User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

WP:RCU on WP:FR

Hello,

It doesn't matter much but:

• S’il y en a un de ceux mentionnés ci-dessus qui est à rapprocher de RodriguezWissam, c’est Anticyclone à banias ; même FAI, et certaines caractéristiques techniques en commun. Après, comme ce sont des plages dynamiques, difficile d’être formel. schlum =^.^= 30 octobre 2015 à 11:37 (CET)

means:

• If there is one of those mentioned here above who is to be linked to RodriguezWissam [a banned account], it is Anticyclone à banias ; same FAI and some other technical caracteristic in common. After, these are dynamic ranges [of IP], difficult to be sure. [signature]

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is regarding WP:AE#Anticyclone à banias. There has been a discussion on Anticyclone's talk page which he has now blanked. A link was provided to a French Wikipedia checkuser case which to me seems inconclusive. The most they would say was the passage you quoted above. I guess FAI is the equivalent of our ISP. I'd probably need to see more edits here on the English Wikipedia by User:Anticyclone à banias before deciding what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston,

I understand. And wp:en is not wp:fr.

FYI: he has just been blocked as sock of a banned user. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyprus

• Courtier1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mikrobølgeovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks for your advisory Ed. This is going to be tricky, but there are some serious allegations involved, and yes I have a feeling that ARBMAC may need to be invoked. Once I figure out what I think should be done, I will discuss my proposed actions with you - two's far better than one in this situation!! Many thanks again for dropping by. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I am beginning to consider an interaction ban may be wise for Ron1978 and Mikrobolgeovn, as well as a prohibition on editing certain pages. I would also like to list List of wars involving Cyprus for deletion, as it is a very short list better incorporated into textual articles that can include more context. Thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that one party in this dispute is more warlike than the others. But what do you think about issuing ARBMAC alerts to both Courtier1978 and Mikrobølgeovn? The connection of the Cyprus dispute to Greece (which falls under ARBMAC) seems to be well enough established by a reading of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 124#Talk:List of wars involving Cyprus. You and I previously discussed this at User talk:Buckshot06#Further comment about List of wars involving Cyprus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we can issue discretionary sanctions. The question is what sanctions should be imposed. As a start I will formally advise them both that ARBMAC applies and discretionary sanctions are allowable, whether or not they know that already; it'll serve as a warning. Happy to hear what sanctions you believe ought to be imposed, which should be placed where the blaim lies, not just blanket-equally. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ARBMAC DS were dismissed as inapplicable in Cyprus-related topics by Sandstein during my AE report against now-blocked sock Alexyflemming. Dr. K. 02:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We can still leave notices independent of these issues. Many of the Cyprus disputes involve mainland Greece. Enosis was asking for reunion with what country? EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was my opinion also if you recall. However, Sandstein's close looks pretty definite to me irrespective of the connections to Greece. Perhaps we need to consult him before issuing warnings only to be rebuffed at AE. Also there was the issue that Arbcom did not cover Cyprus under ARBMAC. Dr. K. 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's too soon to ask Arbcom to look at Cyprus again, especially in the waning days of 2015. But if you check the vote in 2012, some arbs were prepared to extend sanctions to Cyprus, and others would have considered it if either a full case or an abbreviated case were opened about specific misbehavior. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point about the timing. Perhaps a new Arbcom could address this problem through a case request either in general terms or specific to Cyprus. Dr. K. 04:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is fair to let you know, that all three editors that we have been involved in this, we have finally agreed on the issues and that the dispute has been resolved.Ron1978 (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If an agreement has been reached, can you link to where that has occurred? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It has occurred here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cypriot_intercommunal_violence and verified again here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus#UnprotectRon1978 (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Continued from WP:AN/EW#User:Davidwr reported by IP editor (Result: Semi)

Note: Original WP:AN/EW discussion is likely to be archived to 298 or 299 soon.

Begin text copied from WP:AN/EW[1]

Is there anything I should have done differently?

What is the best way to attract other editors to this page to discuss what this article should include (specifically, what is the consensus opinion of the practical definitions of accredited and diploma mill and what does it "take" for an institution that was rightfully put on either list in the past to be removed?). Of course this editor - whether registered or not - would be welcome to participate in such a discussion (however - any editor with any WP:Conflict of interest would of course be expected to declare such a conflict - this especially includes editors who have connections to accreditation agencies or government agencies whose "approval" is relevant to the definitions of these terms).

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have a couple of ideas but would prefer if you would open a section on my User talk and ask the question there. I'd start by asking people who participated in the two AfDs of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, even though the AfDs are in the past. If memory serves, User:DGG and User:John Vandenberg have had some thoughts about this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

End copied text

Okay, I've opened the discussion here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My view:

Diploma mill is a subset of unaccredited; the two should not be confused.

In my opinion a list of unaccredited institutions divided by country would be more useful if it includes both those unaccredited in their own country. and those in that country that have been explicitly refused accreditation elsewhere. The problem of course is that most institutions do not apply for accreditation in every possible country, and therefore such a list would need to be selective, and include those for which there are references that they have been explicitly refused accreditation in a major country, or that have been so reported in very reliable 3rd party sources. They have to be indicated separately to avoid confusion. To make the scope manageable that aspect could reasonably be mainly concerned with those schools refused accreditation by any of the major English speaking countries.

A list of diploma mills would be those so considered by reliable 3rd party authorities in any country. We do not currently have so a list. It could reasonably be written & I think it should. The country -by-country descriptions in the Diploma mill article are bad in several respects: first, they confuse unaccredited with diploma mill--the list of hwat each country counts as an accredited institution belongs in an article on that topic. Most countries do not define Diploma mill exactly, so a list of those definitions would be appropriate, but it would be much shorter. Second, the inclusion of institutions here is erratic and arbitrary, and gives excessive weight to the onres that are included. that information belongs in a List of Diploma mills/List of unaccredited, depending on what they say.

In general, ambiguous or disputed situations for a particular school need to be explained--they can not always be summarized in word or two. Th efull description belongsi nthe article on the institution. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

These sound like good ideas. Any objection to linking to this discussion from Talk:Diploma mill and Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education?

Also, in some if not most disputed cases where the article doesn't clearly show that the institution meets WP:CORP (absent the "nearly free pass" that is given to meaningfully-accredited schools as described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), there will be no article about the institution because it will be PRODded away or will fall to RfA AfD (sidebar: whether a "disputed case" school's article falls to RfA AfD or not may depend more on the RfA AfD participants than the content of the article and its references or the reputation of the school). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No objection to making links. Not sure what you mean by 'RfA.' Did you mean to say AfD? EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been preoccupied with that AfD RfA reform proposal (that, and getting ready to celebrate the 5 Millions article). Thanks for the catch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Very broadly agree with DGG's summary and suggestions on future improvement of this topical area.

I'm still trying to work out the specifics of this 'edit war'; is this about the 11 institutions in Mexico? If so, which ones specifically are being contested? If not, please help me out and give specific names for the contested institutions so I can familiarise myself with them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there are 3 schools that are contested: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Atlantic International University and Alliant International University. The Atlantic international University article was deleted although it would seem to pass the AfD criteria referred to earlier, specifically: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools 73.49.178.221 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've slept since the last time I had the answer to that question so I don't have it in my head anymore. I'll have to re-read it in order to answer your question, and I'll need to sleep again before I do that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 10:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The List of unaccredited institutions of higher education needs to be updated and the schools mentioned below needs to be removed

Akamai University accredited by International Accrediting Body-http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/Accreditation Service for International Colleges see Chea's international accreditor--》http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c164

Atlantic International University accredited by International Accrediting Body-http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/Accreditation Service for International Colleges see Chea's international accreditor--》http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c164

Delta International University of New Orleans accredited by International Accrediting Body-http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/Accreditation Service for International Colleges see Chea's international accreditor--》http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c1642605:E000:6009:9700:C03B:642B:A7BB:5228 (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, any discussion about the inclusion of Delta International University of New Orleans should be held on the talk page at List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. In the normal sense of accreditation of degree programs, I can't find any evidence that Delta is accredited. It is on the list of institutions recognized by ASIC but it seems they don't accredit degrees. Plus, how significant is it for Delta to be recognized by a UK organization when it is based in the USA. Our article on Delta says that the State of Louisiana expected them to apply to apply to ACICS by 2012 but that organization's web site says nothing about Delta. The page at http://www.delta-university.org/?P=accreditation says that Delta are a member of CHEA but the CHEA list that they link to does not include their name. The wording of Delta's accreditation page seems to studiously avoid the issues. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok EdJohnston, just an FYI, there are two different accrediting agencies. One accredits the institution and the other accredits the program which is called "programmic accreditation" also known as specialized or professional accreditation. Its designed for specialized departments, programs, schools or colleges within and institution (e.g., School of Law, School of Business, School of Engineering etc..) Programmic accreditation looks for specific aspects of a department to which the institution that has accreditation, it's an extra accreditation. There is no such accreditation agency that accredits the actual "Degree" hence the reason for the institutions being accredited. Here's reference. See Q and A's regarding accreditation. See this. 2605:E000:6009:9700:C03B:642B:A7BB:5228 (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My role in this was only to handle the edit warring complaint. Any content discussion should take place at Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education or other suitable venue. If agreement can't be found, consider a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Surface

So you plan to leave the article with incorrect information? And a lack of information? Shouldn't it be reverted to before any of the recent edits were made to the infobox? WikIan -(talk) 03:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not propose your version on the talk page? Start an RfC if you wish. Over the last month more than a dozen people have edited the article. If your version gets general support, someone else will make the edit. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Libesruinssineced is back at "List of multiple discoveries"

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

Libesruinssineced, ignoring your warnings, is once more back at "List of multiple discoveries" (please see [2] here).

Is there any way to definitively stop his wrongheaded tampering with the article?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for L. to respond to my latest warning before deciding what to do. He's made no edits since 29 October. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

He appears to have made further edits today, 3 November 2015, as "78.149.192.253" (please see [3] here).

He has not reverted his objectionable edits of 29 October 2015. Nihil novi (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Onefortyone

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

Onefortyone is active again and engaged in similar behavior to what has gotten him sanctioned numerous times. I've taken a deeper look into his edits—he is quite intent on introducing poorly sourced gossip about Elvis Presley and related subjects into various articles. His edits generally pass WP:V (although I've found page number mismatches) but the source material is very poor (second and third-hand gossip and theories) and certainly has significant issues with WP:RS and WP:PROFRINGE. I've avoided dealing with him as an admin because I've had conflict with him in the past as FAC Coordinator when I nearly had to have him banned from participating at FAC. But, this will almost certainly end up AN/I again. Someone is socking to edit war with him, which will likely become a red herring when dealing with Onefortyone's behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume the articles now in question are

• Graceland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
• Personal relationships of Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Memphis Mafia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Toilet-related injuries and deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The other editor you're talking about must be Excelse (talk · contribs). At first glance I've no idea who is more likely to be right about including this material. There is also a thread at WP:RSN about the Presley articles that was just opened by User:Hoary.

