User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Should be redirected to ArbCom

In light of the apparent intense lobbying by both Petri Krohn and Offliner I suspect the matters that they bring, particularly this, are more complex than can reasonably handled on AE and suggest they be redirected to ArbCom and dealt with there. As an admin, you can refer the AE case to ArbCom for action, it as been done before. --Martin (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal at WP:AE

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Martintg

It seems that you have only considered the original request by TFD, and ignored the topic ban violations brought forward in the other statements. I do agree that your proposal addresses the original complaint, but it overlooks the other issues. How are we to proceed? Should I file a separate enforcement request stating my complaints, or is there some other way to get administrators to consider the issues I have presented in my statement? -- Petri Krohn (talk)

I suggest you expand your original comments in the AE, with a section called 'Response to EdJohnston' or some such. Some of your statement was a bit vague, like saying you were thinking of filing an SPI. Details would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that both Petri Krohn and Offliner have a number of additional issues beyond the original AE report, as suggested by this. I suspect the matters that they bring are more complex than can reasonably handled on AE and suggest they be redirected to via ArbCom and dealt with there. --Martin (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Constitution of Estonia. I think you are making a false assumption on the premise that there is currently no dispute or edit war at the article. This is only because users opposed to his POV have adapted a policy of total non-interaction with him. It has no correlation with the dispute in the real world. I loath to even imagine the edit warring that would start if anyone not sharing his EE views would dare to edit the article. Would it make you more convinced if I tried? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If other people won't interact with him, should that be considered *his* problem? Please follow this up at the AE itself if you want it to be considered in the closing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Next WP:USPP assessment

Hi EdJohnston/Archive 19! Since Amy Roth's out on maternity leave, I'm pushing out the next round of assessments she needs. This time, we're comparing your assessment to readers' assessments. And instead of us assigning you articles, we're letting you pick! The full list of topics is on a subpage of the Assessment tab on our WikiProject. Please choose 10 of the articles to assess. Use the link in the section title to go to the appropriate version of the article.

Thanks for all your help! Please let me know if you have any questions! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy withdrew his complaint

The complaint against me has been withdraw, yet I was notified of sanctions on my page? What is going on here?--Geewhiz (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I expect that it works like the 3RR noticeboard. The admins reserve the right to take action on any issue submitted there, even if the original person changes their mind. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this action is unfair and as I noted on my talk page, I am still waiting for it to be struck. I was reported because the complaining editor was taking out his frustrations after not being able to revert more than once a day. The AE board is being used for this purpose over and over. It was done in the heat of the moment. Clearly the penalties that are being handed out are not working and creating even more disruptive behavior. I have over 28,000 edits to my credit and have worked constructively on thousands of articles (please look carefully at my user contributions). I find it more than odd that none of this is taken into consideration. --Geewhiz (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pawel + Massacres of Poles in Volhynia + 1RR = FML

1, 2, 3 Sorry for my own revert, he was removing sourced information and restoring other stuff that was being hammered out on the talk page..calling when I add a citation "vandalism"...now he's deleting other sourced numbers and going on a rampage. I give up for the next 23 hours...--Львівське (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Just a heads up but Pawel is on course for an edit war on the Lviv article, inserting some weird stuff and going about things in his usual, blunt force manner. 1, 2, 3 --Львівське (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing an AN3 where you commented

I have closed this report with no action, but I have left some advice for the parties at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rwflammang reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: stale, but advice). Please comment or let me know if you think there is anything else we can do here. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Lvivske

I respect albeit disagree with your decision regarding Lvivske's breaching of WP:3RR. However he made two serious, unfounded accusations against me for meatpuppeting and sockpuppeting, which is absolutely ridiculous considering DonaldDuck is a well established editor with whom I've never had any personal ties to in the past. This is considered a personal attack and I do not wish to ignore it, since I find this sort of behavior (blind personal accusations due to a content dispute) reprehensible. The fact that he has not filed a sockpuppet report against me is evidence that he does not take his own accusations seriously, and meant it as an attack. LokiiT (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I never accused you of sock puppetry, only raised the question of possible WP:MEAT, but I csn see in the diffs now that he joined in after you posted the Goble question on another filing, and after he was quickly denounced as towing fringe accusations, thats when he joined in on the editing of the page in similar fashion to you. I'm all for further discussion on the article, and I encourage you to take part; just keep the CIA conspiracy out of it or we'll end up back where we started.--Львівське (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I never breached 3RR so calm down. In the 3 diffs where I countered you, I added sources, so was just following WP:PROVIT following your removal of sources/content. Blanking entire sections is far more disruptive than what you're claiming against me. Calm down.--Львівське (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You never breached 3RR, yet you made 5 reverts in some 24 hours. Interesting. You never accused me of sockpuppetry, you only threatened to file a sockpuppet report. Interesting again. Moreover, telling people to "calm down" during a dispute in which you're involved, which you've done repeatedly, is inflammatory and condescending. Further, your accusations that my good faith edits were vandalism is another personal attack. If this were the case, how is it that you've agreed to my original blanking of said content? This is getting out of hand and I would like EdJohnston to look into it, please. I'm not going to continue arguing with someone who so blatantly assumes bad faith and throws out personal attacks and unfounded accusations in every second line. This is exactly what drove me away from wikipedia for so long; that and the administration's lack of dealing with people like you.LokiiT (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I never agreed to your blanking of the content, I just can't deal with your psychosis any more today. I said I'll put it on hold to get more sources together to plug a hole in this BS you're instigating. I brought up filing a sockpuppet case simply because it would be a natural course of action given how you are escalating this dispute to more and more vitriolic levels. 5 reverts in 24hrs? another source, rv section blanking,adding a journal....the only time I engaged in a full out reverts without adding content to justify its inclusion was to combat section blanking without cause 4, where you're coming up with this 5 reverts story is beyond me. And yes, I say calm down because you seriously need to take a breath and step away from the keyboard. Maybe you should take another wiki-break if you can't act with civility without getting stressed out. There isn't anything to look into further, just cooperate reasonably on the talk page of the article and no conflict will arise.--Львівське (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Psychosis? Really? Proving my point yet again. LokiiT (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Lvivske 24 hours for personal attacks, per this notice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding the article lock, it seems pointless now since Lvivske has finally conceded his position[1] and agreed to leave the content out. LokiiT (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The protection may lead to some discussion, which is beneficial. I'll take another look tomorrow. Since User:DonaldDuck is a long-time editor with an interest in Russian topics, it is hard to take seriously any suggestion of meat puppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Duck

Hi, Ed! An IP sock of SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) has just announced herself on another user's page[2]. Would you consider blocking the IP as a formality? It's been tagged, and I know IPs can't be blocked forever, but this is a banned user who refuses to stop socking. Thank you :> Doc talk 05:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindly disregard. The troll emerged with a vengeance[3][4] to proudly proclaim it was an editor she helped "go over the edge", JohnBonaccorsi (talk · contribs), and I believe she's right. I don't expect too much admin help with this one in general (they seem to drop off like flies after getting involved). Thanks anyway! Doc talk 06:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Idiot and retarded comments

I saw that you closed on Nableezy's AE. I think that request was not really that bad but the last comment before closing jumped out.[5] If he wants to refer to your comment as retarded it isn't a big deal but when he tells another that he is an idiot then straight out says he doesn't care if he is blocked it is too far. So did you take this into account on your close (it was unrelated) or is yet another AE the next step? If you missed it then no worries. Another AE might be the next step (although everyone therer is begging for blocks for just being there)/ But, enough is enough. He has been to AE for being uncivil already and that was too much. So when does it stop?Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll let another admin handle that if they wish to. Just now I'm trying to think of a response to the general deterioration of I-P editing which Phil Knight pointed out. Some people have become very angry who are usually not that angry. And it's not just a few enthusiasts like Drork, it's the regular I-P editors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So can you answer if you took this into consideration while closing? Simple yes or no with no elaboration required. If not, I will open a new case.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not see this before I closed. File away. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably stupid on my part (hardly anyone has clean hands in the topic area, unfortunately) but done. Thank you for the quick response.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So the case against him closes - and User:Nableezy is threatening new editors, yet again.--Nopleazy (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Despite Martintg's undertaking, he appears to be continuing to become involved in block disputes. This case involves User:Marknutley. Martintg is certainly aware that although Marknutley is topic-banned from Climate Change articles, the procedures taken against him began because of his edits to articles from which Martintg is topic-banned. One editor clearly states in the discussion thread, "However, TDF, Radeksz and Mark (and others) are all involved in a hot content dispute at Holodomor and Communist terrorism. Martintg's involvement in discussion of the block of an editor involved Communist terrorism was the original basis of my posting to AE. TFD (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is confusing, but I think Martintg was commenting at ANI on an SPI which was filed against him by Petri. Defending himself seems reasonable. The AE that you filed was about him trying to defend someone else, and he agreed to stop doing that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Although he brought up an SPI filed against him, he was commenting on a discussion thread about an editor who was the subject of an SPI for accounts editing both CC articles and EE articles, although this thread was about possible legal threats on his talk page.[6] TFD (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Further sockpuppetry by BrianBeahr

Indefinitely block editor User:BrianBeahr is back in action again - as sockpuppet User:Black00001 - on the St Kilda Football Club and related articles. Thanks in advance for attending to this. Afterwriting (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

.... and again with St00001. Thanks. Jevansen (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done also, I see that Black00001 and St00001 were created only three minutes apart on November 4. This could make it worthwhile to open a new SPI and ask the checkusers to look for sleeper accounts, if one of you is so inclined. Sleepers are a supply of new socks that have been created but not used yet. Checkusers might also find the IP used to create these accounts and block it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ginsburgh/Inbari

Thanks for your post on my page -- I'm happy to discuss further. I'm doubtful about the appropriateness of omitting the sentence you refer to, though. The fact is, Ginsburgh did encourage and support the killing of non-Jews as in the Goldstein incident. So it's hard for me to see how Inbari's analysis is off-track here. This is what appears earlier in the section on the Ginsburgh article, and it really ought to be non-controversial to quote Inbari to this effect. It isn't really synthesis even -- it is simply Inbari explaining how Ginsburgh got to the position that he had in fact adopted at the time of Goldstein. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that further discussion by the editors at Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh or at BLPN may come around to your view. Still, the admins at 3RR need to use the 20,000-foot view of BLP, and this is the hardest sentence to justify at present. If the article is protected, some admin will have to decide what to keep in the article. The fact that the BLPN debate is still running works against your side of this dispute. You should be willing to wait until the review is concluded. If the other guy keeps trying to beautify the article after the BLP issue has been answered as well as it can be, a block for long-term warring might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it seems difficult to justify because it seems so extreme. But again the fact is that Ginsburgh really did say these things, and Inbari is analyzing what he actually said. I think it's also worth noting that no-one has voiced any support of M656's view (and at least one editor against). But: I'm happy to agree to restoration minus that one sentence as a solution for now, with further discussion at BLPN and the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I looked into it further and left a comment at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Floating point

Actually I believe the IP's edit is better at Floating point. Why didn't the person reverting a second time put a comment on the talk page? If they then ignored that perhaps go further but blocking IP's for what at worst would be low level edit warring seems inappropriate to me. It's not as though they have three reverts yet even. Dmcq (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Since November 2 I saw three different IPs reverting the same thing from the article, without discussing on the talk page. At the time, I suspected socking, but maybe that's not the case. Reverting without discussion is one of the criteria often used for edit warring, which does not require three reverts. If a consensus were to form at Talk:Floating point that semiprotection is undesirable, it might be lifted. How would you feel about 'coefficient' instead of significand? That idea was previously floated on talk. Certainly the IPs can still join the talk discussion that you started, if they feel like explaining their objection to 'significand.' EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blanking Information

Removal of sourced information by User:Paweł5586 here: [7]. (I would revert but is there a limit of one revert per user or per day by any user on this page?)Faustian (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've left a warning for Paweł5586 that he may be blocked. The article called Massacres of Poles in Volhynia is under a 1RR restriction due to WP:DIGWUREN. Most people who break the 1RR there are willing to self-revert, and only two editors have needed extra persuasion. Unfortunately, Paweł5586 is one of the two, and time is running out. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've punched my revert card for the day and am taking a step back. Considering he removed content that others were willing to discuss (and is being discussed on the talk page), that he had to remove neutral statements like "numbers are still being discussed" to insert his high-range numbers, etc. I just didn't see anything salvageable that I was willing to work around. I spent some good time yesterday trying to clean the article up and get it as neutral as possible and it seems with Pawel in the loop it's going to be a constant struggle. --Львівське (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Update to 3RR report you handled

It turns out the IP editor discussed at this 3RR report that you handled also edited with an account (User:Mark Osgatharp) to circumvent the IP block and page protection. He also made personal attacks related to the incident. I posted an update on noticeboard and thought you might want to take a look. Cheers! Novaseminary (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Teramo

Hi! As expected, the Teramo bull returned with a revertion to a version full of wikimistakes and ignorance of how a serious encyclopedia should be written (just to mention one, the fact he addresses the user as "you can reach"...). This without the matter of which version is to be preferred has been settled. Can you help? Thanks and good work --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have issued a block of DDF19483 (talk · contribs). Your own actions there can be questioned. You should ask for a WP:Third opinion, or use some other kind of WP:Dispute resolution, before you make any more reverts at Teramo. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your remarkable change of view on Headbomb's talk page

Hi EdJohnston:

I was surprised to read your abrupt change of views from attempting to dissuade Headbomb from continuing to searching for means to impose sanctions.

I am concerned that you may have been swayed by Headbomb's incorrect allegation "that Brews behaviour has been problematic there as well) making statements about the physical nature of things such as "As discussed in more detail below, Einstein's theory of relativity significantly modifies this view." in Pythagorean theorem and reference physics books such as The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, by Roger Penrose, to argue his points".

My original statement provides explicitly the text I introduced, and points out carefully that Headbomb's allegation above is unfounded. A careful comparison of the text before any changes made by myself supports my statement that the Penrose reference and the comment about Einstein precede my changes and I am not responsible for them, and did not add this remark about a later discussion of special relativity, or comment upon physics in any way.

Perhaps you have other reasons for changing your mind in this matter, but it would be unfortunate if it were a result of uncritical acceptance of Headbomb's misinformation.

I regret that I will be leaving town in a few hours and will be unable to pursue this matter further for several days. Brews ohare (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I still recommend that the case be closed by accepting your offer to observe a 1RR/week on all articles regarding natural science. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

About the warning

OK! undertood, btw are you willing to mediate, there are mediators on wikipedia, under the terms of the arbitration, how come there isn't any here? How should I deal with a user who moved a page withou concensus? Magotteers (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban - cont.

User:Martintg has now jumped into a discussion about Karl Marx, who was an influence on Eastern European governments during the Communist era. This seems to be a violation of his topic ban. Could you please look into this. I did mention earlier that Martintg had violated his topic ban when he intervened to support User:Marknutley, who has been indefinitely banned.[8] TFD (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you are edit-warring at Karl Marx on the Belgian story of the 5,000 francs. If you believe consensus has been reached to remove this material, can you say where? The Karl Marx article is not in Eastern Europe. At the moment we are discussing Marx is trying to rouse the masses in Belgium, France and Germany (Köln), places which sound western to me. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Hello EdJohnston, here are my 2 cents [9] Tuscumbia (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi EdJohnston.

I noticed your block of Magoteers for his part in edit-warring and while since you already have some familiarity with the issue, I urge you to please give your opinion on the Vank article, where a serious revert war took place between Magoteers and User:Anastasia.Bukh. Despite my best efforts to create an article that was presented as neutrally as possible, Anastasia displayed a rather shocking attitude to systematically revert every change which I made without so much as offering anything as a compromise. He removed reliable sources, removed the ethnic identity of a prince, removed any notion of the fact that the land is under the de facto control of another political entity, and continues to omit any other piece of information which he disagrees with. Although I have showered the articles with enough sources, he continues to ask for "third party sources" where none are needed. His comments on the talk page are incivil enough and that is why I think Magoteers expressed amazement that only he was blocked for his involvement in the revert war. I made several more changes to the article today and Anastasia just reverted me again. It's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I have already asked for help from other administrators who haven't even shown a fleeting concern to intervene.

I would appreciate your presence. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, don't expect any relief from EdJohnston. He routinely sides with the attackers and deletionists. He'll throw the good editors off an article and leave the bad editors.-B724 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar and your message about the Admin's noticeboard

Hi Ed, thank you for the message. I've already given my answer. I know that this issue is a bit discouraging (long discussions, etc) buy it would be good if you could take a look at my (probably too long) answer and at the article and see if you can provide some input. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your interest. I am ready to strike through (or delete) anything that admins consider a personal attack. But please, read my comment[10] in the noticeboard before you decide whether my comments were offensive or just descriptive (I know this may not sound too plausible, but you should take a look at the discussion and Justin's -yeah, implausible- activity before you decide). Thanks again and sorry for robbing your time with this ugly dispute. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, your comments meet the definition of a personal attack. I am reluctant to step into that messy thread at WP:ANI#Gibraltar and make recommendations unless there is at least one person I could talk to who is truly attempting to follow all the policies. Though Justin may well be in the wrong, your incivility is clouding the issue and making the question of sanctions more murky.

