User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

208.84.225.10/Sony Pictures Entertainment

I saw your postings on user talk:208.84.225.10. I went there after noticing mass deletions of sourced material from Matthew Perry. Not coincidentally, that actor has a sitcom that is being produced by Sony Pictures. This appears to be only the latest in a long string of non-neutral COI edits. I'd support a longterm block or ban, since requests for change seem to have been ignored.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 1 month, per User talk:208.84.225.10#Disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

TTC

I have also created a TTC (disambiguation) page. I only edited the page TTC because the Toronto Transit Commission is the most common use for it. LOctopus (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've edited the page (Toronto Transit Commission) LOctopus (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lia Looveer

See my response at 3RR. I can promise to not touch the article for a week, easy actually as I am going on vacation. But there are some more serious issues here related to the ongoing Eastern European Mailing list arbcom case. Pantherskin (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The current wording corresponds (almost verbatim) to what the sources say. We know that she worked as announcer for Baltic Radio, and we know that Baltic Radio was a Nazi propaganda station. Both facts are backed up with a reliable source, and the article does not synthesize these two facts to make any claims about her being a Nazi collaborator or being involved in propaganda. Thats all the article should say - she worked as announcer for Baltic radio (confirmed by the Tallin University library source), and that Baltic Radio was a Nazi proganda station (confirmed by the "Rundfunk in Deutschland" book source).

The dispute basically centers around the claim that we would need a source that contains both facts, and that combining two sources is improprer plus that the Baltic Radio in one source is not the same Baltic Radio as in the other source. Although it clear from the two sources that both radio stations have the same name, where in the same location at the same end (end of World War II), and despite the "Rundfunk in Deutschland" book source not mentioning any other radio stations in Torun.

Thanks for your attempts to resolve the dispute, any outside opinion is helpful here. Pantherskin (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The kernel of the problem is that a number of editors are concerned with the synthesis issue, yet Pantherskin is edit warring the placement of a synthesis tag. The point of a tag is to alert people to the issue, bringing more eyes to it. So while the issue remains unresolved, the tag should remain. --Martin (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

merging at afd

I see no such consensus, and I have reverted your change to the Guide to deletion. I leave it open to you where to discuss it further, but I made a suggestion there. Myself,I am not sure I have a fixed view on it--we may well need some changes, but I do not think there is an agreed version. What I do think, considering the implication for removing content, and for stability of AfD discussions, is that a much wider discussion would be necessary DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In your comment at WT:AFD, you suggest that my close was improper. Can you be more specific? Would you draw a different conclusion from the 28 opinions that were expressed in the RfC? I saw the change in the Guide as a clarification of the existing wording. As I said at the top of my draft close, "Keeping or strengthening the current advice at WP:Guide to deletion against performing live merges is what most editors support." Do you not think they support that? EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your statement in italics, most people support keeping the present state of discouraging it, to a similar extent or perhaps more so. Where I disagree is that the change accomplishes it. ; I doubt whether it might not do the reverse. WHat I would like to do is to try to write something that accomplishes the goal you and i seem to agree on. tomorrow, I hope. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The not so well-known Arbcom decision about Eastern Europe

In your edit summary you referred to the well-known Arbcom decision about Eastern Europe. This is not so well known as you think. What was it? Do you have a link to it?

I tried looking for it myself. But the workshop page I found was all about black books and meat puppets.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's WP:DIGWUREN. An example of the official Digwuren notice is in the box below:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

=== Notice of editing restrictions ===

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

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

I was overworking there, trying not to issue a formal notice to the participants (since that has consequences) while wanting them to read the list of remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Remedies, including discretionary sanctions. I guess there should be a more user-friendly version of the Digwuren notice that just tells people what it is. EdJohnston (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: 3RR at Copper indium gallium selenide

Thanks. Done, a day ago - I thought that IP would get off, but they registered and continued, thus I went to WP:CHEM and got support there - it is by far not the first time some company-minded individuals include such lists in various articles; the consensus was to keep them away from the scientific articles and either delete the lists or move to specific list articles. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User pages (or lack of)

Hi. The reason I've not previously had a user page is primarily down to laziness - I don't feel I have anything unegotistical to put on a userpage, and it makes spotting my own edits a bit easier to have a red text amongst a sea of blues. Still, I suppose I'll get round to it... -- a_man_alone (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hassaan19, User_talk:82.36.17.10

FYI: Hassaan19, who agreed not to edit as 82.36.17.10, has resumed editing as that IP, because Hassaan19 is currently blocked. I have contacted User:Nancy, the admin who has most recently dealt with this user and blocked them, and asked them to take a look. I42 (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Meredith Kercher

Hi Ed. Appreciate you taking that approach. However, I think you should allow me to put a different case. You talk about "unsourced defamation", but the page you link to talks about "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material", which is wider. Although I intitially removed a lot of material (I believe it all fell within that, BTW), there are only two claims which can (on any interpretation) be said to have been warred over.

• One is the sentence "Mignini is a particularly controversial official, due in part to reports of his theories that the Kercher murder involved Halloween ritual, satanism or sex orgy as possible motives for the crime". None of the sources uses any wording similar to "particularly controversial official" or makes any reference to satanism.
• The other is the sentence "An American blogger has reported that Mignini has allegedly charged him with the crime of defamation for sending an e-mail about the Kercher case which was subsequently published in an Italian newspaper". This is sourced to a blog, which is not an RS for a third-party claim.

I'd make the general point that BLP is supposed to reverse the regular burden of proof, so that you can't keep libelous material in Wikipedia by edit-warring. To make that effective, there has to be permission to take such material out as many times as you need to (surely?). If you do that wrongly, then you'll find a consensus against you, in which case fair enough. The key, as far as I can see, is whether it is reasonable to claim that the material may be libelous (that's the first thing mentioned in the examption clause). I'm happy to say I won't edit war, because I have never had any intention of doing that. However, if you want me to say that I won't remove material that is in breach of BLP, then I think the only logical thing for you to do it give me a block. --FormerIP (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Your opponent in the edit war is probably a sock, so he may not survive the expected checkuser. Nonetheless your position looks untenable to me. BLP is not a magic incantation that allows removal of large amounts of sourced material. (Reliable sources tend to defeat the BLP defense for your reverts. You'll be in deep water if you continue to refer to reliable sources as libellous). You're better off opening a case at WP:BLPN than continuing your revert war. If you want to avoid a block, I suggest you agree to stop editing the article for a week. You could continue to use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My opponent in the BLP dispute is probably a sock, you are right. So what happens to that account is not really relevant (checkuser won't work, I predict, since the user is at a relative's house for New Year). There are no reliable sources in this case. There are some newspapers that don't support the claim made - because they don't contain it - and a blog.

Ed, I have nothing against you, but I don't want to take a plea bargain. In my view, I have followed WP policy to the letter. If you don't think so, then just name the period you think is appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for acting at SPI. It is puzzling, however, that the coach and his own socks don't seem to be affected. Perhaps that's just a matter of time? LeadSongDog come howl 14:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Ed, I've asked for a review of my block of COM at Wikipedia:Ani#Block_review_please. Toddst1 (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Paul2387's talk page.
Message added 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Paul2387 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Antivandal Tasks

Would it be possible for you to explain what task's are involved in doing Anti vandal work as I would like to know in order to put the work in action. That way I can earn my Rollbacker right and help with fighting vandalism. Thanks. Paul2387 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the page at Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. That will get you started. To find examples of vandalism, you can take a look at the log of all recent changes to articles at this link. By scanning that list frequently, you can notice some vandal edits, because of strange edit summaries. Click on 'diff' to see the actual change that was made. You should be able to tell if the change was vandalism. If so, you can take action. Ask me if you have any questions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User Rights Procedure Article

I was thinking of creating an article on the wikipedia namespace regarding User Rights Request procedures in general, is there already an article on this before I create the page. Feel free to create it yourself if you know an appropriate title and leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks Paul2387 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you reply to the above messege asap as it hasn't been replied to since I posted the message on new years eve. Thanks Paul2387 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There are fifteen user rights, and most are heavily documented individually. I'm not sure what purpose your new document would serve. Anyone may create a new essay in their own userspace, if you think you have something to contribute on that topic. If you have not yet seen Wikipedia:User access levels you may find it enlightening. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

SUPER (software)

I moved it back to article space after adding a bunch or refs. Can you restore its talk page and File:SUPER.JPG as well? Thanks, Pcap ping 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

editing restriction update

Hi EdJohnston. Some clarification or something is going to be needed. See User talk:Polaron#Redirecting NRHP HD articles. doncram (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As you'll see, Acroterion commented there in a prompt but limited way. And i made a request to A at User talk:Acroterion#Redirects reprise. But, about an editing restriction that is violated, what is generally done? Some of P's edits cannot in any way be argued to be consistent with the editing restriction. I am not familiar with the administration of editing restrictions, so I don't know if there should be other consequences beyond a reminder that a person should comply. doncram (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

AE comment

Hello EdJohnston, in your comment at WP:AE about my appeal of Sandstein's sanctions, you write that my argument is "not credible". Could you explain what you mean by that? Thanks, nableezy - 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Any gray areas in a restriction have the potential of causing disputes. So far you've edited in two gray areas (AfDs and SPIs) and the results have not been good either time. The first gray area is now closed up tighter than a drum since Arbcom has ruled on it. If any new restrictions are issued under I/P, I recommend that they be worded with great strictness so that even vandal reversions are ruled out, since even that can be litigated. The person who is restricted can choose to avoid the gray areas, and if they do so, that avoids the problem completely. The restricted person who perceives a problem that needs to be addressed can always use {{adminhelp}} or contact an admin directly, instead of editing in a gray area. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you dont accept my explanation as valid, but when you say "credible" it implies I am not being truthful. Also, as an additional point, my talk page ban had expired prior to all but 2 of the edits to the AfD and the blocking admin has said that the AfD was subject to the talk page ban, not the article ban. But that is a minor point, my issue was with the word "credible". nableezy - 16:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

'Credible' just means I don't find your arguments convincing. When the alarm bells are going off in a disputed AfD, you shouldn't helpfully jump in and do supposed vandal reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for answering my questions. nableezy - 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring at Joseph Smith, Jr.

Hello John Foxe. As you know a 3RR complaint has been opened about your edits at WP:AN3#User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: ). In this edit, your edit summary claims it is only the third revert: Reverted 1 edit by FyzixFighter; No, this is the third reversion. (TW)) Please be aware that our policies take a dim view of treating three reverts as an entitlement. I see nowhere on the talk page that you found any support for including all this material about Emma in the caption of her picture. Since others have been reverting your change, you must know it is controversial. If you undo your own change to the figure caption, you may be able to avoid a block for edit warring. EdJohnston 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. Sorry I came across as arrogant. The statement, however, is well cited, is not controversial, and has been sitting there for months in an article that generates heated controversy almost daily. The fellow who removed the statement is a descendant of Emma Smith and refuses to accept what virtually all Mormons and non-Mormons accept: that Joseph Smith had plural wives. FyzixFighter simply took advantage of my mistake.--John Foxe (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your warning again me is inappropriate

First off are you guys kidding me... Bubba73 sayed and i quote : The "when" is an indication that the year needs to be specified. Don't you realize that it isn't always going to be "3 years ago"?

Whit that i actually agreed whit him and corrected the article and then his gonna whine and warn me because i did wat he wanted... Also don't have discussion on my page... My page inst social network if you want to warn me of something that fine but don't talk to each other on my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSP-Rush (talk • contribs) 06:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow you talk to me like if you were my high school teacher... I don't know who you think you are but the problem whit this guy and me is that he make complaint but does nothing about it. Plus this is a page that i work hard to accomplish, it my first wikipedia page, i spend a few days just doing this page. Obcourse i dont' want him to delete it. If he were willing to help me improve ther wouldn't be a problem but all he does is piss me off and try to find reason why to delete this article. Am being warned... because a guy who nothing better to do want to delete the page that i work hard accomplish.

Also ther such a thing as social skill. You don't come in and act like your better then someone because your an ADMINISTRATOR IN WIKIPEDIA!!! ' To perfectly honest i don't realy care. All matter is that you people don't destroy my work.

For the social network part it about you warning me. The bubba73 ( who seem to think that wikipedia is his life and take everything personal) thank you on my page. Thus the this is not a social network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSP-Rush (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Full protection of North American Soccer League (2010)

Completely protecting North American Soccer League (2010) because of an edit war and 3RR between 2 users, over one line of text is not the correct course of action. Block the users, don't block the page! Please revert; given yesterday's decision by USSF to create the new 2-division league including NASL, it makes it very difficult to keep the article current. Nfitz (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection has been lifted. Everyone can go back to work, peacefully I hope. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TwoHorned on the David Littman (historian) BLP

User Two horned has continued his edit warring on the same article as he was warring on yesterday, today he is repeatedly adding content that is coatracking and has nothing to do with this living person, I have given him two more warnings to no avail, the last one was, please don't add it again or I will report you, he ignored that and added it back again. this is the tagging on he is inserting.. and which features Vlaams Belang, among others entities, as a "counter jihad" organisation. this detail has nothing to do with the subject at all it is simple coatracking. Here you'll see the two warning I have given him tonight.Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's completely related to the subject as Vlaams Belang is one of the organization mentionned in the web site and conf in question in the article. The truth is that Off2riorob is discarding properly sourced information, and discusses poorly and badly in the talk page, with insults directed at me : here. TwoHorned (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TwoHorned was already warned in WP:AN3#User:TwoHorned reported by User:Heptor (Result: No action) that he had broken 3RR. The report was closed with no action since it seemed that the revert war was over. Since he has resumed, he's been blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen

As an editor involved with the initial edit war that got this user blocked, and after watching her shirk the opinions of now three (3) administrators, continuing to request "unblock" with no valid reason - I must comment here. I am certain this editor will immediately continue her disruptive behavior as soon as the block expires, and has yet to admit any fault whatsoever, continuing to blame others. She has demonstrated a remarkable lack of WP:AGF, continued and unrepentant gross incivility, and a few other issues, which will be dealt with in due course. I humbly and respectfully request: 1) An extension of the block, per repeated abuse of the editor's "unblock request procedure". This user cannot even appreciate or understand why they were blocked, and continues to ignore WP:GAB - as if this were just another edit war. And 2) I similarly request that her talk page privileges be removed for the duration of her block. This is the third attempt at "unblocking" - is there going to be a fourth and fifth? Thank you for your time... Doc9871 (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I must add, I do and have assumed good faith with SRQ. I don't feel that she is an editor that should be blocked for a long period, or certainly even banned; but she must learn from the mistake she made (her block for edit warring). I don't want to cast a bad light on any editor who has made good edits like SRQ, but she must first openly admit her error and correct her behavior accordingly. I don't wish to see any editor suffer unduly, and I wasn't suggesting any "additional punishment". I want to see this editor improve, as I have been "forced" to... :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitriverQueen

Johnson,

Thank you for substaining a block on this user. MY personal impression is this individual might have some mental issues, at times- however, at other times, can be productive and useful. Bottom line, myself and others at a current discussion at WQA are commenting on her systematic harassment, stalking, and vandalism. Only reason I am making these comments is that this person has gone out of her way to make false claims against myself. 68.127.156.120 (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you? This seems to be your first edit on WP - what do you mean "false claims against myself"? No socks, please. If you are a legitimate editor with a grievance, please use your real WP identity... Doc9871 (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your message, its not basically edit war its some what war against terror. What, I am trying to tell you is the truth, which you can sift out easily if you try to be neutral. Hope you understand & verify. Regards,--119.160.32.243 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your quick response. Allow me, some time I am finding proof against them.--119.160.32.243 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for the warning, I will.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth

Ed --

I have no problem with staying away from the article for a week. Do you want that to be that article + talk or just article? I've already stayed away from the article for the 24 hours I promised originally. I thought 3RR is just a 24 block anyway, but fine I'll do the week. jbolden1517^Talk 04:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's enough to stay off the article. If you return to the talk page, you could be helpful if you would start an RfC on a least one of the points in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no point. I did start an RFC and 5 people strongly disagreed with some material being included and it was ignored. And essentially the point of the whole thing has been that stuff decided by negotiations should not be thrown out casually. When other people disagree with that basic principle what can an RFC do? They basically are tag teaming to get people blocked. If there is going to be an RFC I think it needs to be on general behavior. But thanks for the advice, wish RFCs were honored. jbolden1517^Talk 04:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to the RfC on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Dec_5th_poll Those edits are the ones I got 3RRed on. jbolden1517^Talk 05:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion that poll was horribly designed. It's like doing a popularity poll on who likes what revision better. It is more logical to take the disagreements step by step. For instance, make a list what you think are the weaknesses or inaccuracies in the current article. Then look at them individually. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah that was the idea. Just starting with the basics did people like the general direction. The edits that were occurring were thematic. You are looking at a POV struggle here essentially. The details are just details. Heck I even agreed on one of the details (AN Wilson) and they didn't care. The goal of the conversation was never about resolving specifics jbolden1517^Talk 05:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you start out assuming that the other parties won't negotiate in good faith, you may not get very far. How about agreeing to mediation? I remind you that the fallback option may be a long period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to mediation. You want to mediate? jbolden1517^Talk 12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help

I want to update this article but i cant because edit button is removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan So please add these in the article.And my request is please add the edit button in the article.

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

• January 10, 2010 - An Afghan soldier killed alongwith a US soldier and a British journalist in an explosion in southern Afghanistan.

• January 12, 2010 - An Afghan policeman has been killed and two others wounded in a suicide attack at a police station in south-central Afghanistan.

• January 13, 2010 - Various Taliban attacks in the country killed five policemen and 4 Afghan soldier.

Afghan private security guard losses

• On January 7, 2010, seven PMC's including the commander of Afghan security guards killed by a suice bomb attack in Gardez, the capital of Paktia province.