There was an arb case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone back in 2005. Per this remedy he was placed on probation regarding biographies of celebrities. "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." It seems that provision is still in effect and so an AE complaint is theoretically possible. The data would need to be very clear. I'll watch for now but am not planning on taking any action myself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this matter. I responded to the RS/N thread to demonstrate that this is an example of the exact behavior Onefortyone is on probation to prevent. He deliberately misinterpreted and combined sources in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to write that Elvis died on the toilet, and then edit warred to keep it in when it was challenged. I don't have a POV about Elvis (Onefortyone frequently claims he is targeted by "Elvis fans") and I don't have a horse in this race other than the general interest in keeping poorly sourced and fringe theories out of Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you are not well informed about my "probation". It is true that in 2005 I was taken to arbitration because some of my contributions were not in line with the opinion of one or two other editors. However, my opponents in this case were later banned from the related articles because of their false accusations. Here is what the arbcom says: "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." See [4]. Therefore, my opponent Lochdale, who had shown "evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" and "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley," was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." It could well be that Excelse and his sockpuppets are identical with Lochdale or another editor who attacked me some years ago in a similar way. Interestingly, Excelse and his sockpuppets have only removed Elvis-related paragraphs that are not in line with their personal opinion, among them quotations from reliable sources. See [5], [6], [7], [8]. Interestingly, the consensus for allowing many of those sources now in question in the articles' texts has stood for many years. As Excelse says in one of his edit summaries, "Six years passed, only second self published forums cite these gossips other than this page" (see [9]), it could well be that he was deeply involved in the former edit wars, for which he was banned from Elvis-related articles. Onefortyone (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your pointer to the second arb case. Per the terms of the 2006 decision, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis#Onefortyone on probation, your probation on 'articles which concern celebrities' is reaffirmed. If you continue to edit war about Elvis material, any admin can choose to invoke the sanctions and ban you from editing Elvis-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I must admit that I do not understand why my probation is still in effect, as all of my edits are well sourced. Concerning the death of Elvis, according to many independent sources there can be no doubt that the singer died on the toilet. Here is a clear statement by Greil Marcus from his study, Dead Elvis: A Chronicle of a Cultural Obsession (Harvard University Press 1991): "Elvis died on the toilet" (p.154). Some other sources:

Material that belongs on the talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dylan Jones, Elvis Has Left the Building: The Day the King Died (New York and London 2014), chapter 2: The Day Elvis Died: "Elvis Presley died aged fortytwo on August 16th, 1977, in the bathroom of the star's own Graceland mansion in Memphis. Sitting on the toilet, he had toppled like a toy soldier and collapsed onto the floor, where he lay in a pool of his own vomit. His light blue pyjamas were around his ankles." Joel Williamson, Elvis Presley: A Southern Life (Oxford University Press 2015): "For some reason—perhaps involving a reaction to the codeine and attempts to move his bowels—he experienced pain and fright while sitting on the toilet. Alarmed, he stood up, dropped the book he was reading, stumbled forward, and fell face down in the fetal position. He struggled weakly and drooled on the rug. Unable to breathe, he died." (p.18) Victor Pross, "Elvis Presley: Universal Rock Icon", in Icons & Idols: Pop Goes the Culture (Bloomington, IN 2009): "Elvis Presley died, at age 42, in 1977 in Memphis. It was an ignominious tumble off a toilet into a pool of vomit, but it heralded perhaps the most glorious resurrection in pop culture history." (p.11) Joel Williamson, "Graceland", in William E. Leuchtenburg, American Places: Encounters with History (Oxford University Press 2000): "It was … a wall-to-wall red rug in an upstairs bathroom with threeinch pile in which Elvis died face down, having risen from his reputedly wallhung black ceramic toilet with a seat padded in imitation black leather and having collapsed in the proximity of teddy bears, empty syringes, and an illustrated book of Asian derivasion that coordinated the birth dates of men and women with certain cosmically optimal sexual positions." Frank Coffey, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Elvis (1997): "Hospital officials present at the autopsy later admitted that Elvis died from polypharmacy— multiple drug ingestion. Other examinations of the evidence have yielded other plausible causes of Elvis' death, including: a phenomenon called the Valsalva maneuver (essentially straining on the toilet leading to heart stoppage — plausible because Elvis suffered constipation, a common reaction to drug use); anaphylactic shock (caused by either an extreme allergic reaction or reaction to potent — i.e., street — drugs); even suffocation (after blacking out) on the thick carpeting of his bathroom." (p.247) Charles Reagan Wilson, "The Death of Southern Heroes: Historic Funerals of the South," Southern Cultures, Volume 1 (Duke University Press, Fall 1994), p.17: "Presley died at Graceland of massive drug abuse that led to heart failure while he sat on the toilet reading a book on the Shroud of Turin. He was discovered face down on the plush red carpet." John Voelz, King Me (Littleton, CO 2010): "I was a kid when The King died on his throne. On August 16th, 1977, Elvis Presley died in his Graceland mansion. On the toilet. Well, on the floor. After he fell off the toilet. Not a very “kingly” way to go." (p.10). Warren Allen Smith, Who's who in Hell: A Handbook and International Directory for Humanists, Freethinkers, Naturalists, Rationalists, and Non-theists (Barricade Books 2000): "Two who literally died 'on the throne', as the toilet stool is sometimes called, were singers Judy Garland and Elvis Presley." (p.1098) Onefortyone (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Last but not least, here is what reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick says about Elvis's death at Graceland: The only thing that appeared to have been missed, aside from the empty syringes, was the book that Elvis had in the bathroom with him when he died, a study of sex and psychic energy that correlated sexual positions with astrological signs. Warlick found a stain on the bathroom carpeting, too, that seemed to indicate where Elvis had thrown up after being stricken, apparently while seated on the toilet. It looked to the medical investigator as if he had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died." ... nine pathologists from Baptist cond acted the examination in full knowledge that the world was watching but that the results would be released to Elvis' father alone. ... Francisco announced the results of the autopsy, even as the autopsy was still going on. Death, he said, was "due to cardiac arrhythmia due to undetermined heartbeat." ... But there were in fact at that time no results to report. The autopsy proper went on for another couple of hours. Specimens were collected and carefully preserved, the internal organs were examined and the heart found to be enlarged, a significant amount of coronary atherosclerosis was observed, the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested to the doctors what by now they had every reason to suspect from Elvis' hospital history, the observed liver damage, and abundant anecdotal evidence: that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease who had been "mobile and functional within eight hours of his death." It was certainly possible that he had been taken while "straining at stool," and no one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills he had gotten from his dentist, to which he was known to have had a mild allergy of long standing. The pathologists, however, were satisfied to wait for the lab results, which they were confident would overrule Dr. Francisco's precipitate, and somewhat meaningless, announcement, as indeed they eventually did. There was little disagreement in fact between the two principal laboratory reports and analyses filed two months later, with each stating a strong belief that the primary cause of death was polypharmacy, and the BioScience Laboratories report, initially filed under the patient name of "Ethel Moore," indicating the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity. Codeine appeared at ten times the therapeutic level, methaqualone (Quaalude) in an arguably toxic amount, three other drugs appeared to be on the borderline of toxicity taken in and of themselves, and "the combined effect of the central nervous system depressants and the codeine" had to be given heavy consideration. See Peter Guralnick, Careless Love:The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), pp.651-652. This latter source was quoted by me. I do not understand what should be wrong with this source. To my mind, some Elvis fans are trying to remove this well-sourced information from Elvis-related articles, as it is not in line with their personal view of the mega-star. Onefortyone (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Having edits that you consider well-sourced is not enough. You need to convince the other participants on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached, you can open an WP:RFC or use the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that I do not understand why I need to convince other editors, if studies from university presses and other reliable sources are cited in order to support my edits. Onefortyone (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This is basic on Wikipedia. See WP:CON. Stuff does not get in merely by being sourced, it gets in through the agreement of editors that it belongs. If you and User:Excelse continue to revert each other on Elvis articles, admin action is likely. You should wait for a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I fear it will not be possible to reach consensus here, as the other user is simply removing well-sourced content. You should also take into account that Excelse and his sockpuppets are new users whose edits are nothing more than an attempt to remove content from Elvis-related pages that is not in line with their personal opinion, but was part of these articles for many years. Onefortyone (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Laser Brain and User:Onefortyone, do you think that this static IP was me? Obviously it was not me. I have told before too, that I had one of these articles on my watchlist and when I saw that Onefortyone has been indeed trolling by calling fair edits a vandalism,[10] now at this situation any editor would want to look up the recent contribution history of such editor. That's what I did and reverted him. When I made this edit, I had actually found out that Onefortyone has been the only editor who makes these edits and these edits have no confirmation since his insertions[11] outside wikipedia than gossip forums. While other editors always removes such content,[12][13] Onefortyone inserts back,[14][15] despite no consensus on talk page.[16]

For deeper analysis of his edits, read this discussion. I made discussion on his talk page, because he was floating same material on at least five articles and making discussion on each article talk page is only repetitive. He has not discussed about content, and only made attacks.

I am editing for 2 years, and I edited Elvis article[17] before too.

What I have seen about Onefortyone is:-

• He canvasses.[18][19]
• He misrepresent and make false sources :- Once again he has tendentiously reinserted this material, even though I had told[20] him that the source [21] is from 1995, and it is not even mentioning Graceland or saying that Biltmore is 2nd most visited.
• Edit wars. Like explained above.
• He don't discuss content, he only make personal attacks[22] and call fair edits a vandalism.[23][24][25][26]

This all comes from last 5 days, if we make a list of his last 10 years of disruption, it would be huge.

I have already noted about this recent edit, now talking about other one, he use a source[27] that regard it as "plausible theory" and not "authentic theory", and treats it as similar as other theory that Elvis died from Bone Cancer. These edits came after you had warned him not to make any more controversial edits.[28]

Onefortyone has already proven that he is not going to consider any warnings and he is not going to give up disrupting these articles. If it is possible to ban or block him for stopping this disturbance, then it should be done. Even if he gives up making these edits he will return after a few weeks and create this drama again. Excelse (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My edits are not disruptive, as I am citing many reliable sources, among them commentaries by eye-witnesses, mainstream biographies of Elvis and academic studies. Query: did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments for his massive removals of content? No, he didn't. Where are his reliable sources contradicting my edits? To my mind, this case is an exercise in WP:I just don't like it. I have cited many independent sources supporting my contributions. And this is what counts on Wikipedia, not the personal opinions of some Elvis fans. So the material removed by Excelse without obvious justification should be reincluded in the Elvis-related articles. See also this discussion. Onefortyone (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

I copied some threads to my talk page for ready access to the history of events, anticipating that the other editor will continue his interventions.

Where may I find instructions on how to archive?

Many thanks!

Nihil novi (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I can archive that specific thread using the OneClickArchiver if you want. To set up normal bot archiving, you could add this to your talk:

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 250K 

|counter = 1 

|algo = old(10d) 

|archive = User talk:Nihil novi/Archive %(counter)d 

}}

The most convenient archive box is this one:

{{archives|search=yes}}

This style of archive box doesn't have to be updated when more archives are created. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

I've found "Wikipedia:Archiving" and have archived my talk page.

It was about time to do it !

Kindly let me know, should there be anything else I ought to do.

Thanks again !

Nihil novi (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Onefortyone update

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

Well the user seems not to adhering to consensus and his aggressive spamming of quotation is becoming lengthy now since they are cherry picking, not to mention edit warring that I pointed once. Above you have told that you "so an AE complaint is theoretically possible. The data would need to be very clear. I'll watch for now but am not planning on taking any action myself", what it means? You are not going to take action but what is "AE complaint"? Excelse (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In principle his behavior can be reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement. I'm waiting to see if he continues to restore material to Elvis articles that is disputed by others. If that happens I'll decide whether a block is necessary. He has been sufficiently warned, but it's not 100% clear what would be a violation. The original complaint by User:Laser brain (above) was that "he is quite intent on introducing poorly sourced gossip about Elvis Presley and related subjects into various articles.." If you think Onefortyone has resumed adding the kind of material that others have disputed in the past, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't you see that Excelse is one of those POV warriors who are here to remove well-sourced content from articles that is not in line with their fan view? In the past, some Elvis fans even took me to arbitration for only this reason. However, as I am always citing reliable sources in order to support my edits, these fans were banned from Elvis-related articles. In my opinion, the Wikipedia articles dealing with Elvis Presley should not be dominated by fans who only support 'favorable' views of the singer and endeavor to suppress any critical or unpleasant remark published in primary and secondary sources. In an article by Professor Wall there is an interesting discussion of radical policing strategies implemented over the years by Elvis fan clubs and organisations. The article clearly states that one of these strategies is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. ... Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways ..." See David S. Wall, "Policing Elvis: Legal Action and the Shaping of Post-Mortem Celebrity Culture as Contested Space". Removing content from Wikipedia articles is part of this strategy. Onefortyone (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have read AE now and I would rather report to AE then, because you seem to have commented on many reports there. I have opened one there now about Onefortyone. Excelse (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The Lawsuit