You also made three reverts on 12 November, without first getting consensus for them on the talk page. This is hardly helping to calm down the article. You should agree to stop doing this:

1. 12:36, 12 November 2010 (edit summary: "Correcting wrong info (only 24,000 inhabitants are Gibraltarians) and including reference to the GoG Abstract of Statistics 2009")
2. 16:48, 12 November 2010 (edit summary: "Corrected mistake, please check")
3. 16:50, 12 November 2010 (edit summary: "Corrected inaccurate information, with less detail. Please check the source: not all 29,000 inhabitants are Gibraltarians (only 80% of them are).")

-- EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Decision regarding Headbomb's action against Brews ohare

EdJohnston: I understand from your recent post on my Talk page that this matter is now settled. However, according to Headbomb's post, he does not think so.

A point to to be made clear:

The natural sciences do not include mathematics. The distinction made by the very authoritative James Newman, for example, is that the "natural sciences" are empirical in nature, while mathematics differs decisively. Brews ohare (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, any such action to draw me back to WP:AE again for a baseless topic ban violation by Headbomb, Blackburne or DickLyon violates the condition that this type of harassment is hereby settled. I assume that should this happen again, this time you or the pertinent administrator will actually dismiss the baseless action instead of allowing the matter to become a thread for innuendo and caricature of my editing behavior on WP by those not enamored of me. In addition, I would hope for chastisement of anyone bringing baseless actions and some meaningful approach taken to prevent its repetition. Brews ohare (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RE

Re I didnt response becouse Lviskie reverted again, and I wasnt able to revert my edition. I forgot about 1r per day restriction. Sorry.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a mistake...

I didn't have a chance to reply before now (I was busy with stuff, which is a shame otherwise I'd have stepped in to prevent this outcome). But this is a big mistake. Maths aren't part of natural sciences, so next time he behaves as illustrated by JohnBlackburne on Pythagorean theorem, and people go to AE for it, he'll try to wikilawyer his way out of it claiming the ban applied to natural sciences, not maths.

Additionally, the problem of his violation has been unaddressed as well, and as Blackburne detailed, a 1RR restriction won't do a thing as Brews' problem isn't revert wars but rather that "... few of his edits are reverts. At Pythagorean theorem he has more often reworded, moved content around and located irrelevant sources for material to work around consensus. A revert restriction would not effect this (he would just do it more often), and would have no impact on his behaviour on talk pages and other non-article pages."

So see you at AE again withing a month. If even that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The agreed-to restriction is 1RR *per week.* At Pythagorean theorem he put his material back in after others removed it. The 1RR/week would have prevented that. My assumption is that math falls under the natural sciences. (Math is not part of the social sciences or the humanities). The admins at AE are running out of Arbcom-authorized solutions because a general probation expired on 20 October, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Remedies, and we can't do much besides block any more. (We can't add restrictions on our own initiative). If you are right and this problem springs up one more time, the community is not without options of its own. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Told you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Observations on the conduct of Headbomb's case

The action brought by Headbomb to WP:AE was found by a substantial majority of those commenting to be unfounded, including yourself. This action by Headbomb, having no basis in fact, should have been dismissed summarily by a correct application of procedures. Nonetheless, action was pursued by administrators, including yourself.

Complaints were raised by Blackburne and Dicklyon concerning some Talk page activity on the page Talk:Pythagorean theorem. This discussion was already over, terminated on their terms, and no Administrative intervention was necessary in what was already a dead issue. The invention of some ongoing edit war on Pythagoras' theorem was made up of whole cloth by administrators (not by Blackburne, not by DickLyon, not by Headbomb).

Administrators intervened to muckrake that it is my "whole approach to Wikipedia that is ‘the problem’". They then blatantly hijacked Headbomb's dubious claim of violation of a topic ban to manufacture their own brand-new witch hunt, with no new disruption to occasion this attention, but merely a tumor grown of prejudices from long ago, and long ago dealt with, but not forgotten, and with no relation to a topic ban violation.

We've seen here a spectacle of administrators tripping over their own robes, losing their spectacles, unable to focus, a ludicrous charade mocking all dignity, and with no semblance of gravity and process. It is, EdJohnston, a farce you should not allow yourself to be drawn into if you are to hold your head high. Brews ohare (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the decision was baseless. It is unfortunate that both you and Headbomb were away during the exact moment when we might have clarified the final wording of the voluntary agreement. I am still concerned about your approach to editing Wikipedia, and if you proceed as though you can do anything you want on mathematics articles, I think we may be back at AE soon. I hope you will act as though you accept the 1RR/week limitation there as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare and revert intepretation

As even a perfunctory view of my actions on WP will show, and as supported by direct statement from Dick Lyon and from Blackburne themselves, my editing of main pages isn't an issue, and reversions aren't a problem with my behavior. The whole matter of interpretation of my voluntary restriction is therefore moot.

The problems as seen by Blackburne and by Dick Lyon are referred to by them as "bloat", that is, I am of the view that examples and detail add to an article, and they prefer very succinct articles. The concept of "bloat" is not a WP guideline, but a very personal interpretation. In cases where Blackburne and DickLyon make an appearance to delete an addition of mine and support their actions on the Talk page, I naturally attempt to explain why my addition is useful. They have never agreed with me, and express their pique by claiming I am preoccupying the Talk page unnecessarily. That approach relieves them of any responsibility to explain why their concept of "bloat" should take precedence over mine. So far, I have had to let things drop as I am outnumbered. These encounters are not a matter requiring discipline, although that is their approach. Rather, what is needed is a better guideline regarding WP:IsNot.

As for Headbomb and Beeblebrox, I have had very little encounter with them except on WP:AE and WP:ANI because they are not actually involved with me in my editing but are involved in a vendetta to eliminate my activities. Such a campaign should involve a bit of balance, looking at my wide range of constructive contributions to WP, but these two simply are smarting over having their pants pulled down over stupidities like Headbomb's last action. Brews ohare (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Given your approach to this, I am not sure that trying to negotiate with you was worthwhile. I see that Tim Song has now addressed the matter to Arbcom: WP:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Speed of light. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston: I am sorry that you have taken the view that my presentation above warrants no consideration, and that you simply adopt a hard line based upon a vague statement about "my approach", which I understand to mean that I have attempted to engage instead of buckling under without comment. Brews ohare (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you are disagreeing with Blackburne, DickLyon and Headbomb as well as myself that a revert rule addresses nothing. Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you've rejected my understanding of the scope of the 1RR/week rule (the key point about it including mathematics) there is little more for us to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit war report

I have looked at the page again and there is no change since I last posted. Are you suggesting a decision has been made already? What is being done about JHunter's behaviour and actions? What review has been done to the actual state of the article in dispute to determine where it stands? And no, I have not attacked anyone. Please don't take what I said out of context. I would work with JHunter if I could. Are you asking me to remove the comment?  æronphonehome  20:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please remove the comment. You should agree to wait for consensus to form before reverting the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Though I'm not reverting anything any more. I am having my edits which are in the best interest of the page reverted without any rationale. He is continuing make accusations against me while he does the things he says -I- should stop. Is this the kind of behaviour I should expect from an Admin?  æronphonehome  21:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Limits of 3RR

I would be interested in knowing what I might have done to possibly warrant sanctions. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

While counting reverts, it wasn't clear to me whether you had passed WP:3RR yourself. In a hot dispute like that, it would be normal to bring the matter to a noticeboard before continuing to make changes, especially for an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. I did figure the reverts of edits labeled as minor that replaced templates were exempt (per WP:MINOR) even though (now that I look) it's not a exception listed at WP:3RR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Obviously I disagree with your decision since Sherif reinserted the edit while the AE was still ongoing-four reverts in 2 days including a violation of 1rr. Water under the bridge. I have a procedural question concerning reverts. If an editor makes four reverts in one article concerning four separate and distinct edits, does that count as four reverts or does the 3RR rule mean that the reverts must deal specifically with one particular edit. In other words, four reverts on one specific edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing four reverts. He broke 1RR on the 15th but then undid his edit. Then he made a group of consecutive edits on the 16th. That might not have been advisable. I've left notes for both you and Sherif advising against further modification of the numbers in the infobox before consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what consensus would be in a situation where there are only the two of us in the dispute, and where I have, as you pointed out, based my information and facts on the same sources used by Jiujitsuguy. I'm not sure why this matter would require such a long debate and a need to establish consensus in the first place. I'll try to conform to your recommendations nevertheless... --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yom Kippur War
• Talk:Yom Kippur War#Infobox numbers

Several other editors have been commenting on Talk recently. You could open a new section, state the matter to be resolved, and ask their opinions. Maybe you need to present some verbatim quotes from the sources. It is hard for me to even understand what you are disagreeing about, and others could have the same problem. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue between Sherif and I has been resolved with a simple asterisk and notation. Thanks for your advice and help.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You possibly missed one....

Thanks for doing that. Justin talk 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again thanks, the move seems the best solution. Justin talk 18:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the pages

Thank you for boldly moving the pages to my userspace (I thought I was creating them there in the first place). Cheers! Imalbornoz (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Martintg

Hi! I see that you rejected taking an action with regard to martintg, because he posted on the Arbcom page. But note that Vecrumba has been already blocked for participation in a similar case by Future Perfect at Sunrise. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vecrumba&diff=361905761&oldid=361890882 I see no difference between that case and the current one.--Dojarca (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The prime issue back then was not that of breaching a topic ban per se, but whether involvement in the original Russavia-Biophys case violated the interaction ban. The drafting Arb did allowed some leeway with respect to interaction ban, but as indicated by Shell's comment a line was crossed. My involvement in the original Russavia-Biophys case was due to a legitimate dispute I had at the time with Russavia, as Shell's comment above states, she appreciated my decorum in that case.

My recent comment in the Russavia-Biophys amendment, being that I was involved in the original case, was addressed directly to the Arbitrators. In any case, Dojarca wrongly cites in his AE report the remedy applicable, that broad EE wide remedy is no longer applicable as it was amended by motion some months ago. --Martin (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

More sockpuppets of User:BrianBeahr

Hello yet again. User:BJW111 and User:Since1873 are both obvious sockpuppets of the indefinitely blocked User:BrianBeahr. Same articles and same kinds of edits. Thanks for your attention to this. Afterwriting (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Related note

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

i see you have blocked an anon "user" for his actions on my talk page (calling me a "faggot"?!?!?!). This was all because he vandalized Juan Manuel Lillo's page and i reverted it (if you check the summaries, i did not insult him whilst reverting his gross violation of BLPs). Please pay attention, the same "user" - bet my life!! - with another IP, has vandalized the page again, i have reverted it, let's hope the next insult he throws at me is more original...i am getting a bit tired of these human wastes, don't care how old they are, this is unacceptable, what on earth is this?!?

Thanks for your hard work again, keep it up, have a happy week overall - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your statement

Thank you for your comments in my case, although you did not comment in my favor. You helped me to better understand some of the issues. Hence I provided some diffs from my talk page [11]. I understand that you might have some questions about this. If so, please ask, and I would be happy to discuss any possible misunderstandings here, rather than on arbitration pages.

It would also be great if you suggest how exactly my existing ban could be modified. Limiting the scope of the ban would not be a good solution, because it does not address the problem. Actually, I thought about two possible options: (1) keeping the existing topic ban for a few more months (but do not make it indefinite), or (2) replacing the existing topic ban by 1 RR restriction for a few months. You probably would not recommend anything less than that. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion at User talk:Biophys.

Responding to your question, I certainly do not mind archiving my talk page. Why I feel uncomfortable? Well, this is because of defamatory postings off-wiki that are linked to my talk page. In fact, I would strongly prefer to delete it, or at least change my username. What do you recommend? Biophys (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A change of name is unlikely to help. People seem to know who you are, and there is not much that can be done about it. Even Arbcom can do nothing about what is said off-wiki. If you were to get a new account but then edit the same subjects, people would make the connection. To get a rest from annoying comments, consider a switch to scientific and cultural articles, at least for a period of time. We do need editors who are willing to write about Russian topics. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly would not mind switching to scientific and cultural articles related to Russia, for a period of time rather than indefinitely. But it might be a problem to define what exactly would be off-topic. Everything in Soviet topics may be "controversial". For example, the culture in Soviet Russia was officially a form of propaganda; many writers were sent to Gulag, and one of them even wrote such book. And you never know in advance what will cause a dispute. That's why I suggested a more general approach in the request for amendment. In fact, I am not even sure if I am going to edit a lot in this area. I can try carefully and see how it goes... But I do not want to be a subject of indefinite sanctions. That's for sure.Biophys (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you give examples of some scientific or cultural articles you would like to edit, that risk infringing your ban from Soviet Union topics? EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything. Soviet culture, just to start from something. But this is not the point. Actually, I edited a lot of articles that may be considered highly controversial without meeting any opposition, such as this. It was me who created Soviet program of biological weapons and List of Soviet agents in the United States, and no one objected. Can I create Soviet program of chemical weapons? Biophys (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you make a list of a dozen or so articles, and include it in your current request to Arbcom, it might be approved. Judging from the tone of the Arb comments in the original WP:ARBRB decision, it seems unlikely to me that they would entirely lift your topic ban at this point. We could also request that you be allowed to present further articles at WP:AE to be exempted from the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable option if I was desperate editing anything about Russia. But I do not really care. Neither have I strong nationalistic feelings. I can edit something else as well. All I wanted is not to be a subject of indefinite sanctions, because I am a law-abiding citizen of this project. Whatever they decide is fine.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. It seems to me that such an approach is unlikely to get you a favorable result, if that's what you are seeking. You were not restricted for no reason at all. If you address the reason, you might get the sanction loosened, or eventually, lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope I addressed the problem in my statement. I am a rational person. If I could foresee the sanctions, I would certainly left these article to POV-pushers and allow them to do with articles whatever they want. I am not a fool to repeat my own mistakes twice.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking rationally, I do not see any reason why Arbcom can not allow me editing with 1RR restriction in this area. What kind of trouble can I possibly create? Certainly not edit-warring. And I am civil in discussions. If there are any "battleground" concerns, just ban me from all administrative pages, or whatever. I do not care.Biophys (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

POV-pushing. Activism. Creating an impression of consensus against neutral point of view. Is it enough? --Dojarca (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account how many editors with opposing views edit in this area, there is nothing I can do except creating new content on the subjects that do not cause anyone's objections. What's wrong with this? Nothing wrong, except wasting my time here instead of doing my work. So, maybe you are right after all. Biophys (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, I am amazed that you could create an article about Soviet program of biological weapons without running into any controversy. I guess it is a different type of article than Communist terrorism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent question and related to your administrative duties. The answer: this is not about articles. Do you think that people who edit war around "Communist terrorism" article are really interested in the subject? If so, why did not they add more sourced content to the article as I did? See my comment at AE page. No, this is all about wikistalking.Biophys (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill has now responded at A/R/A and he advises against lifting your ban at this time. I still think you should propose a list of articles that you want to be cleared to work on; I don't see your ban being lifted any time soon. Your comment about stalking suggests that you don't accurately perceive the problem. Communist terrorism is one of the articles where I am amazed that any consensus could ever be found. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked arbitrators if it would be possible to limit the scope of the ban, as you suggested, just before you made your last comment there.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about my "problem". Could you please explain what is it? Sure thing, I realize that I have certain POV, but my edits are sourced to books and improve the content. To be specific, did I do right thing by creating article "Soviet program of biological weapons" you just mentioned? Would it be better if we did not have such article at all? Biophys (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion is over. I presented some things you could agree to, and you did not agree. Your alternative ideas don't seem credible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry for excessive comments. Could you or someone else please set up archiving my talk page for a time period of ~1 week? That was your initial suggestion. I do not know how to do it.Biophys (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've set up archiving by MiszaBot on your talk page. You should expect to see some threads archived by about 29 November. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made a kind of inquiry, and it looks like these off-wiki postings are damaging for my scientific career. Probably, it might be a good idea to move/rename my user page (together with talk page) and indeed focus on harmless subjects if I am allowed to edit in this area. Do you think that would be something reasonable, and how should I proceed? Thank you for your help.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask at WP:CHU to have your account renamed. It is not clear to me how that helps you. If you are truly willing to change fields of interest, then create a brand new account, and stop using the old one. The new account should not contribute to Russian topics, or others may figure out who you are. If you decide to create a new account, you should send email to Arbcom telling them about the old and new account names, since the new account would inherit your current topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The easiest way to identify who am I is by looking at my science-related contributions. This might help as long as I stay away of certain subjects here.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Teramo

Ciao! Just to notify you that, immediately after his ban expired, the Teramo vandal has returned, abruptly reverting to his awful version, and losing all the changes I had had made basing on his inputs!! See the article's talk page. Notice also how a bot immediately re-added an interwiki on his version. Ciao and thanks. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I left him a final warning, since his last edit was five days ago. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So far his only move was that to blank his talk page. Is this allowed? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Teramo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DDF19483 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yes. I'm afraid he is not getting the message, though. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

• Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 65.112.21.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey there! Wanted to let you know that soon after the ban you placed on Rabbi Pinto's page was lifted on 11/24, user 68.173.122.113 returned on 11/26 as user 65.112.21.194 and added biased information that had been removed over and over again by multiple contributors (not just myself). User 68.173.122.113 is user 65.112.21.194 and vice versa (perhaps this is sockpuppetry). Is it possible to ban both of these users from the page? I'd like to avoid future edit wars with this person. Thanks! Photocredit (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP only made one edit since the semiprotection expired on 24 November. Not enough to justify renewing the protection, since the edit wasn't defamatory. I will leave a note for the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand. If he continues to include slanderous or defamatory material, or if he chooses to frame things in an overtly biased manner -- whether it's amended or not -- I will be sure to notify you. Thanks for your help. Photocredit (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Whats truly amazing is that all of the primary users on Pintos page are people who never before edited any Wiki pages when I am in fact the creator of the Pinto page. What constitutes vandalism is it truth and balance ? Please advise what is biased about including the cost of perhaps the most expensive synagogue in the US ? Or that he is considered controversial ? You of course are aware I credited this page, and that user Photocredit has never before used wiki previous to this entry ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Babasalichai, perhaps you can clarify whether the IP address 65.112.21.194 belongs to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring @ Holodomor

It's being ongoing for weeks but I think it's getting worse (potential IP socks are popping up, 3RR be damned, discussion page is futile, etc.) The current issue is with user:Ingy pushing his pro-Soviet POV and edit warring1, 2, 3. I recommend getting it to the last stable version (where it said broadly 2.6-10m victims to stay neutral) and putting a temp lock on it to get some consensus? I tried getting a discussion going to get all scholarly estimates together to come up with a neutral solution but that wasn't adopted. I dunno, I'm out of ideas..--Львівське (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article two weeks. If you think that the main dispute is the number of people who died in the famine, perhaps you could open up a WP:Request for comment. Either that, or arrange a talk page straw vote to see where people stand. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Hopefully this time-off will give people a chance to sort out their issues. Thanks.--Львівське (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Concern about IP edits at Hugo Almeida

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

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

please pay attention to Hugo Almeida's article, some anon "user" has been using the page the last hour, writing all kind of Peacock/Weasel/POV words, with appalling grasp of English and engaging in overlinking as well. I have already rolled it back, but maybe he will come back to add his "contributions" again and/or insult me...Kids.

