User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Thanks for the move

Hi Ed. Just wanted to stop by and thank you for the move of the Nick Wolven article over to AfC. I appreciate the help. Thanks. 64.40.54.119 (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Be aware that WP:AFC has its own system for deleting inactive drafts so I hope you will have the time to make some progress. Finding secondary sources to show notability will be essential because the article was previously deleted per WP:Articles for deletion/Nick Wolven. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

RM at Talk:Journey Through the Decade

You closed the debate 3 hours after another admin had relisted it. Why?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Six votes should be enough to make a decision and it seemed to me that the consensus was clear. the numerical vote was 4-2 against the move and the proposed move would have been an exception to MOS:CT. If you think that there is a chance to get the guideline amended you could pursue that in the usual way. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't determine consensus by vote counting and I, for one, had just learned about the discussion and posted a link about it at WT:AT[1] to get more input.

As to your suggestion "to get the guideline amended", I address the fallaciousness of this argument at User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Shouldn't you get the policy/guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time?.

I am requesting that you revert this close of a discussion just hours after it was relisted. --B2C 17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Relisting is best used when the debate is a close call or if there is very low turnout. The discussion looked rather one-sided to me, and in fact, this was a move proposal that had been rejected twice in the past for similar reasons. The one editor who agreed with Ryulong about the move didn't like the five-letter rule from MOS:CT. The best place to debate the five-letter rule is not in specific move discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't "dislike" arbitrary rules. I even propose some. Policy (guideline in this case) writing is supported by actual practice. The guideline is very simplistic on this point, and there is recent very serious discussion on the 5-letter preposition rule. There are cases where "Into" is to be capitalized. There is obvious incongruity with "Until" vs "till". Here we have a very simple, one syllable word of no significant meaning (the title could have been "Decadal Journey" without any difference in meaning), and there is no evidence of this particular word having been considered by the few who wrote the guideline. You have presume that the guideline represents consensus, and that is an easily challenged presumption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable people can disagree on when relisting is appropriate. We have no guidelines on that. There is no consensus about that. But once someone decides a given discussion warrants relisting, for whatever reason, there does seem to be consensus that that be respected. After all, there is no harm in leaving a discussion open. I can't recall ever seeing an RM discussion closed within days, let alone hours, of a relisting. I'm rather surprised to see an admin make such a decision, especially since there was new input between the relisting and the closing. --B2C 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Given that I had just raised points in support completely unaddressed by any of the "oppose" !voters, I think the sudden close was rude. It says: It doesn't matter what I have to say, the numbers are against me. If it was you that dismissed my !vote on "quality of argument" or any other grounds, you WP:Supervoted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to revert my close of this move discussion. There does not seem to be any issue of principle which would be sacrificed by allowing another week of discussion. Anyone who wants to add more comments can do so. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Nick Wolven

If you had looked at the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Nick Wolven, you would have been able to quickly learn about the history of this page, including that it is currently listed on the alert pages of three Wikiprojects to encourage discussion about the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion of what to do next? I was under the impression that the articles in the Incubator were going to be shifted elsewhere or deleted. Would you object to having this article handled at WP:AFC? The article's only problems seem to be referencing and notability. If passing it over to AFC is not kosher, then we could ask the IP to take a copy offline and work on it elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is whether or not it is controversial to move a page while it is in a workflow with community-wide invites currently working.  If you want to discuss the future of this article, please post your comments on the talk page of the article.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This is my mistake. Sorry about that, Ed. @Unscintillating: I apologize for not looking at the talk page before requesting the move. Sorry about that. I'll take the rest of this discussion to the article's talk page. 64.40.54.171 (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Help requested.

Hi Ed. Sorry to bother you but I've got an ongoing situation at ANI. I made a request here to have a new page restored to allow me to fix errors I made when I created the page. The result is this. The originator is using as his reason the fact that I had some issues over image copyright a month ago which I've now sorted out. I haven't had any similar problems since. I've made mistakes ok but they've all been corrected by me or other editors. This other user wants to ban me for plagiarism because I made mistakes when creating Wolfe Tone Societies. All the errors have been fixed, in fact I've almost rewritten the entire article but instead of restoring it when asked to do so he makes a case to have me banned. Why I don't know. Could you have a look at the situation please and give your opinion? I've also asked Cailil and Black Kite. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ed, I withdraw my request for help. Cailil is back and he has sorted it out. He's probably told you anyway but it's a courtesy to let you know. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Poor metals

Thanks for the move. I had no idea there could be such huge complications in history logic. I see no problems any more. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Question of fairness

Why do you let NovaSkola continue to have a sport exemption but not me? I, for one, have never created an article that directly violated AA2. TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Per User talk:TheShadowCrow#Result of your appeal you may not appeal your sanction more than once every six months. You received that notice on August 8, so if we go forward six months it will be 8 February, 2014. Yet you are here on my talk page on August 19 questioning your ban. Since the above message on my talk might be viewed as an appeal and could cause you to be blocked, I suggest that you don't continue with this line of inquiry. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply at Meta-Wiki

Hello EdJohnston! Thank you for contacting me at my centralized profile on Meta-Wiki. I have left a reply to your message Bot_testing there.

---

You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{User:AugurNZ/Talkback}} notice from your talk page.

Tribune Entertainment

Hello Mr. Johnston? I'm sorry to bother you. I understand you're an administrator. I need you and a few others to please help to resolve this issue with User:Spshu. You can also look here that Spshu reported me and User: Dream Focus here. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Tortoiseshell material" move cleanup

It looks like Talk:Tortoiseshell material got left behind when you moved Tortoiseshell material to Tortoiseshell. Currently, Talk:Tortoiseshell is still a redirect to Talk:Tortoiseshell (disambiguation). I tried to move it over the redirect, but the system didn't let me do it (not sure why, since Talk:Tortoiseshell is a redirect with only a single-line article history). —BarrelProof (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops. It is now moved to Talk:Tortoiseshell. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

a move discussion you once forbade

Can you please have a look at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia#title discussions? The last of those discussions might not have been as useless as the other ones, those which led to the RM ban. I've also asked BDD to check again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You must be speaking about Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 9#Proposing a move in good faith, where the closer's decision was that no move had consensus. Reopening this question would require lifting the ban on move proposals and I don't think the possible benefits would be worth it. You can request this at WP:AE if you want. Note that Axis occupation of Serbia also exists. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

' for ع in article titles

I don't know that I'm recommending it as such, but this was a practical reality on Wikipedia for several years (and to some extent still today), and I'm not sure that formal policy has turned against it... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

response to your comment. I am of the opinion (formalized in some portions of the geonaming guidelines) that diacritics that are mere artifacts of "scholarly" transliteration be omitted from all geographic article titles. This sometimes creates titles that may not evoke immediate propo\er pronunciation (for example, Persian پائین, meaning "lower", often scholarly transliterated as Pā’īn and pronounced Paw-Yeen, comes out as "Pain" in article titles which an average English-language reader would assume is pronounced rhyming with Spain). That said, for biographies, if an individual uses them in his/her personal English-language name, well I would respect that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt RM discussion

I would like to ask you to reconsider on this, to at least relist the discussion. I feel the exchange between Maurice07 and Yerevanci emphasizes the issue. The former said No logical reason. This is not at all clear. In August, how many coup has occurred in the world?, to which the latter replied, None of them is refereed to as "August Coup". Exactly. IIO, and the IP that agreed with him, didn't explain what part of WP:CRITERIA is violated by the name "August Coup" and Maurice07 argued that the title shouldn't be called August Coup because someone looking for that title, as a proper noun, might be looking for one of the other coups in August. I feel there is insufficient information to give their points equal weight. The requestor at least provided some evidence to suggest that the name August Coup is the common name for the revolution. That some editors, who may not have heard of the revolution, feel the proposed title isn't good enough because it doesn't give enough information about what the subject is, even though it's called that and even though ample detail is provided in the body, seems to run counter to article naming guidelines. It sounds equivalent to seeing the name Arab Spring and saying that springtime comes every year in the Arab world, so you need the word revolution to clarify. It just doesn't make sense. At least give them time to elaborate, if the can. -- tariqabjotu 21:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll undo my closure, but I see this kind of disagreement often in move discussions. One school of thought is that the name should be as terse as possible, while the other school wants the name to be informative. The disadvantage of using a catchphrase as a name is that people who don't know the catchphrase won't get there. The evidence given in the discussion shows only that, if a catchphrase is going to be used, this one is the best. And I have to admit that I didn't recognize 'August coup' myself. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I posted this on the article talk page, but the comparison between Google Books search results is fundamentally flawed. "August Coup" is a proper noun. When searching, you should use quotes around the term. "1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt" is a descriptive name. When searching, it shouldn't be put in quotes. I don't know what the best name is for the article, but the methodology in the original request is flawed. You cannot compare search results using quotes around a proper noun with search results using quotes around a descriptive name. I'm not sure what a fair methodology would be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Restriction appeal

A bit more than a year ago I agreed to certain editing restrictions with the possibility of the restrictions being lifted by appeal after a year. To whom should I make such an appeal?--John Foxe (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You could post at WP:AN asking for one or both of your restrictions to be lifted. In your appeal, it helps if you will link to the original edit-warring complaint, which is at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive192#User:John Foxe reported by User:ARTEST4ECHO (Result: Restriction). The two restrictions were agreed to as conditions for your unblock. I do not know if you have participated on talk pages regarding Mormonism during the past year, but if so, you could give some examples to show that your editing has not been a problem. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done that.--John Foxe (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So, what happens on that board? Do administrators eventually get around to closing all those discussions and making decisions even after the pages have been archived?--John Foxe (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Try posting again at WP:AN with a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive252#Restriction appeal. Ask for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion and state the result. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your assistance.--John Foxe (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Seamus Heaney

I think you better watch the page and surely the 1RR from Troubles applies here, there are editors who have broken it it more than twice already in the last few hours, the Co. Londonderry-Derry crap was inserted in the lede, but an IP removed (good idea IMO it prevents unneccessary warring). I think it needs full protection and some blocks to be handed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiulMoGra (talk • contribs) 03:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added this page to my watchlist. It seems that User:Drmies is already working there. When someone has recently died you expect a lot of activity, and sometimes you get some good contributions. Full protection would prevent that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha, but this user is about to go to bed. Thanks for the namedrop; please do keep an eye on it. Yes, I learned tonight about WP:LDERRY. I'll have a quick look but then I'm off--thanks Ed, and good luck with it. Earth, receive an honoured guest... Drmies (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked SiulMoGra for being what appears to be another sock (now counting 18 from Gruesome Foursome since July). There is no reason for users to be evading scrutiny in an area under such a high level probation as WP:TROUBLES--Cailil ^talk 11:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Epiphone

I don't think he can simply be unblocked, since the username is a breach of our policies on using corporate titles as usernames anyway. I would support allowing him to create a new account with an acceptable name, although he hasn't requested a new name yet as far as I can see. He appears to have learned from his experience, so we will have to see how it goes. I'm away for the weekend, starting in about an hour, so I'm happy for you to do what you think is best Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Paris area template dispute

Yes, I lost it yesterday, and it's rare that I ever 'get personal', but I felt (then) that I had to say something about that day's behavior, and as I'm sure you understand, the dispute goes beyond the template. Part of the ire came out of the fatigue of repetition - have a look at the Paris article's talk page. Actually that last reference is where a lot of the frustration came from: I shouldn't ~have~ to give you lengthy explanations about the whys or 'who did's or whats of who's right in the subject we're dealing with, but when one involves new contributors in the dispute (namely admins) who can't tell which one of us is right or not (and they don't even have to even care)… aaaargh. You were right to criticize my message, I regret that now that the anger has passed.

I also answered you on my talk page, so if you have a reply, leave it where you like and we'll continue the conversation there. THEPROMENADER 05:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion hasn't gotten any attention at all; I've also noticed that, in the past, Administrators in general have tended to avoid all Paris-based disputes like the plague. Is there some reason for this? THEPROMENADER 07:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You could try to get an admin to close the debate about images at Talk:Paris. The only problem would be that the discussion is not well-focused on a small number of questions. If you set up a proper WP:Request for comment it would be easier for an admin to close. Since User:Dr. Blofeld is very experienced and he is already active on the page you might see if he has any suggestions for how to close the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get in touch with him. True that a few (the fellow suggested included) have taken advantage of the 'meatpuppeting' to complain about other things - they do perhaps have cause to complain, but complaining there just complicated the issue for sure. I'm way to 'wordy' for closure (I tend to call out 'distraction' arguments (when patently false) that should better be ignored), so perhaps it would be better if someone else less prone to prolonging 'read fatigue' took care of it. User:Jeppiz is quite good at that as well. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 15:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:L'Origine du monde

Hi! I clearly stated on my talk page that i had emailed the appeals committee on august 23rd. If you look at my latest appeal you will see this written. The arbcom email means the same thing. I would be most grateful if you would lift your block on my account.5.28.101.157 (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom will decide whether your block should be lifted. It's not up to me. Requesting to be unblocked on a technicality when your new account is essentially thumbing its nose at the block reviewers isn't persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Why did you block the page??

We stopped edit-warring, just as you said ... You said you would block the page if we kept edit warring, we stopped edit warring. What gives?? You can't just change you're mind without telling us ... --TIAYN (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any agreement by either of you to wait for consensus before making further changes. I can't even tell if either of is making a concession to the other; you seem to scold each other in every post. You have mentioned the FL standards in your WP:AN3 complaint. If you know something about the FL process, maybe you can respond to my suggestion of getting a regular FL reviewer to look at the current dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, that's true, but we've promised to stop edit warring. Isn't that something? --TIAYN (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We've made a compromise. Please unblock, see mine and his talk page. --TIAYN (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Let it be clear: We've made a 'compromise' just about an issue inside his version. I never said that I accept his version as a whole, and I wouldn't do that for sure. As far as I'm concerned, version which stand until today was perfectly fine, and I'll eventually reinstate it, without any doubt. --Sundostund (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to hear both of you agree to a deal of some kind before undoing the protection. If you are both agreeable to having a third opinion, say so, and indicate how you'll try to arrange that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. Apparently, TIAYN and myself managed to reach a compromise (you can see our conversation on mine and his talk page) - neither mine or his version of the article will stay, we agreed to remodel three lists of Syrian officeholders (Presidents, Prime Ministers and Speakers) to look like List of Presidents of Pakistan and List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan. Pakistani version is fully acceptable to me, TIAYN said the same (by the way, both Pakistani lists are accepted as FL). Also, TIAYN said he plans to start working on Syrian lists today, and having in mind our apparent compromise, I think you should undo the protection. But, before you do that, ask TIAYN to confirm our compromise (I definitely don't want any more disputes, misunderstandings etc with this issue in the future). Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The right word is tomorrow, but yes, we have a deal. --TIAYN (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've lifted the protection on List of Presidents of Syria. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheila Carter Article

Hello! I'm having a dispute with a user named Beaconboof ( https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Beaconboof&action=edit&redlink=1 ). I've sent them a message. I've also started a discussion on the 'Talk' page of the Sheila Carter article but they've ignored it all. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Sheila_Carter Before submitting a report for edit-warring, is there anything else I could/should do? Thx! Israell (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sheila Carter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I read what you had to say at Talk:Sheila Carter. What do the two of you disagree about? Can you give an example of a change by Beaconboof that you think is incorrect? In general, the article could use more references. Often a dispute can be solved by quoting what one of the sources says. If you ask admins to look at this they may be puzzled. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thx for replying. It's an article regarding a fictional character named Sheila Carter. The problem is Beaconboof, at some point, filled the latter part of the article with viewers speculation, questioning and fans wishes without discussing it at all. I do not always monitor that article, that's why I only very recently found out. All I want is the article to be unbiased, objective and simply resume storylines the way they've played out onscreen.

- 1. What happened is the character of Sheila Carter (The Young & the Restless), a very well know villain, tricked her friend and accomplice Sugar into having plastic surgery to look just like her. Sheila then arranged for Sugar to be committed to some mental institution so everyone would think Sheila was put away and was not a threat. Sugar ended up leaving that facility, then stabbed Scotty 'cause she knew that would hurt Sheila a lot. Sugar got arrested and Lauren Fenmore Baldwin, Sheila's nemesis, realized Sugar was not Sheila 'cause the latter could not walk well at the time.

- 2. In the following scene, the real Sheila was seen at a plastic surgeon's asking him to make her look like a person on a photograph she handed him. Several months later, she came back looking exactly like Phyllis Newman. Actress Michelle Stafford confirmed several times the character she portrayed was Sheila Carter, so did former executive producer and head writer Lynn Marie Latham. Sheila as Phyllis kept acting like the old Sheila and also remembered stuff only the old Sheila and a few others did (taking pictures of Lauren & Brad). Lauren ended up shooting Sheila in self-defense. An autopsy showed it's truly Sheila that got shot.

- 3. Years later, Sheila's never-before heard of sister, Sarah Smythe, showed up in town looking exactly like Lauren Fenmore after cosmetic surgery. Sarah confirmed several times her sister Sheila truly did have surgery to look like Phyllis. Sarah said Phyllis made her think of Sheila. Sarah showed Lauren a picture of herself and Sheila before their surgeries. Sarah also held both Lauren & Phyllis responsible for Sheila's death. As a matter of fact, Sarah tried to kill Phyllis twice but Lauren shot her in self-defense before she could kill Phyllis. Actress Tracey E. Bregman confirmed in an interview Sarah is indeed Sheila Carter's sister.

This is what played out onscreen and was confirmed by actors, execs and writers. The problem is storylines 2 & 3 weren't well received and accepted by some viewers and fans of the Sheila character. Some of them refuse to believe it's Sheila that was made to look like Phyllis and that Sarah was ever her sister. Some of them also refuse to believe Daisy & Ryder are truly Sheila's children with Tom Fisher. Beconboof is one of them and even replaced Sheila's name by the name Pheila in the latter part of the article. The name of the character is Sheila, not Pheila. This is when Becaonboof started making such changes: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Sheila_Carter&diff=499017451&oldid=499017269

I have found a solution. Since Beaconboof is not responding, I'm going to re-edit the article, once again, so it simply shows the facts as played out onscreen. I'm then gonna add in a new section called 'Critical Reception' in which I'm going to address all of the viewers & fans' concerns (Sheila as Phyllis and Sarah as possible imposters etc.)