Hello - I see that you created an RM on The Lawsuit. This is fine, but it needs to be moved back to its original title first - I had put in a technical request to revert an undiscussed move, which is required before starting up an RM in that situation - otherwise it can get messy for the closer of the discussion. I appreciate your work, and your attention to this! Dohn joe (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This is too confusing for a simple revert of the original move. Please wait for the outcome of the discussion. There is no written policy for how to handle the 'Requests to revert undiscussed moves' section. Whatever admins do with that is just a local practice and ought to be subject to common sense. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of that section is to facilitate the WP:BRD process. Most BOLD edits can simply be reverted - including to article titles. Sometimes, though, there is a procedural obstacle, so regular editors like myself cannot simply revert. That section is meant to be automatic - otherwise the system can be gamed by intentionally throwing up obstacles to routine reverting of titles. It should be up to the BOLD editor to justify making a change, not the other way around. Dohn joe (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion :-). If you think there's a policy against my action, please link to it. WP:BRD is an essay. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the policy comes at the other end, as I was hinting at above. WP:RM/CI requires that an RM that closes with no consensus be returned to the previous title if it was recently moved with no consensus. For our purposes, the most relevant sentence is "Therefore, if a page has been moved from a longstanding title, and it is not possible to move the page back to its original title during the discussion, the default title will be the title prior to the contested move." Since it's not possible for me to move it, but it is for an admin, most admins I've asked in this situation have agreed to perform the revert, and let the RM proceed from the "natural" direction. It's just cleaner at the closing end of things. But it's fine - the discussion will say whatever it says, and the closer will only have to take the above into account if there's no consensus one way or the other. Dohn joe (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous user is accusing me for being a sockpuppet

Hello, EdJohnston, may I have your attention for a minute? There seems to be a case of a planned campaign to reduce my and other user's reputation and stir bad rumors about us due to our work in articles related to the Balkans (which fall under discretionary sanctions and are of high political debate). More specifically, an anonymous user with the IP 45.33.130.46 is accusing me (User:SilentResident) for being sockpuppet of the User:Athenean. This incident happened today the morning, at the following talk page: User talk:Edvini (Date: 11 November 2015, section title: Possible). I suspect this accident may be related to another similar accident that took place, 2 months ago, at my own talk page: User talk:SilentResident (Date: 2 September 2015, section title: Canvassing, Breaking the spirit of the 3rr). I don't think all this is a mere coincidence. Can this be looked at by you or by other administrators, please? The User:Evensteven has suggested your attention in the first incident, and now I really need the administrator's attention this time, because another such a case happened again right now. I suspect there must be a link between these two accidents, it is way too coincidental for this to be unrelated to each other. I do not know who else to ask, or which is the most appropriate option to take when such suspicious suggestions target me or aim to reduce my and other people's reputations. --SilentResident (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP range at 45.33.128.0/20 belongs to Cloudmosa.com. I am tempted to do a webhost block of that range, but have set things in motion by filing at WP:OP. Will let you know if anything further happens. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. --SilentResident (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I don't know if this helps, but there is something suspicious that caught my attention now, and I want to report it to you. The anonymous user, 45.33.130.46, who made today (11 November 2015) these sockpuppet accusations against me and the User:Athenean, in User:Edvini's Talk Page, happened only some days after the User:Edvini himself made the same type of accusation against the User:TU-nor and the User:Alexikoua, in TU-nor's talk page here: [29]. Is striking to me, because I do not believe in coincidences. The fact that a single user (in this case, Edvini) to be involved into two separate sockpuppet claims against 4 different Wikipedia users, both in a direct manner (against TU-nor and Alexikoua) and indirectly (through 45.33.130.46's comments on his talk page, against me and Athenean), can only raise suspicions. I feel obliged to clarify that the user Edvini cannot be held responsible for 45.33.130.46's claims against me and Athenean in Edvini's talk page, but the fact that Edvini himself was involved in a very similar case against 2 other Wiki users, at Octomber 2015, only a few days ago from today, is worrisome, let alone that I myself have received 2 sockpuppetting accusations already in such a short time period. --SilentResident (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor unblocked

I have lifted a block you placed. There was an unblock request at User talk:Stolichanin, undertaking not to edit the article affected by the edit-warring which led to the block. Usually, I consult the blocking admin before unblocking, but this time I thought that an undertaking not to edit the article in question at all pretty clearly removed the reason for the block, and also your block log, saying "There seems no other way to get your attention" seemed to imply that the purpose of the block had been fulfilled now that the editor had made a positive response. I trust that under those circumstances you won't object to unblocking, but please let me know if for any reason you do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I was thinking that this user might have had a previous account, but it's hard to act on that suspicion one way or the other. Since he's unblocked I'll go ahead and give an alert under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about discretionary sanctions

Hi Ed, do you know where the best place is to ask this type of question? "Can I place a restriction on an editor requiring them to get permission from an admin before switching to a new account and/or requiring them to list all old accounts on their user page?" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You could try posting at WT:AE. Arbcom itself has sometimes told people to use a single account. If you are thinking of imposing such a requirement on that person as a discretionary sanction, then they would need to have been alerted and you would need to mention the case that would justify the action. For some reason people often refuse to list old accounts. Possibly you know the old accounts already and just want to get them listed somewhere, which is reasonable. An alternative (if they won't agree to list them) is to open a pro forma SPI in which you give the names of the old accounts but don't request any action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'll just get your opinion? Before this editor was indeffed, they had a two week block for socking. They had a history of edit warring in contentious areas covered by discretionary sanctions (Palestine/Israel, Syria), retiring, and then opening a new account and doing the same thing over again. They insist their accounts were not used in parallel and not created to avoid scrutiny but it's hard to buy that (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive). If the original two week block had been kept, I was planning to impose the restrictions described above. Thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You must be asking for the case of a serial sockmaster who isn't already indef blocked on their main account. Sounds like it would be an infrequent case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How to request that an article be fixed and re-worked for accuracy and clarity

Hi There,

I was wondering if you can point me in the right direction to request that an article get's fixed for accuracies, updated or removal of outdated information, new sources and clarity? It's This Article.

Thank you and have a great day Smooth Lawyer (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You're speaking about List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. In my opinion, the people who are tryng to maintain this article have chosen a tough assignment. I hope you find yourself able to participate in good faith on the talk page. Some of your edits there suggest that off-wiki interests might have brought you to the article. If so then the WP:COI guideline may be of interest. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Page protection for Medieval Bulgarian army

• Medieval Bulgarian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston. I saw that you protected Medieval Bulgarian Army. I am wondering if you might take a look at WT:AN#BulgariaSources because I think the "MBA" IP edits may possibly be related in some way to the edits discussed in the linked ANI thread based upon [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36], etc. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As an SPI case this wouldn't be very exciting, since semiprotection is already applied. You may have a valid complaint about long-term edit warring if this keeps up. It appears that User:BulgariaSources wants to add some tables to the article but others disagree. If you desire admin action it would be good to see some discussion on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback EdJohnston. I did open a thread about BulgariaSources on ANI for disruptive editing on some other Bulgaria national football team and some other Bulgaria-related articles, but it was archived twice with any comments received from an administrator. So, I'm not sure if that means what they are doing is generally not considered disruptive, there was a technical problem with the way I posted, or simply that the admins were just busy dealing with other things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Things often get archived at ANI with no action, and you shouldn't take that as being an admin verdict. My point is that there is a content issue at Bulgaria national football team that nobody has considered important enough to bring to the talk page. Though I share your concern about this editor, we often try to engage them first on their content issue before talking about blocks. The article talk page is the place for content issues. I will leave a note for User:BulgariaSources. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again EdJohnston. Just for reference, I have made a number of attempts to engage BulgariaSources in discussion about the issues mentioned in the ANI thread in edit sums, and on both the article's talk page and their usertalk a number of times. There have also been numerous user warnings placed on their talk by other editors, including blocks for edit warring and using mutlitple accounts, and they have never responded to any of them as well. I posted at ANI because all attempts made to engage them in dicscussion had failed, and they seem to have no interest in discussing things since their only response is to blank their talk page and return to making the edits in question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Going to ANI was fine, I'm just advising you on the steps that may be needed if you think an edit warring block is justified. In a long-term edit war, we usually give the person a last chance and try to persuade them to justify their position. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I believe that quite a few good faith attempts were made to engage them, but to date no response has been received from them other than to blank their user talk. I saw your post on their talk page, so perhaps this time they will choose respond and things can be worked out. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to do that and thanks for you advice on how to best proceed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

guy night mare here have a look some kind of POV bulgaria push, also deleting talkpage contents to avoid other's seeing warnings Shrikanthv (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Shrikanthv, this is not new behavior since the last warning. He has made no edits since 4 November. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again EdJohnston. Do you think this could be an language problem? I'm not trying to be facetious, but maybe they just do not feel confident enough to discuss things in English with other editors. That's the only remaining AGF possibility that I can personally come up with since they continue to make edits such as this despite the numerous requests on their user talk to engage in discussion with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Palomaris is back vandalizing Food irradiation

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

Palomaris ban has apparently ended and is once more back at Food irradiation.

Bellow are the edits to the main page:

• [37], [38], [39]

Below is the gloating for his "victory" of harassing a previous editor until he quit on the talk page:

• [40], [41], [42], [43]

You can see the edits, I leave this to your discretion.104.2.168.238 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've left a warning at User talk:Palomaris. His theory that irradiation doesn't make any chemical changes in food appears to be contradicted by the sources in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding discretionary sanctions

As you have mention about discretionary sanctions on my talk which state that I have been sanction to edit meena page.so i am asking you if I edit that page andmahensingha again rapidly revert that page what should I do in that case?. Thanks Jalodiya (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

New users editing caste articles often try to promote the caste. In some cases, they exaggerate its historical stature using sources which are not considered scholarly. (Everyone wants their caste to be warriors). Admins generally have a free hand to issue sanctions regarding such articles, because caste has caused so much trouble in the past. You would be well advised to read the talk page carefully and ask experienced people for advice. If you keep on reverting User:Mahensingha you risk being blocked or banned. But if you wait to reach agreement on the talk page (before editing the article) you will be on safe ground. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jalodiya (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)you are saying that the content which was added by me provided with there citation cannot be restore by reverting mahensingha edits.If I do so I will get blocked.I have also add discussion on Talk page of Meena regarding several topic which are to be edit because user like Mahensingha have totally disrupted the article by adding controversial and political content which is very dangerous thing.

I am requesting you to clarify my doubt regarding edits on meenas page. Thanks.02:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jalodiya (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)"This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing." Does that means that If I add some content on meena It can be only reverted by the admin only.

I am also requesting you to stop relating me with Meenas.The only thing which persuade me to edit Meenas page is that user like Mahensingha are try to demote and suppressing good facts about this caste,which is not a good practice. Thanks. 03:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You risk a block if you restore your material at Meena again before you have found a consensus in its favor. Questions about the usability of sources can be asked at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I see you have removed material from the article that was cited to Nandini Sinha Kapur. She is an author who has been published by Oxford University Press, which seems to make her respectable. See WP:Dispute resolution for how to resolve disagreements. WP:SIGN explains how to sign your posts. You should put your name at the end, not the beginning. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Myanma election article move

• Myanmar general election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Ed. I'm not going to take this to MR, but I would like to try and understand the rationale behind the close. Although I appreciate that there was a majority in favour of this move, I had hoped that I had rebutted their arguments successfully. If editors were against the use of "Myanma" for whatever reason, the proper alternative was "Burmese" (as this is still in use even when the country name Myanmar is used - see e.g. here). Thanks, Number 57 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are two of the comments by contributors to the move discussion that I found especially persuasive:

• User:IgnorantArmies: “..Wikipedia tends to avoid unusual or non-standard demonyms..”
• User:Old Naval Rooftops: "Burmese" isn't a serious option because we don't need another round of Myanmar-related edit wars.”

If people are here to look up a topic, we shouldn't place extra hurdles in their path. Though the demonym 'Myanma' exists in English text (as shown by Google) it is not a familiar one. As I type this, my spell-checker is putting a red line under 'Myanma' because it thinks it's a misspelling. That was my impression too as I was looking at the list of moves to close. I take it your view is that when a demonym exists in English, however obscure, it should always be used. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the cited comments: Old Naval Rooftops actually opposed the move, stating "The English-language adjectival form is Myanma", and IgnorantArmies' response actually supports my above suggestion that Burmese would have been a better option as they state that one form of adjective is preferred over another – not using a noun.

My view is that the adjectival form should be used as per the guideline, which is why I would be ok with "Burmese", but not "Myanmar". Number 57 21:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, regarding the "placing extra hurdles in their path" comment, there was already a redirect – I don't see how anyone could have failed to find the article. Number 57 21:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Attacks and blanked user talk

Hi Ed!