Thanks very much in advance, happy week (and also note - i think you are not familiar with soccer, so you'll have to trust me on this one - the "user" is doing that in other articles as time "marches on") - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that this user could be committing copyright violations. His new material looks like typical 'sports talk' from newspaper columns, complete with the usual cliches. if you have the patience to do some Google searching, perhaps you could find the website he might be copying from. Maybe the player's own website, or that of his football club? You have not yet tried to communicate with this IP, and I would suggest you try that. I changed the heading of this post to be more neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your assistance, indeed. I have also rolledback his next "tirade", at Ezequiel Lavezzi - there, the player "runs another team ragged", amongst other charmers - Get in touch with the IP? I would not be surprised at all if HE gets in touch with me, and not very friendly i suspect (i might be wrong, but that's how i feel). - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• And asking your question: no, that kind of "phrasing" does not appear in either the club's website or the player's (he does not have one). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Pay attention to these charmers, in Fernando Llorente (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Llorente&diff=next&oldid=399462851), the user says the player "is likely to score a career-high in goals", a "testament to how good he really is" (written here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Llorente&diff=next&oldid=399463344) ...what on earth is this?!? If you do decide to block, i better brace myself for some serious insults. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sad but true - although i will never be 100% sure of course - the "user" has proceeded to insult me in my user page, with a very similar IP. Like Martin Luther King, i have a (much more modest) dream: "One day only registered users will join hands and make WP a better place" :( - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Because you commented at AN/I

You wrote here So please see here. I would really like to get this resolved. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You are asking Arbcom to lift a sanction that was not imposed by them, but by the community. I'm not sure what they will do. Also not entirely sure why you are so keen to get the sanctions lifted. It seems that a new application at AN in a few months might succeed. The last AN review was in October, which was very recent. I thought that Sandstein wrote a good summary of the discussion. The only practical effect of the current sanctions is to keep you from working on Western Sahara articles. Too-frequent appeals of the sanctions may work against you. Also, even in the last AN review it did not appear that you were very eager to hear what people had to say. Consider opening up an WP:Editor review. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AE comments

I regret you see fit to give credence to Offliner's allegations. In particular I am disturbed by your appearing to taking "anti-Estonian" (as violating my topic ban) completely out of the context of the conversation it was a part of, which was the result of Petri's blatantly false allegations against me at Shell Kinney's talk. If I have misinterpreted please let me know. I have responded. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments in the AE have not been especially helpful. If you would offer to strictly adhere to your topic ban from now on, we might be able to get this issue done with quicker. If admins have the impression that your judgment is off, to the point where you really don't see how your further EEML-related disputation is causing trouble, they could decide to take firmer action. It seems as though you just can't keep quiet when an issue is being discussed about EE involving anybody you have quarrelled with in the past, like Petri. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably I was unexpectedly busy on family issues even having to take an extra day over the long weekend, so I have not read in detail (still have not) or responded at the enforcement request. I do not believe that expressing concerns or criticisms regarding EEML WITCH! calling—which by definition apply to myself whether or not I am explicitly named—while not commenting on the substance of an enforcement or other request regarding a specific article or actions at a specific article (i.e, the topic ban) in question is either (a) an "attack" by myself on another editor or (b) violates my ban in any manner. If ArbCom's clarification is that "anything EEML" (the arbitration and results and any mention thereof) also falls under the topic ban, then I consider that a radical extension of the concept and scope of the topic ban. However, as I already have plenty to do over the next month or two, I'm not going to dispute that. Lastly, it's only when editors who have baselessly attacked me in the past do so again either in name or as part of a group that "I can't keep quiet." It has nothing to do with a quarrelsome mindset on my part. I don't go around attacking editors. If I can kiss and make up with Viriditas, the fault here lies neither in the stars or myself. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC) [updated PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)]

I see the AE request has already been archived. Please note that by my math, my topic ban expires January 14, 2011 17:28 UTC. Even though Sandstein did unblock my first EEML topic-ban related block, I count topic ban expiration plus 3 weeks plus 24 hours plus 24 hours so I avoid any possibility of returning early. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have sent you Wiki-Email regarding my perception of the AE request and surrounding events, as the AE request venue itself has been closed and posting here would violate the remedies which were put into effect. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As a final favor, my reading of this section of my topic ban: "This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban." is that any block interrupts the topic ban; when the block expires, the ban resumes. I'd like confirmation as to whether my topic ban expires on the original one-year anniversary or the date I've calculated. Thanks. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK

FYI

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have included a dscussion of your recent actions, which I'm slightly confused about, in the request for clarification. Please could you comment there? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, have you seen this? [12] [13] I know you think Mathsci has been helpful in this area during the time since his topic ban, but this sort of sniping in unrelated fora at the people who’ve expressed disagreement with him really does not seem helpful to me.

I think if the topic bans from the R&I case are to be extended, this should be done the same for all of the topic banned editors who are still active—me, Ferahgo, and also Mathsci. I would willingly accept this as a reasonable solution if it’s done equally for all of us. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Although I do not support the idea to apply the 1RR restriction to this article (as well as the 1RR as whole, which in current situation became a hidden form of vote, and, therefore, is against WP policy), I suggest you to be consistent in your attempts to restrict an opportunity for edit wars. IMO, the article should be permanently semi-protected, because in a situation when one cannot make more than one revert it is very tempting to use IP for that (the recent example is [14].) I have no desire to initiate any sockpuppet investigation against this IP, however, let me point out that during last six months no IP made useful contribution to this article, so it can be safely semi-protected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So far there is only one IP edit in the month of November. If it continues, semi may be considered. I am surprised that the editors on this article get along so badly. The underlying issue (how to structure the article) does not look like it should be terribly hard to reach agreement on. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It continues [15]. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong version

Hi Ed, I was not going to re-enter info removed by NSH001 and Nableezy, but the bottom line is they removed sourced information only because [WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT|they just do not like it]. user:NSH001 edit summary is wrong. There was no BLP violation there. You protected a wrong version.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Better to comment in the AE, rather than here. We have a biographical subject who is a colorful character who says surprising things all the time, and people are trying to keep BLP violations out of his article. That could be an argument for full-time protection, since the task is so difficult. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand

Has been blocked fr months before for similar. Aren't durations supposed to increase? Or is it just that it starts again for this particular sanction. Don't need reply if you took this into account, I'll assume it was something like that. Thanx--Misarxist 09:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the case has closed already, it is probably better to leave the sanction as it is. A rule that you should always explain your reverts is somewhat like a personal 1RR, which usually gets (at most) a short block for a violation unless it is clear the person has no intention of following the rule. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

AE

Wondering if it would be out of place to adds these diff from Edith [16] and [17] the AE on Littleolive oil? A warning was given here [18] for this previous edit [19]. This user has subsequently changed user names to User:Edith Sirius Lee 2 BTW. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though Will Beback thinks the complaint should be reconsidered later, when he has time to add more evidence. You are the submitter of this request. What do you think about that idea?

I am somewhat puzzled myself, after looking at the Arbcom decision, as to what the committee's thinking was. They authorized discretionary sanctions (a fairly strong step) but only admonished one editor specifically. Maybe they believed something was amiss on this topic but could not reach a clear picture of what to do. That could imply they noticed the going-in-circles business already and decided there was no conduct problem they could address. Since 'going in circles' isn't a new development since the case closed, I'm not sure how to proceed. The Scientology decision offers some parallels, but that one closed with 31 remedies, so they took many specific actions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no claim by any editor, and certainly no proposed claim or finding by you that I have violated any provision of the TM-ArbCom decison in any respect whatsoever. What is is that you think that I have done that would merit my inclusion in the TM-Org COI crowd for a 6-month topic ban?[20] Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am relying on Arbcom's analysis that you were one of the editors who was to be admonished. It seems unfair to lay out a new multi-editor ban without either (a) using the Arbcom findings + previous AE findings, or (b) doing a brand-new analysis of everyone's edits. In any event, there seems to be no support for my idea at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And, I was admonished. The end. What would be unfair is simply deciding that that sanctions imposed at the TM ArbCom and prior AE's simply didn't go far enough, and imposing additional sanctions without any evidence or claim of subsequent sanctionable action. I sympathize with your assessment of the TMArbCom decision. It was indeed puzzling, and didn't go anywhere near far enough. But, the decision did what it did, for good or bad, and an individual Admin or Arb doesn't get to revisit it to revise the sanctions. ArbCom was quite specific that it was closing the door on past conduct, and admonished every named editor (including a number of editors who you did not propose to topic ban) to conform their future conduct to the decision. The subsequent AE's resulted in a formal warning to David Spector, a 2 month topic ban for TimidGuy, and a collective 1RR restriction on TimidGuy, LittleOliveOil and EdithSiriusLee. Those sanctions were imposed for specific misconduct subsequent to the ArbCom in violation of that decision. I can understand your thought that sanctioning two editors for specific alleged misconduct might be unfair absent looking at the conduct of all of the editors on the subject. But, that could essentially involve a brand-new ArbCom - something that has already been turned down for good reason. I agree with you that your proposal is unlikely to gain any traction, which is why I'm commenting on what I view as the flaws in your reasoning here rather than there. The less entangled I am in these disputes, the better. Fladrif (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thank you for revising your recommendation at AE. Fladrif (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

When to provide the name of a Bollywood film in Urdu script as well as English and Hindi

Dear EdJohnston, I hope this message finds you doing well. Despite the fact that you have warned User:Mdmday not to remove Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles per the standstill agreement, he still continues to do so as evidenced here, here, and here. The user has also been warned on other occastions for various issues (record of his talk page). In addition, the user is also potentially using a sockpuppet to remove Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles (here & here). I have come to this conclusion because the latter edit summary is the same as User:Mdmday's. I would appreciate if you could please address this issue. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anupam. Some time has passed since the original 3RR case, and it may be time to post this problem for review by other admins. Would you have the patience to collect a set of diffs that is complete enough to document it since the beginning? If you can find enough diffs to show the problem, I may be able to supply the explanations, and I can post it somewhere for review. You don't need to find every film where the Urdu name has been removed, just try to get links to the talk pages where this has been discussed or where people have been warned. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply sir. In my first message, I provided you with links to the differences :) The current standstill will be discussed further when all of the parties are not busy and have more time to deliberate (potentially, in the summer). In the past, the consensus to retain both Hindi and Urdu scripts in Bollywood related film articles was presented in the following places: poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3; these affirmed that two scripts (Devanagari & Nastaliq/Perso-Arabic) used to transcribe Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani) were appropriate for Bollywood related film articles. The validity of these consensuses was confirmed by Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:Taxman twice: here and here. The last full explanation I gave on why both scripts (citing sholarly literature) should be retained can be found here. I hope this helps. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting but i dont have any SOCKS...i do share some of my work with my friends offline who share my ideas and whom i have introduced to WP, but not sock, i have a well established account myself that provides me a greater access to editing. Thank You.Mdmday (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Mdmday#You're being discussed. EdJohnston (talk)

19:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me but plz also tell the other party not to add the persian script on the pages which do not have to have them, we should maintain a status quo.Mdmday (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I must note that there wasn't any consensus on the issue before, and my analysis of those "discussions" clearly showed that. User:Taxman is not an authority who can take decisions and provide verdicts in this case, and he actually was not an uninvolved party as he himself once thanked Anupam for adding an Urdu script. The long (I mean l-o-o-o-o-n-g) discussion on Talk:Bollywood only showed a clear lack of consensus, and Anupam was actually caught canvassing other editors to participate in the discussion (I'm not being hostile, just providing a fact). No consensus was reached because many agreed and many disagreed to the inclusion of Urdu scripts, and the latest conclusion was yours. I myself did try to reconsider my stand, thinking it's not really worth so much energy, but I'm unsure as of yet. At some point I thought the best way would be to remove all scripts. I always knew no one would ever be happy with the addition of Urdu scripts, which was initiated and executed by Anupam and others. This has become really insufferable. I would want to improve articles, to make them better, to expand them, and not fight over some petty scripts. My theory always was, why add an Urdu script to a movie which is officially acknowledged as solely Hindi (I'm referring to official film certificates which are always shown right before the film's beginning)? The presence of Urdu in Hindi (Bollywood) films is similar to the presence of English in Hindi films. Like English, Urdu is used in Bollywood films to an extent and similarly in some films its presence is more significant, but it is not the lingua franca of Bollywood. Hindi is. The largest and most reliable book on Bollywood, Encyclopedia Britannica's "Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema" does not even mention Urdu. That's tiresome for me, I'm unwilling to start the same discussion all over again. Best, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Expansion on "excessive vandalism" @ Tahash

I wanted to contact you before I withdraw from Wikipedia for the sake of my health. You used the phrase "excessive vandalism". I think it will continue. Please look at the reverting edits December 3-5 and compare with my comments about the fallacious reasoning behind those and others (Tahash: Discussion: Fallacies in reasons for deletion of material, "length of article" possible pretext). I agree with a statement there that I might not have clearly understood WP:RfC, but I think Wikipedia may have a serious problem with Pontificalibus / Joe407. Specific example:

insistence that Strong's Exhaustive Concordance/SearchGodsWord(same thing) and related sources (Gesenius, BDB)—sources cited for article statements of meaning of monosyllabic roots, quoted almost entirely verbatim in article—are "not verifiable sources". This is utterly incredible!

My proposal to undo reversions made for reasons I set forth in my comments about fallacies was met with the accusation that I want to engage in an "edit war". The legitimacy of a single revert of each apparently specious reversion of material, to allow for discussion by other readers, was then challenged. Insistence on detailed individual examples to be taken up one by one and analysed bit by bit, in what looked to me to be the beginning of an interminable debate, appears to be a strategy of "wearing out the editors". There is an evident "mocking" tone to the comment that it is unlikely that Semitic scholars would respond and that Wikipedia is able to get along without them. The listing of fallacies underlying the reverting edits is dismissed as "a distraction". I realized then that what I had said about "pretext" was not a mistake. I got the unmistakable sense that through all of this he was attempting to goad me into making multiple reverts as a pretext for petitioning the adminitrators to block me, so I decided not to "take the bait."

An "addendum" I had forgotten to include with my original comments about fallacies and had added at the end of them, was moved. As it reads now, out of sequential context, placed after the response by Pontificalibus, it appears to be contentious and argumentive. ("Chronological order" is the apparent pretext for doing this.) I decided not to undo the move—I don't think it would do any good.

I've read the procedure for giving warnings. I would have been willing to go through the recommended necessary steps to establish substantiating evidentiary cause for administrative blocking of this editor, but as a health professional I began to see in myself developing physical symptoms that preclude this. Please understand that I am not asking you to do my work, but to look at the behavior of Pontificalibus/Joe407. I do not think he is good for Wikipedia.

