User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Lolwut?

So... how does one accomplish this? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is resolved I think, since the editor has been blocked. See WP:AN3#User:Lkmen reported by User:Suffusion of Yellow (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What I was refering to is the timing. He was blocked at 9:59, but the edit takes place at 10:01. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The system was responding very slowly at the time, often giving the 'Try again later' error message. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

note

Hi, I reverted a large removal to your talkpage in this diff. The 1P is blocked now. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Lolwut?

So... how does one accomplish this? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is resolved I think, since the editor has been blocked. See WP:AN3#User:Lkmen reported by User:Suffusion of Yellow (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What I was refering to is the timing. He was blocked at 9:59, but the edit takes place at 10:01. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The system was responding very slowly at the time, often giving the 'Try again later' error message. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

note

Hi, I reverted a large removal to your talkpage in this diff. The 1P is blocked now. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Phatboi96

Like Risker, I learn something new every day. No objections to a block on BLP grounds whatsoever. Courcelles 05:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert

In the collapsed section above you informed paul siebert to not call editors liars on article talk pages. [1] In this section he has accused me of being a liar around five times now. And is complaining if I remove these personal attacks. Please inform him to refrain from calling me a liar as I do not appreciate it. Tentontunic (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please supply diffs of what you consider to be personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can`t be bothered to look through the section I have pointed out then do not bother yourself at all. Tentontunic (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The first diff is [2]. I still believe that the claim that the text has no neutrality issues when the discussion about this text is open on the WP:NPOVN is false, so the text cannot be added to the article. BTW, some users argued that this text had other issues, and Tentontunic was perfectly aware of this fact. If "lie" is not too polite word to describe this their contribution, could you please provide another adequate term?

The second piece of the evidence is [3] (self-evident).

The third diff is [4].

My response is [5] I argued that the initial post contained no explicit references to this thread only, so the second post made by Tentontinic contained the second false claim (" I said you are the only person who has commented HERE").

And this [6] [7] is a final exchange. The rest is hardly interesting.

PS. I am definitely starting to lose patience when I deal with this user. In future I'll try not to address to them directly (because that is simply senseless).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need a cup of tea and a vacation Paul -- in your 10,000 character posts :), you have a marked tendency to use the word "lie." Feel free to dispute positions, but the use of the word "lie" when used as often as you use it in about every dispute you find yourself in might well be construed by those who do not know you well to be "attacks". I know it is just how you always write. Other's mileage may vary. Collect (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it is quite probable that you read my posts much more carefully than I write them, I cannot remember when I used this words to characterise contributions of users others than Tentontunic. However, you are right, I definitely need a cup of tea (that is exactly what I am having right now), because that is the first time during my Wikilife when I see so blatantly false statements made so frequently by a single person. However, if you will tell me that all Tentontunic's statements are true (of course, I mean just those statements we currently discuss), and no users, except me, expressed a concern over the edits he makes, I'll gladly withdraw my accusation.

So, do you endorse correctness of all statements made by Tentontunic, which I mentioned above?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the single worst forms of argument I have yet seen on all of Wikipedia, Paul. Try defending [8] Collect can hardly be considered as a neutral uninvolved party in a discussion about the L2 block. [9] If I were you, Collect I apologised first for doing wholesale revert of several unrelated edits, which was supplemented with poorly written edit summary ... However, if you are not ready for meticulous work, don't edit Wikipedia. ...Moreover, even after I pointed out at your mistake (which, I believe, was just a mistake) you still refuse to apologise and withdraw your accusations. Unbelievable

showing your continuous view of Wikipedia as your personal battleground

Oh -- and looky here: [10] Therefore, I even don't know how to characterise this your assertion using the terminology allowed by the WP policy ... In other words, your statement is a lie ... The fact that you found another source that supports your POV changes nothing. This is my second warning are also nice exemplars of your style on Wikipedia.

And of course [11] where he adds his voice in seeking sanctions against me for no particular good reason. Cirt decidedly did not view Paul's views as omniscient at all. :)

Oh I forgot, Paul never accuses others of lying. [12] The Collect's claim is absolutely false, Collect was perfectly aware of all of that, so the only plausible explanation for all of that is that he tries deliberately mislead people., Another Collect's false claim is: "One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks." The editor who warned him was me , You claimed that I deleted the content, whereas in actuality I just moved it to the more appropriate article , Obviously, all these your claims were false, and, taking into account that I explained the issue many times, I have a serious reasons to suspect that that was done deliberately. However, if you will let me know that you didn't do these false claims deliberately I'll gladly retract the statement regarding the deliberate nature of your claims, One more false accusation,

which is quite amazing since Petri Krohn specifically stated: Collect is yet again repeating the accusation of "coordinating edits". Talk pages exist precisely for that purpose – for coordinating the editing process. admitting the co-ordination of edits and meges/moves/deletions. But all of this is simply how Paul edits. Many of us know his style now. Cheers Collect (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to report me, go to WP:ANI. If you want to explain me something, you are free to post whatever you want on my talk page. In any event I see no reason to post that here.

In any event, I am glad that you haven't claimed that Tentontunic's statements are true.
With respect,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I know this is who you are. So do others. ANI is not for reporting what everyone already knows about your behaviour. As for your strange digression that I have to say anything at all about Tentontunic being infallible - that sort of rhetorical device is also old hat to you, and is as useless a debate tactic as it ever was. The issue here is how you behave, not whether Tentontunic is right or wrong. The issue here is whether you routinely disparage others. The issue here is whether you routinely accuse others of lying. The issue here, in short, is only your style, not anyone elses. And the facts and diffs laid out are conclusive. And I trust Ed also notices your style here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As Siebert continues with his allegations here then here are the diff`s

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

All of these accusations of lies are utterly wrong, I have not lied once. And have in fact pointed out to Siebert were he is wrong [17] Now you have your diff`s, please inform Siebert he must retract his allegations and that he must refrain from such further attacks. Tentontunic (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I have referred to this discussion on your talk page, here at ANI: [18] Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism etc.

Dear Ed. Upon meditation I decided to reduce my direct contacts with some users working in this area to the lowest possible minimum. However, since I am not intended to cease my activity in the Communism related topics, I anticipate some indirect conflicts between them and me may occur. In this case, I will not spam your talk page with my complaints, and will not comment on their posts on your talk page. However, am always ready to provide all needed explanations, but I will do that only if you will directly ask me on my talk page.
Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Paul Siebert's unfortunate remarks regarding my "approach" to Communist terrorism here and my response, I support his reflecting on his activities of late and look forward to his return to more constructive discourse. I have long and publicly eschewed complaining to (i.e., lobbying) admins or filing enforcement or arbitration requests in the related-to Soviet legacy space, as they either start as, or degenerate into, attempts to eliminate editors to control content. Given Paul Siebert's statement and my sentiments regarding enforcement, I'm not requesting any remedy at this time and trust my inaction will be taken as WP:AGF. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that undertaking to reduce contact did not last long[19]. --Martin (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

lifted

Hello EdJohnston. If I said my restrictions were lifted, it is what I meant. They were lifted as of March 27,2011. According administrator AGK they were unwarranted to begin with. May I please ask to correct your AE comment in accordance with this message? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks it was nice of you to fix the comment! BTW as you could see Gwen specifically said she sees no reason to topic ban me on I/P I didn't see anything straightforwardly linked to IP topic warring as such, and as you know she did not although the question about I/P area was raised. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

SuperblySpiffingPerson

User:SuperblySpiffingPerson has an obvious: sock. noclador (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The last appeal

EdJohnston, I added the text I am posting below to AE, but I am not sure it will be noticed. So I'd like to repeat it here please: I realize that calling users "trolls" is unacceptable. I could be banned on using this word. I could be placed on zero tolerance civility alert, but there's absolutely nothing in the presented, taken out of content differences, none of which was made in the main space to topic-ban me on I/P conflict. Please allow me to contribute to wikipedia. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Per your block log, there have been a number of second chances. What is proposed this time is an interaction ban and a topic ban. That seems to be proportionate to the problems that have been claimed. I do see the logic for unblocking you last December, and Gwen Gale's restrictions did solve the problem of overuse of admin boards. Since December, the new problem is that you are unable to maintain civility when discussing I/P matters. An I/P topic ban could deal with that. That's what AE should address now, unless you have a better idea. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, you said I "overused of admin boards". I have never overused administrative boards never. There was never any "logic" at all in blocking me last September. Have you bothered to read review made by administrator AGK about my block? I was unfairly blocked and then unfairly banned over a single, absolutely valid post on AN/I in a thread started by some one else, an absolutely valid AE request and a single, bad, filed in a hurry, but not in a bad faith SPI request. Where do you see "misuse"? May I please ask you to take a look at Don't just say it, prove it.

My problems now are mostly not connected to I/P topic. None of my "crimes" that was presented in this AE was made in the main space, half of it has absolutely nothing to do with I/P topic at all, all the differences are taken out of content, some of them are 1,2 months old, at least one is 3 months old, before my last block! There's no need to topic ban me. May I please ask you to see the comment made by user:ZScarpia "Since it looks to me as though, to a large extent, Mbz1 was provoked, and since her comments don't appear to me to be particularly heinous (compared to the general level in the IP area), I think that a long-term topic ban would be unjust. Unfortunately, because of her history, Mbz1 has become a bit of an easy mark. I do, though, think that it would be useful to continue the restriction on raising cases on noticeboards. " I brought your attention to this particular comment because user:ZScarpia is an editor from a different side of the conflict, an editor we have content disagreements sometimes, and if such editor believes I have done nothing wrong in that topic, it is the best testimony on my behalf. The topic benefits from my editing there, not suffers.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I see a conflict between what you are asserting here and what I can easily find out by looking at the past noticeboard cases. The debate at at ANI in December gives lots of reasons for concern about your editing. There were a number of people there who felt you were too far gone, and you should be indefinitely blocked. Now, fortunately, you got unblocked on conditions, and you are still with us. But here you are, telling me that the conditions were unfair, Gwen Gale was involved, etc etc. I can't reconcile these things and still have any confidence about your future behavior. AGK said: "I find the accusation that the blocking administrator, Gwen Gale, is not uninvolved to be troubling, but make no comment on them because you have provided no substantiation." You still have given no substantiation. And, Gwen stated you had agreed to the conditions. So according to you, she is involved, the conditions are unfair, and they should not have been imposed, even though you agreed to them. This does not compute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reading it over.I agreed on the conditions because I did not care about contributing to those boards, because I was eager to be unblocked, because I love wikipedia. Now I see I made a huge mistake agreeing on those conditions. Too late now.

The users, who initially commented about me on AN/I, the ones that lead to my block were all involved with me big.

I did not say Gwen was involved. I said user:Daedalus969 canvased admin Gwen Gale to their AN/I thread. Why did I use the word "canvased"? Well, according to Wikipedia:Canvassing "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." is canvasing. This post by user:Daedalus969 is anything but neutral. I am not sure why user:Daedalus969 decided to notify this and only this particular admin, after the user opened a bogus AN/I thread. I am opened to suggestions, if my read of the policy is wrong. Also I am not sure it calls "an involvement".

When were those last cases on AN/I you are talking about? They were 8-9 months before December. Who started them? I mostly did not. I was brought there by other users, but does it mean I overused the boards? No, it does not. 99% of the user, who voted for the block in December were very much involved with me over content disputes. Others voted because I got a certain reputation. They did not really looked at my contributions.

Anyway I took lots of your time, and I appreciate you responded to me.

Just one more question please. Let's say I am topic banned on I/P related topics, would you block me for a ban violation for example for this edit? The article ha not a single word about Palestinians. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I'd like to ask you for clarifications for your message at Gwen's page I post it here because Gwen asked me to stay out of her page.

Either I am missing something, but here I did not claim Gwen is involved. I said she was canvased, and I said I am open to hear where I got the policy wrong. Why the this message is not canvasing. Please help me to understand why this message is not canvasing, and I will apologize for naming it this way.

":::About me removing "warnings". I sometimes do remove the warnings that have no merit, that is probably silly of me, but there's no policy that requires me to archive those. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Admins ought to be uncanvassable. Any admin who gets an improper request on their talk page should not take the proposed action. If they do, a question may be raised as to their fitness to be an admin. So the concept of 'canvassing an admin' is rather backwards. You considered Gwen to be involved because she had previously taken admin action in your case. (AGK said: "I find the accusation that the blocking administrator, Gwen Gale, is not uninvolved to be troubling"). AGK was taking you to be saying that she was involved. You did say "We did have a big dispute, but not in this topic area.' That is not the current definition of 'involved'. You did not complain, after the December block was lifted, that you were unhappy with the unblocking conditions. If you accepted them, you should stand by your decision. Otherwise it may be hard to take you seriously in the future. Regarding the archiving: the best policy is to keep all your warnings, unless you consider them to be personal attacks. When people provide diffs of your misbehavior, and it turns out that you have deleted all the statements involved from your talk page, that suggests that you're unable or unwilling to respond appropriately to criticism. Any editor who plans to work in the I/P area should be willing to listen to criticism and respond patiently. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I did complain about the bans please see here

About 'involved' I am not asking about now. I am asking only where did I say she is involved in this page that was created a month ago. AGK comment was made on March 13, and you are talking about my comment made yesterday. AGK commented only on my comments made in this page, but not on my comments made yesterday. Such misunderstandings make editors blocked.

And the most important question. I asked you to explain to me why this message is not canvasing. I'd like to apologize to Gwen, if it is not, but before I do I'd like to understand it please. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Palestine topics

Ed, thanks for your involvement with this. Just to let you know I have posted a related admin request at the discussion here WP:AN3#User:TheCuriousGnome reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h). Oncenawhile (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I could imagine doing a one-time revert back to the status quo. Tell me exactly what moves would be needed, in your opinion. (There will be several files involved, no?) Then I could see about getting consensus. I am not sure why you could not be proposing this at Template talk:Palestinian nationalism. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, it's simply the reversion of the name back to Template:Palestine topics. If I propose the reversion at the template talk, I am certain to be shouted down by TheCuriousGnome.

I always thought that 1RR/3RR violations would/should be reverted as a matter of course. Otherwise, edit wars just restart or, in the case of page moves, the violator successfully gets their way (I separate out page moves because it often requires an admin to revert a page move). That doesn't seem right, as it would just encourage 1RR/3RR violations.

Thanks, Oncenawhile (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing things that are contrary to policy. Unless TheCuriousGnome's change can be described as simple vandalism (which is not the case), what you have here is a content dispute. You are supposed to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. This requires you to propose your change and listen to what others have to say. The 3RR case only shows he was 'breaking the speed limit', it doesn't say that his change was wrong. That is for the editors to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...

Would you be willing to close this ANI, assuming you're uninvolved? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your request. My drive-by opinion is is that the discussion is likely to show consensus for proposed sanctions 1-3 but not for #4. #1 seems to include #4, so that may not matter. If the issue winds up going to Arbcom they will want to see that any community sanctions were based on clear and convincing evidence. I hope that whoever closes the thread will be sure they understand the evidence. There is probably no consensus for the page move but I'm far from having a complete view of that. There is some FAITACCOMPLI argument that would have to be read carefully and understood. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 4 was more of an alternative to 1 in case only 3 passed (I usually write all that out but I concluded that it will figure itself out by the time it's closed). I think AC will understand after looking at everything there - it took a large amount of my own time and by the end of it, I felt I should make a proposal. Obviously, if the users involved (on both sides of the content dispute/s) don't see the warning sign by the mere fact that I've stepped in to make this proposal, then I suspect this may only be the beginning. Admins should not be reluctant to act in this case if the proposal is successful. Of course, at the end of the day, I'm not going to try to prevent a final resort if it's the inevitable anyway; this proposal is merely addressing the conduct concern which is more serious or complex (in my opinion anyway). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're being discussed

A statement you made about "admins who get an improper request on their talk page" is now being used as "evidence" that Gwen Gale's fitness to be an admin should be questioned. Was that how you intended that remark to be interpreted? betsythedevine (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Since the AE has been closed, no further response is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the same statement and the same allegations about Gwen have also been posted by Mbz1 to my talk page. betsythedevine (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:LASTWORD. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, may I please ask to accept my apology for putting you into difficult situation? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Abella

doneThisbites (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Peter Orno

Hi Ed! Thanks for your moderating comments at DYK regarding the very important case of Peter Orno. Following your suggestion, I did nominate it on the April Fool's Day DYK page. However, nothing has happened at either DYK page afterwords. I shall be incommunicado the next 3 days. If you have time to verify the April Fools' Day nomination, then it would be a great help.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. There is a current DYK nomination for "In the 1700s (plus minus 100 years!), the word gullible was not in the dictionary", which is worthy of April Fools' nomination, imho. Unfortunately, I am using a borrowed ancient Dell with Windows XP (ugh), and I cannot do much editing.)