I have a question. I put a warning in the user 186.151.51.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and he blanked the page. [44] Later, he attacked me in the summary. He told me "so shut your mouth!". [45] What can I do in this case? Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The article White Latin American is now semiprotected per this AN3 complaint. Per WP:OWNTALK he can blank his own user talk whenever he wants to. I suggest ignoring the personal attack for now. If you want to continue working on the article, you can do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Johnston, I ask you before you get into a situation by force, you also have to check more thoroughly, Mr. Bleckter (a Mexican IP is now a user), the fool mistook genetic data with race, and the page white latin american speaks WHITE RACE NO GENETIC DATA, if you wish, I will not return to put the data table of 1940, but it is necessary to return the data of Argentina and Costa Rica with its fountains. You understood? or I explain you with apples?. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.51.159 (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

PD.It is obvious that Mr. Becker pretends to be the victim. Say "shut your mouth", do not offend anyone. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.51.159 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You should be holding this discussion at Talk:White Latin American. And please ease off on the personal attacks like 'shut your mouth', and 'tonto'. An editor with your background should not find it difficult to create a Wikipedia account. You should also know how to sign your posts. Anybody who wants to work on race-related topics like White Latin American has my sympathy. The work is technically difficult and there is no definition of success -- others may still disagree even if you do a good job technically. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi EdJohnston . Please block this user. He is engaged in vandalism in my page. Also writes any mucks in the Azerbaijani language. Here you can examine vandalism examples - here and here. Thanks in advance.--Nicat49 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your name has been invoked

Hi, Ed. Your name has been invoked without a ping at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Logos. - Location (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but the situation doesn't require any further comment from me. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Cheers! - Location (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Your last statement

• WP:AE#Jaakobou

Your last statement is not entirely correct. I was pushed to the limits of my patience by the support for anti-Israeli language. The group doing so, handed out barnstars to each other after their success. The reason I was topic-banned was due to finding consensus when it wasn't as clear as I thought it was. That and repeated complaints about the misconduct of a few users which were deemed not strong enough. I did not use my account to fight that lost battle or appeal the sanction. I wanted to set the record straight about the polemics policy. But you've stated your bias and ignored the questions so I'm basically talking to the wind here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with your AE sanction you can appeal to the arbitration committee. The way you've been bringing up your 2012 dispute with Tiamut repeatedly in different venues does look like forum-shopping. But going to Arbcom would not be forum shopping. When you posted at User talk:Callanecc/Archive 20#Review of past issues you did not reveal that you had received a topic ban in 2012 because of your insistence on that very issue. Failure to be candid about past events may have hurt any argument you would otherwise have for getting your ban lifted. The canvassing about the WP:UP RfC that has been documented on your talk page by User:Serialjoepsycho didn't help either. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, not entirely correct.

a) I purposefully avoided hyperlinking to Tiamut or mentioning their user-name since I am not interested in them. This became a big problem for my focus since everyone would remark: "Can you at least link to something". My interest in the general principle was focused on links to comments by admins that show they do not understand the purpose of the policy. e.g. disturbing material but "not illegal".[46] You yourself were condoning 3 advocacy quotes directed at Jews, Israelis and Zionists. It was a bit more than just "a quote from Shakespeare where the word 'Jew' is replaced by 'Palestinian.'".[47] Btw, Israeli setters are occupying me, but I will "sharpen the weapons" and rise in victory does sound like proposition for violence.

b) I disclosed I was herded off wikipedia and I asked to bring the 'polemics' issue to ARBCOM.[48] This is also in the links I provided on ARBCOM.

c) I am not interested in getting back to editing in the current state of the project. I.e. rampant wiki-cliquing, purposely derailed discussions, and uneven application of policy. I notified this to T.Canens earlier, when I mentioned I have edited a bit anonymously outside the scope of the ban.

d) The participation of editors wanting to keep anti-Israel diatribes on their user-page is just as bad, if not worse than my openly linking to wikiproject France. In fact, The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion., is deemed appropriate.

e) Saying that, it was a bad idea to extend that with a few emails (to contributors of the Paris attack article). It doesn't change the current deeply rooted problems mentioned above.

Am I talking to the wind here? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I probably am because you (and the others) haven't answered the policy related question. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Another example to illustrate the point:

"I don't think it covers the non-project-related polemic",[49] I opened the thread to clarify policy. Esp. considering polemics supporting/promoting violence against civilians in a real conflict with daily casualties. Yes. There are casualties in Israel, and no, I don't have examples of ISIS supporters circumventing policy. It is besides the point anyway. 09:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet another example to illustrate the point:

"would be perfectly acceptable to John Locke, the father of liberalism"[50] How is liberalism connected? That argument would mean there is a prerogative to use user-pages for campaigning. Perhaps in favor of ISIL as well. This argument misses the purpose of Wikipedia and the intention of the policy. The rest of the argument is in violation of WP:BATTLE, btw. A good show. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In light of input from uninvolved editors, I've come up with a new suggestion - here. I'd welcome your view as well. Is it free speech for all or avoid advocating on your wikipedia user-page about real world disputes? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:38, 20 Novembaer 2015 (UTC)

Since you already mentioned words from the I-P conflict in your statement of the RfC at WT:User pages#Rephrase suggestion to WP:UP#POLEMIC ("mukawama", "jihad") I don't see how you can continue the discussion there. Anything you say will be a contravention of your ARBPIA ban. Your failure to observe the ban may be taken into account by whoever closes the complaint at WP:AE#Jaakobou. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Two notes and a question:

1) I paid attention to the comments at ARBCOM. My latest comments[51][52] are very respectful of ARBCOM's concerns and completely avoid Israel-related content.

2) "mukawama" and "jihad" are not exclusive to the Israeli-Arab conflict and my links about related laws were given from UK, France, and Australia. I.e., these are applicable to the recent attack in Mali as well as recent ISIS activity in Europe. This is not a mention of the I-P conflict. I am aware that I did mention it though, talking about the recent stabbings and citing the knife hashtag as example. I will refrain further examples related to Israel-Arab conflicts even in the context of the policy discussion. I hope ARBCOM will leave some reasonable leeway here and 'not forget to clear the policy matter. For example, there is confusion whether it is or isn't permissible to use dead children from active real-world conflicts as part of your user-page advocacy.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't help it, can you, now asserting I use dead children for advocacy. Look at the editors of Death of Yehuda Shoham, Murder of Shalhevet Pass, Murder of Hatuel family. They documented a tragic reality. I refrain from writing such articles for the 'other side' though dozens are possible for the same reasons. I simply don't think one should 'use dead children' to make articles. If I advocate anything subtextually, it is the necessity to feel the same way, and look at similar events the same way, whatever the ethnicity of the victim. That's not advocacy. It's called humanism, and is an integral part of the ethics of Judaism, not too speak of many ethical traditions, high and low, and the common sentiments of humankind.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No. On this thread you did that yourself. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Converts Articles

Do you think forced conversions should be allowed in list of convert articles? For example, if somebody forces a person to convert to a different religion than his own and he goes back to his original religion, should that be included in the converts list or does that violate WP policy? I think that the conversion was not sincere, so it should not be included. What is your opinion? Xtremedood (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be surprising if editors decided to count forced conversions as real conversions. Though I don't see what it has to do with Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Clear the requests. --The Avengers (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bhargava

Hi Ed, last December you topic banned Bhargavaflame (talk · contribs). Since that time, there have been numerous attempts by anons to reinstate the dreadfully-sourced material at Bhargava. The most recent is this. Yes, I could take it to DRN but I doubt the anons would turn up. Anyway, my query to you is whether you think the anons may in fact be Bhargavaflame circumventing their topic ban. They did, after all, breach it very soon after you imposed the thing. I'm not good at spotting socks and in any event, SPI are not going to link an account to an IP address even if the CU evidence was not stale. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. I was going to semiprotect but User:Bishonen has already taken care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I guess Bish watches this page. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, I thought I'd posted here to say I'd semi'd, but I guess I forgot to save. Also, I wanted to mention that when you topic banned Bhargavaflame, Ed, he said his fight for truth on Wikipedia would continue.[53] Rather suggestive. But it doesn't much matter whose IPs they are, they can be kept out with semi. If the user should create a sock account we can think about SPI and CU. My god, we speak in pretty opaque code these days. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

The fight for truth takes many forms, a variety of new accounts have been using my talk page as the refdesk for castes now, just see the questions I'm getting! —SpacemanSpiff 16:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see ARCA

Please see this request at WP:ARCA. Thank you, RGloucester — ☎ 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please correct your statement

I can accept the basic premise on why I should withhold myself from that thread, but please review the matter again and correct your statement regarding conflict enhancement jargon. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There has been enough of the wikilawyering already.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the Federal Reserve

Please unprotect the article on Criticism of the Federal Reserve.

Volunteer Marek has yet again deleted material on the Inflation of the 1970's being caused by Federal Reserve money printing. The citation sources for that material were Federal Reserve websites and a history of the Federal Reserve website article written by a Federal Reserve employee.

I would like to reinsert the following deleted material

According to Economist Allen H. Meltzer the "Great Inflation" from 1965 to 1984 was the climactic monetary event of the late 20th century[1] and could have been mitigated or prevented by a change in monetary policy.[2] Meltzer asserts that one of the reasons that monetary policy was not changed to reduce inflation was that Federal Reserve Chairman William McChesney Martin, and his staff did not have "a valid theory of inflation, or much of a theory at all"[3] while the Federal Reserve Board under the following Chairman Arthur F. Burns was unwilling to tighten monetary policy when unemployment was in excess of 4.25 to 4.5%[4] The inflationary era ended with the tight monetary policies of Chairman Paul Volcker.

There is little debate about the cause. The origins of the Great Inflation were Federal Reserve policies that allowed for an excessive growth in the supply of money.[5] 1.Jump up ^ Allen H Meltzer,Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, March/April 2005, page 145 Origins of the Great Inflation − 2.Jump up ^ ibid page 152 3.Jump up ^ ibid page 152 4.Jump up ^ ibid page 171 5.Jump up ^ Michael Bryan, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, The Great Inflation, 1965 to 1982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.0.4 (talk • contribs)

Please try to persuade the other editors on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please advise what I need to get consensus of. The article by Meltzer is published in the "Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review". a Federal Reserve publication and therefore clearly a reliable and verifiable source. The other source is a website on the history of the Federal Reserve and per the article, the author is a Federal Reserve employee.

and what happens if nobody responds on the article talk page? or engages in shameless attacks, a not uncommon experience of mine with ignorant editors with a know-it-all attitude?71.174.140.130 (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

On the average, Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve gets 150 edits a year. If your changes have credibility, someone should respond. It's always possible that others don't agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of military occupations

• List of military occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Yossiea~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You are invited to join the discussion at List of military occupations. Hello, since I don't want to get reported to AE again, please see the page and talk page. Serialjoespycho is resorting to wikilawyering, ownership, uncivility, etc. I have put a disputed tag on the article because of Gaza, East Jerusale and the Golan HEights, we were discussing it on the talk page and he removed it, and he claimed he removed it because of Gaza, but the article is still disputed. If you look at the talk page, other editors have chimed in, while he ignores them, they can't be ignored by Wikipedia. I have reported him already to AN but he still thinks he own the article. Please do something about it. How many more editors must he chase away? (Look at the talk page and see) Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is some kind of weird hybrid between canvassing and forum shopping.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Serialjoepsycho removing sourced content and not being civil. The {{disputed}} tag needs consensus to remain, like any other article content. There is an WP:RfC running at Talk:List of military occupations#RfC: Including East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. After enough time has passed, you can ask for the RfC to be formally closed at WP:AN/RFC. You used to to User:Yossiea~enwiki. Your own conduct has been lately reviewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive184#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yossiea~enwiki. If you want to stay out of trouble, you shouldn't do inappropriate WP:CANVASSING with un-neutral notices like this one. It is good practice to make a redirect from your old account to your new one. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Metallica

Honestly, please tell me why I keep being singled out in that whole tug-of-war nonsense on that page. This is extremely frustrating and I would like some guidance. Thanks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

At least three people disagree with your addition at Metallica, since you have been repeatedly reverted. Plus, I don't see any comments by you on the article talk page. Your change needs to get consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't even my addition. I agreed with it, and I wasn't the only one. My problem is that I always seem to be ending up on the "wrong" side of the argument, no matter how many other editors concur. What is it that I am doing wrong? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Other people at Talk:Metallica have mentioned your name, but you've never joined the discussion there. If you won't participate, it's hard for you to complain that your views are not being heard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User KateWishing - breach of three reverts rule

• Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KateWishing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.21.250.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.28.73.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If this discussion needs to continue, it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evening Ed, You placed a temporary lock on the Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome article. However, KateWishing has now used that opportunity to reverse an addition of fully referenced text, and has now reverted the article three times, which I understand is a violation of Wiki rules. Bearing in mind that she has a raft of complaints on her talk page, for numerous non-discussed arbitrary deletions, numerous edit wars and quite arrogant and dismissive attitude towards users, I presume that Wiki rules will be invoked in that she is temporarily suspended, and the article reverted to its prior state. After all, one would hope that Wiki rules are, indeed, Wiki rules and that those rules apply to all regardless of temporary membership or full User ID. By the way, the assumption that I am some sort of IP hopper is grossly incorrect. I obviously use a different broadband provider when on my iPad at home, and that when at my office between 9am and 5pm. I'm curious to understand why that is considered an anomaly as I doubt many people have access to the same connection provider at home as at work. Anyway, I look forward to noting that the Wiki rules are applied evenly and fairly. Thanks 22:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Since you have a constantly changing IP, what name should I use to refer to you in discussions? And is there any page I can use to leave you messages? EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC) apologies over two IPs showing, VirginMedia obviously allocate different ones when I am at home, compared to when I am at my office. I believe that BT are our corporate providers, hence a different range. However, there is no IP spoofing occurring, I am merely communicating on the website from two different locations at different times of the day. Happy to receive answers on this page, or either of the above. How do I make a firmal complaint about KateWishing reverting three times, contrary to Wiki policies? Thanks 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC) The IP continues to spam my talk page with personal attacks and demands for my personal information.[54] I've already pointed to our guidelines (particularly WP:MEDRS); not much more I can say if they refuse to read them. KateWishing (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Ah, Ms Wishing surfaces once a complaint starts. First, there's no point lying about this. At no time have I ever made "demands for your personal information", I simply asked you to verify your so-called medical qualifications which you claim you had, and Googling your name produces no known 'expert' in this field. To try and twist this to some sort of stalking insinuation merely depletes your already-reduced credibility, and is tantamount to lying and defamation. I suggest that you retract such an libellous comment or provide evidence. You've removed fully accepted medical papers as references and removed references to encephalitis as a well-known and accepted presentation symptom of RCVS, even though some of your own references confirm it. In fact, even the Wiki article on encephalitis and its associated references confirm the single sentence addition that I made on the subject. As I've said before, your edit war trail speaks volumes as do the numerous complaints by many different users on your talk page. You have a long history of wrecking articles without the most basic courtesy of discussing with the author first. You wreck the page, then try to back peddle when editors complain. Your modus operandi is astonishly arrogant and in most cases is in breach of published Wiki standards, policies and etiquette.. It is clear that you have dug yourself into a hole on this matter and despise the fact that you have been corrected, caught out and shown that you do not even read your own refs, you have little actual understanding of the subject in hand. Added to that you claim to have medical qualifications yet fail to substantiate that fake claim. I believe that you are next in line for the infamous Wiki Fake PhD Awards. Blub off to the moderators all you like, but at the end of the day, you are simply an antagonistic and patronising user who has a history of irritating those whose are genuinely trying to improve articles.86.21.250.21 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. there is no breach of WP:MEDRS, as the sources are publications like The Lancet. However KateWishing has, rather hypocritically, altered most of the ref sources to one single primary source i.e. The paper by Mehdi, which is, in itself, a breach of the very same WP:MEDRS which clearly shows that she doesn't even understand the very rules which she so liberally quotes. If she wishes to remove refs to The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the World, yet refs self-published papers, then she is contradicting her own argument. QED. 86.21.250.21 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC) I don't want to clutter up Ed's talk page too much with this nonsense, but since you finally made a claim of substance: the Medhi paper I added is a review (ideal under WP:MEDRS), not a primary source; while the only source I removed was a webpage that both fails WP:MEDRS and does not even mention Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (making it WP:SYNTH). KateWishing (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Hello 86.21. Have you been able to find the place in WP:MEDRS where it talks about the use of primary sources in medical articles? You should be able to find the sentence, "For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used." If you continue to engage in personal attacks against User:KateWishing, any admin may decide to block your account. ("wrecking", "astonishingly arrogant"). EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC) whether "wrecking" is deemed a suitable word or not, the fact is that she has over 12 serious complaints on her relatively small talk page for making arbitrary reverts and deletions on articles, and some of those have even been placed on there by Wiki admins. Take a look, it's there in black and white, and her form says it all. She has equally made a defamatory claim against me about "stalking", when I simply asked for confirmation of medical credentials which she claimed to have. In the scheme of things, using the term 'wrecking' pales into insignificance compared to making a criminally defamatory allegation of "stalking" which in the UK would be classed as criminal libel. However, I note that she has received no such rebuke for what is a far more serious breach of protocol and Wiki civility rules. So, can someone please explain why one user is admonished for using the term "arrogant" which is the underlying view afforded to her by many of her other complainants, yet a level playing field seems not to have been applied in regards to my words. As to WP:MEDRS, KateWishing has clearly breached those rules, not least of which is that she has reduced multiple refs (multiples are encouraged by Wiki) to single articles. Surely, more than one source is preferred to add credibility to any article. Ms Wishing also continues to avoid the question of why she refers to encephalitis disorders which are still swelling symptoms, yet deny using the term encephalitis as their underlying cause. That is just plain crazy logic; a bit like saying one of the symptoms of a cold may be a runny nose, but a runny nose is not a symptom of a cold. Anyway, it's clear to me that Wiki favours registered users, no matter how badly they edit articles or cause discourse and disharmony to the extent of putting potential contributors off helping improve articles. If Wiki wishes to encourage amateur, ill-informed and illogical editing, then so be it. It doesn't bode well for the future, and the long-term quality or richness of articles. As a patient who has been through RCVS for thirty years and read just about every publication on it, I've shown my consultant her edits and his view is that she is talking nonsense to discount such credible references. Anyway, back to my compliant as to why KateWishing has not been reprimanded for breaking the 3revert rule on fully referenced edits? Thanks. 86.21.250.21 (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC) 86.21.250.21, I'm not going to take any action against User:KateWishing based on the 3RR case, or on the data you have presented here. If the personal attacks continue, you may be blocked yourself. Meanwhile, if you disagree with how I've handled this, consider asking for review at WP:ANI. May I suggest you avoid words such as 'criminally defamatory' if you go to ANI and are hoping for a good response there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC) no surprises there then. :) I'm not making personal attacks on anyone, merely pointing out the unfounded accusations that Ms Wishing has made. She's been asked twice to point out where the term "stalking" has been used and has failed to do so. Therefore her credibility on that point is, again, reduced to zero. Whether Wikipedia likes or dislikes some terms that are legally correct is neither here nor there. For anyone to knowingly make a false accusation against someone else is, in Law, a criminal offence and I am surprised that Wikipedia has no policy against such behaviour, when it has a legal duty to prevent, or remove, false allegations. That is the Law. Anyway, moving on from those facts,... as I've said before, it is clear that Wikipedia favours an unlevel playing field, bent towards those who are registered members, no matter what inconsistencies they add, the number of other former complaints against them, or the breaches of Wiki policy they commit. A closed shop is probably the best description. Either that, or the admins themselves do not understand the very policies that they are supposed to uphold. Who knows. As to Miss Wishing, and her uncorroborrated medical credentials, it is clear that, in her, Wikipedia has in its midst, the World's leading authority on RCVS, so I'll leave her to continue imparting that omnipotent 'knowledge' to the World, and hope that the medical World is prepared for the consequences. In the meantime, her fantasy game of pretending to be someone of repute in this field is given the credence that it deserves. Having read several articles on the content quality, inaccuracies and moderation of Wikipedia, it clear to see why it is considered as it is, and that more time is spent on moderating clear errors and protecting unqualified text, than actual ly improving quality and linking up good referential studies. The article shall remain as it is, incorrect, falsely edited by a fantasist medical 'expert' and illogically composed. The contrary double uses of PRES in the article are glaringly obvious to anyone, but Miss Wishing-I-Had-A-PhD can't even differentiate between her own contra edits. That's how funny the whole situation is; an editor who writes two supporting views to the very text they have removed which was submitted by another. Perhaps that all it is. An NPS matter of control and being wanted to be seen as the 'owner' of an article, even though they high jacked the original, and that such behaviour is actually contrary to the very point of Wikipedia, i.e., the encyclopaedia that ANYONE can edit. As has been proven here, that's not actually the case. 86.21.250.21 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC) ha, how apt! Have just found this very statement on the Arbitration Committee candidates page, by one of the senior Wikipedians. Is sums it up nicely. "We must clean our house, lest those who could advise and assist us dismiss Wikipedia as a nest of boobies. We should treat all editors alike. The best way to avoid being called a flock of juvenile loons is to stop acting like a flock of juvenile loons." it is clear that even these candidates consider that Wiki admins are not treating "all editors alike" (this case in hand). As to "flock of juvenile loons", well, what can one say to such an insight from deep within the Wiki nest. I rest my case. :D P.S. Have just had WP:Bite pointed out to me, for the disgraceful way that both of you have acted in this matter - and that's from another long-term Wikipedian. It appears that you are both in breach of those guidelines too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.250.21 (talk • contribs)

Mai-Sachme reported by User:151.20.0.103 (Result: Semiprotected two articles)

• 3RR closure (permalink)
• Mai-Sachme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Silvius Magnago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• History of South Tyrol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, EdJohnston, I am here to ask you about this issue. You have protected the articles, but have you read that Mai-Sachme is the one who keeps changing the correct names and WLs? I quote you: "Note that according to WP:Article titles the criterion is which name is most commonly used in English. The ethnic makeup of the town's population does not decide the issue". The ethnic makeup of Merano's population is 1,01% more German than Italian. The most commonly used name in English is Merano. You can check in this talk page: Talk:Merano. I am not going against any consensus, do not let Mai-Sachme fool you. It was established that Merano is the correct name to use in en.wikipedia, while Meran just redirects to the main page as you can see by yourself. Maybe you did not read all the discussion in the noticeboard (I know it was quite long), or you would have said that my edits were right and his reverts wrong. I am not a nationalist, just a Wikipedian who tries applying this Wiki rules, or I would be changing all German names to Italian. I hope you agree with that. There is a last thing I did not understand: I thought breaking the three reverts rule would involve a block for the rule breaker, instead it is possible that it ends up with an article protection? I do not know all Wiki rules, or not enough well, that is why I am asking.

There is a discussion about the best name (Meran or Merano) taking place at Talk:Silvius Magnago#Meran/-o. You should wait for a consensus there. After enough time has passed, if no result is evident a request for closure can be made at WP:AN/RFC. Creating an account would instantly improve your credibility, especially if you desire to work in an area where placenames can be disputed for nationalistic reasons. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

BulgariaSources again

• BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bulgaria national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi EdJohnston. The previous thread about BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been archived, so I am starting another one. The 1 week block you placed on them has expired and they are back to doing what they were previously doing on Bulgaria national football team. As stated in that archived thread, I did start an ANI discussion about them, but it was archived twice without anything being done. (See WT:AN#BulgariaSources) They seem to only edit in spurts a few weeks apart, so short term blocks seem to have had no effect on them at all. Not sure what should be done at this point since they never have responded at all to any of the warnings or attempts at discussion left on their user talk, etc. Any suggestions you may have would be appreciated. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 38#Page protection for Medieval Bulgarian army. I'm leaving a new notice on the editor's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Since they resumed the edit war on 30 November, I've placed an indefinite block. Details at User talk:BulgariaSources. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

• Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ejlabnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It doesn’t matter who was deleting. The fact is it is deleted, and nobody done anything to restore justice. Apparently, Wikipedia team doesn’t believe in free speech. Obviously, you created the online world where you can run your own tiranny and oppression.

Azerbaijan is a visit card of citizens of Republic of Azerbaijan. I don’t think anyone with Persian, Armenian or Russian backgrounds have priority in updating that page, neither you or someone called LouiseArgon. You know nothing about Azerbaijan, and first of all you are experts.

You are wondering why? Well, Iran have occupied a half of Azerbaijan. Certainly, the Persians have no interest in promoting Azerbaijani culture, history or tradition. All they say that any etymon in Azerbaijan derived from Old Persian (nobody even knows what is Old Persian). The Persians have created tyrannical Islamic regime, with no respect to other cultures. Same applies to Republic of Armenia, and Russian Federation.

You can block my account. It is not like I do care. I don’t like people who have no respect to Freedom of Speech, or Human Rights Act. You were acting like monkeys in zoo, when they see a new object in their cage. The speed you were deleting my comments, I can only say that you have no personal life. All you do it is just sitting in front of monitor and … .