If Beaconboof reverts all my edits once more, I'll have no choice but alert admins. Which admins could I alert? Thx again for your assistance! Israell (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The entire section at Sheila Carter#Storylines has no references at all. This is more than half the article. If you intend to make changes but you can't satisfy WP:V you risk having others remove your material. If you and User:Beaconboof can't come to an agreement you need to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, Beaconboof has recently edited the Daisy Carter article and kept implying Daisy is not truly Sheila Carter's daughter. I've just reverted their edits. That's exactly the issue I'm having with that editor; just because they do not like or accept a storyline, they keep editing articles in a biased manner. I have just added a 'Critical Reception' section to the Sheila Carter article that addresses all the issues some viewers & fans have with those storylines. I'm trying to be fair and impartial.

As for references, I did not write most of the 'Storylines' section. I've only made minor changes to the '2005-2007' part and added in the '2009-2012' section as well as the 'Critical Reception' segment. I have now added 1 reference: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/daisy.php . I wanted to add in this link ( http://soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/sheila.php ) but it's already being used earlier in the article.

Now, see this... https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kevin_Fisher#Storylines https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gloria_Abbott_Bardwell#Storylines https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Michael_Baldwin#Storylines https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jill_Abbott_Fenmore#Storylines https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lauren_Fenmore#Storylines

I did not write any of the 5 articles above, and none of them use any reference in their 'Storylines' section at all! Soap opera articles on Wikipedia very often lack references in their 'Storylines' sections 'cause it's just viewers that watch the show then type in what they saw. Israell (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Promenader's accusation against me

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Der Statistiker , I've explained myself there, and I had previously also explained myself here: Template_talk:Paris_Metropolitan_Area. It's a very annoying en.wikipedia functionality that I would be glad to see changed. It exists only in en.wikipedia. For example, when I make an edit in en.wikipedia, if I next go to say, es.wikipedia, to check some articles there, or make some edits there, I won't be logged in as "Der Statistiker" in es.wikipedia. I will appear as unlogged, and will have to log in if I have a user account there. The other way around, however, en.wikipedia automatically logs you in under the account name of the last wikipedia that you either checked or edited. It would be nice if there was at least a window telling you "you're logged in as ..., do you wish to save your edit?", or something like that.

Also, since The Promenader has increasingly made some direct or indirect accusations against me recently (on the admin's noticeboard in particular, but also in several talk pages), is there a way you or someone else could ask him to stop his uncivil behavior? As far as I know, I have never accused him of any misconduct on the admins's noticeboard, the indicents' noticeboard, or even in talk pages, so it would be nice if it was reciprocated. We may disagree on editorial content, but that's no reason to wage ad hominem wars against someone. I'm frankly sick and tired of seeing him making accusations of sock-puppetry whenever someone appears in those talk pages and leave comments that broadly agree with me and disagree with The Promenader. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(why did I have to see this) The disingenuousity of the above is astounding. What accusations? I comment on contributions and behavior, rarely mentioning contributors themselves. I've been chastised by you (EdJohnston) on the few occasions that I've 'lost it' (usually after an episode of patent knee-jerk reverts to my 'just made' edits after days of the reverter's absence/ignoring talk-page discussion), and rightly so, and I've even apologised to you afterwards, dear Statistiker. One has only to look at the Paris talk page and the Paris article history to see who's really been canvassing complaints/like-minded opinions, being uncivil or knee-jerk revert-warring other contributors' edits. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide

• Landmark Worldwide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I'm coming to you because I know you're pretty active at ANEW and I'm looking for an opinion regarding Landmark Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article has recently seen a (comparative) flurry of activity, and I put my gardening shoes on to wade in and clean up. Unfortunately, what I thought was a pretty straightforward job brought out SPAs, started a (possible) edit war, and has spread to a couple related pages. Now, the weeds are winning and I could really use another set of eyes on this. Specifically, I'm asking for your unofficial read on whether or not an EW exists; and possibly for a new perspective to comment or warn as needed. Some of the editors are also using the talk page, but my early attempts to warn editors regarding sources and warring were ineffective and the changes to the article are getting more aggressive rather than less.

Thanks for considering it, and thanks for your great work at ANEW. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Among the recent editors I notice that User:Baliset is reverting a lot and is not very experienced (less than 200 edits). If he keeps going a {{uw-3rr}} notice may be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I previously gave Baliset a mild warning, but if there's further reverts then I'll go official. Thanks again, have a great one! --Tgeairn (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I don't know if you are aware or not but you are mentioned at AN in the section "Administrator Nick-D, editor EyeTruth, former editor Blablaaa and the battle over the Battle of Kursk page". Caden ^cool 09:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For continued diligent mop work at WP:RM and elsewhere. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde has another registered account?

See here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• L'Origine du monde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 93.96.148.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DavidMCEddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You also left messages for User:Elockid and User:Reaper Eternal, which makes sense since they are both checkusers and each of them has acted on or commented on the case of User talk:L'Origine du monde. I don't believe that DavidMCEddy is a sock of L'Origine. The interests of DavidMCEddy seem to have little in common with L'Origine or the IP. L'Origine was interested in art history and sex. DavidMCEddy on the other hand has uploaded a photo of the statistician George E. P. Box. See also DavidMCEddy's user page where he explains his desire to document crony capitalism. The mistake of signing edit summaries with four tildes has been made before. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as you've likely seen, I also commented further on the four tildes aspect. I'll leave it at that. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of your Administrator powers

You don't understand what you are allowed to do, or how the blocking process works. Despite this, you rejected my appeal, blocked me from editing my talk page, and blocked my subsequent appeal. Furthermore, you refused to unblock me even when it was clear that the block was without merit. Please read my talk page carefully, and apologise sincerely for all your mistakes. Then I will not pursue further complaints. If you are genuinely unable to understand what you have done wrong, I can explain it here. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As you know I disabled your talk page on 2 September for the reasons explained in that talk post. Stating that your block is 'without merit' puts a very charitable spin on some unusual behavior. You might have been better off discussing the technical details of the IP block rather than starting a crusade to allow a NSFW image on your own user page, right in the middle of your block review. (The NSFW image is no longer visible since another admin deleted your user page). Such images are often accepted in article space but having them in user space is sometimes associated with vandals. Provocative images in user space are mentioned at Wikipedia:UP#Non-free_images. A discussion of the image is now taking place at at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Remove File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg from the Bad image list. The checkuser User:Elockid, who originally blocked you for evasion of an IP block, has now concluded that you are a different person and has lifted the block on your named account. You will now have the chance to convince the community that you are a good-faith editor. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was blocked for evading that block. No other valid reason was given. When you intensified the block, that was the reason you gave, although in other areas you called it a "technicality". I was blocked by User:Reaper Eternal, who also deleted my user page, not User:Elockid (he blocked an IP I had previously used). User:Reaper Eternal refused to unblock me, as did you, so I had to ask User:Elockid to unblock me. User:Reaper Eternal also deleted my userpage. From what you write, it seems as though you have very little understanding of what you were doing when you first rejected my appeal, and then stopped me editing my talk page. Please can you provide me with examples of vandals calling RFCs over images. If this is common behaviour i apologise, if not, perhaps you would. From what you wrote on my page, and what you write above, it seems to me that you banned me because you have a content dispute with me over female nudity in userspace, and refused to unblock me when it was clear there was no valid reason for the block because of this content dispute. As you should be aware - it is clearly stated on my page - this is a conflict of interest, and you should not have banned me under these circumstances.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 21:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears that continuing discussion of the image you want to have on your user page is now taking place at User talk:L'Origine du monde#Warning. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of your Administrator powers

I agree with the above, stop taking sides or I will send a formal complaint direct to Wikipedia, stop abusing your power — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonstarturk (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope of topic ban

Ed, there's been some confusion in the past about the scope of an ARBPIA sanctions (and battleground editors have used this confusion to wikilawyer for additional bans), so I just want to clarify it ahead of time so I don't make any mistakes. By my understanding of WP:ARBPIA, a topic ban applies to "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it does not prevent the TBAN'd editor from editing in articles which simply mention Israel or Palestine in passing (outside of the context of the conflict), for generic biographical details, etc. I really have no desire to edit conflict-related articles at this time and I'm not attempting to skirt any lines, or game the ban, I just don't want to inadvertently find myself back at AE. Thanks in advance. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion an ARBPIA topic ban only covers editing related to the I/P conflict unless whoever imposed the ban has modified the language. In this case it is a standard topic ban as decribed in WP:TBAN. So a banned editor could still add text to Tel Aviv if the edit does not change anything related to the conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Enrolled in Molecular Biology course?

Are you really a student of Education_Program:Johns_Hopkins_University/Molecular_Biology,_Section_81_(FA13), or did you enroll to test out functionality or some similar reason? If you're not a student, could you un-enroll yourself? Thanks! Klortho (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. I must have clicked the wrong button. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

I see that LoveMonkey has been indefinitely barred. There is no longer any point in listing his editing restriction. I wonder if my mirror editing restriction can or even should be removed together with it. The change would take effect only after I have served whatever sentence is passed on me. I would also undertake not to touch for, say, at least three months that "heaven and hell" section that the quarrel was about: I think it would be inappropriate for me to edit it in any way so soon after LoveMonkey's departure. Esoglou (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There's been a discussion at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing behavior of User:Esoglou. It's possible that User:LoveMonkey's block will be temporary. Better wait and see if he will file an unblock request. The EO/Catholic bans may not have been clearly understood by the other editors at ANI, since these matters are esoteric. You are perhaps not the best person to decide whether some EO theologians are anti-Catholic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have doubtless suggested that a certain Wikipedia editor was anti-Catholic, and it is clear that I was not the only person to judge so, but I don't think I have been judging EO theologians anti-Catholic. I have only indicated that certain statements cherry-picked by the editor called for balancing statements of what is really Catholic teaching on those matters. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

ThePromenader's harassment

I'm frankly sick and tired of User:ThePromenader's harassment. I hadn't made any comment in the Paris aire urbaine talk page these past days because I thought all that I could possibly say was already said, and ThePromenader was monopolizing that talk page by repeatedly posting reams of the same comments day after day. Then last night, in answer to a comment posted by one editor, I left one comment: here. Guess what, only 7 hours later, ThePromenader made some new accusations against me at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Der Statistiker. Note that he hadn't made any comment in that investigation since September 7, and suddenly, what a coincidence, he made some new accusations only 7 hours after I dared to interrupt his monologue in the Paris aire urbaine talk page. Isn't that some form of harassment? At any rate it's the most uncivil behavior I've been confronted to on Wikipedia. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

ThePromenader has deleted large swaths of the Paris Metropolitan Area article without consulting with anyone: [2]. It's very hard to contribute to the Paris-related articles if this guy engages in such behavior without even opening discussions on the talk pages before making such drastic edits. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's my reply to the same complaint campaign left elsewhere. This is 'flashback city' for me - sorry you were dragged into this. THEPROMENADER 21:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:GAMING

Is it considered gaming the system if User:Sopher99 makes a second revert 45 minutes after the 1RR deadline?

• 15:08 21 Sep
• 15:54 22 Sep

He twice removed mention of sectarianism. The main reason i'm concerned is because i thought we reached a compromise here agreeing to show both "shia" and "sunni". However, he made the revert anyway despite the compromise. Pass a Method talk 16:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The second edit you listed is not a revert. He is just adding a hidden comment. It is not clear why these edits violate the compromise anyway. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment. I'm finding this discussion hard to follow, and an RfC would require that someone articulate the point in dispute clearly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me point out the elephant in the room though. Pass a Method just broke the 1 revert rule.

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox&action=history

Revert 1 at 10:31

Revert 2 at 17:17

Sopher99 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what to do

User:ThePromenader's behavior is getting out of hand at Paris Metropolitan Area, as I feared, and no admin is intervening despite the fact that I have contacted you and another admin. Now he insists on placing a "verify source" tag next to a reference I've added after he complained that there were no references, and he's placing that "verify source" tag despite the fact that the reference comes from a statistical publication of the national statistical office of France, INSEE. See his edit here: [3]. What can be done if even a source coming from the national statistical office of France itself won't do for him? It seems he's determined to challenge just about every sentence or figure I add in Wikipedia. Is there a place on Wikipedia where I could report this? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

More disingenuousity. He's reverted to material that has no sources at all (still without providing sources), is attempting to pass a single demonstrative study by a single authour as 'data', and is reverting even the 'verify source' tags without discussing the issue. If you would like to have a discussion about me, come directly to my talk page. That goes for you too, User:Der Statistiker, and everyone else you've complained to. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I am about to request arbitration

Within the next 5 minutes, I will request an arbitration appeal.198.189.184.243 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a diff of the appeal: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=574391030&oldid=574333955 - here is the appeal itself: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_.7B.7B.7B198.189.184.243.7D.7D.7D198.189.184.243 (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

POV push

this is the last point I will make regarding this.

I was not trying to "POV push". I was trying to get the article to accurately reflect the content of the 2 reviews. I do not see how your decision is justified, since the argument I was making referred to arguments put forth in mainstream journals, and thus applying WP:ARBPS is overkill. It also violates WP:RGW, which states that for "alternative views", "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first." Since this has happened, other Wikipedia rules are being violated by the imposition of these sanctions.198.189.184.243 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Search

Re your edit - any objection to leaving the old - and keeping the new box you added? I'd like to leave both options available. Motivation: I recall that on too many DR pages, search was difficult, and multiple options could help. (Perhaps it's been getting better thanks to you. :-)) --Elvey (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The old search 'button' was nearly invisible. Not sure why restoring it to WP:AN3 would be an improvement. The new search/archive box is enormous by comparison. I believe that the underlying *search* feature is the same one. The old 'archive' button was strange because it presented the files in an apparently random order. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it.

P.S. Have you decided not to return to my talk page to follow up on the discussion you started there? I just significantly updated my reply to you there, in light of changes to policy.--Elvey (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In a response above, I made a suggestion that you revise your own comment at Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government to lay the basis for a higher-quality discussion. I'm still hoping you will consider my suggestion. Why should I expend my limited time to find common ground between two disputants who are so nasty to each other? You can't improve TJRC's behavior but you can control what you say from now on. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Article Jeet Gannguli

The User User:Titodutta is Reverting my correct changes which are from a valid source first the name and second is the image you can check the differences. And the user is also talking about my nature, if the words are not taken back i will have to take some strict action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 September 2013‎ (UTC)

• What strict action? Tito☸Dutta 18:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not report that copyright thingy. I reported edit warring. Secondly, in last 24 hours, their 3 images in Commons have been deleted and they are shouting and claiming to give them "proof". --Tito☸Dutta 18:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Mitrabarun has been blocked for 48 hours per my closure at WP:AN3 and the article is now move-protected. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please review block

EdJohnston, I am on vacation in Cambodia, so, yes I am able to make edits. This does not change the fact that when at home, I am regularly unable to make edits. Please reconsider the unblock.Sthubbar (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If it were totally up to me, I might give out WP:IPBE more widely. But my impression is that checkusers prefer to see genuine hardship that can be documented in some way. Your last couple of unblock requests emphasized your disagreement with the policy -- that's not going to be persuasive. If you want to you can file a new request with (hopefully) better arguments and it will be reviewed by a different admin. In my view your best option is to contact User:Elockid privately and see if you can change his mind. Perhaps you can share some details of your situation that would give him confidence that you are really in China. The fact that you want to edit from a webhost in Provo, Utah doesn't tell us very much about your actual location or your need for IPBE. In the past I've sometimes argued for VPN users to be allowed to have IPBE when we knew exactly what service they were using and it was evident that the service only accepted logged-in subscribers. In that case it helps if the VPN has an abuse policy and has a staff that can be contacted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, nobody seems to understand the Catch-22 that I appear to be in. All of the admins see to have no problem allowing the unblock for me as long as I can prove I am in China. Not a single admin, including yourself, has given a single way for me to prove this fact.Sthubbar (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC Meetup! Saturday October 5

Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. --Pharos (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page has been disabled. Make any further appeals by email

Hi! sorry to bother you, but I get this text editing my talk page. I am happy to have my talk page protected against vandalism, but I would like to see a friendlier message, If that is possible.

02:15, 3 September 2013 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) protected User talk:L'Origine du monde‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC))‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)) (Talk page has been disabled. Make any further appeals by email) (hist)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs)

Since you are no longer blocked, you should feel free to remove any of these messages relating to the block. Another option is to archive them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Block of Lollywoodcafe, back at it

• Lollywoodcafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello! You recently blocked User:SmsarmadUser:Lollywoodcafe, for 31h as a result of this AN3 report. The editor returned from block with the exact same edit again. Extend? Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess you wanted to say Lollywoodcafe (talk · contribs). :) --SMS ^Talk 03:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@Smsarmad: Yep, sorry about that! Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lollywoodcafe has since been blocked for a week by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

A user has been warned in 2009 about AA2 enforcement under AE. He has been placed under supervision in 2010 here. Is the warning still valid for a topic ban today? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Once an AA2 warning is issued it should be valid forever. You could still remind User:Interfase of the discretionary sanctions and provide them a link to the arbitration case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard Q

Hi, Ed.

