fluctuating IP. If you have an interest in this topic I'd encourage you to make a proposal on the talk page for what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

IP edit

There is discussion on Administrators notice board/edit warr on Bonadea,but Bonadea reverting this discussion,escaping from discussion..and violeting 3rr rule many many times,i cant understang what can i do? If we see the history of Administrators notice board/edit warr page ,today just know Bonadea reverted two times. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.250.119.158 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

definition of revert

I'm wondering if this needs to be looked at again. See my discussion with Floq [9] - I am not at all sure anymore what qualifies as 1R, or rather a 1R violation. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The 3RR report was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive307#User:Idielive reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Not really edit warring, but warned about disruptive editing), and there was follow-up at User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 8#My 3rr report. It was within discretion for the closing 3RR admin to see four reverts there, but the actual closer did not, he just warned. We often issue warnings at that noticeboard, and this user had only seven edits, so people might have thought he didn't understand the rules yet. Either verdict would have been OK. If you want to ask about the definition of a revert, read WP:Edit warring rather than WP:Reverting, which is only an essay. The actual edits in question did appear to be POV-pushing, and when it is sufficiently blatant, you will see some notice taken of it at AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice to know it wasn't cut and dried, and I wasn't bothered about the result. But it was actually the current AE discussion on this that made me mention it, not my discussion with Floq (which did leave me with some uncertainty, but that seems part of the general context). Doug Weller talk 18:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The best kind of reverts to count are blatant reverts. (For instance an edit with 'Rv' or 'Undid' in the summary, or a change that restores a prior version of the article). When it gets to be too subtle, try some other approach. People may be annoyed at being blocked for some number of reverts if it is not obvious to them. If admins disagree on the count, then it's unlikely to be obvious to everyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

AE and past block

You know very well what happened by my last block and what it was all about and besides I don't understand why I should get a six month extension for appealing a block. Does that seem fair to you? I got a one week block and I am appealing it, if it is denied, it is denied, but to extend a block to six months merely as a form of punishment for daring to appeal is a dangerous thing and I don't thing that is something that should be encouraged. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean about your last block. Did you intend to respond to someone else? As to how the appeal is going, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you give us reason for being optimistic about your future behavior, judgments could change. So far what you have posted in your defence is not helping your case much. It seems you are sure you can never be wrong about anything. People who can back off gracetully are usually allowed to return to normal editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is that I am currently appealing a one week ban and I haven't edited that page since so why would you say that my defense is not helping my case much? I have brought sources, I have brought Bernie's own statements, Bernie's own Senate's site, etc. but regardless, I am just being defensive that is what it is about, especially when you look at the talk page and I can't respond to all the logical fallacies and errors and misstatements. As for my last block that is what Laser is using as his excuse to propose a six month ban. That is not a reason to extend a ban, 1) a past block for a totally different reason and 2) past blocks should not be used for a current block, and 3) you were indeed involved in my last block or block AE appeal if you don't recall and it wasn't so simple as calling someone a bad name. As for the topic at hand, I ask you to read the talk page and see some of the behavior of the other editors and read some of the comments. I am going to stop because at a certain point it is just Wikipedia, but as someone else pointed out to Guy Macon, who made him arbiter of 1) what is RS even if it comes from Sanders' own website and 2) the Jewish religion is not like Christianit, you can be Jewish without practicing a whole lot. I certainly don't think it's fair to extend a block to six months just for having a discussion or for an appeal. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Defending your content position at AE is an elementary mistake. You are not supposed to show that you are right but that you have behaved well. Almost anyone could come up with a better defence than the one you are making at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
My first paragraph showed that I posted the content in what I thought was a correct posting. After that everything went kablooey. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
You also should appreciate when someone is Jewish and says "I'm Jewish" but someone says, "No, you're not Jewish" because "I don't think you're Jewish enough for me" and that is what we have there. It does seem odd and at times offensive and it wasn't just me. Gamaliel, Cullen, and others who I'm sure you hold in high esteem thought so. I'm sure I don't need to tell you why someone who is Jewish might find that offensive. But it makes no difference in the end, it's already one day past and after today his goose will be cooked and this whole hullabaloo will die down anyway. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
What Ed is saying is that AE isn't at all concerned with the content dispute. It's concerned with whether your behavior requires sanctions. You've spent the whole time trying to explain how your content position is correct and zero time explaining how you didn't know it was a contentious edit. That's why your topic ban is going to be expanded—you actually came in and made your case worse by providing every indication that you intend to continue the same behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

no, that's not what I did. My first paragraph explained why I thought it was a valid edit. Have I edited the page after the block? No. I didn't. So there's no reason other than I dared to appeal. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

do you agree with the actions of bishonen? This is really uncalled for.

104.162.193.17

Hello, This @104.162.193.17: has returned to make the same disruptive edits. He attacks me personally and called me an Islamic provocateur here and tracks my contributions. Can you please stop him? Thank you--Opdire657 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Due to the continued use of an IP address to edit WP:ARBPIA topics, I've issued a new AE block for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Ed, there was no notice that this article in question is subject to the same sanction. According to the article this is about the ancient territory, but then again....it should be clarified at least with a talk page notice to the user.Sir Joseph (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It is hard not to see this edit the IP made on your talk as a violation. He is trying to get you to make a proxy edit for him on Category:Western Wall, while calling someone else an 'obvious muslim provocateur'. He also appears to be stalking Opdire657 by reverting his edit on an unrelated topic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the talk page violation. I could see it as a civility or NPA perhaps but he didn't edit the ARBPIA area. I agree with the stalking and being a bad editor I just don't know if it should be an AE block as opposed to a regular block, since the actual edit he was blocked for at the Wine article wasn't really clarified as being under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
He seems to have appealed the block, and another admin has responded. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, for the block you gave him two weeks ago. :) Sir Joseph (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 states: "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." If you examine the edits;[10][11][12] edit warring to change Canaan to Israel is clearly an WP:1RR violation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. So the claim that the article is about wine so the block is unfounded is disingenuous. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Why would that necessarily be about the conflict and even if it is, he was not notified about that. His last edit he was notified and he was blocked for it and he stayed away from that area. These things are not necessarily so clear to users and we should not be so out to block people. Feel free to revert but if they weren't notified that any article with the word Israel is subject based on how some admin determines, it's not fair to block them for a few months, at least based on the edit of that post. The nice thing would have been to revert and tell him that he should not be editing even the wine article.Sir Joseph (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification may not be necessary in cases of flagrant AE breaches; unless I am missing something this is not a flagrant breach and, IMHO, is not a breach at all. Reverting between "Canaan" and "Israel" does not, I feel, relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am not suggesting that this is a good editor - some of his recent edits are unacceptable - but I suggest that any block now, if currently warranted, should be an ordinary block rather than an AE one. The imposed block is for three months, which would be lenient for an AE violation but is perhaps harsh for the situation as it exists. I will take no action pending your comment.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the IP's edits and left a further comment on the IP's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for protecting Talk:Jewish Bolshevism! Hopefully this'll stop the vandal for awhile... FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 06:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Edit warring

I was told to discuss my edits with the disputer, but they did not respond on their talk page despite asking me to list my points — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) 05:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is your behavior, not others. If you want to make dramatic changes, you need to get others to express their agreement. WP:DR has suggestions of what you can do to get a discussion going. The WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard is one of the options. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit War on Page Cenk Uygur

Hi. I recently made an edit to the page Cenk Uygur concerning his status as an Armenian Genocide denier. Only a few minutes after posting, the edit was undone by the User:Steeletrap. I explained to him my reasoning for including the post and reinserted the citation, but he rather condescendingly told me to contact him if I couldn't comprehend the sentence I was citing. Rather than get into a row I decided to report him for this, but the truth is I have no clue how to. I decided to ask you because I noticed you on his talk page. I'd appreciate any assistance. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cenk Uygur seems to have barely started. Explain the rationale there for your material. It is too soon for admins to be involved. EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Steeletrap doesn't respond to any attempt to contact him. He simply reverts my edit, claiming that it is a violation of WP:SYN in his edit summary. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Why not make a proposal on the talk page on how to describe Cenk Uygur's views of genocide denial. Write a sentence that describes the point at issue, and say what you would write in the article if your proposal succeeds. If you can't get anyone to respond, use WP:DRN or open an WP:RFC. It is funny that Ana Kasparian would be a source as to Uygur's views. Surely Uygur can state his own views. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mail

{{YGM}} Eik Corell (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Responded about a sock case. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks like other admins have already semiprotected a few of the affected articles. A rangeblock seems impractical. Let me know if I can do more. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map

Hello EdJohnston, would you object to reducing edit protection on this module to template editor? From what I can tell the edit warring was not done by template editors, and we could use them to process t-prot edit requests still. — xaosflux Talk 13:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I considered using template editor protection, but since there are only two more days of protection I'd rather leave it the way it is. If you want to apply it yourself after the expiry, go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries, will probably restore semi protection though, thank you. — xaosflux Talk 16:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux:, Hello guys. Can someone please restore semi-protection on the map module? I noticed that the semi-protection is gone for some reason, and an IP WP:SOCKPUPPET of blocked User:Pbfreespace3 is returning to sock on the map module. Other IPs who edit on the map module are most likely going to cause more problems as well, so the page should be semi-protected again. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Callanecc did this already. — xaosflux Talk 13:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thought I might mention that template protection can't be used in a content dispute. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oops! Now I see the relevant words in WP:PROTECT: This is a protection level that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Obvious sock is socking

Please see Special:Contributions/Wintryce - obvious sock of User:Fonsy74 whom you blocked this morning. Would you please consider protecting the article? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate image in the same article

Hy, can you please intervene and stop MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 from re-adding an image already present in the article twice? This isnt helping either. Thanks—TripWire ʞlɐʇ 05:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems like consensus is needed as to what image to put in the infobox. Some of the people on that page are risking a 3RR violation. You yourself have reverted four times though not all in one day. It is worth considering whether this article should be placed under WP:1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:EdJohnston reported by User:Aidepikiwnirotide (Result:). Thank you. Amaury (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kordestani

Who agreed a voluntary restriction on one particular article continues his behaviour at Abu Khattab al-Kurdi and Kurdistan Workers' Party; however he is seemingly so intent on pushing his ethnocentric POV that his behaviour on other Syria-related articles is sledgehammer. Are these all subject to WP:1RR? I think the point is that his voluntary restriction only limits him, in his eyes, to avoid conflict on one article- whilst indulging in it on others. It's incredible. There are now two WP:AN3 entries on him! *vent* sorry bout that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice sought

I've picked your name at random for advice: what should I do if I'm having a problem with a user I believe is being deliberately obstructive? (This is a behavioural problem, not a content dispute.) There's been endless discussion on the Talk page already. PiCo (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider an WP:RFC. I am guessing that this is about an ancient census. If so, the current discussion is wide-ranging and not focussed. So getting outsiders to help with it will be tricky. Make it simpler and offer a proposal about a sentence or two in the article lead, if possible. Since RfCs can be advertised, they can bring in people who are new to the issue. The current lede of the census article seems to go out of its way to zing a book of the Bible. Maybe it needs to be zinged but the exact words are negotiable. Most likely the lede could be written more neutrally, since the census legitimately occurred and is a historical fact. If this is the main issue it might be handled by wordsmithing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks :) It is indeed about a census that took place 2000 years ago - never let it be said that Wikipedia is concerned only with the ephemeral. I've cleaned the article up a little to focus on the census, and will do as you suggest. PiCo (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Colleen Evans

As soon as the protection wore off, vandalism started again. See this. Can you semi-protect again? Thanks for your consideration. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Should wait a bit to see if the same pattern will start up again. If it's only one random vandal it is less significant. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Since the middle-name war has resumed I've applied indefinite semiprotection. The people who insert the middle name never seem to have real references. The question has been heavily discussed on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you so much for all your good work at the EW board. I really appreciate it and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! .. Inquiring minds wonder if you are doing all the good admin work just so you can recuse on future cases. Most likely it's a worthwhile tradeoff even so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I make it a point to disregard Kelapstick's comments, but this one I had missed completely. It's a case on which I would most likely recuse anyway since I haven't the foggiest about any of the technicalities involved. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and question

EdJ, thanks for taking the time to wade into the dispute and for the decision.

I do have a question however: is following the steps outlined in WP:DDE considered edit warring? And if so, why is this? As it seems that it would then represent essentially a trap, as an editor following a Wikipedia Guideline in good faith by following the prescribed steps (which results in the Guideline telling you to do three reverts) would then get blocked as a result. This is only the second time I've actually used WP:DDE, however the first time the closing admin did not consider it participating in an edit war. It would be nice to know, as if this is the case I won't be following the guideline again (as that would mean I'm not allowed to), and the guidline itself should really then be revisited. Thanks for your time once again. trackratte (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It seemed to be mostly a two-person edit war, running from March 11 through 17. In a two-person war, it is hard to see why one party would be sanctioned but not the other. The discussion at Talk:Monarchy of Canada wasn't organized well, and it would have been difficult for any outsiders to help resolve it. The issues were very unclear. WP:DDE says: "Ensure that a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talkpage." EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
So if the issue had been clearer, such as citing WP:DDE in the edit summary, a clearer outline at the talk, and properly met the criteria of the Guideline, following the prescribed three revert to admin process outlined at DDE would not be considered engaging in edit warring? trackratte (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:DDE is only a guideline and I think you could be overinterpreting. The actual policy is at WP:Edit warring. The dispute deserves to be in WP:LAME, so I hope you aren't suggesting that your behavior was exemplary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about behaviour, only attempting to get an answer to a policy question. Which is, is following the three revert guideline in WP:DDE (a "standard that editors should attempt to follow") always in breach of WP:EW (a "standard that all editors should normally follow")? Or is the three revert to admin process in WP:DDE an exception to the "should normally follow" EW policy?
Obviously an admin would determine if DDE was properly used, and if it were not it would be EW, but I'm asking in the case that it were. trackratte (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reasonable number of edits per day?