• The article needs to be semiprotected because of sock editing. I suggest you make this request on the article's talk page, and someone who is more familiar with the topic can review it. If no-one responds, use the {{Editsemiprotected}} template. Another option is for you to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How to use thing thing?{{Editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.32.188 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad block

Re Wikipedia:ANI#Someone block this disruptive editor? - The editor had received two very stern warnings from administrators threatening to block on continued disruptive behaviour. They have not continued - in fact, had not edited for nearly 24 hours since the warnings. Why did you block despite my urging not to? Exasperation at having to fix past unwanted edits that were made in good faith is not a justifiable reason for blocking. –xeno^talk 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It was the fact that he had already removed a block warning, and then continued to do the archiving. Opinions could differ on whether the behavior had stopped as of 07:00 on 13 January, but he had already failed to take any appropriate notice of the ANI. The thread had been open since 11 January, and he had certainly continued past that point. By this time he should have joined the discussion to find out how he could help to undo his changes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He stopped fussing with WikiProjects and moved to article talk pages. That's a different matter altogether. –xeno^talk 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the block was premature, you are welcome to undo it. My reaction was due to his complete lack of interest in responding to the ANI thread, plus the fact that many hours of work would be needed to undo what he did. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mladifilozof

Thank you for your concern. I will take a little rest these days. Maybe it is the best solution when the situation becames tense. Greetings! --Mladifilozof (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Creation according to Genesis

Sysop Ed, thank you for your courtesy. I agree to your request that I not edit the above article for one week (13-19 Jan.) Some questions, please.

1. Does User:Ben Tillman not qualify as edit warring during the same period as I? Just for my info, please explain if "no." Is it a case of no one complaining?
2. How does one locate an edit's number, like this: diff=prev&oldid=337146764]
3. I've found that when there are one or two very dominant controlling editors of an article, consensus on any edits contrary to their view is essentially not going to happen. What appeal processes are available in a case like this?
4. [1] Revision as of 00:34, January 11, 2010 is not my edit. (All the others on your 3RR list are mine.) I cannot understand how that edit, which did occur at a time when I was logged in, is even possible. I want to get to the bottom if this so I can prevent it from happening again.

I will appreciate this assistance. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to the proposal.

1. It is hard for a reviewing admin to tell very much about an article with so many edits, and it's conceivable that others may be warring as well.
2. How to interpret diffs: if you just bring up the article's history, and click on one of the 'prev' buttons, it will open a diff page. The diff page has a complete URL, which may end with a string such as diff=prev&oldid=337146764. See m:diff.
3. If you have not tried using an WP:RFC before, I suggest that you consider one. This provides a way to obtain a clear consensus on a Talk page. Since the lead of the article seems to have evolved somewhat since your last edit, it's possible that it does not annoy you so much now.
4. I can't explain the unusual diff that you found, that does not seem to be your edit.

One advantage of an RFC is that they can be advertised, to bring in more editors than just the ones who are usually active on the article. The prospects of arriving at a genuinely neutral version can thus be enhanced. For content disputes, there is really no completely satisfactory appeal process. The best you can do is get more opinions. If article wording is in dispute, it is usually best to convert it into a debate about what the sources say. Discussions about sources are the best to have, since they are more likely to arrive at a solution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for your prompt, complete, and very helpful responses. I'm grateful for your suggestions, and for the time you took to write them to me. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Pubococcygeus muscle

Your evaluation, asking for a WP:Third opinion, doesn't reflect reality. There were a number of people involved, Freikorp, 2010 Duncan, NickPenguin, all opposing Minutae, which, against consensus and ignoring the warnings, kept adding his original research to the article. I ask you to reevaluate that.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Good afternoon, my friend. Could you be kind and tell me why you've protected the White Brazilian article? The only reason why it was protected before was because one editor began reverting other editor's edits but gave no reason to it. He has departed the article's talk page for quite some time by now. Why protect it if the editor that caused the first protection has abandoned the article itself? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:White Brazilian#Protection again. If most of the editors want protection lifted, I guess it should be done. The earlier problem was that that there was no talk page consensus for anything, and the reverts were large and confusing. See my new comment on Talk and please sketch out what changes you would favor. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for answering me. Well, I'll write there a few comments, then. Thank you once again! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the other topic about the subject until now. I do remember that editor Off2riorob was the one (and only one) who complained about Ninguém's edits on the article although he did not give any reason to why he was against it. He never brought, for example, a book that said something different from what Ninguém was writing. And arguing that "mass edits" are occuring has never been an issue as long as it were done to improve the article. The article has been for weeks protected until everyone simply got tired of discussing with him as he kept denying telling us what was wrong with it and according to which authors. Now the article was unprotected and he has returned to complain that another editor was making edits in it? Why he abandoned the talk page and left the article to dust for weeks, then? Only to keep the article unchanged? So, to him no one can make any edit in the article or else it has to be kept protected? Isn't that ownership? Is that reasonable? Could you simply ask him this: "According to which authors are Ninguém's edits wrong?" If he brings sources instead of simply "I don't like your changes so I'll revert them" I promisse that I will support him. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected

White Brazilian is still protected and the editors have move on to similar projects at related articles, I don't like to see this article protected long term, have you get any suggestions, one possible one is if I take it off my watchlist and you unlock it, the wiki wheels won't drop off, what do you think? Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better discussed at Talk:White Brazilian. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss it where ever you want, I just wanted a quiet word with the protecting Admin. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left a question over at User talk:Hoary. We'll see how it goes from there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you remove the protection? The article is again being mass edited by the previous editor, under the comment, "back to work" ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reasonable objection you raised concerning the article was the size of the lead. As you may see, I am keeping the lead short - in fact, quite shorter than the previous version. Ninguém (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What we were missing before was any kind of a talk page consensus on what to do. If you can get others to express an opinion on Talk, and back your changes, then most likely we are done, and there will be no further need for protection. For instance, if you, Off2riorob and Hoary all wanted the same thing, I suspect that it would be the winning proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Feedington requesting unblock

{{Tb}} -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I let him know he can be unblocked if he'll agree to get his image uploads checked for copyright compliance. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: January 2010

Hi EdJohnston, I just want to help Wikipedia peformance by archiving talk page both article and WikiProjects. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re So-called Editing War With Respect to Linear Programming

From Jalaluddin Abdullah: Surely it takes two at least for a war, so what are the motives of the other party? Surely three Ph.D's and a book are sufficient (and I haven't found any serious mistakes in any of them, including my own Ph.D. and book). As for "unpublished", at law I think twenty (20) copies in the public domain constitutes publication and I dare say there are considerably more than twenty copies of the (which happens to be my) book on computers; as for "published" work in the area, it is in my opinion quite turgid (I mean Cline and Pyle) which is why I did not refer to it. As for COI, I suggest you ask yourself if the person who keeps removing my addition has a problem and maybe even a conflict of interest - perhaps that person should be blocked. And how do you know that "nobody but you supports including this material"? Wikipedia is not supposed to contain unsubstantiated statements.

Moreover: Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote "Today, I observed that the claimed representation admits the trivial solution of omega=0, so the claimed result is obviously wrong." Yes, certainly the fixed-point representation admits the trivial solution $\omega =0$, but perhaps he should focus his eyes on the word "Nontrivial" in Bruni's Ph.D. thesis, before embarrassing himself further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjjalal (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

About notability and reputability, and the alleged "turgidity" of Cline & Pyle: Cline and Pyle published articles, which were favorably reviewed; then their results were discussed in two books by Campbell (Pitman and then republished by Dover; the second by SIAM), and perhaps other authors.

As far as I can see, Dr. Abdullah's research in linear programming remains in an unpublished Birmingham thesis (not at Cornell or Stanford or Georgia Tech or Cambridge or Edinburgh, etc.) which has never been published in an article on linear optimization listed by Google Scholar. His latest "book" [sic., manuscript] doesn't cover "nonlinear optimization" as claimed in his Wikipedia entry (which has been repeatedly inserted), but only convex minimization and even there his "method" collapses (see his section 9.3.2), so that his text was misleading. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?

I believe I have been referred to the admins because of my views rather than the edits themselves.andycjp (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC) If I was an an atheist and a liberal no one would say anything.andycjp (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy the edits to back pain that you have made have nothing to do with political views this is about proper formatting of an encyclopedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Despite not ruling in my favor, I wanted to thank you anyway for the speedy response and for pointing me towards a resolution on the other issue on the Saoirse Ronan article. Take care. RyanGFilm (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Page used to advertise theater company

Your attention here would be much appreciated. There is a user called Smatprt being an acronym for Stephen Moorer AT Pacific Repertory Theatre. He is the founder of the Pacific Repertory Theatre. On 22 July 2006, he created an article about himself[2] and such was the concern that it was put up for deletion on 20 July 2009 but the decision then was "keep". At that time the article was 34,000 bytes. However, it has now grown to 46,000 bytes and recently he has uploaded a photo of himself [3]. It now seems clear, if it wasn't then, that this article is intended for self-promotion. TermiteGo (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If a person already has an article on them which survived AfD, then uploading a photo for that article seems OK to me. Could we be looking at different articles? I see that Stephen Moorer is about 17,000 bytes and has hardly changed since July, 2009. Personally, I agree with the Keep result of the AfD. I'm not seeing any big problem with promotion -- maybe a phrase could be tweaked here or there. What change do you think should be made? EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Please see my response at the coi noticeboard, as TermiteGo is the likely sockpuppet of banned user:BarryisPuzzled. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

White Brazilian

If I had a dollar for every time my name was mentioned I would be starting to get very rich, I made a good faith request the other day but they didn't want it, there is no debate as such for me to actually join, I will happily remove myself from the issue, go for it unlock it, I don't like to see an article locked for so long, I made my position clear that actually all I wanted was a bit of discussion as the pov of the article was being totally altered without discussion. Tiresome, the wiki will overcome... go ahead for me..unlock it..I will keep out of the meele, no worries, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced message

Hi. I believe this [4] message was meant for you. -- Whpq (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

NW at AN3

I see you've been active at AN3 today; I'd like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NimbusWeb_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29. Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, has been dealt with William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cladistics

Thanks for the kind words. I got into the subject when I noticed that many other areas of the encyclopedia seemed to involve it and yet no one could figure out what was meant from the articles given. I see my role as mainly producing some clarity here, which can be partly had by attention to the confusing formatting - no one's fault, WP takes a while to learn. I'm still learning. However it appears that confusing use of language is the main impediment. For example, as plesiomorphy and synapomorphy are RELATIVE terms non-careful use can completely destroy any meaning a section was intended to impart. So, I'm not really adding or taking away any content or taking sides in any controversy, only trying to make sure that whatever is said has authority and comprehensibility. It's up to people like you to add strategic direction and appropriateness of content. Thanks.Dave (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan(Update)

Please add below this Add below information in this article.article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

In 2010, 21 policemen and 16 soldiers were reported killed.

• January 14, 2010 - A police officer was killed and six others were wounded Wednesday in a roadside bombing in Ghazni province.

• January 17, 2010 - Various taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.

• January 18, 2010 - A policeman killed in explosions and heavy machine-gun in Afghan capital, Kabul.

Afghan private security guard losses

• January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.131.120 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please make these requests on the article's Talk page. I doubt the practicality of doing these updates on a daily basis. Perhaps the article should be changed to only present summary information that is occasionally updated. If you are actually User:Top Gun, you should not be making these requests at all. Instead, apply for unblock on the talk page of your registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang

Please take a look at this ANI notice. User:DegenFarang has a long history of abusive edits, particularly BLPs, and has stated that the only rule he will abide by is ignore all rules. 3RR is just the tip of his iceberg. His abusiveness needs to finally be dealt with. 2005 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Unblocking of Yakudza

Re, your message, in case you do not already know, I am not an admin.. if you do, cool then. That aside, I cannot give a good judgment at this time, but I will look into it tomorrow.. sorry for not responding earlier, I had been a bit busy. Also, do you know of any programs that check for copyrighted text? If so, then please refer me so that I can check up on the user's submitted article to make sure that it doesn't violate any copyright, as that is what the user was blocked for. If they have shown the ability to write articles without violating copyright, then I'm fine with unblocking.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just thought you should know, after some research, I found some interesting information, and as you are involved, I want to make sure that you know, just in case my reply is deleted by the blockee or some other user. Here is my reply. Yak was the one that added the copyrighted line, not other users as they belay. I shall be posting this message to all involved users.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please unprotect SitNGo Wizard

Since SitNGo Wizard is currently undergoing a delete vote (AFD), please unprotect the page so that people interested in keeping the article can clean it up, add references, etc. Thanks! Samboy (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The protection will expire on 22 January, but the AfD won't close until 25 January. Consider adding the proposed new references to the article talk page in the meanwhile. (For a hotly-disputed article, it is surprising how little discussion has occurred on the talk page). If the edit war restarts, it will make the AfD even more difficult. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Yakudza19 still requesting unblock

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

repeated violation of editing restriction

Please see User talk:Polaron#repeated violation of editing restriction. This is unfamiliar territory for me. I believe that I am acting in full compliance with all agreements I have made with Polaron and others relating to article structure (merge vs. allow separate NRHP HD articles vs. village/hamlet/neighborhood articles) in what is now a long-running dispute. I have been working to clear the informational issues in a big backlog of disputed cases, largely by adding NRHP document sources and developing information to allow informed decisions based on common information. But now, Polaron is again redirecting, in clear violation again of the formal editing restriction he agreed to. I don't know what happens now. Shouldn't there be some consequences. It certainly undermines my motivation to make the agreements that Polaron accepted work out fairly for him, tho i am not about to welch out. I thot a horrid long experience was winding down, and am disappointed again. doncram (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Though I have doubts about the wisdom of Polaron's action, I need to ask what prompted you to go boldly forward with a separate article on the Historic District. The thing you created seems quite small and vestigial. Couldn't the HD have been adequately treated by a section inside the Fenwick, Connecticut article? The last time around, I recall that other editors suggested you begin your work off line if there really wasn't much data available yet on the HD. If you can get Acroterion to agree that a separate article on the HD is desirable in this case and is consistent with previous agreements, then I'll pursue the matter with Polaron. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Now trying to understand the basis for a length requirement of HD articles. I just found this wording in your Proposal B at Talk:Poquetanuck:

We agree to ask via a template at Talk:Poquetanuck that no one should create the NRHP HD article unless a) a DYK-equivalent length starter article could be created, using substantial information (such as would be provided by the NRHP document), and b) the person creating it judges in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.

The stub you created for the Fenwick HD does not look to me like a DYK-equivalent length starter article. I don't know if the Poquetanuck principles apply here, or were generally accepted, but a substantial and detailed HD article would certainly affect the weighing of the options. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The basis for a length requirement was my attempt to get away from the minimal stub creation/redirect/argue cycle. An inarguable DYK-length article seemed like a reasonable basis for a stand-alone article. As you observe,the best way to approach this is to write a one or two paragraph summary in the parent article, then proceed to a separate article if one can be sustained. Some of Doncram's recent articles have the content spread very thinly to eke out 1500 characters. Doncram really, really wants to have separate articles on every possible NRHP property; Polaron wants tighter integration with existing content. Polaron's redirect was, in my view, a violation of his restriction. The article, though was (at the time of redirection) scarcely informative: "It has some significance" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, Polaron shouldn't be following Doncram around, ready to redirect if an article doesn;t measure up. Acroterion _(talk) 12:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The exchange at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list#Middlesex County HDs provides some insight. Acroterion _(talk) 13:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated on Acroterion's talk page, I think it would be appropriate to insist that Doncram refrain from creating "fill in the blank" stub pages in article space. Creating pages like that one that he started in Fenwick Historic District is like waving a red flag in front of a bull; its difficult to fault the bull for rushing at the flag. --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a warning for Polaron not to violate his restriction. I agree that Fenwick Historic District is still a 'fill-in-the-blank' stub, and my DYK-checker says that its readable prose is only 729 characters. Since it's less than 1500 characters it's too small for a DYK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The requirement of DYK-length is part of the Poquetanuck compromise which applies to CT NRHP HDs that meet 3 defined criteria which Polaron originally proposed. Measuring whether the criteria are met has been left to Polaron; only he has convenient tools or otherwise figured out how to measure the .2 mile distance one. I have previously, and repeatedly enough, asked Polaron to work ahead and state which cases in the worklist (and which cases in the CT NRHP list-articles) meet those criteria. He has not done so. In the meantime, I have been proceeding for some time, as A, O, P are all fully aware, in going through the worklist to develop the NRHP HD articles including adding NRHP documents. So the process has been working by me proceeding, others usually whining some and criticizing, and then eventually it is sorted out whether 3 criteria are met (in which case I agree to a merger or I judge separate article is better and commit to developing a decent article over DYK-length). In each of these cases, once determined 3 criteria met, i have carried out what I committed to. In several cases i stated that I would develop DYK+, then marked the article "Under construction", then did the development over a couple days, and finally removed the Under Construction tag and announced i was done in the central work-list. In no case has the bot which removes stale "Under Construction" signs come around before i was finished. I am dealing with all of this perfectly responsibly, while others are following me around and just heckling, basically.

By the way, in many of these cases, I am correcting information in the related articles that turns out to be fabrications, and incorrect. Such as assertions that the entire borough/village is a historic district, or that the historic district is some current arts district when it turns out the historic district is a WWI-era housing project, completely different, instead. The village/hamlet/neighborhood articles in CT are all rather lousy, frankly; it is simply weird that these other editors are fighting so valiantly against the temporary existence of perfectly well-sourced albeit temporarily unfinished NRHP stubs. They should be embarrassed about the lousy quality of the hamlet articles in CT in general, including ones that they are trying to force merger to. Many of those have no sources whatsoever and are just piles of speculation, often incorrect. The development of a related NRHP article is, in almost all cases, leading to improvement of the village-type corresponding articles, whether or not the NRHP stays separate or not. The more I do adding in from the actual NRHP documents, the less respect I am having for the opposition here. And the more I think that generally lousy quality of the CT articles, relative to those in other states, has something to do with the pervasive, rude behavior of one proprietary wikipedian, perhaps driving away many potential CT editors.