Commenting on the note you left on my talk page: Elvey reported me for edit warring, but I was not doing any Wikipedia work over the weekend (family time) and did not follow up, and its been bot-archived after 48 hours; it's now in the archives here . I think it's worth responding to, but I don't know the protocol for that. Can you advise? TJRC (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This is about an archived 3RR report. It seems that you, User:Elvey and User:Prosfilaes all have some knowledge of this topic. Generally you and Prosfilaes are in agreement but Elvey is on the other side. I suggest following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Even if you don't have the patience to open up a formal WP:RFC, you could at least state your preference on the talk page and ask others to comment. When an outsider like myself looks at the page, it is unclear what the dispute is about. This could make it more difficult to recruit people new to the problem to offer their opinion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I regret getting involved at all and probably would have left it alone altogether had Elvey not repeatedly posted to my talk page complaining about my (single) edit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I'm about to leave for vacation in a few days, and don't think we'd get any resolution before leaving, so I'll open something there when I get back. There's not a lot of point in editing the article in the meantime, so I am with some reluctance leaving Elvey's version there (I just self-reverted), and will keep away from this article for the next couple of weeks. TJRC (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ed,

(I replied to your recent comment on my talk page; please reply.) Above, you said "When an outsider like myself looks at the page, it is unclear what the dispute is about." I think there's now a clearer | summary of the overall dispute here but I'd like to know if you have any suggestions; it works for you? I could copy it over. FYI, TJRC has resorted to misquoting policy (unapologetically, as always) and so forth on his talk page. --Elvey (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and copied it over, with some tweaking. Does it make clear what the dispute is about, in your view? It's here. --Elvey (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Elvey. Normally I'd suggest taking this to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. However the tone that each of you uses toward the other is so unpleasant that you would probably exhaust the patience of the DRN volunteers before they even got started. Also the dispute presents a mix of content and conduct issues which will interfere with settling it. I'd recommend that you look within yourself to see if there is an untapped reserve of diplomacy that you could call upon, and then try to open a formal WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. If you post any criticism of the other editor on article talk it will probably scare off anybody who is tempted to help. Even User:Prosfilaes might consider coming back if you could tone down the rhetoric for a few days. As a first step, I recommend that you remove the material you posted under 'Further Dispute Resolution' and try to replace it with a revised version that only talks about content issues, very calmly, and doesn't accuse anyone else of misbehavior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above and on Elvey's talk page, I'm heading out for vacation, and not back for about 10 days. I'd request that any RFC be held off until then. This shouldn't have any unfair impact: the last edit made before the page was protected was when I reversed my own edit to put Elvey's preferred text back in, so it's not like he has to put up with having my preferred text there in the meantime. TJRC (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

TJRC asked that I hold off on any RFC. I've respected that request.

Ed, Thanks for the point about tone regarding what I posted on article talk. I posted it after not hearing from you for a couple days. In the past (e.g. many weeks ago) I tried to pay it forward and help with a few WP:Dispute resolution cases, but more often than not I either can't grok the gist of the dispute, having read the case, or run out of patience while still reading it. A good learning experience, but apparently it hasn't been enough. 'Further Dispute Resolution' is gone. User:Elvey/sandbox-content is a start at a revised version that follows the suggestions I've received.

I'd asked you about the | summary of the overall dispute here on AN/EW, but you only responded regarding a posting to the talk page that I hadn't asked about. I see why you mentioned the talk page, but I don't understand whether "what the dispute is about" means something different in the context of AN/EW, which is where I posted and asked for feedback. When posting on AN/EW, I recall one is supposed to talk about conduct, rather than content. I don't know if you looked at what I posted on AN/EW, or if it makes clear what the dispute is about, in your view. Does User:Elvey/sandbox-content?

Again, I'd appreciate it if you replied to the comment to you on my talk page. After all, WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative… …and to be responsive to good-faith questions." And that's exactly what I'm asking there - good faith questions. If I didn't think getting a reply was important, I wouldn't be reminding you about it - especially after I updated it (diff). --Elvey (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I won't be available to work on this topic any more. Feel free to ask for assistance elsewhere. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have some questions

Hi, i saw what you wrote in my talk page and i have some questions, kind of simple ones:

• 1- In the case that i found new sources on the topic can i contact you and ask your opinion directly?

• 2- Will there be any sanction for the user Andythegrump for opening a case at ANI acusing me of something that i wasn't doing? Regardless of the fact that the comunity seems to hate me, he opened the case saying that i was doing things that i wasn't.

regards. Czixhc (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You should avoid the topic of Jonathan Hagos's map entirely for the foreseeable future. I am not going to review your futher content proposals. The community doesn't hate you, but you seemed oblivious to the feedback you were getting. An indefinite block would also have been a justifiable result for the ANI discussion. If you want to continue to edit Wikipedia, you should try to find other topics where you can contribute. There will be no sanctions of other editors as a result of the ANI. Closures at ANI are usually more difficult than this one. It was really you against the world, and you didn't seem to be aware. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, regarding that I'll see you on 6 months, though i'd like to know if there is a way of shortening the lenght of the ban due good behavoir, by making maintenance works on wiki or something, i'm not a bad person. I knew that it was me vs the world, that's why i said multiple times that i didn't cared about it anymore, but the people commenting still said that i was insisting on pushing the original topic anyway. It's confusing really, but in the end doesn't makes much diference. Czixhc (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like there is no way to shorten the term, well, i'll try on 6 months. Czixhc (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A proposal regarding articles tagged under the WP:ARBPIA decision

I have written here a proposal to enforce complying with WP:PRESERVE and WP:CANTFIX in the articles tagged under the WP:ARBPIA decision.

As there is no reply after about a week, have I inserted my proposal in a wrong page?

BTW in order to come with clean hands, I was warned and took it seriously. Ykantor (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be changing the Workshop page of an arbitration case that was closed in 2008. I recommend that you undo your change immediately. If you believe that another editor is repeatedly or seriously fail[ing] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia.." in an area covered by the WP:ARBPIA decision, you can open a request for enforcement at WP:AE. See the instructions at the top of that noticeboard. But your incorrectly-posted material doesn't seem well organized and I would beware the WP:BOOMERANG. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have undone the Workshop page

I am not looking for a punitive action. I propose to enforce the WP:PRESERVE and WP:CANTFIX in the articles tagged under the WP:ARBPIA decision. If editors will adhere to those rules , a lot of trouble will be avoided. When people know what should really be avoided, they will adapt themselves to the rules. Is there a page in which it can be proposed? Ykantor (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To get Wikipedia policy changed, you need a lot of discussion. It looks to me that you are having simple content disputes in some ARBPIA articles. You are unhappy that others disagree with you, and you may believe that some of these editors are behaving badly. It seems unlikely that WP:PRESERVE and WP:CANTFIX will solve what is displeasing you. Consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• In my limited experience WP:Dispute resolution is useless. (sorry for the harsh words).e.g. This is my experience during the last months:

1. DRN expired with no solution. The other side changed his mind and left the discussion.
2. DRN expired with no solution. The other sites respond was not what he was asked for by the volunteer.

I intervene in Ykantor's text aware it is not welcome because this is a perfect illustration of the way he proceeds. In fact, the volunteer has not edited for 10 days; and in fact, I have answered very precisely to what he has asked but I have just provided a link to the talk page where I had provided more than 1 month before to Ykantor what the volunteer expects in a normal process of content disputed resolution... Pluto2012 (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

1. DRN expired with no solution. No volunteer.
2. "Requests for mediation/Kfar Etzion massacre" have not started The other side declined.
3. DRN expired with no solution Futile, no participation by one editor; has been refiled at WP:3O
4. "1948 Arab–Israeli War" DRN expired with no solution. The volunteer could not continue

• I am probably wrong sometimes, but as my edits are deleted because of bizarre reasons (e.g. bad grammer, because I am required to prove what the Arab people thought as opposed to what their governments said), I do not think that I am the problem.
• Within the Arab- Israel conflict articles, I have an automatic concensus against me, since I am the only regular Israeli editor. I assume that other editors stopped writing in those articles since they experienced the same type of problems. I heard in the Hebrew wikipedia that the English Wikipedia is a lost case.
• Personally I believe that enforcement is better that punishment. When editors knows that even a petit offense (e.g. WP:CANTFIX) will be followed by a warning (only), they will not extend it to more serios behavior, which might need a DRN volunteer lot of attention. BTW If some rules are not enforced, would not it better to get rid of those rules?
• yours:"To get Wikipedia policy changed, you need a lot of discussion". I propose an rules enforcement and not a policy change. Even if it takes a lot of discussion, it will be finished some day. Ykantor (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no automatic consensus against you, and it is not a POV-pushing opposition. Take me, if you wish, to be a 'pro-Pal POV-pushing' jihadi lout of the filthiest water if you like, but Pluto 2012 is basically (revisionist) Zionist, while Zero is 'notoriously' neutral but a stickler for exact sourcing. We happen to agree on most of these disputes, I hazard to guess, because we are obsessive about verifiably content, and hunting down good sources, rather than discovering some 'truth' (which you claim is what you aspire to write). As to my neutrality, at Six Days War I tried to challenge you for editing in a statement about Israel that I thought falsified the facts by an anachronism, in an edit that made Israel look particularly bad. I will also add that, while on very good terms with Pluto 2012, I did not automatically intervene in several disputes you had with him, because I reserved my judgement, unsure as to whether he or you were right. My impression was that, despite your declaration that the truth (on one side?) is your objective, you were a promising editor for the English wikipedia. In my view, many of these disputes arise from an incomprehension of wikipedia policy, which is not concerned with verifying the historical truth, but with assuring that readers get all relevant material of the highest quality before their purview. I privately believe it is not healthy that the major high quality RS here (on wars) comes from eminent (and very good) historians from one side of the conflict. But I have to accept that, and duly edit in material that I privately think skewed because it is impeccably sourced. To illustrate: when you raised a query about an assertion by Henry Laurens (that villagers thought Kfar Etzion responsible for the outbreak of hostilities in December 1947), just to be sure, I undercut or 'problematicized' his point by adding that David Tal noted an attack on Jewish convoys as early as December 10, 1947. A close reader would understand that my second source makes Laurens's statement wobbly, but that, since both are ranking historians, both have to be accepted. Further research will clarify the point - forum shopping will not. Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ps. sorry for the intrusion, Ed. But this is a communication problem, and perhaps some of the difficulties might be thrashed out before an administrator, rather than multiplying the complaints over numerous pages. If Ykantor wishes to register a complaint about me, perhaps he should, if you will bear with us, set it forth here (or at AE).Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• if the situation is so calm , why have you declined this "Requests for mediation/Kfar Etzion massacre" Requests for mediation ? Please change your mind and cooperate, and then the volunteer (if there will be a volunteer) will decide who is wrong and who is correct.
• yours:"If Ykantor wishes to register a complaint about me". Objection. It is much better to sort out content arguements rather than personal arguement.
• As is, I can not contribute anything in those articles, since a lot of my writing will be deleted (sometimes for a bizzare reason), and there is no functioning dispute resolution mechanism. Ykantor (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• (a) I declined for the reasons given. Look at your record. If you find some difficulties on the talk pages, you repeatedly raise the issue at a variety of forums- That's okay, but doing it for every other conflict is extremely time-consuming. I have a huge amount of wood to saw and stockpile, a journey to help relatives in a foreign country, requests to fix deeply flawed articles, and my own work and life to get on with. I simply haven't the time, after complying with one or two requests, to engage in 'dispute resolution' when I think the problem is your inability to WP:AGF and understand key policies like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. I think you wore out Pluto, so, yep, I'm imposing a limit on the time I have available to work here.
• (b) I am just one of several individuals on the relevant pages. It happens that nearly all concur on the key content issues you raise. Either (a) Zero, Pluto and I are engaged in a conspiracy to tagteam and block you or (b) you are consistently failing to understand the policy grounds all base their objections on. An independant review would make a call one way or another, but your habit by now is to take one, or another, of the editors on the page to some review forum, when in fact no one backs you. I assure you there is no tagteaming.
• (c) I have appreciated from the outset the scruple and drive that guides your editing. We need people, rather than reverting IPs and the usual motherlode of sockpuppets, who are actually prepared to wade through numerous quality sources to get a reasonable picture of the state of the art in historical research. You are clearly capable of this order of hard work. But the flaw in this is your repeated statement that you believe there is some 'truth' to be written into the article. No. There is only the need to (a) isolate the best relevant sources and (b) make sure all information added to articles is verifiable. I know, as a published scholar, how hard it is to adapt to this 'humiliation', but if we work here, we have to accept that the 'truth' wherever it lies, is not, often, within the purview of scholars, let alone humble tillers of their seeded soil like us peons. There are at least two perspectives here - 'truth' is, provisorily and operatively, the sum of the most informed perspectives laid before a third party, for them to make up their minds. That is as far as one can go on wikipedia. If you understand this, and understand that one must not make a 'case' but rather induct all relevant information from both perspectives, then you will not encounter the difficulties you speak of.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

With all those nice words, the Litmus test is the cooperation in the wp:drn or similar. Unfortunately you decline the wp:drn. Ykantor (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The litmus test is convincing more than one person, other than yourself, that you alone know how to edit wikipedia. I have 40 quince apples to peel for jam-making, which is a more productive task than dealing with a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm sorry, but you do not appear to understand goodwill, the rules, or the time-limits people have to engage with you on futile quibblings. Goodbye. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to be polite, but this suggests to me it is pointless, as I objected hereand here. If Ykantor really believes I do what he charged me as doing, then he should report me to AE. If not, he should strike that out. Back to the woodpile for me. Talking at this point is to no purpose. Sorry for the disturbance.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Diners Club International

Hi Ed. I was wondering if I could ask for your help again here. Pine suggested I use OTRS, but in the past they've advised me that OTRS is "not a clearinghouse" for bad information ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 02:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Diners Club International. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:MRV Closing script

FYI

I have created a closing script for move reviews, which can found at User:Armbrust/closemrv.js. If you want to use it, than simply add

importScript('User:Armbrust/closemrv.js');

to your vector JS page and bypass your cache. (Not tested on monobook or modern either.) Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You received this message because you closed at least one MRV discussion in the last six months.

WP:ANEW

Hello EdJohnston, now that you blocked the user for edit warring, can you revert Acid Rap back to the correct reversion before the disruption, and delete Acid Rap (mixtape) for being a redundant copy of the page (also a copy-paste move). I would revert it back myself, but I would prefer not violating 3rr. STATic message me! 04:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't like to revert articles myself after an edit war unless it's a BLP issue or vandalism. Why don't you propose this revert on the article talk page. If there is no response from other editors in a reasonable time, you could go ahead and make the change. The Acid Rap (mixtape) article is already tagged with WP:CSD#A10 and maybe another admin will delete it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I could understand that, I was under the impression that the entire content of an article can not be copy-paste moved to another article in any case, and the entire topic of the article can not be changed without discussion. It is not really a content dispute, it is just general housekeeping as the other article might not be speedyed now since Acid Rap no longer matches it, I assume someone that does not know the situation is going to stumble upon it and assume the criteria does not apply. Not to mention now the edit histories of both articles are now messed up. I mean if someone blanked Detail, and replaced the content with the content from Detail (musician), you would expect that to be reverted. STATic message me! 05:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like another admin has now taken care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved article

Hi Ed. I was having trouble moving the article. It should be back to normal now. If not, please provide some assistance over here. Thanks Ben0kto (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Another admin has already deleted Acid Rap (album) which is what I guessed might happen. If you have a plan for how these articles should be organized consider making a proposal at Talk:Esham or some other convenient place. Please try to avoid making further mistakes about article moves. If you just wait a few hours somebody will usually help out. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, you might need to step in again with this. I'm trying very, very hard to be neutral about this, but it's getting a little aggravating since Ben0kto has been warned against this before, has been blocked for edit warring, and has pretty much just ignored any and all requests and warnings. I don't want to bite the newbie, but they've had this explained pretty clearly and still show no signs of cooperating or following guidelines. I've reported the user to ANI, as it's gotten to the point where this has become rather disruptive in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Web host IP

Nice. So they really were a sock editing via proxy or some other redirection through a web host. I mean, it was obvious from the behavior, but I was confused by the different IP ranges. The attitude sure said it was the same editor, though. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WhitePages.com

Hi Ed. If I am ever bugging you too much, just let me know.

I was hoping you might take a look at the draft I posted on the Talk page of the WhitePages article a couple weeks ago. User:John Broughton said he would get to it, but I think he's just busy - hasn't gotten back to me. On account of my COI, I am primarily concerned about having an impartial editor chime in on the best way to cover some criticisms from in the VentureBeat articles mentioned on Talk. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Your article changes are well-intentioned and you seem to understand the policies. I fixed a couple of spelling errors in User:CorporateM/WhitePages. Your draft is missing a couple of images. See where it says '175 px' in the infobox, and look at the image box for the 'Services' section. In my opinion your new draft is better than the current article text. The existing article says nothing about the VentureBeat criticisms and the new draft at least mentions what Matt Marshall said. Nothing would be lost if you replaced the current article text with your draft. Further improvement can go from there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yah, the images are non-free images that I can't fill-in until it's moved to article-space - one of the many not-so-smooth aspects of contributing in a fashion that Wikipedia was never really built around. I'll quote your comments there and make a Request Edit. If it gets implemented, I'll point out the issue again to the GA reviewer eventually, whenever they get around to reviewing it. CorporateM (Talk) 03:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I submitted a Request Edit if you care to do the honors, unless you want me to get more feedback or ask someone else, etc.. Alternatively, I can also make the edit myself if you give me a {{request edit|g}} confirming it is acceptable for me to do so. CorporateM (Talk) 13:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Can I bug you for another or have I exhausted my welcome yet? Totally ok if you're all petered out ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a very small request here regarding an article I have already brought up to the GA standard. However, since I originally updated it, they made an acquisition, went through a rebrand and introduced new products. CorporateM (Talk) 00:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Hightail#A few updates. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've asked User:SlimVirgin here for an opinion on whether it is acceptable for me to make the move myself after you've said it is ok to do so. There are a few RfCs circulating on a paid editing policy and there does not seem to be consensus around whether someone in my position could make such an edit even after being given the go-ahead. Anyways, if I'm not bothering you too much, I also need some help on the Monster (company) page and have been bugging a few editors about it without response. It's only been a few days, but if you have the time/interest to help out, I can get it ready for a GAN that much faster. CorporateM (Talk) 16:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the article to WhitePages (company). If it turns out that someone disagrees we can open a formal move discussion on the article talk, using the {{requested move}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett reflist; invalid ISBN backlog

Ed, I fixed some problems in the Terry Pratchett reflist (diffs) prior to reporting what I thought might be a bug, or inept feature, in the generation of the special page notice.