I wish you well. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For my own good, I will not be returning to Wikipedia to "see what happened". --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're here because I turned down a request for full protection of Tahash. I don't think you're being railroaded at Tahash. Editors are raising points about the brevity and relevance of the content you wish to add. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Tahash. Some of your language at Talk:Tahash sounds like you are promising to edit war. There are some reasonable people working on that talk page and it would make sense for you to negotiate with them. If you don't have the patience right now, consider working on some other article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi there, I see that previously you have been the one to go to about sockpuppets of User:BrianBeahr. I've found another obvious one, User:AAC1996. They have the exact same editing patterns on the exact same articls. Anyway, I was hoping you could block him, or refer me to the proper place to seek intervention. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the smoking gun (yet) to say sockpuppet myself, but I agree that there's something rotten in the state of Denmark Victoria with the pattern of editing. If you're familiar with BrianBeahr's MO and think a sockblock is in order, I'll endorse it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Found it! AAC's edits and a sock's edit to List of St Kilda Football Club records and statistics match up. I'm willing to affirmatively say he's a sockpuppet and support the block accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to change my {{sockpuppet}} tag on User:AAC1996 if you think it should be reclassified as confirmed. I've taken the liberty of blocking the account myself and deleting the file he created under CSD G5. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is the line between sockpuppet|blocked and sockpuppet|confirmed these days anyway? It used to be that confirmed indicated it had gone through a sockpuppet investigation and/or checkuser. Is that still the case? —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

'Confirmed' seems to mean that some experienced person is sure. (Usually an admin, but not always). Many SPI cases are closed on behavior, but we still do 'confirmed' (at least I do). It is annoying when accounts randomly split between the confirmed and suspected categories, so I try to do one or the other all the time, for a given sockmaster. BB is mostly confirmed due to how consistent he is. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you for how quickly you cleared this up. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/Noticeboard question

Hello Ed,

I noticed you replied to my question in the NPOV noticeboards [21]. You were partially correct in the subject I was trying to address. I've gotten on a roll of fixing non-neutral titles, but I was actually focusing this question on the one in the English wikipedia (Ceviche, which I have been improving as of lately; you can check the history of that article). However, since you mentioned the situation in the Spanish wikipedia, it would help clear up some matters if you could please answer a general NPOV question regarding one of the many points in that awfully long discussion. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at WP:NPOVN#NPOV and Article Titles (Help!). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Sales and Market Share on WikiPedia

I've made an official request for editorial assistance to stop the removal or white-washing of sales and market share data from the Windows Phone 7 page.

Please, before finding any fault with my insistance that it be included, please look at all other Microsoft product pages. Sales and Market Share data are prominently featured, including data on initial sales results.

See Microsoft Office, for example. It's in the first section. So too on Windows 7.

In contrast to past product releases, Microsoft has not yet released sales results. That in and of itself is interesting. But, given that, certain legitimate journalistic enterprises such as The Wall Street Journal and eWeek have done great work at finding out, indirectly, the sales results. It's called journalism. And, the information gleaned deserves a first-class place in WikiPedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbdSeattle (talk • contribs) 03:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've documented five editors who have contributed to the Windows Phone 7 section on Sales and Market Share. But, in the last two days, user llegal Operation has reverted it three times, and has removed the work of others multiple times.

Please, I understand the rules. Now, please act as quickly as you did in my case. Thank you. MbdSeattle (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have warned Illegal Operation about edit warring about 'Sales and market share.' But if you yourself restore that section before consensus is found on the talk page, you could be sanctioned. I recommend you wait to see if other editors want to put that section back. EdJohnston (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there ED, VASCO from Portugal here,

for reasons that escape me, vandalism has been afoot at both Simão Sabrosa and Manuel Fernandes (footballer born 1986), with English "user" inserting players play with one team when they DON'T (last time i checked it was vandalism). The past few days, some more "users" have been inserting stuff (at least in the latter article), which included obscenities.

Can you please offer the poor Fernandes and Sabrosa some wiki-solace? Thanks in advance, have a nice week, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Both articles semiprotected. When the vandalism is so obvious that ClueBot is reverting it, it may be time to act. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Corticopia... Chipmunkdavis and the anonymous IP

I just saw that you semiprotected the article Americas. I just want you to notice that, again, the anonymous IP is Corticopia (same IP range, same city, same edit pattern) and very very interesting is the fact that Chipmunkdavis jumped to revert and help the anonymous IP in his POV pushing [22].

As I always thought, and I believe I have provided enough evidence, they are the same person. That time when Chipmunkdavis was "user-checked" I'm sure he had been using a VPN to prevent being related to Toronto based IPs.

Chipmunkdavis wasn't been active in that article, until the anonymous IP started imposing his POV. Interesting how Chip jumped in only to help anon. IP. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Note that the IP was also reverting Chipmunkdavis. The tone of their comments is different; I don't see the resemblance. In the last SPI, the closer was not convinced of the behavioral case for them to be the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My new editing restrictions

As I said in my last post in the AE thread, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for editors topic banned in the R&I case to also be disallowed from participating in other discussions related to these articles, so I’m not going to ask you to completely undo the decision you made in the AE thread. However, I do think it’s unreasonable for this sanction to be applied unequally between me, Ferahgo and Mathsci, because as far as I understand Mathsci has caused just as much continued conflict in this area as Ferahgo and I have. Based on my understanding of this situation, what I think would be reasonable is for him, Ferahgo and myself to be treated equally in this respect.

The reason why the question of whether topic bans from this case should be extended originally came up is because of Mathsci’s several recent AE threads, and Timothy Canens stated here that he believed all of this behavior was unhelpful, referring to Mathsci’s AE thread specifically. Your initial proposal there also called for this restriction to apply equally to me, Mathsci and Ferahgo. However, after Mathsci privately contacted you and Timothy Canens via e-mail, you changed your position to say that you think Ferahgo and I need to be prevented from participating in further discussions related to this topic, but that Mathsci does not. I’m not a party to your private correspondence with Mathsci, but as per this decision from ArbCom, you have a responsibility to explain your reasoning that led to treating me and Mathsci differently in this respect.

With that in mind, there are two questions that I’d like you to answer about the decision that you made.

1. The only two admins who participated in the discussion about this sanction were you and Timothy Canens. Both of you were in contact with Mathsci via e-mail, and neither of you discussed the situation with me or Ferahgo, even when I asked you here how you thought Mathsci’s behavior towards Cirt was acceptable. Can you explain how in a dispute between two users (me and Mathsci), you consider it reasonable to let your and Timothy Canens’ decision be influenced by private correspondence with only one of the two users, without any input from the other user or the rest of the community?
2. Mathsci’s private correspondence with you presumably had to do with his suspicion that Sightwatcher, who posted the RFC, is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Mathsci has been discussing this suspicion with ArbCom for the past two weeks, but it’s clear that ArbCom has not yet decided that this is the case, or else Sightwatcher would have already been blocked or topic banned. Given that these allegations have not yet been proven, can you explain why it’s unproblematic for Mathsci to complain about the RFC at AE, and complain in an unrelated discussion about Cirt’s agreement with the RFC? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for him to just wait for ArbCom to make a decision about whether Sightwatcher is a legitimate user?

As stated in the arbitration ruling about user responsibility, if you aren’t able to justify the decision you made about this in public, you should not have made it. I also think you should modify your decision to treat me and Mathsci unequally if you aren’t able to justify it here. If you aren’t willing to either modify your decision or answer my questions about the basis for it, I’ll probably be appealing it further. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not influenced by the content of any emails received from Mathsci in arriving at my closure of the AE request. One was a general comment, complaining about some edits by Ferahgo, that did not seem to have much to do with the AE request. I did not look to see what those edits were. The other was some speculation about a new sock (other than SightWatcher or Woodsrock). I have not looked into that either. Mathsci said he had already sent the sock information to Arbcom. Perhaps I should start returning unread any mail I receive about an AE case while it is still pending.

Personally, I would welcome any clarification you can give as to whether you think SightWatcher or Woodsrock could be anyone you know personally or have communicated with electronically. Apologies if you have already addressed this point. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I neither used the word meatpuppet or sockpuppet in the second email, which was for your information only. Deleting it would be fine but talking about the contents without my permission is not. Please could you be more careful in the future and have a little more consideration for other users? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, I think my comment accurately summarizes the drift of your email without revealing anything confidential. ('Sock' does not refer to anyone in particular). When I first got email from you, I should have considered the wisdom of closing your AE request with no further action, and told you to go directly to Arbcom, which handles confidential information. How did you expect the other participants in the case to react, knowing that you were contacting the admins ex parte? They would be rightly concerned about being negatively affected by secret information. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) EdJohnston, I’ve already addressed this point in response to an e-mail from Shell. More importantly, if you’re just leaving it to ArbCom to investigate the charges of sockpuppetry, I really don’t see what this question has to do with your decision in the AE thread. If there’s some way that your question about this is important to discussing the outcome of the AE thread, then I’ll answer it, but otherwise I’d prefer that this discussion stay focused on the new sanctions you’ve imposed.

You’ve answered the first question I asked you about this, but not the second. You initially proposed that Mathsci receive the same sanction you were giving to me and Ferahgo, then later changed your mind about this, and you’ve said that your reversal of opinion wasn’t based on Mathsci’s e-mails. In that case, can you tell me what caused you to decide to sanction me and Mathsci unequally? As I said in my second question to you, I don’t think Mathsci has acted appropriately with regard to the RFC even if he suspects Sightwatcher and Woodsrock of being socks, and this behavior continued (with his comments to Cirt) even after your initial proposal to give him and me the same sanction. But evidently after you initially proposed that, something happened to make you decide that you should be more lenient with Mathsci than with me and Ferahgo. Can you explain what that decision was based on, and why you think Mathsci’s behavior with regard to the RFC was less problematic than anything Ferahgo or I have done? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci has started a thread at WP:A/R/CL which will allow the Arbs to consider his topic ban directly. If they wish to do so, they can strengthen it. If have posted in that thread so that the arbs are aware of the AE action against you and Ferahgo. It is possible that thread will be closed by Arbcom with no action, in which case Mathsci's future behavior on R&I will continue to be scrutinized by admins, to see if his topic ban also needs strengthening. Appeal processes are there so that people can appeal their own sanction. There is no accepted way to appeal against someone else *not* being sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification and also for the advice that you and Timotheus gave on WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way: Because I think Mathsci and I should have been treated equally, I do object to your sanction against me and Ferahgo, and would like to appeal it. I think the sanction should have applied either to all of us or to none of us, and you have a responsibility to explain why you chose to sanction us differently when there didn’t appear to be any significant difference in our behavior. To put it another way, if Mathsci’s behavior wasn’t actionable, then I don’t think ours was either. You have to understand how this looks to me: you initially proposed that Mathsci, Ferahgo and I all receive the same sanction, a few days later you changed your mind and decided to sanction me and Ferahgo without sanctioning Mathsci, and the only thing I’m aware of that changed after your initial proposal was Mathsci e-mailing you. I would like to assume good faith about you not having been influenced by Mathsci’s e-mails, but that’s really how this looks, especially if you don’t provide a specific explanation of why you changed your mind about what you’d proposed originally.

I agree with your comment above that after Mathsci started e-mailing you, you should have closed the AE thread with no action. Even if it really is the case that your decision wasn’t affected by secret information, you must understand that this is how it looks, and I don’t think it was a good idea for you to make a decision in the thread which gave that appearance. If you agree that it would have been a good idea to close the AE thread as no action after Mathsci started e-mailing you, can you reverse your current decision and make that decision retroactively?

If not, then as I said you have a responsibility to explain what caused you to change your mind about your initial proposal. If you’re reluctant to explain what caused you to change your mind about this, that strengthens the impression that this change was influenced by Mathsci’s e-mails, whether that’s actually the case or not. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think the situation is not equitable, why not add your own comment at WP:A/R/CL, so that Arbcom can consider it? At least one arbiter has proposed reviewing the topic ban situation: "It may also be that we need to review the behavior of various editors on these articles since the case closed." I think I have answered all the questions that I am expected to answer per policy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, I’ve posted about it there.

I should mention, though, that what you’re doing here seems kind of irresponsible. You said in your response to Mathsci that it might have been a better idea for you to close the AE thread with no action, and you’re also not willing to explain the basis for your decision to sanction me and Mathsci unequally. In a situation where an admin is unsure whether they made the right decision by sanctioning someone, and doesn’t want to explain the basis for that decision, the most appropriate course of action is to undo the decision. Reacting by saying that the decision ought to be examined by ArbCom really seems like passing the buck. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it’s now been a week since we asked ArbCom about this in the request for clarification, and they haven’t responded to either of our questions there. One of the arbitrators has left a new comment there, but it’s only addressing Mathsci’s original question.

When you suggested asking ArbCom about this there, I was actually predicting this was a likely result, although I figured it was worth trying anyway. In general, I’ve found that ArbCom tends not to answer complex questions like this unless they’re part of an open arbitration case.

So, it looks like we’re back where we were before. When I attempted to appeal your decision in the AE thread by discussing it with you, rather than answering me directly you suggested that we get ArbCom to consider this question in the request for clarification. But ArbCom is apparently not willing to consider it, or to provide an answer either way. As I said in my previous comment, I already think it’s unfortunate that rather than discussing your decision with me when I wanted to appeal it, you deferred responsibility to ArbCom. But now that it’s clear we’re not going to get an answer about this from ArbCom, I think you definitely have a responsibility to discuss it with me when I’m wanting to appeal your decision. Do you accept that? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have declined to undo my action, and I think I've answered all the questions that I am expected to per policy. Your other options for appeal are WP:AE and Arbcom. In any appeal, you are better off discussing your own behavior than in complaining that others were inadequately sanctioned. The confidential aspect now appears to be minor, and Mathsci's emails did not cause any action to be taken against you that would not otherwise be taken. If you insist that all confidential data be reviewed as part of your appeal, then you will have to go to Arbcom, since AE can't deal with that. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I’d like to state, again, that it hasn’t yet been explained to me what specific behavior from me was considered problematic here. Off the diffs provided by Mathsci in the AE complaint about me, one of them was pointing out to Maunus that he was misquoting me, and the others are from a discussion that I was asked to initiate by an arbitrator. I never received any warning that either of these things was a problem, even though warning the user in question is a requirement before they’re sanctioned under discretionary sanctions. If I had been warned in advance, I would have been willing to abstain in the future from whatever specific behavior was a problem.

I already complained once about your lack of an explanation for the basis of this sanction, and in response you told me to go to ArbCom about this. If you’re still not willing to provide one, then I suppose back to AE is where this needs to go. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a new argument. At the top of this thread you said, "As I said in my last post in the AE thread, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for editors topic banned in the R&I case to also be disallowed from participating in other discussions related to these articles, so I’m not going to ask you to completely undo the decision you made in the AE thread." At that time, your only complaint seemed to be that Mathsci was not equally sanctioned. It is unclear how the encyclopedia is served by allowing you and Ferahgo to continue to make dispute resolution posts about R&I, an area where Arbcom has banned you from editing. Arbcom seems to be leaning toward lifting Mathsci's topic ban, so they appear to be less concerned about him at present. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The way I think of this, there are three different options here. The first is to not sanction anyone. That’s what I would prefer most, because it implies that neither Mathsci nor I have done anything that requires additional sanctions. The second option is for admins to make a blanket statement that everyone who’s topic banned from these articles is not allowed to participate in discussions about them anywhere on Wikipedia. As I said above, I would be okay with that also, because this doesn’t imply specific wrongdoing on anyone’s part either—it would just be a general statement about the scope of topic bans from this case, and what’s least likely to lead to additional conflict in this area. Since this is what you and Timothy Canens proposed originally, I figured you were more likely to be willing to change your decision to this than you were to undo it entirely, which is why that’s what I requested here initially.

What I have a problem with is the option that you’ve chosen, which is to provide me and Ferahgo with a specific sanction that isn’t being given to any of the other topic banned editors. And the reason I have a problem with this is because it implies that Ferahgo and I have caused a specific and unique disruption in this area, and I don’t think we have. And if we have, we were never warned about it, even though we should have been if our behavior was sanctionable. As I said in my last comment, if we’d been warned that something we were doing was a problem, we would have been willing to avoid it.

The reason this matters to me isn’t because I have any actual desire to continue participating in discussions related to these articles. Ferahgo and I have said all that we have to say in WeijiBaikeBianji’s RFC/U, and if our sanctions get lifted I’ll probably just get back to editing articles outside this topic area. (There’s currently an unrelated article that I’ve been intending to work on for a long time, but I’ve been postponing it because I want this issue to be resolved first.) The reason I’d like this sanction to be overturned is just as a matter of principle: I have a problem with being sanctioned in a manner that implies I’ve done something wrong, when as far as I know I haven’t, and was never warned about it.