So about Fenwick Historic District, i am still not sure if those 3 criteria are met (what is the mileage difference, by the way?) If it turns out they are, which does seems likely now, I will comply with the previous agreements, which perhaps would require me to invest more time in developing a more detailed article or perhaps i will agree to a remerger. Note that in a remerger, the material i develop will have improved the corresponding Fenwick article. By my developing the separate NRHP article, I am building common information to help everyone have more informed views. What is galling is the arrogance shown by Polaron that no way no how could there be room for an article on the topic of the NRHP. He didn't need no stinking information to make that judgement before, here and also in now-hundreds-of-cases where his prior judgements and assertions turned out to be wrong. He may be right here that the NRHP HD substantially overlaps with the village. But he's too happy to seize upon work-in-progress and his quick read of an NRHP document (adding to whatever else he knows or thinks he knows) to make that judgement. And then to act like judge-jury-executioner and edit war to get his way. This is embarassing, rude behavior on his part. I have been choosing to pursue the NRHP HD issues in Connecticut in order to clear away the minefield for new/other editors. I do see in passing that P shows extreme proprietary attitude about other CT articles and issues. I do think he is cumulatively irritating and driving away many new wikipedians who don't know how to stand up to his battling behavior. Here, anyhow, I am trying to insist that P behave civilly. This includes raise content issues at talk pages, make merger proposals to be discussed civilly, etc. It is depressing to see reversion to battling behavior as his first and strong instinct. It has not been my goal to force change in Polaron's general behavior, but since he is acting out again now, in explicit violation of edit restriction, I think some more review of his behavior is called for. My main goal, again, has been to clear away the minefield on the NRHP topics alone. I have compromised, already, in giving up what is a basic right (to create stub articles on valid Wikipedia topics, with no length requirement, unless and until a valid AFD process is run and reaches a delete decision (which in almost 100% of NRHP cases would result in KEEP decision)) for CT NRHP topics.

About waving a red flag in presence of a bull, by my creating a stub article in an area that might offend P in some way, that is not my problem. If the bull cannot behave himself when under edit restriction, then there is a serious problem with the bull. It is not correct to tell everyone else in wikipedia to avoid valid article development (creating stub articles on valid Wikipedia topics) because it might irritate an irrational, policy-defying individual. In particular I am concerned for the new wikipedians, or new-to-NRHP-topics editors who might start, only to encounter the rude, proprietary behavior. I have repeatedly expressed this analogy of clearing the minefield, which I am proceeding with. I am certainly eager to finish and get on with other stuff, elsewhere.

Sorry about the length of this post, somewhat of a rant, but I wanted to share a bit more of my perspective to EdJohnston, who seems to have some good concern about the behavior issues. Thanks. doncram (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Must Doncram's HD articles be developed in article space?

I question why we need to have so many tussles in article space. Can't Doncram create draft versions of HD articles in his own user space until they pass the criteria? He could create links to those draft articles from Acroterion's list, which would allow others to see and comment on them. I suggest that those articles should not move to mainspace until they pass a length check using a DYK-checker script, which would ensure that they have 1500 bytes of readable prose. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Doncram has already agreed to plenty of compromise, but is willing enough to consider more, if the basics of an agreement are held to by other parties as well. Going further, I have specifically committed to trying to make the agreement work for Polaron, as well, and if some clarification and/or amendment is proposed i will be receptive.

I have already agreed to follow the Talk:Poquetanuck agreement and not create short stub articles in cases where it has been determined that 3 criteria for a merger are met. It would help if Polaron would go through and identify the cases where he feels the 3 criteria are met. I have requested he do so and he has not. In a case where 3 criteria are met, the agreement is not clear on how to implement a good faith decision to do a split article (requires good faith judgment that a split is beneficial, plus commitment to DYK+ length). What is not explicit is whether the splitter has to create DYK+ length article separately, or whether it can be done in article space in some timely fashion. In practice, I have been working in article space because that is where the articles already are, or there are previous redirected-over versions in place, and I have made public announcement of commitment to develop to DYK+, posted an "Under Construction" tag, and proceeded to complete out some decent development. I am willing to amend/clarify the agreement to agree that in 3 criteria cases where there is not currently a separate NRHP article, i would work in userspace first, and meet DYK+ before moving to mainspace.

In the absence of 3 criteria not being identified, it is not reasonable to prohibit article development. The fact of previous edit warring is little indication of whether 3 criteria are met. Polaron originally judged in hundreds of cases that he would enforce mergers, and did redirects and edit warring to prevent separate articles. In most of these original cases, Polaron agrees that forcing merger is not reasonable.

After the fact of an article being started, if it is then determined that 3 criteria are met, then i have always agreed to bring the situation into compliance, either by performing a merger or by developing to over DYK-length. Note, all these split/mergers are subject to further, usual wikipedia processes of merger proposals etc., based on actual information; this tussling has to do with temporarily stabilizing CT NRHP cases only. I don't feel inclined to agree to ask Polaron for permission to develop any article in CT. I already did ask him to identify the 3 criteria cases where he wishes to object to article development. So if I start or re-start an article in mainspace, and he then wants to object, I think it is reasonable to allow for some time to complete out some decent development, leading either to a valid separate article being kept or to a merger of the developed material.

Also, another way that Polaron and others could address things, is to actually develop the currently-lousy village/hamlet articles that they favor. There are only 2 or 3 cases in all of CT, maybe one being the Old Wethersfield article, where any serious effort to develop NRHP information in the village/hamlet articles has occurred, except in response to separate NRHP article development. To this date, I believe Polaron has added an NRHP document as a reference to a village/hamlet article only one time, ever, except when deleting and copying material that i had developed in a NRHP article. So, consider this as an option already available to P, that P can get something in terms of stopping NRHP development, if that is his goal, if he actually has done or is doing some good amount of NRHP development in a merger article. If he puts an "Under Construction" tag up, and is actually seriously working, I would agree to not do competing work in a corresponding separate NRHP article. --doncram (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, development of articles in main space is allowed on Wikipedia. Why should I or Doncram, or anyone else have to agree to give up behavior that is explicitly allowed in order to keep the freakin' bull from overreacting? I would not want to have to agree to develop every article I start to DYK length before introducing it to mainspace. It seems to me that this would be a direct contradiction of the Wikipedia process of growing the encyclopedia. Starting stub articles that others come along and work on is integral to that process.

Further, Doncram is much less opposed to merging articles than I am, in spite of what others may think. I do not enjoy at all the process of trying to work NRHP info into existing articles, which often have unsupported information or at least require me to make judgements about and check info that I have no interest in. There are several articles in my home area that I have pictures for languishing while I procrastinate because there already exists an article that I don't want to deal with. It is my opinion that just the infobox and a couple sentences DOES convey good information. If I am travelling elsewhere and look at the NRHP list to see what to look at historically, having an article available with just the infobox is a huge step up from having to request every nomination form separately in order to have a clue about it, especially in areas where nomination documents are not available online.

In my opinion, Doncram has done more than his share of compromising in this dispute. NRHPs are Wikipedia valid topics. If I develop an article you think should be merged, then there's a way to handle that. Why should Polaron be allowed to circumvent that process? I agree there shouldn't be so much tussling in main space, but I think you guys are trying to change the behavior of the wrong (and wronged) party. Perhaps you do this because you can't get Polaron to listen or respond any better than Doncram has been able to, but how is that fair? Let the bully have his way, then he won't beat you up. Or in this context, play in your own yard (user space), but don't venture out, because others might defend you in your own yard, but they'll let the bully beat you up out on the street. Doncram is certainly right that Polaron's behavior would rapidly repel any newbies trying to work on CT articles. I am not a newbie, and I witness this whole thing with fear for the ramifications that these CT agreements may have in other areas of the country. If in the whole country DYK length articles are required before they can move out of user space, then further development of NRHP topics will virtually halt, I believe. I think that would be really sad. Lvklock (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We would not be here, having this discussion, if there had not been a long-lasting edit war that people are groping to find a solution for. There needs to be a way to bring consensus into the process. What do you advise to stop the war? Polaron has a restriction in place; Doncram should also agree to limit his behavior so these contentions don't constantly occur. You could suggest ideas that will keep this from going to Arbcom. Do you want to try explaining Poquetanuck to Arbcom? EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Recently Doncram has been creating pages in article space that consist largely of placeholder and "fill in the blanks" sentences and citations, as well as pages that look like notes for an article to be developed later. Statements like "The district has some significance", "It has some history," "It has a cut stone ring somewhere and rusticated brownstone curbing somewhere else," "The district includes some core area," and "The district has significance described in its NRHP nomination documents", lists of 200 street addresses of individually nondescript houses included in a historic district, and bulleted items like "*more" (all of these are extracted from Doncram's recent work) do not belong in article space.
Doncram expressed outrage at Talk:Glenville Historic District after I moved that article to his user space, suggesting that he was unaware that articles could be developed in user space. It's surprising that a user of his experience was unaware of this, but it's not too late for him to learn -- and get in the habit of starting skeletal articles in his user space, rather than article space. Other users would not be so motivated to merge, delete, or redirect his rough draft articles if he didn't put them in article space. --Orlady (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, I cannot see anywhere in the linked discussion at Talk:Glenville Historic District where Doncram says anything that suggests "that he was unaware that articles could be developed in user space." I know he was aware that they could, but that it is not his preferred method of development. There wouldn't be an "under construction" tag if it weren't acceptable to develop articles in main space. I get that you don't like it, but I don't get how you can prevent it. Do you patrol other articles tagged with "under construction" to make sure they all live up to your standards of what should or should not be allowed in mainspace? EdJohnston, as far as I can see, the only way for the contentions to not occur would be for Doncram to completely drop the whole mess, leaving CT an undeveloped mess of redirects, etc. I do not see Polaron adding a whole bunch of new content, all I see him doing is running around messing with merging stuff others have done. Disagreement (contention) is not against the rules. There are procedures set up to deal with it. Polaron is not following those procedures. How are you supposed to deal with someone who refuses to work within the system? I, personally, would chuck the whole darn thing...not worth the ulcers. But, Doncram responded in kind because he coiuldn't get Polaron to discuss, and to stop making his contentious edits any other way. I guess he perceived the edit warring as the only way to get people to pay attention to what Polaron was doing. Now, obviously, that didn't work very well, since all it did was focus criticism on him. My impression was that since Polaron agreed to the edit restrictions, Doncram had not been edit warring. Has there been recent incidences of edit warring by Doncram that I missed? When Polaron violates the edit restrictions, Doncram tries to get someone else interested in dealing with it. I still am worried that putting more and more restrictions on the exact ways in which Doncram chooses to develop articles will then be applied widely by others, limiting development by requiring too much perfection. Lvklock (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, which says in part,

Often, instead of outright deletion, someone will suggest moving an extremely short article to the main contributor's userspace. This, however, defeats the whole purpose of a wiki. A wiki is for collaborative editing; articles grow organically as different people come along and contribute their own bits of information. Keeping short articles in userspace, where almost no one (certainly not casual editors) will be able to find them, until they are expanded to meet some arbitrary criterion makes this whole process impossible. Don't do this.

Lvklock (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Daniel S. Razón

Thank you for the heads-up! This article and others connected to the Members Church of God International network of articles is highly-controversial and have a "rich" history of oh-so-many-socks who all ended up being perma-blocked. Basically, everyone who edits in favor of the notorious cult, its leaders, and any programs and projects related to it are suspects. Because, never in the existence of any of these articles has there been even one editor who contributed anything in praise of these personalities who did not turn-up as a disruptive puppeteer/sock at the very end. I have provided some links on the 3RR page itself to support, which should be enough for any neutral editor to have a good grasp of what's really going on. More evidences can be provided, not to mention the articles themselves, which are all duly-sourced and clearly depict what sort of people we are dealing with here. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Samuel Sevian

You helped before with an edit war starting at Samuel Sevian. We are still having problems with the same editor. Can you give some input over there? Thank you, Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 16:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on Rapido's false claims under his report

Please check my view in the report area. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More personal attacks and WP:AOBF from the IP editor above. As usual, nothing is done about it. Rapido (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

He seems to like to call criticisms attack and takes criticism against his editing style and behaviour as a personal matter. Again signs of Opinion.

Rapido has removed my links on your talk page

Again, a clear example of his deceptive editing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=339386500&oldid=339381181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In the edit history, it does look like I have removed those links. I take exception to the IP editors claim that it's clear[ly] deceptive editing. It was a genuine mistake on my behalf, and I didn't even see those links when editing this talk page. Rapido (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link removed by Rapido, please read my replies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.193.135.142_reported_by_User:Rapido_.28Result:_24h.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The ongoing dispute

I am tired of Rapido calling criticisms as attacks and will trust in your judgement to mediate and resolve this issue as soon as possible as Rapido is attempting to make this a personal war, when its an edit war dispute.

We need urget mediation, this is becoming to personal when the matter at hand is the content of BBC Persian Television article, I cannot grow white hairs over an arrogant user. EdJohnston has already said both me and Rapido have engaged in an edit war, and I would like matter sorted out as soon as possible. I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page, because they bare more logic than anything else. I hope to see a resolve v. soon on the issue, and would like the editor or admin viewing this case, to decide which version of the edits were most accurate, NPOV and representative of an encyclopedia. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, more personal attacks from the IP editor. Rapido (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where? Why are being a troll and diverting attention away from the real issue. I bet you will call me calling you a troll an attack again? Right? --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just remember, the editors and admins are humans, you going to call this an attack again? --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, definition of a troll: "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or OFF-TOPIC messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response"... you sure did provoke my emotional response. Carry on calling my criticisms attacks. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This has gone to WP:AN/I, altho' the personal attacks have (as you can see) continued. Rapido (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Need Your Help re: Above Discussion and Case

EdJohnston, how do you suggest I should deal with Rapido and his accusations of personal attacks when out of good faith I want him to understand why he is being problematic. He has misquoted everything I say at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#WP:AOBF_issue_with_IP_address_94.193.135.142 and I am afraid by engaging defending my self against his accussations, seems to give him more substance to create false views. He will quote this too. Can you help? Suggest what I should do? I'm not very experienced here, and would like to know what I can do? --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you can see the irony of the above assertion out of good faith considering the catalogue of assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks from the above IP user which are listed both at WP:WQA and WP:ANI. Rapido (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Linear Programming repeated adding of unpublished papers

Hello Ed!

Here's an update on Linear Programming.

The fellow put back his thesis. I used the WP utilities for checking IP address, and they indicate that the editor"s" all come from Malaysia, even though one of the displayed IP-numbers begins with a different prefix.

The name of the registered editor is similar to the user name of the sourced account at "Optimization On-Line", a repository of reprints. The thesis thanks people in Malaysia for their assistance. It seems to be a potential case of conflict of interest, as you noted on the registered editor's page, before.

Today, I observed that the claimed representation admits the trivial solution of omega=0, so the claimed result is obviously wrong.

I did invite the registered editor to try to contribute to a stand alone article on "generalized inverses in linear programming", but there's been no response there either. (This seemed to be most constructive use of his energies and material, imho.)

Again, thanks for your help before. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This material was restored by another IP-editor (without comment):

[of thesis]

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article, on the assumption that COI-affected IPs are trying to force the mention of certain publications that would not otherwise be included. Will you consider opening a complaint at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, if this has not already been done? Whether PhD theses are considered 'unpublished' is a gray area, so I would prefer to use citations to judge the matter. If the PhD work is not very well known, as judged by Google Scholar or other appropriate rankings, then the IP promotion of this work may need to be resisted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Following your suggestion, I wrote a [| notice on the bulletin board for possible conflict of interest]. Thanks again for your help. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated my notice there with three other articles where the manuscript of Dr. Abdullah has been posted, and sometimes removed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Another anonymous IP editor (also from Malaysia, apparently) [| added Jalaluddin Abdullah's manuscript as a reference ] to the article on convex optimization today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Convex optimization to keep Jalaluddin Abdullah from using his IP socks to add mention of his work to that article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the semi-protection. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jalaluddin Abdullah's manuscript has been again added at Nonlinear programming and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting those pages. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

SNG Wizard

TonyTheTiger has continued making changes to the article despite your caution that he should not do so. I think he should be blocked from making any changes to the article given his COI. There is no way anybody else can improve the article right now - he just reverts everything back. What option is there other than to edit war in a situation like this? It is a fairly arcane subject and few editors are going to take the time to actually try and clean up the article - so it is me vs him and I do not want to edit war. So what do I do? `DegenFarang (talk)

TonyTheTiger has undone his most recent edit. If the AfD draws a lot of participants, we may get more opinions on how to clean up the article. You can make more changes if you first get consensus for them on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is he not required to get consensus? He is making changes at will. If I follow what you are saying and undo his changes he just reverts them back... DegenFarang (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

At 23:05 UTC on 23 Jan, he undid his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction

I've corrected the spelling of Bosnipedian in your blocking notice on RegionLegion. I've never done this before, and I hope it is OK procedure. BTW I've seen quite a bit of ranting in AfDs, but nothing like this one - he's coming in on different IPs now and getting even louder... Peridon (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The correction is fine, but what IPs do you think he is using? And which files? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the Bosnian Royal Family AfD. I think all the IP edits are him. You'll spot them by the style. 38.99.65.107 , 99.198.121.199 , 64.120.229.34 , 173.212.236.30 , 93.104.215.164 , 78.46.117.146 , 209.51.155.18 . I think that's all. If they're not the same person, they all went to the same school and same class. (I used to switch IPs on another site - I once posted as two different people with different IPs with the same posting time. It was within the rules at the time... Can't do it now with a fixed broadband IP. They've banned multiple names there anyway.) Peridon (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Last Airbender edits:

Hello:

I thought to contact you as an Admin, as I seem to have ended up in an Edit war with Dylan0513 (talk)

The page has a casting section, which had been expanded with some quotes regarding the film producer, Frank Marshall and film pundit Roger Ebert. Dylan0513 did not like the idea of having those quotes in page and deleted them. I disagreed. I eventually created a Controversy section, which he also disagrees with and deletes, although some of the previous editors preferred the idea.

Upon the leaked names of the main cast members, Avatar fans campaigned for a change in casting to reflect the ethnicity or the appearance of the characters. As of January 2010, even though the film has not been released, there is still an ongoing controversy in the Avatar fan community over the casting choices and boycott websites, for the film, have been set up. On April 20th, Frank Marshall stated in his Twitter account that the casting was complete and that they did not discriminate against anyone. Finally, that he was done talking about it.

- Recently, Movie critic Roger Ebert called the whitewashing of the cast as wrong and asked, why Paramount and Shyamalan would go out of their way to offend the fans? He clarified by stating that there were many young Asian actors capable of playing the parts.