Having made those fixes (among other things), I linked to a previous version for purpose of report at Category talk: Articles with invalid ISBNs#Appearance in reflist, but you should visit the current version Terry Pratchett for other purposes.

Regarding the huge backlog of invalid ISBN, perhaps other categories may be used to help set priorities. For one example, the intersection of categories Articles with invalid ISBNs and Good articles may be worth special attention. (The Pratchett biography would have been in that intersection this week.) Unfortunately I often experience "time out" or a server problem using category intersection tools, and now is one of those times. --P64 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it conceivable that a bot could fix the invalid ISBNs? EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet another colourful thread in life's rich tapestry?

Thanks for the normality / rationality / objectiveness / etc. of your behaviour whilst I've been absent. This is very much appreciated by me, (not only for its specific impact on me and the circumstances related to me and my current "events", but much more importantly), for restoring the faith of people like me in the fact that there are still some people left on Wikipedia who can see past the boundaries of their own ego and their own self importance.
(Sorry if that sounds like a political statement, it is not intended to be - I'm trying to say that it's good to see that there are still people around like you who appear to think that improving the encyclopaedia is more important than being "right". Sadly, it appears to me that people like you are rather few, and rather far between.)
It would seem I am in your debt. Please feel free to recoup that obligation whenever it suits you. Meanwhile ... Thank you! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't perceive either a question or an answer here, so I don't know what to say. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Response by User:Uscbubblegirl

Ed, This is crazy. PaulMcDonald reported me for warring on an Aaron Jack page. You then said I had to stay away for seven days! Why? All of my new edits are accurate and I did not delete anything after I was to not delete. Adding new information that is accurate should not be something you have a problem with! Do not block me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscbubblegirl (talk • contribs) 17:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ed, You are wrong! First, I cited an article and I sourced it. You have no right to delete that information! Secondly, every single thing posted was accurate! Ed- I am AARON JACK's attorney. Quit deleting Aaron's bio information that I post. You are choosing to highlight a defamatory political "hit piece" article and citing it as if it is an objective news article. That is unethical editing and you know it. You are now willfully walking a fine line on the edge of defamation. What you are doing can not be justified simply as strict rules regarding a biographical website. My client will sue you if you block our truthful edits to Aaron Jack's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscbubblegirl (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I assure you that editing my client's wiki bio is NOT malicious. If it was I would lose my law license! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscbubblegirl (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about my Tumbleman AE close

• Tumbleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed,

I closed the Tumbleman AE request as consensus of five admins for an indef block per WP:NOTHERE. I didn't weigh in, I just assessed consensus and closed it. I applied the indef block, and marked it as an AE block. However I am now concerned that the result is improper. The article affected is under WP:ARB/PS, which is now Standard Discretionary Sanctions. Quoting from the background on those, the maximum sanction allowed is: "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length." I looked through the past year or so of AE results and I did not find one that resulted in an AE indef block. It would seem that if we wanted to apply an indef block per NOTHERE, it can't be an AE enforcement block, it has to be a "so-and-so admin imposed an indef per WP:NOTHERE", and the bar to appeal and overturn that is much lower. To appeal an AE block, you have to appeal to ArbCom. To appeal a block instituted by an admin, you post a standard unblock template on your User Talk, and any passing admin can handle it. What happened is a "consensus of 5 admins" block, which isn't really any kind of category of block I am aware of. I see you supported an indef block for Tumbleman, and also you're one of the most active admins at AE. Can you give me your opinion on this -- is this indef block valid as an AE action, or does it need to be changed to "Zad68 (as an individual admin) blocked per WP:NOTHERE"?

Thanks... Zad68 18:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• If you can't find a diff that suggests Tumbleman was aware of WP:ARBPS you should consider modifying your block notice on his page to indicate that it's a conventional indefinite block. Then he can apply for unblock through the usual block appeal channels. Generally an admin can close an AE with a conventional (non arb-based) sanction but then whatever the admin chooses to do is appealable at AN or ANI, and doesn't have immunity to reversal by a single admin.

• If you think the situation is too unclear, just undo your closure of the AE and wait for someone else to act. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Ed. I think the consensus of that discussion was certainly clear enough that the block should be applied, but just the status of the block needed to be changed. I have changed the block message, struck out the AE block message on his User Talk, and replaced it with a standard "conventional" block message. Zad68 19:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• I have also undone the close of the AE discussion, leaving for another to close. Zad68 19:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:NovaSkola

• NovaSkola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello there. This user was topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from everything related to Armenia or Azerbaijan for six months on 2 June 2013. On 8 July, the user was blocked by you for a month for creating Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. However, after the block expired, the user continues to edit articles that are in violation of the ban, including Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan national football team, Meykhana, Mugham, Azerbaijanis in Russia, etc. The user also created List of Azerbaijani inventions and discoveries on 12 October. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Most likely a block should be issued to cover the rest of the topic ban period (through 2 December 2013). I prefer not to be the only admin taking action on this case, so please make a request at WP:AE or ask another admin familiar with WP:ARBAA2. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) See my revised comment below. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. Thank you! --Երևանցի ^talk 16:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, he is only writing about general Azerbaijan topics and sports, so I personally don't think it's a problem. The Black Garden article was certainly about the AA conflict, so that block was needed, but at the moment I don't see any reason to take action myself. It was Sandstein who chose the extra-strong wording of 'everything related to Armenia and Azerbaijan.' Sandstein also gave him a sports exception on 10 June 2013 that is recorded in WP:ARBAA2. You could ask User:Sandstein what he thinks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

that's a good idea. I will ask him now. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Khojaly Massacre

Ed, could u please look at here. I wrote to Sandstein but he didn't reply

I want to ask is someone can remove normal reference by just saying fake? Due I've noticed in here, perfect reference has been removed without constructive discussion https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Khojaly_Massacre&diff=575301927&oldid=575301252

--NovaSkola (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

NovaSkola, the Khojaly Massacre was part of the AA conflict. Your topic ban restricts you from all discussion of it, even here on this page. So please don't keep asking about it. Your ban expires on 2 December. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: 3rr.php script not working

Sorry, didn't see this until now. E-mailed them. I coulda sworn it was every 6 months, but every time they help me renew it, they make it substantially shorter (like 2 or something) and it never lets me actually renew it until the deadline's right on top of me in the first place. :\ Bleh. --slakr^\ talk / 11:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I wonder if 3rr.php will be affected by the move of some tools to the WMF Labs. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

My name was added to a list within this article arbitration. I do not watch this article and don't recall ever editing it. I have no interest in the article. Nor am I interested in being part of the arbitration process.

It was added with the phrase "known genocide-denier." This label is false. The Holocaust happened. It was genocide.

I do not believe in negatively labeling people and avoid doing that.

Details of dispute

This appears to be a retaliatory measure for reporting Wikibullying at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Intimidation_of_newbie_88.104.219.76 The Administrator's noticeboard.

Which, in turn, came out of an attempt by myself, the now-disappeared newbie, and another editor to place a minority opinion in the article, Genocides in history, with cites from three scholarly authors with bios in Wikipedia, whose names I came across because they were at the top of a search list. I never heard of any of them before.

I was attempting to rm my name from the arbitration list per normal vandalism templates, having exhausted all others means. The editor informed me that "anyone" can put a name on this list, after I reverted him several times. He did not mention that earlier. While inconsistent with his previous behavior, the material looked like standard vandalism to me: unsubstantiated, incorrect material in the wrong place.

I do not think that it is a good idea to allow just anyone to maintain a personal blacklist or list of enemies as part of a personal vendetta. I'm not even sure a group of admins should do that without some discussion first.

Other examples of ownership

The only other area I've encountered a stone wall, with no toleration for dissent were the Venezuelan articles. I haven't checked since his death, but nothing was allowed to be said that was detrimental to Hugo Chavez. I had to stop editing. But, in their favor, there was no enemies list. Having said that, one of the "citations" in the Genocides in history article came from Chavez! I was permitted to remove him, after getting no support for the cite on the discussion page. Anytime an editor tried to enter an npov substantiated change that was not flattering, someone blew a whistle and suddenly you were on the wrong end of a "consensus." Cites from the Washington Post and NY Times were listed as pov, because they were "running dogs of US Imperialism," doubtless a surprise to their readers and critics.

I am not interested in being part of this arbitration. I do not know, nor care to know, what it is about. It would be true irony indeed if I were banned for life from Wikipedia for appearing on a list for arbitration on an article in which I had expressed no interest whatever, and which was placed there by someone with an axe to grind.

My discussion page is unedited. The usual collection of people who think I'm okay and people who think I'm an idiot. They are both right and wrong to a degree.

I'm older than most editors, and try my best to avoid conflicts by waiting as long as possible to go through my watchlist. Usually vandalism is caught by someone else by the time I get there, which is a great relief for me. I've done this for years and had totally forgotten about the 1RR rule. By the time I get back to the article page, often five days later, I reverted again, if necessary. This time, my name was imbedded in the vandalism, so it was at the top of the page. I forgot. I was wrong.

I expect no slack. Just let me know what general set of articles are off limits to minority substantiated opinions. I've lived with a ban on Venezuela. I can live with a ban on all genocide articles and all Armenian articles. I do edit a few articles on violence. Would that be okay? Just let me know. Student7 (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you've made a number of reverts at Genocides in history. Most likely User:Darkness Shines believes your edits there are covered by the ARBEE topic. I suggest that nobody make any further reverts there without a talk page consensus. As of now you are only notified under WP:ARBEE but not sanctioned. If you are willing to step back from genocide issues for the moment it's unlikely that anyone will complain. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly Ed, I notified him because of his slow mo edit warring fringe material into the article, and using known genocide deniers as sources, everything is on the talk page for all to see. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA

Ed, thanks for your comments at Sandstein's talk page. In my view, the best option is to update the template listed on the case decision page to more closely match the most current amended decision. Although both of the templates you listed are better than {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, neither is quite right. Failing changing the template, it would be helpful (and easy) to list the two other templates as options on the case decision page. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's risky to edit the case itself. I remember the sequence of events since 2012 and it's kind of twisty. Take a look at this old version from January 2012 for comparison. In that version it's evident that 'General 1RR restriction' gives the result of a community discussion which was held at this page in late 2010. If you think that the warning template ought to be updated, why not wait under Arbcom finishes their Discretionary Sanctions review and then ask a clerk what the best way would be to go about it. I suspect a proposal at WP:AN is best if the Arbcom clerks don't object. The underlying issue is that Arbcom itself is usually reluctant to impose a general 1RR across a broad topic. Due to an amendment request in March 2012, they tweaked the wording of the community's 1RR. If all else fails a request at ARCA should fix whatever concerns you, but the committee sometimes goes in circles if you ask them something very technical. They are more suited to 'big picture' questions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at this later. I gotta go eat dinner, and I'll be yelled at if I'm late.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It was a great dinner. I had already looked at the links you provided above. Despite a certain amount of confusion on the case page as to the current sanctions, I think it's clear that the 1RR restriction applies to all articles in the topic area (here). I think the first bullet point that was struck and apparently amended in the same section could be clearer but that relates only to vandalism. The only remaining issue is the template. I suppose I could wait until the discretionary sanctions review is complete - assuming I remember to bring this up at that time. As for the template, I don't think it's a big deal to update that section of the case page, but I'll defer to your more cautious judgment and leave it alone. I'll just start using one of the other templates you pointed out at Sandstein's page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Back in the day, I used to propose my edits to case pages to User:NuclearWarfare (when he was a clerk) and between us we managed to get some routine updates in. There is a magic force field that deters ordinary editing of case pages (at least in my mind). Also, templates cited by cases. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds very mystical/sci-fi. If anyone can destroy a force field, it should be an editor with a handle like NW.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

When you look at an old case closely enough you are bound to find inconsistencies or things that are not quite right. Certainly there are things that would not be done the same way now. I remember the WP:TROUBLES case which was very confusing. Luckily most of the problems are now fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The force field is really only in Ed's mind :)

You guys are both experienced admins who work in AE; I don't think anyone would mind if you did basic cleanup on those pages if you let someone know ahead of time (or post-hoc). Or became a clerk (I know Ed has declined many times, but Bbb23, I'm sure the clerks would love to have you). NW (Talk) 02:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

While I ponder NW's suggestion that I do more work (I already feel a wee bit stretched, particularly since becoming a trainee clerk at SPI), I have a question for Ed: why did you decline "many times"?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I might reconsider in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, it wasn't your wife who popped the question. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to limit the number of things I do on WP that may cause aggravation and require patience. Of course actually writing articles is lower-stress than adminning disputes so maybe I should do more of that. It could be time for more improvements at Cell encapsulation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim

In regards to an edit by User:Rogttender who was then blocked as a SP, it seems User:Gate 86 has only made edits to that page alone with no other history. Could this be a spock?(Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)).

Question about reducing size in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cavann

Hello. I am not sure how to reduce the size as I am trying to draw attention to the behaviour of 3 editors working as a team in addition to responding claims against myself. Should I file a separate case? Would limiting my response to 1500 words and 60 diffs (500 words and 20 diffs for each editor reported in addition to my response) be reasonable? I can also always refrain from editing Wikipedia, except ARBCOM case, to give administrators more time to review the case? Cavann ^(talk) 18:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not simply reply to the complaints about your own editing. Everything is expected to follow the conduct policies regardless of what others do. (WP:NOTTHEM makes a similar point). If admins believe that sanctions for others should be considered but they need more information to decide, they could ask for more statements. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

But they are related. Major component of the complaint against me is edit warring. How can I answer to that if I don't explain Athenean's slow edit warring, for example? How can I not revert when I'm being ignored at the talk page for more than 2 weeks? Moreover, Athenean's long response exceeding guidelines seems like it was read by Gatoclass. [4] I certainly do not expect admins to pay attention to this during Halloween week. As I said, I can also always refrain from editing Wikipedia, except ARBCOM case, to give administrators more time to review the case. Cavann ^(talk) 19:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have limited space and you choose to spend a lot of it criticizing others, that's your affair. Let's hope that the other admins will comment on my proposal to limit statements to 500 words. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

HistorNE

Just to let you know: once again, despite being warned, user HistorNE continues with the same behavior (this time on another article), forcing his point of view, without trying to debate or to reach a consensus with other users. Coltsfan (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Move Request of Sankt Pölten

Hi! You closed my move request today. There where narly a concensus till today since Necrothesp agrees with the wrong title and just wants to move all, or nearly all, "Sankt" to "St." municipalities in Austria at once. Would you consider to re-open the discussion to let SmokeyJoe, who opposed twoday after nearly a month, allow to think about my statement? Best --AleXXw (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reason to believe that User:SmokeyJoe is reconsidering his position? The move has been open for an entire month. User:Necrothesp is free to propose a move of all the 'Sankt' articles to 'St.' if he wants to try that. If he does not do so, you might consider that option yourself. It is disappointing that the Austrian government does not have a uniform way of handling 'Sankt.' EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if he would reconsider his position, but he had only a 3/4 hour to do so before you closed the dicussion. Yeah, I know that it was open a month, but he did his first edit there yesterday... I consider to make a move request for all affected St./Sankt to the right one, but it a bunch of work since the whole german-speaking area (Germany, Austria, Luxemburg, Liechtenstein, parts of Switzerland, South Tyrol, Belgium,...) is effected. But at fist for me it's important that my home town is called in the way it stands in my constitution and nearly everywhere else... --AleXXw (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC) PS: as I mentioned before the whole St./Sankt-problem affects the whole german-speaking area, see ie St. Johann & Sankt Peter, both in german Baden-Württemberg. Thats why we in german language wp decided to hold on governmental records to determinate wich of the variants is the right one.

User:HouseOfArtaxiad and AA2

• HouseOfArtaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this edit[5] on the Halil Kut article and my subsequent search which indicated that user:HouseOfArtaxiad had "misrepresented" what the David Gaunt source stated.