Funny part is that I have not deleted the previous text, just added new paragraphs to previous text. I have respect to work done. But you guys, really far from the concept of civilization, all you care about is to delete or perhaps even burn and torture if we were living in same country.

My comments hurt? Well, be my guest block or even close my account. I am sure your Little Tyrannical Egos will be satisfied after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejlabnet (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:FREESPEECH. Feel free to make your views known on a website that you own or control. Wikipedia has our own editorial policies, and we like them the way they are. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Terms that are acceptable

Hi Ed,

I am very hesitant to agree to terms involving more discussion on talk pages. While I understand their benefits and importance, some of the talk pages that I am involved with are at times intentionally unproductive, with editors deliberately dragging conversations out to prevent a consensus from being achieved.

Allow me to elaborate: Renault, an engine supplier, are returning to Formula 1 in 2016 as a full works team. They are buying Lotus, a private team, who used Mercedes engines in 2015. We just had a discussion on the basis that we cannot say Renault will use Renault engines in 2016, because they haven't said that they are, and that they are considering withdrawing from the sport entirely at some indeterminate point in the future. Therefore, the existing multi-year contract between Lotus and Mercedes should take priority, and the team be listed as "Renault-Mercedes" until more information becomes available. When a source was provided in which a senior Lotus figure was quoted as saying "when Renauly buy us, they will use Renault engines", this was begrudgingly accepted as "not great, but okay as a source". One would assume that WP:COMMONSENSE applies, but this is the kind of "discussion" that we have daily. It's not about achieving a consensus, it's about using the talk page as a weapon to enforce one version of the article.

So you can see why I am hesitant to make promises based on increased participation on talk pages. If something could be worked out, then I could get on-board, but the way the entire F1 WikiProject achieves consensus needs to be reformed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I will point you to the fact that the American Ford Motor Company once had a full works team in F1 that carried neither their name, neither their nationality, nor used engines that carried their name. What you synthesize as being logical, has not been so straightforward. Bottom line, there is no rush to make the changes while lacking the better sources we require. Time is our friend and we can easily wait until more clear information has been published by reliable sources concerning this matter. Tvx1 00:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

EEng

I've never understood how editor search through histories so fast! Is that editor under some discretionary sanction against editing article relating to longevity? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Attacks and vandalism

Hi Ed!

I found this edition [55], "Mexicans are the only Latin Americans who still believe the stupidities of Catholicism" "In conclusion, Manuel has Spanish ancestry but is an ugly mestizo (typical Mexican) " "also is a pedophile (he is an anti-white Genocide) " " then you will see the dirty feet of Manuel (he never washes them) " " Applause, Marrovi is a graduate of architect, very interesting (sarcasm)" and more...

H1N111 and the IP 190.148.92.240 are the same user. He is from Guatemala and he use google translator (he wrote "it is better google translator, that you may see how bad is this"")

He attacks other users (Marrovi). If you check the edition, he put his personal facebook.

I don't know what to say, I'm impressed. --Bleckter (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: Mr. Bleckter, with all the respect that you deserve, this situation you don't care, and I don't use google translator, I only use that it if I did not know a word in English, that phrase I put it as mockery of Marrovi because he use the google translator. And these attacks are from months ago, I already apologize personally to the user Marrovi. --H1N111 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:H1N111. At WP:AN3#User: H1N111 reported by User:Bleckter (Result: ) you are in trouble not for the personal attacks but for continuing the edit war at White Latin Americans. If you will promise to stop editing that article you may be able to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ed, you proposed an indef. block. I agree. He continues with the rebel vocabulary. Check [56] "You think that I'm stupid, right ?", "you and other users have an alliance with the user Bleckter against me, and I will discover, and when I do I will bring to light. I'm watching all." and [57] "put his dirty hands on data". He attacked me more than 10 times. --Bleckter (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I need to tell you something

Actually CIA is not making up lies it is a good source it shows actual literacy rate from 2006-2015 which you did not read. Lokato (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Abortion case clarification request

The clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Clarification request: Abortion (November 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

H1N111

• H1N111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive

Hi, I'm administrator of Spanish Wikipedia. I saw the case about this user, and I'm sure that is a new sockpuppet of ElreydeEspana, an user from Guatemala with a White Supremacy campaign in Latin American countries. Reading the CU investigation the H1N111 user and ElreydeEspana behaviors are equals. It's possible that he reasumes as new sockpuppet. --Taichi (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive. Do you want to contact User:Bbb23 and see if he thinks more action on the English Wikipedia would be useful? Or possibly a global block of H1N111. If there is anything worthwhile to do, Bbb23 may be able to propose it. H1N111 is at present indefinitely blocked on this wiki so there is little that could be done in his case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I requested in es.wikipedia about a possible sockpuppet: Linda fletcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and also the IP 186.151.51.159. The local checkuser confirmed the relation. --Taichi (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Glasses

	A pair of glasses
	Something useful for you to find the right talk page where to send user warnings! LjL (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

National Front

dear EdJohnston, re:this protect edit, the immediate response to this was an edit reversion by a little used account with similar editing tendencies. I believe this is the same user continuing to edit war, should I file a new report? or a sock report? I've gone to great lengths to offer multiple recent scholarly/news sources on the talk page, but this user is showing no interest in offering reasoned arguments, using reliable sources, to support their position.Thanks. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

note said user's follow-up after reverting, suggests connection with IPs. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks for following up. Just a quick note, the current version, with the claim, "Most political scholars place the FN on the right to far-right," is not supported by the citations offered, the sentence is actually a synthetic construction, a close look at the sources provided will make this clear.

Worth looking at the French version of the article also, where we see: "La plupart des observateurs politiques situent le Front national à l'extrême droite, mais ses représentants récusent en général cette appartenance pour lui préférer d'autres qualificatifs ou proposer d'autres façons d'envisager l'axe gauche-droite." In other words: "Most political scholars place the FN on the far right[15][16][17] but party representatives reject this view and prefer qualifiers such as right-wing,[11] and suggest other ways of looking at the left-right axis.[18]." This is not perfect because the "but party representatives reject this view and prefer qualifiers such as right-wing" rests on an inaccessible Encyclopaedia Britannica entry (pay for trial to access) so cannot be checked, but it's more accurate. It is a GA after all, and right now this statement is very dubious. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Problematic user

• Chappie (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Penelope37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there. You blocked Penelope37 (talk · contribs) back a little while ago for edit warring. After a brief respite, she's back and edit warring over the same exact thing: removing sourced content at Chappie (film) because it doesn't fit her POV. She's already had this explained to her multiple times, but it's obviously a case of "I didn't hear that" by now. Can you please block her or, at least, explain to her that this is unacceptable? She's not listening to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Left a message. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. NinjaPirate is edit warring. Those links are not credible and have no sources in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penelope37 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Penelope37, have you explained your view anywhere on the article talk page? And wen you refer to 'those links' that are in your opinion not credible, which ones are they? EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

She's continuing to edit war. This is getting incredibly frustrating. She has refused to discuss the issue, and is removing content that is sourced to incredibly well-regarded sources, such as The New York Times and Screen International, without providing any sources. Since the national of origin of a film can not be determined from primary sources, WikiProject Film goes by what the secondary sources say. And, in this case, every single one of them says Chappie is an American film. Based on their original research, some editors refuse to accept this, but none of them has ever provided a source to challenge it. Citing another person on the talk page who also challenged the consensus based on original research and without a source, she has reverted again. This is incredibly tedious, and she is removing sourced content because she doesn't like it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Penelope37 has been blocked two weeks for continued edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Review a guideline for university students editing genes and proteins?

Hi! I wondered if you'd be willing to have a look at the Wiki Education Foundation's draft of a guidebook for genes and proteins articles? You were suggested as someone with an interest in the subject matter, so I hope you don't mind my asking! Thanks. Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

AE Comment in own section

Shows you how often I make it over to AE. No, I am not in any way involved - I guess I just commented as I would have at a Request for Arbitration and stayed in my own section. Didn't even catch it until you pointed it out. Sorry for the confusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your community sanction

I've mentioned your existing community sanction at User talk:Sphilbrick#User:Wikidea's community sanction. You can respond if you wish. It's my proposal that you can avoid being subject to admin action if you will agree to make no edits which add redlinks to pages about EU law without first getting consensus on a talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you bring this up, I'd like to ask you to tell me how this will expire or be removed. Thanks, Wikidea 17:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You can request at WP:AN for the sanction to be lifted. If you do so, try to provide evidence that the earlier complaint about your edits no longer applies, perhaps because you have changed your approach. The original complaint about you from 2009 was at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Sanction proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I can. But why hasn't this had some kind of automatic expiry though? I think it's unfair that something 6 years ago gets brought up like this - it's made a totally different debate between me and another user (who wants to delete information) a personalised one about me. I don't understand why that's legitimate. Wikidea 14:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's ironic you are complaining about an old sanction while in the midst of a new dispute, in which you are actively pushing ideas that nobody else supports. Sanctions don't expire unless they are created with a specified end date. If you think the old sanction should be removed, your current behavior isn't helping your case. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, see here on my "current behaviour", and how this began, and Talk:Tulk v Moxhay. I was just trying to help write an encyclopedia, but obviously that doesn't count for anything. Wikidea 18:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you agreed to give up the use of templates containing red links? EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

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

---

Ed, FYI, this thread was copy-pasted to the WP:RSN. It will get confusing if you answer here and someone else answers there. OP, please fix somehow per WP:MULTI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is another edit war in progess at Scientific opinion on climate change. The point at issue is whether two scientific papers are, or are not, reliable sources. Could you please advise how I can get an independent opinion on this. Biscuittin (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully, this isn't going to degenerate into another conflict. But I'd like to draw your attention to (a) [58], in which B is displaying distinctly battleground-type mentality; and (b) a spate of controversial edits and reverts having just come off a 3RR block. Hopefully, B will see sense and back off a little William M. Connolley (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It is precisely because I wish to avoid a battleground that I have asked for advice here. Biscuittin (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A battleground describes a venue, which is not what we're talking about here. Instead, the expression "Battleground" is short for each editors private state of mind.... are we here with "battleground mentality"? You have already been alerted that DS applies to discussions of climate change as a result of ARBCC. Everyone is going to assume that you have taken time to read that, especially the principles section, which explicitly bars battleground mentality.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So I have been found guilty of "battleground mentality" before the trial even starts. I'm not going to respond to any more of these slurs. I will wait for EdJohnston to respond. Biscuittin (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As the discussion has strayed off-topic, I would remind people that it is not about me, it is about whether or not these two papers [59] [60] are reliable sources. Biscuittin (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This thread started off with a request for process advice, with respect to determining whether some sources are RS. My advice, step 1, eds are most effective when they do not attempt to "rescue" articles from other eds they think of as a "Cabal". Step 2, if unsatisfied at article talk, go to the reliable sources noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. Done. Biscuittin (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2015 (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.