Anonimu

I'm not sure if you had seen the entry in Wikipedia:ARBMAC#May_2010_.E2.80.93_December_2010 where Anonimou was previously involved in ARBMAC issues and appealed a topic ban on a technicality. As a result, I issued a rather formal ARBMAC warning in August 2010. See this thread. My apologies for not properly logging it. Toddst1 (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Though Anonimu is well-intentioned, he seems to view himself as being the sole bulwark against disaster on certain articles, and thus entitled to engage in edit wars to preserve sanity. Perhaps he could be encouraged to open an WP:RFC if this happens in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Hi, I note that you were the last admin on this page so could you possibly explain the 1RR to an editor for me as I don't seem to be having any luck? The article discussion is here and I can't do any more good with this discussion. One question I am not sure of myself though is the removal of talk page comments on talk pages which are Troubles related. This edit here was removed after I had explained 1RR to the editor. Dose this or is this considered a revert? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It now appears that the editor was well aware of 1RR, and I can't be expected to assume good faith. In the interest of fairness it should be noted I've interacted with this editor before, bad block, here and here. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a 1RR violation to me. With this edit he takes out a Refimprove template. Here, he takes out a paragraph recently added by another editor. Since I am the last admin to block User:R. fiend, I suggest that you open a report at WP:AN3, and provide a link to where the 1RR rule was imposed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for that. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the matter here Ed, as I think it is the correct venue. Further discussion on the talk page is pointless. Thanks again, for the advice, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Hi Ed, I don't know if you can remember me mentioning a certain IP vandal I had numerous problems with a month or so ago. 81.109.92.81 persists in dumbing down articles mainly relating to Football or British Television series. He was banned for 30 days in February for vandalism and since his ban expired he has persisted in vandalizing and dumbing down the articles he was before as well as others. He blatantly ignores any messages and warnings he recieves and despite being told numerous times that the majority of his edits are either incorrect, pointless word alterations or simply nonsensical he continues with these edits on a daily basis. Is there anything you could suggest or do to help, as this guy is simply working against the rest of us. Many Thanks & Regards Footballgy (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

You were the first to suggest I be topic banned as well at the AE, so I am asking you, again as you know, "What would be the reason for my banning?" Please answer, I cannot improve if I do not know what policies I broke. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 17:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Dekker Dreyer

[20] You participated in the first AfD and I'm notifying you of a new one.--Wikimegamaster 18:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimegamaster (talk • contribs)

Communist terrorism

Was placed by you under what appeared to be a bright-line 1RR restriction on 25 November 2010 per Digwuren. That bright line appears to be quite blurred currently. Is the bright line no longer in effect? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I urge you to be more specific. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[21] indicates that Paul feels that 1RR is not a bright line, which was the cause of my post here. I note that TFD manages to think that this is a 1RR report by his edit at [22] also on Paul Siebert's talk page. IIRC, he has made a point of making edit war reports. You likely should point out to him that this post by me was not an edit war report, but a request to see if the 1RR restriction was lifted in some way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that your advice to Paul Siebert was correct. He does appear to have made two reverts in 24 hours. It sounds like he's planning to self-revert, though. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now tell TFD that my acts are entirely proper. BTW, I doubt that Paul will self-revert, but your mileage may vary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Actually it was I who asked PS to revert. Which he has done, although he also says he will remove the content again anyway rather than expand it as he says it ought to be, strange behavior really. I should also like to ask you why you did not ask PS to remove his accusations of my being a liar from the talk page? Tentontunic (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to raise the matter at WQA. Some of the discussions at User talk:Paul Siebert could be more refined than they are. Someone said "I think you are far more acquainted with making edit war accusations than I." I feel like taking out my blue pen and rewriting it as 'You have submitted more edit warring reports than I have since 1 Jan 2010.' EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My mom taught Latin. I have made 3 EW complaints in 5 years. TFD has made 12 (including [23]. Two of the ones I complained abouit are now indeffed for being Socks. the other one has has seven blocks, including one for "abusing multiple accounts." Collect (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, EdJohnston. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your input appreciated in my RfC about if a formal notice can be retracted

Apologizes for the delay but I would like your input in this request for clarification regarding the fact that I received a formal notice by you on 6 March 2011, and that I am now asking clarification over there whether I can request this formal notice be retracted, hopefully by you. Cheers, CalvinTy 22:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

I regret to bother you with this issue again. Night w and I have some disagreements about this article and both of us agreed at AE noticeboard to reach consensus before making changes to the article. Recently he unilaterally archived some unresolved discussions (some of them manually, others by removing 'do not archive' tags and not replying to my comments so that the 7 days period of the archive bot kicks in). At the same time the article includes some changes that he made without consensus prior to the AE agreement/article protection.

I even made a sandbox (repeatedly improved, following discussions with another user) and invited him to look at it, but later he acted as if he didn't knew about it. After I pointed him again to the sandbox and to another discussion where I had already given a link to the sandbox and he has replied, etc. and I asked "Do you have objections to something in the sandbox?" he replied "I'll reply soon.", but didn't bother to do so (see here).

I write to you to inform you, that in such case the AE agreement of consensus-before-editing can't apply anymore (the discussions were archived by Night w), so I will edit it normally, abiding by the "1RR/day" restriction that it has. Alinor (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note at User talk:Night w#Premature archiving. Unless one party is behaving a lot worse than the other, it is worth considering whether the one-month topic ban for both parties proposed in February at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive83#Night w should be enacted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Following your note he restored only the section that he manually moved to the archive, but not the others were he had removed the 'do not archive' tags. I think that he prefers the current version (it includes some of the changes he maid without consensus - I refrain from removing these, hoping that we will discuss everything first - but I will remove them if the situation doesn't improve) and that he is not interested in any of these discussions. And he still doesn't say anything about the sandboxes (unlike what he said he will do). Alinor (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the issues Night w filed a move request for the page, maybe in attempt to change its topic "trough the back door" (because it wants to move it from a specific title to a more general and vague title), maybe in good faith. The move request is related to some, but not to all and not to the more important issues that we had under discussion, so it's in no way a continuation/replacement of these discussions.

Night w informed some editors that have participated in previous move request about the current one. That's fine. But now he informed another user, who so far hasn't participated neither on the talk page nor in the article itself - [24] - with the claim "you were previously involved." - I couldn't find any trace of involvement of that user in the histories. On the other hand I know that this user will support Night w request (because of other discussions I had with this user and Night w is also aware of these). I don't know if this is canvassing or not, and I don't know if we are supposed to cherry pick editors who to inform about particular discussions - just because we expect that they will support our position. But in any case I would like to see if there is such "previous involvement" of that user per Night w claim.

All this just adds to the attitude and misconducts of Night w. Alinor (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Following result of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Foreign_relations_of_Palestine_-_generalizing_source (and also this and others) I made this edit. It's in compliance with the result reached at the noticeboard. Regardless Night w reverted it [25] and even called me "disruptive". I restored the noticeboard-compliant version, but I assume he will repeatedly violate it. Please remind him to adhere to the result of the noticeboard discussion - and also to adhere to the AE obligation imposed on him. Alinor (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

He just made a second revert [26] not only violating the noticeboard result, but also violating the 1RR/day that the article has. I kindly ask that you restore back this version that is in compliance with the noticeboard result and to remind him to cease his repeated violations - or to protect the article (again). Alinor (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I just saw that besides the above issues he also "collapsed" my comment on another talk page [27] - he did the same thing on the Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority not so long ago - [28] (this is my edit re-posting my comment that he "collapsed"). I don't know what can be done to prevent such acts from happening again. Alinor (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptions by Night w continue.[29] Alinor (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed, for your note on my Talk page. I'm open to giving an opinion, as you described. But I'm generally only in Wikipedia for an hour very early each morning, so my time is limited. TimidGuy (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Night w and Alinor. I am afraid that this article may be headed towards long-term full protection unless we believe the two of you sincerely intend to follow WP:Dispute resolution. I asked TimidGuy at User talk:TimidGuy#Palestinian National Authority if he would be willing to listen to you present your views on his talk page, with an eye to offering a third opinion. As you see, he has agreed, with the caveat that he is only on wiki for one hour a day in the morning. Please consider this option and try communicating with TimidGuy. If the article ends up with full protection because of your dispute, no forward progress can occur. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, fine with me. Thanks, Nightw 17:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I responded there. Alinor (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Second AfD for Strong gravitational constant

Just to let you know that discussion is invited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong gravitational constant (2nd nomination). betsythedevine (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not inclined to participate unless you've received some feedback on a widely-used discussion page here which says that your survey is appropriate. In general, writing to a large number of individual users' pages is not considered wise. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with article move

Hello Ed. I was wondering if after you move an article all the links are automatically updated. Why? Because some user (erronously) moved the article BRIC to BRICS to create this new article. However BRIC is a financial term coined by Goldman Sachs and BRICS is a political group.

So if by moving BRIC to BRICS all the links changed, I'd like to ask for your help in moving them back to BRIC. I knew that administrators have special tools to perform such tasks, but may be I am wrong. So please, let me know. Thanks in advance for your reply. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 01:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. I think I'll just request a move back from BRICS to BRIC. And them tell the users to create BRICS from scratch since it is such a mess right now. All the links were automatically updated. We had to start BRIC once again and we lost of the article history. Could you help move it back? AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Very little article history has disappeared. There are four deleted revisions of BRICS but each of them is small, under 100 bytes. I think that all the versions you actually need to work with are still visible in the histories of the two articles. For a while there was also a page called BRICS (disambiguation) and its history still survives. Put the template {{copied}} on the article talk page if you are concerned about loss of the record of who wrote which piece of text. The usage of that template is explained at WP:CWW. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Photographic forays

Ed, thanks for joining in our first Taking of Boston! Hopefully one of many improvements in coverage of our fair city. Be well, –SJ+ 05:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

not engaged in edit war Adler87 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I edited the page by using correct source as asked about. That was not accepted for obvious reasons that have to do with the truth of the page content. If we are not allowed to edit wiki pages by using genuine sources why is then Wikipedia editable. Thank you!

Adler87 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I had no intention to break any Wikipedia rule but I disagree to see it as unreliable source of information or place of propaganda. If there are rules for all I am committed to keep them just like everybody else.

WP:NPA & WP:AVOIDYOU

Hello, I'm talking about Titanic (1997 film) discussion page. I'm User: Bakhshi82. User: Flyer22 abused my username several times in section of Consensus at the talk page and don't let me to remove her wrong comments. Trying to solve the problem between us via discussion is resultless and i entreaty you to clear comments that contain personal attacks, WP:AVOIDYOU and disputes, or guide me what can i do? Thank you.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting/abusing the policy you are citing. It is not some serious case of a personal attack to state my suspicions that you edited the article as IPs against consensus and then did it again once you could no longer edit the article as IPs (once it was semi-locked). You clearly did so under the name Bakhshi82, that's for certain. There is no problem between us, other than your going against consensus and changing/removing my comments. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To EdJohnston, this user has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and the matter is currently being sorted out there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Clarification/Amending of Current "Topic Ban"

Greetings,

The latest 72-hour block...requested by COI-editor David in DC...was inherently unfair...not just because I was not given time to respond, but because the charges are a stretch.

1. Discussion of "flags" on the "Manual of Style" page is, in fact, NOT something that falls under the topic of "longevity," even broadly interpreted. No real court of law would have found me guilty based on just association. Everything on Wikipedia relates to everything else in some way ("six degrees of separation"). I'm not an "expert" on flags and it's no COI for me to contribute to a Manual of Style discussion regarding flags.

2. "Broadly interpreted" is, unfortunately, much too broad to interpret. For example, David in DC attempted to link 2010 census counts to longevity. Even though he was 100% wrong, he didn't apologize, of course not.

3. David in DC had a "beef" with me before he ever came across longevity articles to begin with. The ethical thing for him to do was to recuse himself from any discussion about me, but we didn't see the right thing done. He wouldn't have served on a jury of my peers, had this been a real courtroom.

4. It had already been said that "defense of oneself is permissible" even if the topic regards longevity. David in DC has been "taunting" over and over again, both on my talk page and elsewhere, trying to get a reaction.

So, again, I would like to hear your advice/opinion on what I should do. Note my topic ban is "indefinite"...even that is vague.

I think I have shown myself to be quite reasonable when treated fairly. So far, with David in DC, he has gotten away with multiple taunts over and over again, with very little warning.Ryoung122 22:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Your topic ban was imposed by Arbcom directly. You could file at WP:A/R/A if you want it changed or lifted. Since the case was only closed recently, you would have to be an optimist to believe they have changed their minds since February. The wording they used was standard.
• The 72 hour block is from User:Sandstein. Any questions about his block should go to him. You could file an appeal at WP:AE, but it's not clear how to appeal a block which has already expired. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 3c295371a19e9429a79af7064f85c3e8

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! -- EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews

Just a note to say that I saw your comment from the week before last at Talk:Nemertea/GA1, and I thought I'd reassure you that GA reviews work basically like any other talk-page discussion. The sole difference is that at the end, the person who officially volunteered to be the "reviewer" has to make the final decision to list or not list the article as a WP:Good article.

Consequently, any editor should feel free to join in any discussion in a GA review, exactly like you would join in any other talk page discussion about that article. GA reviews often benefit greatly from additional perspectives, and when I have reviewed articles, I have always appreciated comments and assistance from multiple editors. I encourage you to comment at GA reviews whenever you feel like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback re: Slow edit war at Stanford University

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 03:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Biblbroks's talk page.
Message added 06:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Esoglou is again breaking edit restrictions

Why is Esoglou commenting on my contributions to the filioque article on my talkpage? [30] Again the rules are for people to harass me but not for Esoglou to follow? As far as I can tell Esoglou was to take any of my editing objections to you. And not comment on them directly to me or the article talkpage. Is it that every time I follow the rules I am going to get this kind of treatment from him? Why is it good for Esoglou to do stuff like this but then I'm the bad editor? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing at WP:RESTRICT that prevents Esoglou from leaving comments on your talk page. Prudence suggests that he should keep these notices to a minimum. I checked what Esoglou was complaining about and it seems to be a grey area, since the whole section of Filioque that you were editing is under the heading 'Eastern orthodoxy.' It should be assumed that this section is presenting the views of EO theologians. At the same time, you seem to have begun an edit war on Filoque. I strongly recommend that you wait for consensus to avoid further difficulties. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war? So my contributions have been deleted wholesale from the article (twice)-that's me starting an edit war? Wow that's wikipedia for you. Good call Ed did you notice that none of my content is now in the article? So your time and responses are meaningless. But good to know that my contributions getting deleted and or censored is me edit warring even when I have not restored them to the article. Not really about policy or right or wrong is it Ed? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you making a revert at 00:36 on 27 April, since you removed existing text following 'The Eastern Orthodox interpretation..' This followed your edit summary 'Revised roman catholic POV pushing..' Then you have edits marked as 'Undo' at 00:40 on the 27th and also at 00:52 on the 27th. By my calculation that makes three reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Only if you count the actual posting of the content as a revert. I have since not restored the deleted content for a 3rd time as that would be a violation of the 3rr. As I have followed your advice and am now waiting for consensus. I have stopped editing on the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed... you might advise LoveMonkey that, when two editors who almost never edit together both feel that the writing quality of his contribution is deficient, perhaps it would be useful to slow down, understand what's being said to him and ask for help in improving the quality of the prose to meet Wikipedia's standards. The problem, as I see it, is that the flow of the prose is so convoluted that it is not possible to make a few small changes and turn it into encyclopedic text. If an elementary school kid starts adding prose written at a 5th-grade level, it will get reverted. I don't know about Drmies but I am not at the point wehre I can object or agree to the content of LoveMonkey's edits. I'm still trying to figure out how to parse it and turn it into encyclopedic text rather than the chatty, argumentative polemic that it is now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody made four reverts in 24 hours, the WP:3RR is not violated. I am glad to see that the revision of LoveMonkey's new text is being discussed at Talk:Filioque. Since this is a proposed revision of the EO section, it seems to me that LM can discuss that material on the article talk without any concern about the editing restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a detail: I may be missing something, but the section he was editing was not dedicated to the EO perspective, at least not nominally in terms of outlined article structure (which is a bit chaotic though). Although of course his edits had the effect of monopolizing the section with this perspective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

California Jam II

Hi, you protected this article some time ago; an editor has requested its unprotection. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has already been unprotected by User:KFP. No objection from me. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Giulio Clovio - Dilettantes

Hi.

Most supporters of this thesis are not experts: many are even complete outsiders to the field of history (analysts, students, etc.). For the sake of vanity, or an easy notoriety, or a misguided nationalism, they have voiced risky opinions without bothering to seriously verify their statements.

All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian of Croatian descent.

All major sources ( Encyclopædia Britannica [31], Enciclopedia Italiana [32] and Grove Art Online ( See also: University of Oxford ) His exact words being: "Italian painter and illuminator of Croatian birth." ) agree with me.

I don't even know how to comment on this one. I don't comment: irrationality, preposterousness and senselessness may go unanswered. " The Professors "

I certainly don't fear the verdict. I'm sure.

I'm not going to change the page. I dropped the idea. However, the voice is POV. Greetings. --Davide41 (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I caution you that some of your comments about other editors (calling them 'dilettantes') might be viewed as personal attacks. I recommend that you moderate your language when discussing other users and their qualifications to comment on Giulio Clovio. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You're a good person.

I recommend that you moderate your language when discussing other users and their qualifications to comment on Giulio Clovio

The first time in my life that someone contradicts me in History. They are the experts... I will not comment further.

• A mathematician is a mathematician. A person whose primary area study is the field of mathematics.
• A historian is a historian. An individual who studies and writes about history, and is regarded as an authority on it.

Dilettante in that sense. Thank you and sorry --Davide41 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The appeal of your action in WP:AE#Vecrumba

Hello Fred. While I agree that some action in this case was appropriate, I wonder if you would consider shortening TFD's topic ban to one year. A check of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Log of blocks and bans shows that indefinite bans are not common. Long bans are sometimes imposed after shorter bans have not worked. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That was what I initially did, but on consideration of it I didn't think there was reason to believe this particular behavior would change in a one year period. An indefinite ban can be lifted at any time his behavior changes. Today would be fine, once he quits engaging in ideological struggle over cold war issues. As to the ethnic issue he seems to have a blind spot. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the log of blocks and bans, I find indefinite bans are quite common, at least in the 2011 section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I post

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

Hi Ed. This post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Borderline_outing_and_battleground_behavior_by_user_Sk.C3.A4pper.C3.B6d is kind of unusual. I responded, but knowing how anything I say will be received it's probably advisable for you or Sandstein to respond. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual about it. A user is repeatedly violating WP:OUTING as part of his battleground behavior. And yes, Deacon and I have a "history" and while the tone of his comment is not surprising his sudden appearance at the request is. Particularly given his own history of changing user names, not to mention the fact that he edits under a pseudonym which protects his privacy. I just want the same courtesy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ed, I think Deacon's comments on ANI are rather unhelpful given his long history of conflict with Polish editors (at one point he was even admonished by ArbCom). People have real lives and professional careers outside of Wikipedia, and Volunteer Marek's request is reasonable, editors should abide by people's requests with regard to their current username as WP:OUTING requires, particularly for reasons of off-wiki harassment. I hope you accept Deacon's invitation to respond appropriately on ANI. --Martin (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a puzzling case. VM is referred to under his old name under a certain Arbcom case. At User talk:Skäpperöd#3o there is an argument about the spelling of Stettin. The issues from the old case still apply to that, so it's hard to ignore them completely. This is true even though the bans from that case have expired. Skäpperöd would be doing everyone a favor if he would use the new name and make only indirect reference to VM's old identity. It appears he refuses to do that. I could imagine a negotiated solution where VM would agree not to participate in naming disputes about German/Polish places and things and Skäpperöd would stop using VM's old name. It's hard to believe either party would agree, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, Ed, putting aside the fact that there's no reason for me to agree to anything here, as I, unlike Skapperod, am not violating any rules or policies nor harassing anyone nor being uncivil, allow me to point out that I'm not actually arguing about the spelling of Stettin, at the article's talk page. Skapperod's outing of me was done in a context of a different dispute - one about the appropriate length of the lede. The two are unrelated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I remember them discussing naming changing as a strategy in the EEML archive, which makes me especially wary of sanctioned users forcing people not to use their old names. But I can't positively say there is no issue, so it comes down to trusting ArbCom to do the right thing if they are given real evidence of good cause. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I see Newyorkbrad has now left a comment at User talk:Skäpperöd#notification. I agree with what he says. Due to the great length of the ANI thread, the Streisand effect has clearly occurred. To avoid further publicity, I'm closing this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2011 (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.