I think I’ve explained how I feel about this now, and what I’ll be doing if you make either decision. (Getting to work on other articles if you decide to undo your sanction, and otherwise taking this issue back to AE.) You’re kind of giving me mixed messages about your own attitude about this. Are you still unwilling to undo this decision? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't have an actual desire to continue participating in dicussions related to R&I articles. But if you appealed at AE, your appeal would say 'Please allow me to continue participating in discussions..' What am I missing? EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it not understandable to have a desire to not be sanctioned in a manner that implies I’ve been doing something wrong, when as far as I know I haven’t been? My sanction is logged on the arbitration case page. Whenever I decide to appeal my topic ban to ArbCom, which I will probably be doing eventually (although not anytime soon), the arbitrators are likely to assume from my being under this additional restriction that I was causing some sort of disruption that made it necessary. This is especially a danger for the new arbitrators who will be appointed in January, since they won’t be familiar with the background of this situation. I don’t want there to be something that causes people to assume this about me if it isn’t actually the case. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Incoming arbitrators are probably astute enough to know about the Climate Change decision, which caused some rethinking of the scope of topic bans. Anything that keeps the pot boiling after an Arbcom case has closed is likely to be scrutinized. I think you might be personalizing this case unnecessarily. There is a general trend to limit follow-on discussion from closed cases to things that are truly urgent. An editor was just restricted at AE due to a perceived excessive use of that board to complain about EEML violations. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is unique to the R&I topic area, but I’ve found that every sanction that an editor receives in this area ends up eventually being used as evidence against them, regardless of the circumstances under which it was received. To give one example in my own case, shortly after the arbitration case opened in June I received a two-week editing restriction from 2over0. However, when I and several other editors asked him for specific diffs of the behavior from me that his restriction was based on, he refused to provide any, and eventually Georgewilliamherbert decided that the restriction was unjustified and overturned it. But the editors who were presenting evidence against me in the case still brought up this sanction as proof that I had recently been engaging in disruptive behavior, and the original version of my finding of fact in the case also stated this, without mentioning that Georgewilliamherbert had later overturned the restriction. Eventually I convinced one of the arbitrators to modify my finding of fact to mention that the restriction was overturned, but convincing them of that was pretty difficult.

I can pretty much guarantee that when I appeal my topic ban, some of the same editors who were trying to get me topic banned will also be trying to prevent me from coming back. And based on past experience, I also am pretty certain that your new editing restrictions are going to be brought up in an effort to demonstrate that I was causing additional disruption after my topic ban. Convincing the arbitrators that this isn’t actually the case will probably be pretty difficult, if it’s possible at all.

Even if you don’t agree that this is a danger, doesn’t this at least answer your question about why I care about not being under this sanction? For someone with my past experience of similar situations, I think it’s definitely within reason for me to be concerned about this. You also don’t seem to be disputing my point that I wasn’t actually causing any disruption, and that I didn’t receive a warning even though that’s a requirement before someone is sanctioned under discretionary sanctions. If I have a reasonable reason to not want to be under this sanction, and there isn’t any specific misbehavior from me that the sanction is based on, I don’t think I should need to be under it. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please get back to me about this? Since I’m intending to appeal your decision at AE if you aren’t willing to reverse it, it’s important for me to have a definite answer from you about whether you are or not. You said a few comments ago that you weren’t willing to, but your subsequent comments make it kind of unclear whether that’s still how you feel.

If you aren’t willing to undo it, I also have a right to know what specific misbehavior this sanction is based on, and why Ferahgo and I weren’t warned beforehand. If the answer is that we were sanctioned not because we’ve caused disruption, but only as a way to avoid future conflict in this area, I’d like to be told that clearly.

If it’s the case that this sanction was not related to misbehavior, and was only intended a way to avoid future conflict, I think you also ought to consider whether it’s going to accomplish what you’re hoping it will. Since I’m not intending to participate in any further discussions related to this topic except where it involves my own editing, this sanction isn’t actually preventing anything that I’d otherwise be doing. On the other hand, I’ve already said that since I strongly object to being sanctioned in this manner if I haven’t done anything wrong, I definitely intend to appeal this sanction if you aren’t willing to remove it, and there’s a good chance that the AE thread about my appeal will turn into another one of the lengthy arguments there that you were trying to avoid. It seems like the effects of this sanction will be to cause more conflict, not less of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't see that granting your appeal confers any practical benefit, and I believe the original decision was correct, I am denying the appeal. I lack the stamina to continue a discussion with you to the length that you seem to expect. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, I’ll probably be posting about this at AE tomorrow.

If you had been willing to answer the questions I was asking you, this discussion would not have needed to be nearly so long. Are you unwilling to tell me what specific misbehavior Ferahgo and I were sanctioned for, and why we weren’t warned first? This is at least the third time I’ve asked you this, and explaining to an editor why they’re being sanctioned is supposed to be one of the first responsibilities for an admin implementing a sanction. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like you just aren’t going to answer my question about what specific behavior I was sanctioned for. I’ve now appealed this decision at AE. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Wee Curry Monster talk 16:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AE query

I see you have posted recently as an admin at AE. Perhaps you could have a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Delicious_carbuncle? Jayen466 (talk · contribs) (who previously has a history of making almost his entire evidence presentation in the Scientology arbcom case be an attack against me) is attempting to use my report against Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) as a desperate tactic to railroad in yet another irrelevant attack against me. Thoughts? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Standardization of section header and A.K.A.s

Hi,

I'm afraid I'm not very knowledgeable regarding format standards[23]... but at the same time I felt it would be helpful for other editors more familiar with Wee Curry Monster's older names (Justin, Justin A Kuntz, or Justin the Evil Scotsman at the time of the topic ban) to have some way to find the section in the AE. The change is so recent (less than a week ago[24]) that many won't make the connection between Wee Curry Monster and Justin. So I have a question: would it be possible to include the previous names somewhere near the header or something without contravening the format standards? Right know there is no place in the AE that helps make this connection...

Thank you very much for your help. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• WP:AE#Wee Curry Monster

I was concerned that the title for the section would become very long, and it may be quoted in various places in the future. Why don't you add all of his aliases to 'User against whom enforcement is requested'? If you are afraid that others may not be aware of the connection, you are welcome to notify all the recent editors of the Gibraltar article of the filing of the AE, and all the participants in the Arbcom case, assuming you have the patience. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! One more question about standards: I see I have my own section at the top of the request to post my comments. I have answered in that section the comments you and Vassyana made in the area reserved to admins, but I don't know if I should keep answering other editors in my section or just below their comments (to make the thread clearer). What should I do? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that I have changed my username from my real name, because of a) hassle I have had from infantile editors on Wikipedia and b) harassment off-wiki resulting from wikipedia, is it really necessary to plaster my real name here? Admins know who I am, so does everyone involved, this simply smacks of insensitivity bearing in mind the crap I've had to put up with. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

More edit wars

Hi,

I realized Justin/Monster had fought in Gibraltar articles a couple of edit wars where I had not been involved, so I've added the diffs to the request. You can check them up if you want[25]. Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam appeal at AE

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Captain_Occam

Captain Occam is appealing your decision. This is a courtesy note to make you aware of the request. Vassyana (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster AE

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wee Curry Monster
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Wee Curry Monster

Could you look over that again and let me know what you think of my proposed solution? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have replied at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

One of Wee Curry Monster's main opponents (Richard) suggested he be allowed to remain in discussions. That is fairly persuasive to me. I have suggested a 0RR and specific warning about bad faith accusations to replace the topic bans. Please let me know if that seems appropriate to you. Vassyana (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User editing anonymously to avoid being blocked

User:Maxpana3 introduced changes in two articles, months ago. Changes that were challenged and reverted (case Latin America). Yesterday, an anonymous IP returned to introduce the same changes in the very same articles. Then, Maxpana3 returned from his apparent inactivity just to revert to the anonymous IP versions. I think it is clear they are the same. Here are the links:

• Maxpana3 edits months ago in Polanco [26] and Latin America [27].
• IP 200.125.16.14 recent edits in Polanco [28] and Latin America [29].
• Maxpana3 reverts my edits to the IP's edit, today [30].

Maxpana3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
200.125.16.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please file this at WP:SPI. It is a violation of WP:SOCK to edit war on an article with both an IP and a registered account. If the admins at SPI agree with you, they could block on behavior, or semiprotect some articles. They would probably not authorize a checkuser. If you have the patience, you could use Soxred93's tool to look for more bad IP edits from the range 200.125.0.0/16. This might find other socks. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse response/76.205.27.234

This guy is back on 76.203.72.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I completely missed the identification because it has been so long since he edited because we keep blocking his ranges (as seen here).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

76.203.72.0/22 I think covers it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I will look back over the case and see if we received any contact from his ISP as a result of the Abuse case listed. I'll also ping for an admin to block the range. AndrewN ^talk 01:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong: That case was rejected. I'm going to re-evaluate the case, and see if it meets the criteria for acceptance now. AndrewN ^talk 01:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got a full list of IPs in my sandbox if you need them. I'm pretty sure they're most recent to oldest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryulong/Sandbox only lists nine specific Power Rangers articles which have been hit by the vandal. Why not put six months of semiprotection on these nine articles? A set of large rangeblocks would also discourage good-faith IPs, and we need to strike a balance. I seem to recall that rangeblocks have been used in the past for this problem. Do you have a record of which rangeblocks were tried? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the articles get beneficial edits from IPs otherwise. And I've asked you to deal with this vandal in the past as seen here, here, here, and here. He obviously waits to get on a new IP to perform these deleterious edits. The past few days are the ones on a new range.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think that you may often need rangeblocks in the future, it would be helpful if you would use Soxred93's tool to check out the recent contributions of each range you want to block. I like to know if you can see non-vandal contributions in the output of that tool, and about what percentage they are. When I looked into the tool output for your proposed rangeblock I thought that nearly all of the problem was coming from the single IP who is already blocked, 76.203.72.184. There is no problem getting a longer block of a single IP, even as much as 3 months if you think the abuse is consistent across time. A rangeblock takes more planning. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Another IP in the range edited today. This shows that he's going to continue editing across several IPs in this range unless the range is blocked entirely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving comments

I have no problem with my comment being moved, in fact I asked for it. But can you tell me why the comment of an obviously involved admin is allowed to stand in the uninvolved admin section? Is there any reason why it is not moved to that editor's own section, just like mine was? I hope that in the phrase uninvolved administrators both words are treated equally, not only one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Deacon to indicate whether he is an uninvolved admin for purposes of that case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So is he involved or isn't he, according to your reading of the situation? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

He said that he wouldn't issue blocks himself. Except for that, I didn't perceive a clear answer. I don't think there is enough evidence to move his comment out of the 'uninvolved admin' section. He does have knowledge of some past issues, so I hope he will continue to participate. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It was my understading that the uninvolved admin section is there for discussion by editors who are uninvolved and not prejudiced towards the parties. Admins who are involved (by, let's say, being parties in the same ArbComs as the party/parties) are not supposed to comment there, to avoid giving the mistaken expression that they are neutral/uninvolved. Would my understanding be incorrect? Where can I seek the clarification of the definition of the uninvolved? I also ask because years back when I was still an admin, I recall I was criticicized for commenting in that section as an "involved" admin under similar circumstances (then I started commenting in a section with a clear disclaimer of how I know the editor(s) involved). I wonder if our standards have changed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

For a recent statement of Arbcom's view of 'uninvolved' look at WP:ARBSCI#Enforcement. Admins lose their uninvolvement by having strong content opinions, or getting into edit wars with others. 'Not prejudiced' is just good practice but I don't know if you can reason formally from that. Here is the passage from ARBSCI:

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you've read the archive, you'll probably be able to work out that he just wants you to give him a good diff so he or one of his EEML meats can post it in some future thread I'm participating in. He's not really interested in your opinion or your evidence for it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I love you too, Deacon. Ed, thanks for the clarification link. Does it mean that involved admins can still post in the uninvolved admins and offer their views/suggestions, and it is fine as long as they do not impose the sanctions? Should I ask for clarification at the talk of the page you linked? I do consider it a serious issue, as I am afraid that prejudiced admins can pose as neutral and try to swing the discussion, without imposing the sanction themselves. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee." Some of us are hoping that the EEML problems will die down when many of the topic bans expire on 22 December. If they seem to be going in the other direction, then the admins who follow those issues won't be happy. Your phrase 'prejudiced admins' does not clarify the matter, since it is obvious that admins may acquire different opinions about a long-running issue. By itself that does not make them involved. I have to observe that you haven't supplied any evidence that Deacon is involved per the definition used by Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also hoping the EEML-blaming will end, but I have my doubts, as the editors sanctioned recently for wikihounding their adversaries have yet to apologize, and others seem quite happy to step in their shoes (as the good faithed, friendly comment above indicates). Regarding the evidence of involvement, I thought I did in the very comment you moved (although I am rather surprised that the definition of involvement covers content disputes only, and not dispute resolution participation). In case you don't have time to analyse the entirety of the several arbcom cases I linked or the AE requests and such Deacon and I participated in together (on opposite sides), let me provide you with the summary of the highlights: see my evidence here (and the statement here), an arbcom case launched by Deacon and originally named by him "Piotrus 2", in which he complained about my actions in an article he was also editing (and when he was reverting me) (evidence: talk discussion, reverts: [31], [32]). He was named (admonished) in the findings and remedies of that case (as so was I, to be fair). Please note that at the time of that ArbCom case he had a habit of not only commenting, but also of taking admin decisions in the AE threads I was involved in (example, see the evidence links for others). If this, combined with the long pattern of him appearing in dispute resolution discussions concerning me, offering criticism of my person and supporting others critical of me (diffs and links in my comment on AE you moved) is not enough to prove significant (and dare I say, prejudiced) involvement, I don't know what would be. I hope you an understand my concern with regards to him offering "neutral" comments in the "uninvolved administrators" section on my person now. If you think that I should bring this matter to ArbCom attention and ask for an interaction ban, let me know (please note that I have never initiated a DR procedure against Deacon, nor have I ever commented on him unless he commented on me first; years of seeing him appear in Piotrus-related discussions and hearing his critical opinions on me, often conveyed in a fashion where he tries to portray himself as neutral and unbised towards me, are however slowly getting to me). PS. Given the evidence I outline above, I would appreciate your advice on what - if anything - I should do, and whether you agree or disagree with my opinion that Deacon is involved when it comes to my person. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks for the detailed response, which gives me lots to work with. I did look at User:Piotrus/Piotrus 2 (the full version of your statement in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, closed in December 2008) and was quite displeased to find there this section:

I resent the accusations that he is my meatpuppet. I also resent Deacon's other unproven accusations, ex. "Piotrus has been shown to use off-wiki IM and email to recruit edit-warring help". No, Piotrus has been claimed to do so by tag team members who proposed this motion in the arbitration (here and here), and the motion has not been picked up by arbitrators, which as far as I am concerned means "Piotrus has been found innocent"...

I assume you are willing to revise your thinking on this now that the EEML decision (closed December 2009) found that you had engaged in offsite coordination:

10.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring...

-- EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not much to revise there, because when I wrote that, it was true. EEML was created after EED ended (late Dec'08), when the failure of official dispute resolution exemplified in the mostly useless EED remedies which did not sanction the really disruptive editors and failed to bring peace and quiet to the EE area undermined mine (and others) trust in the official procedures (which, please note, are still failing us, as the constant stream of EE disputes continues, even in the wake of the harsh EEML remedies...). Ironically, EEML was inspired by the claims of certain editors that it already existed :> That said, in hindsight, getting inspiration from that bunch and allowing ourselves to become radicalised (and "engage in offsite coordination") was a costly mistake, one for which we all have paid dearly (and are still paying). I am now trying to see if the official dispute resolution system can indeed work and end the conflict - which brings me back to my original question about how one is supposed to defend oneself from personal attacks by an editor with an old axe to grind (particularly if that editor is an admin who offers seemingly "neutral" input in the section for uninvolvd admins on AE)? To rephrase the situation: I made errors, paid for them and want to move on, but the animosity from certain former antagonists who seem to be incapable of WP:FORGIVE and keep making bad faithed accusations seems to me aimed (intentionally or not) at recreating the old battlegrounds (a poisonous yet highly successful strategy I analyze here and that forms, IMHO, the biggest danger to the project). Both sides must be ready to move on; if only one attempts to do so, as the other tries to get more "licks" in, the situation will quickly deteriorate again, as de-redicaliztion will fail and radicalization (fighting) will continue (see my thoughts on how to pacify the EE area here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For Piotrus' claim that EEML was a natural reaction by some previously decent hearted guys to terrible bad faith, check out for instance the following archived messages, which show that documented EEML was just an advanced stage of similar earlier off-line collaboration: 20090702-2349, 20090719-2258, 20090402-2358; if Piotrus will allow me to quote them I will. The first one states that Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was a member of the group until he got desyssoped [2007].