EdJohnston, I was hoping you might have a policy suggestion for me. I saw that you closed the Ford Pinto article for 3 days. Though I think HughD is getting off light given his record, I also think that perhaps was a wise choice on your part. It at least forces him to slow down. To that end, in the 5 days he was editing the article he added over 200! edits. This makes it very hard for others to get a chance and work on the article. It also is just sloppy work. I assume the whole purpose of sandboxes is to avoid such a mess. Is there a policy or way to tell an editor to not make so many individual changes? Thanks~ Springee (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no policy that I know of. See WP:DE for potential concerns. Opening an RfC in case of disagreement could be useful. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I'm not sure if you are the one to ask but if not I figured you can point me in the right direction. I would appreciate some feedback on this 3RR request.[[13]] I believe this ended up at 5 or 6 RR. Additionally, HughD has continued to revert without discussion (see [14] today from 17:05-23:10, the only talk page comments were badgering a RfC respondent [15], [16], no discussion of the large scale edits to the article). I feel that HughD is using the silence regarding the edit warring as a ticket to continue to ignore other editors and edit in a disruptive fashion. If 3RR isn't the best way to handle this I would appreciate alternative suggestions. Thank you, Springee (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've applied one month of full protection at Ford Pinto. The best plan may be a combined RfC that lists the questions in dispute and asks for opinions on them. If agreement is reached, protection can be lifted. If you try to make this into a disruptive editing case, it's not easy for a single admin to come up with a sanction that will survive appeal, when the issues are confusing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I see your concerns regarding the disruptive editing case. I because this is not a page under discretionary sanctions it makes it harder for an admin to just take action. Does that also apply to the 3RR rulings? I would assume that two, back to back 3RR violations in 2 days would be sufficient for some form of sanction. Hopefully after 30 days HughD will lose interest in hounding me and the page and it's longer term editors can get back to work. Thanks Springee (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There was a long period (March 11 through 13) where you and HughD were the only editors. In a two-person edit war, both could be sanctioned. It would take a lot of patience to figure out who was reverting whom on what. 3RRs are easy to determine when edits are literally repeated, but not here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I would have hoped that his previous 3RR, the one that involved more than just me, would have been evidence enough. However, I can understand how this takes up admin time and a page lock is easier. Since I believe he is only on the page as a form of hounding me, well the 30 day lock is an effective way to stop it. I suspect he will have found some new page to attack in the mean time and the Pinto article will be able to recover. I guess that is a sufficiently good solution for Wikipedia. Thanks Springee (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Admin input would be helpful here -> [17]. EdJohnston, this ANI has been running without admin feedback for a while. Current participants in that ANI are HughD and three involved editors. Some outside review and feedback would be very helpful. Thank you, Springee (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP Violation

Greetings, There's currently a dispute over content at Donald Trump. Based on the discussion in Talk (in the Trump Taj Mahal section), it currently appears that sentiment is evenly split regarding whether the content should be included. My understanding of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE indicates that the burden is on the restoring editors to obtain consensus in Talk for their edits before restoring them. I don't believe consensus for the edit has been obtained. The editors have been notified of the requirements regarding restoring content to BLP's, but are blatantly ignoring them. I'm coming to you because you warned one of the editors recently regarding behavior at the article. Can you please take a look and see if my concerns are warranted?CFredkin (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've notified User:SocraticOath that he is mentioned in this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! ;-))

The Guidance Barnstar
Dear Ed,
Thank you very much for your helpful advice and guidance, when I was trying to do something for the first time (and not being terribly skillful about it either ). Your patient assistance was very much appreciated.
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

YGM

{{ygm}} EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't think of any useful response. Sorry. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look...

...at User:Neve-selbert's warring straight out of their block before it gets our of hand again. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I won't revert again, I will abide by WP:1RR.--Neve–selbert 00:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, after you already made 2 reverts. Very funny.--TMCk (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I made no revert of any kind. Have a look at the edit and compare it to my last one. You will be surprised.--Neve–selbert 00:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
You keep shoveling...--TMCk (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@TracyMcClark: I reverted the edit. Happy now?--Neve–selbert 00:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Then readded Kosov entry (continuation of your previous edit warring). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up

The block you performed for Fixtherecord has expired, and the exact same behavior by the user has resumed. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

After this resulted in an indef-block of that user, another user has appeared, called Etrx56. The new user seems to have picked up where the previous one left off, with the same pattern of repeated removal of material from the same article without constructive engagement in discussion, and six reverts within five hours. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right about the socking. The only difference this time around is that User:Etrx56 is giving some reasoning in edit summaries. I've semiprotected to see if this will lead to any discussion. That will give us a four-day grace period, until he becomes autoconfirmed. If that doesn't lead to any good result then a block is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My Arbitration

Dear Sir, I must protest this edit. Suggest banning me if you must, but the rationale you give is not appropriate as I did not and do not believe that the West Bank is in Israel. The edit you refer to was an error in wording that I do not stand by and was glad to have seen corrected, as I explained in my defense. Please do not accuse me of pushing a POV that I did not intend to push. --GHcool (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I left a note in the AE that you have provided an explanation for the diff. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders in Year articles

Howdy EdJohnston. Wouldn't a 1-week block for one of the disputees, be more appropriate. Seeing as he just came off a 3-day block? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You may be suggesting the block was excessive, but I don't agree. They just keep going and going on the war, and it was necessary to get their attention. If there is an unblock discussion and they are willing to make appropriate promises the block could be lifted early. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The truth

Hi Kiluminati is a notorious POV-pusher . I gave diffs to prove he is the POV pushing . Why it is not notified too? I agree not to modify the module if he too is not allowed to do , especially as seen different request , it is more to complain about his behavior. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Talking about others when *your* behavior is being scrutinized is unlikely to be successful. Please accept or reject my offer. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Many contributors have the same problems with the account. I accept the offer, but why is nothing done for him. I have given all the evidence , I even opened a query. So is he who opens the query first who wins? So we must accept the use of biased sources ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Kiluminati also participated to the edit war and he was warned. I openned another request. Could you treat it ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
K!lluminati has made only one recent revert at the Yemeni map. That doesn't seem to be a violation. We have ways of negotiating what sources are acceptable, such as WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you try to win by reverting, it just gets people lined up against you. Reverting over and over is a bad career move, besides violating our edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Kiluminati introduced many changes without discussion on the talk page. In addition, for every change they have, I have canceled twice every 24 hours , so I have not violated RR3 . So I do not see how I would be more guilty than he. I invite you to read my evidence. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Since you have accepted my offer in lieu of a block, you may as well cease debating the issue until May 1. I don't have anything further to add. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Your proposition was unfair and partial. Could I talk with another admin ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
If you aren't accepting this deal, I will undo it and then consider what block length to impose instead. At that point you can file the usual requests for unblock, which will be reviewed by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not that I refuse , I see just that I have not violated RR3 and I 'm still sanctioned but not him despite evidence of his behavior. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You were under a final warning from User:NJA dated February 4, which warned you against *any* edit warring. He stated "even one more revert could lead to a block for disruption". EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Killuminati also has been warned and has the right to make even a REVERT. Why the difference? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
User:NJA gave the other party a message that was worded differently. You are the only person who was warned against making even a single revert. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, if you look you will see that even came close Kiluminati violated RR3 . It's not hard to see as it does not have enough contribution. Can impose a RR1 or warning or take care of his case ? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing more to be said here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Might be getting out of hand, also asking for intervention/forum shopping NJA, MartinEvans and Bishonen. This is against, I presume your offer. Sorry to bother you Ed. Murry1975 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I answer just that because Murray posted here. @Murry1975: your action could be a form of Wikihounding. Please stop, it is not your affairs. For the rest, the pov-pushing wave is very serious and Kiluminati also violated 3RR as I managed to prove it. So why he is favored and has carte blanche? For the rest, I contacted NJA because he put me a 1RR. As for the rest, I have the right to contact the administrators, especially as there are edit war and there are witnesses. I suggest a call for comment. For the rest, I move on to another even though the decision is unfair, unless I am notified. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Enabling edit warring

Thanks to HighInBC for his comments, but any further discussion needs to go elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Take a look at WP:3RRN, which clearly provides the "Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)" as follows: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." BMK didn't make three reverts, or four. There were six, a rather clear violation from a chronic abuser. Without admins working so diligently to enable problem editors like BMK, we would not be at the edit warring notice board for a 20th time. Just to compound the issue of the problems created here, can you point to your requirement that the reporting party be actively involved in a dispute? Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you believe there is a case for more sanctions against BMK, use WP:ANI or Arbcom. Admins who close AN3 cases, when deciding what to do, will often prioritize the best interests of the article (and the editing climate there) over what needs to be done about individuals. The war at The Cloisters seems to have stopped so a block wasn't necessary to keep the article in good order. We also don't like simultaneous reports at ANI and AN3, unless with a good reason. Your bringing the case was unusual because you had not been editing the article. If one of BMK's content opponents had opened the 3RR then we could do a better analysis (and possibly try mediation). We couldn't mediate with you because you weren't a party to the dispute. We do get AN3 reports from non-parties but usually for more blatant things, closer to vandalism or sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Here is more enabling...

Not exactly sure what this means... I didn't violate 3RR, but SWF88 did. So I guess the message is people who take the time and trouble to report obvious disruptive editors get punished and violators get a free pass? Admins are different, but the rules are the same and it would be nice if they were applied the same. They clearly aren't. I would appreciate it if you would at least re-word your close and leave me out of it. Thank you - theWOLFchild 20:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
You removed a 378-byte section from the article four times. Admins may differ on whether they count the first one as a revert. But I wasn't too impressed with this edit summary where you repeat the same edit for the fourth time while telling the other party 'stop edit warring.' EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
What's there to be unimpressed about? I boldly removed unneeded duplicate content, and while I reverted 3 times after that, I've been told clearly and repeatedly by other admins here that is perfectly acceptable and allowable. I did nothing wrong, therefore there is nothing to "warn" (or scold) me about. I also went the extra step of trying to engage with each edit summary and repeatedly trying to engage on talk pages. But for this all I get is grief. Meanwhile a 6-day-old account with a handful of edits has made a less than stellar debut by clearly violating 4RR, and as if edit-warring is not enough, he also accused multiple editors of page ownership and even calls one a "stupid moron". And what do you about this...? Nothing. Not a damn thing. You might as well pat him in on the rump and tell him to right back to disruptive editing. Maybe he can vandalize a BLP next and get a barnstar for it. If you're not going to use the tools, then hand them back in. But I will ask that if you can't be bothered actually actioning the ANEW report, then re-word your close and leave me out of it. - theWOLFchild 22:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
by the way...

He's at it again already; 1, 2. Perhaps if the proper remedy had been applied, he wouldn't act as if empowered and edit war with such impunity. - theWOLFchild 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And now he's edit-warring on my own talk page! 3. - theWOLFchild 01:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
lol. no. you're just very good at provoking and triggering. something i will not fall for again. and stop following me around. good bye.SWF88 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: I am not sure who told you that 3 reverts is "perfectly acceptable and allowable". Edit warring is still edit warring even if you don't violate 3RR(and it could be argued you did even that). The edit warring policy outright says "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.".
Given your history of edit warring EdJohnston was very generous giving you a warning instead of a block, don't disregard this warning by assuring yourself you did nothing wrong. You are criticizing Ed for not using the block button when you are benefiting from their restraint at this very moment. HighInBC 02:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Given your history of edit warring - That's another thing. I'm tired of my block log being thrown in my face. I don't have a "history of edit-warring", just a history bad admin decisions. I was blocked for only 2 reverts, I was blocked for re-adding my own comments to a talk page, and I was blocked purely as punishment, where despite the one and only time I technically went 4rr, the block clearly wasn't justified. But block logs are permanent, no matter how many mistakes admins make, right? Anyway, I've been told at ANEW, more than once, that even though an editor has made 3 consecutive reverts, it "didn't constitute edit-warring", and nothing was done. In this case there was 4 reverts in a row, and nothing was done. And now you're here telling me different. Does that make sense? What a joke... - theWOLFchild 03:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not referring to your block log, your block log hardly reflects your history of edit warring, you have been allowed to slide more than once. The issue seems to be that you don't recognize when you are edit warring. What I am telling you is a quote from the edit warring policy, what another person said about someone else in another situation is hardly relevant. HighInBC 03:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

what another person said about someone else in another situation is hardly relevant. - What other admins said about policy in identical situations is "irrelevant". Got it. - theWOLFchild 03:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN/EW report

Hi EdJohnston. I just happened to bump into the recent report at [18] when I happened to search my name with the function. Why was it my name emerged? I know I am not involved but I would like to know how I factored in the dispute. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 13:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I went back to the guy's talk page and I remembered what I did. This dispute seems like a stupid dispute, I'm glad I didn't wade in. Sorry for the message. Cheers, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