I perused the controversy sections in Dragonball Evolution and 21 (2008 film). They both contained more information regarding their casting controversies. It would be a disservice if statements from these two persons were left from the section.

It has already been pointed out that we are breaking the rules, but further discussions seem to be of no use, we are at an impasse. An Admin to make a judgement would be better.

Thank you, Nemogbr (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC) --Nemogbr (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the article for five days due to the edit war. Consider opening an WP:RFC to bring in more people to the discussion. Perhaps you can find more press sources that show that the controversy has been widely noted. If you are deadlocked, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For a film that has not been released, it is receiving plenty of coverage in the internet and there are 141,000 entries, regarding the controversy if you check via google. Various blogs like racialicious, 8 Asians, Geneyang, Angry Black woman and others have mentioned the so-called racebending and any article pertaining to the film, like in Variety magazine, ends up with dissenting voices from pro-casters and anti-casters.

Both 21, Tropic Thunder and Dragonball Evolution mentions the controversy in those films, but Last Airbender does not. Not mentioning the controversy is a disservice to the fans and those looking for information. You end up with only half the information, making the article more an advertisement for the movie, rather than a neutral source.

--Nemogbr (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned blogs, which normally don't count as reliable sources. This is not a good way of showing the importance of the issue. Moreover, the controversy about the race of the actors is *already* mentioned in the article, you just seem to want to emphasize it more. To avoid undue weight, any mentions in reliable sources would be valuable. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, the blogs show POV. The brief mention looks as if it was a sideline issue, when various minority rights groups ended up contacting Paramount studios and the film makers had to answer questions. That's the reason for only having two entries in the quote, I posted on your talkpage. Frank Marshall, the film producer and Roger Ebert, a film pundit whose reviews are syndicated in over 200 newspapers worldwide. I thought their view points had more impact, compared to Rathbone's comment. --Nemogbr (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unclear why you say the article doesn't mention this. The controversy about the actors' race already gets about 100 words and five references in the article. If you think it deserves more space, try opening an WP:RFC. For judging the impact, a publication like Variety would be more significant than a reprint of Roger Ebert's opinion, since he is essentially giving his editorial comment, not acting as a reporter. Frank Marshall's Twitter postings are a primary source. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct regarding Robert Ebert's opinion, although that post had been on the article for awhile. Frank Marshall's twitter posting has also been deleted.

The reason was supposed to be the quotation marks. I removed them and made them part of the casting section. It was then deleted. Then the reason was that it should be on a separate section, which I created. It was deleted again.

Rathbone's interview could be regarded as primary source, but Frank Marshall would be a more important source as the film producer. The addition of Robert Ebert is to present fan views. If I included more from Asian American rights groups, it would make the article all about the controversy, which would skew the article even further.

Nemogbr (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC) --Nemogbr (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Expired protection and vandal returns

Sorry to bother you again (as usual). As you can see here, there is no hope for Corticopia. He is just waiting for every single expiration of every protected article to come again and disrupt, vandalize and edit-war. Today January 23 2010 the protection of the article Middle America (Americas) expired and he returned only to edit war again. [5]

I think the same is going to happen to every single article that you protected. Thank you for your help in advance. I think it is very serious that only because of the fault of one person Wikipedia is ruined. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Renewed the semi. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help improving Wikipedia. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Buried Treasure

I've been planning to add a link to my archives - as soon as I found out where they were! I've been laid up for a week and can manage normal patrolling/editing level of brain action, but anything technical beyond explaining to someone how to copy links (not here!) is currently beyond me. Starting to recover. I did manage to download my camera last night.... Things seem quieter in Bosnia now, by the way. Peridon (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

GeneReviews comment

FYI I've copied your comment from my talkpage to here, to keep the discussion in one place. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New comment from User:Carlos5053

Hi Ed, this is Carlos5053 and I don't know what you are talking about having a second account for Christina Mendez, this is the only account that I am aware that I have. It is frustrating that someone keeps going in and changing my article. Putting things on there that aren't true and deleting out other information and references. It's nothing like I wrote. This is soooo FRUSTRATING! Accusing me of having 2 accounts, not true, not true, not true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos5053 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Carlos. Back in October, 2008 you asked to have the Carlos5053 account renamed to User:Christina Mendez. That rename was successfully done. I see that the new Christina Mendez account was never used. If you no longer wish to use the Christina Mendez account, I will block it and we can expect you to use Carlos5053 in the future. The talk page redirect has been undone so from now on you will get messages at User talk:Carlos5053. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: What to do about the edit war about Italian surnames

Discussion at User talk:Materialscientist#What to do about the edit war about Italian surnames.

Comments:

• I've routinely blocked IP:76.91.189.163 for rapid reverts (and undid the reverts); it is not impossible that IP:76.91.189.163 and user:Sherlock4000 are one editor; this might constitute socking as they edit same articles but don't acknowledge they are one. I've asked Sherlock4000 twice, at his talk, on his relation to IP:76.91.189.163 and received no answer. His replies went away from my questions and make me suspect he is a drama queen.
• As I understand the war (from a very superficial look): Hubschrauber729 is playing tough and requesting WP:RS for certain claims. I've looked at one case only and it was like this: a person got Italian passport because he could play in Europe with that, and the whole reference (on that he is of Italian heritage) was based on his own words. On the other hand, another side of this dispute has its reasons too. Thus as an editor, I would request WP:RSs, but I am absolutely not keen to look at the evidence myself. As administrator, I would listen to User:Marek69 and others and then propose a solution; I fully support a short (not 90d, but until resolution) and immediate ban on warring at those articles. I would support longer ban if misbehavior escalates, but I wouldn't take any claims there at their face values. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• I saw Hubschrauber729 reply at WP:AN3, would oblige (as you did) Sherlock4000 and 76.91.189.163 to discuss the issue there (or at some talk page), and would short-term block any editor who resumes the reverts. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Response

Dear EdJohnston, A couple of months ago, you had enforced a rather lengthy block on me before I even got to respond to your warning. I had not logged on or edited before you blocked me, so I do not feel like I should have been at a disadvantage for not being able to sign on. (Clearly, I was not editing anyway.) I was eventually unblocked. This is not the issue I have. Your comment that you "see no future" for me as an editor is simplistic, unfair, and mean. Before making a strong comment like that, you should perhaps listen to what another editor has to say rather than making a comment based solely on the narrative of the other user involved in an edit war on one article. It is at odds with WP:Assume good faith. I did not act upon User:George's edit warring behavior, but had you looked yourself you would have noticed countless reverts without making use of the talk page, disregarding serious concerns NPOV, tendentious editing, and of course, the intensification of an edit war. I respect your role as an administrator but I kindly ask you to act more fairly, listen to an opposing side before making a judgment, and to assume good faith before making such a discouraging statement. --Shamir1 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with the second chance which was granted to you by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. if you edit carefully from now on, and observe the restrictions, you should be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bunić talkpage

Hi EdJohnston, could you semi-protect the talkpage of the article as well? The IP sock seems to be trying to remove my posts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP has not edited since 29 January. I suggest you just restore your comment. Do you know who the IP is a sock of? I am hoping one of the regular editors will nominate the article for deletion. If not, I may do so. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lvivskie

Unexplained revert. Sources were added. --Paweł5586 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

request a block

Hi EdJohnston, could you please consider imposing a preventative block, per what i describe at User talk:Polaron#Canaan edits and edit restriction. I just asked also at Acroterion's Talk page (and i also mentioned this to admin Nyttend, only because N had just posted at my page, altho he has not been involved in enforcing P's edit restriction, and N has already declined to enter in). I don't know who is online, but I am afraid P is embarking on a new spree that will cause considerable more work to clean up, and that is not directly constructive, whether or not it is in exact violation of P's edit restriction. I am not sure if it is in violation or not, but if not it is skating on the edge. Acroterion has previously given his guidance, as mutually requested mediator, that such redirects should NOT be created. --doncram (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Meredith Kercher

Hi Ed. I wonder if you could take a look at Murder of Meredith Kercher? You blocked a user User:PilgrimRose for one month for SP, which expired yesterday. The user appears to have returned as User:Zlykinskyja and is straight away back editing in the same extremely POV and non-cooperative style. See this diff [6] which adds about 60% in word count to the lead of the article.

There was previously an ANI against the user. I'm not sure it is important for you to read this (archived by now). It didn't end in any sanction, just an admin suggestion to edit more politely, but it does show that multiple users had problems with the editor. Perhaps foolishly, I offered mild support to PilgrimRose there, but his or her behaviour got a lot worse after that.

I appreciate this may be a legit sock, since the old account has been retired. However, the new user is declining to confirm its identity.

I suppose I'm asking if you would be minded to give User:Zlykinskyja some friendly but clear advice regarding making substantial edits against consensus and the importance of not editing exclusively from a single POV.

If I should be posting this at ANI, then please just let me know.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for a month, due to the past history of socking, documented at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77, and the previous filing at WP:AN3 which is mentioned there. This will give you a short respite before the new editor becomes autoconfirmed. I hope you will use this time to try to form a Talk consensus. If you think there is enough data for an SPI report, please consider filing one. Consider leaving a message at User talk:Zlykinskyja to document your concerns for the record, even though I see the two of you have already conversed elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To Ed Johnson:

There needs to be a full analysis and consideration of the attempts by FormerIP and some other British editors to block, censor, intimidate other editors from adding some of the American viewpoint to the Meredith Kerhcer Murder article. FormerIP came at me today just for trying to add a paragraph that added some of the American perspective to the article. He deleted my paragraph just two or three minutes after I posted it claiming that it lacked sources, when I was actually in the process of adding sources. The paragraph is well documented, well sourced, quite legitimate. He deleted it twice without prior discussion. This is just one of countless actions by him and other foreign editors to delete information that presents the American perspective on the case. The reality exists that Amanda Knox could be in fact innocent. She is a living person entitled to her good name if she is innocent. FormerIp has made hundreds of edits to slant the article to make Knox sound more likely guilty. Yet I am being blocked for TRYING TO ADD ONE PARAGRAPH that presents the American view, which is well documented by U.S. media and Senator Maria Cantwell. Wikipedia solicits funds from Americans, but here we have a situation of discrimination against American editors. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about censorship but that is what is indeed going on here. If you look at FormerIp's hundreds of edits over the last several weeks, they are all about making Knox look more guilty, while my one paragraph offering an opposing view gets deleted and now I am blocked from editing the article for a month. It is very difficult to respect policies like this. I am requesting that the article be unblocked to stop the censorship. Furthermore, I am by no means a sock puppet. I post under one name only in compliance with Wikipedia policy. The issue of sock puppet is just an excuse for censorship. FormerIp will use any tactic to get his way, such as he is doing now. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ED:

One further point. I do not know the procedures. Where can I formally report this situation for dispute resolution or arbitration? This is a serious matter, since some believe that Amanda Knox is being defamed by Wikipedia while she is pursuing an appeal for which the next 26 years of her life may be at stake. There needs to be compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons. By blocking the American viewpoint from being added to the article, her reputation is being unfairly damaged during the appeal process. There needs to be a full review of this situation by a Wikpedia board--not censorship which allows only the current British editors from presenting information about the American Amanda Knox. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ed.

Zlykinskyja, please look back over your above comments. Can you see that you may not come across as an editor who is very committed to NPOV? --FormerIP (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Zlykinskyja. If you are interested in a good-faith discussion, I suggest that you restore to your own talk page the comment by FormerIP which you deleted. A brand-new editor who starts fighting right out of the box is not likely to win much sympathy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not minimize this situation. This is a very serious matter involving the reputation of a living person on trial/appeal for 25 years of her life. Please advise what steps I can take to have a full review by a Wikipedia board. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Consider looking for an audience elsewhere. Our articles are expected to be calm and objective. The more you identify yourself as a crusader for a cause, the less people are going to listen. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So you will not tell me how to appeal this block on the article? Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. You won't tell me how to appeal this censorship block on the Kercher article. I guess then that I will have to find my own remedy, which may be having my lawyer write a letter to Jimmy Wales about the censorship, bias and mean-spiritedness going on with the Kercher article, resulting in the defamation of a living person with the knowledge, acquiesence and assistance of one of his own administrators. Good day sir. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ip hopper

You just blocked an ip for edit warring at Fox News Channel, then a second ip popped up just after that, continuing to make the same reverts. that ip was block, but now a third ip continues to remove the section. Could the page be semi-protected for now please?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another admin has taken care of it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I have no problem with a halt in adding/removing of the categories until a resolution is decided on. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair result, for now. You mentioned a discussion on an appropriate forum, which would be appropriate? I'm thinking of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I see a discussion as the only way to truely resolve this issue. Thanks for your general involvement and advice. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. You might start by asking for pointers to past discussions. Another place people may have heard about this issue before is at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick question: I am not allowed to remove categories that are there based on Last name alone. How am I supposed to know if the category is there based on last name? Does that mean I can removed categories where it is just an unsourced addition? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be better to leave such categories alone for at least thirty days. I hope you are making an effort to find a central place to discuss this. Since the other side appeared to be using the stronger language and be less amenable to diplomacy, any real progress toward having a discussion may depend on you. Anyone making a sincere effort to discuss is less likely to be blocked next time around. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been away from Wiki for a bit, but i did come across this category: Category:Turkish people of Kurdish descent. I'm thinking this is a good solution. Any thoughts? I will begin a discussion on this soon too. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Howdy, Ed. Saw your message over on Rip2010's talk page. Trying to take a wikibreak, but I'm not doing a very good job of it, I'm afraid.  :) What's up? Leave word here and I'll get back to you. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello PMDrive1061. Please consider taking the full protection off your Talk page, since people can't contact you about your admin actions. Also it would be good if you enabled an email address. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Will do as soon as I come back aboard. I just logged onto Simple for a moment and I thought I'd follow up on this post to let you know I got your message. Thanks for the help and I'll be back in a couple of weeks or so. Just hitting a wall with all the vandalism and I am way behind schedule with some important personal projects. I plan to be busy at Simple (schedule allowing) and I'll pop by here every so often. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Riverview Terrace Historic District edit war

EdJohnston:

FWIW, the cause of the edit warring between Orlady and Doncram on the above article has already been remedied (we simply rephrased the sentence to give it substance). I'll be happy to make similar changes to other articles where this sentence appears to prevent needless sanctions against either editor. Bms4880 (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask that you treat this 3RR as you do any other user you block for the violation, or bring in an admin who can be neutral and doesn't have several interactions with Orlady. CTJF83 chat 03:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are generally used when someone is continuing to revert. People have told me the war on Riverview Terrace Historic District is over. Do you believe otherwise? I have blocked an admin in the past for 3RR; I just don't think the current situation calls for it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if this report hadn't been drawn out for a ridiculous 7 hours, and if I didn't take the initiative to research the topic, it might still be going on. Again, I'd like a neutral admin to weigh in who doesn't have a COI and worked in the past with her. CTJF83 chat 04:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

....oh, and clearly it's going to be an issue in the future. CTJF83 chat 04:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram. While the RFC is named for him alone, the behavior of Polaron and Orlady should also be considered as well. I don't know if you have any opinions, or if you want to get involved (any more than you already have), but this is a courtesy notification. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is the Admins noticeboard on edit warring only for 3RR? Thanks. Malke2010 03:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It handles both 3RR and WP:Edit warring. For details, see the long story at the top of the noticeboard. In the white box, there are sections marked 'Definition of the three revert rule' and 'Definition of edit warring.' EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it.Malke2010 03:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a post on the edit war noticeboard, but I'm afraid I've no understanding of how to use that template. I can't seem to get back to it to try and fix it. What do I do now? thanks, Malke2010 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted on my talk page to keep it all together.Malke2010 05:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Back at it

Scribner just removed the tags the other editor placed. I would appreciate it if you would discuss it with him. It would be nice to avoid a noticeboard. Thanks.Malke2010 06:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This item is resolved, since Scribner has been blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BotfieldCatflap

Tiktaalik swimming

Hi, Ed. I've given BotfieldC a final warning, and will block him next time he puts in the same creationist rubbish content at Tiktaalik. I've warned him before, but as you know he keeps deleting warnings. Could you tell me what the warning he got at AN3 contained? (You didn't give him a permanent diff, and now I can't find it.) It would be a little embarrassing if I do something quite different than what that warning said would happen. Regards, Bishonen | talk 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

Here are the user and article links:

• BotfieldCatflap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tiktaalik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The previous 3RR case was here. The result was: "Warned. BotfieldCatflap has not edited for two days. If he starts again with the same pattern, he may be blocked for edit warring." Due to the staleness of the 3RR complaint at the time it was investigated (04:37 on 31 January), no block was possible, and he had not quite made four reverts in 24 hours anyway. I would suggest that, since he resumed warring at 22:55 on 4 February, his next revert should be a cause for action. Looks like the ANI responders have the matter in hand. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will, unless somebody else gets in there first. Oh, and I misspoke that I had warned him before; I was mixing him up with another user of similar habits. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Who are you?