If you have more to say on this topic, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Scientific opinion on climate change. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Hello. This is a message to inform you that a clarification request that you were involved in, pertaining to the Privatemusings arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t), has been archived with no action. You can now find it here. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Yuletide

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Rhoark (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Dodge Tomahawk

Can you restore this version of Dodge Tomahawk? This is more or less the stable version of the article that is under discussion. The newbie (?) or sock editor who carried out the mass deletion of fully-cited content justified it with "blah blah blah nobody cares", and suspiciously appeared out of nowhere right after Spacecowboy420 and I agreed to cease reverting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

See {{Edit fully protected}}. This looks to be a good-faith disagreement, and consensus should be demonstrated for any change. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello EdJohnston, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Question

In regard to your statement here, is the request truly to be declared declined? From what Bishonen stated, the enforcement is going to be removed/rescinded, therefore, a decline of the appeal isn't possible (for a non-existent tban enforcement). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ed, perhaps Winkelvi himself can note at the top that he withdraws his request, and then it can be closed as "Request withdrawn"? That does seem better than "declined". Bishonen | talk 19:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

The AE has been closed by Timotheus Canens, so nothing more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

ARCA notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 20:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

New sock puppets

Hi Ed. Do you remember the user H1N111/ElreydeEspana? He was blocked and created a new account. The new sockpuppets are Arthur Colignón (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Qtwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Check his contributions, are the same. And recently he insulted me in my user talk with an ip. Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe Bbb23 can help you. Check all the sock puppets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive --Bleckter (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to have picked out these accounts because they are new since fall 2015 and they have made a lot of edits at White Latin Americans. To get a checkuser to investigate you would need to exhibit some edits by the new accounts that are similar to those of H1N111. It would be helpful for you to explain on the talk page why you disagree with the edits of User:Arthur Colignón and User:Qtwe. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Check his contributions, he is the only guatemalan user who edits Irreligion, White/European People, Guatemala, Demographics of Mexico, etc. And the only user who tells you Edjonson-Edjohnson. [61] [62] --Bleckter (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm really impressed with all this, I'm sorry, I did not know that I was editing in dangerous places, although my editions in white Latin American are nothing more two images and small editions, I usually edit in pages such like Belgian international schools and Belgian empire--Arthur Colignón (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In a desperate act he admits that he is a puppet. I think that's all Ed. --Bleckter (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am a puppet, I'm anonymous, hacker, nothing stops me. And you Ed Johnson, is so stupid to be manipulated by a Mexican [63], [64]?, or Bleckter shoves it deep by your ortho. Easy, blecker hope you block me and undo my editon in White Latin American, but acted slowly, and bleckter did it at the end, not the beginning, You only is the hand that bleckter use against me, a piece of his chess, seriously, you are very moron to not to realize. And how strange that Mr. Blecker just edit when He wants to report me or reverse my edition, he also makes edit wars and manipulates you, but I'm not weak or fag to use help of librarians, as bleckter, a Mexican user who wants to reduce percentages of in countries where whites are the majority, and increases when it does not even reach 20%. I hope that after this evidence number 50 000, out of you ignorance Mr. Ed--Qtwe (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bleckter: For the record, I reported it to the SPI case. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Is also necessary to create Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bleckter, I knew that this person was a puppet, easy, it is supposed to be new, he know edit and he not received a welcome message with the functions of wikipedia (see his contributions). The puppets of this person are: Luiggi Coria (who he was blocked by personal attacks in the Spanish Wikipedia, two days) and Annie o ghorman, contributions are the same (Mexico, White Race, Latin America). --Qtwe (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with a politician BLP

Greetings, I am writing in regards to this page: Austin Petersen, which is currently like a battleground. It came to my attention while I was patrolling for possible vandalism, and I have tried to find a solution, but without success. Yesterday I reported one of the editors who is in the middle of the discussions since he had reverted my own edits more than three times, and had done the same the day before. But today I learned that this is not the problem of a single editor, but various who are taking information out and putting it in, most of the time without explanations (against my pleas). Look in the article's Talk Page. No admins has responded to the report of Edit Warring or to my most recent request for adivce. Please, let me know if I am doing something wrong. I have not steak here, and would like an admins to take care of it. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! Caballero/Historiador (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:165.112.97.73

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

You protected Under Siege after I repeated the above IP at 3RN. They are now edit-warring on Jaws (film) as well (even after starting a conversation at the Talk page). I have an outstanding report at AIV. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. DonIago (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Appreciate the prompt response! DonIago (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Dalit Buddhist Movement

As I promised earlier that I will try to solve the dispute through talk pages so I am following my own words. That user accused me for misrepresenting the source. Anyhow I am giving you some reliable sources where Dalits have converted to Buddhism in large numbers.

• One source The Hindu says that more than 1 Lakh Dalits embraced Buddhism.

See One lakh people convert to Buddhism

• Another source namely Times of India says that 30 lakh Dalits convert to Buddhism.

See 30 lakh Dalits convert to Buddhism

If you think that my sources are non-notable then then I must tell you that I took these sources from 2 leading newspapers in India (i.e The Hindu and Times of India). Wikipedia describes The Hindu newspaper as

• "It is the second most circulated English-language newspaper in India, with average qualifying sales of 1.39 million copies (as of December 2013). According to the Indian Readership Survey in 2012, it was the third most widely read English newspaper in India (after the Times of India and Hindustan Times), with a readership of 2.2 million people."
• Its official website can be seen here Times of India

Wikipedia also describe Times of India newspaper as

• "According to the Indian Readership Survey (IRS) 2012, the Times of India is the most widely read English newspaper in India with a readership of 7.643 million. This ranks the Times of India as the top English daily in India by readership."
• Its official website can be seen here The Hindu

Do you still think that I am misrepresenting the sources my dear friend? Terabar (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not up to me to decide what sources are to be used. You need to find support on the article talk page. One source you may have given me earlier was a book by Humans Charan Sadangi:

Page 105 of “Dalit:The downtrodden of India”:

"...A Buddhist source claimed that “300,000 Dalit are estimated” to have converted to Buddhism as par of 50th year celebrations of Ambedkar’s deeksha in 2006. Non-Partisan sources put the number of attendees (not converts) at 30,000."

It sounds like Sadangi didn't want to accept the statements of the Buddhist authorities at face value. He refers to 'non-Partisan sources' for backup data. It is a matter for editor judgment as to which figures are to be trusted. Sometimes when sources disagree, several will be quoted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

I am against the title I Love NY (2015 film). Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reason? See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for how we usually try to disambiguate topics with similar names. If there was only one film of that name produced in 2015 (for which we have an article) it would be more usual just to call it I Love NY (2015 film). We might use 'Hindi film' if there were more then one 2015 film with that name and the language was the simplest way to tell two similarly-named films apart. If you can express a clear objection, then opening a WP:Requested move could be worthwhile. Then the result will be decided by a 7-day discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Look at the article to find out why I don't want the language and not the year in the title. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

When I look at the article, what should I be looking for? It's both a Hindi film and a 2015 film. Why is 'Hindi' more helpful than '2015' to distinguish this film from others called 'I Love NY'? If you can answer this question, you will have found a rationale for your position. Notice Category:Hindi-language films. They generally don't have 'Hindi film' as part of the title. Many of them have a date in parentheses. For example, Aakrosh (1998 film) and Aakrosh (2010 film). EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Look at the first line in the "Release and Reception" section to see why I want 'Hindi' and not the year for 'I Love NY'. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Still don't follow. The first line is "Originally planned for release in April 2013, it was delayed on numerous occasions. In June 2015, the female lead, Ranaut issued a legal notice to the producers of the film to attempt to stop the film's release as she felt that they were "cashing in on her recent box office success"." Can you give me a complete sentence that states your point? EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So read the line: "Originally planned for release in April 2013, it was delayed on numerous occasions." Neel.arunabh (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Our classification of films goes by the year they were released. The article on I Love NY (2015 film) says that the film was released in July 2015. Do you disagree? EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree for 'I Love NY'. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year EdJohnston!

Happy New Year!

EdJohnston,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

He is doing it again.

MachoMan is inserting the same image twice into articles. Undoing him is useless at this point so I will stop. Just see the L, 4, and B articles. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

how are they the same images? are you blind or something? learn how to look and see things right — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManchoMan (talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

edjohnson see kew gardens talk page for more information and details — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManchoMan (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Responding to Questions

More at User talk:Lawismarkellot. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
New to Wikipedia and have not yet figured out the mechanics of responding to quesitons. If you go to; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVd8lWp7KJQ Find I hold you Johnston in high regard. If you go to; http://gorrenberry.com/proto-germanic-r-u106-haplogroup-dna-elwald-elliot/ You will find out who I am. Have not added anything lately to Wikipedia "Clan Crozier" But if you Google "Clan Crozier" highly reference, go to graphics, one will see the upload Bleau map to Wikipedia is the number one graphic. Then other graphics come from my site gorrenberry.com If you go to the Wikipedia "Clan Armtrong" site you will find under external links; http://gorrenberry.com/armstrong-fairbairn-elliot-y-dna-link/ https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/flor/article/download/14397/20215/ Top historian of Scottish history; Dr Jackson W. Armstrong. Nicked by Redheugh, and Gorrenberry is bleeding. It should be noted that the U106 American, Elliott are of Gorrenberry, and "Clan Eliott" Wikipedia is of Redgheugh. If you Google "north british windpower nbw" you will find; http://gorrenberry.com/chiefs-kerr-elliot-duke-of-roxburghe-nbw-nbwp/ If you deny "Clan Crozier", and their is not a "Clan Crozier" on Wikipedia, which I am trying to give to you, I of Gorrenberry will have to take it back. Mark (Den-mark, granddad's name but of a family of Marks), Stephen (Slavic granddad but mainly a Scottish name), Elliott (not of the Wikipedia, Wm de Aliot (Eliot), line but of the Germanic-Danish Elchwald-Elgwald-Elfwald-Elwald-Ellot-Elliot line). Compare the references of "Clan Eliott", and "Clan Crozier", which one has the most valued references and the correct information. The validity of Wikipedia is not based on corporate censorship, but individual truthfulness. Mark Stephen Elliott (Scottish alias; Lawis Mark Ellot) My quirky genealogy, is supported by multiple Elliott tracing their families like my father did to Daniel Elliot (bordder spelling) left "correct" testimony accepted today as close historic fact on for the Salem Witch Trials. Know you my not believe, me, but I carry his "Y-Chromosomes". The first to DNA's being fully mapped, on is of Germany, and the of from Scotland they were both R-U106, Have sub-claves of >S12025>FGC12040>S16361> any questions; https://www.familytreedna.com/public/U106?iframe=yresults Today's United Kingdom may have corporate censorship like Germany in WWII, learned not to have. Other nations if you check the other Clan Elliot, and societies and your own border historian, Walter Elliot, you will find through the centuries my line of Northern Germany existed, until they North British Windpower, supported the English firm in placing a Windy Edge (bias name should be Hermitage Castle) wind farm on historic Buccleuch Gorrenberry Estate land which the Braidley turbine wind array is set for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawismarkellot (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EdJohnston!

Happy New Year!

EdJohnston,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

i was not going by my own impression that i was working hard for your information, this is what i hate about you son, and you blocked for all little words like stubborn. what next are you going to block me for saying bubble or map? also stop mimicking everything i said, i don't like that crap from you TheManchoMan (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EdJohnston!

Happy New Year!

EdJohnston,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

TheManchoMan

I blocked the user for two weeks. Not just for what they said here (see above in between well wishers), but similar comments at User:Kew Gardens 613. My only question is whether I should have made it indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The blocking of Ephemerance

I see you have blocked Ephemerance (talk · contribs) for edit warring. Although this editor did not technically violate WP:3RR, I respect your view that his/her actions were a violation of the spirit of 3RR; nevertheless, I feel obliged to plead his/her case for having the block removed. Ephemerance seems to be relatively new to Wikipedia, yet his/her contributions seem to be of a relatively high quality. The cause of the dispute stems from a debate about the use of "who" or "whom" in this discussion. The editor presented seemingly irrefutable evidence that "whom" was correct, but rapidly faced disagreement from all other editors. I believe his or her inexperience in dealing with this type of dispute and the fact that this editor continued to engage in meaningful and productive talk page discussions are mitigating factors. I stumbled into the conversation just before Ephemerance was blocked, and while I am not expert on the matter I believe the editor's logic in the "who" or "whom" debate is sound.