EW: Stephen Sizer

You recently added temporary protection to Stephen Sizer. I simultaneously attempted to try and open up a dialogue on Talk:Stephen Sizer [19] and [20] unfortunately this was not very successful as a few editors seemed more intent on heaping abuse on me rather than providing constructive input.
After the protection lapsed, despite the lead paragraph being left in an incomplete state, I initially held of making any further changes in the hope that another editor would take it up. As this had still not yet happened I today attempted to rework the lead paragraph complete with RS citations. This was reverted shortly thereafter by Keith-264. I once again rewrote the lead paragraph only to have it reverted a few minutes later by Collect.
Despite having provided RS sources, it seems to me that these two editors are more intent on whitewashing Sizer rather than promoting the facts. For the most part other than make disparaging comments about me (which I documented on WP:ANI) or deleting what I have written, they have provided almost no constructive input. Needless to say all this back and forth has taken a considerable amount of time and I am at the stage where I feel like walking away, but can not in clear conscious leave the article in the state it is in. How would you suggest that I proceed? Thanks. Clivel 0 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Sizer is described by one of the sources as a 'passionate anti-Israel activist'. Reference 32 of the Sizer article calls him an 'anti-Zionist vicar.' Our article on Sizer is thus related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, and you should not be editing it until you reach 500 edits, per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, nevertheless, I do not believe that the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 rule applies in this case. The charges against Sizer are specifically related to anti-Semitism, which is not the same as anti-Zionism (although no doubt many anti-Zionists are also anti-Semites) so therefore could not be "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" otherwise, anything related to Judaism or Israel could at a stretch be described as related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Sizer was banned from social media specifically for disseminating antisemitic material as described by Bishop Watson: "I have concluded that, at the very least, he has demonstrated appallingly poor judgment on the material he has chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly antisemitic" [[21]]. Clivel 0 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
His antisemitism manifests as anti-Zionism, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Since Stephen Sizer has been reported by sources to be anti-Zionist, and Zionism is already covered by the arbitration case, I've put the banner {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} on the talk page of Stephen Sizer. If the only charge complaint about Sizer was one of antisemitism (whether valid or not) then I wouldn't be suggesting that ARBPIA was applicable. Sizer is a controversial figure because of what he thinks about *the state of Israel*. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Ed, Sizer hasn't been charged with anything and opinion about the zionist occupation is not controversial per se.Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I've replaced the word 'charge' by 'complaint' above. People who don't believe in the project of a Jewish state in the Middle East can presumably be described as anti-Zionists. The topic of Zionism is in ARBPIA. Unsure how anyone can discuss Sizer's views without getting into the ARBPIA domain. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

IP on Irish War of Independence

One of the IP editors on Irish War of Independence which resulted in PP has started the same edits on List of wars involving the Republic of Ireland changing ceasefire to victory. Murry1975 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access removal

AkhtarHussain83 has been lying about the edit warring block, I said there was evidence but the sock of KhanJohn23 is not, Can you revoke his talk page access? KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There is still an open unblock request at User talk:AkhtarHussain83 so I don't want to revoke his talk page access. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

ԱշոտՏՆՂ

Hi dear EdJohnston, as you said in my talk page, you have blocked me for a period of 3 days[22]. But I can edit now. Did you forget to block me? --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Now taken care of, per the block notice already issued. Thanks for the reminder. EdJohnston (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A 48-hour block you did...

Appears not to have had its intended effect. As soon as the block ended, the IP editor returned to the same page and continued to reinsert the disputed material. Would you please review this? David in DC (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User is now blocked for a longer period, per the complaint about them at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
(what is very likely to be) the same user, is using a different IP, with very similar WHOIS results, to edit the above article/talk page. Special:Contributions/149.88.241.222 - it seems pretty obvious, but if it's easier to deal with via a sockreport, let me know and I will file it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The IP has not been making the same changes, so far. And the article is now semiprotected so even if it is, he can't do much. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

1RR restriction vs topic Ban

You have recommended a topic ban instead of a 1RR restriction because you claim that I an incapable of understanding 1RR and will follow the rules. What do I need to do in order to prove that I will uphold the 1RR restrictions? I have already removed an unsubstantiated claim on the talk page (by me) regarding funding by the vaccination industry (which was wrong of me to post). I am able to take responsibility for my actions and recognize that my behaviour on this page was unfitting and I did not abide by the good faith rule as pointed out by Bishonen. I am now aware of good faith and have taken a different approach with editing pages such as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_News

The above page, I feel doesn't have substantiated claims. Instead of me directly editing the page, I am only asking for a consensus on the information that is already there. I will not edit war, I will not assume bad faith.Conzar (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I understand that you meant well in removing those inappropriate comments of yours, Conzar, but you actually shouldn't have. You're not supposed to remove your own comments on talkpages once they have been answered — it's too late then — because that makes the other person's answer look pointless or nonsensical.[23][24] Put yourself in their shoes. If you have started to feel uncomfortable about a post of yours, you should instead cross it out, see WP:REDACT for how. Then it remains visible, but you clarify that you no longer stand by it. Bishonen | talk 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
Another way is to remove it and replace it with a small note mentioning it was removed and a diff to what was removed. This makes it less visible but still makes it clear that something was removed and what it was. HighInBC 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So is the topic ban permanent? If so, do you reasonably expect me to continue to use this account and not just create another one? Conzar (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Conzar: if you show that you can edit well in other controversial areas and use sources properly you could apply to have your ban lifted, after a reasonable time. If you are threatening to sock, that's unlikely to improve your reputation. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
FYI, [25]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not threatening to sock. If the ban is permanent forever, than there would be no reason to continue using this account. Its only logical for any person to just create a new account if their old account was useless. However, if there is an opportunity for the ban to be lifted after some amount of time, and show reform, than I would much rather that option. What are the specific requirements for the ban to be lifted? Conzar (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Create a good editing record. Then an unban might be considered. People who receive time-limited bans will sometimes just try to wait them out, and then continue with the same behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Ed is dead on with that Conzar; to give you some kind of definite answer, I don't think I have seen a TBAN lifted after less than six months. In addition to that, although your account has been around a couple of years, you have only about 100 edits, which is a remarkably low number for somebody to already have been up to and through an AE; it signals that you were very determinedly disruptive and unwilling to pay mind to the policies and guidelines on that topic - a really bad start. People do recover from them, and everybody starts somewhere. The WP:Service awards (which some people are into) put benchmarks at 6 months/2000 edits and 1 year/4,000 edits. People might consider lifting the TBAN at the the first and would very likely consider it at the 2nd. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
(e/c)(talk page stalker) Conzar, your ban is indefinite, not permanent. I believe it is usual for editors and admins to want to see at least 6 months of good editing away from the subject of your ban before considering lifting it. I have to say, your approach here seems rather adversarial. This is somewhat understandable given the frustration you are almost certainly experiencing, but as someone who recently tried to get a ban lifted, I can promise you this is not helping your case. You are being offered very good advice by an experienced and respected admin (and others). I urge you to take this. DrChrissy (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I would like to make it clear that my last posting was made immediately after an edit conflict. I did not see who the previous editor was before making my posting. I have an interaction ban with Jytdog, but my edit was in no way a response or comment on their posting, nor any attempt to interact. DrChrissy (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

editwar by me and User:130.156.22.254 and others

You were kind enough to comment here I would like to say that I have also perpetrated when it comes to 3rr, so I'm also to blame. However I do think that it's not right when users insert their personal opinions into sourced text, that is not supported by the sources used. It happens a lot on pages concerning ethnic groups and it is worrisome and damages Wikipedia. There is also a matter of sockpuppetry involved which I have reported here. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. For your action here. User: 69.119.175.240 was also involved today here. As can also be seen here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:AkhtarHussain83

Hello. I am handling an unblock request and I am hoping you can help me understand the block better. I went through their ~50 contributions. Other than this edit you mention, and a bit of edit warring I am not seeing an obvious reason for an indef block. I asked them about that edit and they gave an explanation here: User_talk:AkhtarHussain83#Block review.

The content in question seems to have been originally added here by User:KahnJohn27 who was a user of 3 years who was blocked weeks after the edit. Do you think these two users are connected?

I may be missing information, and I am happy to reconsider, but as it stands I am having trouble understanding the duration of the block. Thank you. HighInBC 14:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:AkhtarHussain83. Thanks for taking on the review. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I tried. I guess they can see if the next block reviewer will be as patient and accommodating as me. I really appreciate your reasonable stance in this matter, it is a pity the user would not accept your offer. HighInBC 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

IP trouble again

There's a new IP I'm very suspicious about, and I'm pretty much convinced it's the sock of those IPs you recently blocked.

92.3.12.19 (talk · contribs) is the new IP and it's coming out of Wales, just like the other three IPs. Something very peculiar is that this latest IP personally attacked veteran user Darouet out of nowhere. It is strange because this IP had no contact with Darouet in the two edits prior to his PA against Darouet. However, at least one of these IPs have a history with Darouet as seen here [26]. This IP also has a unique way of referring to my user name. He says 'Etienne Dolet' with an apostrophe (as seen here and here). Also, it somehow appears to know a thing or two about Wikipedia preferences (i.e. "Wikipedia should follow RS not your agenda.") said here. This IP is also not guilt free from personal attacks as seen here. These complaints are very similar in the recent IPs tone as seen here where he repeats the whole RS jargon over and over again.

All these IPs are geographically coming out of very close locations in a certain part of Wales. See for yourself. I have listed them in chronological order from earliest to most recent:

Let me know what you plan on doing. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, you're not the one who blocked them. I got you mixed up with FPaS. But you can still take a look at your convenience and let me know. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I restored the indefinite semiprotection on Vladimir Putin. That should handle it, except for the personal attacks. If you also want blocks, why not ask User:Ohnoitsjamie, who has already blocked Special:Contributions/92.3.30.114. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
That's fine I'll go ahead and ask Ohnoitsjamie. But this is a clear-cut sock and I've added more DUCK-like evidence. In fact, the IP should get blocked just for this alone [27] (I warned him for personal attacks). But I want the sockpuppetry to go on record so as to easily prevent it in the future. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Block range expanded, duration extended. Let me know if further modification is needed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie Is it appropiate for me to strike out some of the comments he has made at article talk pages? Such as this? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:DENY. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Cordially Asking Your Professional Opinion

User:EdJohnston, I am turning to you for your unbiased and professional opinion about an edit on the archaeological site Emmaus Nicopolis article, a place in Israel, and where I have suggested a more neutral edit so as to read: "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada," as opposed to the current edit that reads: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." As it stands, two Arab editors have joined in on the Talk-Page discussion (see: Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis#Location of Emmaus-Nicopolis (Imwas)) to voice their general disapproval at implying the archaeological site is in Israel, while Jewish participants (including myself) have wanted to omit the words "West Bank" in the article, that is to say, to keep it neutral, without mentioning Israel, neither the West Bank. What do you think we should do with respect to this edit? Can you give your advice on how we ought to proceed and to reach a compromise?Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

At present the Emmaus Nicopolis article does not mention any political controversy about the place of the site. That article is mostly addressed to history and archaeology. It might be best to describe the site's location in the most non-committal fashion possible. If you can manage to omit both West Bank and Israel from the article lead, that might be best. If a dispute occurs, consider an WP:RFC. There is more political stuff in Canada Park and that might be a better place to mention political issues. It appears that Canada Park actually straddles the Green Line. If people consider this an important issue, maybe somebody can create a map showing how that works. It is WP:UNDUE to make an archaeological article political if reliable sources don't emphasize that aspect in their own coverage of the site. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. I'll post your reply on the Talk-Page, but I'll keep it anonymous.Davidbena (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Ed, with all due respect, the article doesnt make any political points. It says where the place is, without any commentary at all. Its not in dispute that this place is in the West Bank, it isnt in the area Israel proclaimed annexed with East Jerusalem. The only dispute is happening on that talk page, nowhere else. We're going around in circles with somebody who is claiming that the UN recognized that the Jewish state includes all of Palestine, including the West Bank, and that the West Bank is a historical place that hasnt existed since the Jordanian occupation. Nobody is adding "Israeli-occupied" or anything of the sort to the article. Nobody is politicizing anything there. We arent even putting in "Palestinian territories". But we really shouldnt be say a place in the West Bank is in the West Bank? Canada Park does indeed straddle the Green Line with some of it in Israel. This site however is not in the small portion of the park that is in Israel. And you dont have to take my word for it. Here. That dashed line is the Green Line. nableezy - 23:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The problem with User:Nableezy's suggested edit is that he lives in the past, but not in the present. This is plain to all.Davidbena (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Davidbena, can you explain why this edit of yours is a good idea? You replace the simple term West Bank with a circumlocution. You don't want to grant that the site is in the West Bank? The terminology of 'de-facto annexation' that you use on the article talk page looks adventurous and I'm not sure why editors are allowing so much talk space for an apparently eccentric discussion. We may grant that East Jerusalem is in a funny status because Israel uses special vocabulary for it, and also the Golan Heights, but this stuff about Emmaus appears strange. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Emmaus is situated in the very center of Israel, the heart of Israel. In government circles, there is no discussion at all, no dialogue, to make the place negotiable for a return under Arab-rule or hegemony, since "Area C" in the Oslo II Accords (where the site is located) is clearly defined as remaining under "full Israeli civil and security control." It's non-negotiable. So, when I saw the emphasis on "West-Bank," as the location of this place, it conjured-up in my mind an editor who wanted to relive the past, but forget the present status of the place. My edit was to fully clarify the current status of the place.Davidbena (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Saying it is in the West Bank is to state where it is in relation to the Green Line (Israel). Why is it essential to add further information that it is in Area C? For an ancient site, this hardly appears to be a core feature of the article. It is importing modern politics. Based on what you have said in this thread, there is a hint of POV-pushing. Like your critique of Nableezy's edit, that 'he lives in the past, but not the present.' Though content issues are beyond the scope of admins, we are expected to keep an eye on obvious tendentious editing, which is starting to be the suspicion here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so if I might politely ask you, why is it important to mention the place's relation to the Green Line (Israel)? This is hardly an essential component in this article. Secondly, how can I be accused of POV-pushing when I have from the beginning to the end stressed only a NEUTRAL edit?Davidbena (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of contents