Not much to go on based on your userpage. Thanks for your assistance. Remember to be nice to the noobs and irregulars. I haven't seen Lord Volton around since he was blocked. :( ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NRHP Meta-issues

I think it's time for an RfC, or possibly formal mediation on the disputes at NRHP, if only I could figure out a way to boil it down to something intelligible enough that someone will be willing to comment on it. We have personality disputes that are inflaming content policy discussions, and we have disagreements on content policies that are getting under the skin of individual editors. In the background there is actual progress being made, believe it or not, but these eruptions are costing far too much time and good will. Most editors with some experience or opinions in the area are so sick of it that they're avoiding the subject. Any comment or mediation framework must cover both the content and editor behavior concerns while avoiding the walls of text that have been produced so far. Acroterion _(talk) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That could be an idea. I wonder if anyone would have the interest to go through User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list and just figure out what the status is. I.e. if there is progress, where is it, and what are the good examples to use for the future. This is more of a 'content' task than an inquiry into user conduct so perhaps it would be easier to find people willing to work on that. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Doncram and Polaron have been pretty good about reviewing and updating issues at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list. I've followed along and tagged things that are resolved, and should spend some time updating that today and tomorrow; I'm hoping I can collapse a good bit as resolved. The editor behavior issues have been going on since June; the three primary participants can't help reverting each other, and we get these lame edit wars every few weeks. Acroterion _(talk) 12:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've begun to put together an outline for an RfC on the NRHP content disputes at User:Acroterion/RfC NRHP, to be moved to some more appropriate place once it's developed. I'll be working on it in between bouts of snow shoveling, and you're encouraged to contribute as you desire. Acroterion _(talk) 17:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR/Racepacket

If you look at his talk page, you would see that I have attempted to talk to him. He simply not paying attention. There is also an extensive thread at WP:ANI right now where it's being suggested that Racepacket and I be topic banned from University of Miami.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• It did not work. If you look at my talk page, you will see that Ryulong communicates with 28 pt red all caps. Racepacket (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to my recent comments which do not use red, all capital letters, or increased font size.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the two of you are making changes that get in each other's way. What if each of you could list on the article's talk page some changes you are preparing to make over the next 24 hours? Sounds like a failure to coordinate + personal irritation and not so much a content dispute. Everyone else would be relieved if you could come up with a scheme that worked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that got in his way was my fixing the formatting of the references that he began changing wholesale when he began to work off of an offsite copy of the page source instead of the one on the site. And that's just for this last spat. Everything else we've tried to discuss on the talk page of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Of course. I have accepted his position on the treatment of the existing Research items (including Harvey the teaching mannequin) and continue to find additional sources. But what gives with User:Daedalus969? This has become a three handed situation now. Racepacket (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I did not see your referenced quote. I was acting on his refusal to discuss the footnote deletion, and his second deletion which I discovered this morning. I suspect that he is not the most discerning editor in Wikipedia and probably has no idea that he is doing these edits. Racepacket (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So what do you find so objectionable in the RfE against me?

And as I showed most of those diffs are complete misrepresentations like when he said I "lambasted the IPCC" when the actual diff shows me commenting on another editor's lambasting of me. He obviously didn't read the diffs he was quoting but just threw a bunch out there and hoped people wouldn't look past the single words he'd put in bold. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well? You said I should be topic banned so what diff in the complaint did you find so objectionable? I explained clearly how they were misrepresented. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Warned

I never made four reverts. I made 3, and a separate edit. I also have not touched the article since I agreed to stay off of it. Why have I been warned?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a new comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Authorship Talk Page

Can you review the "modest proposal" section at the bottom of the Shakespeare authorship question talk page and let us know if we are on the right track? Or (more importantly) if we are not? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything that the two of you can agree on is certainly a candidate for inclusion in the article. Even if you divvy up the sections, it is very desirable that you announce your intentions before making any large changes. The recent Talk discussion has been on the right track. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way something can be done about 205.172.16.103, who apparently has no intention of using the talk page and keeps reverting relevant and properly sourced edits? Thanks.

And can his edits be reverted without being in peril of being blocked? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you and Smatprt are the only ones willing to discuss on Talk, and if you agree that the material should be reverted, then do so. (Propose the change first, in case others are watching the page). He will most likely be blocked if he continues to revert with no discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at the Shakespeare authorship question page again, along with the discussion page? After a short period of compliance, Smatprt is up to his old tricks again. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note for Smatprt. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I just made a proposal to return to the last consensus version prior to all the edit warring and sock vandalism. That version [[7]] was last edited by Tom on Jan 5 prior to all the nastiness.Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The last consensus version, which you agreed to, was on Feb. 5. It is getting extremely tiresome trying to work with a person who doesn't live up to his agreements and who constantly tries to get an edge by circumventing protocol with passive-aggressive tactics, although I can't say I wasn't warned. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. I agreed to certain changes in the opening lines of the 2nd paragraph, but the talk page shows at least one other editor not agreeing to the language I chose to support. More important, however, is that Tom made a number of additions during the edit wars and sock puppetry attacks of mid-January which were never reverted and which had absolutely no discussion nor consensus. That is why I proposed that we go back to one of his last edits before all the nastiness broke out. If we are to achieve a true consensus, it only makes sense to look at these changes one by one to see if a real consensus actually exists. Simply reverting to Tom's last version does not accomplish that. The article was relatively stable until mid-January. After that it was a free for all, which all of the latest versions fell victim to. What is the harm in stepping back in time a bit?Smatprt (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I apologize for using your talk page as a jousting field, but this type of behavior is typical for Snmatprt, as anyone who has ever tried to work with him can testify. Could you explain to Smatprt when the proper time is to bring up objections about edits (not a month later) and the proper method to do so? I have changed the orthodox part of the lede; his part I have left as is, but I have added reference tags. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of no "time limit" on making changes to an article. The fact is that several editors of late have objected to these additions so it begs the question - is there really a consensus for the additions Tom made during the edit wars? And why is Tom afraid to revisit them now that the dust has settled and there are more than just the two of us involved in active discussions? Smatprt (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifics please? Is there a time limit on changes? Have several editors not expressed objections? Did you not make these additions during the period of the edit warring? Smatprt (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Birczanin's edit at Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists

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

Next 2 vandalisms. Sources were also added, and changes were discussed in the talk page.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There us a legitimate debate about sources. If some people claim the sources are bad, consider asking for comments at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I will remind Birczanin to join the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1, 2 Next 2 vandalisms, he is removing interwiki to similar article in Polish Wikipedia - Stara Huta (and defence), pl:Obrona Huty Starej. He is currently banned in Polish Wikipedia (1 Month) and trying to play here. --Paweł5586 (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you could try to develop a case against him for WP:Tendentious editing. This would require a bunch of data. You might be able to convince an admin to give him a topic ban from the articles concerned, under WP:DIGWUREN, assuming that Polish-Ukrainian disputes are in 'Eastern Europe' for purposes of that case. Can you explain why the block was issued on the Polish Wikipedia? EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked for edit wars: reverts in this article- 1, 2. There were more such blocks.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you blocked for edit wars at the moment as well?--Львівське (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pawel is not blocked, but he still has some kind of a topic ban that seems to expire on 17 February. His question about Birczanin seems OK to me, though Birczanin is not very active here so there doesn't seem to be an urgent need for sanctions. Birczanin's block log on the Polish Wikipedia is very impressive, and it's unlikely someone would still be around on enwiki after that kind of a record. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Next rv by Birczanin. Faustian restored referenced material.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I recognize this comment by Moreschi, as a consent to act in Wikipedia but closely in accordance with the rules. --Paweł5586 (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal user Toutvientapoint

User:Toutvientapoint has been vandalizing several articles in his/her short time on Wikipedia. They have been warned multiple times, but he/she just clears their talk page and ignores all comments. Here are all the warnings he/she have received (I undid all his/her blankings)[8]

South Asia

[9] (after this edit, I told them on their talk page why their edit was wrong)

then they repeat the vandalism [10] claiming the reversion was unexplained (even though I had told them why it was wrong)

Asia

[11] [12] (They removed a huge chunk of cited content)

Can some actions be taken against this vandal, thanks

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (This has also been posted on YellowMonkey and Nishkid64's talk pages Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

I might be willing to take action, but he has a variety of contributions, not all of which are bad. If he is really an edit warrior on the subject of Tibet, perhaps you could collect some diffs that would make that point more clearly. He has yet to respond on his own Talk page to any of the warning. I have left him a note. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that is all that s/he is done to Tibet so far. I am not quite his/her overall intentions, but his/her actions seem to indicate s/he is bent on placing a PRC-centric POV onto wikipedia. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK

It's done. I'll restrain myself. I was warned against editing that article here and here. I probably should have listened, because I have a couple of real academic projects I've been neglecting because of it. Thanks for the advice. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Eventual block

• OK. Regards, --Birczanin 09:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoring comments

Thanks for pointing out WP:TALK#User talk pages. Didn't know about the user talk pages policy so I know for future. Mind you I do think his action was a little cavalier. Marlarkey (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on my ip autoblock remove request :)

I noticed your reply on my talk page and on the autoblock remove request page. Just wanted to leave a note that I am again able to edit currently (quite "precociously", as you had complemented) :) Thanks for the message. Regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Militant atheism

Ed I discussed the content on the talkpage and when I received no objections I added the content. You accused me of no consensus and not following policy. I added the content to the talkpage no one posted an objection to the content. I then added the content to the article and it was then deleted without discussion you accuse me of no consensus and edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed I added a sourcing request to the militant atheism article and it was removed today without discussion and or edit summary since I do not wish to be percieved as edit warring can I please ask you to restore the sourcing, citation request to the article?[13]LoveMonkey (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

View

Please, take a look at this:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Z_Victor_Alpha_reported_by_User:Tadija_.28Result:_.29 I think that you are aware of this case. All best, --Tadija (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Worrying behaviors after getting off from a block

Unfortunately, Je suis tres fatigue (talk · contribs) resumes the disruptive behavior that led him blocked yesterday. Since I concur with your assessment on the said user's behavior, I draw your attention with the pointer. His motif for doing this[14][15] is obviously stemming from his grudge for the block. As a person who has filed a WP:SPI case against Je suis tres fatigue's suspected block evasion from a banned user named Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs), I think it is not worth fighting with him (I've dealt with the sockpuppeter's block evasions). I assume others feel the same. A part of the problem is that the SPI case has been backlogged, so if you have an interest in preventing the disruption, could you look into the SPI case and Fatigue's recent activities? Thanks.--Caspian blue 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger Blocks

Thank you, I was just waiting for a response from the two parties before initiating any blocks, the issue won't go away that easy; I would like to find an acceptable consensus before unprotecting the article. Poor Yorick (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you have a look?

Today a new user, User:Nishidani,made huge changes in the article without any discussion or consensus, and in the, but in the process made a shambles of several policies and escalated an already tricky situation. Can you take a look and perhaps leave him a note to join the discussions. I would do it myself but he already started with a sling of ad hominem attacks in his edit summaries. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a new user. I've made almost 14,000 edits.

Smatprt has not indicated where and how I 'made a shambles of several polcies'. That is vague, and question-begging, since it is a generic complaint without documentation, used to persuade an administrator, who does not act on such subjective objections.

I caught a notice about this page on the Reliable Sources page which I have earmarked and followed it, and was surprised to see a superlative wiki technician question good edits from a reliable source. So I commented there. Then, having roughly 80 books of Shakespearean and Elizabethan scholarship in my library, including the work of the dissident 'Oxfordian'/'Anti-Stratfordian' school, Ogburn and deVere, etc., I reviewed several sections of the wikipage. A decade ago I engaged in several months of strenuous argument on this 'theory', engaging directly even with some of its published opponents. I know the subject well.

I'm quite happen to join the discussion. But most of the edits I made were either to clean up confusing or badly phrased language, supply reliable sources, and add additional sources from the Oxfordian camp, to the text.

As I understand Smatprt's mass revert, nothing can be edited into the page without discussing it with him to obtain a consensus. That smacks of WP:OWN. The page abounds in miscitations, poor language, misleading phrasing, and inadequate sourcing.Having made my edits, I was preparing to make a general statement on the talk page when I noticed the mass revert. I have dropped a note there to raise some issues, and have absolutely no problem in discussing edits. If you check my record, I am well known for discussing edits far more than I allow myself to actually edit.

In the meantime I see my morning's work has again been reverted. I have no intention of rising to the bait. But it's a pity to see that absolutely no discrimination was used by Smatprt about my edits. If a page in dire need of extensive revision has to languish, as word by word, an editor is held hostage to the theory of prior consensus by others who apparently cannot fix the evident mess before us all, then I suppose I'll have to withdraw. What are we supposed to be doing here, pushing a private POV, or trying to drag badly written pages to some level of readability as they conform to the strictest criteria of WP:RS, when most sources on the page are not WP:RS for anything other than the opinions of non-academic amateur sleuths about highly intricate issues of literary history? Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I might add that the sudden appearance, in reverting mode, of here of a User:CaptBassett, supporting the plaintiff, does not look above board to experienced eyes.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As an "experienced editor" Nishidani should have known to check the talk page before doing a massive rewrite of the lead. Several sections on the talk page indicated an attempt to rewrite the lead was needed and as recent as yesterday, several versions were under discussion by the regular editors. Instead of joining the ongoing discussion, Nishidani bypassed it and rewrote the entire lead. And contrary to what is portrayed here, this was not just a case of cleaning up bad writing. A large amount of new information was added including incredibly harsh rhetoric directed at authorship doubters and researchers, and the rest of the lead "clean-up" involved re-characterizing anti-stratfordians (from a strictly stratfordian viewpoint). As was recently pointed out, this is an article on a minority viewpoint and as such it should not be drowned into non-existence by the mainstream rebuttal. And the rebuttal should not spend the majority of lead space attacking and demeaning their "adversaries" instead of summarizing the key rebuttal points that occur within the article.

Also, Nishidani seem to be completely unaware of the peer review. Again, as an experienced editor I am just wondering why he completely ignored the talk page? Smatprt (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked the talkpage, and saw total stalemate between a couple of editors, with one Tom Reedy, being argued against by Smatprt and User:Schoenbaum, the latter a very recently registered editor with no record other than for editing the talk page (no article edits) who seems to me much like User:CaptBassett, though I may be wrong. The two appear to be props for Smatprt's habit of making WP:OWN and unilateral edits, without discussion as agreeed to here, here here, and here. User:CaptBassett popped up onthe 9th of Feb, and began to revert. This was a violation of the semi-protection protocol that Ed imposed on the page, allowing only established editors to work the Shakespeare authorship question page. A newby, who has never edited wikipedia, nor this page with any contributions of content or substance reverts in Smatprt's favour, and Smatprt never whispers a murmur of protest. When I made 27 sucessive RS or stylistic additions to the text, I was massed reverted, by Smatprt and then the curious figure of User:CaptBassett stepped in to ward off attempts by old editors to restore my work. In short, Smatprt complains of a breach of peer protocol against a content-improver whose edits he dislikes, and keeps mum when an anonymous newby breaks the administrator's protocol against anyone but experienced editors intervening, because, apparently, the newby's revert restored the version he prefers.

When I say Schoenbaum and CaptBassett behave as props, I do not exclude the possibility that they are 'anti-Stratfordians' who have jumped into the page to support the editor who shares, independently their views. But in terms of editing dynamics, it is ugly to see a one-to-one argument suddenly bolstered, numerically, in favour of one of the two disputants, by two extras who blow in unannounced and form a functional 3 to 1 majority against the other, who happens to represent the views of orthodox academic scholarship.

This article is rated as of high importance, and catalogued for those pages in the Wikipedia for schools project. Since this is to be put before children, and the subject is a WP:FRINGE-view topic, with very few academic reliable sources available for building it since it is ignored in academia, great care should be taken to ensure that it is crafted to ensure neutrality and readability, qualities notably absent from the page, due to edit-warring between those who espouse the fringe-view and those who accept the verict of orthodox scholarship (the latter a minority).

The Review archive page has no 'peers' editing it, and is effetively dead. I edited, and then addressed the talk page. In the peer review header, I read: 'Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.' This I did, and was wiped out twice once by the fringe-theory editor, and once by an obvious sock.

By the way don't put 'experienced editor' between inverted commas. It is not a 'quotation' of my words, and therefore must be ironic. As the Chicago Manual of style remarks:-

'Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense ... They imply 'This is not my term,' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused."

My edits are called 'controversial' and thus removed en bloc by Smatprt and then partially restored, and my impression is that he cannot quite understand that 'controversial' is not a synonym for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that removing reliably sourced material introduced to refine the text or correct its oversights and errors, is not good practice.

Despite the 'high importance' accorded the article, it is highly improbable that anyone will drag it out of the C grade quality (B grade must refer to quantity of material, though much of it is a distorted paraphrase of the original sources) it languishes in. There are only two editors working on it, and when I ventured in, WP:AGF was ignored, and a sock was used to wipe out what I did. Any one can check the difference between my first and last edit in the series and ask yourself if my succession of edits consisted of wild, erratic, unsourced, subjective, partisan or tin-eared additions.

In any case, sorry to trouble you, but the plaintiff simply makes too many generic complaints about editors, or makes appeals to one or two principles I see no evidence of him respecting in the talk page history. This is my last word here. If I think it is worth continuing to assist that page, I'll reserve my remarks for it there.Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I know that Smatprt has been recruiting partisans to help him gain a majority. I have talked to two Oxfordians who confirm that he has contacted them privately to help him on the page. In his complaint against me he accused me of acting in bad faith when I asked him if someone else had written an edit of his, but a week or so before he admitted that he had contacted Diana Price (at my suggestion) to ask her to write the section about her arguments, which she did, so I really don't understand his display of outrage at my question. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is an odd set of complaints. Both Tom and I have been recruiting editors to help on the page. Tom even suggested that I do at one point. Is that against policy? And Nishidani complains "But in terms of editing dynamics, it is ugly to see a one-to-one argument suddenly bolstered, numerically, in favour of one of the two disputants, by two extras who blow in unannounced and form a functional 3 to 1 majority against the other, who happens to represent the views of orthodox academic scholarship". Pardon me, but isn't that exactly what we had - Tm and I were locked in a one to one argument and then Nishidani and Verbal jumped in and changed the dynamic? In terms of determining whether Nishidani contribute partisan edits, one need only look at this where he introduces the phrase " 'amateurs', 'eccentrics', 'cranks' and 'heretics, alert to conspiracies'." [[16]],and this edit summary [[17]] where he denies authorship doubters the use of the word "scholarship" for strictly partisan reasons. In fact, his entire edit pattern has been primarily partisan - just compare the leads, and note that most of his clean-up has been of the anti-stratfordian side of the article, even though similar problems, like lack of in-text attribution, exists on both sides of the debate. Smatprt (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a violation of policy or not to recruit editors whose only function is to support you on the talk page. I openly visited the talk page at William Shakespeare to ask for some help editing, because bringing some type of balance to the article is an enormous task and grows very wearisome with being dragged into these unproductive disputes that you constantly bring up, which seem to me to be part of a strategy to wear out your opposing editors. I also e-mailed a Marlovian and a Derbyite to solicit their help on their respective candidates, but they took one look at the page and politely declined. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I cited the judgement on these theories by the world's former foremost authority on the life of Shakespeare, i.e. Samuel Schoenbaum. You may dislike the judgement, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT cannot overrule WP:RS of the highest quality. It pithily summarizes what otherwise is said off-record, and not usually registered in Reliable Sources, since academics think these theoriesd outlandish, and too amateurish to engage with. Since it is a rare nod by academia in your direction, it deserves citation, since most RS ignore the theories being discussed.