Edit warring again by User:Bijuts

Hi, User:Bijuts was blocked by you earlier for edit warring. The user is still exhibiting same behavior. A detailed report is made here.
Since you have checked him before, you would be knowing the background of his edit behavior. Please help to take appropriate action. Thank you, Samaleks (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your report of this case at AN3 led to semiprotection of Kochi and Kerala. I hope that will be enough for now. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All the Indian notable cities have nick names. Whenever I am trying to add the nick name to Kochi city page with solid references, the User:Samaleks and anonymus ips reverting it without valid arguments. About sock puppetry, nothing to say- you can investigate very well. My ip address is 59.93.43.177. Till date no other user logged through this ip address and till date i logged to wiki only through this ip address.

--Bijuts (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you continue to add nicknames against consensus you may be blocked. It is your job to convince the other editors, and not just continue to revert. Kochi has been semiprotected and IPs will not be able to edit. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All should be neutral regarding all the articles. For eg: the adjective "Evergreen city of India" is used for Trivandrum, "Garden city and Pensioners paradise for Bangalore, "Manchester of India" for Coimbatore etc., in the INTRODUCTION itself. Why coming with arguments against Kochi only? My question is very simple. What is wrong with adding the term "Commercial Capital of Kerala" in the introdction of Kochi page? It is harmful to User:Samaleks and some anonymus ips for unknown reasons. Please go through the talk pages of Kochi and Kerala. All users agreed except the above them. Also see Surat and Gujarat pages in wiki.

--Bijuts (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

email

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.

--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My move request

As I said in the request, we typically don't give the county name, unless more than one exist with the same name. We have Albeşti, Mureş because there's also an Albeşti, Botoşani, Albeşti, Constanţa, Albeşti, Ialomiţa and Albeşti, Vaslui. We have Aluniş, Mureş because there's an Aluniş, Cluj and an Aluniş, Prahova. Găleşti, Mureş because there's a Găleşti, Străşeni in Moldova. And so on. But Acăţari, Adămuş, Apold, Aţintiş, Bahnea, and so on don't include the county name, because there's only one commune with that name. And when there's a village with the same name, it gets a hatnote directing the reader to the parent commune, as at Livezeni. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Elephant Parade

Hi,
I see you deleted the above article back in 2008. As I lack that level of access, would you mind checking to see if the article versions are substantially similar? Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The one deleted in 2008 is about a novel called Elephant Parade: "Elephant Parade is a novel written by Mansur Ahmed. It tells the story of a writer trying to complete his mammoth book, whose ending is evading him, while dealing with an existential crisis." So there is no question of the new article being a G4 recreation. The new 2011 article about the charitable event called Elephant Parade needs to go through its own review. Somebody should leave a {{prodwarning}} for User:Sbcw who created the new article. There has got to be press coverage for a thing that needs the cooperation of multiple cities. The web site for the London event claims that 500 press articles were written. It is so sad that they won't link to them from their website. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

AE case against Atabəy

Before making propositions to ban me, please, pay attention to what Khodabandeh14 writes:

• "It was brought to my attention very recently that my name has been mentioned among the discussions in that list a few times. I take that matter seriously"

This is a clear-cut evidence that he is involved in off-Wiki coordination to target other contributors himself. And again, all of this bad faith for one talk page discussion on Safavid dynasty article. So please, don't make quick conclusions, take a look at history and archives of that article to understand what was involved in prior years. Also accusing or restricting me based on facts that were already judged by AA1 and AA2 does not seem to be fair at all. I only strive for balanced edition of article which reflects consensus position. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Khodabandeh14's case at AE is not presented very well. I had to dig into some of the articles mentioned to figure out what was going on. If you can make any reasonable proposal for how you think consensus could be achieved at Safavid dynasty, I am listening. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My proposal is basic, that since the dynasty originated from Azerbaijan, and used Azerbaijani (Turkish) as the native and court language (with references already contained in the article), Azerbaijani spelling is the only legitimate along with Persian to appear in the front introduction. There is no evidence that either Kurdish or Georgian were ever used as languages of correspondence or any state significance within Safavid empire, at least, Khodabandeh14 cannot produce such ever.

Other proposition suggests excluding "of Iran" from "Safavid dynasty of Iran" in introduction, because Safavids were not a dynasty of nation-state. They were Shiite religious group which sought to create a Shiite State and not only within Azerbaijan or Iran but beyond those lands. Moreover, there are few references that assert that initially state was claimed over Azerbaijan, like: "Ismail went on a conquest campaign, capturing Tabriz in July 1501, where he enthroned himself the Shāh of Azerbaijan" (Richard Tapper. "Shahsevan in Safavid Persia", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1974, p. 324.)

So claiming it's Safavid dynasty of Iran, especially given diverse Safavid background, is like claiming Islamic Caliphate of Iraq or Roman Empire of Italy. And especially because, Khodabandeh14 or other users cannot produce facts that Safavid rulers referred to their country as State of Iran, they referred to it as Safavid state. Iran did not exist as a geographic and political entity for a while before Safavid ascent to the throne. Atabəy (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not requesting a content argument. I am hoping you'll propose something like WP:Third opinion or a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:Third opinion or another form of mediation may be a good option, I was never against it. I can move my content comment above to the Safavid talk page. Atabəy (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to a lengthy WP:CANVAS below by User:Khodabandeh14 who still cannot understand that he is violating fundamental Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT, I do not mind third party mediation in Safavid dynasty article. Atabəy (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the behavioural issue needs to be looked at.. just the example from the google books search issue in AE below is sufficient show of behaviour. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Once more proves my assertion that the AE report by Khodabandeh14 based on hack website of personal mailbox and his already admitted off-Wiki coordination, attempts to target and connect Wikipedia user to a person in real life, in violation of WP:HARASSMENT.

Unlike him, I am not suggesting to block him to get rid of him, but any repeated offense and violation of this policy would result in a permanent ban of the user, while he is being surprisingly tolerated and emboldened. How is any of his bad faith relevant to his content disagreement in Safavid talk page? Atabəy (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, please just note the above comments.. He compares getting a wikipedia email from a concerned user telling me that my name was on a list the same as actually creating a wikipedia coordination group (arbcomm evidence) and canvassing to vote! Infact, I also emailed several admins that their name was on the list as well after I learned about it.. So maybe those admins are also off-wiki coordinating?. And if Ed's name was on those lists I would have emailed him as well! Atabey here is threatening me with a ban. The issue is simple, the main issue is poor behaviour which Atabey was banned from two articles. I do not care about the Safavids article, infact as I said, I will be happy not to edit the mainspace also in the three months (just to show it is not a content argument), but rather the behaviour issue has been going on with the user and not just in Safavids, but in several other articles (he recently accussed Kansas_bear of "Turocophobia"! and accuses me of having an "Allergy to the word Turkic"!, while I was the one that was undoing the vandal ip who removing Turkish on Safavids). This behaviour issue has been going on for a while and needs to stop, with no ifs. It is hard to make a report of this behaviour issue, but a patient admin can clearly see it. 3 month sanction on the specific article and 1rr is more than fair for Atabey. And I will agree to that , given that initially I was seeking permanent ban. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If Khodabandeh14's name was on some hack website of somebody's emailbox (a criminal offense deemed inadmissible in Russian Wikipedia too), what do I, User:Atabəy, have to do with it? Unless Khodabandeh14 is making claim that I am one of the people involved without proof, which is itself a violation of WP:HARASSMENT policy and a severe assumption of bad faith. This has nothing to do with content of Safavid dynasty article. Also, most of the violations that he brought up in his report were covered by WP:ARBAA2 in August 2007. So looks like he is just airing his frustration to get WP:POINT through in Safavid dynasty article. As I said, I am not suggesting to ban him, as this isn't my authority. But anyone repeatedly violating WP:Private correspondence, despite being warned, would probably be subject to a restriction. Atabəy (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Excerpt from WP:Private correspondence:

Private correspondence, such as private e-mails, instant messages, or chats in private IRC channels, should not be posted on Wikipedia without the consent of writer(s). There is no hard-and-fast definition of "private" in this context, but the rule of thumb should be that correspondence is considered private when those engaged in it have a reasonable expectation of privacy, i.e.; communications not originally intended to be public. The posting of private correspondence on Wikipedia may be grounds for blocking or other sanctions. Atabəy (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly puzzling. Atabey claims those converstations are forged (they are not as Russian wikipedia accepted them as evidence).. ) However, the conversations are not "private emails or irc chats" but rather a google groups listserv (so technically part of google) with multiple members and a group name with "wiki" as part of the name. 2) The conversations talk about other users and admins. 3) No real name of person was given online. 4) Russian wikipedia accepted the evidence and 28 users were sanctioned. 5) My proof was submitted to arbcomm 6) I am discussing online behaviour and not the list, however the list was supplemental evidence for arbcomm and it was checked by admins. 7) I did not concentrate on any other user in that list, because those users do not have a behavioural problem on inline wikipedia.. I could care less what they believe in outside of wikipedia although I personally believe ethnic lobbyists should not edit wikipedia as a core philosophy. Having said that, I expect professional online wikipedia editing without soapbox, emotional comments, battle-field mentality (although the list itself shows battle field mentality but I am talking about online aggressive ethnic viewpoint editing which atabey was banned from two articles permnanetly and sanctioned on some more..) and also basic good behaviour. I believe the online evidence behaviour is sufficient for the user to be sanctioned on behavioural issues.

At the same time, I do believe giving users a second chance despite my aversion to some of their words and behaviours. Thus I have changed my request of permanent ban to a one week ban and with permanent 1rr in place for user Atabey for the recent activity and battle-field comments that I have highlighted below. Ed has suggested 3 months with permanent 1rr, but I am just suggesting one week for the user to understand that his behaviour (see below) is outside of wikipedia norms, and violates AA1/AA2 and guidelines. I will simply not edit the article in this 1 week to show that my problem is not with content dispute but the user's behaviour and Ed can see this poor behaviour from the diffs I showed below, 1rr violation as well looking at the archives. This is extremly fair to a user with such a record (bans from articles) who has violateed the main principles of wikipedia is not a battlefield. All this hinges on that afterwards, we will seek mediation on any outstanding issue (assuming one more time that they cannot be resolved in the talkpage and user does not ignore the RS sources and common names) as the mediators I believe will have an easier time in asking that users need RS sources (specialist sources trump others as well) and not personal opinions mixed with emotional ethnic-based POV comments. Also I suggest Ed to be the mediator if he wishes, but if not, I ask to have a very close look, as I will be reporting the slighest non wiki / forum/ soapbox /battle field/ emotionally ethnic comment. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What a "condescending gesture", especially given severe violations of privacy and continuous WP:HARASSMENT by User:Khodabandeh14. His confidence is a result of lenience towards his violations. I dismiss that completely. Let Khodabandeh14 prove that User:Atabəy has anything to do with private correspondence from a hacked emailbox "brought to his attention", or else apologize for WP:NPA. I only agree (always did) to mediation and third opinion efforts in Safavid dynasty, and leave it up to administrator to judge Khodabandeh14's behavior. Atabəy (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is an arbcomm issue and not something relavent to an admins talkpage. I am not allowed to prove/disprove anything here, so if you believe the evidence is madeup, and I believe the evidence is 100% accurate, it does not have any bearing here based on the sufficient examples given on inline behaviour. First note guidelines: "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle." It is up to admins to judge about violation, not you. Per wikipdia gulines which admins explained to me just recently, I am only allowed to send the evidence to arbcomm (just based on one of them) as posting the address and username here is not allowed by guidelines.".

My main concern was how this behaviour manifests itself in Wikipedia, so I am concentrating on inline wikipedia. The inline wikipedia comments are sufficient and Ed Johson can make a fair decision. And as I said, the inline behaviour deserves a sanction and going from permanent (my initial request) or 3 months/1rr (suggested by Ed) to one week/1rr (As a serious warning to the user) is more than fair for a user who has been permenantly banned from similar articles for some of the very same behaviour. My main concern has been bad inline behaviour and I have no interest to further pursue the list that was sent to arbcomm and parrallel Russian list which was a matter of Russian arbcomm. Sufficient examples were given below about inline behaviour which is the main topic of concentration. I believe the inline behaviour shows aggressive ethnic-POV comments and editing, and deserves a sanction (1 week/reinstatement of 1rr as this will demonstrate to the user that the issue is behaviour and not content). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am glad to see that Khodabandeh14 now understands the nature of bad faith, WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT violations in his reporting. I suggest that we put this issue behind without requesting restriction against him, and continue on with mediation in the article. Atabəy (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Again part of bad behaviour by Atabey, and if I had broken any rules, then admins can discern that. However, as noted to me by admins, I may post the off-line wiki-google group to arbcomm which I did. You may disagree with the evidence, and I can even provide more evidence (based on what was accepted on Russian arbcomm), but I am not here to drag more users who have not violated other bad behaviour because of your action. I could care less as my concern now is inline behaviour. Please note the guidelines: "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle." It is up to admins to judge about violation, not you. Per wikipdia gulines which admins explained to me just recently, I am only allowed to send the evidence to arbcomm (just based on one of them) as posting the address and username here is not allowed by guidelines.".
• The issue is inline Wikipedia behavious (the off-line belongs to arbcomm), and I have brought evidence of poor online wikipedia behaviour below. The comments I have cited for EdJohston below on Safavids, or the users very recent accusationof Kansas_Bear as "Turcophobia" or me "having alergy to anything Turkic" is the behaviour that I believe Edjohston should concentrate on. I believe this is sanctionable behaviour and although EdJohston proposed 3 months and permanent 1rr, and I had initially proposed permanent ban, I believe 1 week so that the user stops this sort of behaviour and is given a second chance to understand that wikipedia is not a battle-ground, not a soapbox , not a forum, not a place to not have time to read other user's sources per admission and stricly based on academic WP:RS and the viewpoint of prominent academics in specific field. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

AE case against Atabəy is behaviour issue problem not content

I totally disagree that this is a content dispute. This is a user who is editing based on battle-field mentality. Before I take time to respond to his arguments , please note below that I have listed behavioural problems which are separate from the content argument. The reason that I am listing the content argument is because I have listed it at least 5x but the user ignores it. To see how he ignores it, see the behavioural section below.

Response based on sources..Ed might not want to read this section these have been repeated at least 5x

• • I have brought sources 230+ that uses "Safavid dynasty of Iran" [33] (user just doesn't like it!)
  • I have brought sources 50+ using "Safavid Persian empire" [34] (user just doesn't like it)
  • I have brought WP:RS sources stating that the official state name was Iran. So lets look at Atabey's claim: "users cannot produce facts that Safavid rulers referred to their country as State of Iran, they referred to it as Safavid state. Iran did not exist as a geographic and political entity "
  • Alireza Shapur Shahbazi (2005), "The History of the Idea of Iran”, in Vesta Curtis ed., Birth of the Persian Empire, IB Tauris, London, p. 108: "Similarly the collapse of Sassanian Eranshahr in AD 650 did not end Iranians' national idea.The name "Iran" disappeared from official records of the Saffarids, Samanids, Buyids, Saljuqs and their successor. But one unofficially used the name Iran, Eranshahr, and similar national designations, particularly Mamalek-e Iran or "Iranian lands", which exactly translated the old Avestan term Ariyanam Daihunam. On the other hand, when the Safavids (not Reza Shah, as is popularly assumed) revived a national state officially known as Iran, bureaucratic usage in the Ottoman empire and even Iran itself could still refer to it by other descriptive and traditional appellations". (user doesn't like it).
  • I brought the top Safavid scholar in the world with over 200+ publications (books on article) on Safavid dynasty.. Literally the most important Safavid scholar of all history.
  • RM Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), p. 3. "Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?"

(User doesn't like it).

• • There is no source that in 1501, there was a "state" called Azerbaijan as Azerbaijan is used geographically and Safavid conquered all of Iran.. They started in Azerbaijan in 1501 but by 1510 they had all of

Persia. So the article does not discuss a single year. Atabey is free to write an article about a single year of Safavid empire. However, I have brought RS source stating clearly that Safavids used Iran and officially, something atabey does not have.

• This is also from first hand account traveller (something atabey does not produce and had absolutely no comment on, but rather primary sources are a good way to see if secondary sources are valid).
• Jean Chardin, the traveller to Iran between 1673-1677 provies first hand account of how the inhabitants of Iran called their country: "The Persians, in naming their Country, make use of one word, which they indifferently pronounce Iroun, and Iran; ...Even to this very Day, the King of Persia is call'd Padcha Iran(King of Iran), and the Great Vizier, Iran Medary, the Pole of Persia. This is the Modern Appelation, the most in Use in that Country. That which they frequently make use of in the Second Place, is the Term Fars, which is the particular Name of the Province; the Metropolis of which, in ancient Days, was Persepolis, and which gave its Name to All Province of the Kingdom, and the Seat of its Monarch. This Word Fars, to signify Persia, is very ancient; and the Persians still call the Old Language of their Country, which was in use before the Days of Mahometanism, Saboun Fours, the Tonge of Persia"... (John Chardin, Sir John Chardin Travels in Persia, 1673-1677 (New York: Dover, 1988- pp 126). Also available in google books (page 126: [35] (John Chardin, Sir John Chardin Travels in Persia, 1673-1677 (New York: Dover, 1988) Note " Padcha Iran" is French version of Padishah-e Iran (Great King of Iran), Iran Medary is the French pronounciation of Iran-Madaar (Axis of Iran), and Saboun Fours is the French pronouncation of Persian tongue "Zaboon-e Farsi".)