No you are not right. I am just trying to correct my English. I have just changed few words. It hasn't changed the meaning of the comments. I have every right to do this. Obviously you cannot call it disruptive edit. Please dont revert my edits. Arman ad60 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about One Click Archiver

Hey! I saw you archiving stuff with One Click Archiver. I was wondering if it is limited to certain users. Winterysteppe (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No. See WP:OneClickArchiver. I decided to do some manual archiving at AN3 because the regular bot seems to have fallen behind on doing the archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
installed and done Winterysteppe (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dean1997

Dean1997 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is determined that the infobox at Cara Delevingne should show a particular romantic "partner." This was against consensus. He chose to edit war about it and you warned him "to get consensus on the talk page before trying yet again to add 'partner' information to Cara Delevingne's article." Apparently unsatisfied with that prospect, he made the edit with a different account, for which he received a week-long block (SPI). Why was I surprised to see that he'd done it again? I apologize if this is petty; I know I could just keep reverting his mostly-harmless edit every few days, but it irks me—uggh! Thank you.  Rebbing  02:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked. Thanks for following up. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Self-requested block

As on my talk page, Can you block me until Friday, April 15 because I need to enforce my wikibreak.KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please ask one of the admins listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

However you want to handle this as I think you gave the warning a day or to ago and the confusion was cleared away

Sorry to bother you with this. It's re: MB. Again. I don't mind the comment much but the sanction has either outlived it's usefulness and should be rescinded (it's over a year) or enforced. In the past Gamaliel has refused to lift or enforce it against MB and the sanction was reduced by him only when he enforced it against me (he rev delled something I wrote and Mitchell blocked me - AN reversed it and noted an abuse of tools - AN undid the block, undid the revdell's as it was not a violation, and left some strong words about abusing tools - check my block log) - Anyway, I don't care whether it stays or goes. The original sanction was to prevent me and Thargor from bringing AE cases against MB for incivility and I'm sure if I bring it, there will be a literal shiatstorm. You can either ignore it, enforce it (another warning or whatever), bring it AE to lift the sanction or bring it to AE to enforce it or point me where I can get it lifted. I'm afraid that little bites will just keep accumulating as they have in the past without any way to redress or respond. It's a minor cheapshot, but after your warning, I wouldn't have thought he'd be so quick to return to "minor." Just like the 3RR report, they'll be at AE lickety-split (or email as that was the method used for the overturned one) This is the latest violation --DHeyward (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And escalated again with a thinly veiled reference to the "Edit Warring Noticeboard" with a absolutely false characterization. I didn't add any quotes. I didn't even add the text, just the souce but he still need to stop the personal attacks. [28]. Choice for me now is expand out more sources in thae article (because he's wrong) or delete the paragraph entirely as I don't even think it belongs. Try #2 first. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to say, I'm glad that I don't understand this. I'm remembering why I tried to avoid Gamergate stuff back in 2015. By the way, your current restriction doesn't prevent you from opening a new AE against MB. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand, I wish I didn't understand it either. I'm not going to bring AE complaint as that is what generated topic ban in the first place. I may appeal it but it's difficult to describe the problem as you just read. --DHeyward (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you -- Jolly protection

Much thanks for applying protection to the Jolly page, it's a good time to apply it. Damotclese (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand why your put back the version that existed prior to the edit warring, but you restored it to a version that both sides now agree contatins a BLP violation, where it says "Sarah Bascom confirmed that she had made edits", which undisputably is not said in any of the sources. That is why you'll see that the RfC creator changed it (version B) to say "Sarah Bascom confirmed that the campaign had made edits". So please change "she" to "the campaign" to remove the BLP violation. Thanks. Dirroli (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Fixed: 'she' -> 'the campaign'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. I'm sorry to bother you again about this, but I just noticed that the edit war actually began earlier than you indicated. It started with this edit, which was then responded to minutes later with this edit. So it should be restored to the version just prior to these first two edits, which is this one. Dirroli (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The difference doesn't introduce any BLP violation that I can see. If you think it can't wait for the eventual resolution, why not use the {{edit protected}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I didn't explain myself clearly. I'm just saying that you restored to a version that existed after the edit warring started, not before. I didn't notice until after you removed the BLP violation a few minutes ago. So if you're going to restore an older version prior to any of the edit warring, it should be to the one immediatley before this one, which is what launched the edit warring. So the edit before it, this one by Jytdog, is the version it should go back to. Thanks. Dirroli (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
How far back to go in the history is a judgment call. I think my choice is adequate. Neither side of the dispute gave a convincing explanation for why their version was better, even though both seemed very concerned about BLP. It seemed to be more a matter of personal taste. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Ed, it's actually not a judgment call at all that this edit by CFredkin is the one that started the edit warring; he removed over 1300 bytes from the content, including sources, and the edit warring was underway from there. Further, you'll see that several editors restored the sourced content that CFredkin removed, and not a single editor supported his removals. So if you're going to restore an old version, then it is only fair to restore it to the one before that signifciant removal of content by CFredkin. Otherwise, do not restore it to an old version at all, and just leave what was there when you protected the article. And if you want a convincing explanation, read my comments in the RfC. That will lay it out for you very clearly. Thanks. Dirroli (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

3RR Violation

Ed, since you seem to engage at the 3rr Noticeboard fairly regularly, I'm interested to get your input on why this submission seems likely to be archived with no admin response. The subject has refused to acknowledge the violation, but has instead responded with personal attacks. I made what seemed (to me anyway) like a good faith offer to withdraw the complaint if he/she would at least observe WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, but he/she flat out denies that the policy even applies. I understand that editors can be given grace when they give some indication that they at least understand how they might have violated policy. That does not seem to be the case here. Thanks very much.CFredkin (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

When a 3RR case involves BLP, it may be difficult to issue blocks unless one party is really being outrageous. (Each party might be reverting because of a good-faith belief they were removing a BLP violation). In that particular article it looks to be a fight over nuances. In this edit of the David Jolly article, User:Dirroli appears to think that Sarah Bascom's name ought to be removed, and that more context should be given for the complaint. You want to restore Bascom's name and give less context. For the most part, reliable sources are provided for all these things. So which of you is being the villain? EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I understand your point regarding the nuance of our positions, but my impression is that both WP:3rr and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE provide pretty cut and dried rules of engagement. In any case it's good for me to know that they can be dis-regarded in some cases moving forward.CFredkin (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've now put the David Jolly page under two weeks of full protection. If the RfC on the talk page reaches a result, the protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging.CFredkin (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed this covert effort by CFredkin to get an admin (you) on his side, rather than letting it play out on the edit warring noticeboard and the Jolly talk page. It's remarkable that CFredkin failed to admit or even acknowledge that saying Bascom herself scrubbed the Jolly article was an obvious BLP violation since no sources say that. Anyway, I would be very surprised if there aren't any rules on Wikipedia about an editor secretly trying to persuade an administrator to support his position and take action against another editor, particularly when there is a discussion currently taking place on a noticeboard and elsewhere. So I guess when things aren't going his way at a noticeboard, CFredkin thinks it's appropriate to go behind everyone's backs to find someone who will be sympathetic to his views. Dirroli (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
it is called WP:ADMINSHOP if it excessive. But both of you should just knock off the drama here and work it out at the article talk page. I am still waiting for CFredkin to write something meaningful there beyond citing strings of capital letters and presenting an RfC with the two versions and saying "pick". That is not using a talk page to work toward consensus. There is WP:NODEADLINE especially with the article protected, so Dirroli just be patient and wait for CFredkin to actually communicate, and in the meantime talk with other editors who are actually talking, to try to arrive at a consensus version. If CFredkin doesn't participate and just resumes edit warring after protection lifts they will be completely block-able and perhaps TBAN-able, as doing that (not actually talking and working toward consensus while the article is protected) is really bad behavior. Just focus on the work, and not the drama. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Jytdog: It appears that you've followed me here from the SPI you and another editor filed against myself and the other editor accused by Jolly's spokesperson of being paid operatives in the recent Buzzfeed article. I understand that your feathers are a bit ruffled that I've challenged you on your repeated claims that you don't need to provide evidence to support your accusations against us until after a CU and for deleting the responses of myself and the other accused editor from the SPI page. But the fact that you've now followed me here is starting to seem like WP:Wikihounding. As far as your assertions regarding this particular issue, I believe I've clearly stated my concerns regarding Dirroli's content in the Talk discussion. Dirroli's responses have been rambling and vitriolic. Since we've each had the opportunity to lay out our positions, I've intitiated an RfC to solicit outside opinion. I'm hopeful that will help provide clarity on the situation.CFredkin (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Nope, I have watched this page for around a year now, which you would see if you checked the history; for a person who complains bitterly about unfounded "accusations" you should be more careful in making them. On the Jolly talk page, on this issue you have just said this and this One post, stating a broad argument, and a second focused on one word, is not working toward consensus over nuances. I won't be responding to you further here: i am getting the "i love drama" vibe loud and clear. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Jytdog: Speaking of unfounded accusations, you missed this edit by me at Talk. And since you've inserted yourself into the discussion here, I'll note that I haven't seen you make any positive contributions to the discussion on this issue at the Talk there either.CFredkin (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
just noting that i originally missed the 2nd dif but had added it prior to CFredkin's comment. two whole comments is not dialogue and the comment is yet more drama from this editor. BWOTJytdog (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Jytdog Speaking of BWOT... Here's my perspective on the sequence of events related to your SPI:
  • Jolly's spokesperson edits his WP bio to remove some content that could be considered negative about him and add some content that could be considered positive.
  • I restored the negative content because it was well-sourced and removed the recently added positive content that was unsourced.
  • Jolly's spokesperson is outed on Buzzfeed for having edited his bio and claims that myself and another editor she had interacted with are paid operatives.
  • You, Dirroli, and the editor who is playing Dolores Umbridge to your Pius Thicknesse in an SPI investigation to unmask paid operatives for Republican candidates reads the Buzzfeed article and head to the David Jolly article post haste.
  • Dolores Umbridge notices that myself and the other editor named in the Buzzfeed article edit some of the same articles and the 2 of you decide to add us to your SPI investigation.
  • When we challenge your claims and request evidence to back up your accusations, you 1) ignore the requests, 2) delete the requests, 3) respond to the effect that evidence will be provided after the trial and you've nothing to fear if you nothing to hide.
  • Dirroli (who by the way started editing on WP on 3/17/16) starts adding as much negative information about the incident to Jolly's bio as he/she can. When challenged, he/she ignores WP policy and responds with hostility.

So, from my perspective, you're the ones creating "drama".CFredkin (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What the actual fuck, CFredkin? I'm not sure exactly what you're alleging here with that rant, but are you accusing me of being part of some conspiracy to edit the Jolly article with a different accounts?! And I added "as much negative information about the incident to Jolly's bio" as I can?? Really?! So expanding one paragraph a bit with sourced content for better context is improper? And I ignore things? Have you looked at the Jolly talk page and the edit warring report you filed?? And who's been ignoring things? And get your damn facts straight. Yes, I started editing on March 17, and I didn't start editing the Jolly article until April 6, right after I read it online. So what's your point? Anyway, if what you're implying is that I'm a secret operative for Jolly, then you better damn well have something to back that up? Is there an administrator on here who can check to see if I'm doing something illicit on here and have other accounts? And who can block CFredkin if I'm not, for making these wild accusations? Yet again, more crap from CFredkin with nothing to support it. Dirroli (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
And here CFredkin goes again with the BLP violation ("Jolly's spokesperson edits his WP bio..."). In my opinion, she probably did do it herself, but the sources do not say that. So we can't say it; in the article or even on a talk page like this. Now show us in the sources where it says she made the edits herself, CFredkin, or remove the allegation! You constantly claim to be so concerned about WP policies, yet you have no problem violating them in this regard. Dirroli (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, thanks for the info and your good advice. I appreciate it. What's most frustrating is CFredkin's ludicrous claim: "I've clearly stated my concerns regarding Dirroli's content in the Talk discussion". Any reasonable person can read the two threads on the Jolly talk page, Neutrality and RfC, and see the huge difference between my input and his. He makes an illogical claim, then, after it's shown to be false or even hypocritical, he either refuses to acknowledge it or simply changes the subject and states a new objection. Dirroli (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. The difference is clear.CFredkin (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog has proven that he knows exactly what's going on, which is why he said "I am still waiting for CFredkin to write something meaningful there beyond citing strings of capital letters" and "wait for CFredkin to actually communicate". Jytdog nailed it with those two references. All you do is cite policies (BLP, POV, UNDUE) without providing any evidence that they are being violated, and you completely fail to communicate. You make complaints that consist of pure rhetoric and no substance, then never say say another word after your objection has been addressed or proven invalid. Anyway, if you are actually a sockpuppet, as is being alleged, then none of this will matter. I hope you are not. Dirroli (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Just for context, here's a perfect example of CFredkin making a completely illogical claim, providing absolutely nothing to back it up except for "capital letters" (as Jytdog calls it), and then refusing to communicate any further. It's from the "Neutrality" discussion on the Jolly talk page:

CFredkin: "I'll also point out that Dirroli's edit changes "confirmed" to "admitted" which is clearly WP:POV in this case."