Wiki is edited by anyone. I saw a complaint on the RS page, and dropped in. What's the problem, a WP:OWN grievance? Tom Reedy was the apparent victim of a talk-stacking canvassing play. In any case our admin is not going to come down on one side or another, and making these complaints, which only begs replies from those you accuse, is useless, unless policy is violated. I suggest one return to the page and work out these differences there, calmly.We're wasting admin time.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So Tom can come here and ask Ed to take a look at the new activity, but I cannot? Tom can recruit help but I cannot? Besides, I think Nishidani IS breaking various policies, including WP:Undue and WP:NPOV.Smatprt (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look back at the first post in this section. No one should recruit help. As to the rest, state it on the talk page, or mke a formal complaint.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothughthomas

I really don't want to say anything further on my proposed ban discussion, but would you look into the following edit? I am almost certain this is a sock of Nothughthomas. If not, my full apologies and ignore that I said anything, I just thing it's fairly surprising that this editor has not contributed anything till about a few hours ago and a. knew all about WP:AN/I, and b. knew about Antiuser's editor review and the discussion at Václav Klaus. Not something I would think that a normal editor would know about, especially considering that the account was created at 18:37, 15 February 2010. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that checkuser has confirmed the sock and Longtimelurkerfirsttimeeditor is now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyedeye

I do apologise for not having responded sooner to you with regards to the unblock. Although online, I decided to take time off wiki to concentrate on RL, Chapter and other responsibilities. I saw that copyedeye was unblocked as the block was no longer preventative. Although I'm unsure whether or not i agree with the unblock, I believe strongly in assuming good faith in the judgement of other admins with regards to my actions so I am happy to defer judgement to the unblocking admin and yourself.

I probably didnt assume a lot of good faith when I made the block, simply due to the way the account sprung up there, whilst having been inactive and cam back to life at the same time other inactive sock accounts reactivated all to comment on the same argument and whilst having never been involved in that article before. I'll be keeping a close on eye on the account and will contact you should I feel a reblock is necessary. If you have any futher questions feel free to post on my talk page as I am coming back to activity again on wiki. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It could have gone either way; if Copyedeye stays on the good side, things should be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues

Hi Ed,

First, I would be interested in your opinion at the following community ban proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_community_ban_of_User:Monshuai

Second, Sulmues is following me around and making a real nuisance of himself on the ANI post. His posting of inflammatory rants, false accusations and general mud-slinging is a clear breach of the terms of his civility parole [18] [19]. He is also canvassing users from select ethnicities [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] in the hope of securing a favorable outcome at ANI. He then makes bland protestations that he is merely "informing the community" of my nefarious deeds. This is intolerable. Any help or advice in dealing with this would be appreciated. Regards, Athenean (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I kindly invite you to carefully read my postings in the n-th ANI posted by Athenean. I address the accusation of the canvassing as false and I also bring my vote to not ban Monshuai from the community as his only sin is that of bringing to the table references and fighting for a better wikipedia. User Future Perfect at Sunrise along with Alexikoua and Athenean (all three of them of Greek ethnicity) are working in tandem to get user:Monshuai banned forever. I have all the rights to address the non-Greeks (because the Greeks are already there to accuse him) to know what's going on.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that Sulmues has got completely out of control this time, he accused not even me and Athenean but also administrators of being part of a fictional secred agenda. However, the specific wp:any case has really nothing to do with a simple ethnic dispute since Bulgarian editors too have addressed their disagreement towards Monshuai's contribution.Alexikoua (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for letting me state my opinions in your talk page! Preslav, who is the only person (out of five) to respond to my solicitation to give an opinion, already gave his thought and said that the he supports the ban. This is further proof that Athean falsely accuses. However it's funny that Athenean accuses me for what he does himself: he solicitated here ([[25]]) Man with one red shoe, a user with a history of fights with Monshuai Talk:Bulgaria#Ancient_Heritage this discussion to give a support of the ban, which Man with one red shoe promptly did here ([26]). Who is canvassing, Athenean, you or me? @Alexikoua: Yes I have accused Future Perfect at Sunrise's action in getting involved with this matter as he is of Greek ancestry and should not be involved in this matter. I have also stated that you work in tandem with Athenean to "get the job done". You can enjoy reading my response here ([27]) and another response addressed to you here ([28]). sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The ban thread for Monshuai at ANI is getting long and confusing. It might have been better to open up an WP:RFC/U, if the people submitting it felt that a large amount of evidence was essential to their case. I notice that the request was for a complete ban from editing Wikipedia. My guess is that more people would support if it had been phrased as a ban from editing Balkan articles or topics. If the ANI thread runs out of gas, a more focussed request at WP:AE would be more logical. Sandstein has already commented in the thread, and he is familiar with how Arbitration Enforcement works. Perhaps Athenean could ask Sandstein for any suggestions on what the next step should be. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, Ed, I appreciate it. Best, Athenean (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues:Why do you believe that Fut. is Greek? Actually he claims to be German... Quite a weird conclusion by you.Alexikoua (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Because in his user page he has stated that he knows very well Greek, which makes me think he is an emigrant in Germany. And stop reporting me! sulmues --Sulmues 15:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Accused AGAIN by the Greek editors

Hello Ed, After this unjust accusation that I got from Athenean at (User_talk:Moreschi#Sulmues.3DGuildenrich) and that Moreschi rejected, I am getting this other one from Alexikoua here (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarandioti). I have been harassed so many times by the Greek editors, it’s not even funny anymore. As an impartial admin could you please intervene? I am really upset and frustrated with their insistance to get me banned from Wikipedia. I am being harassed by them. I already notified Ioeth and Sandstein Thank you! Sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Coral Bay

I see that you have blocked Coral Bay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week. You might want to consider the block record of 1989 Rosie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after reading Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1989_Rosie/Archive. A week seems short to me.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I extended their block to indef based on the new information. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

not me!

Ed,

I have not been going "back and forth" with User talk:Southindia in the 1899 sivakasi riots page. I reverted his edits once, but when he added them back again, i backed off leaving it to the admins. I certainly don't want to be in an edit war in a caste page. :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a poor choice of words on my part. Your participation is welcome. I am glad to see that admin SpacemanSpiff has been following the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Preventive protection

Hello Ed. Sorry to bother you yet again. I was wondering if you could please semi-protect the article Newly industrialized country to avid edit wars caused by "anonymous" IP users. It is an unproductive way and very frustrating way to provoke good faith registered user to engage in edit wars, when he is hidding behind an IP. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 14:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think this IP is actually User:Corticopia? I don't yet see any of his distinctive behavior. The geolocate to the Toronto area is informative, but the other recent IPs are not from there. If this is really C., he has not yet done much editing on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dongyi

Hello EdJohnston. Can you extend the protection for the article Dongyi? I have posted message on Wikipedia:WikiProject China asking the project's participants to weighing in and discuss User:Ecourr’s content to the article in the talk page. There have been discussion on the talk page Talk:Dongyi#Translated_Reliable_sources_about_Dongyi, however so far there have not been many editors from WikiProject China responding, except User:Keahapana. The problem remains as there's no consensus, and many of the links provided by User:Ecourr are difficult to verify and acccess, and not a single English source is to be found.

Both me and Keahapana have asked User:Ecourr to provide at least some kind of English sources to illustrate the notability of the content, as Keahapana raised that these information could possibly be under WP:FRINGE if no references are available. But the user so far has not provided a single English source for any of his/her claims.--TheLeopard (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection will expire on 23 February. It will be easy to restore the protection if warring continues. Maybe you can look at some other articles on ancient Chinese topics and figure out which editors have some knowledge in that area. Look for somebody who is very active (edits several times a week). Consider writing to them directly to see what they think. I wonder if you yourself have access to any of the books listed as references in History of China. These books may have something about Dongyi.

The section, Dongyi#Historical usages looks to be the most interesting. But it seems to be speculative and have very weak references.

One option is to strip the article down to a small core, for which good references are available. Another option (sad to say) is to nominate the article for deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation

Today Tom Reedy, who was the first to agree to your 1RR restriction (on Feb 19), made 2 reverts (on Feb 23), deleting material that was added in the last 2 days by BenJonson and myself:

• [[29]], where he reverted the addition of this material:

"More recent developments include a new academic journal devoted specifically to study of the authorship question, a special issue of a leading established journal, Critical Survey, devoted to authorship, and a leading British scholar, University of Hertfordshire Professor Graham Holderness, endorsing the plausibility of the Earl of Oxford's authorship.", which was added on Feb 21 [[30]]

• [[31]], where he reverted the addition of in-text attributions which were added on Feb 23 [[32]]. Smatprt (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-protect?

Newman Luke (talk · contribs · email) is at it again, making massive changes against consensus and then complaining how everyone else is "OWN"ing the articles when we try and restore the agreed upon versions. I've opened up an RfC today (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke) but as I am involved in the dispute, it would not be proper for me to apply any protections to these pages. Could you look at his contribution list and decide for yourself if you believe he is acting unilaterally again and perhaps apply some protections? Your comments would be welcome at the RfC, whether pro or con, I know I may be too close to the issue. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Newman Luke here on what basis he made his latest revert at Forbidden relationships in Judaism. I have not noticed anyone supporting his changes, so article protection would not be my first choice. He should stop reverting until he can find support. If he won't stop, sanctions may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is my point valid?

Thank you for putting me in my place. I enjoyed the time off to cool down. I have performed the actions as you requested and made no more modifications to the MoveOn.org article page. I have created a posting on the Discussion page, and have only received action from the earlier participant in my conduct, DD2K. Could you please review my complaints, as well as actions, this time around? I am sure that the citation in question should not be there. Could you please explain it to me how I am wrong under Wikipedia rules? This is an honest attempt on my part to clear up a fuzzy situation with regards to use/overuse of an unnecessary if not unreliable citation. Thank you so much,Bikeric (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to this 3RR case. It is clear that you have not been blocked, just warned about edit warring. Others at Talk:MoveOn.org claim that there is a standard way of reporting membership in infoboxes. They indicate that self-reported membership claims are put in the infoboxes without any qualifier being added, such as the word 'claimed.' Admins do not decide who is right in a situation like this; we expect it to be settled by a consensus of those working on it. If you are willing to leave the article alone until the talk page makes a decision, then you have done everything correctly and I have no reason for any further involvement. If agreement cannot be reached, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion ...

regarding the problems besetting the article State of Palestine. Instead of protecting the page, you could page ban the editors involved in edit-warring. In this particular case, that would be User:Drork and myself. While I would hate to lose the ability to edit that page as I've been a main contributor to its development, I'd be willing to give up that right to see the page freed of Drork's tendentious and disruptive editing behaviours. My edit-warring in response to his edit-warring is not healthy for the article (or my Wiki career and general mental health) anyway. Thanks for considering this suggestion. Tiamut^talk 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed this plan to Drork here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not accept Tiamut's suggestion whatsoever, and I don't think anyone is in a position of throwing the blame on me. If you want explanations about my edits, I would be happy to provide them, but so far, Tiamut could not explain her behavior, nor could she explain her problematic edits or her objection to my edits, except saying that "Palestine exists", which is a political statement. DrorK (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: if saying that "Palestine exists" is a political statement, is "Palestine does not exist" a similarly political statement (not that you're saying that)? Do you feel that Palestine exists or does not, for argument's sake? (I am quite neutral in this political matter, as an American of neither Arab nor Jewish descent)... Doc9871 (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have very simple arguments here: (1) The 1988-proclaimed State of Palestine cannot be presented as an existing state as long as there is a serious doubt over whether it can be called a state. I have no problem with saying it is a political entity and describe the controversy. (2) The terms: British Mandate of Palestine, Palestine (as a geographical region), Palestinian territories and Palestinian National Authority should be carefully distinguished. Currently Tiamut and some other editors work to blur these distinctions, probably for political reasons. (3) One cannot write statements like "about 100 countries recognized the State of Palestine" when Palestinian officials say they can prove on 67 recognitions (this statement is well attested). I have shown that many of the lists upon which Tiamut, Harlan and Nableezy based their claims were flawed (i.e. contradicted sources much more reliable, probably due to innocent misunderstandings). They insisted on using the flawed sources. All my edits where in line with these three principles. DrorK (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that there are nations (legitimate or not) that claim that Israel is not a "state" under the first principle you cite, correct?. Whether it is or not (or whether Palestine is or not) is purely political; and you are as complicit in this as Tiamut, Nableezy and Harlan. You have answered my question as to your opinion on whether Palestine exists as a legitimate state or not; the other editors would presumedly argue that Israel is not a legitimate state - am I wrong in this? Do you see the greater WP:NPOV conflict we're dealing with here? Doc9871 (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. I am talking from the factual point of view now - at present, no one can claim Israel is non-existent. Certain people, like Ahmadinejad, deplore its existent, but there is no serious debate about whether or not it exist. Had you asked me during the early 1950s I might have answered otherwise (Israel was established in May 1948), but today, there is no factual doubt about the existence of Israel as a state. The factual existence of a state called Palestine is indeed debated from the very factual point of view, and I brought many examples to that, including statements by Palestinian leaders. Harlan did his best to claim that by international law, there is such a state, but his arguments are purely legal (and it is not a mere juristic issue), and are not mainstream. If he wants to write an article about the legal notion of statehood and refer to the 1988-proclaimed S.O. Palestine in one the paragraphs, that's fine with me, but he cannot make a statement such as "Palestine is a state" based on contested legal interpretations. I should note here, that WP was never meant to be a post-modernist project which respect the existence of multiple truths, according to political and cultural points of view. The principles of WP clearly state that we strive for factual verifiable information. You can argue whether or not I am factually wrong, but you cannot just say: there are different political opinions. DrorK (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that this has any business continuing on Ed's talk page (& I'd be happy to move the discussion to yours or my talk page), but I have another question. What was the area called in 1938? How did the British (for instance) refer to this particular region then? Was the area ever called Palestine? You decide... Doc9871 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll just answer your last question briefly: In 1938 the authority governing the area now known as Israel+Palestinian territories, or as Israel+West Bank+Gaza Strip, was the the British Mandate of Palestine (or to be more exact: the League of Nation's Mandate of Palestine entrusted with the UK). However this is not the whole story. The mandate had three official languages. While the English name was "Palestine", and the Arabic "filasṭin", the Hebrew version was: "Palestina (E.Y)" "E.Y" was a small but important reference to the traditional Jewish name of the country: "Eretz Yisrael". Furthermore, the mandate charter from 1922 defines its purpose as creating a "Jewish national home" in Palestine (Harlan consistently claims that this point is of little relevance). So, it is quite obvious that the name Palestine is used in English in various ways, and in 1938 it was used in a different way than today. DrorK (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

question

Hey there Ed,

It seems I'm being harassed by an editor who disagrees with an edit made on Irish American. He posted to my talk page, etc., and then I deleted it when it seemed to be the end of it. But now he's come back and reverted on my talk page. I deleted it again, which I'm allowed to do on my own talk page. This editor is very upset that an edit he made is not being supported on the article talk page. The discussion has been going on for a bit, and then he came along and just inserted material. Point is, I don't think this singling out is appropriate and certainly his edit summary comments are not helping, nor is reverting on my own talk page. [33][34][35]. Thanks, Malke2010 05:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

diffs: [36] [37] [38] [39]

He keeps reverting despite opposition on the talk page. The sources he's using don't actually make these claims.Malke2010 22:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think all of you should be working harder to get a clear consensus at Talk:Irish American before making controversial changes. If the reverts continue, the article may be protected. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Thanks Ed, and would much appreciate it if you'd keep an eye out.Malke2010 00:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Inuit18 reported by User:Ahmed shahi (Result: Both warned)

I am improving the article Ahmad Shah Durrani but Inuit18 is preventing me from doing so. Anything I add to the articles Ahmad Shah Durrani or Durrani the user just removes it. This user was restricted to a 1 revert-per-day in 2009 and I think the same should apply again. User_talk:Inuit18#Possible_unblock. Ahmed shahi (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict of sources regarding his birthplace, Multan versus Herat. When different editors consider the birthplace so extremely significant, it may suggest that it is part of an ethnic edit war. (That is, which ethnic group should be allowed to claim this famous person). Extremely careful wording is needed in such a case. Since you surely have some ability to negotiate, why don't you see if you can work out a compromise? It should be OK to mention both alleged birthplaces, and the sources which support each one. If those efforts fail, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmad Shahi is trying to push his own POV in the article. He is claiming that Gholam Mohammad Ghobar and Dr Singh used a particular primary source without giving accurate references to this. I have Gholam Mohammad Ghobar's book on Ahmad Shah Durrani and he did not make such a claim. the only primary source Ghobar used was Tarikh Ahmad Shahi that I added to the article and he did not use this source for Durrani's birthplace but for Durrani's invasion of India. EdJohnston I have numerously told User:Ahmad Shahi to discuss his sources first in the talkpage and to confirm that these historians used primary sources and for everyone to reach a consensus before editing the article but he has ignored this and has been disruptive for the past 2 weeks on wikipedia.--Inuit18 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Inuit18, how am I disruptive? I'm not pushing anyone to believe the Herat birth place. I go by what reliable sources claim and then add their information to the article. Afghan historian, Ghobar (1943), Dr. Ganda Singh (1959), Willem Vogelsang (2002), Frank Clements (2003), and L. R. Reddy (2002) are all reliable secondary sources and they all claim Herat. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources.