"He also crossed into neighboring Persia and massacred the Armenian, Syrian, and Persian population." -- David Gaunt, Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I, page 109. In that book, it states Halil Kut expelled the Armenian, Assyrian and Persian population, not massacred them.[6] Due to this blatant misrepresentation of a source, I suggest user:HouseOfArtaxiad be notified of the editing restrictions over Armenian and Azerbaijani articles. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not open a discussion at Talk:Halil Kut and invite User:HouseOfArtaxiad to participate there. It seems premature to give him an AA warning if you haven't tried to contact him yet. It looks like he is trying to work with the sources. He did cite Halil Kut's memoirs for his boasts about killing Armenians. You are disagreeing with HouseOfArtaxiad about a single sentence, on the issue of killing versus expelling, and whether that exact sentence came from Gaunt's book or one of the others. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Since I seem to be clearly out of line here, I will revert my edit and move on. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you needed to revert your own text from Halil Kut. At a minimum, the 'massacre' wording needs a different source from that single page of Gaunt's book, which I think you've established above. Your claim of 'blatant misrepresentation' was a bit over the top if you haven't even tried to discuss. It could be a slip that the original editor might be quite willing to fix. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There's been a further comment on this editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Distruptive editing. *Distruptive editing* is a typo, but the problem may be genuine. The AN thread is quite murky and patience would be required to figure out who is most at fault. How to draw the line between newness and disruption is the question that affects User:HouseOfArtaxiad. HouseOfA is presumably in good company if he questions Justin McCarthy whose views on the Armenian genocide are controversial, but it would take time to assess the bottom line of the AN thread. HouseOfA managed to get on bad terms with Drmies who is famous for his patience. User:Grandmaster has left a post for HouseOfA here which seems to count as an official notice of WP:ARBAA2, though he did not log this notice in the case. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Cassandra" IP sock SPI

Hi Ed, having stalled after making an attempt, at your suggestion, to submit a WP:SPI regarding the self-styled "Cassandra" IP sock back in the summer, I've now written up a draft on my sandbox. Would you mind casting an eye over it to see if it is along the right lines? By all means I'm happy for you to edit or rewrite it if you wish to do so. I've collected previous discussions on the matter here by the way. Thanks for all your previous help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This is going in the right direction, but it needs more sources to prove each of your points. Also your criticism of Cassandra at Talk:Scots language#Scottish Gaelic uses very harsh language ("astonishing, delusional and blind persistence") which even if true will probably not help your credibility if you plan to submit this at WP:SPI. Thanks for your efforts on this, EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Unblock message

Thank you kindly for the correspondence. Every time I have had an issue, the Wiki community responds promptly and it is great!--Soulparadox (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Seldom do we get such appreciation from people at CAT:RFUB. You're welcome! EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

E-Cigs

Hi Ed, and thanks for the advice. The reason I made a couple of reverts today is that there's one editor who keeps reinserting information that isn't actually in the cited sources and isn't discussing his reasons on the talk page. There's also an issue of the difference between concerns about hypothetical health effects being included as if they were actual health effects, discussion of which is being buried in legalistic arguments about MEDRS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This response is not a defense to a block for violating 3RR. See WP:3RRNO for the only recognized exemptions. I recommend that you promise to stop reverting until talk page consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Falkland Islands Revert

I have already placed an explanation on the talk page. I hope the admins, the British, Argentines, and Falklander wikipeople sees it...edit wars can be dirty on my notif panel here in wikipedia

Pcbyed (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent ban

Hello Ed--can you please look at Talk:List of massacres in Turkey and the recent edits to the article (plus, if you like, at the "House of Artaxiad" section on my talk page) and take whatever action you see fit? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I think the sanction on HouseOfArtaxiad needs to be logged at WP:ARBAA2 for the future reference. Grandmaster 23:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent report for a ban

Dear Ed I have responded to User:Daki122 reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: ) as you have advised me and I have given my argument which I think is pretty strong and I do think that I have not made any mistake.I have broken one rule only and only because someone was trying to change the map with a 16 seconds video from youtube all of my reverts are on that case only.Also I should note that I responded to complains by users on the talk page who also asked for a revert.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war

It is in the Sanamayan segment of the talk page. Daki122 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 November

It appears that nobody bothered to let you know that a move request you closed (at Talk:Vivekananda) has been challenged at move review. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented there. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Jim Scott (Australian politician)

Thanks for the move, and for fixing the ref. I have no idea about the technical stuff, I'm afraid. Frickeg (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA question

WP:1RR applies to all articles subject to ARBPIA. The case, as amended, says:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.

To me, this means that the exemptions other than vandalism at WP:3RRNO do not apply in the case of a 1RR violation. Otherwise, the language above would be superfluous. To put it more concretely, an editor cannot revert another editor twice based on a WP:BLP violation. What do you think? This report triggered my question.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the BLP exemption continues to apply, per 'the usual rules on edit warring.' It is easier to understand the above sentence if you remove the phrase 'that are not vandalism' which turns out to be redundant (or almost). Since no IP edits were involved in this particular exchange you don't need to give any thought to the carte blanche for reverting IPs anyway. You're making me think that the language is unnecessarily murky, though in practice there shouldn't be difficulties. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it's at least murky. The first sentence is totally unnecessary if the usual rules apply; it should be omitted. Unnecessary substantive language, particularly from an ArbCom decision (they tend to be more legalistic), is concerning. And the second sentence should say "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." The superseding language isn't much better than the old language.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This modified 1RR was created as an anti-sock measure. On certain contested articles it is suspected that some of the IPs will be socks. For instance banned editors socking around the ban. When tightening the rules (going from 3RR to 1RR) this modified rule still gives an advantage to registered users. If I recall correctly it was User:Timotheus Canens who first proposed this kind of 1RR back in 2010 before he was an arb, but helping create the language for the Arab-Israeli 1RR, which at that time was a community sanction. See this March 2012 Clarification Request for more on the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes here. Essentially, I'm saying that the adopted language is susceptible to misunderstanding. I realize I'm stuck with it short of seeking another modification. But I'll go with your interpretation, which is that any edit by an IP may be reverted and the usual exemptions apply to reverts of non-IP edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you think of a way of making it more clear while having the same effect? EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Napster - Arden Hathaway

Mr. Johnston: Please read what I actually wrote in the Napster article. The Napster article is biased, e.g., it claims that Napster actually benefitted record sales, whereas in the real world the so-called "file sharing" systems have devastated record sales. I started out by writing this up, including an indisputable cite pointing out that record sales dropped 50% from 1999 through 2009, but my text got deleted. Napster proponents made up this theory that they were actually on the side of the "artists" against the "evil record companies" and they cling to it, even though record sales (circa 2013) are down 65% from the inception of Napster and the biggest losers are composers and musicians. Those individuals who participated in the Napster kleptomania don't like to have their mythologies refuted, so they engaged in censorship, not "editing."

Please read the addition I wrote about the LaMacchia case, the NET Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), and how they relate to Napster. This text also got deleted because it makes Napster proponents uncomfortable to learn (a) Napster was not original (or "pioneering"), and (b) there was a basis for criminal prosecution of both the founders and users of Napster, but it didn't take place because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act diluted the NET Act. This also got censored by the fanatical pro-Napster individuals who watch the article.

I repeat: Read what I actually wrote. Read they sourced text which the Napster monitors called "unsourced." They initiated this proceeding to silence me. Ironically, I had already given up. ArdenHathaway 14:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs) 14:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the advice that was given at User talk:NeilN#Napster. I have nothing to add. Any crusades against Napster should happen elsewhere. See WP:SIGN for how to sign your posts on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning over the 1RR

You pissed or what? blog sources used sadredearth.com, yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com, never mind the one he removed, you actually warned me for following BLP. Well done. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO allows removal of unsourced defamation. In the past, we have used 'respectable' blogs as sources for commentary on controversial issues in the I/P area (though not as sources of fact, since WP:SPS doesn't allow that). You don't get to keep on reverting with no penalty when the issue could easily be referred to WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Once it is removed ya. What you are saying is a BLP vio (suspected or not) can stay in an article until it has spent a week at some notice board, never gonna happen Ed, SPS and BLP are very clear on this, and you ought to know better. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Those were commentaries on the views held by Mondoweiss, a site that offers reporting and opinion on contentious issues. Vivid language is used by both sides of that dispute. I don't see your case for irreparable harm if your instantaneous revert were not performed. (The harm being, in your view, so obvious to all that no discussion is required before acting). Is it a terrible thing to cite a blog by Yaacov Lozowick, a man who was the director of the archives at Yad Vashem? EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

BLPGROUP would say yes, but given I am more or less done here now it really does not matter, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Bob Uecker

FYI: Re this thread, please see this diff. Rivertorch (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Editor is now blocked for long-term warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeated edit warring

Hello EdJohnston,

sorry for taking this to your talk page, but reports at AN3 are always so long and unflexible. Alcastilloru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whom you already blocked for two days because of edit warring in July, unfortunately has not changed his/her method. The user continues edit warring at A New Era. Alcastilloru never cites sources for these changes, never gives a reason for reverting, never discusses. In this way, it is impossible to co-operate with this user. As it does not look like he/she will ever stop, I am afraid that your administrative action is necessary. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Alcastilloru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A New Era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I left another notice for him. We'll see what happens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

TBAN Question

Hi Ed, quick question. Does my ARBPIA TBAN allow or restrict me from commenting at the ongoing AE case involving Gilabrand and Sepsis? It's unclear to me. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Under WP:TBAN you should not participate in that case. Thanks for asking. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

For sure. Cheers. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from User talk:Berniebrew

No reason to continue this unless you represent the copyright owner. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention Ed: Back in February you stepped in and provided protection on a template. Here are your entries. (cur | prev) 04:00, 19 February 2013‎ EdJohnston (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,779 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (Add semiprotection template) (thank) (cur | prev) 03:59, 19 February 2013‎ EdJohnston (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,752 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Bob Uecker: Persistent sock puppetry: Requested at WP:RFPP ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 03:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 03:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)))) (thank) There is currently someone by the Editing User Name Delaywaves that has gone in and added our copyrighted PRESSWIRE photo. I tried to post this on a discussion page to have it corrected, but the Rivertorch talker is back at it and is mistaken. Here is the entry below that shows that Delaywaves added the photo: (cur | prev) 18:47, 14 September 2013‎ Delaywaves (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,222 bytes) (+62)‎ . . (Add photo.) (thank) (cur | prev) 08:00, 29 July 2013‎ Mdumas43073 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,160 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (→‎Acting roles) (thank) Here is the PRESSWIRE photo we asked to have removed. Can you assist? Hello EdJohston. Presswire has mandatory copyright. This is a photo from Presswire and there are multiple taken during first pitch walk; distributed under accounts and copyrighted regulated there. You were contacted as it appeared that you had provided the protection on these pages back in February. Someone reinserted the copyright photo, but there is still protection on the account. Please remove this image from the home page and from Created Commons Attribution-Share as well. Game Photos are even under more scrutiny and regulations, approved by MLB team as photo transmissions are reserved. We do not know a person named Paluch. We don't know how Delaywaves bypassed and this action is what is of issue now. Your work and protection is on the edit history. Photo from Wikimedia Commons, uploaded by Steven Paluch]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniebrew (talk • contribs) 00:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Hello Berniebrew. If you believe this photo is from Presswire, can you provide evidence? For example a link to where it can be found on the web? There is a related photo of Bob Uecker (taken at the same game, in the same pose, holding a baseball in his raised hand) at this Uspresswire link, a photo which is credited to Jerry Lai. You can tell that it's a completely different shot, though. The one in our article is from Wikimedia Commons, where it was uploaded by User:Spaluch1, who says he took the photo himself. If you believe you are the copyright owner you can use Commons:OTRS to assert your claim. Warring with other editors on the article is unlikely to be effective. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Can you clarify whether you're speaking on behalf of Major League Baseball or a particular club? If you are not, can I ask why you're making these requests? I'm still waiting for any evidence that this is a Presswire photo. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Attention ED: Please see information outlined below. US Presswire USA Media Group syndicates content. Uploaded use in Created Commons/Wiki is unauthorized use and distribution of copyrighted photo. This is game activity copyrighted and two years old. Please remove the photo in question since our group is not editors with specific protective editing capabilities of pages on Wikipedia. The Rivertorch comments Delaywaves are not professionally necessary. Could you take immediate action. Someone from our staff suggested that Delaywaves look into an alternative, the Team Media Individual Broadcaster Photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniebrew (talk • contribs) 23:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Hello Berniebrew. It doesn't make sense for you to keep posting on this topic unless you will answer my questions: What relation do you have to this matter? Do you claim to own the photo, or be a legal representative of one of the organizations? Where is your evidence that this photo belongs to US Presswire? You can't assert copyright of something you don't own. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC) We do not know a person named Paluch, you need to be telling this to him. We reached out to you since you had added the semi-protection in February without the Photo. Are we contacting the wrong person? Someone added the US PRESSWIRE / USA Today Images which has transmitting rights with the team. These US PRESSWIRE Photos are now USA Today Sport Images and we feel it that unfortunate this has happened. We suggest using the current Sports Media Team Professional photo on file for Uecker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniebrew (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Mondoweiss

Based on the history, I'd rather you take any action you think is appropriate after this.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is my preference. If either party doesn't like where this is going, I expect we will see a new AN3 or AE report. There is talk of BLP violations. But in the real world, the people on both sides are accusing each other of horrible things anyway. If the article gets out of control I suppose we could full protect for a month and let them debate the fine points at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Orrerysky disruption over Plasma cosmology

Fires are all over the place now, with threats flying. Take a look at some of the diffs provided here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_edit_warring_etc_by_User:Orrerysky_at_Talk:Plasma_cosmology_and_elsewhere.

A topic ban or total ban is needed quickly. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, please provide advise on how to make an escalation within your system. I would like to talk to your customer service department if possible or with someone in corporate. Bull is showing bias, has been uncooperative and misrepresenting events. Also, I don't mind taking a time out. This is not a threat, but merely a statement of good customer service. I would rather not have to create accounts and tunnel masked I.P.'s and make this a bigger issue. Let's get this issue resolved in a civil fashion. I want your escalation process sent. I want to talk to the service department for corporate. I deal with customer issues like this every day, I will call wikimedia's corporate office if necessary and raise all kinds of heck if I do not get a different admin to help administer this issue. 07:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs)

See User talk:Orrerysky for the follow-up on this. Per the ANI thread, GWH has imposed a 1RR restriction on this editor for the Plasma cosmology article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Ed. I noticed you protected my user page during my block; thanks for that. However, can you extend the protection indefinitely, so that it does not get vandalised? Thanks. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 18:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 18:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions

Hi Ed, I went through and notified a few people who had edited Austrian topics of the applicable sanctions on the topic area a couple days ago. I noted, as Template:Austrian economics enforcement states, that the notification did not mean they had been engaged in misconduct. One user has been removing his name from the log of notifications at Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions because he says he has done nothing wrong. See this thread on my talk page. Since you're the only other admin to edit that log recently, could you comment? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the other editor and I have reached a compromise on the issue, feel free to ignore. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Too late, too late, I already commented at User talk:Mark Arsten#BS warnings. This does come up occasionally and it is often puzzling what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, EdJohnston! Sorry to stick my nose in here, but I clicked through some links and somehow ended up here where you said the user had 3 blocks since Oct 1. Well, one of those blocks was for socking/block evasion, so he has more than that. This user got off lucky with 48 hours. Sorry to stir the pot. FYI. --64.85.214.223 (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

User:BlurredLines at it again immediately following the end of his block

Extended discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sigh! User:BlurredLines has still not learned his lesson following his 48 hour block. Directly following the editor's block—in which he claimed to you that if you'd rescind it, he'd discuss and pursue the matter with me and the others constructively—he made out this bogus report on me at Administrative Noticeboards and sent me this [7] and this [8] at my user talkpage. As you'll be able to note from his report at the ANI Noticeboards, BlurredLines is more than willing to lie, distort and misrepresent the issues to get his way. However, as noted by the respondents at the ANI noticeboards, no one's buying this editor's obvious ploys and the editor is sniping at them for it (as shown here [9]). Beyond that, BlurredLines took it upon himself to not only once again revert the edit that three editors have taken exception to [10], but he has prevented further discussion on the matter by making this response on the talkpage yesterday [11] and then IMMEDIATELY following it by closing the discussion to prevent myself and others from talking out the matter (as shown here [12]. Also, I've been of the impression this editor is on wikibreak multiple times now because announcements like this ([13], [14], [15]). However, the editor will come back shortly thereafter and again start making a ruckus. As you are familiar with this editor's troublesome behaviors, could you be of an assistance. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC) @AmericanDad86: I am not trying to be disruptive here, I provided proof on the edit summary (on The Simpsons) that the link you provided is not reliable. Yes, I did close the discussion because you, and nobody else haven't responded to it in three days, in which I figured you were done with the conversation, as I was too when I closed it. Just because that I reverted you edits because the source isn't reliable, doesn't mean that all of my edits are disruptive, or vandalistic. Also, every word that I said on that report to the AN/I was not lies, mostly you think that because it was all about you, and also my replies were not "snippy", and that's kind of mean to refer to someone's replies like that. Actually, I did learn something from my block, make a noticeboard discussion before reverting, because if I didn't learn anything from my block, I would of reverted it back without putting anything in the edit summary, and give you a notification that your edits were disruptive. Also, I come to differ that I'm back right now, and I am not trying to cause a "ruckus" that you speak of, also as you were reference to my one wikibreak also. Mostly, how can you say I have troublesome behaviors, just because I reverted your edits as I was making points in the edit summaries, that you wouldn't follow? As I said on the report, you are not familiar with the verification policy, and that could be risky when you get into situations like this, as you are trying to make me the victim because you are not realizing your mistakes. Blurred Lines 17:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I only now see that user: Blurred Lines' has started up a discussion on this matter at [16]. I should inform you however, that User: Blurred Line never informs editors he's been in contention with of these discussions he starts up that aren't located at the article's talk page. Blurred Lines has made a previous attempt to get this edit changed, only at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (as shown here [17]). User:EarwigBot had to inform me of that discussion at my talk page because Blurred Lines tried to seek a consensus on the matter without informing the users in dispute with him (as shown here [18]). Once I informed by the other editor, I responded in that very discussion. Blurred Lines was then promptly dismissed because he hadn't attempted much of a discussion at The Simpsons article talk page (his dismissal as shown here [19]). With that, I was under the impression he was going to make an actual effort to constructively discuss at the article talk page, but instead he just headed to another noticeboard without informing any of the editors in contention with him. Blurred Lines only decided to inform of this discussion upon making the revert and after only a mere two editors offered their opinion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Furthermore, Blurred Lines is distorting the situation about my "not responding on the talk page." As shown here [20], BlurredLines opens the discussion on the 25th of the month, I respond on the 25th of the month, he then responds on the 28th... but announces another wikibreak shortly thereafter as shown here [21]. Upon returning from his "wikibreak," he makes a report on me at ANI, takes it upon himself to have a discussion that other editors are not informed of at a different noticeboard, then closes the discussion here [22] to prevent interaction regarding the edit. If this is how the user seeks consensus that is entirely troublesome to me. It should not be up to this editor to close discussions for which he shares such integral involvement in. If anything, that should be the work of a liaison which I was acting as when I stepped in this dispute between him and two other editors. Also, only 2 editors have actually responded at the Reliable Source Noticeboard before BlurredLines made his determination to close and revert this edit first made by User:WikiAnthony and User:Grapesoda. One of those 2 editors at the Reliable Source Noticeboard did not even support Blurred Lines position which is that "my source was unreliable and therefor cannot be used to support anything." User:Mark Miller contended with Blurred Lines that my source was in fact reliable but simply didn't feel that the source stated the show as being an adult cartoon, as shown here [23]. I felt the source pretty much did state this because it reads: "The Simpsons, a leading proponent of the adult cartoon wave." Anyways Blurred Lines thought that comment made by user Mark Miller and one other one gave him free reign to jump in and make a revert, then close the discussion on the articles talk page. Although Mike Miller is one mere editor and one who hardly agreed with Blurred Lines that Blurred Lines would then later use to support his reversion and discussion close, I will just be the bigger man and provide a source which more explicitly states the show to being an adult cartoon. Per Mark Miller's request for different source, I have provided a source which explicitly states The Simpsons as being an "adult cartoon series" (as shown here [24]. Ed Johnson, if you have any contention with this, please let me know. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

HouseOfArtaxiad

Hi. Is this post not a violation of the topic ban by HouseOfArtaxiad (talk · contribs)? Also, I believe this is not the only edit he's made to AA topics since 15 October. Grandmaster 20:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There are no more edits by HOA at Talk:Shusha since 25 November. You should be counting from 15 November because that's when the topic ban was imposed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake. I meant 15 November. And indeed, he made no edits in Wikipedia since 25 November. Grandmaster 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yozer1

I will be generous and assume a great deal of "good faith" following Yozer1's removal of information stating, "No mention of a massacre in source",[25] when the sources were after the following sentence. Clearly this source[26], states there was a massacre and to find it one simply has to click on the link. I have already mentioned this on Yozer1's talk page, suggesting he avoid deleting such information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ed, this user was actually topic banned. [27] None of the admins closed the AE request and post the topic ban on his talk page when all 3 admins (You, Georgewilliamherbert and Sandstein) agreed that he should be. And it it was automatically archived today. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear, I thanked you for informing me and did not revert it. Take a break.