Dirroli: "You must be joking. The campaign did admit it! And what is the headline of the primary source?![29] It's "Florida Senate Campaign Admits To Scrubbing Candidate’s Wikipedia Page". See the word "Admits" in there? When someone is accused of wrong-doing and then they confirm they did it, that's called an admission. So give us a break. Claiming that it is a POV violation to state that someone "admitted" something, especially when they obviously did, is utter nonsense."

So I respond to CFredkin's baseless allegation and show why it makes no sense, but he never says another word. If it only happened once or twice, then it wouldn't be such a big deal. But he does it as a matter of habit. He did the same thing with FuriouslySerene regarding his false claim about the spokeswoman; he makes an illogical claim, FS proves he's wrong, then he permanently stops talking.

Dirroli (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for my contribution in turning this page into a battleground. I know you're just trying to help.CFredkin (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ed, please note CFredkin's rant above in which he again violated BLP by claiming (in his first bullet point) that the spokeswoman herself scrubbed the Wikipedia article, even though no sources say that. It appears that CFredkin is also implying in his rant that I am a Jolly operative, using different accounts to edit the article. He just spouts accusations about people with nothing to back it up. Can he be blocked for that? And, if possible, feel free to check if I'm using other accounts if you need to do that before blocking him. Dirroli (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

AfC and RNM

RM is not the place to deal with accepting AfC. It's an attempt to bypass normal procedure and could not I think therefore ever be called non=controversial. Cf. [30] DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that User:Bradv wanted to approve the submission, but there was a redirect in the way. See this thread for Bradv's opinion. Would you prefer a full-length requested move in such cases? I thought that the admins handling moves ought to defer to whatever was decided by the AfC approval process. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You are correct, I did want to approve the submission, but AfC editors have tools for that. I was able to clean it up, but it would have been easier if the redirect had simply been deleted. Then the next AfC reviewer who came along (or me if I was still online) could have just accepted the article. Hope that helps. Bradv 03:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, what BradV suggests is the best way to do it. Personally, I consider this the sort of promotional article that should never have been accepted, so I listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Rodan. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I've added my own opinion in the AfD. From the above, if AfC pages are presented for a move at WP:RMTR, they should simply be declined? EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Next Steps

Thank you for semi-protecting the page CKDU-FM. Should I edit the page and remove the unsourced material, or since I was involved in the complaint is that a continuation of the edit war? Just want to confirm the appropriate next step. Thanks! WayeMason (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggest waiting a couple of days. Meanwhile, you can explain on the article talk page the change you are proposing to make. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How to guide for AE (primarily DS)

Hi Ed, I've been thinking of creating a how to guide for admins to use when enforcing arbitration decisions and implementing discretionary sanctions on individuals and on pages. I've made a start at User:Callanecc/AE how-to guide and I was hoping that you'd be willing to help out given your experience? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If people want to leave feedback on your essay, where should they do so? At User talk:Callanecc/AE how-to guide or on your regular talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably User talk:Callanecc/AE how-to guide, however at this stage it's probably easier to people to help writing it and we can polish later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Directions.

I'm in the middle of a minor squabble: where do you take questions about BLP violations for sources, not subjects? Anmccaff (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not use the article talk page to explain what the disagreement is about? The situation is confusing. On your talk page, you are in a disagreement with very experienced people. This makes it hard for me to send you to some other authority. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, the problems with the article per se are another kettle of fish; the particular question of an editor using a source which one has stridently attacked elsewhere, to the point of real BLP concerns is the only part I need help with.
(Nahh, I take that back, I prolly need a lot of help on the other part, too, but I ain't asking for it here.)
This seems to fall between (among?) several stools; BLP, RS, NLT, and so forth. Dunno which to start with. Anmccaff (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The rationale for your position is hard to understand. If you want to get your ideas reviewed at some other board, it is best if they are very clear to others. But whatever happens, if you continue to use the word 'libel' you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARadio_astronomy&type=revision&diff=706884898&oldid=706747412

There's the start of it all; some scurrilous claims about a writer, based on ignorance of quoting conventions. Anmccaff (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

At first I imagined you were talking about source falsification. But the mention of 'quoting conventions' leaves me at a loss. Put together a string of four or more sentences that clearly explains your point, and what you think is wrong. While doing so, please don't assume I've read everything on the whole talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb claimed that Orchiston was making exagerated claims for his own involvement in early radioastronomy:

Orchison listed himself and Slee as independent discoverers in doi:10.1007/1-4020-3724-4_5. He gives a citation to a 2002 publication, but they did plenty of work on radioastronomy back in the 1940s when they worked for the CSIRO Radiophysics group. Bibcode:2006JAHH....9...35O has plenty of citations covering that. However, this is self-puffery, because if you do read Bibcode:2006JAHH....9...35O, you'll see that their worked at CSIRO was "inspired by the almost simultaneous arrival of three reports", one by Reber, one by Alexander, and one by the AORG. So they cannot be discoverers, because they did follow up work. Call that vandalism if you want, the article is accurate.

...and provided a cite that showed...nothing, no such thing. I pointed this out:

Slee did not claim to be a discoverer, and where does Orchison's article even claim he was involved?

The article is not accurate, at least on this narrow part, it is slanted to reflect a POV, and the course of your edits make that very, very, obvious.

After some back-and-forth, he produced his "smoking gun", complete with bolded emphasis:

:::::::I will quote "One of the wartime discoveries that provided an impetus for the post-war focus on radio astronomy was the independent detection of solar radio emission in Denmark (Schott, 1947), the United States (Reber, 1944; Southworth, 1945), England (Hey, 1946), Australia (Orchiston and Slee, 2002) and New Zealand. This paper is about Elizabeth Alexander’s investigation of solar radio emission in New Zealand during 1945." Emphasis mine. Now stop it with your hissy fit.

The names are of the authors of works cited in the bibliography, along with the date of publication, a very common citing convention. Several authors happen to be also discoverers, whose publication dates are close to the time of discovery, but not, of course, exactly at it; all but one were constrained by war-time security. Slee and Orchison, on the other hand, had written a general work much later, but nowhere within does Orchisonn (or Slee) make any questionable claims.

The only place on earth, in fact, where you can find a claim that Orchiston discovered solar radio waves, is on Wikipedia, on an old page. Written by Headbomb himself. (There used to be a few copycats, but I think they've all wised up since.) Here's the dif [[31]]

Make sense? Anmccaff (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

An obvious improvement. But if you can say it so clearly, you must now have an idea of how to follow up. The article talk page would be a good bet. It sounds like you don't believe Orchiston claimed that Alexander was one of the discoverers of radio emissions from the sun, just one of the people who published early papers. To list her as a discoverer, one would expect to find sources that make that claim. Merely citing Alexander's own papers in the reference list of our article might not be sufficient. Do you have access to whatever Orchiston had to say about the work of Alexander? EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no. Orchiston is quite sound on major questions about Alexander and solar radio emmisions. He bobbles a couple of minor details, but nothing critical, and nothing that isn't easily found elsewhere. Orchiston is, in fact, the person who has done the most , along with Sullivan, to bring the story to a wider readership. The problems with him as a source is that he concentrates on between three weeks and 3 months of a very full 30 year career, most of which was spent in other research and in teaching. Great on the cross-over with radioastronomy; glides over the radiometeorology and the radio direction finding and the plain old radio. For some one who saw this as a wartime filler job, she did an impressive amount of work.

No, my beef is the lib...BLP violation, them's the words. BLP. Especially with someone he is otherwise over-relying on a source. That's one of the things that keeps the Alexander article in the sad shape it is. The blatant WP:OWNership is the other.Anmccaff (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Mona778

Hi Ed, I'm Taichi, an administrator of Spanish Wikipedia, Yeza and I are sysops from that Wikipedia. The subject about Mona778 comes from a problem in Spanish Wikipedia, including a block of this user in January. But, I commited a unknown mistake, about the User talk blanking, frequently used by Mona in English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons; and I reverted several times until he reported me. Because the blanking is valid here, I stopped, but Mona inquired me and Yeza with strong insults comparing us as "gangs of Third World". Mona uses the "wikihounding" argument against us, but we have issues in our Wikipedia, we don't have time for this, if you check our contibutions, we are almost in Spanish Wikipedia not here, but Mona constantly labels against his "opponents" linking with other users without probes. We think that Mona778 apply reversely the wikihounding against us. We decided not disturb more the user, but he insists, and this is insupportable. --Taichi (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, Regarding "the reality of the affairs," please have a look at [32]. It was a clear case of cross-wiki hounding. By the way, on some other note, it's she, not he Taichi, don't you know is an insult when you call a woman "he"? Regards (Mona778 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC))
  • Mona778, see WP:AOHA. So far as I can tell User:Taichi and User:Yeza have nothing whatsoever to do with the Hazal Kaya article. They had an unrelated dispute with you back in January. You wrote in the 3RR report about Hazal Kaya, "These people are all from the same group Taichi, Yeza and now this guy, it's just shameful!" You were trying to make Davey2010 to be a member of a gang of opponents including Taichi and Yeza. The only reason Taichi responded here is that you accused her of 'shameful' behavior in the 3RR report. This assertion was apparently based on no evidence of collusion with Davey2010, and nothing that Taichi did regarding Hazal Kaya. Unsourced charges of harassment are blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page abuse

User:187.190.26.158 is abusing his talk page. CLCStudent (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything that needs action. But if this IP continues to vandalize when the 31-hour block expires, a longer block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A couple of things

An editor, Johnsmith, is appealing his recent block[33] for disruptive editing. Can you please handle it?

My user and talk pages have been the site of personal attacks recently. Here[34], the editing coming back and reverting[35] my deletion of his post to my user page, plus here[36] and here[37] on my talk page. Could you page protect indefinitely. I can take anything established editors dish out but IPs I have a very low regard for and limited patience since I find most doing vandalism or good faith edits that need reverting. Thanks for the help....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. I don't see a case for unblock at User talk:Johnsmith2116, but another admin might see his request and handle it.
  2. I've semiprotected your *user page* per your request. On your User talk:WilliamJE, there were only two IP edits in the last month. They seemed to be annoyed with your judgment but I'm unsure if they were personal attacks. If you want I can apply a month of semiprotection there. Another option is for you simply to delete these posts from IPs if they are unwelcome. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the help. The article the IPs are complaining I don't observe the minutiae of, just monitor that people don't add entries for upcoming episodes that don't exist. The article has had a bad history[38] of that. (Note- Some of those crashes have since been made into episodes) If you want to read a great display of fiction at Wikipedia and perhaps have a good laugh at the same time, check out the article description here[39].
This edit[40] was made to my talk page this morning. It's a personal attack....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
And they came back and reposted again[41]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Fassbender (again)

Ed after modest consensus was reached, an IP (who has since created an account) has been removing German. I have asked on the talkpage briefly while discussing with the editor on my talkpage. It has two sources now, and the only reason for removing is the other editor doesnt see German as relevant, using OR, such as the editors girlfriend, the Irish language and that dual nationality is "more relevant in the USA no doubt, where many are from 2 places, living in a third". I have tried to explain we use citations and sourcing if he reverts again, which is removing consensus sourced content, what shall I do? I know you are going to say dont revert anymore- so I got that bit, but what are the options, sticking to protocol is giving more rope to the project. Murry1975 (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I semied the article. His birth in Germany and upbringing in Ireland are both well-sourced. How to describe his nationality is still an open question which can only be settled by editor consensus. If Fassbender himself has been interviewed about it or said anything about his nationality that would help with the decision. One option is to simply omit a short description of his nationality and just include the facts about his birth and upbringing. The artice in Irish America doesn't use a one or two-word description of his nationality. Warring to change the nationality of a famous person is one of the classic signs of nationalist edit warring, and often falls under an Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Just trout me Ed if I am being an idiot. I will see if the newbie wants to talk while the article is semied. Fassbender seems very at home with order and havoc sides, more than we are on here. Always two sides to a story, and two sides to a wall. Thanks for your advice and help. Murry1975 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Biased attack on anonymous editors

Have you posted the same NPA warning on the other used, who called me hypocrite first? Or do these rules only apply to powerless random anonymous editors who cant even edit protected pages? If you didn't, please refer to the meaning of the word hypocrite yourself!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.146.188 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

clarification request

Hi Ed, I made a clarification request regarding the 500/30 rule here. I listed you as a party mostly because I didnt know who else to list and you were dealing with the AE complaint where it came up. Thanks, nableezy - 22:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

ID

Hey there, if you can please see to this username [42]. Thnx—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 17:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This account (TripWire ne kutte..) has no edits. Do you think this might be someone you have encountered under another name, or as an IP? Does the name mean anything to you? EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Sir, I really do not want to translate this user name into English as it will be quite disgusting for you or other readers. You may try google translate instead . BTW, he has made no edit, but to attract my attention he/she has already thanked my like 2o time at random edits.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 15:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
'TripWire ne kutta..' is blocked for having an offensive user name, apparently in Hindi. See Wikipedia:Username policy#Disruptive or offensive usernames. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Jack Sebastian