On a related point, as you may note, Darwinek recently unblocked Loosmark (talk · contribs). I actually suspect Loosmark had been acting on Piotrus' behalf until his the infamous ArbCom run/sockpuppeting scandal; Piotrus' recent increased activity has, perhaps coincidentally of course, followed this banning. Of course, just my bad faith. The recent incident where Biophys, Volunteer Marek and Piotrus simultaneously responded to a post I made in AE should make no-one optimistic that a more secured form of co-ordination hasn't replaced EEML (why wouldn't it have anyway, the only thing wrong with the project was a few weak links!). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I am waiting for your reply. Please note that I am here seeking advice and clarification from you, and not the defend myself against bad faith and abuses from the peanut gallery (so I am ignoring the gallery posts from now on, unless you ask me to reply to any of them in particular). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not

Hi EdJohnston, you wrote "of a sentence added by Mbz1: "Israel's conduct of the war, particularly its bombardment of Beirut, was heavily criticized, not only by the international community but in Israel itself, where large antiwar protests took place."". If I added something like that to the article about civilian casualty rate, I would have asked you to topic ban me indefinitely. That POV was added by user:gatoclass and it was removed as it should have been removed. My editing of the article were only 2 edits one removing another POV added by user:gatoclass here and adding an info to make the article more netural here. May I please ask you to fix your comment on AE on your earliest continence? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my error. I have corrected it in the AE thread. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ed, I'd like to thank you for this message. I'd also like to let you know that I believe Gilabrand is not editing during weekends, so it could take a couple of days before she responds. Could you please put AE concerning her on hold until Sunday? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please add that remark in your own section at AE. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Piast93

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

---

Hi Ed. I have WP:SCRUTINY concerns about User:Piast93. He is a returning user, obviously wishing not to disclose his former identity. I am concerned the account may be a way of circumventing some community ban, esp. as all his early edits seem designed to lead to adminship. It is possible there is a legitimate clean start going on, but unfortunately the apparent refusal to answer my query and the personal attack by Volunteer Marek are not good signs of this. As there is some possibility this involves Piotrus, I have to consider myself involved and so I ask that you or another admin with knowledge of the area look into this. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not much can be done unless you have a suspicion about a specific user. Biophys has recently suggested that checkuser should be run on all the editors in WP:DIGWUREN#Log of blocks and bans. Most likely Arbcom would need to approve that. In the event they were willing to do that, the results could be helpful going forward. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

T. Canens does not think my idea would be accepted. Before any action could be taken against brand-new editors in this space, we would probably need to look for more hints of offsite coordination. Or for new editors taking on familiar places in old wars without missing a beat. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That would obviously be great if it could be reconciled with privacy concerns. What procedure for bringing it about do you think would be best? Regarding Piast, you'd think Loosmark would at least wait until the CU records disappear before making a return, so if it were him that would be a little surprising. Another possibility is Saturday (talk · contribs) (formerly User:Philip Gronowski), and if it were him the CU records would be useless. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it supposed to inovolve me? Please stop throwing unfounded accusations on my name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing about this discussion Deacon of Pndapetzim. How considerate of you. I also appreciate how you've jumped to conclusions, and accused me of being a sock puppet. --Piast93 21:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock reports don't require notification, unlike ANI reports. If you would like to reveal the mystery of your past identity, you are welcome to enlighten us. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion on a talk page, not a report. If enlightenment is what you're seeking check out my talk page. --Piast93 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. If you also happen to know any editors from the WP:EEML case in real life, that would be useful information and might head off future inquiries. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell do you think I would know them in real life? --Piast93 22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but these continued personal attacks and unfounded accusations by Deacon simply have to stop. The fact that he is an administrator only compounds the fault as an administrator should know better. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Piast93 deserves a chance to clarify his past identity if he wants to do so. Since this is an area that has been known to have off-wiki communication in the past, the questions are not frivolous. If he doesn't want to answer, he doesn't have to. An editor who seemed truly inexperienced probably would not be asked these questions, nor would a specialist in the ancient Orient. I did not notice any personal attacks by Deacon. If you think there is no basis for these worries, I have some past Arbcom cases you could look at. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about Volunteer Marek's continuing allegations of anti-Polishness on my part. In the EEML case, my failure to control my outrage to such allegations got be me a temporary ban (which Manning Bartlett told me he regretted later). I think he's hoping for the same reaction. At any rate, although I am tolerating it I am not happy about it. Despite the fact that I almost never respond directly to anything he says, he continues (you can read up on his "strategy" regarding me in the archive). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for the continued unhappiness in this area. Better to close this discussion for now. Sock complaints may be taken to WP:SPI if necessary. I wish happy editing to all new editors, no matter what part of the world they prefer to work on. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

In a spirit of good will, I just want to thank Ed for embracing WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Feel free to (re)move this comment if you feel that it compromises the archived discussion, I just wanted to say "thank you". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Cases

I'd like to see those ArbCom cases you mentioned. --Piast93 22:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:DIGWUREN, WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, WP:EEML, WP:ARBRB. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry for my - to be blunt - dick-ish behavior. On the bright side, I've learned that I shouldn't edit articles related to Eastern Europe while stressed.--Piast93 22:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy the read, Ed. It ma be more fun that living through it, but I don't envy you. On a related note, I would also like to advertise my own thoughts on the surrounding problem here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

In the light of recent events, I would like to start a discussion with you on the way you have referred to my recent emails. Your comments did not place me in a good light. I would be grateful if you could clarify why you chose to do so. As a courtesy, you were given information that arbitrators had agreed with and yet chose to assume bad faith. I would also like you to clarify your remarks about why you thought removing an "s" amongst other detailed edits in the article Marseille constituted edit-warring. There is no rush. If you wish, this conversation can be conducted by email. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the past issues have been resolved, and I don't really see anything subject to appeal that matters. We would be better off if we had never exchanged any email. I hope that WP:ARBR&I recedes into the mist and is never heard of again. Can we just leave things as they are? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos case

Why not simply make it that he can't edit articles in the topic area at all so long as they are on the mainpage? It's hardly an onerous restriction, and it would completely prevent any further attempts at gaming. Gatoclass (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A narrower restriction is easier to get support for. The AE thread suggests the possibility of gaming on both sides, and it might take a lot of data to get to the bottom of that. My proposal addresses the problem that you have expressed. If this restriction is not enough, it could be tightened later. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I certainly didn't see any credible evidence on that thread of "gaming on both sides", but I accept that for someone not familiar with the day-to-day running of DYK, mudslinging charges of this type can confuse the issue.

In regards to the ban, I think a straight ban from editing on the mainpage would be a lot more straightforward, but I'm happy to leave it to uninvolved admins. I am already thoroughly sick of this case, I rarely bring cases to AE but I felt this was one where something had to be done, even so I'm already almost regretting doing so. It's just not worth the hassle. Gatoclass (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ed, as I understand it, the DYK process of nominating, promoting and finally accepting an article for front page display is meant to ensure that the article has a minimum of issues. I am sure that you can appreciate that getting front page exposure for 'your pov here' can be attractive, it also has the benefit of not needing to maintain the article in that pov form for an extended period of time to reach the same number of people.

Jalapenos created an article in this form on Nov 23 , it was edited by a number of people based on comments at the AfD and the DYK QA process to this form on Dec 13 when it was then approved for display. Within minutes of the article being displayed on the main page Jalapenos starts editing it into this form, completely reversing the edits which had addressed the issues raised by the editors at AfD, DYK and the talk page, reverts which he at no point had argued for while there was a forum for discussion, in his comments he even seemed to insinuate that he saw no issues with the DYK approved form. The Israeli related sections are virtually the same while the article is on the front page as when he created the article.

AE doesn't address content issues, so I am not going to argue them, but it seems clear that a subversion of the DYK process took place and that he deliberately concentrated on having the input of other editors removed from the article while it had front page exposure. un☯mi 06:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Civilian casualty ratio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jalapenos do exist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This would be more convincing if you could show a clear talk page consensus against including something that Jalapenos restored. Your final diff includes his removal of the phrase about the negative publicity for Israel's Lebanon war which seemed to me to be pure POV. (It does not have any obvious role in an article devoted to casualty ratios). Jalapenos only lists two DYKs on his talk page. In both cases, the argument that he misbehaved seems to require a very long explanation and will not convince everyone. So it's not clear how there can be a pattern of misbehavior sufficient to trigger sanctions. Do you think you could go through the edit history of Civilian casualty ratio and identify each version of that article which was supported by a talk page consensus? Probably a hopeless task, unless there was a well-defined RfC. There are no RfCs on the article talk page at all. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the problems of DYK, there is a time limit from when the article is created to when it can be considered for DYK, this often means that the articles are not as well visited by outside editors as they could be, I for one was not aware of its existence until I saw the AE thread on my watch list. To minimize the quality issues of not having had larger input and time to 'mature', as it were, there is the DYK process which brought it to this form on Dec 13, where no one seemed to raise specific issues, certainly everyone seemed to agree that the preceding changes had made it 'ready'. As you can see from the AE thread, a number of the people who were involved with the DYK process for this article, and indeed seem to be DYK regulars, have expressed that the DYK process was gamed.

Note that prior to Gatoclasses edits, the article would simply have failed DYK and never made the frontpage, Gatoclass sought to save it for inclusion. See "Looking at the article again, it doesn't appear to be any closer to any resolution. Is it now time to decline this? I think so; the item is getting a bit old. Schwede66 05:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)".

Some background may be helpful, as far as I know Gatoclass was never an I/P regular, he was, and is, a DYK regular who became embroiled in drama some months back in the process of his DYK work. DYK has proven an attractive venue for various reasons it seems, I ask you to consider MastCells proposal here. un☯mi 07:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the flow of I/P articles at DYK creates opportunities for abuse which are so serious that we need procedures and policies tailored just for them. AE remains available for issues that turn out to be truly significant, like the DYK case from last April about Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) that you linked to above. EdJohnston (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how would you feel about an instruction that all I/P related articles submitted to DYK, that a given editor works on, must be listed by them at WP:IPCOLL at earliest opportunity? un☯mi 11:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At AE you write "This article was created by Jalapenos, but I wonder how it became his duty to fix all the perceived problems before it could become a DYK.", the DYK process concerns both the hook, but also the article as it will have maximum exposure on behalf of wikipedia. It was not Jalapenos responsibility to fix them, it was not anyones responsibility, but as I show above if the issues were not fixed then it would simply not be suitable for displaying on the main page, by consensus of the editors there as noted by Schwede66. Gatoclass took it upon himself to fix the issues, and the editors involved seemed to agree that there were no outstanding issues, including mbz1 and Jalapenos, so it was approved by EdChem. 14 minutes after the article has gained maximum exposure, Jalapenos starts editing it away from the consensus version, and after 26 minutes of being on the front page all the Israeli related contested elements are restored. un☯mi 11:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've offered your proposal about WP:IPCOLL discussion of DYKs at AE. This is something for the community to decide. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Some concerns

Ed, I'm obliged to inform you that I have some concerns about a number of your comments in the Jalapenos case. To begin with, you seem to be treating this as a content dispute rather than an issue of WP:GAME. I said quite plainly in my response to Tznkai in my evidence that it has nothing to do with the content of the edits in question. It could just as well have been me making J.'s edits and vice versa. It is not about the content, it is about the fact that a particular version of the article was agreed upon by all parties, including J., for promotion, and that J. largely restored his own preferred version shortly after the article reached the main page, a version that he knew was contested and one that had plainly not received approval, thus breaking faith with myself and EdChem and subverting DYK's editorial control process. I really don't understand why I have had to continually repeat this, since it ought to be very plain from the evidence what the complaint is.

Secondly, in regards to your comments about the article content itself, while it doesn't actually pertain to the complaint, it does appear you have very much taken the side of Jalapenos, an attitude that I find quite baffling.

For example, you called an edit of mine above regarding the international response to Israel's bombardment of Beirut "pure POV". I concede one might legitimately contest the inclusion of such information if one takes a very narrow view of what the topic "civilian casualty ratio" covers, but it can also be forcefully argued that one cannot reasonably cover such a topic without a discussion of the methods which brought about the disproportionate number of civilian casualties and what reliable sources said about those methods. If for example a source talks about disproportionate, excessive or indiscriminate use of force and consequent heavy civilian casualties, that could readily be considered as a tacit reference to a ratio or a rate. One may argue otherwise, but to dismiss such a view as "pure POV" strikes me as quite unjustified.

Of equal concern are your numerous comments regarding J.'s edits, where you have apparently been unable to discern evidence of wrongdoing or bias. You endorse his "innocuous" hook which "does not have an obvious POV", apparently failing to notice that it was only proposed after his original hook had been rejected by multiple parties as "agenda driven". You excuse him from violating ARBPIA on the grounds that this very new article had yet to be tagged for ARBPIA, as if an SPA with two years of experience in the topic area would be unaware that edits concerning Arab-Israeli wars fall under discriminatory sanctions without a reminder on the talk page. You consider it to be not "his duty" to NPOV an article which he himself submitted to DYK, as if you think DYK reviewers have the responsibility to do it for him.

In regards to his edits, it apparently doesn't bother you that he plastered the article with glowing quotes about Israel from Israeli advocacy sources like Dershowitz and Commentary magazine. You praise J. for removing a "pure POV" edit of mine about Israel's excessive use of force, which J. described as "outside the purview of this article", a sentiment with which you apparently agree, but fail to note that he didn't bother to remove a very similar edit of mine about the Kosovo wars which stated that The tactics employed by Russian forces in both wars were heavily criticized by human rights groups, which accused them of indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilian areas and other crimes. Can you explain to me why it's permissible to include criticism of the Russian armed forces and not the Israeli? You also fail to note that at least one of his own edits violated this same supposed principle when, in regards to Pakistan drone attacks J. reported that Byman argues that civilian killings constitute a humanitarian tragedy and create dangerous political problems, including damage to the legitimacy of the Pakistani government and alienation of the Pakistani populace from America. These are just a few of the inconsistencies and POV problems evident in J.'s edits to the article.

In the light of all the above therefore, I wonder if you might be prepared to consider refactoring some of your comments and/or conclusions at AE? Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The flaw that I see in this argument is 'was agreed upon by all parties.' Consensus is vague and evanescent unless there is a recent WP:RFC to point to, or an ironclad agreement among editors. I don't perceive that in this case. You figured he agreed with you, and it turns out he did not. You also make it seem that your support was the defining element in this promotion, therefore your wishes should have been deferred to. Either a lack of frankness, a lack of candor or deception are all possible. Admins are not clairvoyant and we can't perceive what everyone was thinking at each point of time. When I read through Jalapenos AE statement, it sounds like he got carried away and did a bunch of edits while the article was on the main page. In hindsight, it would have been better if he refrained. The original DYK hook seems quite POV to me, and the one that was finally run was much more moderate. Do you want him to be sanctioned for proposing the original hook? Unless you want to ban editing of all controversial articles that are approved for DYK, I don't see how you can stop the vagaries of normal editorial processes.

To get some perspective, what do you think would have happened if you had proposed the DYK article for full protection just before it appeared on the main page? What response do you think you would have got at RFPP? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So, the onus was on me to negotiate an "ironclad agreement", rather than on Jalapenos to simply honour his assurances? That is turning policy on its head. You are in effect, endorsing wikilawyering, and blaming those who don't anticipate it for not assuming bad faith. Gatoclass (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

More on DYK

Re your comment on my talk page (this is a delayed reply; I've been distracted by real life):
There was prolonged discussion at the DYK suggestions page before a hook from this article was accepted. The accepted hook was a noncontroversial one that had been crafted after a lot of that discussion, and the article appeared to be in good shape (without recent edit warring) at the time that I moved the hook into the prep area (another user finished building the hook set later, and another administrator moved it into the queue). In my experience, once a DYK has been accepted, the article's creators are careful not to make changes that could cause the DYK regulars to change their minds or cause the hook to be pulled off the main page; this case was an exception to that general rule. As you noted above, full protection of the article while the DYK is on the main page would be an effective way to prevent controversial changes, but that would be contrary to the principle that DYK encourages other users to improve the new articles that are featured in DYK. Another possible option would be to create a new DYK project rule excluding hooks for articles that are related in any way to Israel-Palestine interactions. Considering that there have been other acrimonious controversies at DYK about I-P topics (I recall Gatoclass being heavily involved in such), that actually might be a good idea, although it's contrary to the Wikipedia ethos. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As a compromise, we might still allow the I-P hooks, but keep the I-P articles under full protection during their main page visibility (not all DYK articles). It is logical that the DYK regulars should be the source of any reform proposals in this area. Without hearing from more people at AE, it was unclear whether this was truly a widespread problem. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Willrocks10

Hi there, the other day you blocked Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) from editing after I put a note on the edit war board. They were deleting other users comments on an AfD. I just wanted to let you know they are at it again, adding and removing strikethroughs from votes. This is the same stuff they were doing previously.

diffs

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_tallest_buildings_in_Woking&action=historysubmit&diff=403334046&oldid=403233253 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Woking&diff=next&oldid=403334046

I've reverted these, but on past form they'll keep at it. The incident report has been archived and I couldn't find it, hence posting it here.

thanks, --ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• They now appear to have created the world's most unsubtle sockpuppet. Wokingrocks (talk • contribs) ), whose account only came into existence an hour before the AfD is due to close, at the same time of day as Willrocks10 usually edits, sharing a similar name and whose only contribution to wikipedia has been to praise willrocks for his article, vote keep, and repeat the same edits I listed above removing strikethroughs! --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Last IP was his sock

Last IP was his sock: [33] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I also added some more behavior evidence for the new sock: [34] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:language scripts

Dear EdJohnston, I have finally gained some free time. With regards to the Hindi-Urdu script issue, I think that it would be best if a group of neutral administrators (one's that are not South Asian in origin) evaluate the issue without interference from the users involved in the discussions. This is because the two parties stand very firm in their respective positions. After you all look at the discussions, you can make a decision after you have researched the issue and evaluated the arguments. The relevant arguments can be found in the previous consensuses which established the precedent to allow both Hindi and Urdu scripts in Bollywood related film articles (poll, discussion 1, discussion 2, and discussion 3). Additionally, discussion of the issue can also be found here: (1), (2), (3), and (4). Please let me know what you think about this proposal. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 04:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Block

Reposting comment made on your User: page. LFaraone 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Excuse me but why did you block me. If it happens again I will report you. Thanks, (Willrocks10 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC))

Please see this complaint about your edits at the 3RR noticeboard. I observe that you tend to remove warnings left on your talk page, and that you could have been sanctioned for further removal of comments at an AFD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

happy holidays from PPI

Hi EdJohnston, you previously assessed articles with [WikiProject: U.S. Public Policy]. Your input is appreciated, and contributed to the research in the [Public Policy Initiative]. The project has been pretty exciting; there are over 25 university classes signed up for spring semester. This project is about more than public policy; it is about using Wikipedia as a teaching tool and recruiting (and hopefully retaining) college students as editors. If you are still interested we will be starting more rounds of assessments in the new year. I am the research analyst for the project, feel free to contact me. If you already responded definitively, I apologize for not following up properly, I just had a baby and have been a bit overwhelmed. Happy holidays, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:PraxisConsensus

I've placed their latest unblock request on hold in an attempt to daw a more specific response out of them. Notifying you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. I share your hope for a more specific response, to be sure that he won't continue the war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Help wanted

Would you please take a look at the section on my talk page with the heading 'Hey'? I would be willing to log this but I see a couple of warnings on the offending editor's talk page by me, and we have edited the same article. I think the editor should be notified, they are relatively new and probably don't know about the Arbitration case and the personal attack seems sufficient given the area they are editing in. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

My minor reverts

Hey Ed, Thanks for checking out my request for AWB, Ive been researching why this was happening, As I use huggle the program makrs all reverts as minor by default, and unfortunately these settings can't be changed, I have tried to uncheck it many times, and have changed the setting and configuration at User:Frankie0607/huggle.css, however every attempt has failed. Looking at Wikipedia:Huggle/Configuration states that "Note that reverts will always be marked as minor edits.". Thanks again --Frankie0607 18:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverts should only be marked as minor if they are reverts of vandalism, or in a few specific situations. Reverts that are part of a content dispute must not be marked as minor. If you can't make Huggle do the right thing, try asking a question at WT:HUGGLE. I don't use it myself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ive fixed my preferences on Wikpedia to no longer mark all edits I make as minor, so from now on in my contributions it will only be reverts in huggle that will mark my edits as minor, hope this solves any issues and we can proceed with my request to use AWB, Thanks again --Frankie0607 19:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Welcome to AWB. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ed, Much appreciated --Frankie0607 03:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You Have Mail

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Posted on behalf of a blocked user on IRC. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have replied by email and at User talk:Lihaas#Comment by blocking admin. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

per block

now that i can post id just like to know your reason so as to learn for the future? as far as i though the whoel thing was resolved with the reporting editor (who was a new editor). then what was wrong?(Lihaas (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).