Hi Yerevanci, I was not topic banned until now. Will be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozer1 (talk • contribs)

The topic ban from AA2 is now logged. I suggest that Yozer1 might want to remove his 'nightmare' comment unless he wants it as part of the record. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe EdJohnston acted in haste. Yozer1 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a full discussion at WP:AE#Yozer1, a thread where you participated. Three admins agreed on the result. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Macau

I do not agree with your action that since those are the official names for those flags.--TINHO (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to open a WP:Requested move discussion at Talk:Flag of Macau. I can assist if you don't know how to do this. See also WP:OFFICIAL for our practices regarding official names. Official names "..should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used." EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notification: Les Etoiles de Ma Vie

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidentsregarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Veriss (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Ed, I am doing my best to stay 100% faithful to my topic ban, so please indicate if I erred at all here User talk:Plot Spoiler#Please explain yourself and if I need to self-rv or anything else. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I also finding it troubling and unconstructive that dlv999 [28] appears to be stalking my contributions. Three out of his/her four total edits over the past five days are related to my topic ban. It doesn't appear s/he is committed to constructively building Wikipedia and is instead interested in treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You should avoid the USS Liberty incident. That incident took place during one of the Arab-Israeli wars. There is an ARBPIA notice on the talk page of Richard A. Falk and in my opinion you should avoid it as well. There is nothing wrong with other editors reviewing your contributions to see if they conform to your ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I've self-rvd those two edits. Thanks Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor Cihsai

Hi Ed. Can you please take a look at editor Cihsai. Through the course of this year, he has edited no other article besides the Hemshin peoples and has made no other contribution to it beside removing/reverting a crucial part of the lead, which states that the Hemshin people are believed to have an Armenian origin and which is well sourced. He has carried out the same edit time and time again and has obliquely referred to a "discussion on the talk page", which he has never bothered to make a contribution. I, along with other editors, have reverted such disruptive edits but he persists in making the reverts. I think some sort of action is necessary here and I'd appreciate any help in dealing with this matter. Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Notified. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I have seen your message to me. Fact is that the user who complained about me is inserting a statement into the the lead paragraph without discussing it. The lead paragaraph as well as the paragraphs "History" and "Demographics" which are related to the issue are the result of intense discussions and editing compromises from several years ago. Therefore ı beleive the warning should be adressed to the user who is inserting changes without discussion and not to me. ... By the way, it is true that my activity on wikipedia is limited to Hemshin issue; my home region. I wonder whether that is in any way a violation of Wikipedia rules.Cihsai (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You have not participated at Talk:Hemshin since 2008. Yet here you are on 6 November 2013 in this diff where you remove a claim about Armenian origin at the same time as you remove the reference which was intended to support it. If you don't believe that Simonian's book on the Hemshin is a good reference for the claim of Armenian origin, you could try asking for an opinion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In the past year you have reverted the lead 12 times. This looks to be a case of long-term edit warring. If anyone agreed with you, you would not be the only one removing this material. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have inserted a entry in the talk page of the article which may be worthwhile for you to see.. thanksCihsai (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't quite let up. He just continues to revert.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Now topic banned. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I don't mean to raise the alarm bell so quickly again, but just yesterday another user, who has been inactive since 2009, came back to revert the page back to Cihsai's version. The explanations he gave are suspiciously similar to Cihasi's as well. Coincidence? Off-wiki coordination? I can't say for sure, but I thought I'd let you know. Best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Notified User:Omer182, who has deleted the same material from the lead as Cihsai. Simonian's book has been offered as a reference for the Armenian origin of the Hemshin. If Omer182 doubts the credibility of Simonian's book, he should go through the appropriate discussions to get it removed from the article. Trying to remove it by warring is unlikely to work. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have banned me on grounds that ″I have once again reverted the lead of Hemshin peoples to remove mention of possible Armenian descent, without ever achieving consensus for your views″.:I doubt whether you are fully aware of the following:

• The insertion of “possible Armenian descent” into lead paragraph is done without any prior discussion
• The lead paragraph was a long standing stable paragraph prior to this insertion.
• I have made several reverts because some editors have inserted the same sentence several times.
• By each of my reverts I have requested the inserters to engage in discussion.
• Your “Ban” on me adds up to to your interference into the editing of the article on the side of users who refuse to discuss.
  

Kindly lift the ban and allow me to bring the article back to the stable version.In case you are interested in the details of the article, you are most welcome to participate in the discussion as to whether the insertion is meaningful.

By the way, Hemshin is not in Azarbaijan and has no relation thereto. I was never involved in any article related to Azarbaijan and or numerous Armenian related articles.I understand that the Arbitration decisions cover articles related to the arbitration and that this will be interpreted rather broadly. I still find it rather far fetched when Hemshin People as article and myself as editor are considered to be covered thereunderCihsai (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See the header of the WP:Arbitration enforcement page for the instructions for appealing your ban there. You should use the Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For correcting Ancient Pueblo peoples! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

My talk page

Thanks for your note. I'm not trawling back for the (abundant) additional evidence but will keep my eye out. Your note resulted in a fairly typical swarming of Austrian Economics contributors and the usual inability to understand policy + misrepresentation. Thus, I've started documenting already. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Documentation is good. This reminds me of a comment yesterday by one of the arbitrators on a different subject at RFAR:

If there are clear examples, supported by good evidence, identifying specific editors and/or administrators then this can and should be handled at AE. If there are none of these things, it is currently too nebulous for a case.

In other words, if you actually have organized evidence present it to admins, and try handling it at the admin level. If you *don't* have organized evidence then (in his opinion) it's not worth opening an Arbcom case. 'Nebulous' I think is an apt description for both the case he was referring to and the Austrian economics thing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd actually already documented stuff at my original ANI complaint. As is common with Aust. Ec. stuff, someone opened a new thread and it was overtaken by events. That tendency itself is rising to the level of disruptiveness but several of those involved seem to do it as a matter of course. Since the provision of decent diffs is generally lacking in the topic area, it looks like I'll have to step up to the mark. There is the added bonus that I'm in neither one camp nor the other :) - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Gordon Gee

Are you going to move E. Gordon Gee back to where it should be: Gordon Gee? Here is evidence the the latter is actually the common usuage. Thanks for your time. --Ttownfeen (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to open a new move discussion. This link to OSU's web site (see bottom of page) shows he was still signing himself as E. Gordon Gee as of January 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad

Ed, what's your opinion on whether this article should be subject to WP:SCWGS? I'm involved in a content dispute on the article, and I've been involved before (quite some time ago). Interesting, given al-Assad's position, the article has nonetheless stayed on the periphery of the contentious editing surrounding the Syrian civil war, but in reading it a few moments ago, I decided it probably is subject to general sanctions. Frankly, I'd never thought about it before. I'd appreciate an uninvolved opinion. If you think it is, feel free to slap on a talk page notice to that effect and an edit notice if you wish. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've placed the Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions on the article but for now I won't add the edit notice. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop User:Sitush

SIR, User:Sitush has some serious issues particularly with Meenas wiki page. This article has been evolved, corrected and referenced over last 7 years and User:Sitush has not provided any evidence to counter any of the facts presented in this article. Simple deleting some text does not make article valid or correct. Put some efforts and ready history books, gazette letter found on Google book related to Meenas past and history. All I can see from Sitush is biased and unfair text removal from this article. Someone need to stop user Sitush, and I also see his own page is full of complains.

TO ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE: It is now confirmed that sitush is intentionally behind Meenas article..he is continuously hiding the well known Truth and distorting the article since Beginning. In his eyes..Any reference is not valid which shows the Truth. Like Tod he is fond of rajputs and Now he had inserted Negative points for the most loyal community of India/Meenas... by indirectly calling them bandits or criminals. He messed the article. THE ARTICLE WAS BEST AND COMPLETELY TRUE AS ON 01/01/2012. IN WIKI as a contributor our mission is to present the real truth and real history of a community or race. Am asking the administrators..what is the need of this great n huge wikipedia...when it fails to show the TRUTH.

Somebody has to stop him and he should blocked him to edit Minas article anymore..

You can see all other editors are complaing about him since 1year.. SIR OUR REQUEST IS "PLEASE STOP HIM TO EDIT ARTICLE MEENA" Others comment about him..

Expermely hippocratic argument and you are right about your self "we don't tolerate caste POV warriors here". I have seen more of your edits are dehumanising, derogatory towards certain communities. Also, you are just self proclaimed ignorant.

Sir Please block him for this article..this is our request since 1.5 year.Omkara1188 (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conducting an edit war at Meenas. In March 2012 you were notified under Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Caste articles have suffered from promotional editing for a long time, and these sanctions were put in place to allow administrators to take action against anyone who doesn't seem to be following Wikipedia policy. If you revert again at Meenas you risk being blocked for WP:Edit warring or being banned from this topic under the caste sanctions. Instead of reverting, you should join in discussion on the talk page. If you possess good sources for your views you should be able to provide them. It is best to supply the actual wording of the source and the page number where it occurs. Questions about the reliability of a source can be taken to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comment

Ed, so you left a very lovely note on my talk page. Of course, I responded. You said: WP:No personal attacks provides that "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

Though I know very well the definition of "derogatory" I did look it up again for your purposes and according to Merriam-Webster, it is defined as: expressing a low opinion of someone or something; showing a lack of respect for someone or something.

Now certainly, how one defines and perceives lowly or disrespectful is subjective to the individual. My question to you, since you defend the removal of comments of others before engaging in diplomacy is this: if "I" feel a comment towards me is "derogatory" to myself, am "I" allowed to remove such comments under WP:No personal attacks? Or is this a privilege that is only given to the select elites of the community? Because surely, Ed, two can play the game and I have felt derogatory statements made against me, though you seem to sort of "pick and choose" so to speak, of what you deem worthy of your attention. It would, of course be quite nice for you to address the additional questions I posed to you on my talk page. That is, since I consider you an "involved" admin, given your relationship with Bbb23. You take care now. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Some help needed

Dear Ed, I guess you remember you blocked me yesterday for war edits on Holodomor article. I'm not going to complain on that, but I would ask you to be my first tutor on en-wiki, as I'm making my first steps here. There is a group of non-neutral editors, who blocking some changes to the article which they do not like. I opened a new topic on talk page — [29] at ample time, but my agruments (proved by quoted RS) were simply ignored, as well as my additions to the article - [30] — even they were proved by RS given. So, my question is: what should be my further actions, in such situation in the article Holodomor, when a group of editors ignoring arguments and doesn't have a will to find consensus? Thanks in advance. HOBOPOCC (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edits so far indicate you are a WP:Single purpose account. You seem to be editing various articles to strengthen the Russian side of certain questions. Here at Pavlo Skoropadsky you decide that the Russian spelling of his name must have priority over the Ukrainian. While single-purpose accounts are not forbidden, you must accept it will take you some time to acquire credibility. If you wait to get consensus at Talk:Holodomor before making your changes again, you should not have any problems. If you provide only sources in the Russian language you must accept that English-speaking admins won't figure out what you are doing. In some cases these topics will must surely have been covered in English as well, and taking the time to find English sources would help you persuade others. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answer! May be I explained me wrong, but you focused on my intentions in wikipedia, doesn't matter you were right or wrong, but what I asked you, as a newcomer here, what would be NEXT PLATFORM(what page) to discuss conflict at, as I know already for sure, that on talk page of the Holodomor article we will never find consensus with my opponents, as they simply non-neutral and do not want even to pretend to be neutral. As about translation of texts into English - surely I realize this requirement. At the moment of discussion on Holodomor talk page all my correspondents were Russian-speakers. But, definitely, if discussion would go to another level or any new editors wold join the discussion all translations would be done. So, whom should I apply for resolution on my conflict with non-neutral editors on Holodomor article? What would you suggest? HOBOPOCC (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Content disputes are solved by the editors involved. WP:DR shows ways of getting more people if you think the group is not representative, but I don't think that's your problem. Since you recently added a work by Kulchytsky to the article maybe you can take a look at "A new view of a famine that killed millions". New York Times. 16 March 2009. This quotes Kulchytsky at length and seems to agree that the famine was a political action targeted at Ukrainians which had millions of casualties. Kulchytsky does believe the casualties were more like 3.5 million instead of the higher figures proposed by others. If you want to argue the credibility of a source you can post at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Again many thanks for your answer. So, do you think that WP:DRN would be right place to open a topic at, in case if we do not find consensus on talk page of Holodomor article? And one more question: you wrote above «...I don't think that's your problem» — so, what do you think my problem is? I have feeling that you missunderstand my intentions in the article Holodomor.HOBOPOCC (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to open a thread at WP:DRN or a WP:Request for comment. It helps if you can make a clear statement of what the dispute is about. Before filing at DRN you could leave a note at Talk:Holodomor giving your proposed statement of the dispute. DRN is voluntary so you are depending on others choosing to participate there. My own observation is that the sourcing should be improved. It looks to me that the talk page discussion made some progress on 30 November. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Ed, sorry for bothering you! You know, one of my oponents blaimed me that I «falsified two sources». I think this is seriuos charge and if it's false by nature (and it's false) editor who acting such way should take responsibility for false charge. Can you, please, give me an advise what WP-page should I enter to file a complain against my oponent as regards these false charges? HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you should be able to negotiate a compromise with User:Lvivske. Lvivske and others are saying that there were political decisions taken by Stalin to ensure special famine suffering in the Ukraine. You should be able to study the sources with enough care to see which historians agree with that and which ones disagree. Nobody denies that there was famine outside the Ukraine. So your statement "famine in Ukraine was in context of all Soviet-Union famine" is trivially true, but not very useful for deciding if there was a Holodomor (a worse-than-usual famine that was politically manipulated). EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, since he wants to actually file a complaint against me as his opponent: I pointed out all the issues I had with his cherry picking of source quotes, others agreed. He'd rather fight the fact that I pointed out his issues ("false charges!") rather than actually defend what he did on the talk page. This is getting silly.--Львівське (говорити) 20:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:HOBOPOCC, if you have no clue on how to collaborate on sourcing with others at Talk:Holodomor it might be simpler to ban you from that topic than cater to your requests for further appeal venues. The other editors are posing reasonable questions to you that you should be able to answer. If you are banned, then you can make your case in the Arbitration enforcement appeal system. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is imposible to find consensus with politicaly non-neutral and hate-motivated group of editors. You wrote yourself now: «So your statement "famine in Ukraine was in context of all Soviet-Union famine" is trivially true», but it was you, who blocked me for edits warring, because my edits, supplied by 4 RSes were deleted by this group of editors by fake reasons. If you are going deeper yourself into discussion on Holodomor article, I want to pay your attention to some words of Assembly Parlamentary of Counsil of Europe Resolution # 1723: Commemorating the victims of the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR... It furthermore encourages the authorities of all these countries to agree on joint activities aimed at commemorating the victims of the Great Famine, regardless of their nationality. Don't you underatsnd that this resolution calls famine as Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR? «Holodomor» — is the name for great famine in Ukraine. But this famine happened not only in Ukraine — this great famine happened «in grain-growing areas of the» USSR, as this Resolution said. And Resolution 1723 correctly, clearly and straight tells about it. Anyhow, I want to make some legal wiki-appropriate steps against editors, who, being not able to defend their edits fair-wiki-way (discussing on oponent's RSes, providing their own Rses proving their position, etc.) are making personal attacks on me and even declaring that I «falsified... sources». Can you help me, please? HOBOPOCC (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No one can help you, HOBOPOCC, sine you repeatedly show that you do not like to listen comments of other editors. Considering that you define yourself as a Russian Nationalist at Uk-Wiki, I assume that you accept only arguments supporting the controversial hypothesis of Holodomor in context to other famines in USSR. You see only “non-neutral editos”, who basically stop your POV-pushing.--Andrux (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, HOBOPOCC, your reading of Resolution #1723 is indicative of your reading of the article and synthesis you've been pushing on the Holodomor talk page. You have constructed a limited interpretation of the contents and implications. Resolution #1723 at no point states that the COE have closed this chapter and given it a generic title. There is no, "Henceforth, it will be known as the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR for the rest of written history.". How did you manage come to such a conclusion, given that they are encouraging the opening of archives and access to as much information as exists in order that regional 'peculiarities' can be better analysed and understood by researchers from all parts of the world? The Resolution marks a beginning for recognition of the events of that era, not the end. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ed, I'm waiting for your answer. HOBOPOCC (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

My advice is to work with the other editors on the talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for your options. You've already opened an WP:RFC. You can pursue the issues that people mention in the RfC, and try to find better sources. I don't see the argument that you are dealing with "politicaly non-neutral and hate-motivated group of editors". Eastern Europe is always difficult and it takes patience. Consider the possibility that you are being outvoted by a group of well-intentioned people. Try to change their minds, if you can. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ed, please, just have a look at posts my opponents made recently: (a) Lvivske «passing a ball»; (b) Iryna Harpy took it and «giving her pass». Productive discussion, doesn't it? Don't you think now that this is pure personal attacks? I paid attention of administrators in the past, and not once, that posts of Iryna Harpy at talk pages contain almost no any subject-related-information, but personal attacks only — one, two — but it wasn't any outcome. Positive input of Iryna Harpy to discussion is almost zero, her posts at their mosts are personal attacks only. How can such beheviour be stopped? HOBOPOCC (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

HOBOPOCC, EdJohnston has already been called in as a third party and has involved himself in as much as is in his capacity (and as much as he feels is prudent). He has provided you with a link to options for other forms of dispute resolution (link above). His work on the matter is done. If you wish to lodge formal complaints against me, by all means do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Enfield Poltergeist

Your comments and warning are totally incorrect.