• All these sources are simply ignored by the user because he has a problem with WP:RS (230+) of them using a term. This is because he is editing with an ethnic POV mindset. These sources have been repeated at least 5x times but see below on how the user ignores it.
  • Note this is an English Encyclopaedia and common terms are in the introduction (even if users don't like it). If "Safavid dynasty of Iran" is used in 230+ google books (scholarly sources) and Safavid Persia/Iran used close to a 10000 times combined (note with double quotes and not disparate) , the user cannot make OR and say "I don't like it" per actually invalid reasons. Basically we list common terms per guidelines.
  • as per "was brought to my attention very recently that my name has been mentioned among the discussions in that list a few times. I take that matter seriously".. no I was wikipedia emailed and there is no off-wikipedia coordination. My username is there in Wikipedia and someone can find it and send me an email. My email has been listed various times. Emailing a wikipedia user is not off-line wikipedia coordination where users conspire to vote in groups (as Atabey did on Safavid). In actuality, the information on the list was posted several times in English wikipedia by other users and I found it about it through reading discussions about it (in AE), but I never knew that my name was on it until recently, since I do not speak Russian.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Behavioural issue, Ed please read this section

• And note this is totally a behavioural issue

These are some recent examples:

1. 25 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "It is noteworthy that the two sides engaged in this edit conflict were always one side (like myself), which was and is open to incorporation of any referenced material to provide a breath of knowledge in the article, and another side, which prefer to write pages of emails with selective references to either deny Turkish identity or disassociate it from dynasty, push POV that dynasty was Iranian/Persian/Kurdish anything but unrelated to Turks or Azeris, when the founding king used the language as his mother tongue"

• Here Atabəy is describing me as "writing pages of email with selective referencing" whereas I have consistently said that we need to include all sources about the Safavids. What I said is this: "So the only person that has been actually working to make sure all sources are included in the article is me, because I have absolutely no problem with any RS source that is specific to the Safavids written by Safavid scholars(Roemer, Mathee, Savory, Minorsky, etc.). "[36]

1. 28 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "Now, Kasravi held neo-fascist views, so his fringe Hitleristic theories about everybody having "Aryan stock" are not scholarly.".

• We should note that Kasravi's usage of Aryan here means indo-Iranian and had nothing to with Hitler. Atabəy fully knows this concept, but brings up hitler to enflame the discussion as Hitler has nothing to with an article about 500 years ago. I should note the theory of Kasravi is reviewed by several respect scholars (Roger Savory, Vladimir Minorsky) and accepted. What does Hitler have to do with the Discussion except for Atabey making comments that are emotional outburts?

1. 28 April, 2011 Atabəy (talk · contribs): "Khodabandeh, I don't have to read pages of selective sourcing that you like posting in talk pages.",

• This not only violates WP:NPA, but the references I posted are from well known Safavid scholars and I asked Atabəy to incorporate them into his suggestions for change in the introduction. Furthermore, I have said repeteadly that we need to look at wikipedia guidelines on the introductatory names, and until that is done, we should include all relavent names and all possible alphabets (Persian, Azeri-Turkish, Kurdish and Georgian). One should note my method has been all inclusive because of what I see is a lack of clear guidelines about Wikipedia foreign names. For example, Safavids were of Kurdish origin, so I thought Kurdish might be relavent. Their land line of Kings had mainly Georgian blood and mothers.. I asked Atabey to provide not OR but wikipedia guidelines on relavent foreign names before removing it. He did not. His arguments had nothing to do with any wikipedia guidelines and were very arbitrary.

1. 21 April 2011, even when adding a simple template, the user makes such a comment (which shows a battlefield mentality if you are familiar with his edits): "as much relevance to Azerbaijan Wikiproject as it is to Iran one".

• This might seem like a harmless comment, but there is no need to mention "Iran" here, and I believe is a aspect of the violation of wikipedia is not battlefield which has been going on for a long time in the article. You can totally see it from this comment that the user is in the battle-field mode of writing.

Simple, the user ignores references.. He doesn't like 230+ references that use "Safavid dynasty of Iran"...and or the many RS sources I brought. We are talking about Safavid empire in the span of 250 years not one year when they controlled Azerbaijan only, the user is free to create a separate article about that one year if he likes. So this is totally a behavioural issue with a user. This was the same reason he was banned from two other articles , see the exact description why he was banned from two articles. It is not the first time. And if you look at the talkpage, I was the only one that has suggested mediation many times, however the behavioural issue has to be addressed. Its not just in Safavid articles, the user makes emotionally charged comments on calling others anti-X or anti-Y. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Even behavioural issue in AE, Ed please read this Section

Ed, Just to give you a glimpse of the behaviour I had to deal with. [37] See this comment from Atabey on the AE[38] : "Google Books search for "Safavid dynasty of Azerbaijan" returns over 2,980 references,another more specific search for "Azerbaijani Safavid Dynasty" returns 4630 references, including 7 specific ones to expert scholars like R.G. Suny or a combination of scholars who developed country study summaries for the Federal Research Division. But no, Doostzadeh/Khodabandeh is more "expert" than those, claiming that this dynasty was only that of Iran, when the official name of state was "Dowlat-e Safaviyya" (State of Safavids)."

• Note first the total WP:NPA attack : "But no, Doostzadeh/Khodabandeh is more "expert" than those" and the emotional soapbox comments. The user does not even know if I agree/disagree and what would the reason for disagreement/agreement. But more importantly: and please pay attention this this:
• Ed, please note that "Safavid dynasty of Azerbaijan" has zero hits in google books. [39]. He calls it 2980 references. This is like my saying "Safavid dynasty of America" [40] gets 1800! hits because I do not put the double quotes for the exact search term. Note the user is totally aware of the double quotes, since he state: """Azerbaijani Safavid dynasty" according to him gets 7 "specific" hits""" ... However, he can't admit that "Safavid dynasty of Iran" gets 230+ specific hits [41] and is a title of new books even. Non-specific hits does not even account for using a term.. It is like finding three terms in each chapter of the book and claiming it is used by scholars!! Note "Safavid dynasty of Persia" also gets 247+ hits [42]. "Safavid Iran" and "Safavid Persia" are actually title of some very highly known academic books and get more than 10000+ specific hits[43][[44].
• I consider anything that is used by 100+ scholarly sources as common name that needs to also be in the introduction. So the user in order to show that he cannot accept common terms, does not put the specific double quotes in the google books which misleads the admins. So if I get 1800+ hits for Safavid dynasty of America without putting double quotes it is not the same as getting zero hits when I do put "Safavid dynasty of America"!! Atabey is totally aware of this fact (admits specific quote), but he would rather make the comment above" "But no, Doostzadeh/Khodabandeh is more "expert" than those"!
• It is extremly hard to point out all these behavioural issues for unaware users/admins but this is just one of them as noted from the AE discussion. As per "official state" name, I brought WP:RS source which states that one of the state names was Iran, but Atabey as he said: "Has no time for my selective writing"!! where-as he did not produce a single WP:RS source that explicitly talks about "official name". But he keeps repeating the same point.. Note how many times I have repeated some of the same sources, but not a single comment from Atabey. See the talk archives.
• This is exactly why he was banned from editing two articles (see the reason for the ban, it will tell you why).
• This is totally a behavioural issue with the user. The off-line wikipedia evidence also shows characteritically why the user is editing this way (battle-field mentality). But people are free to believe in whatever, what is important is to not edit with ethnic POV push in articles and you noted exactly what I have mentioned by reading the talkpage and the 1rr.
• This behavioural issue needs to be seriously addressed and I brought enough of it from recent evidence (both removing foreign names as well as the talkpage comments where he explicitly states he has no time for reading the sources I bring). The arbcomm evidence shows wiki offline coordination on the specific article. Note the reason for one of the bans: "Atabəy (talk · contribs), formerly Atabek (talk · contribs), banned indefinitely from Principality of Khachen, its talkpage, and Sahl Smbatean + its talkpage per [101]. Moreschi (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)" "*Atabəy (talk · contribs)'s editing at Talk:Principality of Khachen and Talk:Sahl Smbatean is classic tendentious editing. He comes back many months after the last dispute ended pushing the same rejected arguments as he did previously. " --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC).
• So I think the three month ban on the Safavid talkpage and article, reinstating 1rr is more than fair considering this is not the first time! but hopefully it will be the last time that such behavioural issues are raised. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ed, I saw you marked the article now, does it mean that I may not comment on DYK nomination for it either? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. Thank you for checking. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for quick clarification. I will not comment on DYK for this article. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please remove your comments from my talk page.

I'm the user who recently left wikipedia and made contributions on the Mortenson article. (Lgmagone)

LHB1239 left some comments on my page signed with your name instead of his own. Can you remove them? As I no longer have a wikipedia account, the filter prevents me from deleting them. They're unnecessary and I don't want them there...feel free to clear out anything else that might be appropriate. 98.203.237.77 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. He is just quoting something I said on another page. I hope you will reconsider your departure. There were a few rough spots but I'm sure you could continue. If your desire is to blank your old talk page, let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please blank my page. (After I posted my comment on your page, LHB went back and fixed what he wrote on my page. What I saw earlier wasn't a quite, it made it sound like it came from you. Regardless, I don't want it there.) 98.203.237.77 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

AE close

Hello Ed. I asked several questions on AE (diff), though you may not have seen them. Could you please answer them? I'd like to have these things clarified for the future. Also, do you not think it appropriate to give Brocollo a formal notification of the ARBPIA case? Thanks, nableezy - 21:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is best if the addition of ARBPIA notices to article talk pages is only done by admins. It is not possible to give Broccolo a warning because he didn't violate anything. (Arbcom wants there to be evidence that a warning is justified; warnings are issued for misbehavior). There was no 1RR in place, and the article was created by someone under an I-P topic ban on the theory that an article could be created without violating that. It was considered to be an 'economics' topic. That turned out to be a bad idea. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A notification is not a warning, in fact the notification text specifically says this message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem and then Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning. But if you decline to issue the notification that is fine, ill-judged in my opinion given the user was using the lack of notification as a defense, but fine by me. I think you answered my question, mostly, about when an article falls under a 1RR. But just to clarify, is it just the notice on the talk page, or should there also be an edit notice on the article? If I, or another user, finds that such notices are missing from articles where we feel they should belong, what should we do? Contact a random admin, a regular at AE, or what? nableezy - 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If the article already has an ARBPIA banner, I wouldn't object if someone else added an editnotice. I think such notices are only needed for very contentious articles. We are stuck with the paradox of notices and warnings for a while. I think Arbcom is about to revise their Procedure document, and we'll see what that says. I used to give out notices more freely to participants in AE complaints if I thought they were part of the problem, but I understand that is no longer done. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to nag, but you missed one question. If a user sees an article that should be covered that has no talk page notice, what should that user do? Notify any admin, an AE regular, make a request at WT:AE? nableezy - 00:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You probably should ask an admin. Be ready to explain how that article is part of the "..entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. nableezy - 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sidenotes for EdJohnston

I actually brought this up not too long ago and at least one admin has opined (I believe correctly) that the notification is not in line with WP:ARBPIA's Final decision, Remedies, 1.1:

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

As far as I can tell, "notification" isn't even required per a strict interpretation of the final decision. Although it is not common and the template has changed precedent, editors are to be counseled and not simply "notified". But since editors are policing themselves and have a tendency to disregard infractions by those they agree with we are stuck with a common admin base that, IMO, has turned cynical and is bored with actually trying to encourage better editing through any other process but sanctions. I do not know if this is a bad thing or not.

The General 1RR restriction under Further remedies could be contrary to the original decision with:

Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

but it looks like common practice is to focus on the "may" and that the judgement that allowed for swift blocks was in response to rampant sock puppetry and edit warring.

No, Nableezy, I am not stalking you but I have this guy's talk page on my watchlist and am very interested in the dynamics of AE since it shapes behavior and those editing within the topic area. But my opinion for you EJ is that most admins do not have a standard practice at AE and it causes confusion which is never actually clarified.Cptnono (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There's more than one issue here. Someone can be blocked for a 1RR violation even if they have never received a logged notification under the case. This is not a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You mention "notification". See the above comment.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

one more question please

Hi Ed, I have one more question please, sorry to bother you. I would have asked my banning admin instead, but he indicated on his talk page that his on wiki time is limited now. So, may I please ask you, if under my topic ban I am allowed to write an article about medieval Jewish poet, who between other things wrote erotic poems about Arab girls? I am asking you this question because an user questioned, if I did not violate my topic ban while writing such articles as Encyclopedia of Pleasure and Sayyida al Hurra of course the latest was written a few week before my ban, but who cares, right?

So this time before starting an article about medieval Jewish poet, who wrote erotic poems about Arab girls, I'd like to clear it with you please. If the permission is granted I would write this article in my user space and present it for your review before it is moved to mainspace, if you'd like me to.

Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you see if Gatoclass is OK with it. It sounds like it still has potential to ignite national disputes at WT:DYK. If DYK gets all out of joint nobody will be happy. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Ed, but I will not ask Gatoclass. He's an involved administrator. I will ask Sandstein instead, if you do not mind.Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear why Gatoclass is an involved administrator. I would value his opinion because he objected to your last article, believing that it violated the I-P ban. It turns out that the last article eventually ran into I-P trouble anyway. If this happens again, it won't suggest good judgment on your part. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Gato is involved because of this definition of involvement, and that is precisely why he objected my last article that BTW was supported by at least 3 uninvolved editors. If he were not involved, he would have commented in the section designated for uninvolved admins on AE requests, would he not?

About my poor judgment in writing my last article... Well, yes, but who knew it would end up like this? The vast majorities of the reviews of the book say either nothing at all about the conflict or say a word or two.

Ed, may I please ask you to accept my apology for my poor judgement in the writing of my last article? My poor judgement took your time and the time of others. I should have known better, shouldn't I? I believe I deserve to be blocked for writing this article, and for exercising a poor judgment. Would you block me please? I really need to be taught a lesson at last! But may I please ask you to reduce the time of my block for my honest admission of my guilt? I am not being sarcastic. I mean it. I feel as 2/0 trusted me, and I failed his trust. I assure you, it was not a bad faith attempt to evade my ban. I simply wanted to improve wikipedia, to add a good article about an interesting book, but the things got out of control, so I guess it was my fault after all.

Back to my new article. Ed, I honestly cannot imagine any situation how an article about Jewish poet, who was born in Spain somewhere in 1247 could end up being even remotely related to I/P conflict, do you? I only asked you because as I explained above there was at least one user, who questioned a possibility of my topic ban violation for writing an article about a pirate-queen, a brave woman, a woman any people should be proud to have in their history. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that Mbz made a commitment to me just a few days ago to consult with me regarding any articles she authored during her topic ban if she had doubts about whether or not the content fell under ARBPIA. Now here she is, a few days later, asking another admin to vet her articles because "Gatoclass is an involved administrator". I'd be interested to know why she has apparently chosen to walk away from her commitment, which was made on the basis that I would not oppose promotion of the article in question on the grounds that it violated her ban, a commitment I have kept. Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Only because I do not believe that an article about Jewish poet who lived in middle twelve hundred is part of ARBPIA, do you, Gato?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if you're sure it doesn't fall under your ban, why are you requesting an opinion from both Sandstein and Ed? Why did you say you won't ask me because I am an "involved administrator"? If you've made an agreement with someone, you should stick to it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help. You're a good boy. Again sorry for the problem but... are 35 years of teaching. My bibliography (Texts university): " Giulio Clovio was an Italian painter " Again sorry. Greetings. --Davide41 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Debresser continues

Maybe you can speak to Debresser nicley and tell him to stop continuing his editing before concensus on the issue has been reached? [45], [46], [47], [48], (these edits made as soon as his topic banned had ended.) Chesdovi (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye on an editor behavior?

Hello Ed. I just want to let this message as a sign of my awarness and the start of a bullying/harassing attitute of editor User:08OceanBeach SD. We have recently had a disagreement in the article Americas in which he was prevented (by a majority of 5 to 1) to introduce some changes that were seen as pushy or plainly inadecuate. However I clearly identified that as a boosterism effort towards Brazil.

He kept ignoring the majority, kept reverting the article to have it his way and even dared to threaten me about 3RR (while he was doing the same![49]). Well, the dispute seems to be resolved now but today I found this [50][51] a clear childish attitute of him as a "revenge mode". He is aware of my and other editor's problems with this obscure term and now he's just using it to provoke. That's highly uncivil.

His attitude will lead to another edit war and seems very willingly provoking. He has never edited such articles nor introduced changes such as those. He's clearly just doing that as a way to express his frustration and as a way of retalliation. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems the two of you are negotiating now. I hope that is a success. Some of the language you used was over the top. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi Ed, may I please ask you to revoke my reviewer's rights? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mailness

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.

betsythedevine (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do (and refrain) as you suggest. betsythedevine (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

<--

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

Hope this is ok but I have a different question. betsythedevine (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Response

Ed, you are right sir and I've removed my gratuitous comment. Thanks for watching out and doing your job. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Giulio Clovio again

Sorry for all this nonsense. Luciano di Martino is now adding a long diatribe and insults to the talkpage:Talk:Giulio Clovio. I did a google search. There is no Professor Luciano di Martino at any American University. There's a music conductor, but I have no idea if this is the same person or not. I suspect these are entirely false claims of expertise. Same thing Davide41 did actually. Having to deal with these (Personal attack removed) is really trying. They continually misrepresent the literature and there's not much of a discussion possible. I am losing my patience and have a hard time staying civil when confronted with such people. I may bow out of the "discussions" for a while. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Idiots ? Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Davide41 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You sure have a lot of nerve bringing up personal attacks. Considering the insults I have received, you should not be surprised I loose my patience at some point. After being told my comments are "ravings" and further continued insults you should take a close look at your own behavior before approaching others about theirs. --AnnekeBart (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Shame --Davide41 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope that's an expression of what you feel at this point, anything else would be a case of unbelievable of hypocrisy.[52] (ravings?),[53] (Hallucinating dilettante episode), [54] Or the charming little putdowns [55] ("ask your teachers"; really? Talk to others as children now?)

Not to mention this "charming" little tidbit from your buddy Luciano [56]

Yes, I would loose my temper. I would have to be a saint not to ...

Sorry EdJohnston for mucking up your talkpage with this kind of stuff! --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the removal of the text Ed. You may want to take a look at Davide's talkpage. There's a whole section now aimed at me. [57] I hope you understand where my frustration is coming from at this point --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Luciano di Martino has now been blocked per the 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston! Hopefully things can get back to normal now. --AnnekeBart (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban question

Hi Ed, May I please ask for your permission to comment on AfD request and maybe to add some more sources to this old article of mine that was just nominated for deletion? This article is not about I/P conflict, but it does mention Israel a few times. Of course I will respect your decision whatever it is going to be. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Abraham Reuel falls under ARBPIA. You should be able to participate in the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

One more topic ban question

Hi Ed, I have bothered you a lot lately, haven't I? Sorry about that. May I please ask for your permission to write an article about Israeli emergency bandages? user:Gatoclass has approved my request, and user:2over0 said "probably", requested more info ,and promised to get back to me by the "next weekend", but the "next weekend" came and went, and... So here, I am asking you. Thank you for considering my request.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that 2over0 has now replied. His answer should be the one to follow. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello. Do you know is there a superior/higher instance to which i could try and appeal regarding the sanction imposed on me? I regard that the case wasn't sufficiently examined, and that was ruled upon even with predisposition - presumably because of predilection towards me being "POVed". This appears as impartiality in arbitration on your behalf, especially when considering some other editors' comments regarding the arbitration in question at the very case's discussion and at response to third opinion request at the Kosovo article's discussion page. I specifically wish to acknowledge your hastiness, therefore thoughtlessness, and all in all, arrogance - in my opinion. Because of that i will protest against first two of those displayed characteristics, i noticed and mentioned. The third characteristic of yours, which i noticed regarding this case, is up to you and you only. Why am i being so harsh - because you ended the discussion regarding the arbitration of this case without answering my question where the discussion should continue. Now, according to your ruling i am forbidden to comment even to talk pages with touch the Kosovo topic. This i find very inappropriate and even more damaging. And that damaging not just for me. With sincere hope that this issue will be resolved soon, have my regards, --biblbroks (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You have three options for appeal:

1. You can ask me, as the closing admin
2. You can file a Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal at WP:Arbitration enforcement
3. You can appeal to Arbcom

I'm willing to listen to your request to have the ban lifted. The rationale for your ban is here. If you are willing to make some assurances about your editing about Kosovo in the next three months, the ban might be reconsidered. In the original WP:AE request, I was concerned you were not taking the matter seriously; for example, "you simply have to choose whether to trust me or not."