The main dispute was between you and JPosten, so far as I could tell. JPosten did not state that the issue was resolved. The edits by the reporting editor Khips were not much of a problem. If I counted correctly, you were the only person to make four reverts in 24 hours. If 2011 Alexandria bombing was not an In The News article and being rapidly developed full protection might have been done, since it was a complex edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

the conflict was with the reporting editor obviously.

Also you may want to cehck that page as the coptic user is clearly warring.(Lihaas (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).

AN3 - question

I'm not familiar with AN3 - how does one determine that a topic has been closed?
On further study, I'm guessing that it's when the h2 contains "(Result: something)"
Are there other ways to tell? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the header is one way to tell. Generally an admin will have left a signed comment stating the outcome. Still, if you believe the admin made a mistake you can reply, even if it seems closed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good information to know. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A favor

I have reason to bar Cresix from posting unmandated posts to my talk page, and I have documented them and consider your suggestion as non-binding and inconsequential. I also strongly suspect you blocked me for only two reverts,(which of course is your prerogative) since the alleged 3rd and fourth were shown to accommodate contrary views, and in affect are what is the now agreed version of events. In the 48 hours following your block I see the version of the Clapton article now entirely to my liking. Nonetheless I will keep in mind that some admins are prone to hasty decisions and realistically allow for them to being possibly imperious. BTW, if you could post a reply here, I will see it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The definition of a revert is given in WP:Edit warring: 'A revert means undoing the actions of another editor.' I am open to the possibility that I made a mistake, but if so, you would need to convince people that your #3 and #4 were not reverts. Your defence to the 3RR complaint stated "The 3rd and 4th diffs instead clarifies the context, clearly establishing that the praise is from Little Steven, and the 53rd greatest designation is very much RS's." This is an argument that you were right on the content, but this is not something admins are supposed to decide. We are supposed to merely count the reverts, unless your edit falls under one of the eight exceptions listed in WP:EW, such as reverting vandalism or defamation. The claim that you were improving the article might well be true, but it does not exempt your edits from being counted toward the three revert limit. My advice still stands, that you should remove your comment about Cresix, but it is only advice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, EdJohnston/Archive 19! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston..a very happy new year 2011. Regarding articles..i can only say that I swear to Supreme God that my all edits so far are True and Authentic..now its you/administrators/wiki team to take care of reality..thanks..Bigbrothersorder (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Raulseixas

Hi Ed, you recently placed a 24 hour block on Raulseixas for vandalising the Ronaldo page. I thought I would tell you that following his block the first thing he appears to have done is returned to that page and vandalised it again. Regards Footballgy (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note for Raulseixas, and will continue to monitor the situation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re

Ok, I will not change more. Raulseixas (talk) 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification requested

See this. Best, NW (Talk) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Quaresma edit warring

Hi can u please move this page to protection so only autoconfirmed users can edit it. thanks in advance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Quaresma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianconero1903 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I see there is some dispute about how Quaresma's goals ought to be classified (domestic versus international). If you will open up a talk page discussion on that, and if you discover that the IPs continue to revert without joining in the discussion, then I'd consider semiprotection. Meanwhile I've added the page to my watchlist. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is nothing to discuss he made 9 süper lig appearances and scored only one goal http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=526&kisiId=1343654 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bianconero1903 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand any of this. If you think the dispute is worth looking into, you should explain it properly on the article talk page. Consider that the person you are disputing with may also not understand the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

re: alexandria bombing

come on, mate. you said i was warring. but what about this? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:166.137.139.221_reported_by_User:Lihaas_.28Result:No_violation.29 also see the talk page where User talk:Coptic101 is/was warring with everyone thinking he owns the article

anways, i tried constructively cleaning the page only to mass reverted by the "owners" despite talking and explaining. im staying away(Lihaas (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).

If it gets out of control, admins may consider full protection. But I don't see that any one person is dominating the article. There seem to be eight or more editors working on it. There is not much on the Talk page (in the last 24 hours) that is more than just complaining about other users, and you might be able to present some of the content items for discussion. It is strange to see reverts going on and then see nothing on the talk page about the items in dispute. I think you have made some good observations on the talk page. People who continue to revert without participating on talk may eventually be sanctioned. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

we have been using it. i proposed it at protection and edit warring noticeboards, i also went to talk (i presum youve now seen the editors), then afterthe admins on the board i readd noncontroversial cleaning and theyre still at it.

anyways, ive not been to that page since then. dont want another block coming as another editor reported me to a board for some reason. i just dont have a clue how this complains wokrk.Lihaas (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN3

"Not obvious violations of NFCC"? Seriously, that article is one of the most obvious violations I have ever seen. 30 (THIRTY) non-free images, all of which are already used in a different article? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You may turn out to be right, and perhaps all these images need to be removed, but it's hard to see why Beta can't discuss the article at WP:MCQ. People can't have a very good conversation in edit summaries while revert-warring. (#3 and #8 of NFCC are not as transparently clear as simple vandalism is, which is a a more easily understood exception to 3RR when the cases where it happens). Neither party should have continued to revert once they saw there was a dispute relating to policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

re:proxies

Hi Ed,

I looked into the 202.108.50 series of suspected proxies. They are open on port 80, and the web page displayed is proxy-like, e.g. [35]. I suspect that they are a web proxy (i.e. there's a URL one can type into the webserver that will allow one to retrieve any site on the internet), however, I can't find the magic URL that does the proxying, so I can't be 100% sure. Several from the range are also listed as an open proxy in some proxy lists. So while I'm not 100% sure, but it looks much more likely than not that it is a proxy, even ignoring the edit history. Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: the message on port 80. All of them have the same message, which is what I linked to with the google translate link above. Rather than a "not found" error, it's "cannot get" which is similar to the errors one gets when one hasn't quite got the right format for a proxy request. There are also benign possibilities for returning that error, but they involve poor innocent little webservers, which would also be suspicious if they were editing wikipedia.

Nmap is what I use for port scans, but you may want to read up on the article Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies. Most open proxy ports can be found by doing a google search "xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx open proxy." Only more difficult cases (like the 202.108.50.xxx series case) require running a portscan. However, even just checking common proxy ports (3128, 8080) in the browser is usually all one needs

The Open proxy detection page mostly consists of comparing recent ip edits vs. global lists of open proxies. It will test some open proxies, which will show Now! in the Last Checked column if it thinks it's confirmed a proxy. In general, anything listed on opd as an open proxy now, usually is. When I've gone through the list, other statuses are frequently false positives for open proxies. Hope this all helps! Sailsbystars (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Thank you for your help. I posted a quote in response to a question about the lead on the talk page of Glenn Beck. To my understanding that is not editing, am I wrong? Please advise. Also, I don't comprehend what is going on with Verididas who has come at me from nowhere. I still have nightmares from being stalked by the penultimate stalker. I can email you if you would like to know more. Thanks again DocOfSoc (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, the illustrious Jack Sebastian has answered my question on both issues as sagely as you would. TY again. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A small query

Hi Ed. You removed an extra colon here. I've left a note on DGG's talk page to ask whether DGG had withdrawn his oppose vote or not (as the oppose vote was re-added by you, by removal of that colon). Maybe it's just a formatting mistake by DGG and he really did not want to put that colon; but just making sure that that's what it is. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The extra colon was spoiling the numbering of the votes (they were restarting from 1). Now that you've drawn it to his attention, I trust that DGG will take whatever action is best. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

edit war

hi ed, you asked: "With this edit you seem to be restoring material to the article which is just adding an editorial opinion, in Wikipedia's voice. No references are provided in what you added. Can you clarify? This article is subject to the sanctions in WP:ARBPIA so we take its neutrality very seriously."

that was NOT my edit. that was the one i was trying to revert. it was put there by newmanthfc. thanks and let me know if you need any further info. Soosim (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Raulseixas...again

Hi Ed, Sorry to bother you but Raulsexias has popped up again changing names of clubs again like he was doing to the Ronaldo page..but now on the Robinho page. I initially got a response from him where he said he would stop his actions...however he has took them up again. I haven't really got a great deal of time to go through his contributions undoing his mess..but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Obviously Ive yet again explained to him that known names of certain football clubs differ in different languages and that he shouldn't feel the need to change the known English spoken name of a club to what it would be generally known as in Spain. Thanks Footballgy (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've left him a note. Do you know if the correct naming of football clubs in English is something that was previously discussed at WT:FOOTY? If so it would be helpful to have a link to the discussion. If it is clear that he is going against the FOOTY consensus, and if he won't listen to warnings, he may be blocked. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I've just reverted an edit now on the Paolo Maldini page. Same situation again with club names. I've also reverted similar edits made to the Alexandre Pato and Diego Milito pages. I am going to have a browse of his contributions and see how deep the damage is. Footballgy (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Saguamundi

HI, EdJohnston. I am contacting you about User:Saguamundi due to the user's behavior on the article Armenian language. (Here User talk:Saguamundi is some of the user's history.)

I am hoping you will warn the user of the possibility of the 1RR restriction if the behavior doesn't cease.

In addition to the user's two registered edits today, [36][37], there are two IP edits today[38][39], removing the Azerbaijani flag from the article. The user added a host of other flags [40] in order to make a wp:point which he had threatened to do here [41][42]on my talk page.

Maybe a timely warning will nip this in the bud. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Duck protection

Thanks for the semi on Oregon Ducks. With regard to the last edit made by the anon, should I wait 24 hours before reverting it again to avoid 3RR myself, or is that something I can do now? --Esprqii (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You should still avoid reverting more than three times in 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Esprqii (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Blue Army (Poland)

Ed,

Not sure who you are or how you are connected officially with Wiki. I understand that there are rules and guidelines to follow, though when one visits the Wiki pages, it says, anyone can edit and just click and edit. I now see that is not true.

My argument is that Malik Shabazz and Faustian are upset with me due to a recent discussion where they were shown to be in error. You can see on my talk page Shabazz is apologizing for his actions. He stated he was wrong. Well, I left that alone and moved on to another topic. I added a reliable and documented sub section and did not accuse anyone of horrendous activities in the past which we have no control over. Well, it soon followed that Faustian did his thing again and started editing my comments (yes I know this can be done) but centering on vicious and salacious attacks on the subject matter. He seems to forget there are 2 sides of a story. He chooses only to center on blood and guts, not guilt or cause. He also tries to work in the same points every chance he can get, even when not appropriate.

This latest edit was intolerable. He changed the heading of my sub-section to fit his needs so he could start up with the same citations he tried to use in the other article, 1918 Lwow (pogrom). That article took some time but the source which I questioned was removed when found to be weak and most likely inaccurate. Even Faustian agreed that I was right.

By changing the section heading from Jews in Haller's Army to Haller's Army and Jews, you have now shifted the entire point of the section. This is unacceptable.

Editing and adding to an article is fine, but switching titles, personal comments, agendas, and attacks carefully selecting material to back up your biases, is unacceptable in proper historical research.

Shabazz also warned me against editing three times in a day, yet Faustian edited more than that and I do not see a warning to him. How are the rules applied??

Anyway, I have filed an official dispute with Wiki and a Mediation Review as well. I trust they will answer my invitation to investigate this misuse of power. Though who knows how it will turn out. Maybe Malik is on the Dispute board. Hallersarmy (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I base all info on reliable sources who discuss "atrocities" etc. I am curious what Hallersarmy means by "guilt or cause." If he has some info on that from reliable sources he ought to add it to the article.Faustian (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

a bit of clarification

Your decision that we could not edit the same articles means that both of us avoid the two articles in contention. I ask because it occurred to me that the other party could start editing there and I'd be effectively barred from editing there, while they would not be. I am presuming that you meant that we both avoid the articles as well as editing in any proximity to one another, yes? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would help if you would both avoid the two articles in contention for seven days. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I took away from the discussion. Thanks, Ed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And as I suspected, the other user in the complaint could not stay away. I responded to a new noticeboard discussion yesterday after clarifying your request/ruling 1, and he's followed me there, having posted twice now (1, 2), asking that I be blocked for advocating policy. I am unsure how to proceed; I am specifically being addressed in the new noticeboard discussion but do not wish to violate your request to not post where Slatersteven does. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So long as you both avoid editing the same articles and talk pages, you are following the agreement. I hope to see neither of you editing at The Circus (film) or Time travel urban legends or at their talk pages until 21:13 UTC on 18 January. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So, I can post and reply to posts in the Fringe noticeboard, despite the fact that Slatersteven is posting there? I would like to impose upon you to perhaps monitor the discussion there for a bit. I believe you have also expressed a desire that we both avoid filing complaints, but - because of the nature of the comments being made there - that is swiftly becoming a likely result. Your comments requesting civility, AGF and NPA might serve as a moderating influence there. Otherwise, an AN/I complaint is likely going to happen. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an underlying content dispute, for which an RfC is usually the best idea. That will be on hold for a few days, since the RfC is taking place at Talk:The Circus (film) where neither of you should post. It does not seem that the mediation is going to continue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anyone supporting your side of the debate at any of these venues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Hobit was in favor of noting the material, but bowed out when things became heated on the part of two other users (myself not included). At this point, I don't really blame him.