Hi Ed. There is some nasty stuff that has been well reverted by a user. Trouble is it needs the tools to erase it properly. I wonder if you might be so kind? Cheers Irondome (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the offensive revision from the page history. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It's continuing Ed. Perhaps a page protect, and some kind of range block on the perp? Sorry to pull you in to this but you looked like the duty Admin :) Irondome (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Now being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Someone needs a nap. The range block looks tricky. When I tried out the current rangecontribs tool on 24.114.60.0/20 it was giving funny results. A /16 rangeblock might be overkill. How about some semiprotects instead? It appears that User:Widr may be working on this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I blocked some IPs and protected two talk pages. Widr (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A ANI discussion where I mention you

Here it is[43]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia deleted more of my contributions

Why should anyone try and take the time and contribute to this project when one vote can completely delete their contributions? [44] I was not notified that there was a final vote and the where to vote appears to have been moved at least once and that by one vote, another one of my contributions was deleted. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you wish, you can appeal at WP:DRV. Your comments about a 'final vote' are hard to understand. This was a routine nomination at WP:TFD and the closer's decision was based on the the information presented in the debate. It seems you want to create a new navigation template, and this might be expected to require a wider review of how navigation is currently done in that area. These templates require a lot of space on the page, and it is logical that every article linked from the template would also make space for the template. So your proposed template might be transcluded 25 times and might be in addition to other existing templates on the affected pages. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is beyond frustrating. And I am not the only person expressing this. [45] Wikipedia spends allot of time and resources destroying its own content and then not a whole lot giving people voice to find ways to improve it. Its as if you can maybe say it and no one will listen, until you get in trouble and then people will misconstrue it, to run you off. How horrible. I am still here because I still wish to contribute but the environment as it is with the hostility of other admins and this, well I have to spend allot of time planning and preparing before I can make even a small contribution. The days of me writing bios like the one I did for Eugene Webb are over as I can't imagine the mountain of work it takes to contribute new content as my old content gets deleted. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The articles you wrote on Eugene Webb and George Kline look worthwhile. I trust you don't consider those projects to be a waste of time. With a proposal like {{Slavic Orthodox Christianity}} you were wanting to change how we currently organize the topic area. (You would be changing the method of navigating certain articles). It should not come as a shock that persuasion may be needed in such a case. When you write an article from scratch yourself, you are only expending your own resources, not those of others. The work you have done on those two articles remains beneficial and didn't require much negotiation on your part. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi there, LoveMonkey! Without knowing the issue at hand more deeply, you may want to familiarize yourself with an essay that tackled the navigation template problem from a overlink point-of-view (Wikipedia:Overlink crisis). For example, implementing a Template:Texas counties as such would have yielded 228 600 wikilinks alone. The overlink crisis occurred between 2009 and 2011, and I guess the folks dealing with these things tend to proceed a bit more carefully these days in this area. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I am trying. It is just too time consuming all of it. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's is an example of my frustration. As the only solution is deletion and destruction of contributions and we should all know it. Look go read how people deleting your time and work are justified in this article here or whatever. My content got deleted and because I created something and did not read whatever, my contribution got deleted. But somehow that's not the point? Frustration. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
LoveMonkey, it can be equally frustrating for editors who want to keep Wikipedia clean from another Overlink Crisis to happen. I am sorry that you feel that you have spent a lot of time on this case, but have you tried to discuss this with other users? Perhaps they have spent a lot of time with this case too, but just have done so from another point-of-view? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Topic Ban removal.

Wait until July 9 to launch your appeal, per the terms of the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Its now been approximately 120 days since you topic banned me, under a discretionary sanctions which provided for 30 days for the first offense, which it was. So in any regard a significant sanction was dispensed. The person that asked for this sanction against me (actually had done it twice) had a long an controversial history with the article in question. In fact they voluntarily self banned themselves from the article to avoid getting topic banned by the consensus that had formed under enforcement by admins. They also ran rough shot over the article using ANI to report many many editors, which admins evaluated as using the ANI process to counter editors, rather than to seek consensus.
The 3 editors of the article have now either retired from Wikipedia or are no longer editing the article in question.
A new 200 page review has now been published by the Royal College of Physicians, established in 1518, which exceeds the rigor of the a Cochrane review, and the Article is not being updated for the most part with this changes. This is critical because the nature of the article MEDR citations was confounded by the preliminary nature of some of the primary sources. And that was actually what I was working on. My topic ban was premised upon I was using a primary source to refute another primary source, which was taking science which was not related to the topic.
Long story short, as these other editors have moved on, and the science has moved on, I would like to be able to edit the articles. They need to be updated regardless. There are various options for my request. But it seems the most basic is for you to remove the topic ban, which as I read the instructions...you would be able to do.

Thanks. Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This request doesn't give me confidence that your past problems with neutral editing have gone away. So I am not inclined to lift the topic ban. You have the other options which are listed at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. You should wait until July 9, because your ban, which was imposed on January 9, provides a right of appeal after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There was not a question raised to me on neutral editing. The item was in relationship to removing older content, that was superseded. The question was specific to how I justified the removal of a couple of lines of text, and was objected to because it was MEDRS compliant...or so that was the contention. I never edit warred, and the edits in question were left in as I took the topic to TALK pages, which was concluded when the Topic Ban was placed. It seems massively easier than going through the entire formal informal process to simple request the update to my status directly to you, as the warring editors are no long editing these pages Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Mystery Wolff, I don't think we have communicated before and these words are offered in a genuinely neutral way to help you. If you are topic banned, this is to protect that topic area from your editing. Just because other editors are no longer on WP (and how can we be sure of that), that does not automatically mean the topic no longer needs protection from you. If the problem was interactions between other editors and yourself, then I suspect Interaction bans would have been issued. This is not a convincing argument to having your ban lifted. I suggest you find another approach.DrChrissy (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, I appreciate your remarks, but this case is rather specific and something that EdJohnston likely remembers. I certainly do not believe the Topic Ban was warranted for a number of reasons. Not that I did not appreciate the remarks given, but that editors were exploiting a process of the discretionary sanctions onto me. I feel very much collateral damage out of long standing turf wars that existed before my editing. For example I was accused of being a sockpuppet as the premise of seeking sanctions against me. That investigation was done, and utterly failed on the merits. Perhaps my inexperience in wiki-lawyering made me make a case that by its very objections caught rebuke. I was informed that I would be "boomeranged" for example. Also my editing was part of a discussion going on in Talk. My edits were removed...and I did not war to put them back. However, as I was concurrently talking with editors like Doc James, the outcome was a Topic Ban. There was a long standing turf war going on, and Admins had to ask that participants not go after new editors. It was very much an inside Wikipedia game. In the real world, there is real disappointment on how these pages have been handled, hence my interest in the specific topic. As the new science has become available I think you would agree that these well understood secondary sourced review by the Royal College of Physicians, deserves to be incorporated into a valuable resource as Wikipedia. I understand and appreciate your comment in "the general"....I being familiar with my case, believe it needs review in "the specific." Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Epiousios

Your semi-protect was both unnecessary and counter-productive. While SimonP and I are certainly editing with no small amount of enthusiasm, I defy you to point out how the article is not benefiting. We are editing...not edit-warring. You might want to gain some clarity on that. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Both of you have broken WP:3RR, but you in addition are jumping IPs. Do you have some objection to waiting for a conclusion on the talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there such a thing? I find referring to facts to be much more conclusive, and apparently Simon P does as well. Your semi-protect was pre-mature and will result in a lower quality article. While SimonP's edits are often over-the-top with respect to claims (e.g., "most students"..."most popular"...etc.), he is getting much better at sourcing...but needs back-up when it comes to having an editor that challenges him in kind. Suggest you remove the block. Moreover, so what if my Internet provider has jumping IPs? Is that somehow a new criteria for editing on Wikipedia...or an old one that has gone by the wayside with new IP protocols? Focus on quality of the edits. That'll make for a better encyclopedia. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It takes five minutes to create an account if you prefer to have a permanent talk page where people can contact you. WP:EW is part of the criteria for editing on Wikipedia. You might call it an old criterion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
As I'd hope your powers of critical judgement can discern, that is not my "preference," Ed. You're compounding your mistake by not admitting it. You're bullying in this instance, and you know it. I suspect others do (or will) as well. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
While I agree that the article has been improving, these arguments should be on the talk page, not in edit summaries. I'm happy with a general pause so that we can talk more on the talk page before either of us make any more major edits. I've added some comments on how to summarize scholarly consensus, which I would appreciate your input on. - SimonP (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not argue. I point out facts, and cite them. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Please continue this elsewhere. It seems that the IP knows what policy says but prefers not to follow it. Trying to be both a scholar and an edit warrior at the same time is a stretch. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't get over zealous either IP. We appreciate all contributions, but now, you are pointing and calling names to everyone without a justifiable reason. Please read WP:OWN. FiendYT ★ 01:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Quite the spin factory. However...Truth Will Out. Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7CA6:7E0D:20E7:38A5 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding a recent issue

Hello EdJohnston,

I strongly believe it was incorrect to block user Listofpeople as you did following this case. The IP (79.177.137.186) that reported him is one of the many sock IP's of User:Yossimgim; see here the SPI case where the entire range is listed --> [46].

He has used many more IP's of that range to sock on the Circassians page as well (apart from other pages), e.g. IP 79.178.211.197, IP 79.176.91.230, and IP 109.65.217.133. All geolocate to the exact same place as well. User Listofpeople was simply very unfortunate to encounter this IP, not knowing that its another sock of said user.