I am not reverting the page to something "New" im reverting it back! Why should i have to come to a "consensus" on the talk page as i was not looking to change the page in the first place. Also its a little bit difficult to come to a consensus when the agent provocateurs trying to rewrite history wont go on the talk page. Why does everyone on wikipedia speak like robots? There is a huge injustice happening here but no one seems to care about the facts. It seems the only concern of Wikipedia is procedure.

Please answer this one simple question for me....If other users wont come to the talk page and reach a consensus, what shall i do then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.111.196 (talk • contribs)

Best Regards.--Judgejoker 18:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Judgejoker. Please become familiar with our rules about WP:Edit warring. You're expected to follow these rules whether you agree with them or not, and whether or not we sound like robots. If you try to persuade others on the talk page, and wait for their support before editing again, you will be on safe ground. Note that our policy contains no wording about 'agent provocateurs' and your claim that you are reverting such people will not save you from a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Your Notification on Hemshin peoples

Hello Ed, Thank you for the notice on my talk. I do understand your concern. Nevertheless, I feel the need to appeal to you to make sure that you have a complete understanding of the development history of this article as briefly outlined below. I also kindly as for your clarification and guidance regarding my below raised questions- as your intervention raised my curiosity and interest:

• The article has experienced lengthy and detailed discussions earlier through which it reached the maturity level to ensure stability for a number of years. During these discussions, the article was considered section by section and gradually improved using all the referenced material available- occasionally resorting to mediation procedures initiated by me to avoid wholesale reverts. It is interesting to note that most of the editors who used to implement such wholesale reverts or refused discussion now appear in the list of supervised editors in mentioned arbitration. The discussions to a great extent included exchanges related to the very recent insertion repeatedly made into the lead with no discussion or effort for consensus.

A brief look at Talk:Hemshin and the body of the article will make it evident to you that the recent insertion undermines recorded discussions that involved several admins and calls for mediation. Now, I would be grateful if you could clarify the below and guide me through your recently imposed notice:

• I am having difficulty in understanding why it is the case that an undiscussed modification to the lead of an article which has achieved its current form through a lengthy consensus building is ok in your perspective, whereas my call for discussion before engaging in such major edits is not? Interesting to note also that your warning to me comes right after my very first intervention whereas repeated insertion of the same clause to the lead of a stable article does not deserve any notification.
• I happen to be interested in the Hemshin region and its history, and therefore contribute mostly on this article. Is this in contradiction with any Wikipedia policies? I am not a professional wiki editor, but feel the need to contribute here as I do have relevant material. My edit came recently simply because I observed an undermining of earlier discussions after a period of stability. Having said this, could you please comment on your remarks here about my intervention in relation to Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

It is nice to have an admin interested in the article, as it experienced intense edits wars earlier before it enjoyed stability for 4 years as a result of the detailed discussions on the talk page – until recent- undiscussed edits along the lines of those who are now supervised under mentioned arbitration. I kindly ask for you clarification and guidance along the above issues.Omer182 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is funny to see people reverting in 2013 based on what they claim was decided by consensus in 2008. I am not sure that a consensus was reached in 2008. My attention was drawn to this article by one of the participants since User:Cihsai had been conducting a slow edit war over 12 months to remove a particular mention of possible Armenian origin from the lead, while never using the talk page. You showed up in the apparent effort to continue User:Cihsai's edit war, though I take note that you did participate in the 2008 discussions. There is a current discussion which asks whether Simonian's book is to be relied on for its statement about Armenian origin of the Hemshin. Feel free to participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It looks like you have already banned one user, and warned me that you will do the same in case I remove the addition, repeatedly inserted by the same two users, with no prior discussion. The reference mentioned is already in the article itself, and the inclusion of the sentence in the lead disrupts the coherency. Your warning keeps me away from editing this article. Kindly consider removing your warning to achieve a balanced view. Omer182 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My warning was "If you are hoping to win the war by reverting more often, please know that these articles are under close scrutiny by administrators." My main concern is about you repeating your previous change without consensus. If you can persuade the other editors on the talk page, then no doubt your requested change will be made. If you consider this change to be very important, then it's probably worth opening up a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. This may have the benefit of bringing in new participants. From the point of view of sourcing, the current discussion at Talk:Hemshin peoples is quite disappointing. People should be searching for published reviews of the major articles and books. If nobody from either side is prepared to do any real work with sources, then full protection of the article should be considered. There is some hint that User:Ali-al-Bakuvi and User:JackalLantern may have specialist knowledge (there are perhaps others) and I hope those who have knowledge can do more to advance the discussion of sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Administrators haven't been able to resolve the dispute because very few if any of them have much knowledge on the Hemshin. This isn't surprising since there are hardly any English-language publications on them–the (peer-reviewed) Simonian text was really the first of its kind. As I've explained on the article's talk page, I feel the introduction is "balanced" enough; unfortunately, in my experience, the only "balance" some have wanted to bring to it is to jettison mention of Armenian provenance (for political reasons). Jackal 06:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Linking in edit summaries

Aloha. I noticed that you and others often provide helpful links to AN3 reports in the logs of your blocks. The problem is, these links can't be resolved after the discussion is archived. Of course, one can eventually find the links given this information, but it takes additional time. I'm wondering if you can figure out a way to link directly to AN3 (and other) reports that will allow users to find to browse directly to the linked reports. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A great idea, which I don't know how to implement. The closest I've seen is the permalink feature used at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests. See an example -- in my move log there's an edit summary moved page Der weiße Rausch to Der weisse Rausch (Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial (permalink)) where the word 'permalink' goes to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/584864133. I.e. it takes you to a version of the page WP:Requested moves/Technical requests on which you can see the original move request.

Per this diff it appears that the permalink is the idea of User:Wbm1058. A person would have to be good at template coding to do such a thing. Maybe a similar gimmick could make permanent links to 3RR complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (WP:AN3) uses the generic template {{userlinks}} in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example when users create a new section with Click here to create a new report in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Header. I'm assuming that you and other admins would block users by clicking the "block user" link in that template. Just as {{RMassist}} is closely tied to WP:Requested moves/Technical requests and is intended to be used only on that page, where it creates edit summaries customized for that application, we probably would want to create a customized version of {{userlinks}} if we want customized edit summaries that refer back to WP:AN3. I'll need your help to test this as I'm not an administrator. Wikipedia:New admin/Blocking#User blocks/unblocks shows the typical Admin blocking form I assume that you use. Per mw:Manual:Block and unblock#URL parameters, I think I can use wpReason-other to prepopulate the "other reason" text field. I've coded that up in the sandbox for {{userlinks}}. Please test by blocking User:ThisIsaTest using the sandbox template transcluded here: ThisIsaTest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This should add a permalink to the edit summary. If you think a longer summary specific to AN3 would be good, let me know. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried blocking ThisIsaTest (talk · contribs) but, from this block log, nothing special happened, i.e. no permalink that I can see. This does sound like the right approach. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Debug:

• Here is the generated URL from the 'Block' button of your special userlinks:

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Block/ThisIsaTest&wpReason-other=%28%5B%5BSpecial%3APermalink%2F%7Cpermalink%5D%5D%29

• Here is the generated URL from trying a technical move:

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage&wpOldTitle=Colloquium+marianum&wpNewTitle=Colloquium+Marianum&wpReason=Requested+at+%5B%5BWP%3ARM%5D%5D+as+uncontroversial+%28%5B%5BSpecial%3APermalink%2F586338699%7Cpermalink%5D%5D%29&wpMovetalk=1

OK, here is my revision of your URL:

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Block/ThisIsaTest&wpReason=Other&wpReason-other=%28%5B%5BSpecial%3APermalink%2F%7Cpermalink%5D%5D%29

I think you need to set values BOTH into wpReason and wpReason-other. The word 'Permalink' is propagating now into the 'other reason' field but there is no actual permalink yet. I didn't bother setting the duration field, but that could be added. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping it would let you choose a reason from the drop-down menu and append the custom permalink reason, but it seems it's either-or. Other on the drop-down must be chosen to use the custom reason. I updated the sandbox template. Try it again. I think leaving wpExpiry (expiry time) unspecified may be the best approach, so different expiry times can be chosen for different situations. Admins should chose an expiry time and check any desired boxes before clicking on the Block button. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your change makes it work now! Perhaps I'll find a way to try it out. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Very good. I see in your block log that you typically link to the specific WP:AN3 section which is helpful because that page is so long. But that section link is only good until it enters the vast Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives. So, while I didn't think permalinking section anchors was needed for technical move requests, it's needed here. I'll work on that. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Philippe II, Duke of Orléans resolution

Use WP:DR for any further steps. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ed, I don't think that the decision is fair. I did not merely add a paragraph saw it removed and then started trying to force it into the biography of Philippe ! I have no time to waste on fruitless conflicts and much appreciate the collective nature of writing on wiki. The litigious paragraph about Marie Louise has been part of Philippe's article since February-April 2012. I thought it to be an important chapter of Philippe's biography to mention at least briefly in his article since it's present in all published biographies (eg. Chritsine Pevitt "The Man Who Would Be King: The Life Of Philippe d'Orleans"). It is only weeks later that FactStraight started editing out bits of my editing, then some months later all of it and this without any rational explanation nor any attempt to reach a consensus with me. last month Kansas Bear "joinded the fray" writing me a "editing war" warning as if I were the culprit of the reverting ! I only ever tried to reestablish what was being removed without any rational explanation. Cross-references and a slight degree of redundancy are inevitable in any encyclopedia. If they are to be banned completely then one could also eliminate most of all the other contextual references in many articles and strip articles to the bones, leaving only the hyper-text links sending the reader back to other articles... And still over the past days FactStraight has never tried in any way to justify his reverting my paragraph in any sound and sincere way. I have never looked for conflicts with anyone but this does not seem to be the case with the other party if you look at the history of his "contributions" : he spends much energy reverting other editors' contributions. When Kansas Bear started reverting my paragraph I left a message on his talk page explaining my position and he merely reverted this text from his talk page without any attempt at any form of dialogue. I don't see this as trying to estalish a dialogue. In their recent proceedings both FactStraight and Kansas Bear have acted in a derogatory and contemptuous way. I have no time to waste in this rather pointless "editing war" initiated and waged by the other party but I don't think that your decision is fair and please ask you to look a bit more at the specific history of this Philippe II duke of Orleans article and at the dates of creation of "my paragraph on Philippe's relation to his daughter Marie-Louise. Thank you for your attention. Aerecinski (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. If you have been reverting the article both as a registered account and using IPs you could be sanctioned under WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Ed, this procedural reply does not answer my remarks at all. You took a decision without looking at the origins of the problem examining the chronology of the various editings. As I state very clearly above it is the othe party that started reverting my paragraph entirely months after it was already part of the article and this witout any willingness to dialogue. The other party is I think using sock puppets and I would like to complain about that. Also since wiki is focused on dialogue and consensus I don't think it's normal to be the object of such accusations by people who it seems reduce their arguments to cryptic formulas and agressively coded language. I am not American and am unfamiliar with their procedural antagonist actions. Regards Aerecinski (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I posted a standard 3rr warning on your talk page in November.[31] I have not acted in a derogatory nor contemptuous manner, since I have used the Philippe II duke of Orleans' talk page.[32] Where have you used the talk page to explain why this clearly off topic paragraph(s) should be included in the article??? Also, in response your multiple accusations of sockpuppetry,[33][34][35] I will say this,Put up or shut up! I read another sockpuppetry accusation issued by you and I will file a personal attack complaint. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Bear, you know very well that I wrote you personally in July 2012 explaining you the relevance of Berry's inclusion in her grand-mother's article. At the time you were less antagonist and didn't systematically revert me out from your talk page the way you do now. Also please use less antagonist words. You now seem bent on writing me warnings and threats and now tell me to "shut up !". Is that a wiki way to address other editors ? Aerecinski (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC) User:Aerecinski, this discussion is about the 3RR. If we look only at the substance and not at the procedural details, your edits are peculiar. Why is there a need to have the behavior of Marie Louise Élisabeth be strongly criticized in the article on her *grandmother*? What is the relevance? Bad grandparenting? It looks like you want your criticism of Marie Louise to be widely aired in a variety of articles where it scarcely belongs. The details of the daughter's scandalous life are fully told in her own article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Ed, thank you for answering me and introducing the debate about the relevance of Berry in her father and grand-mother's articles. A debate that should long have taken place with the other party ! I don't "strongly criticize" Marie-Louise behavior and if you read the letter of her grand-mother you'll realize that she was strongly afflicted by Berry's death who was only 23 years old ! Here again I limited reference to berry's death and its causes to a few sentences. To me it's not at all a question of criticizing the behavior of someone who's long dead but only to echo the traces she left in French history and also in historical novels. I don't think that she was "bad" or "badly educated". I am a cultural historian and not a moralist. This "negative" portrait is part of history but it doesn't please FactStraight and Kansas Bear who seem eager to limit the biographies of royal family members to straight genealogy and a history without any "blemish" (cf. other recent conflictive editing situations that FactStraight opened about other royal families)... Berry's lifeways were most likely "well ahead" of her time which is in part probably why she carried such a negative reputation. She was a very emblematic character of the time period and also used as a negative figure by the political opponents of the Regent and of his relatively liberal politics (compared with the rigor of the later part of Louis XIV rule). This makes Berry an interesting character and not at all "an embarassing... ill-reputed figure" who should be forgotten and kept in the isolation of her own "negative" biography... The fact is she was the daughter of the Regent and one of the key figures of his court, which is also why I think she should be mentioned if only briefly in her father's and her grand-mother' entries... Anyway, this discussion should have taken place with the other party, but they refused any form of dialogue. And here I am only appealing to you because of the unfair manner they handled their lack of agreement with my already existing paragraph in Philippe's article. RegardsAerecinski (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC) "Bear, you know very well that I wrote you personally in July 2012 explaining you the relevance of Berry's inclusion in her grand-mother's article." And where in this post does it explain what I asked on Philippe II duke of Orleans' talk page? Where in this post do you answer the relevance question? "The recent addition of, "from her husband. The debauched lifeways of the young widow forced her to hide several pregnancies and spirit away a live born daughter, possibly fathered by the count of Riom, who later became a nun at Pontoise..", is unsourced and is not relevant to this article. This addition will be reverted." In fact, I see NO mention of Philippe nor how this is relevant to his article! You don't like my tone, too bad. I don't like sockpuppet accusations by an editor that has categorically ignored the article talk page, editwarred for months and now is insulting two editors(ie. derogatory, contemptuous, unfair). It is quite clear you are not here to build a community encyclopedia, but to add irrelevant trivia to articles, despite other editors' objections. --Kansas Bear ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 23:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Bear, you are confusing issues on the 2 articles. We did have a brief exchange about the 2 "litigious" articles: Philippe and Charlotte-Elisabeth. As I had written you back then the source for Berry's pregnancies are in Saint-Simon and are detailed in Berry's own article (I explained you I didn't want to make the reference to Berry's death lengthy). At the time there was no "editing war" at all between us nor with FactStraight who only much later decided he wanted to delete my whole addition to the article. So please don't tell about a months-long war which does not exist, unless war has been on your mind for all that long. You have a strange notion of insult, considering my protests to be insulting while caring very little about the way you deal with other editors and tell me to "shut up!" and "too bad" if I don't like it ! You have written me threatening warnings and your wiki partner FactStraight repeatedly accused me of sock puppetry (FactStraight probably still suspects me of being a sock puppet of his arch-foe LouisPhilippeCharles). Should I have taken offense and threaten you both... No sorry I'm not that way. But I don't like this vigilante-styled attitude considering yourself the sole judge to decide what's "irrelevant trivia" on matters that you don't seem to know very much about... Or maybe you are you an expert on French History ? Et donc pour conclure, mon ami, restez courtois ! Aerecinski (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC) You are the one confused, I explicitly asked where your discussion pertaining to Philippe II was. Your response was the July post(your words). I believe your accusations and personal attacks have given EdJohnston a clear picture of your attitude and intent. Continue to associate Factstraight and myself at your own risk. This will not remove the fact you have not engaged in a discussion concerning Philippe II, but have taken your opinion of 3 other editors to 3 different pages! And now you have to resort to derogatory insinuations of my intellect....You are desperate! Pity you can not find the time nor inclination to type this much on an article talk page! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Bear, does expertise on French History have anything to do with someone's intellect, I don't think so. I guess I'm "desperate" if you say so. Of course there is nothing personal, nor derogatory in your words, for after all you are the only true judge... and the one entitled to decide what's genuine "talk" and brush my "opinions" aside, the same way you deleted entirely my edits, without any dialogue...Aerecinski (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ed, what does "collapse" mean ? That the contents are only visible to the parties concerned ? In any case, I think it's better that way. I don't like the way our exchange suddenly turned into another place of conflict with the other editor. At first I thought we could come to some kind of dialogue in the neutral framework of your talk space but unfortunately it didn't work out that way, turning communication into another case of war. Sorry about that.Aerecinski (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