Literally, no, we don't have to trust you. We can wait to see if you will make reasonable assurances about editing within policy, and then see whether a sanction is needed. Your responses were hard to understand. They suggested not only a language barrier, but that you weren't understanding the rules about editing in contentious ethnic areas. You also made very long posts on talk pages, which is something that is often a trademark of WP:POV editing. Extremely diplomatic editing is needed, and a willingness to patiently work with others to agree on compromise wording. If your position could be clarified, we might get somewhere. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Literally, you are right - as far as your statement is concerned. You personally don't have to trust me. As neither of any other wikipedians and/оr Wikipedians - or "wikipedianesses" and/or "Wikipedianesses" for that matter - have to trust me. But you personally (as well as any other person for that matter) had - and have to - _choose_ whether to trust me. Or not. And i stated that. And i believe i stated it very clearly. I admit that this statement of mine was given in a moment of exasperation, and this i believe was the product of a topic ban for me being even requested at all. Although i understand and admit i acted rather hastily when excluding de, bs and la interwikis, so a topic ban might be formally justified when considering that change of mine. Truly, maybe not just formally, but i too can be enthusiastic - even then, can i? So there does lie my mistake, but not in many more other places - i strongly believe.
• As for you, as far as i can tell, you did chose _not_ to trust me. And that even before discussing the matter properly. This was when you were claiming: "We need to be assured that he.... will stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV". I apologize for taking the liberty to freely excerpt words from your wordings, but i think your message was and is still clear - and that is that you chose not to trust me. Why, because your claim represents hastiness in giving your opinions, which on the other hand represents insufficiency of thoughtfulness on your behalf - all in the case in matter: arbitration regarding a topic ban on me. Why: because i believe you haven't considered the discussion at Kosovo article enough.
• Also, if my responses were hard to understand, that can't be simply my fault only - perhaps you should have invested some additional effort and "perspect" the thing from a different perspective - than i understand you did perspect. It appears to me that you didn't invest that additional effort - be your own judge for yourself whether you did or not. And everything what you claimed about policies, potential language barriers, perceived long posts, etc, is very well known to me and even more clearly understood by me. So bear in mind that in that highly "contentious ethnic area" - as you call it and as i may agree with you to call it (but currently i am not keen to agree with you even on few things) - well, in that Kosovo article as well as Kosovo article discussion, i remained (and that i very strongly believe) very neutral or to the least i managed to be so very neutral that it was evident to many contributors. But, but when examining the courtesy i exercised in the discussion comparing to some other editors' manners - to some editors' manners involved in the dispute in matter - so when examining the level of my courtesy, well i honestly believe that you had a complete failure. I believe my courtesy was unequaled - or to be completely fair - unequaled as compared to some other editors' manners. That is not all of course, but unequaled to some editors' manners. That courtesy (if true, or at least, if verified as such) could demonstrate a very high level of tact and diplomacy on my behalf. Tact and diplomacy which you claim is needed in that willingness you mention. That's for my willingness. As for your willingness, i will state lastly and only two things more. Firstly, I think my position is very clear now, and if you still think that the option which you numbered with 1. isn't viable, i will certainly try my luck with other options. Secondly, I hope you will reconsider _your_ position since:

1. i don't think my luck will betray me with my position, but i am not certain about yours with your _current_ position,
2. and because i believe in your good faith.

Trust me, that comment about your luck wasn't meant as any kind of threat, but a mere expression of utter exhaustion that such long posting of mine was perceived as needed at all. Good luck to you, --biblbroks (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me there's an appeal in there somewhere? I was hoping for some assurances for the future, if you were to resume editing on Kosovo. Note this comment which was made in the original AE thread: "We need to be assured that he will follow 1RR in the future, will stop adjusting the interwiki links and will stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV." I would also add now "will agree not to make changes that could be contentious without getting consensus first on the talk page." Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope i don't understand your pardon. I think you understood what i was trying to say with "you did chose _not_ to trust me ... when you were claiming ....we need to be assured that he will ...stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV." Where in those words was neutral arbitration? That is my question to you - as direct as i IMNSHO think it can be. Why - because i find that you weren't able to read between the lines of my appeal. Because if you still think that you were arbitrating neutrally and on the other hand almost at the same time claiming that i was editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV, i think you should carefully think again. If you have already thought over, than give me an example of my edits to Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV. I think that at least this i deserve. Because i still hope i don't have to explain what was my appeal about. You were pleading to me for telling you that there was an appeal there somewhere - or where you just sarcastic? Since i believe it is the second possibility that is true, i will plead no more (if i were pleading at all) - i don't think you deserve to be pleaded to. For now. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind this case. All I'm asking is that you'll agree to those four things:

1. Observe 1RR/week in the future on all articles related to Kosovo
2. Not modify any interwiki links on articles related to Kosovo
3. You will try to ensure strict political neutrality for any edits you make to Kosovo-related articles
4. You won't make any controversial changes without first getting consensus on the talk page.

The deal is that you would observe these limitations for three months. If you agree, I will lift the ban from Kosovo-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the revert limit above to 1RR/week, since that is the current limit for all editors at Kosovo. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD's AE discussion

Hi Ed, you have been doing a mavellous job of corralling the admins to comment on this case, but I do wonder why you haven't offered any comment yourself. Having been involved in past AE cases falling within the scope of "Eastern Europe" you might have saved some discussion on matters such as to whether this case actually falls within the same scope. --Martin (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am eager to see this case closed. The numerical !vote of admins is against the ban, so in my opinion all that is left is a matter of wording. I would like to see the interested admins make a deal if necessary, but get it over with. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well some of the admins opposing any remedy appear to be operating under the misapprehension that this is unrelated to EE. TFD's has been warned time and again before, and it seems evident that he will again be given yet another warning. Having backed down and offered to replace TFD's topic ban with a warning, some admins are even disputing Fred's wording of this warning. I sure hope this apparent lenience on TFD has been worth the apparent impact on Fred caused by this lack of support. --Martin (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

AE can't solve all problems. TFD's atttitude regarding Lia Looveer attracted a bunch of criticism, but it's not clear that it is bad enough to deserve sanctions under DIGWUREN. RFC/U is available to those who feel the issues with his editing are not sufficiently addressed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ed, I echo Martin's sentiments. I was disappointed that the situation was viewed as

• the same-old same old, and
• a joke about someone who doesn't deserve an article anyway and that making out someone of Baltic heritage to be a Nazi in Wikipedia content when there is no reliable source for same is no big deal, and
• unrelated to the EE dispute when all editors who showed up have strong POV's regarding Russia right or Russia wrong on its version of Baltic history.

Frankly I found the dismissive wave of the collective admin hand troubling. Not treating the matter seriously is going to encourage further aggression against content and editors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling your finger out and resolving this. After effectively serving a ten day topic ban I hope TFD finally gets the message and returns to more productive editing. --Martin (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation!

Re [58]: You're a brave man and an unusually useful human being! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur. That action required some guts. (Igny (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC))

No guts required, just a brain. --Martin (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Is already under 1RR -- and, absent vandal edits from IPS, I do not see any actual reason for semi-protection there. One editor who has complained has also weighed in on SPI accusations which were not well-founded, and I would suggest the rationale that he thinks all IPs who disagree with his POV are socks is insufficient. Cheers. BTW, you might also look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Lia_Looveer to see the nature of the colloquy involved. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP is probably a sockpuppet of blocked User:Marknutley/User:Tentontunic.

Your record at SPI is a teensy bit poor, alas. Collect (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Both editors used dynamic IPs from England to edit-war and exceed 1RR over the POV tag on this article. TFD (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of where the IP came from, he broke the 1RR restriction. He also reverted the neutrality tag while making no appearance on the article's talk page. If anyone believes this is Tentontunic, they are welcome to open an SPI. Hopefully the semiprotection takes away most of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually a block on the IP is sufficient. The accusations cover a substantial number of UK ISPs <g>, which made the accusation that they are all one person quite unlikely. In fact, an IP in Portugal was accused, and now one in Hong Kong. A50000 was also accused - so far the accused IPs have not been MarkNutley AFAICT. So we have an article semi-protected due to a handful of edits TFD dislikes (sigh). Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See the archives for WP:OP. mark nutley btw admitted using IPs. TFD (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Managing never to use one you IDed with any evidence at all? Like from Hong Kong, Portugal and three different British ISPs? I rather think that the "boy who cried 'sock' at SPI" is a new fable for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue for this thread is whether semiprotection is a good idea. Since the focus has moved elsewhere, so should this discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you help please?

Hi Ed, you have dealt with user:Ohiostandard on my behalf already, but the user still continues to hound my contributions and assume a bad faith. You remember that when you asked the user to reconsider its unwarranted language about me, the user responded to you with rather long [...], in which it named an article that I wrote more than a year ago as being under-sourced. The user found this article while hounding over my contributions, and I am 100% sure of it. Then user:Roscelese saw the mention of this article at user:Ohiostandard's talk page, and nominated it on deletion. Both users took a great effort to delete the article. If you are to look at the history of AfD you will see that user:Ohiostandard made 30 edits on it, more than any other editor did, but that comment is way too much. In that comment user:Ohiostandard is quoting the comment made by user:Roscelese at my DYK nomination: "Oh look, one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again to approve a severely flawed article. Fancy that." and than adds from itself: "Also, it seems relevant to observe, since the fact hasn't been mentioned previously: As was also the case when Hodja Nasreddin showed up and supported her previously, Mbz1 is the creator of this article".

Ed,user:Hodja Nasreddin is not my buddy, actually quite the opposite. May I please ask you to take a look at only two most recent communications of me with user:Hodja Nasreddin #1 and #2. Do they look like communications of buddies to you? But even, if user:Hodja Nasreddin were my "buddy", does it mean that they should not vote on AfD only because I am the author of the article? Ed, to me the conduct of user:Ohiostandard as I described it here, and in our email exchange that includes hounding and making a false accusations is the worst type of harassment. From my own sad experience I know that if I am not dealing with the false accusations on the spot eventually they are used to make me unfairly sanctioned. May I please ask you to impose an absolutely equally applied interaction ban between user:Ohiostandard and me, or if you would not do it, could you please tell me how to deal with such users? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have been clashing with Ohiostandard and Roscelese due to matters which originated at DYK. We expect that editors who often participate at DYK will be skilled at working with others to find consensus. Please employ your diplomatic skills to settle the current matters. Your message does not mention anyone violating any Arbcom restrictions. You must be aware that the possibility of tag-team approvals at DYK has been floated, though I don't know how valid the complaint was. With a good approach, you could work these things out without constantly resorting to admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What tag-team approvals of DYK are you talking about? I was not even talking about a bad faith decline of my absolutely valid DYK by Roscelese. I was talking about a bad faith comment by Ohiostandard at AfD concerning an article I started.I was talking about this comment. Where is DYK tag-teaming approval here?

Who said that interaction bans should be used only if somebody violating Arbcom restrictions? Have I said somebody violated Arbcom restriction? I was talking about persisting hounding + false accusations = harassment by Ohiostandard, and asked for your help.

Any differences of me "constantly resorting to admins" please? (highlighted by me)

Your comment is more than unhelpful. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past I helped you because your topic ban kept you from taking certain steps that are open to regular editors. It is hard for me to see any difficulties here, in your new request, that are not the kind of thing you could negotiate yourself. I did see a complaint that Broccolo was approving a lot of your DYKs at WT:DYK#Articles in contentious topic areas: "we have a COI problem with users who belong to a particular political faction attempting to verify articles submitted by their ideological buddies." A situation like that is eminently within your control, and you shouldn't need any help from me to arrive at a solution. The comments by Ohiostandard and Roscelese that you included above seem to be a follow-on to that dispute, which I'm not closely following. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I hope that you'd agree that it is not a good practice to talk about something that from your own words you are "not closely following". It is anyway as talking about something that you know nothing about.

Ed, what Broccolo has to do with user:Hodja Nasreddin? In case you did not notice they are two different editors. Do you believe that anybody who approves my DYK could be called my buddy? Really?

When was the last time Broccolo approved my DYK?

How many times user:Hodja Nasreddin approved my DYK?

What this article Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler story has to do with "contentious topic areas",and what " particular political faction" it belongs to?

What this article Reuel Abraham has to do with "contentious topic areas",and what " particular political faction" it belongs to?

If I am being harassed am I allowed to ask for the help by an admin only at the matter that is covered by my unfair topic ban? What steps should I be taking? In the past I tried to talk to both users, but in response I got only more trolling well, should not use the right word, but not sure what word to use instead.

What the disgusting AfD comment made by Ohiostandard has to do with tag-teaming of DYK?

Ohiostandard behavior around this AfD, Ed, notice, not DYK, AfD, has been disgusting all over, and now after AfD was closed the user goes on at the closing admin talk page.

Once again your comment is unhelpful. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls

Just to let you know that I posted to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls & User:Westbankfainting before you protected the page.

I am not sure that the page should be protected as I am not sure that the whole "Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls" is really a notable event and am still considering sending it to WP:AfD on the grounds of that. Mtking (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to ANI. I'd be surprised if you can convince people this event is not notable. Check the reference list: Time, CS Monitor, New York Times, etc. But getting the article correct won't be a simple matter. If you are considering AfD, why not wait until the protection expires. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As you suggested, I did post a request at WP:RSN. Thanks for your very constructive help and feedback concerning the article. betsythedevine (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Harassment and censorship

You warned me this way

Please be aware that nationalist edit-warring about famous people who seem to have both Croatian and Italian connections is not new on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee has handled similar cases in the past. If you continue your program of 'Italianization' you will most likely be warned under WP:ARBMAC, which covers nationalist editing on topics related to the Balkans. This could lead to a permanent ban from your making any edits in this topic area. If you hope to be here long term, please listen to feedback and work with others. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

then you blocked me for, as you say, 'you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring.'

• There is no my program of 'Italianization'. Giulio Clovio was an Italian painter and his place of birth was dutifully mentioned. That's a scholar attitude valid across the academic community worldwide. Here the 'Italian' attribute is used purely academically: Clovio belonged to the Italian medieval civilization and culture.

• I was not involved in any edit warring. My reverts, questions and clarifications were support to prof David's academic approach to this biography. Also, edit warring if existing has at least two sides. Selecting one arbitrarily, as you did, is a harassment.

• Giulio Clovio was not "Julije Klovic" no matter which "references" might be used. To understand this, you have to have proper knowledge and academic background. Entering such nonsense only harms Wikipedia's credibility. Good insight into the "name" problem is given by me on the article talk page.

• The other participants in this discussion used words "professor", idiot, then baseless disqualifications of my and prof. David's academic credentials. How come that such people are not warned and blocked for that behavior? How come that you do not see it or you do not want to see it?

• Why you are not paying attention to the fact that AnnekeBart and Philosopher12 are falsely referencing books in order to support false claims?

• As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability, 'Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.'. So, please, do that here.

--Luciano di Martino (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You reverted the article on Giulio Clovio three times. The case was reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive157#User:Luciano di Martino reported by User:AnnekeBart (Result: 72h, ARBMAC). In arriving at a decision to block your account, I was most influenced by your removal of the following reference from the article:

• John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans: a study of identity in pre-nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the medieval and early-modern periods, University of Michigan Press, 2006, p 195 Google Books.

This is a modern scholarly reference (2006) which is surely going to be helpful to editors working on the article, in deciding what role the different nationalities played in the makeup of this artist. Can you explain how it makes the article *better* for you to remove a reference that seems to support the side you are arguing against? Do you think this is a good-faith action on your part? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that you either did not read what you are referring to or you do not understand what you've read. What prof. Fine says is quite clear:

Thus, we cannot read into the labels of clear ethnic messsage. ... Whether Coatia was just an identifying mark, separatnig him from many other Juliuses in Italy, or whether he took his place of origin as a serious or ethnic-type identity, of course, cannot be determined from signature alone.

which denies what you are trying to prove. Clearly the opposite side is not supported by prof. Fine. As I said above, it was dutifully mentioned that Clovio's place of birth is in today's Croatia. But when talking about Italian medieval culture and civilization, Clovio was always mentioned as and Italian painter in the sense that he belonged to that culture and civilization. Moreover, there is no Julije Klovic, there is only Giulio Clovio. If you do Google advanced search, then you'll learn that it gives:

• Giulio Clovio Advanced search About 18,100 results (0.13 seconds)
• Julije Klovic Advanced search About 551 results (0.19 seconds) ---> these results are coming from sources prof. Fine disqualified as serious in his book.