I hope you can unblock said user based on this. Thanks in advance. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the 3RR report was correctly closed. If a verdict comes back from the SPI, I am willing to review it and see if it changes the situation. In any case, the person who was blocked needs to work more actively for consensus. I stepped through numerous edits at Circassians and I saw the IP making what seemed to be good edits. I would consider semiprotecting Circassians if there was a clear case to do so, but it's not evident yet. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston; I don't disagree with you about that user "Listofpeople" should've resorted to the talk page first, regardless of the fact that he didn't know that the IP was merely baiting and was another sock IP, but in my honest opinion he should now be pardoned now as after all and most importantly, the whole case that got him blocked was filed by a sock IP. By that alone, discussing whether user "Listofpeople" should be working on his consensus building should be left aside in this particular case here.
I don't believe a sock is allowed to file a case and then actually get away with it. You right now telling that the 3RR report was correctly closed, is basically justifying sockpuppetry, as you're allowing a sock to continue with his havoc here, and rather confirming that policy-breaking behaviour. According your words, the way they come across, its ok to let him sock around, as after all the person that he managed to get blocked violated WP:WAR (through warring with the sock IP) and has supposed issues regarding WP:CON, as he didn't search for a consensus with a sock IP. Sounds rather quasi Machiavellistic to me.
Lastly, are we in all seriousness waiting for a SPI clerk to confirm that multiple IP's, literally all geolocating to Tel Aviv, Israel, making the very same edits, all in a short period of time, are perhaps used by the very same person?
Here I've literally listed everything I just said above with verifiable material;
IP 79.178.211.197, geolocating to Tel Aviv, Israel, adding the Islam related template on the Circassians article
IP 79.176.91.230, geolocating to Tel Aviv, Israel, adding the Islam related template on the Circassians article
IP 109.65.217.133, geolcating to Tel Aviv, Israel, adding the Islam related template on the Circassians article
IP 79.177.137.186, the sock IP that got Listofpeople blocked, geolocating to Tel Aviv, Israel, adding the Islam related template on the Circassians article.
I can list more of the used IP's, but this should stipulate the point more than enough, I believe.
With all due respect. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe the socking evidence is OK at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive309#User:109.64.100.131 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked) and it is possible that 109.64.* could be Yossimgim. The 3RR case is too old to make any further action reasonable. The rest is still unclear to me. Yossimgim has never edited Circassians. When you see an IP adding the {{Islam|Related topics}} template, that fact is not very distinctive. Both Yossimgim and Dr. Feldinger would occasionally become very abusive, which is not something you see with these IPs. It appears that the sock case sat open for two months with no action. It is a stretch to consider all Tel Aviv based IPs to be Yossimgim. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The IP's have edited other articles which Yossimgim did edit as well. Both Yossimgim and the IP's keep reinstating the same stuff, in this regard, reinstating the template at all cost. Amongst other pretty clear editorial overlap which is presented on his SPI case. Furthermore, Yossimgim stopped editing some time ago, after which the IP's started editing literally just some days after, having the same editorial pattern (once again; the islam template spamming on ethnic group articles aside).
Having said that; you also don't agree with me that the 4 IP's I listed above present a case of blatant IP socking, whether or not they are Yossimgim's? This is in fact the most important reason as for why I wanted to discuss this matter with you.
Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Even if we were to agree on the IP socking, what should we do as a result? If the range is too wide to block, we are left with blocking individual IPs whenever we notice them. Semiprotection could be more useful. Can you suggest some articles where we could try long-term semiprotection? EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston; sorry, wasn't there for some days. I just saw you semi'd the Circassians article. I think that's indeed a good start. I'm gonna revert the content the pre-IP hopper revision. Other good articles to protect are basically the Middle Eastern nations, of which currently Jordan seems to be a main target of him. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston.
First of all, thanks to LouisAragon for his attention. What happened yesterday made me feel really sorry. Consensus indeed matters, but I thought and still think there was nothing to discuss on the talk page of the article at stake. I don't know whether that IP user is a sockpuppet or not, but he suddenly declared an edit war just because I reverted his edit which I still believe was a vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=prev&oldid=718733033
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=prev&oldid=718560757
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=prev&oldid=718560045
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=prev&oldid=718558359 (Here, the IP accused me of vandalism, but it was that user who was doing vandalism, I thought this was obvious)
Another user has removed the irrelevant template, but the aforementioned IP who unjustly declared an edit war added the template back.
I may have made several constructive edits throughout the article and perhaps this is why you couldn't check each of my edits to decide whether my edits was appropriate or not. Seeing the word "edit war" was enough to take the IP seriously, but that IP thinks Wikipedia is a battleground. I checked that user's recent activities, and whenever he sees an edit that contradicts with her/his personal interests, s/he threatens. I have been working on that article for hours, and all my efforts was gone out of nowhere. Now, the page has all those dead links (which I previously rescued) and grammar mistakes, and typos that I fixed. I am not even mentioning the irrelevant template back on the article. By the way, you can check that I have not really removed any information from the article. At best, I moved them into different sections. For instance, I moved the sentence regarding the ethnic group's religion to the section "Religion" as it was not really relevant in the introduction given their past, but I even did not removed that information, but moved.
Sir, I am asking you, could you please check my final version and the one that was reverted to the version of the IP by another user who is actually of good faith.
Here's the comparison link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=next&oldid=718577605
Perhaps the only problem with my version was the fact that I forgot to remove the caption in the infobox, but it was not a critical mistake because a caption does not show up in the article if there is no image. The fact that I removed the image (a non photomontage single image including non-notable regular people wearing traditional costume and holding their flag, which I believe is very representative because the ethnic group at stake is quite homogenous and not a large nation. The term also does not donote citizenship as in the term "Americans") was to reach a consensus about its representativeness, but I was not going to discuss that with that IP, but other users who do valuable contributions the article. Besides, I have never removed the flag, I moved it to the section of "Tribes" since each star on the flag represent one of the 12 tribes. These are the only points that I felt the need to clarify here, because I really don't know what I did else other than constructive edits.)
I read that you wrote "I saw the IP making what seemed to be good edits." Sir, do you really think that any of the edits that the IP has done on the page so far is a good edit? I can't be the only one that it was blatant vandalism. Not even a single part of his edits was useful in my honest opinion, but I really wonder what you think. Please check my final activity on that page (as well as my previous edits, any of them because I feel quite confident about them) and compare them with the version of that IP. Perhaps, at first sight, his version looks okay to you, but it's far from being okay if you check each sentences. Please check the current links as well because they redirect to nowhere as they are from the domains that were shut down years ago. I had rescued the ones that have archived version on web.archive.is, but now they are all reverted. As I said, what happened yesterday made me feel very sorry. It was very embarrassing for me to be blocked because of my quite constructive and objective edits (which does not require any discussion in my honest opinion, please correct me if you still think I am wrong) just because of the report of an IP who declared an edit war for no tangible reason. I am afraid, many other vandals can keep their version on Wikipedia articles this way (first by unjustly declaring their single-sided edit war with users and then by reporting those users who revert their "vandalism" edits three times. I thought we could revert, when needed, even 40 times consecutively if it's against vandalism as in this case.)
Oh, I almost forgot. Before that IP reported me, I had already written a message to LouisAragon in order to ask his opinion regarding my edits at stake and the aforementioned picture that I suggest for the infobox. I wrote to him only because I know he is one of the most active users on that page, and I very much appreciate his activities on the issue in particular. I believe this is how he took notice of this issue in the first place. I am really thankful because I felt very bad when the words of a vandal were paid attention to while my words were not considered at all. As I said, I really didn't feel any need to write on the talk page of the article itself because my edits were quite objective and not very open to discussion. I just wanted to hear LouisAragon's comments even though I was pretty sure that what that IP did was vandalism and my edits were okay. It was before my 3RR and the consequent report, please check the date and time.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
Listofpeople (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
"I thought we could revert, when needed, even 40 times consecutively if it's against vandalism as in this case." Your charges of vandalism are incorrect; this was a content dispute. You should try to get consensus on the talk page and make your arguments there. Admins are not referees about content questions. I am not part of this dispute and don't plan to continue this here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Therefore, you approve the current version of the article, and believe that what the IP at stake has done so far on that article was not vandalism whereas what I did there was disruptive editing or vandalism as that IP (whose words were considered over mine) claimed here. Is this also to say that you have just semi-protected the article in order to avoid my further contributions? Sorry for not hiding my astonishment since that ethnic group is part of my academic and personal expertise, and I have made contributions to Wikipedia so far almost exclusively on articles that are related to that ethnic group. I would have really appreciated if you could review the issue, just comparing my version and the IP's, but I see you have made your decision. Since I was blocked by you, I thought I should discuss the dispute with you, especially after seeing a fellow user's message to you regarding the issue on your talk page. I beg your pardon if this is not the right place to discuss it. I have never been involved in such a dispute on Wikipedia, I don't know the procedure after being blocked either. With all due respect, all I know and want here is to make valuable contributions.
Regards Listofpeople (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
When there is a disagreement, you try to work cooperatively with others. See WP:Dispute resolution for some advice. It is not up to some admin like mystelf to look at two versions and decide which one is better. Edit warring blocks are given when it seems the person is simply reverting and not negotiating patiently. You have not posted at Talk:Circassians since 2014, but you can easily start a new discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
What I know is that when an IP adds one of the most irrelevant templates right below the infobox for an ethnic group's article, and removes the newly-added academic sources and archived web links, keeping the old dead-links as well as all the previously-fixed typos, grammar mistakes, and styling issues, there is nothing to do other than to revert. Trying to cooperate with that IP user is not even a matter of question in my honest opinion. You perhaps think that IP's edits are relevant because you don't have a background knowledge of that ethnic group, and I totally get this because the ethnic group at stake is "today" not known to many as they are a community, 90% of which were expelled from their historical homeland two centuries ago and scattered all around the world. Even before that two centuries, they were known by the majority of foreigners simply for their strong military men and beautiful women with extreme fair features, nothing else. However, one doesn't have to be an expert to understand that the aforementioned IP's edits are not good at all and is even against the neutral point of view policy. That religious template would be even irrelevant to the Wikipedia article "Arabs" as an ethnic group, let alone to the article of an ethnic group whose members are the latest collective converts to Islam, while for more than 16 centuries they were almost exclusively known for being Christian besides their cultural traditional beliefs (philosophy and mythology) though there are still Christian (in good numbers) and neopagan ones of them. However, please do not remove that template unless you fix the whole article. Sir, since you believe you are unable to look at the two versions and decide which one is better although it's crystal clear as one of the versions is a product of vandalism, I request another expert or someone who knows the ethnic group well to check and put an end to this unnecessary dispute. LouisAragon is one of them. I hope he and other users intervene into this issue.
Sir, the fact that I was unjustly accused of disruptive editing and vandalism on my area of expertise, and even blocked consequently after a report of an alleged sockpuppet IP whose vandalism (blatant to an expert's eye) edits were thought to be of good kind even by a distinguished administrator at first sight (without a deep analysis) because the ethnic group at stake is an underrecognized one, is a milestone on Wikipedia. I repeat that is a living proof that even a vandal can keep his version on Wikipedia by using some fancy words like edit warring only out of his battleground instincts and acting as if he's acting according to the guidelines of Wikipedia in order to mask his vandalism. While that vandal keeps editing, I am here to defend my aggrieved self desperately. With all due respect, I'm asking you, what kind of misunderstanding would that be? Regards, Listofpeople (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you revert Circassians back to your last revision?

I believe a sockpuppet of that user who got blocked, just continued his edit warring via another username. Thanks in advance. 79.177.137.186 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that User:LouisAragon and User:Listofpeople are the same editor. But since we are discussing Circassians, maybe you would like to respond about your own behavior at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Yossimgim. It appears that a large number of Tel-Aviv based IPs, including you, have engaged in similar editing on a range of articles. Recently you have tripped the edit filter at Eritrea, and you seem to be up to five reverts at Jordan. Perhaps you can explain why you should not be blocked for edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Objection for deleting or modifying or merging Brahminsm article

Recently I received a deletion request for the article Brahminsm from the user Kautilya3. Brahminsm is a seperate topic related to the influence of Brahmins in Hindu religion. There are so many references are available throughout India.Aryans (Brahmins) are seperate race migrated to India around 1500 BCE through Khyber and Bholan pass.They invaded India and they influenced the religion of native people and created castes and divisions through religious texts.Even they deviced penal codes in which different punishments are available for the same crime based on caste.The mahabharatha incident ekalaiva and karna are true and can be verified.Even many reformists in India tried to reform Hinduism and tried to reduce the influence of Aryans on Hinduism. I dont have much experience in editing wikipedia article.So I am not able to provide citations. But I am having all the source material or reference material. We can discuss all of them in this talk page. If we simply delete this article in future we are stopping a chance to know about the topic. So view points of everyone is welcomed and we all can disscuss about this topic.--IrumudiChozhan (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you have been making edits at the misspelled title Brahminsm. Presumably this should be Brahminism. The latter, as a correctly-spelled word, already exists as a redirect to Historical Vedic religion. If you have proposals for anything we should do differently, I suggest you accept the deletion of Brahminsm and instead make your proposals at Talk:Historical Vedic religion. Nothing prevents you from gathering references before creating an article. You can make a list on your own computer, or use a draft page in your user space. If you add material without any references, it risks being removed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your warning

After a short break, she's at it again. You should read her individual edit summaries that comprise this diff. They are incomprehensible: "Undid revision 718030618 by LadyofShalott (talk) Make Janelle/Megan do it!"; "Fran is going to kill blond Joe?".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Violetnese is now blocked. Thanks for following up. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Saffron terror

I posted in the Talk page for saffron terror but no one has replied. The articles needs drastic changes given new ruling on the court regarding the subject matter. It is now precisely verified that it is a conspiracy by UPA and is not a real thing. I have posted sources on the talk page and can also provide more sources given this new ruling. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC

By coincidence User:Kautilya3 has also perceived that the article has problems. I see you have already written to get his opinion. He made an alternative draft at User:Kautilya3/Hindutva terror. Perhaps this could be the beginning of a rewrite. I recommend that you don't get started unless you can find at least one other person to support your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Full protection needed at 1971 Bangladesh genocide

RFC is going on talk page. Instead of commenting at TP, this user (Towns Hill, previously named TalhaZubairButt) right after the protection expired, started blatantly pushing his POV, OR and Fringe theories. He is edit warring again (3RR vio if we count edits by his account and IP(s)). [47]. And now he is socking with IPs after his account edits were reverted by Volunteer Marek. Please full protect the page (to prevent further disruption) and issue some sort of blocks/t-ban to this user. He's doing the same on all 1971 related pages. here on this page, he pushed the 3RR rule right to the limit again. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I fully protected Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh for two weeks. 1971 Bangladesh genocide is semiprotected two years. If you are concerned that User:Towns Hill is socking with IPs, consider opening an SPI. I've topic banned User:Towns Hill from conflicts between India and Pakistan. Let me know if there are other 1971-related articles where you think IP socking is possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You're a great admin!!! Thank you very much for protecting these pages. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's like rain on your wedding day...

Irony. --Jayron32 19:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your administration is very bad

I'm very unhappy with your administration, I want complaint at You. Case is very simple, You removed my editing in permadeath theme and restore old without any arguments. By Your action I was blocked for 48h and I received many unnecessary warnings from user logged as guest without account etc, who restoring previous version, He was bad. I was marked as bad editor without discussion and arguments from You, simple You blocked my for 48h. You have no any arguments to defend You every thinks are or rather aren't in me talk page and talk page in Permadeath section. I attach my editing for anyone to can see it:

  • Path of Exile has Hardcore separated worlds. A character killed in this mode cannot be accessed any more, there is no possibility to resurrect him, player lose everything with this character. This is very hard mode of permadeath where player lose a months of playing even years and every thing he reached[1][2][3][4][5] , not only couple hours of playing, which can be reaped in next time. In Path of Exile exists special harder option called cutthroat.[6]--Darek555 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Leagues - Path of Exile". www.pathofexile.com. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  2. ^ xTBHProductions (2014-01-04), Path of Exile [Perma Death Series Episode 4.7], retrieved 2016-02-10
  3. ^ Astarngo (2015-08-10), Path of Exile Shenanigans! (Tempest Server, Permadeath) #1, retrieved 2016-02-10
  4. ^ "Steam Community :: Path of Exile". steamcommunity.com. Retrieved 2016-02-10.
  5. ^ ZiggyD Gaming (2014-12-17), Meta: "Hardcore vs Softcore" in Path of Exile - How to Help Our Community Grow, retrieved 2016-02-10
  6. ^ "Forum - Race Events and League Ladders - One-Week Cut-Throat (IV008) - Path of Exile". www.pathofexile.com. Retrieved 2016-02-06.

Thx for reply and like I say above in my opinion You have no arguments, links contained in your answer showing what I reproach You:
1. First I was reported by nobody user only with IP, it should be weird for you that, one of site was anonymous user, instead you blocked me.
2. Second about discussion, I start it and give one simple condition I quote this :
I have simple a serious suggestion to you prove me that you are a man and and kill a character in Hardcore League and resurrect him back in Hardcore League, prove my that ! If you are man and not a group of philosophers pests, disputing for ever. If you prove that I will never try add this game as game with permadeath. Simple deal !
No one answers for this simple condition today, then I had right , not mentioning that my edit was fully noted. You reproach me that I didn't discus but how discus if nobody answer, no one answer to this simple ask ?