'Collapse' means that I put a header on the discussion. It should continue elsewhere. The best place is the article talk page, but it should be limited to the content matters. If you believe it is essential to talk about the behavior of other editors you can go to ANI, but they will not consider content questions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Shervinsky (le sigh)

Hate to end up on you talk again so soon, but I think we've reached the point of "intervention or endless edit war" over on Triune Russian people (esp. considering his past history). I can't even make a grammar edit or request citation without it being removed, so this is just textbook WP:OWN at this point. I'd try reasoning (and I have been active on the talk) but when even the smallest edit is reverted under dubious description, it's just demotivating. (sigh) - 1 (undoing all); 2 (calling my grammar edits "complete destruction and distortion of the content"; 3 (claiming I removed his sources when I never touched them) --Львівське (говорити) 15:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. The reason I revert Lvivske's edit is that he removes large text parts and serious sources without explanation. If he wants to correct grammar mistakes or add new facts, I welcome this (as long as they are relevant and representative), but I demand that he does it in a civilized way, combining my parts and his parts and not recklessly replacing them by his own. --Shervinsky (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I never removed any sources or large swaths of text. You, however, did remove a few sentences and 3 refs I inserted last night. Also, to say I did anything "without explanation" is deliberately disregarding my edit summaries and dozen or so points I've made on the talk page in the last few days. Are we reading the same edit history here? --Львівське (говорити) 16:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And now he has made another full revert of another editor involved 4 --Львівське (говорити) 16:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ban appealed

Please be notified that I appealed the ban you imposed on me on WP:Arbitration enforcement.Cihsai (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Senkaku Islands#Requested move

I am writing this request as you made a comment at the talk page before.[36] Current RM is ongoing for almost a week. The requested name is a violation of the policy and overwhelmingly opposed by editors. So I would appreciate if you could close the RM and impose the restriction on the initiation of further move requests for an appropriate period like the previous RfC. Thanks in advance.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The page became the place of edit warring. Some editors removed[37]/collapsed[38] inconvenient discussions for them.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Since seven days have run on the move discussion, any admin may decide to close the discussion and state the consensus. From a very quick look, it appears that the move proposal is unlikely to succeed. (This is without yet doing a study of all the policy issues). I am concerned that some editors such as yourself are trying to refactor the discussion. This is not needed. Any closer who is willing to tackle this will be prepared to do a proper job. It may take a few days before anyone is willing to do this, so just be patient. Misbehavior during the discussion may lead to sanctions, so please wait for consensus before altering the page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I added your intention to the talk page.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Dougweller (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

ACA close

Hi Ed, as an RM closer myself, I don't usually make a fuss when a request doesn't go my way. But I just don't see how your close at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Requested move 3 makes sense outside of counting heads. The oppose voters were arguing for official names and against policies and guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:NC-GAL. Even the head count is hardly conclusive, with three in support, five against (one of them bolded two votes), and two neutrals making supportive comments. Did you actually think the opposition had the stronger arguments? --BDD (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've undone my close and will leave it for someone else. I'd have to disqualify a large number of votes as misunderstandings of policy to arrive at a net consensus in favor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't come near my page you sad little man, stop trying to order others around in a creepy way on Wiki & get a life

Bardrick.

For some reason, this post makes me feel compelled to write my own version. Like "Dear EdJohnston. You are welcome to my Talk page anytime, as long as you are civil, thoughtful and assume good faith. I appreciate your valuable input and promise to thoughtfully consider your constructive feedback anywhere you choose to provide it. Naturally we may not always have the same opinion about how an article should be, but I'm confident we can work it out and when we can't, we can get more editors involved."

Better, no? I definitely wouldn't tell someone to "get a life" that is, so long as I don't have one myself. But then can someone be a good Wikipedian and have a life too? Maybe such a comment is a compliment on ones editing skills, there being a reverse relationship between the two.

Anyways, Ed. You seemed to have an interest on the SAS software page and I was wondering if you were going to add that source you found or if you wanted me to throw something together for it? Also, if you had an opinion on the Products/Applications section I proposed on Talk. I have mixed feelings - it seems reasonable to describe the actual products and it is the feedback I got to create the section, but the sourcing is not great - OTOH, the material is non-controversial and a de-facto part of an article and doesn't need spectacular sources...

I would be content going with whatever you think. CorporateM (Talk) 20:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Meena

sir kindly remove this statement for an entire community.. as this is dispted among contributors and false too.

"the Minas are possibly of inner Asiatic origin, and tradition suggests that they migrated to India in the 7th century

please remove this for the timebeing,request to adminOmkara1188 (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

For anyone curious, this is about Meena (I've added a heading to this section), and there's more in the history of that article and on its talk page, also an earlier comment by Ed and the comment it's in response to here. I did not manage to find any "urgent" part as mentioned in the OP's edit summary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your protection on Great Jones Street

Hi Ed, you recently protected Great Jones Street from editing except by administrators, due to an edit war on the page. One of the participants of the edit war, JHunterJ, is an admin and can still technically edit the page (although he hasn't edited it yet). Is there anything that you can do about that, such as protect the page from editing by administrators, or should the protection just be left as is? Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom takes a dim view of admins editing through protection in order to win an article dispute. This is not something to worry about here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your quick reply. Epicgenius (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

I appreciate the fact that you noticed my complaint about this IP user. I talked to User:Diannaa, who took action on my complaint at ANI, but she said it would be difficult to block him. Do you think there is a way to block this vandal and troll? If so, it would be the best course of action, in my opinion. The policy violations are one thing and the edit warring too, but him following me on every article I edit to start trouble is harassment, in a more veiled way, though. He has this mistaken belief that I love the black mamba and I am only trying to promote how deadly it is. It isn't my fault that biologists are of the opinion that the black mamba is the species which presents the highest level of danger to humans. I love venomous snakes - all of them,. I have worked with them for years, and I have a wealth of material on the subject. So I enjoy expanding articles, improving them with information that wasn't there and than trying to upgrade them to GA status. I have begun my work on the Many-banded krait and I have already expanded it substantially. That's just the start though. This happens to be a highly deadly species too, so I expect him to harass me there soon. This IP user is likely a teen or a very immature, uncivilized and uneducated adult. Either way, he ruined the Inland taipan article (it's back to the way it was now). Just because I started with the black mamba, he assumed it was my favourite snake and he was projecting his own unsavory trait unto me (his favorite is the inland taipan and wanted to somehow prove it was the deadliest snake, despite no human fatalities have ever been attributed to it So he believed what he was doing on the inland taipan page was the same thing I was doing on the black mamba page - psychological projection at its finest). I do love mambas in general, as I do the cobras. That isn't going to guide my editing of these articles. I don't care if one species is deadlier than the other or one is more aggressive than the next. Those aren't important things. They may be fun to debate, but they aren't relevant. Only what is written about these creatures in scientific literature is what matters and that is what should guide the editing of these articles. If there is a way to block him, it would be a great thing not just for me, but for Wikipedia as a whole. Sorry for my lengthy post and again, thank you. --DendroNaja (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In a quick look, I decided that the range he was using was too large to block. He's coming from more than one /16 range. So long as you continue to work on taking these articles to GA it's justifiable (in my opinion) to keep issuing semiprotections. Though this person is a nuisance, the word 'harass' is a bit strong. He's more like a long-term edit warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Cassandra" WP:SPI

Hi Ed, the "Cassandra" IP sock has become very active again, despite some concerted attempts at reasoning with them and I've had to start removing forum-style posts again. I've rewritten and revised evidence for a WP:SPI in my sandbox. Would you be able to take a look at this new version to see if it's on the right lines please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. It will be at least 24 hours before I can look into this more, but meanwhile here are some past IP blocks with which I attempted to curtail Cassandra's IP-hopping activities. The problem was discussed at ANI in November 2012. In general your report should be much shorter and only hit the high spots. The behavior is clearly disruptive and the main question is what to do about it. This is independent of whether the sock has any good arguments. They have lost any claim to our sympathy due to their behavior and the falsification of sources mentioned in the ANI thread. If you go to SPI (which you should) the advice might wind up being 'Revert, Block, Ignore', though the SPI patrollers will probably check the IP ranges to see if they are practical to block. One of your suggestions might be semiprotection of the most frequented talk pages.

Some IP blocks from 2012
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
20:13, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.12.99.105 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Abusing multiple accounts: Cassandra, the Scots language POV warrior. There was a past ANI discussion (search for 'Cassandra')) 20:01, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Continued unhelpful edits. Scots language POV warrior. See log entry for my previous block of this range) 23:20, 12 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Abusing multiple accounts: Scots language POV warrior. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Appropriate for semi-protection? Or another solution?)

–EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ed and I'll tighten it up. No worries if there's a delay; may not get a chance to look at it further today anyway. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Bubba Ho-Tep (film)

I noticed you removed my entry on technical move requests. I'm a little confused, so I'm here to ask why you did that. The discussion on the talk page has been open for a week and a half (since December 22) and is unanimously in favour of moving the page to the one specified. Thank you. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I removed your technical request by mistake. See User talk:Corvoe#Bubba Ho-Tep for follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I went ahead and did the move from Bubba Ho-tep to Bubba Ho-Tep. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Terence McKenna‎

Hi, FYI, considering the warring IP's geographical location, extreme animosity toward me, and connection to Terence McKenna, it is a likely sock of Tumbleman, who was recently caught socking for the umpteenth time. It was a different person who originally added the crazy stuff to Terence McKenna‎ -- the person behind these SPIs:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antichristos/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/198.189.184.243/Archive

You topic-banned 198.189.184.243 in September. Off-site, the user also admits to the socks

• Pottinger's cats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blastikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

whose contributions match the style and content of other socks.

Consolidating these SPIs may be helpful in dealing with future socking, though it may not be worth the time. The content flowing out of these prolific socks has to be among the nuttiest stuff added to Wikipedia, e.g.

The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well.[39]

vzaak 20:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. If you are following the SPI reports you may know whether any of this needs to be submitted at SPI as new information. Do these observations suggest any new action that could be taken? EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It's mainly an FYI that all these accounts are the same person. I noticed you had some earlier dealings with Antichristos and Pottinger's cats as well. If merging SPIs is generally seen as useful then I could explicitly connect these accounts, and/or maybe enter it as a long term case. Your protection comment[40] likely references the wrong sock (it was likely not person which was vandalizing in the past), but that doesn't really matter. vzaak 22:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The person blocked in the Sept 2012 3RR report was User:Final3211. Do you think that was somebody else? In general I'd suggest you retain all this information off line and then submit it if you have a new issue that needs admin action. Or you could ask a SPI clerk for their advice. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I took the protection comment too literally, taking it to mean that 192.69.217.195 is a sock of the persistent vandal, which would likely be wrong -- 192.69.217.195 is likely the sock of a different hardcore troll. The contents of the 3RR report is what the protection comment is really about. Yes, Final3211 and God the Son are the same person behind Antichristos/8i347g8gl/etc. It's an open question whether everything should be conglomerated into one big SPI, or just let it be. vzaak 01:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Topic blocking for IRR violation

I will definitely be more careful to leave a full day (rather than 22 hours) between edits in the future.

I had believed that I had left a day between the edits, although I hadn't timed it carefully enough (hence why I state that I didn't notice an IRR violation above). But I will count the time more carefully next time.

As for the content of the edit. I would think it is uncontroversial (as per WP:V) that we should use the name in the article that the sources that we are citing use. Simply, the names used in the article should be the same as the names used in the sources. Avaya1 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Emailed

you. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Black egyptian block

Not sure, where I should respond, so here goes on your talk page:

Yes. The Black Egyptian hypothesis Talk Page is full of constructive discussion between me and other editors. I follow the restriction and I attempt to reach consensus. Please see the Talk Page. The latest edits came after a year of consensus building on the Talk page (regarding the topic of the latest edits, pictures), which culminated in at least four editors agreeing to the edit. Doug routinely attempts to have anyone disagreeing with him, Yalens, or Aua banned from these articles. The latest edits are being constructively discussed at WP:NPOVN and constructively discussed on the article's Talk Page. Furthermore, the edits are being discussed on Paul B's Talk page, where Doug admits that another editor is trying to have him banned from these articles due to misconduct. If Doug is under review to be banned from these articles due to misconduct, is he a good source to recommend that I be banned from the same articles? Finally, this accusation does not impact the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy article, as no one has complained about my edits to that article.

What's essentially at issue here is that a few editors want to impose a picture ban on the black egyptian hypothesis article, although several editors want to add pictures. Consensus is a hard thing to come by when editing these articles, so usually I wait for a positive comment from editors that usually oppose my edits and then I know that the edit is okay. I received that response when editor Aua said "NVM, I kinda dig this whole gallery thing." Since Aua practically never agrees to any of my edits, it sounded like a consensus to me. The flip side of this argument is that the pictures were previously in the article (a year ago) and clearly there isn't consensus to remove them. Shouldn't the same rules apply?Rod (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Dailey78

Die Freiheitlichen/The Libertarians/The Freedomites

Hello EdJohnston,

I'm writing you with reference to your decision to move the article from The Libertarians (the article's long term name) to Die Freiheitlichen and to protect the page from moves. I agree that the article should be protected from moves (as asked by User:Erpert), but, as it happens, the wrong name was protected.

If you are interested, here is a short summary of the article's move history:

The article was created by me as The Libertarians on 26 February 2007. For fully six years the article's name remained stable. On 28 February 2013 User:RJFF moved the article to Die Freiheitlichen and on 2 March 2013 I moved it to The Freedomites (RJFF had nothing to say about that as he had been supporting the use of Freedomites as part of another article's name—see here and here). Eight months later, on 11 November, User:QuartierLatin1968 moved the article to Freedom Party (South Tyrol); although I could live with that name, I rollbacked his edit and started to discuss. On 19 November the article was moved back by User:Gryffindor to The Libertarians on 19 November 2013. Before and after that, User:Sajoch has been repeatedly moving the article with no consensus.

The law of the strongest should not prevail in Wikipedia. I'm thus asking to please move the article back to The Libertarians or The Freedomites.

Many thanks for your cooperation. --Checco (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What do you mean by "the law of the strongest"? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 11:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Checco. If you want the article moved again, please open a {{Requested move}} discussion on Talk:Die Freiheitlichen. If you don't know how to do this, I can provide assistance with the formalities. This causes the question to be centrally listed at WP:RM. After seven days an admin will close the discussion and state the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ed, I don't understand your answer. In fact my request was quite uncontroversial.

The article was arbitrarily moved to Die Freiheitlichen and protected from moves, but there has never been a broad consensus on that name. There was an ongoing discussion on the talk page, then, by a sleight of hand (not to say something worse), Sajoch exploited the holidays to move the article to his preferred name (Die Freiheitlichen) and was so lucky to have it protected. He did that, ignoring consensus and the talk (as he had repeatedly done with other articles in the past—see here), and, instead of being penalized, he was rewarded: this is what I mean with "law of the strongest".

I know the issue is a little bit complicated. In fact, you are not the first admin to be cheated by Sajoch. On 19 November User:Gryffindor first moved the article from The Freedomites to Die Freiheitlichen, but then acknowlegded his mistake and moved the article to The Libertarians ("restore original name of article, discuss first"). That's what we need to do: restore the original name (The Libertarians, February 2007–February 2013) or the most recent stable name (The Freedomites, February–November 2013) and go back to discussion. I'm sure it was not your intention to appease and favor an aggressive user like Sajoch, thus I trust your good faith and ask you to follow Gryffindor's example. --Checco (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

See the instructions at WP:RM. It is easier to do it the right way than to keep complaining about other people. If you do in fact have consensus for your version, then the discussion will reveal it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Why the version imposed by an aggressive user (Sajoch) without consensus should be the one online now? It is Sajoch not me that should have started a WP:RM instead of deciding to disrupt a peaceful discussion. Why should you favor Sajoch instead of others users who have continued to talk and abide to WP rules? I'm very sorry about that. --Checco (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ps: What I'm asking you is just a technical move, in order to re-establish the situation prior to Sajoch's move without consensus.

Unless a new consensus is formed, there is no reason why the article should stay at Die Freiheitlichen. It is very sad to see an administrator taking sides in a controversy with users, it is even more sadder to see an administrator taking the side of an agreessive user who has imposed his view on others. I still believe in your good faith and judgement. By moving the article to Sajoch's preferred name, you tilted the discussion in his favor and, as you know, it is difficult to move pages: any WP:RM would be influenced by the current name, which is there thanks to Sajoch's sleight of hand. Please take a look to the article's history (Die Freiheitlichen was never an established name), read carefully the whole talk and re-consider your decision by moving the article to its previous established name. --Checco (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: closure

Re WP:ANEW#User:108.41.173.242 reported by User:Lexein (Result: No violation), I'd appreciate

1. more explanation of what, if anything, I did wrong in the reporting itself.
2. more info on instructions vs. practice: I was under the impression that the noticeboard was about edit warring even if 3RR had not yet been violated. I wouldn't have filed if only 3RR+1 reports were accepted.
3. guidance on whether it's appropriate to keep the article at the state (at any state, really) while discussion is going on, per BRD. I thought I was on solid ground.

--Lexein (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is truly a consensus to use 'https' in this infobox it will be apparent from studying the talk page. You can research that and give links to past discussions. Simply asserting there is a consensus does not settle the matter. In the (likely) event that the matter isn't clear, you can use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The other party was using some apparently specious arguments ("why would you take the recommendation of convicted criminals on links to their court-resolved illegal site") but it's up to the local editors to weigh those, not the admins. The second IP that you cited made only a single edit to the article and shouldn't have been named in an edit warring complaint. If either of you reverts again before the discussion goes anywhere it's risky. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your patience. --Lexein (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)