As you see, I can use prof. Fine's point of view against you and your friends and add his book as proper reference against not-so-serious scholar attitudes of Croatian historians named in his book on page 195. Then the next question for you is: why you are not sanctioning uncivil language, personal attacks, and arbitrary disqualifications used against me and prof David?!--Luciano di Martino (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As an admin, I am not going to give my own opinion as to how the nationality of Giulio Clovio should be described. That is for the editors at Talk:Giulio Clovio to decide. You will see at User talk:AnnekeBart#Personal attacks that I advised her to be careful with her language. You did not reply to my question as to whether your removal of the reference was in good faith. That is, do you sincerely think it makes the article better to exclude the John Fine reference? EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm trying to tell you that you have to read the reference before passing any judgement about its content. You are blindly refusing to admit that you were wrong. Prof. Fine's work is against the line followed by your friends and which 'contributions' you are pointlessly guarding ('contributions'= claiming nonsense then calling upon a book that exposes and rejects the same nonsense). My removal of that reference was professional and academic, therefore in the best faith. However, the same reference shall be used the way outlined by Prof. Fine in the two sentences quoted by me and underlined above, i.e. refusing guessing ethnicity of a man based on his nickname or his signature as un-scholastic. Again, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability, Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.. Which way you approached this issue civilly and why you are refusing to justify your action?--Luciano di Martino (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Article

Ed, as a result of my AE request I was allowed to write the article in my user space. The conditions stated by 2/0 include that the article should be reviewed by at least two administrators. I've chosen you to be one of them because you were the one who declined my request and because you were not helpful in my prior request for help., which means that you are going to be especially strict to my article and me :-) The article is here. May I please ask you to review it, when you have a time, and state your verdict either on the article's talk page or on my talk page? Thank you for your time. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page.
Message added 03:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ban from Iranian articles

I did not have time to visit Wikipedia in the past week, but I have to say that in my absence and inability to comment, this hasty conclusion is the most biased, unfair, imbalanced and WP:POV judgment I have ever encountered from AE. Restricting users based on their opinion, using WP:HARASSMENT, evidence obtained by hacking email accounts in violation of WP:PRIVACY, accepting forged and frivolous claims from hack sites targeting users for their editing opinion is something not quite worthy of encyclopedia or administrating behavior. It is a rather tacit approval for exercising the same violations against users in future to target and push them away from editing articles. Atabəy (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the rationale for the closure of the AE request which was given here. I'm afraid that neither you nor Khodabandeh14 explained yourselves very well. I did invite you to propose how to reach agreement on the article. I hoped you would then:

• offer to open an RfC or advertise the questions for wider input.
• promise not to make any more reverts at Safavid dynasty until a consensus was found.

I was disappointed in your answer. (The whole discussion is archived at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 21#AE case against Atabəy). It was frustrating that both of you spoke at such length but your arguments made so little sense. But you were the one with all the past blocks and sanctions as logged in the ARBAA cases. You keep complaining about people hacking into email, but that did not play any role in how the case was decided. I recommend that you stop using that as an argument. (Arbcom did not make any official response to the data given to them, and they said nothing to me).

Any hint of your being sincerely open to dialog with others at Safavid dynasty could change the situation, and could make it possible to lift the ban. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I was simply away from Wikipedia for nearly 10 days, on personal business reasons. While I understand the need to close AE report, I don't think the lack of answer from myself due to being away justified a ban decision taken based on Khodabandeh's allegations. I believe the Safavid dynasty article in its current version reflects the language transliterations that I was seeking (with exception of Kurdish and Georgian irrelevant spellings). So why did have to cost my ban to get that? I believe there is a ground to move on with other editing discussions on talk page, if I am given an opportunity. As far as using evidence from hacked sites, well the fact that alleging user (Khodabandeh14) was not restricted for rather grave and repeated violations of WP:HARASSMENT, while the user he accused of "battleground mentality and nationalism" based on that forged evidence was restricted, tacitly implies the support for those allegations. And as already indicated, all my edits referenced by Khodabandeh in his frivolous AE report were from the period preceding ArbCom case that drew judgments and applied restrictions on those. Why ban me now for those again? Atabəy (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this looks to me like more of the same rhetoric that was so unpersuasive the first time. Even in your last answer, you continue the attacks on Khodabandeh. The phrase 'forged evidence' is not helping your case. If you don't want to sound like a nationalist edit warrior, you could be speaking differently. I'm sorry not to be more helpful. You can appeal your ban at WP:AE using the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. If unsatisfied with the response there, you can appeal to Arbcom. If you want to begin a real conversation, I'd consider lifting the ban myself, but I don't perceive you as being interested in a real conversation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I indicated clearly above that I am willing to discuss the issue on the talk page, and the fact that the requested transliteration now remains in the page, means there is a progress. I have not personally attacked Khodabandeh14, I was only subjected to one based on clear violations of privacy and harassment rules in AE, none of which seemed to be enforced. But if a decision is made to lift my restriction without AE appeal, I am willing to forget and to continue working towards consensus as I did for years on Safavid dynasty, a lot of material in which is a result of my contributions. If you could be a bit more clear about what is meant by "real conversation", that would help too. Atabəy (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my two suggestions above:

• offer to open an RfC or advertise the questions for wider input.
• promise not to make any more reverts at Safavid dynasty until a consensus was found.

To those suggestions I would now add:

• Stop speaking about 'hacked email' or 'forged evidence' unless you wish to communicate directly to Arbcom by email about that. In that case your ban would remain in effect unless Arbcom sees differently.

Let me know if you would agree to those three things. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As far as the evidence in violation of Wikipedia rules, I did relay my concerns about that to the ArbCom via email 10 days ago. Will follow up. Regarding reverts on Safavid dynasty. Say, hypothetically, if I inserted a POV tag and substantiated it with a comment opening a discussion thread, while another anonymous IP shows up reverting and removing the tag without any discussion, what's the procedure for preventing that other than reverts? Atabəy (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting to hear your answer on point #3. You need to agree to stop using the phrases 'hacked email' or 'forged evidence' on any page of Wikipedia. This is a condition of my lifting your ban from Safavid dynasty. If you don't agree to this condition, you can try the other appeal steps. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, however, on a condition that my agreement shall not imply in any way my acceptance of the evidence provided in AE report alleging links to me as editor to be true. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That takes care of #3. Next, can you offer some ideas for what form of discussion could be used to reach consensus at Safavid dynasty? Do you know of any experts within Wikipedia, or any WikiProjects that might be consulted? It should not be hard to get some ideas. That page has 12 archive files, and it has some project banners on it. You might also look in the edit history to find the names of some people who have added new content to the article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please, update the Arbcom page entry? I think the opinion of users from WP:WikiProject_Azerbaijan, some of which were involved in Safavid dynasty editing in past, would be relevant for reaching consensus. The main disagreement on that page is primarily due to attempts to associate Safavids with solely Iranian heritage, while the dynasty was really diverse, both ethnically and linguistically to be attached a particular national title. As I indicated in one of my past comments, calling Safavids as Iranian is like renaming Roman Empire to be called Roman Italian Empire. Atabəy (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like a specific commitment from you to wait for consensus. (See #1 and #2 above). I would like you to take some concrete action, like open a WP:Request for comment, and make an agreement not to revert until consensus is reached. If you only plan to ask Azeri editors, you are unlikely to collect a balanced set of opinions. I made a proposal for how you could contact knowledgeable editors, and you have not responded to that. The dispute seems to be about the extent of Azeri influence in Iraq Iran in a certain historical period. If you can propose the wording of the question to be settled by the Request for comment, that would already be progress. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's actually Azeri influence in Iran not Iraq, or to be more precise, the Azerbaijani background of Safavid dynasty. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, the dynasty's founder first proclaimed himself as Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501. So calling the dynasty now solely Safavid Iranian dynasty isn't quite historically correct.

Currently, the Safavid talk page is overwhelmed by the opinion of one side. So my intention to ask Azeri editors only sought to introduce some form of balance. The page was far more peaceful and balanced before, when everybody was involved. As far as reverting, I feel like I am being blamed for all reverts occurring on Safavid dynasty, but if you pay attention to history of the page, my reverts were only a small fraction of revert conflicts by anonymous IP and other editors. I have no interest in reverting without consensus, in general. My only concern are the anonymous IPs which disrupt the page while discussions go on. I will consider opening an RFC, I just have to formulate the report which takes time. Atabəy (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I will wait and see if you have time to format an RfC and if you will make the other assurances I requested above. I need you to agree to #1 and #2 pretty much verbatim, and you may not be willing to do that. Until then the ban remains in place. Safavid dynasty is currently semiprotected so there should be no problem from IP edits. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the lifting of the ban as the comments above show. The user simply wants to remove a term that gets 200+ scholarly google book hits: [59] (Safavid dynasty of Iran). That is unacceptable per wikipedia policy and falls under wikipedia: "I don't like it". RFC is also not the way to go as the issue needs mediation after Atabey stops the nationalistic mode of talking and editing. The mediatiors in the end will also say 200+ WP:RS sources are fine. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One more point for EdJohnston.. Also I would like to note a new nationalist comment on Atabey's own personal webpage [60]. He changes: " This user supports the cultural and linguistic rights of people in South Azerbaijan and respects the unity and integrity of Iran. " to "This user supports the cultural, linguistic, political freedoms of people in South Azerbaijan. ". So in short, he is clearly stating that he supports dissolution of Iran. Even the term "South Azerbaijan" are used by people that want to separate part of Iran. Now do you think such a user can be objective when it comes to Safavids and their usage of the name Iran? I don't think wikipedia should be used as a political platform for writing nationalistic statements. Rather it should be a place to write an objective encyclopaedia and thats it only. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I will open an RfC on Safavid dynasty, I am currently preparing report for that. I apologize for the delay, I am just tied up with many other things in past two weeks. As far as Khodabandeh's comments, what I post in my personal space is my own view, not meant to be a political statement as it never was. I wish him to assume good faith in future. Atabəy (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but wishing for dissolution of another country is a political statement and inline with battleground editing. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I wished for a dissolution of any country in my user page. This accusation seems to be an overwhelming assumption of bad faith. Atabəy (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Atabey violating his patrol

And a second point for EdJohnton Please note this: [61], he added Iranian Azerbaijan to the article, although this is a violation of his patrol, as he is not supposed to edit any Iran related topic. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani American article is not about Iran but about ethnic Azerbaijani community in America. Many Azerbaijani speakers in US, originally from Iranian Azerbaijan, identify themselves as Azerbaijani-Americans. Here is a website of one such organization [62] listed on that page out of many. I don't see how this article is Iran-related, moreover, how my edit there violates any restriction. Very sad that the user feels emboldened now by application of bans on others, it only clarifies his intent. Atabəy (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I encourage Atabəy to avoid further edits that include the word 'Iranian', such as a change he made at Azerbaijani American. Such edits do test the limits of his ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed. I will keep that in mind. By the way, a more relevant geographic name that could be used in that case on Azerbaijani American, in order to avoid using word "Iranian", is South Azerbaijan. But I won't touch that edit and keep it as is for now, to avoid further misunderstandings while we get things sorted out. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You added the word from Iran to the article, so it is Iran related [63] as you are claiming (incorrectly or correctly, it doesn't matter), that some people from Iran fall under the definition. So it is Iran/Iranian related and actually the definition has been a contenious issue (as you have edited contentious sources yourself to the article).. For example if you look at the talkpage and the article which your were involved in, there was a dispute wether Azeri Turkish speakers from Iran are Iranian-Americans or Azerbaijani-American. This is a clearly a violation as you were involved in the editing with regards to the contentious issue. Also your statement is: "Very sad that the user feels emboldened now by application of bans on others, it only clarifies his intent" completely inline with battleground mentality. Your ignoring of Encyclopaedia Britannica first line and the other line is also inline with battle-ground mentality. Picking one line from the body of Britannica, without looking at all the other lines which contradict your viewpoint is a demonstration of battleground type editing. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to show another sample POV

Dear Ed, I know you don't want to be involved in the content dispute part, but this is very important. Please just note this statement by Atabəy in your userpage: "According to Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, the dynasty's founder first proclaimed himself as Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501. So calling the dynasty now solely Safavid Iranian dynasty isn't quite historically correct. " Now please just note the first line of Britannica link that Atabəy provided: "Ṣafavid Dynasty, (1502–1736), Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shīʿite Islām as the state religion of Iran was a major factor in the emergence of a unified national consciousness among the various ethnic and linguistic elements of the country" I'll let you judge for yourself! Please also note the statement in Britannica: "1501 Ismāʿīl was enthroned as shah of Azerbaijan. By May of the next year he was shah of Iran....". In actuality, all the primary sources state that when Tabriz was taken in 1501, he declared himself the title of Padishah-e Iran, and secondary sources support this.

However, I just wanted to note that in the Britannica link Atabəy provided, it states in the first line: "Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shīʿite Islām ", but he simply ignores his own Britannica link with regards to the introduction. Note his claim that calling the Roman empire as Italian is the same as calling Safavid empire of Iran is obviously not supported by his own Britannica link that he provided. I do not think RFC is good enough, the user should comeback in three months and do a mediation, although I believe he violated his parol as the above shows and this should be extended indefinitely with regards to Iran related articles. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two other references besides Britannica:

• Richard Tapper. "Shahsevan in Safavid Persia", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1974, p. 324.
• Lawrence Davidson, Arthur Goldschmid, "A Concise History of the Middle East", Westview Press, 2006, p. 153.

which recite the fact that Safavid state was proclaimed over Azerbaijan first in 1501. Therefore, since no state called Iran existed immediately prior to 1501 (unless you can prove otherwise) for several centuries, the naming of dynasty as Iranian is rather symbolic and does not reflect the historical identity. The pushing of it in Wikipedia is meant to deny the identity or association of dynasty with Azerbaijan, which is actually disruptive.

But anyways, all of these will go into RfC. Btw, I don't see why contributor would oppose RfC as a way of resolving disputes? Atabəy (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I shall respond to the technical argument per Ed's request below in the Safavid page (I urge Ed to look at it).. However, I do not oppose RfC (comments from 3rd party users such as user:Folantin, but rather I prefer mediation after your ban is served. As per symbolic usage by Britannica,.. sorry that sounds like I do not like it. The top Safavid scholar is Roger Savory who also states in no unclear tems: "RM Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), p. 3. Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?". Read Roger Savory. As per the name of the Safavid state, it was Iran when we are discussing an empire of 250 years and their one year rule of part of the empire (Azerbaijan in Iran), is not really something that goes in the introduction as Britannica has put it in the body as well.. Also there are three references to state that during 1501 when Azerbaijan was taken, Safavid king proclaimed himself as Padishah-e Iran (in the talkpage that I shall put again and it has primary evidence support as well from chronicles of that era). However, all of this aside, I do not see why there should be any leniency in terms of the patrol for the user that just broke the violation and has just violated several battle-field items above. Please note the several discrete attacks on other users which is clear manifestation of battle-field mentality above. Thank you --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Time's up

I don't wish to entertain a continuing dispute between Atabəy and Khodadabandeh14 on my user talk. Atabəy, you are getting very near the edge since you added Iran-related material to an article. Unless you come forward immediately with your proposed text of an RfC for Safavid dynasty, I am prepared to decline your unban request with no further ado. Then you will be free to pursue your other appeal options. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry ed, "Very sad that the user feels emboldened now by application of bans on others, it only clarifies his intent" is more of the same battle-field mentality as is the violation patrol. I do not see why wikipedia laws shall not apply.. I am on a trip for next week and rather not edit Wikipedia, however, I know exactly what Atabey will likely say and I shall add a complete response to it on the Safavid page for the nth time..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC) BTW, I rather not edit wikipedia next week, so you may note this if I do not respond for a week. However, Atabey just posted on the safavid talkpage, where-as he should have posted it here and you could have posted it for him in the talkpage. The ban patroll in my opinion should continue to stay. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, Now that you showed leniency, I ask you to please you take an active part in the discussion and also have the principle WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:synthesis in the background to warn users incase they violate it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Mibelz

Hi! I would like to inform you that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus leads a personal campaign against me (vide Mibelz AE request). The problem is that he and some other Polish editors prefer rather Polish than English names (for example: Kraków, not Cracow) in English Wikipedia, and often ignore historical facts which are inconvenient for their point of view. As a scientist, I am interested in truth, not propaganda. -- Warm regards, Mibelz, Ph.D. 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have written about some Polish editors because of their "national historic policy" in English Wikipedia (i.e. The Rebellion of vogt Albert, and a reaction to the information on vogt Albert - of German origin - and bishop Jan Muskata - of German-Silesian origin). -- Mibelz, 14:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your answer seems to show you don't understand the problem. See WP:AE#Mibelz#Result concerning Mibelz where I have proposed a revised sanction. Any hint that you understand the gravity of the situation might be enough to avoid the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Busy

Hello, I am busy in real life, if there is anything you are wondering over give me opportunity (time) to reply in full. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted...but

I have noted your message on my talk page. However, can you please also acknowledge Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted where certain editors are required not to interact with me. This does not excuse certain editors running to that AE thread in a most bombastic and incivil way making accusations against myself. Can you please also remind those editors of their restrictions as well, because they too have been banned for breaching it in the past. What's good for the goose. Thanks. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrator abuse? At the very least a bit of concern.

On the article Palamism I noted that for some Eastern Orthodox sources that the term is pure West Christian POV. Some EO see it as a fabricated form of attack on Eastern Orthodox theology. Administrator Dbachmann removed that comment [64] Even though I fear retalition I must state that I find this very troubling, that what makes it into articles is what administrators throw their weight behind rather than what representatives of respective positions under a topic actually say on behalf of their community.

Also I do not feel comfortable criticizing administrators here on Wikipedia as there is no way or process or forum in this online project to do that. This is all very time consuming and the administrators edit appear to be to silence certain Eastern Orthodox concerns for what appear to be that administrator's personal reasons which is a very taboo thing to do. Or at least from an ethical perspective one would expect it to be. But again anyone pointing out abuse or their "concerns" is subject to retaliation here on Wikipedia.[65] As it is also that some editors here on Wiki provoke retaliation, as they are protected from policy by administrators. This is the old Nomenklatura.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Dbachmann was acting in the role of an ordinary editor at Palamism, not an admin. If you dislike his change, you are welcome to discuss it with him in the usual way. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Dbachmann's edit appears to be acting as an "ordinary editor" and not as an admin. I happen to disagree with his edit so I have reverted it and explained why on the Talk Page. If Dbachmann feels this is an important issue, he can respond on the Talk Page as is appropriate. More collegiality and less suspicion are called for here. Please raise issues on the article Talk Page first before complaining about admin abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo-Richard (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Because my edit restrictions are still unclear and I can not comment on articles that are Roman Catholic theology based (i.e. Palamism is Roman Catholic as no Greek or Eastern Theologians from the East use such a term in their works, only Western EO converts or Roman Catholic theologians do). I think it safe to comment on the involved editors talkpage to ensure that I am in the clear. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, if you want to revise the Palamism article why don't you state here the type of change you want to make. Then others can see if they have any concerns. If you are thinking of using particular references, tell us what they are. For what you write here, ignore the restriction for a moment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mormography

Hi Ed, for your information I've just extended the three day block you imposed on Mormography (talk · contribs) to indefinite duration as they've continued to attack you and other editors on their talk page and seem to be unable to understand the relevant behavioural guidelines. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That was an unexpected outcome of what looked like a normal 3RR case at first. No objection to unblock if he shows he will follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Thanks for that. I do have an opinion... Peridon (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling your attention...