To EdJohnston, here are Inuit18's latest edits made to Ahmad Shah Durrani article:

1. He or she places a fake non-existing source in the article
2. Then he or she removes properly sourced quotation from the article
3. Then he or she removes more accurate information from the article and makes a claim that Ahmad Shah Durrani proclaimed himself Amir of Khorasan in Kandahar, which is nothing but a view point of the editor
4. He or she is not telling the truth about having Ghulam Mohammad Ghobar's book (Tareekh-e Ahmad Shah Baba in 1943) because in that book it clearly mentions Herat as the birth place of Ahmad Shah. This book is extremely rare to find which is furhter proof that Inuit18 is making up things. Inuit18 is only interested in edit-warring with other editors, his aim here is to get me blocked instead of negotiating and finding a solution.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking for an edit war in that article. I have been telling you for a week now to stop editing the article before discussing it in the talkpage. Abdali indeed did refer to himself as Khorasan's Amir and a very reliable source is used for this claim so please don't use this against me. I haven't removed the theory you added that Abdali was born in Herat but I simply asked you to provide more information about the primary source you added because I have Ghobar's book and no where does it mention this. If you think I am lying then please provide those pages from Ghobar's book where he states he used that particular primary source. Please be reasonable. Wikipedia is not the right place for you if you are trying to push for your POV. Plus, Ghobar is a famous historian and his books are printed every few years.--Inuit18 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have given you enough sources that confirm Tarikh Ahmad Shahi's (Ahmad Shah's History) authenticity and all of my comments about it is in the talkpage. Here I will post one of the links again here that confirms is as a primary source: "al-Hussaini, Mahmud ibn Ibrahim. 1974 [c. 1773]. Tarikh-i Ahmad Shahi. 2 vols. Ed. D. Saidmuradov. Moscow. U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences." [al-Hussaini, Mahmud ibn Ibrahim. 1974 [c. 1773]. Tarikh-i Ahmad Shahi. 2 vols. Ed. D. Saidmuradov. Moscow. U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences.] [40] --Inuit18 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope EdJohnston can get a better insight by visiting the talkpage [41]. Before I changed the article I gave an explanation about my edits and other changes I made in the article.--Inuit18 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To Inuit18, you do not own the article on Ahmad Shah Durrani. Therefore, anyone knowledgeable is permitted to edit it.

1. You began reverting my edits on February 17, without explaining anything and without discussing anything on the talk pages.
2. It was on February 22, that you first began discussing
3. I'm explaining to you once again that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources so please stop asking me to provide primary sources, and please stop removing properly sourced quotation from the article. That quotation you keep removing comes from a reliable secondary source
4. Saying stuff like I have a book here with me and it states such and such is Wikipedia:Orignal research. I'm certain that you do not have Ghobar's book. You don't even know the correct book's name, which is Tareekh-e Ahmad Shah Baba (1943) by Ghulam Mohammad Ghobar and it has to have Ahmad Shah's birth place. It makes so sense not to, and if you have this book tell us the answer and provide the page number.
5. That other book information you are posting twice above is useless because it cannot be verified. It may be another fake non-existing book information.
6. I have no idea what you mean when you say: "I have given you enough sources that confirm Tarikh Ahmad Shahi's..." Tarikh Ahmad Shahi's only translates to History of Ahmad Shah. Many different books by different authors are named Tarikh Ahmad Shahi's so what are you saying. Please understand that I don't care where he was born, the article needed to mention both. Before I started editing it only mentioned Multan and Britannica link was used the reference, but Britannica stated Multan or Herat and that's when I decided to add Herat. I hope you understand my point and let's discuss this at Talk:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani#Birthplace instead of here on EdJohnston's page.

Thanks, Ahmed shahi (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your warning

I don't know whether to laugh or whip at the warning you placed on my talk page. If you care to do me a favor, delete every page related to my account. It won't be used anymore. DrorK (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

One other remark - think well why you put time and effort into this project called Wikipedia. I think most people have forgotten. I suspect you are among them. DrorK (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the result, and the message has been received, loud and clear. Thank you for your careful consideration of all aspects of this case. I will never violate 3RR on any article to do with Palestine (or any other subject) ever again. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 20:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulation Tiamut. You managed to liberate Palestine from the Zionists. Well, on Wikipedia. You know, for many years Arabs, most particularly Palestinians, learned geography from maps drawn in 1948 before the State of Israel was established. They refused to recognize the reality that emerged under their nose. They also refused to recognized the history of the country they claimed to cherish, because the truth was too hard for them to bear. It took many years until they realized how damaging was ignoring the truth. You have been successful in importing this old damaging way of thinking into Wikipedia. You were devoted and diligent enough to build a network of affiliates to support you and to foster your campaign. You would make a very good politician. But like many politicians you tend to fall in love with your campaign and forget that what people need is to face truth, because the alternative is much worse. This used to be the guiding moral principle of Wikipedia. You corrupted it with a lot of success. Now you can rejoice at your victory. DrorK (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Drork,

You know next to nothing about me or what I think.

I claim no victory here, because this is not a WP:BATTLE, no matter how much you wish to see it that way. My main interest here is helping to write a people's encyclopedia. I'm glad that I will still be able to do that.

Happy Purim. Tiamut^talk 22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Dear EdJohnston, I agree with your request, which was in line with my logic as well, not to add or remove Hindustani scripts until a new consensus has been reached. Thanks for peacefully trying to resolve the report. With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that removing your "31 March" clause would be a good idea. I think your suggestion would be better if you stated "until a consensus is reached at the new discussion." The current discussion has been going on for quite some time and it is unlikely that it will be resolved by 31 March. I would appreicate if you could think about this. Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing from you soon, Anupam^Talk 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can change that. Will you agree to not add or remove the Urdu script until a consensus is reached, no matter how long it takes? EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, granted that User:Shshshsh must also agree not to tamper with Hindi-Urdu scripts on Bollywood related film articles. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Seth Material

I don't know where I'm supposed to respond to you, so I responded on my own Talk page.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, Brazil again

Ed, more Brazilian irritations. See here and so on. I'd be grateful if you'd attempt to keep an eye on this stuff, dreary though it is. -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jonathansamuel

You blocked the above for a week after his 9 reverts, we know have him using IPs to evade the block on the Heidegger article with which he has an unhealthy obsession. Diff here. He is honest about who he is, but there is no change in behaviour at all, in fact if anything its worse. Not sure what to do here, so I thought I would let you know and abide by your advise --Snowded ^TALK 10:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've warned Jonathansamuel that his block could be extended for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - he is very naive about wikipedia, hopefully he will learn something from this latest episode! --Snowded ^TALK 18:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Clear block evasion now - directly editing the article here> Its not sock puppetry as its blatant! Its an IP he has used previously. May be a case for a topic ban as well. --Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And then he edit wars here and here and here. I think a topic ban is needed. --Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FiveSeven reverts now, even after I put a warning on both talk pages. I am up to 3rr and while I think this is vandalism, I need confirmation before continuing. --Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I just locked all the doors and windows and extended his block. Evasion does fall under WP:SOCK, even when he edits openly. I guess he has a strong sense of his own rectitude and doesn't respect our standards. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I expect we will get more socks, but at least that one out of the way for the moment --Snowded ^TALK 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that we now have two socks in play. Would you have a look? User talk:LudwigJWittgenstein and User Talk:BertrandARussell both created at around the same time on successive days, same pages and Ludwig is now edit waring on Heidegger. --Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Up to three reverts now - its so blatant, but I can do a sock report if you think is necessary --Snowded ^TALK 14:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked LudwigJWittgenstein, and I left a warning for the other one, who has not yet edited Heidegger. Do you think JS's user page is legit? Would a full professor in France be socking on Wikipedia? Maybe the user page should be deleted in case it might be defamation of the real professor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not legit, his IP is in New York, I think it may be aspirational! Thanks for the action, lets see what happens --Snowded ^TALK 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see this edit [42]. Jonathansamuel appears to be continuing his past behavior at Martin Heidegger. UserVOBO (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Even after the warning. Isn't there a case for a permanent block - three sock puppets, no admission of fault etc.? --Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A permanent block would be justified, but I'll wait on that. We now have Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jonathansamuel to track his further adventures. I did not tag 64.241.37.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as his sock because it seems to be a public Wifi used by multiple people in a cafe. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He's still doing it. Please see the recent edit history of Martin Heidegger, especially this edit [43], this one [44], and this [45]. UserVOBO (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see DieFantastischeKapitän's continued edit warring [46], and his failure to respond to the suggestion that he is a sockpuppet. UserVOBO (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More blocks. We'll just have to keep up with this as best we can. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest sock at Martin Heidegger appears to be BraunemSchmutz. Jonathansamuel might have a dozen or more accounts by this time. UserVOBO (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

With this level of abuse is a range block justified? --Snowded ^TALK 14:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This level of abuse would justify a rangeblock if it was not too large. But he is using registered accounts now, so we don't know what IPs to block. Only a checkuser would have the access needed. Do you want to file a WP:SPI? EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably getting to that point, another sock just came along. Id WP:SPI is the route then I'll take that if it doesn't stop this week --Snowded ^TALK 21:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest AlfredJAyer, not even original. I have made an SPI report but we could do with a wackamole job if you would? --Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:BraunemSchmutz

Hi, you recently blocked some sockpuppets of User:Jonathansamuel editing the Heidegger article. Can you look into this user who is displaying a similar editing pattern? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 06:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, can you look at User:AlfredJAyer as well? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 19:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Verbal's talk page.
Message added 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Verbal chat 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope my response hasn't disappointed you in any way. Feel free to contact me further, by message or email. Best, Verbal chat 17:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not violate policy

Hey! I respectfully disagree with your statement that I violated policy. A consensus never was and probably will never be. Throughout the discussion Anupam had cited some discussions claiming they were consensus. What User:Taxman said is not correct. Anupam is yet yet to prove that Bollywood is not Hindi cinema but actually Hindi-Urdu. I started removing scripts as I found out he was canvassing editors to participate in the discussion (another act which was ignored by administrators). Removing scripts is not edit warring, reverting scripts is. And he is the one who violated 3RR, not me. In fact, I stopped reverting him and he kept it like a machine. The worst thing about it is that he is very sure that he has done the right thing. If I have to be blocked for others, no problem, it would make many things clear to me. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Taxman is a Wikipedia Bureaucrat who was not a primary party to the issue and objectively assessed that there was a previous consensus on the issue (even before I was an editor here). Please do not accuse me of canvassing. From the beginning, I encouraged everyone to participate in the discussion so we could have the voice of the Wikipedia Community to neutrally determine what should be the outcome of the current discussion. I even posted the discussion at two noticeboards: here and here so that we could get as many views as possible on the issue. The editor whom I invited never had contact with me before and even gave your party a warning for making a personal attack against me. 99% of the Wikipedia Community, including the Wikipedia Bureaucracy/Administration acknowledges that there was a previous consensus on the issue; you decided to ignore the current discussion as well as the previous consensuses and this is not right. You recently removed the Urdu script from My Name Is Khan even though the film itself presents both in its opening credits. I respectfully asked you to stop removing Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles. I, in turn, stated that I would not add Urdu to any untouched Bollywood related film article and I kept true to this commitment. Even here, the reviewing administrator asked for the exact same thing that I politely requested in the beginning, to not add/remove scripts from Bollywood film articles until a new consensus is reached. My reverts simply restored the articles to their neutral condition before the discussion started. I hope this clears things up. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, you have not only violated WP:CANVASS and WP:EDIT WAR, you have also been wikilawyering. 99% of the editors agreed that there was consensus? Except for you and Taxman, no one ever said that there was consensus. Please do read WP:BUREAUCRAT before putting too much authority on a bureaucrat's hand. He is not here to determine the bottom line. And if you think there was consensus, I kindly request you to read my last post here. The discussions you have repeatedly cited had no consensus at all. Still, you conveniently violated WP:3RR, and nothing justifies that, particularly when the existence of a previous consensus is debatable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not decline it. I'm not here to edit war, I'm here to improve articles. Adding or removing scripts is not among my preferable edits on Wikipedia, and I don't enjoy them in any way, if you ever thought so. But one thing is clear, who did violate and who did not. I did not, Anupam did. In fact, his are the last reverts and he crossed the three reverts, while I did not. And it seems to have been overlooked. No? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was indeed established here: "That seemed to be the consensus among the editors here and people have been adding Devanagari titles to movies (or Arabic/Urdu script, if they can do that). If you know Hindi and Devanagari, feel free to start adding the titles. Zora 05:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)";here "'It appears that there's a pretty good consensus to leave Urdu script' gren グレン 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)." By the way, the latter comment is from User:Grenavitar, another Wikipedia Administrator who was not a party to the debate and objectively declared this statement. Also, in response to your accusation, "the short version is that Shahid is acting in violation of the consensus and is edit warring." This statement was made by a Wikipedia Bureaucrat, who also was not a primary party in the debate but one who objectively looked at the situation and drew a conclusion. Res ipsa loquitur, Anupam^Talk 19:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

But why do you ignore the last message "There is no consensus reached on this page." - which no one replied to? When the existence of a consensus is debatable, then there's no consensus. See WP:WHATISCONSENSUS and WP:CCC. And do not forget Zora's message one year later in which she declared the poll and the discussions as dead.

BTW, consensus is not one of the exceptions to 3RR, which you violated and used the non-existent "consensus" as an excuse.

And finally, I think we should stop discussing this issue through EfJohnston's talk page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect your decision, but I still feel I must tell you what my opinion is.

You said "Anupam was willing to agree to a standstill but Shshshsh was not." - did I not say I did not decline your proposal? See the above message. I would expect you to change your message.

Secondly, since you are an admin, I must tell you that an injustice was done. I was accused by you of edit warring while Anupam is the one who violated 3RR, a violation which was, honestly enough, not taken care of by you. You also said that I'm an optimist if I think my words will convince administrators here, this sarcastic note was not nice, particularly considering that you did not ignore Anupam's mentions of a non-existent consensus.

I'm looking forward to your reply. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been away, so my response has been delayed for a few days. My 3RR summary, where I said you had declined my proposal, was based on not seeing any response by you to my last question at User talk:Shshshsh#You are edit warring about use of Urdu script in film articles. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Walsh

I have endevored to add to the coverate of Lawrence Walsh over the past few weeks. My comments have been deleted several times by a person who describes himself as a "public interest" attorney. My comments about Walsh are as follows:

Mr. Walsh brought an indictment of Weinberger out of grand jury four days prior to the 1992 general election, which conflicted with longstanding Justice Department policy of not bringing an indictment out of a grand jury after August of an election. It has been widely viewed that Walsh’s action was politically motivated and was the determining factor in Bill Clinton’s election. The one count indictment was thrown out by U.S. Federal Judge Thomas Hogan on December 11, 1992 on the grounds that it had violated the five year statute of limitation. See http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/12/us/charge-in-weinberger-case-that-caused-furor-before-election-is-thrown-out.html?pagewanted=1

This is a sourced comment and is accurate. It should be added to Walsh's bio, which has been locked by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamo.texas (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alamo.texas. You have only two edits on Wikipedia, one of which is your comment here. If you think the article should be modified, please offer your proposed change (verbatim) on the talk page of the article. Nothing prevents you using the talk page. I think the point you wanted to make is already in the text of the article, but if you think something should be added to that, please create some proposed wording. The article already says "Clinton administration attorney Lanny Davis called the decision to indict a week before the election rather than after the election "bizarre."[2]" I agree that the timing of Walsh's action does sound bizarre, but my opinion does not matter, and if you are the same editor as the IP, you should note that your original change did not include any source, so the claim of a BLP violation ('unsourced defamation') was valid. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked I.P. inciting a threat on Sottolacqua

Dude, you better go do something about that I.P. you blocked on 3/1/10. He's inciting a "massive edit war" within this YouTube video I just discovered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U-dCgwY294

--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Chris

Wait a minute, I have just found out that the YouTube user who posted the video has removed it following a suspension threat. Never mind.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Chris

Seth Material

This is a total hoot! I'm not the one who restored the old version of this article! It looks like I'm not the only one who doesn't like what's going on!--Caleb Murdock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.20.215 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that you did something to the article so that people who are signed on with just IP addresses can't edit it. Also, you must have assumed that it was me who restored the old version. But it wasn't me, so that means you've blocked someone who wasn't necessarily acting as a sock puppet.

I have an idea. Why don't you just set up a test: people who are skeptics or atheists or right-wing Christians or just cranks are allowed to edit the article, but people who believe that New Age topics have notability are banned from it. Better yet, why don't you ban all the people on Wikipedia who are interested in building articles instead of tearing them down?

Since you banned me from the article, I've been reading a lot of people's talk pages, and there are a lot of editors who are unhappy and disgruntled. There's a lot of bullying going on by self-appointed experts like Verbal, and by the administrators who bend the rules to back them up, like you.--Caleb Murdock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.20.215 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a privately-owned web site. I hope you are not surprised that Wikipedia has policies, and we expect people to follow them. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the policies are bad policies. Editors should be asked to avoid making heavy revisions to subjects they know nothing about. Furthermore, there should be a daily limit to the number of edits anyone can make. The people who spend 8 hours a day on Wikipedia are not necessarily good for the encyclopedia. Once an editor has exhausted his knowledge, any further input he has to make is of dubious value.

I'm not going to start harassing you now, but I just want to make a couple more points: When Verbal came to the Seth Material article 2 years ago, the first thing he did was to attempt a stealth deletion by redirecting it back to Jane Roberts. When other editors reversed that, he redirected it again. When you try to delete the hard work of other authors without any discussion, that's a call to arms. Then he started to dredge up one objection after another: not notable, not neutral, in-universe, fringe, and a few others I can't remember. He was grasping at straws. His behavior was always autocratic and confrontational, and it was always impossible for me to assume good faith. If he hadn't come on so strong, things would have been different. I agree that I can be quite shrill at times, but I always felt like I was under attack.

So now the Seth Material article sits with no knowledgeable editors to develop or improve it. That's a fine situation. Verbal and his friends are limited in the "improvements" they can make since they don't know the subject matter, so all they can do is make cuts and add skeptical comments. Eventually they'll redirect it or delete it and the encyclopedia will be without an article on a worthy topic.

God, the stupidity just never ends! In order to leave this note, I had to sign off and sign back on again. MY ISP USES FLOATING IP ADDRESSES.--Caleb Murdock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.1.248 (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why you can't log in to edit my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is not logging in some kind of violation? If so, I didn't know that. Basically, I'm just disgusted and I don't want to log in any more. I'd rather participate anonymously now, if I participate at all.