And I don't disagree with an RfC, Ed. I was just opposed to it while an informal mediation was in the works - a mediation that someone else recommended - wanting to avoid to situation of 'too many cooks' or further accusations of forum-shopping and the like. Form a practical standpoint, there are now no less than four discussions currently in play: the mediation, the article discussion, the Fringe Noticeboard and the Time travel urban legend article discussion. I am unsure how to proceed, especially when most of them present a hostile editing environment for any dissent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have posted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends Is this acceptabel, if not I will remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Dahaifend

Hey; A note that I've WP:BOLDly changed the block settings here to a good ol' indef. Given that his sole contributions are spam (see his deleted edits for further examples) there seems to be no need to wait around. Assume Good Faith only goes so far. Ironholds (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. No objection from me. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible further vandalism

Hey Ed, sorry to bother you again with this on going situation but today 189.30.117.21 altered club names on the Robinho, Alexandre Pato and Diego Milito pages. These were three pages that I had undone edits on because they had previously been edited in an identical way by our friend Raulseixas. If you look at this specific IP's contributions, then you see that only those three pages are his only edits. In late 2010 I also suspected Raulsexias to be a a puppetmaster after an edit war on the Gai Assulin page. I had sent Raul several warnings and when I got as far as the fourth vandalism warning, three previously unused different IP's started copying his edits down to the exact. At the time I set up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raulseixas as I thought Raulseixas to be behind the disruptive edits. I am not to sure if that is the case with the current IP copying his edits but I thought I would bring it to your attention. Regards Footballgy (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Raulseixas, placed the 'sockpuppeteer' tag on Raulseixas's user page, and tagged four IPs as belonging to him. Since he throws each one away after starting another, blocking the IPs may have limited value. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bambu

User Nahome keeps reverting the Bambu paper page to a version which was edited by a neutral editor Jonathanwallace. Why am I unable to revert these changes? And why is this user being given opportunity to slander a brand and revert changes from an established editor? This does not seem to make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.114.50 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts and please talk about this on the Bambu talk page. There needs to be references for every item. I am not slandering anyone, I am only removing ad-text and re-inserting referenced items that seem to be contrary to your brand (sorry). See you on the talk page! Nahome (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ed I need your help again. The IP user has switched back to their other apparant alias, ArnaudMS and is re-posting their promo text on Bambu rolling papers. Can you give the pages a full block for a couple months to help stop the ad text from going up? Nahome (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ed. I do not know what the user is talking about switching IPs. I made an edit to the page which made it more organized and clear. I removed facts which were completely incorrect about factory which produced Bambu, and other Brands. User Nahome suggested R. Abad made pay pay, which is incorrect.. I even used the Links which Nahome placed on the website. As well, I used the trademark search website to look through the other brands to determine there "true" establishment date.. From use of the trademark registry alone, not one of them has the same date as what they claim. Rizla, Zig Zag, Smoking.... all of them are far later. And infact, Bambu has the earliest. You can check yourself.. I am not trying to go after a page with unsubstantiated facts, if you can see my last edit-- which was further edited by user Cliff-- It is organized with a History Section, Arts and Music as well.. Nothing promotional. The current verious is all over the place and has the tone of a court proceeding. sincerely,--ArnaudMvS (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Arnaud/71.164.114.50/User talk:Lostsociety, if you would take the time to read the article before trying to revert it to your promo laden version you would see that the part you gave actual references for was corrected. Whenever you post facts with references, it is given weight by the Wiki community and often edits will ensue. You agree that R Abad invented Bambu yet you fail to say how he could have been alive in 1764 when he apparantly was born in 1851? 1 The text in question about Paypay was removed. You are trying to go after a page with unsubstaniated facts and say that your brand is from 1764. If it is then PLEASE give us actual hard references. Otherwise the books written on the subject should stand and 1907 is a very good year - one you should be proud of! This means your brand is 104 years old - that is amazing and something you should promote. Please though, stick to the FACTs Nahome (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Any further discussions on ths let's have at Talk:Bambu rolling papers instead of crowding up Ed's talk page - hope to see you there and thanks! Nahome (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed, the user ArnaudMS was warned by you and others that if he re-inserted the 1764 years without verifiable references he would be banned. However he is right back at it. Please assist in getting this resolved, see Bambu 1764 on Rolling paper and also right back on that list of oldest companies which their Bambu.com site happens to link to.. Bambu 1764 back on list of oldest co's please help - and thank you. I removed an earlier post because the situation was resolved. Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien Family

User User_talk:Christopher_Carrie appears to have started editing this page again. With this in mind, it is worth thinking about protecting or semi protecting this page again to prevent BLP issues and Carrie's POV additions? isfutile:P (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good, I see you blocked him. I was just about to report him to ANI. De728631 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep this off ANI unless you hear from me again. I've emailed a member of Arbcom who handled an OTRS from this editor, to get advice. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't post anything there when I saw he got blocked. I'm watching that article so let's hope it'll be quiet now. De728631 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

An IP has again been tinkering with the "Royd Tolkien" entry. Can you please put the article on semi-protection? De728631 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that the IP has been removing unsourced information. Can you check and see whether the stuff that the IP removed had a reliable source? Or at least, is backed up by a website posted by a family member? If it was truly unsourced, we are better off without it in a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The birthplace and the location of the farm where he grew up, which were removed in this revision, are referenced by the BBC (see footnote #37). For being the grandson of Michael H.R. Tolkien, we could possibly add a Lord of the Rings fan convention report citing Royd Tolkien himself. But then that's just a fanpage. And there's also The Tolkien Family Album, a book by two children of J.R.R.T. from 1992 which is used as a general reference in an entry for Royd Tolkien aka Royd Baker on Ardapedia, the German equivalent to the Tolkien Gateway Wiki. This last book would be very interesting to get a hold on, but I don't have it. And as to the IP removing possibly wrong content, in such cases I'd rather have a source that states how something is actually wrong, to back up the removal of long-standing content, esp. with this highly disputed entry. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your research. You should consider adding something about this on Talk:Tolkien family. This would create a stronger rationale for semi-protection, if the IP comes back one more time to remove this stuff but won't join in a discussion. "And as to the IP removing possibly wrong content, in such cases I'd rather have a source that states how something is actually wrong.." This goes against WP:BURDEN. If material is challenged, the person adding or restoring it has to show that it's reliably sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done so at Talk:Tolkien family#Details in Royd Tolkien entry. Please feel free to weigh in there if you like. De728631 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Just when I thought I was out ...

Hi Ed. Were you planning on making a statement at the ArbCom SAQ case? I didn't see your name listed but I think your perspective might be valuable. Than again, I understand completely why admins disappear forever after trying to deal with it.

Cheers. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Arbcom should be able to do a good job on this. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

IP Failing to Understand Sourcing Policies

I would appreciate it if you could review Talk:S-Video#Citation tags at head of article and provide feedback, or point me in a proper direction to bring attention to this (the article doesn't seem to fall under the auspices of any projects at this time). I don't believe the IP (who also reported me at 3RR) understands Wiki policy regarding sourcing of material, but no other editors are getting involved either thus far. In my opinion the editor's coming perilously close to violating NPA as well, but I feel a third party opinion would be vastly preferable to taking action myself when I'm the target.

I asked the admin who rejected the 3RR request, but they were concerned about COI issues; they recommended third-party oversight, but that's not an option since more than two editors are already involved; that being said, all of the other editors appear to be IPs with IMO a failure to understand the applicable policies. Thank you very much for your time. Doniago (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

IP detection tools

Hi there, Thank you very much for the handy tool you showed me here that helps to detect all edits to the project by a range of IPs. Do you also know of a tool that automatically does a whois search on all IPs that edited an article? Knopffabrik (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but this history display tells you all the contributors to an article and when they last edited. I caution you that the tone of your comment at Talk:Politics of the Maldives#Beware of spin by PR firm Hill & Knowlton could be improved. User:Niallcook is working within our COI guideline right now and harsh comments are out of place on an article talk. It would be better to say something neutral-sounding and include a link to Wikipedia:COIN#Politics of the Maldives for those who want to know more. Since COIN is a page for discussing COI issues and possible actions you can be more frank there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very helpful tools you have. As the article was the one that had been manipulated I thought I should reveal everything that seems important in the discussion. At the time it didn't come to my mind someone at a big firm could use an IP others could share and I still find it surprisingly unprofessional. And while he is "playing to the rules" I get frustrated by people who try things like getting their firm's article made into a marketing page (by trying to include only current notable clients and leaving out controversial ones in the past) and rant about rules that go in their favour but don't even write a single word regarding the accusations they are facing. Furthermore, a link to the administrator's noticeboard discussion would soon get broken once the discussion is archived. But, yes, I see your point, and I will try to improve my wording in the future. Knopffabrik (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hill & Knowlton

Thanks for your note. Have responded on the Talk:Hill & Knowlton page. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

UAF

I have now re-opened the UAF RfC, which still has almost 24 hours to run. TFD (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is futile

Hi! In case you didn't notice, I tried and tried to communicate with those vandals via descriptions of my edition and also in the discussion page of the article. Only Lothar turned out to be a bit cooperating, but only in words, not deeds. Here's what i wrote: Appeal I'd like all the vandals who constantly undo my well-sourced/documented edition of the article not to do so anymore. You could at least give a reason in the 'describe edition' bar. If you do have some objections, please share them here in the discussion page before undoing my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC) While I do agree with you that the controversy over his involvement in atrocities should be mentioned, what you added to the article is a complete violation of NPOV policy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Hi, I'm happy to see you trying to solve our problem here. I'm looking forward to see your specific stricture/objections that make you think of my edition as POV. How is this a violation of NPOV? My edition is well sourced, well documented, so it has a good backup in proven facts. Regards.--83.12.91.242 I'd like to encourage you not to undo my edit, since you admit yourself that you basically agree with it, and because it is well sourced, untill we work out some consensus or some "deus ex machina" -like independent arbiter comes in. THANKS for respecting that. (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Having this read, how could you assume that I have a bad will towards this article. As to your "as you know" words: No-one ever informed me about this. How came that they reported ME, who uses reliable sources in references, instead of those vandals, who didn't even bother to (except Lothar) explain why they had undone my edition?? Is that a new wiki policy to snuggle vandals instead of people who really make efforts trying to improve the reliability of wiki? Regards.--[[Special:Contributions/83.12.91.242|83.12.91.242]] ([[User talk:83.12.91.242|talk]]) 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lyanaz unblock

Sure, go ahead. You're more on top of the technical stuff there than I am. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I was being attacked

Judging from the time stamps, the complaint against me had been posted for 23 hours before I even knew about it. The user who accused me of edit warring apparently didn't see any need to inform me of the charge, so that I might present my side of the story. (This is an amusing irony. The purported edit warring arises because Jæs and his/her allies want the article to present only their side of a dispute, and they keep deleting the other side.)

Anyway, it wasn't your responsibility to do what Jæs should have done, so I very much appreciate your taking the time to drop me a note about the situation. JamesMLane t c 06:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Passionless

Just the other day, you made it explicitly clear to this editor that her reverts related to the I/P conflict on the Current Events portal are covered by the 1RR limitation - [43] . This appears to have had no effect and she is repeatedly violating 1RR there. See for exmapel two reverts here: [44] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.235.194 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read my message to Passionless again. There is no 1RR restriction on the Portal:Current events pages. Only on the articles that are related to the Palestine-Israeli conflict. If you think you see bad editing of the current events pages, consider opening a discussion at Portal talk:Current events. If you actually have an account, you should not be reverting Passionless on a controversial page using an IP, per WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 1RR restrictions on all artilces related to the I/P conflict, brroadly construed, and you wrote 'reverting news items on Israeli-Palestinian topics is covered by Arbcom sanctions' - what does that mean, other than 1RR applying to those news items? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.235.194 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The dated current event pages such as Portal:Current events/2011 January 29 have no talk pages, and there is no place to put an {{ARBPIA}} banner on them. It is not practical to put these pages under a 1RR restriction, and so far, no admin has done that. Individuals who revert-war there can still be reported under the discretionary sanctions, if they revert on I-P issues. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

article

Hi Ed, thank you for your note on my talk page concerning the 3rr report that I filed. I have one problem with the article being protected as is. There is one to many jpgs of John Seery. The painting is in the template that I created and right underneath is an extra one. The extra one should be removed. I will ask Ceoil to remove it, or perhaps you should, or me, let me know...Modernist (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed--the image appears twice in the same article. I tried to change this and am locked out, too. JNW (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Leave an {{editprotect}} template at Talk:Color Field and ask for the extra image to be removed. An admin should see this request and fix the page. I prefer not to edit pages I've protected myself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, JNW (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Portal talk:Current events.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I thank you for notifying me but I don't know where to give my comment. Best (Salmon1 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I am sorry but I did not see any discussion. There is always room to resolve problems but at the moment it does not seem to be clear how to go about it. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

There is a discussion on [45]. The comments are important and there is clear relevance to it. Thank you for your interest. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I am willing to agree to your suggestion if it applies to Modernist and to me simultaneously with the additional stipulation, that no deletion or addition of any sort can be made without explanation on the talk page. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I am writing this response to you with the hope that it will help to restore civility. In my entire 5 year history in Wikipedia editing I have only uploaded three images. The three images were used to replace the extensive use of images for Ronnie Landfield by Modernist. I have replaced [46] with [47]. Similarly I have replaced [48] with [49]. There are several of the same image [50] remaining in use in other general articles on [51] and [52]. The replaced two images were by artists who are highly recognized both in the US and internationally. I explained my action in each case in the respective talk page. In the third instance I chose an artist who was exhibiting in an exhibition along with Ronnie Landfield, John Seery [53]. I explained my action in the talk page [54]. The rest of the problem is discussed at the same section of the talk page for the article Color field, [55]. I do not have the tool to revert and I did not revert. Actually I only tried to upload once but I thought that I was repeatedly unsuccessful so I kept trying. Shortly after to my surprise there was added a double image of Ronnie Landfield’s [56] along with the replaced image of John Seery’s, [57]. In the future I will not touch the images associated with Ronnie Landfield. It is really the role of the consensus to determine what endures.Thank you for your help. Very best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for your help to resolve this edit-conflict complaint presented against my editing in the article, Color Field. I will do my very best to comply with your decision. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

Nicolas Carone is listed in the article, Abstract expressionism [58] Major artists. On 28 January, 2011 Modernist deleted the link of the video from youtube.com on Nicolas Carone by Nicolas Carone with the explanation: “mv irrelevant gossip.” However the video is in the collection of the Archives of the American Art, ABSTRACT EXPRESSIONIST ART MOVEMENT IN AMERICA VIDEO DOCUMENTATION PROJECT, 1991-1992. The description of the video in the Archive of the American Art: ”The Herskovics produced the videotapes to document the recollections of the artists involved in abstract expressionism. The selection of the artists was based on participation in the "Artists Annuals" between 1951 (9th Street Show) and 1957. ” Please help to restore the link, into the article, [59]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-kMxtJ0GfA Nicolas Carone-Abstract Expressionism-Artist of the 9th St. Show—video from youtube.com] (Salmon1 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

Please make a case for your change at Talk:Abstract expressionism. That page is on the watchlist of almost 100 editors, so you have a good chance of getting a real discussion there. If no one will respond, ask me again. Note that Abstract expressionism is an extremely popular article and was viewed 45,000 times in January. Since it is such a major article, our editors may only want to include links to very important items, as determined from reliable sources that have commented on them. Linking to Youtube videos is often questioned here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed your advise, Thank you. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

On 28 January, 2011, Modernist deleted the following references: [60] with the explanation: “rmv non-references.” Each of the books has 4 pages dedicated to Jack Tworkov. 1 Page, Jack Tworkov’s statement with reference and © to each given statement by the artist. This guaranties the artist’s point of view rather then a critical point of view. 2 full pages 12 x 9 inches of images by the artist Jack Tworkov with accurate description including ©; 1 page, biographical information. All the referenced three books were "Highly recommended" by CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. One of the books: won a gold medal, OUTSTANDING ACADEMIC TITLE ~CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, July/August 2003. CHOICE derives its recommendations through the system of peer review. The referenced books carried the page numbers. Please help to restore the deleted references to the article. I made the case on Talk:Jack Tworkov as you requested in the case above. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

Jack Tworkov's article and its talk page are watched by only a few people. I suggest that you make your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Your case would be stronger if these links actually serve as references. That is, if you change the article to include some relevant facts from these works. Another possibility is that you may have the rights to a photo of Tworkov that could be added to his article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Please see the request and reply, [61]. I was advised by a senior administrator, that the referencing of the books were questioned. There was a lengthy deliberation about the above referred books. It was concluded and I was notified that it is appropriate to use the books as reference in Wikipedia articles with proper page citation. No article exists about me in Wikipedia. The existence of the books is presented on my user:page. On the other hand I believe that I can make a strong case for violation of WP:NPOV along with WP:BLP regard to Modernist using the information from Wikipedia. This should only be the concern of WP:ArbCom. Please give me the benefit of your advice. Sincerely, {Salmon1 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

I was not aware that these were self-published books. Can you clarify what you are asserting about Modernist? It is by no means guaranteed that these books are usable in reference lists. If you think that someone gave you the go-ahead to do so, please link to where that discussion occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The books are published by the New York School Press. I am chief editor and co-owner of the company. The Company, New York School Press exists in good standing since 1999. Best, {Salmon1 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

I just found an article in Goggle [62]. (Salmon1 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

I understand the point of WP:SPS. I believe that my circumstance is different. My books are not critical interpretations. They present the artists statements and works on an equal playing field. These books present 262 artists in as neutral point of view as possible. About me: I received my PhD from New York University of Arts and Sciences. I also have a certificate in appraisal studies in Fine and Decorative Arts that I received from New York University. I produced 27 videos on the art and lives of the artists of the New York School abstract expressionists.They are in the collection of the Smithsonian Archives of American Art [63]. These videos were repeatedly shown in cable TV. They were listed in "Art on Screen,—a joint venture of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the J. Paul Getty Trust." I hosted numerous artists' seminars and spent the past two decades documenting the New York Painting and Sculpture Annuals, the participating artists and their art. 991 of my books are in the art libraries of colleges and universities documented by worldcat.org. All the referenced three books were "Highly recommended" by CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. One of the books, American Abstract Expressionism of the 1950s an Illustrated Survey, won a gold medal, OUTSTANDING ACADEMIC TITLE ~CHOICE, Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, July/August 2003. CHOICE derives its recommendations through the system of peer review. I was advised by DGG, a senior administrator, that the referencing of the books were questioned. There was a lengthy deliberation about the above referred books. It was concluded and I was notified that it is appropriate to use the books as reference in Wikipedia articles with proper page citation. DGG is a PhD with a career in academic library science. Sincerely, (Salmon1 (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Scarmudgeon

The warning and an offer for them to join the noticeboard discussion had already been left. They removed it without comment. --Onorem♠Dil 15:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

He wanted to go down in a blaze of glory, I guess. His wish has been granted. I have not looked into the possibility that this editor might have a real-life connection to the issues being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a message at Onorem's talk page concerning this. Not sure if you were aware of the history. freshacconci talktalk 19:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)