...to this. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

What country do you live in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.139.146 (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It was really nice and helpful of you. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mind

Do you mind telling me why there is no longer use in a reviewer permission Pass a Method talk 14:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See the explanation at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. While the permission could still be given out, it would have no effect, since WP:Pending changes permission has been removed from all articles. If the latter comes back, then Reviewer permission will be given out again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Safavid RfC and important development

Please see this: [66] As far as me, I will be happy to implement all the points mentioned by this user (the only active user in the article not from the region). If this RfC is not accepted by the other side, then in my opinion, you should not have allowed the participants to participate as there is really no other expert on the issue in Wikipedia except User:Folantin who is not from the region. I hope user Atabey agrees to implement all the points as well. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

About your behavior

Incident reported. See here--Luciano di Martino (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DSK EW

Hi, I have posted a final response over at the AN3, I'm glad that's all cleared up, I found the attitude and persistence of some people most unpleasant. Anyway, I have a related question:

• Does my agreement to not edit DSK related articles for a week stop me from voicing my opinion on the deletion discussion of the sex assault case article? I prefer to ask, as I do not want to renege on my word. Thanks, reply here, I'll watch. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to give your opinion in the AfD. Not a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC

Ed, I initiated an RfC [67]. I did not know on which talk page to put it, so I just put it on the talk page of the subject article. If I need to move it elsewhere, please, let me know. I will add my evidence to RfC later on today. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I am sorry for posting on your talk page again, but please, let me know whether I can proceed posting my comments under RFC I opened on Talk:Safavid dynasty or not. Khodabandeh14 raised a point above that I cannot do so, but then how do I provide my comments/references to RfC? Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please continue to participate in the RfC at Talk:Safavid dynasty. I am allowing it in spite of your topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have responded in detail to each point of Atabey in a separate thread [68]. You might wonder why the response is long. Note my long response has to do with the fact that sometimes one needs overwhelming numbers of sources to get some points across that WP:RS sources cannot be ignored. Also most readers in Wikipedia are not expected to know anything about Safavid history. Anyhow, the user has been topic banned from several articles but I will assume good faith. The fact is that with the exception of User:Folantin and User:Kansas Bear, I do not see any long term member who can understand these points. In actuality, readers do not need to understand everything as Wikipedia is about establish RS sources, weight, neutrality, no OR, no syntheis and not really arguing over the contents. Anyhow, I just ask you to keep an eagle eye on the talkpage and behaviour. Also I might take a 1 week break next week (or the check article much less), so my lack of response should not be intrepreted as I have forgotten the article. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an update, I have asked User:Folantin to mediate. If he does mediation, I hope you keep an eye on. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, while I understand the desire to resolve editorial disputes through RfC, a number of concerns appear here. First of all, I agreed to all your points and opened an RFC, I am demonstrating good faith providing only references in support of my opinion without commenting on users, read and listen to everything that the opposite side says, and based on those provided a Proposal section in the RfC. But for some reason, instead of discussing the proposal and observations, the focus in the RFC is for some reason on why I behave certain way or use certain references, accusing me of tendentious editing with words like "he makes an WP:OR that the name Iran was not used by Safavids", "concensus cannot be reached with such an attitude", "I find it completely unacceptable to delete sources such as Roger Savory" when no one actually suggested doing so. Could you please, advise the contributor to at least demonstrate interest in reaching an agreement via RfC?

From my perspective, there is no fundamental disagreement in the proposal that I made so far. The only disagreement is whether "of Iran" or "Iranian" attachments should remain. To justify my point, and listening to the opinion about general Google search, today, I provided Google Books search result, which shows over 5,000 references without word "Iran/Iranian" when referring to Safavid Empire, and only 53 results with inclusion of those. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please continue to show your patience by not coming here every 10 seconds. If Khodabandeh14 reveals a bad attitude to the RfC, that could play a role if admins have to review the situation again. You can win by behaving better. (And by having better content arguments). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ed, overall I agree with the comments made by Folantin in regards to the RfC. They (along with subsequent introduction edits) seem to address most of my major concerns in opening the RfC as well as in lengthy talk page discussions. And I would like thank Folantin for helping to sort this out. In his last point, he said that it would be good to expand on the legacy section, and to discuss the impact of Safavids on regional history. I can add some material on that to Safavid page, if I am permitted to do so. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

quick example for Ed

Dear Ed, I am giving the RfC a chance, but the issue is technical, and I think ardous mediation is the best path. But we can try RfC for now. However, RfC requires someone with knowledge of the period. Rather, I suggested mediation from the beginning and I hope just like the RfC condition you put on Atabey, the same can be put on mediation, if RfC fails. Here is an example of why I believe mediation is necessary. Atabey calls Richard Frye: "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history". He then makes unrelated commentary to Richard Frye's statement which I have responded to here: [69]. Note in order to show his unrelated comment, I am forced to go through the work of Richard Frye and show a contradiction. This could have been avoided had Atabey finished reading the article he is quoting. Now what does Atabey think of this statement: Richard Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", second impression, Phoenix Press, December 2003 "None the less Iran was torn by internal struggles until the sixteenth century, when again, as under the Achaemenids and the Sasanians, Iran rose to imperial greatness -- this time not so much foreign conquest but in the unification of Iran politically, culturally and religiously under the Safavids" (pg 4) (I can provide a scan of this page if necessary but it is readable enoughin google books [70]. Is he willing to accept an author whom he has referenced as "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history", and who directlys contradicts all the major observations Atabey has mentioned? Rather, past experience in the talkpage has shown that unfortunately, such statements are ignored. I consider this to be: Tendentious editing. However if Atabey accepts this statement of the scholar whom he has called; "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history", then I will take back my point and have a more positive view of RfC. On the side note, the google books argument is responded to here: [71] (the top word is "Safavid Iran" and also "Safavid empire" is not contradictory). Thank you, and I am just asking to focus on this small point, is Atabey willing to accept this statement of Richard Frye which I just brought, and whom he has called "one of the most distinguished..". If not, then I am not going to continue with RfC and will seek mediation/arbcomm. If so, then I will change my attitude. Thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know

The only person that, from time to time, returns to disrupt [72] and to try to introduce the same POV. Notice how he's the only one always edit warring over this in years! All of the other editors never opposed or challenged the current stable version for months, because oh well, there's nothing controversial there. Only in his mind.

I just leave this message so you know. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the recent IP edit looks to be a sock of Corticopia. Since the North America article has had a lot of IP vandalism lately, and since other admins have protected since my last action, I've put back the long-term semiprotection. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed for your patience and commitment as an administrator. As you already know, I'm very familiar with Corticopia's edit pattern and user behaviour. I recently noticed one of his sockpuppets returned to edit after a loooong break:

• Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

As usual, consistent edit pattern in Canada, Quebec, Dominion, Cyprus, Georgia (country), Turkey, Europe (trying to impose the POV that Europe ends in the Carpatus), North America (trying to exclude Mexico from it), Central America, Latin America, Eurasia, Continent (excluding other continental models, prefer name Australia over Oceania), Americas, and geeky Battlestar Galatica-related topics.

I also have the feeling that other two socks that a former checkuser ruled "had nothing to do with Corticopia" (only because their IP were different... hello proxy server or VPN), will show up in North America-related articles since you imposed a semi-protection there. I think he's trying to auto-validate himself as being a different person [73]. I have always been pretty sure they are the same person but, oh well... time will prove me right. I do believe in WP:DUCK. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with you that Chipmunkdavis is Corticopia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jahlove1234

Hey. I proposed a resolution on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jahlove1234 that involves your block there. If you could chime in, that'd be great. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK with me. I have replied there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Shortening sections

Hi, I just wanted to bring out many sources as possible. One optinion for me is to collapse/expand sections, but I am not sure what the tags for that were.. YOu used it once, It may help a lot in this case. Thank you.. The problem with RfC is that unless users are aware of all these sources, they make think the argument of Atabey is actually based on the source he is citing. It is really not, you can see this in my latest post on google books or Richard Frye. So if you can show me how I can make expand/collapse sections, it will help greatly. Else, I can move it to talkpage and then point the users to this point, that point and etc...Or another option is to create a separate space in the talkpage with your permission. I do not think there is anyway around quoting about 50 sources or so? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The current page at Talk:Safavid dynasty is already up to 280 Kbytes, which is enormous. I really think you should create subpages in your user space, and link to them if needed. Using collapse boxes does not reduce the size of a page in bytes. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OKay I will move a large part to my subpage...With your permission is it possible to create a subpage in the talkpage of the article itself? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'll move it to archive 12... --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good solution. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I cut the data in half. I know it is still a lot, but for each point, I brought lots of sources and then made my comments. Also if you have time, just please read : [74] (quick example for Ed). Out of the thousands of kilo-byte, I wanted to highligh this pararaph and why even though I support RfC, I am sort of pessimistic by the outcome (although I hope I am wrong). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I am taking a one week vacation that I had planned for. I rather not worry about wikipedia either. So I have asked Atabey to put a proposal for the introduction incorporating the high quality WP:RS sources I have mentioned. I just wanted to ask you to keep an eye on the page. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am glad this is progressing towards consensus, thanks to Folantin. Just as a note, I have a chance to check Wiki only few times a day, so if you have something urgent needing my attention, feel free to post on my talk page. I will most likely start developing the subpage under my userspace with some suggestions for legacy part as well. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the issue was about concensus as rather getting a third expert opinion as Ed outlined. The third opinion is posted on the talkpage. I also agree that the legacy section (which I had no comments upon) can be expanded for sure. Thanks again to Folantin for resolving the issues. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the introduction is more or less acceptable with exception of lack of Azeri Latin spelling, I think we can move on to discussing and improving other parts. What I am waiting to hear from EdJohnston, is whether I am allowed now to contribute to the article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there is a legacy section in the article, you can propose your statements in the talkpage, if Folantin accepts, then someone will insert it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Atabəy and Folantin's talkpage

Hi Ed, I wanted to point out poor user's Folantin page: [75]. It should be noted that the user Folantin has made some clear points and I see no point for user Atabey to continously argue against the point Folantin made with unrelated comments in his talkpage (perhaps so that Folantin will say "whatever"). Folantin's points were very clear and I quote them below:

• "Modern historians refer to the state as "Iran" (or "Persia") and so should we. See for example the title of the book Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire by Andrew Newman (IB Tauris, 2006). (A quick search of Google books under "Safavid" will bring up many other examples). Talking about whether it was a nation-state is a red herring. Medieval France wasn't a nation-state and it was still called France."(Folantin on Safavid talkpage)
• " there is evidence that the state was often called Iran during the Safavid period. ". (Folantin on his talkpage)
• IN response to Atabey in his talkpage: "OK, it's just that most modern English-language historians go with "Safavid Iran" or "Safavid Persia" and Wikipedia should follow what they write. To take a more extreme example, nobody who lived under the Byzantine Empire called it that, but that's the name modern historians generally use, so it's the name of the Wikipedia article." (Folantin in his talkpage)
• "The main point is, Wikipedia goes by what modern historians call it (in this case, "Safavid Iran"). I referred to the "Byzantine Empire" as an "extreme example" of this. It was unlike Iran under the Safavids because nobody at all used the designation "Byzantine Empire" at the time, yet the Wikipedia article goes by the name "Byzantine Empire". In other words, the local or contemporary name of historical states is often completely irrelevant in deciding the names of Wikipedia articles about them." (in his talkpage).

You gave him permission to seek an RfC and the RfC was responded to by a neutral 3rd party who has greatly edited the article in past. So the matter is closed, but if arguments on these closed matters are continued with OR comments, then this is precisely definition tendentious editing, which violates both wikipedia is not battle-ground, and also has been the reason that User:Moreschi has banned authors from AA in certain articles (or even whole topics). Wikipedia is not a [[WP:forum] and not a place for endless arguments on a point that was resolved by RfC. People are free to have their opinion outside of Wikipedia (in weblogs and websites, newspapers and etc), but when they make comments, I persume their goal is to improve Wikipedia article, and discuss the article. If a matter has been resolved by a neutral 3rd party, then there is no point to bringing it up again. Anyhow, I believe the edits Folantin made to the introduction resolved all issues with that regard. Folantin suggested that the legacy section of the article be expanded, and I personally believe that it should be proposed in the talkpage, and then accepted by User Folantin. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ed, I know this might take some time to read, but please read it. If you look at the page, an RfC was requested on controversial issues and a 3rd party User:Folantin addressed all the points as well as edited the introduction [76]. I agreed with all his points which were:

• (a) Folantin: there is no "There is no need for the repetition of "Iran." " which he changed." (I agreed, controversial issue one fixed)
• (b) Folantin: "The name of the article should be "Safavid dynasty" per the equivalent on Encyclopaedia Iranica as well as in line with other Wikipedia pages such as Qajar dynasty." (this was not a controversial issue, and I agree with Folantin, there was no debate))
• (c) Folantin: "Modern historians refer to the state as "Iran" (or "Persia") and so should we. See for example the title of the book Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire by Andrew Newman (IB Tauris, 2006). (A quick search of Google books under "Safavid" will bring up many other examples). Talking about whether it was a nation-state is a red herring. Medieval France wasn't a nation-state and it was still called France" (this was the major point of contention, and Folantin has firmly answered it.)
  • But Atabey tries to challange Folantin on this issue, so he goes on to Folantin's page to try to what I consider change the opinion of User:Folantin. However User Folantin replied twice on his talkpage:
    • "OK, it's just that most modern English-language historians go with "Safavid Iran" or "Safavid Persia" and Wikipedia should follow what they write. To take a more extreme example, nobody who lived under the Byzantine Empire called it that, but that's the name modern historians generally use, so it's the name of the Wikipedia article" (Folantin's response to Atabey).. Atabey again tries to argue this response:
    • "Yes, sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. As you say, there is evidence that the state was often called Iran during the Safavid period. The main point is, Wikipedia goes by what modern historians call it (in this case, "Safavid Iran"). I referred to the "Byzantine Empire" as an "extreme example" of this. It was unlike Iran under the Safavids because nobody at all used the designation "Byzantine Empire" at the time, yet the Wikipedia article goes by the name "Byzantine Empire". In other words, the local or contemporary name of historical states is often completely irrelevant in deciding the names of Wikipedia articles about them. " (Folantin second response on his talkpage)
  • So either Atabey accepts the results of the RfC (which you allowed him to partake in) or else this should be considered tendentious editing and permanently banned from regional topics.
• (d) Folantin point: "As a rider to the above, the introduction should indicate that the Safavid empire at its height did not just include the territory of the modern Islamic Republic of Iran but all, or part, of the territories of the modern states of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Iraq and so on. " ( I added this and there is no contention on this issue)
• (e) Folantin point: "As the title of Newman's book also indicates, there is a general consensus among historians that the Safavid realm was the first time there had been an independent state called "Iran" since the fall of the Sassanid Empire." (again this overlaps with point c, I totally agree, and this was the major issue that Atabey was challenging)
• (f) Folantin point: "The languages in the introduction should be limited to Persian and Azerbaijani, the chief languages of court. The Azerbaijani should be in the Arabic script in use during the Safavid era".(I agree here, and as Folantin suggested the latin alphabet, Kurdish, Georgian and etc. can be put in the footnote. It should be noted that the Roman/Latin alphabet had no currecntly during the Safavid era, and it is totally anachronistic specially with the phonetic that is used in writing it).
• (g) Folantin: "Fussing about the exact ethnic make-up of the Safavids is a waste of time. As far as I can see, it is the normal condition of many, if not most, royal families to be multi-ethnic. " (I totally agreed and change the origin section to "origin and multi-cultural identity of the Safavids")
• (h) Folantin :"Using this fact to try to make the Safavid shahs into either modern ethnic Persians or Azerbaijanis seems to me totally anachronistic and misguided. " (I totally agreed)
• (i) Folantin: "The legacy section should be re-written and should maybe focus on the importance of the Safavids for the modern world. After all, there would be no Islamic Republic of Iran had the Safavids not converted the country to Shi’a Islam. The end of Safavid rule led to a breakdown in the close relationship between “church and state”, which would eventually result in the stand-off between the Pahlavis and the clergy and the end of imperial rule. A similar thing could be done for the importance of the Safavids in Azerbaijani history etc" (This section on Legacy can be expanded for sure, but given the ban on Atabey on editing the article, he needs to propose his wordings and Folantin or someone else can enter it).

So the issue of point c and e, which was confirmed by WP:RS sources, and also confirmed by User:Folantin (four times), in my opinion is being challenged in Folantin's userpage due to red-herring arguments (see the talkpage of Folantin where Atabey assigns his intrepretation to quotes which do not claim what he states) and tendentious editing. If a user has made the same point 4 times, then bothering them with constant comments to change their opinion is in my opinion tendentious editing. Just note also what I wrote here: [77] on a source that Atabey calls "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history". Either the author is distinguished (which means Atabey must accept it as WP:RS) or it shows that "distinguished" is just a word. Please note carefully what I wrote about this source: [78].