By the way, blocking any IP I am editing from will block hundreds, possibly thousands, of Verizon customers. That person who reverted the article to a previous version wasn't a Verizon customer -- that wasn't a Verizon IP. (But I'm still thrilled to know that someone else cares enough about the article to have done that.) I made one tiny edit (adding a period that was needed) just to see what would happen. I said before that doing the sock puppet thing wasn't worth the annoyance, and it isn't.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Caleb, editing from IPs when you have an account is evidence of attempting to avoid the scrutiny of other editors. That is generally forbidden here and is often a cause of disruption. Just log in. Any continued disruption, personal attacks, socking, or other dubious actions will only lessen the chances of you regaining any semblance of credibility here, and that is your most valuable asset here. We all make mistakes, and if we do occasionally goof up, other editors who know our reputation will AGF. If you don't have a good reputation, the opposite will occur when you make a mistake. Don't expect me to call that fair, but that's life, so guard your reputation well. Be collaborative, friendly, don't assume bad faith, make accusations, or make personal attacks. Above all, stay away from conspiracy theories. That would make you look like a crackpot. I truly hope you will heed this advice. If I didn't care about your fate here, I wouldn't have bothered to take the time to write this advice. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a small note: I'm not right wing either. Maybe editors shouldn't comment on things they don't have knowledge of? :) Further attacks and now IP socking are not helping your case at all, and are barring you from helping to improve the article, and from having any input on how the article will be changed. You are actively hurting your (sole) interest on wikipedia. Verbal chat 21:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not taking advice from either of you. This is a conversation between me and the administrator. The only problem I see is that obnoxious and confrontational editors like Verbal are given free reign, and in the process they drive other editors off the site. I've offered my advice: (1) stop valuing the input of Wiki-addicts like Verbal, and start valuing the input of productive editors; (2) place a daily limit on the number of posts to discourage Wiki-addiction; and (3) ask editors not to make extensive edits to subjects they know nothing about. Until that is done, the warring on Wikipedia will continue, and knowledgeable editors will continue to be driven off the site -- and the articles will suffer.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

If I understand your note correctly, you are saying that adding or deleting large amounts of material is defined as a major change that must have consensus. Tom added an entire new section of over 5000mb, without any discussion whatsoever, which I did move from the article to the talk page to discuss, and to see if a consensus existed for the addition. Without any discussion, my edit was reverted. The article now includes this material, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of the fact that half the regular editors do not support the addition. So, at this point what should be done. Should not the material be deleted until such time that a consensus exists for its addition to the article? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no need for you to move it to the talk page for discussion. It could easily have been discussed while it remained in the article. If this was brand-new content, his addition was not a revert, but your removal of it *was* a revert. If these episodes continue, it may be necessary to impose a 1RR at Shakespeare authorship question, or to sanction the individual editors who revert before discussion is finished. EdJohnston (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read this, Verbal? Two years ago you were one of the editors who insisted that large portions of the Seth Material article be moved to a separate page and edited there, instead of in situ. Maybe you don't know the rules on Wikipedia as well as you think.

EdJohnston, let me remind you that the recent editing war with Verbal occurred when he twice reverted my revisions. There's definitely a double-standard on Wikipedia. You seem to be one big happy club of Wiki-addicts who support each other, and you bend the rules to favor the other addicts. This is a miserable situation.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Still confused - isn't the addition of of a huge chuck of material a major change that required discussion before it was added. By the way, you did impose a 1 RR on all the article editors, which has been violated by both Tom and Nishidani. So my second question is - why has this been allowed?Smatprt (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm really trying to understand what appears to be a double standard here. Smatprt (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR is not yet active, since I only asked for opinions on that idea. It would have been sensible for the 'bardolatry' material to be discussed before being added, but its addition is not formally a revert. My comment on the article Talk could have been worded better. EdJohnston (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I understand that the addition was not a revert. And I understand that my deletion and Tom's "undue" were both reverts, right? But my understanding from your previous instructions was that any major change (and adding a huge new section is certainly that) was to be discussed on the talk page first. That is the part of the process that was ignored by Tom. Was that not your previous instruction? If not, what is to keep any editor from adding major sections that lack consensus to be there in the first place? Smatprt (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, it is becoming more and more difficult to improve this article with Smatprt's POV deletions and additions. Any kind of effort at discussion ends up in a gridlock. His strategy is to wear out his interlocutors so they will give in in disgust. We went round and round for 15,000 words or better to discuss one sentence. He challenges historic records as opinion, not fact, (which actually is anti-Stratfordism in a nutshell), and he jams in qualifiers to sourced statements in an effort to slant the depiction because he actually believes that the scholarly consensus about Shakespeare is nothing more than an opinion based on job security for lit professors and the Stratford touris industry. He deletes material unsympathetic to Oxford under the auspices of "too much detail" or some other excuse. He and his cohorts believe this article should only consist of anti-Stratfordian arguments, which is obvious if you read their comments, and act as a promotional piece for Oxfordism, the way the Oxfordian theory article is now. He and his cohorts consistently accuse others of editing in bad faith or in abusive conduct, while staying just shy of crossing over the line into actionable offense. When their opponents out of frustration retaliate in the same manner, they hysterically denounce their opponents as abusive and ask them to please stop offending their hurt feelings. It would be funny if it were not so transparent.

I don't know what to do about it or even whether Wikipedia is concerned about how they abuse Wikipedia policies for their own ends. If you could offer up some advice I'd appreciate it. Several good Wikipedians have told me they won't work with him on any page because of his disruptive editing. This type of frustration does not lead to good articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: This latest example illustrates my point: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=next&oldid=348356425 (check the previous edits). There is no doubt that a previous version of Hamlet existed' there are literary allusions to it and a record of its performance. Yet Smatprt is claiming that its existence is "hypothetical" and that any reference to it should be labeled as such. Similarly, he trolls through the page and inserts "speculates" or "according to" in front of any statement made by orthodox scholars, as if their conclusions were merely so much bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&action=historysubmit&diff=348344776&oldid=348294927 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&action=historysubmit&diff=348053554&oldid=348051543.

That would be the pot calling the kettle black. And a pack of mistruths, as well. Check the word count and you will see that the great majority (by far) of those 15000 words were added by Tom and Nishidani, not by me. For goodness sake, the two of them even spent several hundred words arguing between themselves over the use of "the" or "a". Here, as in the article, Tom uses "scholarly consensus" fast and loose and attributes a believe to me that I do not have. Frankly, the "Too much detail" has been my gentle way of saying that Tom is constantly adding material in an attempt to distract the reader and as a tool for slanting the article towards his POV. He constantly states opinions as fact and refuses to make attributions, instead labeling every rebuttal as "scholarly consensus". And the truth is that "several good Wikipedians" are just really angry because they have failed to bully me off the project, as they have done with so many others. Smatprt (talk)

For goodness sake, the two of them even spent several hundred words arguing between themselves over the use of "the" or "a".

Come now, Smatprt. That is caricature by hyperbole. I made a brief distinction, Tom dissented. I did not press the point, even though here Tom agreed with 'your side'. I think he missed a crucial distinction, but consensus lay otherwise. You see, Tom and I, and Paul Barlow would and have disagreed on much, enlighten each other, press or yield according to evidence. his is the way editors should behave. I see no such inframural disagreement on points in the de Verean block you belong to.

The length I and a few others have gone to is not verbosity for verbosity's sake. It is a matter of trying to lay forth in detail the reasons why much of what you do is done in blithe ignorance of the scholarship on that period. I expect you read much of the de Verean writings, but you seem to have a very shaky understanding of mainstream scholarship. Therefore, when we see constant rewritings trying to score a point, we are constrained by WP:AGF to try our best to lay forth the intricate issues you glide over. I did this painstakingly with your massive misprision about 'Mute Swan'. It had no effect, you didn't listen, and kept what is an embarrassingly piece of fringe trivia, which I think no serious de Verean would be comfortable with, on the page, simply because of the thousands of points made, this captured your attention. I can understand your not having a grasp of what scholarly method means in practice, but you seem only to read wiki rules to see where there you may gain a tactical advantage, ignoring its central aim: to ensure that high quality articles, based on the best sources, are written. It doesn't help either than your feel for English is defective. Articles related to Shakespearean issues should be particularly attentive to this.

It is not for admins to decide for or against a party, and we annoy them by these badgering recourses. Once the lead is agreed to, I would be happy to withdraw from the article for a month or two, (I would hope Tom and Paul might agree), and give you three full rein/reign, if you seriously undertake to pull it into some shape that would merit a B grade qualification. As it stands it's a goddamn awful mess of patchy takes, in a riotous disorder, full of questionable terminology and phrasing. Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, of all people [[47]], is lecturing on what a good editor is??? Sorry to see those same tactics have been brought to the authorship page. Smatprt (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that someone with a block history like Smatprt's would use this as an accusation illustrates my point about his strategy: anything goes, as long as you win. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In my whole history of 4 years here, I had in the first three months 2 minor suspensions from 3RR infractions (one of the two out of my sheer ignorance of procedures, and both, please note, against editors permabanned from wikipedia for abusive editing and sockpuppetry). Of the complaints made thereafter, none held up. See my page. I have no wish to contest the I/P Arbcom decision. It was a collective cleansing of editors, on one ostensibly intractible issue, where the procedure thereafter established underwrote the correctness of the point I, and others, had been making, which was that 120 RS overwhelmingly support the position that 'Judea and Samaria' is politicized terminology not appropriate to wikipedia's neutral voice. See the extensive, and academic essay, I wrote on the topic on my homepage. If getting a point as critical as this established in a neutral global encyclopedia means I must pay the penalty of never writing on that subject, so be it. The damage intended was truncated, and neutrality has been secured. I probably shouldn't even say this, in respect of that decision, but if you question my integrity, I will run the risk. Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary pause

What if Smatprt and Tom Reedy would voluntarily refrain from editing Shakespeare authorship question for 90 days? Since others are working on the article, this might defuse the situation and allow enough tranquillity for some restructuring to occur. I have no opinion on whether restructuring is needed, but others seem to think it should be done. If you guys would accept a voluntary deal, it would take the pressure off admins. If there is no voluntary deal, and this goes back to ANI, you are taking the risk of a long dispute there which may have unpredictable results. I could also take admin action on my own, but prefer to avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly be willing to do that. I've got other projects that have been suffering because of this article and perhaps the constant cramp in my shoulders would ease after such a holiday from this, although I have no fear about what results would come out of ANI, and I believe it will end up there sometime in the future anyway. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I thought I posted the message below earlier, but apparently I missed an edit conflict notice when I hit save, probably when you posted your last message. As you can see from what I wrote, I'm new here and already very fed up with this process. I will have no interest in continuing to work on this article if Smatprt takes a leave. Sincerely, Schoenbaum (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so I don't know the rules like the others. But Smatprt, Ben Jonson and I -- the three non-Stratfordians in the group (Tom, Paul and Nishidani keep saying that we are all "Oxfordians," but I'm not advocating for any candidate) -- have been working in good faith. But the issue is so contentious that it's truly difficult for the two sides to reach consensus. What appears to them to be nitpicking and intransigence -- arguing over seemingly minor points -- is not our intention at all. These are difficult and subtle issues, and we're trying to grapple with them as best we can. Tom proposed starting at the top and going one sentence at a time to try to reach a consensus. We agreed, and have been trying to do that. It's been a slow process partly because Tom, Paul and Nishidani keep jumping around to other issues, ignoring the agreed process. Tom's recent major addition without discussion is a good example. There may be no rule about such informal agreements, but it makes progress difficult when they act as if they aren't bound by it without bothering to revisit it if they see problems with it. Nishidani recently made a change to the very sentence we were discussing, without consensus. It was a provocative act, which I think could only have been deliberate, as I said at the time. Based on my brief experience, it is all too typical of the three of them. They appear to be trying to make the process as difficult as possible to try to drive us away. Frankly, I have little faith that anything good can come of this. It makes me think the issue is so contentious that consensus is impossible, and two articles are needed -- one from each point of view. If it can't be done on Wikipedia, perhaps we should go our separate ways and put articles on our own websites, where you can refer people to them if you are willing to do that. Otherwise, I'm very discouraged. Does Wikipedia have an alternative process for dealing with such situations, or would it be willing to consider one? Schoenbaum (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I was inclined to agree, given that the balance of the editors would have remained the same. But given Schoenbaum's response above, that would leave the article wide open to the constant addition of the very POV material and slant that we have been working to guard against. Given your statement that administrators are watching the page, I am at a loss as to explain why the last 3 weeks of edits, including the addition of thousands of bytes of material have been allowed to be added. Do you realize that Tom and Nishidani have increased the article from 95,000 bytes to over 150000 bytes - way over limit, yet Tom refuses to even discuss splitting the article, which is what both Schoenbaum and I suggested with the last 5K of material he added without discussion. I tried the peer review that you suggested and the feedback was that peer review was not an avenue to settle disputes. You proposed a 1RR limit for all editors, which both Tom and I agreed to, but then it was never made official. For 3 weeks now, Nishidani has made personal attacks, dozens and dozens of reverts, and has no intention of stopping. So - what do you suggest now? Smatprt (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

'the issue is so contentious'. Schoenbaum, the 'issue' is not 'contentious'. The fringe theory argues that everything they write is considered to be contentious' by mainstream scholarship, when the fact is that mainstream scholarship overwhelming ignores this subject. The fringe say everything in the provisory consensus of standard Elizabethan scholarship is 'contentious' because surrounded by problems of evaluation, lack of evidence, proofs, etc., but in that sense, every subject in all historical research is 'contentious'.

As to length, well, I thought wikipedia asks us to discuss contentious issues until consensus is reached on the talk page. It is true Tom Paul and myself have laid forth, and had to repeat ourselves in doing so, what mainstream scholarship says, while BenJonson just edits or makes a few comments, Schoenbaum ignores the discussion, and the hyperactive Smatprt edits with great energy on things never agreed to, and talks round every objection by playing deaf. Length in such controversial subjects, on the talkpage, is not a defect: it merely shows to what lengths a good faith editor will go, despite believing, as often as not, that hisinterlocutors have no interest whatsoever in listening to him. At least, in explaining the reason for one's edits in extenso, there is no room for charges that one does not carefully evaluate the work and edits of those one disagrees with.Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This complaining in any case is futile. We have a lead to finish, and all are required to participate. What happens then is anyone's guess. But first things first.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Springcleaning. After a morning of pruning, slashing and a burn-off, a suggestion. I, Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow, together with Schoenbaum, Benjonson, and Smatprt, be asked to hold off editing the page while some wikipedian specialist in format, drafting, sequencing and references etc., takes a day or two to look over the page, and drop us all suggestions as to how this article should be organized to conform with wiki's protocols for articles of quality? Surely our admin could cast about among his colleagues to find someone willing to do that work, which doesn't require a knowledge of the topic, or checking details, but simply a mastery of the proper editorial forms? I doubt whether there will ever be consensus on shifting or reordering, and, precisely for this reason, and to avoid a repeat of the 30 years war, I think outside intervention, with a structural formalist's rigour, independence and authority is the only way to obviate the impasse.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Google and Wikipedia are the two main resources for people looking for information about the authorship question, I doubt you'll get anybody from across the aisle to take your offer, nor do I expect that anyone not with a desire to suicide would want to take the time to sort through the problems of that page. But I agree the structure is against all sense for an encyclopedia article. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can read and digest all of this, but since my name has been mentioned I'd better add some comments. Firstly Schoenbaum says "Tom proposed starting at the top and going one sentence at a time to try to reach a consensus. We agreed, and have been trying to do that. It's been a slow process partly because Tom, Paul and Nishidani keep jumping around to other issues, ignoring the agreed process." I don't recall agreeing to any such thing, though frankly there has been so much verbiage over the past month or two that I can't say for certain what might have been agreed. I know Tom and Smatprt agreed to that approach, but certainly some others did not. New or returning editors - notably BenJonson and Nishidani - did not, of course, and behaved accordingly. Neither of them can be faulted for editing normally and not abiding by an agreement of which they were ignorant and which has no force in policy. I don't know why Schoenbaum feels insulted by being called an Oxfordian. I don't dispute that Schoenbaum sincerely believes that he is fairly trying to represent all anti-Statfordian views, but there's no contradiction between that and being an Oxfordian. I can't speak for others, but I have referred to him as such in the past because of his comment here, in which he clearly defends the argument that the real playwright was much older than Shakespeare and dead by 1609. No non-Oxfordian would think like that, since the three other major candidates were actually nearly the same age and outlived him (though Marlowe only outlives him in Marlovian theory of course. The fourth candidate Neville died in 1615). Paul B (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, my proposal to go one sentence at a time applied only to the lead, because we were constantly having to revisit it due to contentious edits. I see no reason to ignore the rest of the article while we're hammering out the lead, nor have I ever.

And as far as Smtprt bravely sacrificing himself for the sake of Schoenbaum, Schoenbaum has only made three edits the entire time I've been editing the article, and all of those were reverts, two with accusations of edit warring. His main purpose is to play Pancho to Smtprt's Cisco to keep the balance tilted anti-Stratward. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been out of town all day and now I see Smtprt has created a new article, History of the Shakespeare authorship question, presumably so he can argue that now the Shakespeare authorship question should be devoted to the arguments and rebuttals. Really now, this is too much. That makes what, 14 articles on authorship? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom needs to look at wp:LENGTH and wp:splitting, and try to at least understand that deletionism is not the wiki way. When an article becomes too long, it is split into sub-articles. I have raised this several times on the talk page and been ignored or rebuffed [[48]]. It's just another example of Tom's POV against the issue and justification for the deletion of material. He plans to delete more, in fact, stating "We can cut later. One good place to start would be all the Oxfordian debate sprinkled through the text under the guise of generic anti-Stratfordian commentary. " Again - the anti-Oxfordian POV comes out and is undeniable. Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Smatprt, you need to look up WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This is just your latest front in your never-ceasing campaign to promote anti-Stratfordism and Oxfordism using Wikipedia. Once the crap and promotion and debate is cleared away from the authorship article, there will be plenty of room to cover the history and current state of the topic. What's next, a Wikipedia article on the Wikipedia debate about the article?

And your notion that there is parity between the Oxfordian POV and the "anti-Oxfordian POV" is laughable, but I understand well your tactic of trying to reframe the argument in your terms. You have learned well from the Orange County political consultants south of you. Too bad they've wrecked the country as a result. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)