You ignored that all and restore old edit and blocked me, why You do that ?!!--Darek555 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As an administrator, it is not my job to decide who is right when there is a content dispute. It is possible that your knowledge of English is not quite good enough to understand our dispute resolution methods. You shouldn't expect Wikipedia to suddenly change its policies to suit your wishes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank for reply, Yes I agree with you that Wikipedia should not fits its polices to someone, of course not suddenly, that is right. But why You blocked me on what conditions ?? You don't want say that someone without login, as a guest can report everyone and restore old edit many times and he will not blocked but blocked user made one new edit, and he is bad and this second is good ?? Then You should change Wikipedia policy howewer !--Darek555 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. The original 3RR report lists four reverts, starting at 19:49 on February 6
  2. I closed it with a warning to you not to change the article again unless you had a talk page consensus.
  3. You then reverted one more time, which was the reason for the block. You made five reverts altogether, through 23:43 on 10 February. There was a previous edit war starting with this revert of February 4th where you also made four reverts. This makes a grand total of nine reverts by you from Feb 4 through 10. You still insist you were the innocent party? EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

First my edit was started at :

22 Dec 2015 where I add new content about Path of Exile
and now started:
18 Jan 2016 someone removed my edit from IP address not from account, no arguments and somting like this "as per commented-out warning"
4 Feb 2016 I undo as it was from anonymous account
4 Feb 2016 added note(quotation)
4 Feb 2016 minor change
5 Feb 2016 someone undo per IP not account, undermining not right contents of notes
5 Feb 2016 I undo, ignoring objection as wrong, Path of Exile is known permadeath game, from this time I suspect malicious action as someone acts from IP not account
5 Feb 2016 corrected notes(added more)
5 Feb 2016 added new section about implementation of permadeath as mode of game
5 Feb 2016 corrected spelling etc spell errors
5 Feb 2016 user NinjaRobotPirate remove my edit about modes of game as poorly sourced
5 Feb 2016 NinjaRobotPirate added new comment to my edit about modes
6 Feb 2016 someone from IP removed my edit about Path of Exile , giving as the cause improper notes reason,
6 Feb 2016 I added similar edit about Path of Exile , ignored previous undo as I suspect malicious action, notes was well and no user
6 Feb 2016 minor change spelling correction etc
6 Feb 2016 minor change spelling correction etc
6 Feb 2016 minor change spelling correction etc
6 Feb 2016 minor change spelling correction etc
6 Feb 2016 someone removed my edit the same complaints by no user from some IP
6 Feb 2016 I restore my good edit
6 Feb 2016 someone removed my edit from IP
6 Feb 2016 Peacemaker protect site but not restored my edit
...some edits
9 Feb 2016 removing protection
10 Feb 2016 I added my edit due before protection it was removed
10 Feb 2016 was removed by no user
10 Feb 2016 I restored it
10 Feb 2016 I added additional very well known game with permadeath mode
10 Feb 2016 added reliable intrview with Yury Lyashenko, Lead Game Designer of One Life
10 Feb 2016 added cite in form of move
10 Feb 2016 another movie showing permadeath mode in this game
10 Feb 2016 discussion in https://steamcommunity.com about PoE' permadeath
10 Feb 2016 another very clear movie
10 Feb 2016 someone removing all as anonymous
10 Feb 2016 You appears and make proposition to talk in talk page
10 Feb 2016 I recover my edit and made thread in talk page to others to prove that killed character in Hardcore PoE cane by restored in Hardcore. No one answers as today..., in addition added many notes and added coment about this in comment to edition.
10 Feb 2016 someone , no user, anonymously, has removed my edit ! without answer to my thread, without proof !
10 Feb 2016 Your edit about protection
10 Feb 2016 I restored my edit with comment: very well sourced, opponents don't make proof I requested in talk that character can be resurrected, see talk
11 Feb 2016 You removed my edit !!!

From now I had no strength to fight with such terrible malicious action from anonymous user and end my edition !

Why Did You blocked ME but not this malicious user !!!

More than 8 reverts from no user, no argument, no discus in talk page, no answer to my thread in talk page etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darek555 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC) I add that I'm good editor , through my actions the mine encyclopaedic word of this page has been changed to more common word to Permadeath 6 Feb 2016 from Permanent death, I edit in polish version Wikipedia and for example added new permadeath therm and made only good edition, like in simple wikipedia, never made bad edits always it was only good and right edits.--Darek555 (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please take this elsewhere. You are not currently blocked, and I can't force the editors at Permadeath to agree with you. The things you list above are not a case for any more action by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok Like I said I want report this, Wikipedia should be place for arguments talk and definition evidence-based not place for Vandals--Darek555 (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "report this", do you mean your block? If you want outside attention on this matter I can tell you now that EdJohnston acted correctly. We do not allow people to edit war to get their way. If you do seek a wider review of this you will likely be told the same thing by a bunch of other people.
If you are concerned about the behaviour of others please familiarize yourself with our polices and once you have figured out what is expected here you can report on my talk page if you think someone is violating those policies. Otherwise you will just have to accept whatever outcome the debate arrives at. HighInBC 14:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_Hopper_on_Social_work if you find my statement has validity kindly revert-back the edit that's been done since i don't have that privilege and move to semi-protection to complete protection to avoid further manipulation by registered editors, if it isnt an hassle removing the block is also appreciable. if you find this action:[48] unacceptable please provide why and the policy for understanding. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.239.32 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.62.212 (talk)

Topic ban violations notice

Hello Ed Johnston.

User:Gala19000, who you banned from all Turkish war/conflict and Armenia articles two days ago, violated this a day later in his first edit prior,[49], and hours ago went back to his usual edit warring and calling everything he doesn't like vandalism, no different from before the ban.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] --Oatitonimly (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (May 2016)

The clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (May 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

List of European cities by population within city limits

You have just semi-protected List of European cities by population within city limits, a complaint at WP:ANI being cited, but I don't see any complaint there? It seemed that the risk of an edit war there had diminished... Batternut (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent POV-pushing and active socking. There seems to be a war as to which city should be first in the list. There is also a claim that one editor could be using an IP as well as a registered account. You've participated in this dispute, since you just reverted a change by User:Denghu. I am not persuaded that the risk of an edit war has diminished, or that letting the non-discussing IP editors resume editing helps everyone to reach a solution. The IPs are still welcome to make their arguments on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed that Administrators' noticeboard section, probably just searched for the article title, and wondered where the request had come from. And indeed didn't notice how long this piece of bickering has been going on for, and that IP's were also involved. The protection is right, and thanks for explaining. Batternut (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the ban. I would lıke to know why User:Oatitonimly doesn't get banned as he was the one who began the edıt war a week ago. I even asked hım a dozens of tıme to talk on the talk page wıch he fırst ıgnored and later ıgnored ıt agaın and began to edıt all those artıcles that I had reverted back to the rıght content. He doesn't even go to the taşk page and keeps edıtıng the same thıng over and over agaın. Gala19000 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The other party might not be blameless but for the moment, it's your behavior that is the subject of complaint. Your ban might be lifted if some time passes, and we see examples of you actually waiting to get consensus on talk pages, when there is a disagreement. In the meantime you might try working on something to do with Turkey that does not involve wars. You do appear to have some relevant knowledge, but it's hard to observe you actually negotiating. When you disagree, you just revert. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a lot of blame to go around. I was put in a difficult spot, Gala was undoing my contributions because he doesn't like them and vandalizing articles, and yes actual vandalism not editing I don't like because he was filling articles with several copies even after he was told several times by several people what he was doing, or that he kept reverting me and telling me to "go to talk", unaware that I had already started a discussion section a week ago which he didn't touch, and continued to revert me and say "go to talk" as I kept explaining this.[60][61][62] A big problem is that admins had turned a complete blind eye to his vandalism since he made an account, it took 2 weeks for my enforcement request to even get an admin review when most got that within a day, and that was only after Tiptoethroughtheminefield pointed out edits that I had already included. Gala has done enough to warrant a block for life and yet all he has been getting are empty warnings (see my enforcement request), that's why he continues edit warring instinctively. He doesn't need any more empty warnings and doing so delegitimatizes the ban. May I restore the edits of mine he undid on a subject he's supposed to be topic banned from without being accused of edit warring? --Oatitonimly (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If you want to restore your version, why not propose it first on the talk page. If there is no objection in a day or two, you might go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The thing is tho, that I have told him on the talk page about the edits but he didn't react after 2 comments he first made. After some time, he again edited the article without even discussing it on the talk page whole I asked him to do it many times. After that, I reverted the edits back to what it was before the edit war (made a mistake with the duplications edits) and thats it. I ain't vandalizing the articles with any kind of wrong content or anything like that. If I get a ban for edit warring, then he should get a ban as well. Had a similiar eeit war several months ago and everthing was fixed due to the talk page. While this user only commented 2-3 times and then he didn't react to it anymore. What realy makes me a bit iritating is that he keeps adding wrong content that has nothing to do with the article self. For example, the Turkish-Armenian war 1919 during the Turkish war of independence. Turkey/the Kemalist government was getting armament support (as stated in the source self). While he adds them as if the soviets sended troops to support them while thats not true. They had their own invasion of Armenia. This is jus one example I wanted to tell you. Thanks. Gala19000 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ed, you need to check the edits made by 2001:1C04:2905:7D00:E105:F7EC:898B:EF8D, which mirror the edits made by Gala19000. It would appear Gala19000 logged out to continue an edit war in an area they are banned from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Add another IP to the list. It would appear that Gala has been logging out to edit war for quite some time(Jan 2016). --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverting back the edits made by the user above who still doesn't stop edit warring. Gala19000 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he still continiues edditing the same articles yet he doesn't get any warning or a ban? I know that there are rules here on the Wikipedia, but as far as I know, it includes that both sides either agree on a part or get both a ban for a period. Yet he is able to edit whatever he wants while I was edditing those same articles months before he even was there. Gala19000 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Socks of Gala19000 editing out of Holland: 212.127.181.149 (talk · contribs) and 2001:1C04:2905:7D00:7D2A:B3FF:94DE:F16D (talk · contribs). It's quite obvious. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Gala19000 for a week for ban violations and have semiprotected some articles. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. But I'm quite surprised you haven't blocked the sock IPs. Blocking Gala solves only part of the problem. 2001:1c04:2905:7d00:7d2a:b3ff:94de:f16d practically admits to being his sock on your talk page, while his other sock removes that comment. Also, notice the way both accounts spell "eddit": [63] and [64]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
One of the above mentioned IP socks is still being used.[65] --Oatitonimly (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Why does User:Oatitonimly still not get a ban? He kept war edditing all the articles I had eddited before and he still keeps it doing. And if I now revert it back he calls it vandalism. Please, could you do something about this? He doesn't even use the talk page anymore. Gala19000 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was tangentially involved with this situation and I thought I should give my 2 cents for what it's worth. I certainly agree with the block of Gala, though it seems theirs was a massive WP:CIR issue. Oatitonimly on the other hand was acting with very much the same level of disruptiveness while being a bit more savvy about the rules of the game. You can see it in the AE report they crafted with no clean hands of their own, (and later canvassed) that they dug through years worth of diffs to remove their fellow edit warring "opponent," which to me shows a battleground mentality at its worst. I actually reported them at ANI around the same time for their actions at any mainspace that mentioned Turkish-Armenian War, but the thread was unnecessarily cluttered, partly my fault, and archived before a serious admin review, as is usual for the understaffed board.(Only admin responded inquired if WP:ARBAA2 applies or not) But there were some serious breeches of conduct in my report, and I am not even a regular of their interested topics. This editor appears to be an WP:SPA which would be fine if not for the disruptive behavior I mentioned at the ANI. I would encourage them to edit outside of Turkish-Armenian topic area, which they seem to be too passionate to be neutral. Darwinian Ape talk 02:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Unprotect black supremacism

could you unprotect black supremacism...it's been locked down for a couple months now...i'd like to contribute to fixing some of the OR and SYNTH in the article etc in line with consensus..I suppose if people start edit warring about 'racism' again then it can be reprotected...I doubt it will be an issue at this point..and there's a RfC where people are discussing that particular issue anyway...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Black supremacy is a hotly disputed article. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive312#User:68.204.79.96 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Semi). If you create an account, the article will be open to you. It is hard to see why the mild inconvenience of creating an account would be an insuperable barrier for you when the semiprotection has been serving a useful function. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking into creating an account but believe there may issues/drawback to that..see this current thread I created at the help desk: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=4468.48.241.158 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Olympics articles Rfc closure

Howdy. I think you should know that one of the individuals at that article, favours promoting doubts about the Australian head of state's identity. This may explain his/her continued disputing over the 2000 entry. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Better to continue this at Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games so as not to fork the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Just given ya a heads up ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
PS - See what I mean? GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:108.34.150.59

When a user is blocked from editing, can they still edit their own talk page? I noticed you blocked this user for three day today and they were still able to edit and attempt to keep reverting our edits. Thanks Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A block prevents the person from editing any pages except their own talk. If there is a good reason, admins can disable talk page editing by a blocked user. Keep in mind that even a blocked user is still allowed to remove others' posts per WP:BLANKING. If you are concerned that the IP is part of an externally-motivated campaign to edit some of our articles, the best thing you can do is use the article's talk page to make your content arguments. You don't need to post on the IP's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Chris Kyle and American Sniper (book)

Thanks for catching up on this one - the IP situation was getting quite hairy with this being in the news. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor question - given the situation on the two articles, might it be best if the protection durations match? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider temporary full (content dispute) until people actually hammer out consensus on the talk page? It's clearly a pretty contentious subject and otherwise-sensible editors are currently being given too much rope, imho. Just my 2 cents. Keri (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've requested temp full at RPP. Keri (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Plugee

has reverted without consensus Ogress 05:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked for ignoring the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

user:82.112.144.10

Revoke talk page access for user:82.112.144.10. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_39&oldid=1087688411"