Anyhow, as a 3rd party expert user, User:Folantin has addressed all my concern and there is nothing I disagree with. He has done all the relavent edits in the intro. There are two other issues that needs to be implemented based on his proposal: 1) The latin Azeri name, Georgian names, Kurdish, Arabic etc. names as he suggested can be put in the foonote and I agreed. 2) And also the legacy section can be expanded to talk about modern identities and their relations to the Safavids. As long as high quality RS sources are used, then that is no problem from my perspective and that section should be expanded. Note, after 12 pages of archives, 3rd party opinion was needed on some issues (it could have gone to 12000 pages without concensus) and it got resolved. User:Folantin is not from the area, but aware of its history and has contributed to article. He has no bones to pick and his record in wikipedia shows no topic bans, arbcomms, sanctions and etc. So his RfC should be seen as the reason why you let Atabey participate in the article in the first place. All points of it should be implemented and there are only two points left to be implemented. However challenging the result of the RfC from a 3rd party neutral user (in their talkpage) who has made the same point at least four times (points (c) and (e)) is not acceptable behaviour. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are OK with the current first paragraph, and you are OK with putting the Latin Azeri name, the Georgian names, the Kurdish and Arabic names into the footnote. I do not see much likelihood that Atabey will be able to persuade people to change the name of the article. I do not know yet if he will approve the current first paragraph, but I trust that he will respond here. I hope he will agree to having the Azeri etc. names in the footnote. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am okay with all of that and I accepted all the points made by Folatin. Please note that I am partially Kurdish (from Kermanshah region), and if I wanted to do what I like, then I would also put Kurdish in the intro. But I accepted every single point of Folantin's decision. Also Folantin edited the fist paragraph and it took care of my concern as well. Or for example before, the first word was: "Safavid dynasty of Iran", but Folantin removed the word "Iran" (the issue was discussed and I accepted Folantin's decision). However, there will be no agreement if one side agrees to do change the things they might have been inclined towards and the other side does not. What bothers me though is when a neutral 3rd party user states the same opinion 4 times (on points (c) and (e) above);and yet a user goes in the 3rd parties webpage and tries to argue the same point.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, unfortunately amidst the repetitive books worth of writing by Khodabandeh, it's impossible to trace what and who is writing what on talk pages. As I mentioned the edits and suggestion by Folantin are acceptable to me. And I never suggested to change the name of article, which is currently "Safavid dynasty". And I accept the fact that only Persian and Azerbaijani transliterations show in the introduction (that's what I asked for in first place). The only remaining issue now is that my block needs to be lifted in order for me, per Folantin's suggestion, to start contributing to Legacy section. I kindly ask Khodabandeh to spare from responding to my small paragraph, so that Ed can read it, otherwise, I will have to email this to him. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, Folantin did not suggest moving Azeri to footnote, only Kurdish, etc. spellings. Azeri was the language of Safavid court, hence should show along with Persian in introduction. If Khodabandeh complains about alphabet, ok, I will live with having Arabic script, although I don't see the reason for opposing ISO-standardized Latin script for Azeri, I don't want to spend time on this. Would rather focus on other parts of article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of arguing going on. It seems that Folantin, Khodabandeh and Atabəy all agree on one paragraph. This is good. Azeri *is* showing along with Persian. I assume that is OK. Atabəy, in your RfC you proposed: "a. Rename the article to "Safavid State" (dovlat-e Safavi) or "Safavid Empire"". Are you accepting the current title now? Everyone seems to be OK with removing Kurdish and Georgian spellings, as you proposed in your 'd'. Atabəy, you are not blocked but your ban does not yet allow you to edit the article. If you want to change the Legacy section why don't you make a draft on the article talk page and it can be discussed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

HI, Just clarification. Folantin's suggestion was for the Roman alphabet to be put in the footnote. So I am okay with that, and I am glad everything is resolved. On the legacy section and a paragraph, if Atabey writes it, puts it in the talkpage and it is acceptable, either Folantin or even EdJhonson or even me can put it in the legacy section. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou violating editing restriction

Esoglou is editing once more on Orthodox theology [79]. Esoglou again has completely misrepresented the Eastern Orthodox position. It is this type of behavior that is causing the conflict between Esoglou and various editors on wikipedia.[80] The source clearly states that the term Palamism which is the name of the article is rejected by at least one Eastern Orthodox theologian as a made up thing by detractors of Eastern Orthodox theology. Esoglou has posted incoherent nonsense that obfuscates the very direct and simple point of the theologian. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pseudo-Richard's edit here. Ancient Faith Radio appears to be produced by people espousing the Orthodox point of view, though they are not theologians. Per his editing restriction, Esoglou should not edit what Orthodox people are saying. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What edit did I make about the teaching or practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church? If some Eastern Orthodox writer who is considered a reliable source says LoveMonkey is the handsomest man in the world, I think I am free to insert a sourced statement of that writer's opinion. It is not about the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching or practice.  :)

Seriously, what I edited or rather restored was a statement that a certain Eastern Orthodox writer "has objected to the term 'Palamism' on the grounds that, he alleges, the term was coined by 'Roman Catholic thinkers' to give a longstanding Orthodox doctrine an 'exotic label', turning it into an 'historically conditioned "-ism" in order to justify their heresy." This statement about "Roman Catholic thinkers" is not about the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching or practice. Writing a few days ago about this precise matter above, LoveMonkey said that it is a Roman Catholic, not an Eastern Orthodox matter: "I can not comment on articles that are Roman Catholic theology based (i.e. Palamism is Roman Catholic as no Greek or Eastern Theologians from the East use such a term in their works, only Western EO converts or Roman Catholic theologians do)." LoveMonkey objected above to you about Dbachmann's removal of what Clark Carlton said about Roman Catholic thinkers. Now he is objecting to my keeping in the article this statement, which he himself has described as "Roman Catholic theology based", but which was originally inserted in the article by himself.

I am perfectly happy with Pseudo-Richard's edit, apart, that is, from the grammatical error, which I have corrected in my quotation of it here, and I hope that nobody tries to remove it. By the way, Clark Carlton is a theologian, and has a Ph.D. in the subject, a fact that Pseudo-Richard seems to want to play down. An ex-Baptist, he is now an Eastern Orthodox. But I consider that a secondary matter. The essential thing is that his statement, which I am keeping in the article, is about Roman Catholic "thinkers" (he refuses to call them theologians). Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't trying to "play down" the fact that Clark Carlton has a Ph.D. I just didn't know it and so I thought "theologian" was too grandiose a term for a talk-show host. I'm OK to use "theologian" now that I know he has a Ph.D. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If it would make LoveMonkey happy to restore the article to how it was before Dbachmann first removed Carlton's statement, the removal to which he objected above, I would have no objection whatever to having it restored to that situation. Esoglou (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Clark Carlton is a radio presenter for the EO point of view. In fact, the restriction lets LoveMonkey (not Esoglou) add 'Eastern Orthodox commentary'. It doesn't say it has to be by a theologian. I don't see how this allows Esoglou to edit statements about what Clark Carlton says. Carlton is commenting from the EO point of view, even though he may be criticizing what Roman Catholic theologians say. The original edit by Esoglou is trying to rephrase what Clark Carlton says. I believe that is outside Esoglou's jurisdiction. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And just to be clear... the point isn't whether Esoglou was right or wrong in his edit. The point is that we are all tired of the editwars between LM and Esoglou with the accompanying snide and uncivil edit summaries. What's needed is that both of them develop a reflex of going to the Talk Page and airing any issues with other editors who can then address the problem if there is a consensus for it. None of this would be necessary if the two of them followed WP:BRD. Oh, and civil discussion is the "D" in BRD. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, that was not the "original" edit. That edit was a partial undoing of an edit by Dbachmann, who had moved Carlton's statement from the lead to another position, had presented the statement by Carlton (a single Eastern Orthodox theologian/commentator) as by a plural "some Orthodox commentators", had falsely attributed to Carlton the phrase "the true theology of St. Gregory Palamas", and had removed what Carlton gave as his view about the inventiveness of Roman Catholic thinkers. Richard, you certainly can't say I failed to discuss the matter on the Talk Page. We had a rather long discussion about it. All those discussing the matter on the Talk Page agreed that, in spite of Dbachmann's removal of it, the Carlton statement should be kept. LoveMonkey chose not to join the discussion. And, by the way, I like the latest edit concerning the Carlton statement, this time by Phatius, just as I liked Richard's latest edit. I am happy with what the article now says on the matter, just as I was happy with what it said before this discussion began. If LoveMonkey wishes to intervene, let him choose, as far as I am concerned, between the two formulations. Esoglou (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, what I meant was that, even after consensus appears to have been reached on the Talk Page, you should not take it upon yourself to implement the consensus if there is any chance that your edit would be perceived as violating the editing restriction. Let someone else do it. I say this with love. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and hold your contributions to Wikipedia in high esteem. However, your interaction style with a number of editors (LoveMonkey being only one of them) is so contentious that you run the risk of being blocked for a long period of time, perhaps indefinitely. I do not want to see that happen. You are not the only one who sees the truth and there are other editors such as Phatius and perhaps myself who can edit without creating quite as much drama as you seem to. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

More Excuses for Esoglou. How is this repeated violation of the restrictions time and time again OK? [81] And not to be seen as frustrating. To Richard, the restrictions where not put in place according to what you have posted. It is the reinterpreting of them every time Esoglou violates them that causes the comments, stop deflecting the blame. I have not opened a complaint on the discussion admin boards here, however Esoglou sure did once he thought I had violated these restrictions. It is the hypocrisy, time and time again that has driven me to post my responses. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... according to Phatius McBluff's [[82] interpretation of the edit restriction], it appears that Esoglou from even commenting on Talk Pages about EO views of the Roman Catholic Church. I haven't gone back to read the actual edit restriction so I'm just going to assume good faith and accept Phatius' interpretation for now. If that is true, then what I wrote above about Esoglou raising issues on Talk Pages become inoperative. I'm not convinced such a broad editing restriction is a good idea but, for now, everyone should stick to whatever the editing restriction says. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How about we modify the restriction by agreement to allow both parties (Esoglou and LoveMonkey) to participate freely on talk pages. Would anyone object? If they both agree to this change, I think it should be allowed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I will agree to lifting that restriction, in this way, as it will not change that Esoglou simply will not stop editing on EO theology and people will continue to cover for him and do nothing to him. This is at least the third time Esoglou has violated these restrictions and as of yet he has not had to have any compromise made of him. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I raised no objection to the proposal to exclude all edits dealing with the teaching and practice of the other church, but LoveMonkey wanted to keep putting in comments about the theology of the church to which he does not belong. I accepted even that exception, which gives LoveMonkey quite a free hand, while today's Roman Catholic theologians are generally free of the sectarian attitude that, instead of presenting positively what it believes, defines itself by what it does not believe but that others supposedly do. In the same way I now raise no objection to freeing the talk pages, while some class of edits or even all edits to certain articles are still to be excluded.

May I ask as a favour that what we two are to abstain from writing about be defined clearly. "The teaching and practice of the other church" has proved open to elastic interpretations.

(Before I explain further, may I again point out, this time more or less as an aside, that in making the statement that is discussed above, Carlton does not claim to be expressing Eastern Orthodox teaching. Ex-Baptist Carlton has been faulted by other Eastern Orthodox for not giving a faithful presentation of Eastern Orthodox Church teaching. Indeed, one of the things for which he is faulted is having his book advertised as approved by all jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox Church, "although in fact, the personal opinions of a number of individuals in different jurisdictions were sought and received, nothing more". Not unlike the way some editors here are presenting the personal opinion of the individual called Clark Carlton.)

Is it proposed that all opinions expressed by Eastern Orthodox theologians are to be out of bounds for me, even if those theologians do not present their opinions as church teachings? For instance, John S. Romanides declares that Greek, not Latin, was the language originally spoken in Rome. Am I to be faulted if I edit an article that includes that statement by Romanides, who happens to be an Eastern Orthodox theologian? Am I forbidden to cite for a fact or opinion that does not concern Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice a writer who happens to have written also on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice? And is LoveMonkey to continue to have the privilege of inserting at will any opinion that pleases him which has been expressed by some individual Eastern Orthodox theologian? Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"At will" does not ignore the rule that those opinions that the privileged editor chooses (while eliminating at will, if they do not please him, opinions expressed by theologians of the same church - even some declared at the reliable sources noticeboard to be reliable sources, as in this example) must be then presented in a certain manner, i.e., as opinions - opinions, however, that are then seen as "teaching or practice". Esoglou (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, my primary interest here is in keeping the troubled peace (such as it is) between LoveMonkey and Esoglou. A truce which is marred by ceasefire violations is nonetheless a truce as long as open hostilities do not break out. Thus, as much as there is continued sniping and complaints of edit restriction violations, at least we have not had the open edit-warring which is truly detrimental to the project. I would wish for more collegiality and collaboration and less incivility than we've been seeing lately but Rome was not built in a day.

Re Carlton: The link provided by Esoglou that criticizes Carlton does not seem relevant to the quote cited in the article. AFAICT, that quote DOES represent the majority view of the Orthodox Church. The sentiment in it is a widespread sentiment among Orthodox theologians (though perhaps not an official teaching of the Orthodox Church). As such, Esoglou should leave it alone even though it is an opinion of Orthodox Christians about what the Roman Catholic Church believes or teaches. Contrary to what Taiwan boi asserts, I see this as a gray area because I can understand Esoglou's desire to correct what he believes to be an erroneous understanding of what the Catholic Church believes. Nonetheless, it is ultimately an Orthodox understanding (or misunderstanding) and Esoglou should let it alone.

Here are my proposed responses to Esoglou's questions:

Q: Is it proposed that all opinions expressed by Eastern Orthodox theologians are to be out of bounds for me, even if those theologians do not present their opinions as church teachings?

A: Yes. I propose that you be allowed to discuss all text related to Church teachings and opinions by Orthodox theologians but that you be restricted from editing any such text with the exception of BLP violations or other serious infractions of Wikipedia policy.

Q: For instance, John S. Romanides declares that Greek, not Latin, was the language originally spoken in Rome. Am I to be faulted if I edit an article that includes that statement by Romanides, who happens to be an Eastern Orthodox theologian?

A: If this declaration is made in the context of a theological or ecclesiological discussion, then the answer is "Yes. Stay away from editing the text." Romanides is not a historian, he is a theologian who engages in polemics. It is your tendency to engage in original research by directly challenging primary sources that has gotten you into trouble. The editing restriction is meant to keep you out of future occurrences of such trouble.

Q: Is LoveMonkey to continue to have the privilege of inserting at will any opinion that pleases him which has been expressed by some individual Eastern Orthodox theologian?

A: Not necessarily "at will". In the past, you have taken it upon yourself to be the "guardian of the truth" who corrects the egregious errors committed by LoveMonkey. Unfortunately, the contentiousness which has resulted from these efforts have led to edit-warring and incivility which has been deemed unacceptable by just about everyone involved including Phatius McBluff and myself. I think Phatius and I have generally been supportive of your point of view but we are not supportive of your contentiousness. All we are asking is that you bring your concerns to the group and let other editors correct the problems introduced by LoveMonkey. We are making the same request of LoveMonkey with respect to the problems he sees in your edits. No more edit-warring between the two of you. Period. It really has to stop or we will have to stop one or both of you via a block or a ban. (An outcome which I would very much like to avoid.)

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lest I be misunderstood, I wish to clarify my earlier comment. What I wrote above is sharply critical of Esoglou. That is because the discussion is with Esoglou and about his past behavior and restrictions on his future behavior. However, it takes two to tango. LoveMonkey has been at least contentious as Esoglou and has engaged in edit warring and incivility as well. What I wrote above doesn't focus on his behavior because that is not the topic at hand. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this case my undoing of Dbachmann's edit was not "correcting an egregious error committed by LoveMonkey", and I did not see it as making any comment by me on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice. Should the wording of the restriction be adjusted somewhat? Or instead, would it be simpler and clearer if LoveMonkey and I agreed to make no edit whatever to some list of articles that you or someone else could add to as necessary? We could agree that, if I violated that restriction, even by mistake, I would make a donation of, say, three hundred United States dollars (or more or less, as agreed), to any Eastern Orthodox charity that LoveMonkey would name, and if he violated it, even by mistake, he would make the same donation to a Roman Catholic charity named by me. Esoglou (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as the donations to charities are concerned, far be it from me to discourage such activity but I think we should focus less on enforcement via penalties and rely instead on a gentleman's agreement which is enforced by moral suasion and an honest willingness to recognize mistakes, apologize for them and to forgive them. (If you're a believer in WWJD?, I think you would see that this is the way to go.) The idea of creating a list of verboten articles is (sorry) a Catholic approach. It requires a bureaucracy to create a list and then maintain it as we discover new articles that belong under the restriction. The spirit of the restriction is clear even if the specific interpretation is not. As long as we take the "gentleman's agreement" approach of admonishing violations and "not making a big deal out of them", I think we are better off than if we spend a lot of effort Wikilawyering over which articles fall under the restriction and which specific text falls under it.

I myself tend to agree with you over the innocuousness of your reverting of Dbachmann's edit but, since other parties seem to care, I would counsel you to just stay as far away from the delineation as possible. I can't believe we've spent this much time discussing an edit. Christians love to dispute over small issues. So do Wikipedians. Christian Wikipedians discussing Christian issues? That, it seems to me, is the definition of hell.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou can't see that his undoing of Dbachmann's edit violated his editing restriction:

Well, in this case my undoing of Dbachmann's edit was not "correcting an egregious error committed by LoveMonkey", and I did not see it as making any comment by me on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice.

It seems to me that most others *do* see it as a violation. I don't know where to go from here. Carlton is an EO proponent, and even if he was alleging that Catholics believe in pink elephants, Esoglou should not have been changing any sentences which present Carlton's views. It would be Esoglou's role to point out any problems he perceives with Carlton to others, so they can decide if it needs fixing. The editing restriction won't work if Esoglou can't understand it, but I don't see what is so difficult. I am on the point of proposing a sanction of Esoglou. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea that you, Ed, have been wanting to do so for more than just the last couple of days. While I do certainly accept Richard's suggestion to me, I did think that it was just possible that my request for a clearer enunciation of the restriction might get a response. It seems that I was mistaken. Any decision on the talk-page question? Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I have to repeat that I have no problems with Carlton - quite the contrary - and that I was only restoring what Carlton said, an action that I am told I should not do and so a decision I must accept? My problem was not with Carlton, but with Dbachmann's removal of what Carlton said. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me the bottom line? Are you agreeing not to modify sentences which present Carlton's views in the future? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Unhesitatingly so, since what is decisive in Wikipedia is the consensus of those involved, not the opinion of any one of them, regardless of rank. There is consensus that, whatever anyone else says is Carlton's view, even presenting it as belief in pink elephants, I am not to touch what is said of his view. I take it that you will not in response to my queries make any clarifying modification of the restriction on editing article pages. Have you decided to modify what the restriction says about talk-page discussions? Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Regarding talk pages, you need to tell us your decision. If you agree that both you and LM should be allowed to use talk pages freely, I will make the change in the restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you had read what I wrote, "I now raise no objection to freeing the talk pages", just before I asked "as a favour that what we two are to abstain from writing about be defined clearly". Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Per this edit, and by agreement of the parties I changed the editing restriction so that you and LoveMonkey are free to discuss these matters on Talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving comments

Hi Ed. Can you explain to me why you moved my comments at the AE request [83]? I was NOT making a general comment but rather speaking specifically about what the results should be. As such, my comment should be in the "results" section. If what bothered you was the threaded nature of the comment, I can "star" it for you in order to bring it in line with the format of the other comments in the section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the notice just under the 'Result' heading: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And where does this notice come from? Is there a format that the ArbCom decided would be followed on AE pages which made the existence of this section to be edited only by uninvolved administrators mandatory? This is an honest question. I just don't see any reason why the "results" section should be limited to "uninvolved administrators". "Uninvolved editors" yes, but there's no reason to draw another thick line of demarcation between admins (and being an admin is a "no big deal") and regular editors who may wish to offer their insight. What's the history of this section? Who decided this? The way I see it, the only reason admins are needed here is because they are the only ones who can implement bans and blocks and discretionary sanctions. But there's nothing about who is included and who is forcibly excluded from the discussion.

Perhaps the proper course of action would have been to have removed the spurious, discriminatory, and arbitrary "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." notice, rather than my comments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed about three months ago, and the present scheme was endorsed by those who gave their opinion. I can't find the archive page but it's around somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you gimme a link? I'd like to see it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion in January, 2011 at Template talk:Sanction enforcement request. Uninvolved admins play a particular role at AE since they are the only ones who can close a discussion, per Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)