I would urge you to offer to release the block on Ephemerance in exchange for a promise not to edit the article itself for the 24-hour period, but allow them to continue to engage in the talk page discussion. I would suggest a violation of that promise could lead to a block of greater severity. Normally I wouldn't waste my time with this sort of thing, since it is only a 24-hour block, but I have a hunch this editor has only good intentions and is genuinely interested in contributing value to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There seemed to be a good faith disagreement on whether 'who' or 'whom' was correct. Admins may give special consideration to reverts that take out obviously wrong information, but that didn't seem to apply here. If you can persuade the editor to wait for talk page consensus before any future edits at Atheism I'd review the block. (They made five reverts over three days and seemed to think that was fine). The editor can still use the {{unblock}} template if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will post a note to that effect on the editor's talk page. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Scope of Banex

Hi. You recently closed a case filed against me with a recommendation that in future, I should seek advice regarding the scope of BANEX. I am respectfully seeking that advice from you. ArbCom recently imposed a 2-way interaction ban on me and another user. I believe the other user has violated this ban. What is the appropriate way to request clarification of whether it has been violated - is it the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment page? Am I allowed to name the other user there under BANEX? Thanks in advance for your advice.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BANEX should allow you to point out any edits that you think are a violation by the other party. You can use my talk page. If you make a complaint, you will inevitably be naming them, so that is allowed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I thought that because the ban was imposed by ArbCom, it was their pages which should be used for clarification. Is this not the case?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The interaction ban is a restriction imposed as a case remedy. These bans are supposed to be enforceable by individual admins or by a request at WP:AE. The same method as if it were a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks again for the advice.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring report

Hi, I'm a new editor and I reported two user who have edit-warred between them since a long time. [65] I don't know if my report is in the right form, so please help me if there is sth wtong with it.Lostrigot (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Standard report filed. Thank you.Lostrigot (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lostrigot and Ed. Happy New Year! There was indeed edit-warring at the List of wars by death toll and List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll articles, but that ended (I hope) a couple days ago. We seem to have worked through Vellusammy's concerns. I didn't break the 3RR rule (not sure if Vellusammy did or not), but there was a frustrating amount of reverting going on. I've left warnings on his Talk page twice, and I almost reported him, but he self-reverted, so I refrained. He was not content to follow WP:BRD and hold off on editing while we worked through his concerns. And when I held off from editing, Vellusammy would stop communicating on the Talk page, content to let his latest problematic edits stand. The daily reverts were mostly being used as a prod to restart stalled discussions, during the many edit variations we slogged through. Not optimal, of course, but the two 'List' articles are low traffic and other editors weren't exactly joining in to assist — which leaves the edit history looking like one long back and forth tussle between two editors. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see a second report has been filed. Out of curiosity, User:Lostrigot, what outcome would you like to see from your report? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethnocracy

Hi, seeing as User:When Other Legends Are Forgotten was warned not to remove posts by others from talk pages which he agreed not to do[66], shouldn't my edits now be restored on Ethnocracy? An SPI was already in progress and he's since been blocked, so should his edits on that talk page as well as others be blocked out too? 81.132.249.228 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The result of that SPI does simplify matters. But I am uncertain if your edits on the topic of Ethnocracy as an IP are likely to be beneficial. You made at least one edit on Category:Haganah that might have led to action against you at AE if you were a registered account. You seem to have been warring against other editors with two different IPs at Ethnocracy which violates WP:SOCK. As you know, IPs are restricted from certain edits on Palestine-Israel-related articles. You really don't want to go to the trouble of registering an account? EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well surely the fact that a banned sockpuppet was editing on that talk page and I was simply pointing that out then my edits were relevent. When you say other editors (plural), who are you referring to? On the contrary I can only see When Other Legends Are Forgotten editwarring with everyone else on Ethnocracy. Where is your evidence that I've been using two different IPs? If you take a look at the edit history[67] you can clearly see When Other Legends Are Forgotten edit warring with other editors but no action was taken against him. No I am happy using an IP like many other editors on Wikipedia. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've not had a reply yet. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I gave you my rationale, I think I am finished here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Egregious use of Admin privileges, and your involved commentary pretensed as "Uninvolved input"

EdJohnston, I do not know the basis of your confounded state of negative opinion of my editorship, but I certainly recognize it. This is the 2nd time your have interjected in editors complaints on an AE created by AlbinoFerret regarding Electronic cigarettes. You are seeming taking up his repeated attempts to remove editors from the pages he predominately edits. I need you to not attempt to act as an uninvolved Admin, because you clearly have a dog in the hunt. More importantly actions are aggressively attempting to swing the decisions of other admins which may be Uninvolved. Here's why?

• 1. Before the first AE, you were an editor on the TALK pages of Electronic Cigarettes, not acting as admin. (while you may at other times, when I saw you were not).
• 2. You put out in front of everyone on the talk pages a proposition that I was either a sockpuppet or other negative aspects of WP editorship. You instigated a request that I had to follow up on withing the TALK pages to present myself as not a sockpuppet. I created a section, I explained myself, and you responded and ultimately collapsed the section. This was our history before any AE.
• 3. AlbinoFerret took your charges and his own and created an AE on myself, asserting my behavior on TALK pages, and sock-puppetry. The behavior on the talk page, was related to your remarks, as an Involved participant, and also regarding my request to the AE board to put in a Discretionary Sanction on the page, by moving it to Full Protection. You have now cited that request as rational for banning me. How does asking for Full Protection translate into your asking for me to permanently banned, as the very first enforcement action against me?
• 4. In the first AE you suggested to editors who are uninvolved, that Discretionary Sanctions be put on me....above and well beyond what the ARB called for. This is overkill, it is a very real bias. And you are asking other admins to act upon your suggestions.
• 5. Now you are suggesting a permanent ban? On a specific edit which has more editors in support than it does against.
• @EdJohnston: can you explain your rationale, and more specifically can you remove your involved commentary out of the uninvolved Admin section. Beyond the other inappropriate suggestions you are putting out, you should really not be portending yourself as uninvolved. You have been, and continue to be.

I would appreciate an earnest response here. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

One of my posts at Talk:Electronic cigarette was on December 5. At that time I wrote, in reply to you: "You write vaguely with lots of charges about other editors, and at great length. This kind of behavior brings you closer to enforcement of the discretionary sanctions." That remains my opinion now. Since I was acting as an admin there, and I expressed no opinions on electronic cigarettes, this does not breach WP:INVOLVED. I was on that page in response to complaints about editor conduct. Asking for input as to whether full protection was needed to stop an edit war. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• EdJohnston your interaction in the Electronic cigarettes article is clearly a conflict of interest. That conflict was recognized, it was told to you, and it was explained to you. Your involvement was in part the cause of a creation of an AE on myself. In that AE I stated clearly you were an involved Admin. Your first remarks were that I should be banned for 6 months. And you know that goes outside of the bounds of the ARB decision. You have a dog in the hunt, and you are in the hunt.
• Your comment here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_27#Concerns_of_User:Mystery_Wolff caused me to explain myself. This was all before any AE regarding myself. You label my actions as asking for help as odd, but asking for full protection, which was something YOU yourself was first to introduce, is not a something to which now you are suggesting a permanent ban of topic on should be. Can you explain why I needed to be asked to present myself to every other editor in TALK. Were you requested to do this?

Here is part of your bias and how you effected the rest of the editors in the talk page. And all of this is done outside of your role as an admin. Was there any request of you as Admin? You said in Talk:

"if you want to have a level playing field it might help if you would give us a hint of why you created your account on 19 November with apparently no prior Wikipedia edits but much knowledge of the arb case, just to edit regarding electronic cigarettes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I asked you here to explain your rationale, which you did not do in the AE. Instead you just give your CONCLUSION. Honestly I believe your bias is manifest. Can you explain the rationale of banning an editor for a editing that did not develop into an edit war? Look at the AE that is current....is it not just a normal dispute on editing.
• EdJohnston when you as involved (or if you want to think as uninvolved) are posting on TALK and that an editor can get banned, and asking them to explain themselves it goes well beyond being a uninvolved. In this case it caused other editors to change their behavior. Somehow you think that daily interactions on the TALK page are part of WP Dispute processes? Which processes are these.
• Your opinions are fixed and firm. You make that clear. You make it clear you don't want to listen to my side. And you don't think that is a conflict of interest? You said them again here. You said them in relationship to things not even raised in the AE. And you are floating out punishments and actions that are dramatically outside of what even the ARB suggested. Admin privileges are not predicated on pushing power over editors whom they interact on. You are indeed involved. I request you remove your remarks from that section in this AE. That you listen to the feedback that was already given to you in the first AE. If you don't want to spend the time to reasonably respond, or if listening to me is simply TLDR for you, and with such abject and obvious bias and conflicts of interest, I ask you to disengage and leave it to other editors, and for you to not lobby also.

Thank you, I would appreciate it. Mystery Wolff (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like EdJohnston is acting as an uninvolved administrator in this dispute, rather than an involved content advocate. Expressing strong administrative opinions about editor conduct earlier (not content opinions) does not make the administrator involved later when the problematic editor behavior continues. That is my relatively uninvolved evaluation of the matter, though I think that I have previously commented on the behavior of at least one e-cigarette contributor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Cullen I appreciate your remarks. However when an Admin goes onto a TALK page and discusses with the dialgoe between editor, it is not an admin function. The same jargon that EdJohnston is using on me in the AE, is what he said about a previous editor, with which I was asserted to be a sockpuppet of. The investigation failed on the merits. EdJohnston told me in TALK that if I want to have a level playing field I would need to respond. Which I did. When he did that outside of any ARB or AE or anything else he became very involved.

EdJohnston perhaps interacts with many items, but he is clearly misrepresenting his involvement with me in what he has said in the AE. For example, the first Admin to suggest I be topic banned for 6 months, for my very first anything with Admins or Dispute Resolution....was EdJohnston. He is attributing that now to Spartaz. Found here [68].

He raises that previous interaction in the current AE, and claims that ban was lifted. It was rescinded. Clearly not in line with his wishes, but he is now representing that action as if it was not, rescinded. There is a difference between a mistake, and a reduced sentence.

EdJohnston is saying his first interaction with me was because of the Admin Boards. He knows that is not true.

If others agree with User:Mystery Wolff that there are too many changes and not enough discussion the logical response might be a month of full protection. That would at least force discussion but still allow changes via "Edit protected". A statement above by S Marshall indicates he plans to go on making changes without waiting for consensus. If time is going to be wasted by reverting the same thing in and out multiple times then holding WP:RFCs might be worthwhile. (RfCs take time, but so do revert wars). An alternative to protection could be a voluntary agreement by several people to do more talking for each edit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC) 

I took that suggestion, and made the request for the AE to do just that. Now EdJohnston is suggesting that was mistake or in some way odd. EdJohnston in the AE says:

He edits aggressively, but lacks experience. People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite

That is an incredible statement by EdJohnston. Ban any editor who comes to a contentious area, regardless of the merits of their edits. The edit in question has more support than lack of support in the TALK page. Maybe indefinite bans are a convince of Admins who do not want to take their roles on, or just tired of the process. But is not fair. And in this case they are the actions of an Admin who has a very obvious prediliction to wanting me removed from editing. Regardless if anyone determines the bias, the appearance of bias is obvious. EdJohnston knows that the ARB he is wishing to take these actions on, did not prescribe such a solution either. It's all his. Next I suppose he will say that I am objecting to getting topic banned, so I should be topic banned as a result. Admins should follow process. Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ed is one of the most respected and experienced admins generally and at AE in particular. I don't think diatribes and invective against him are either necessary or effective. I suggest toning your statements down. Dr. K. 08:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. I am not talking about EdJohnston in anything other than his interactions with me. In the previous AE which was rescinded he was the first to suggest was the Admin who said I should be topic banned. If he has history in Admining the certain sections where the his answer is to just use the banhammer as first resort, then those topics, perhaps, he should not continue to admin on. I feel caught up in previous history, and that feeling was confirmed when I am being accused of being a sockpuppet. Here I have asked him to respond for the rationale for his suggesting I be permanently banned as the first enforcement of anything on me. I believe that is a reasonable question. What about my edits are problematic? If there was a simple way to handle the prospects of an involved admin who is bent on banning someone for objecting to a permanent ban, without explanation to the premise....I would like to know it. But I felt that asking him, and explaining my perspective may be better, than not. Best I got. Alternatives? Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, your reply to me is much more reasonable that what we started with, starting with the rather long and somehow accusatory section title. If you continue along the present lines I am sure that a resolution can be achieved in a much better manner than if the same tone had continued. Ed is a very reasonable and professional admin. I am certain he can respond fairly to reasonable enquiries. Best regards. Dr. K. 11:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. well I am certainly flinching at a topic ban, so I don't know. If you are curious to the ongoing discussion on the TALK page. Here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol_and_e-liquid#Removal_of_MEDRS_sourced_claim thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mystery Wolff for the link. I'll check it out as soon as I have some time. Meanwhile try to approach this issue by continuing on the path you are now. From my experience, there is little to be gained by increasing the volume of the discussion in such situations. Personally, I think Ed is a very good and experienced admin and I don't think he has any motive to be anything else but fair toward you. Dr. K. 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. I don't think he has a motive either, its simply that I interacted with him, I took some of what I thought was guidance, which those direction are now cited, then his first recommendation was 6 month ban, and I had never been to the principles offices before. If I thought Ed was uncaring, I would not have bothered to write a post here. Because of the stream of AE requests on E-Cigs he could be compassion-fatigued though. I think I summarized it as best I can here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=698579713&oldid=698569296 This AE is a week old now and the pages are still operating without edit waring. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

When an editor refuses to get the point

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

At which point into a "discussion" does Wikipedia:IDHT start to become a relevant issue? User:Javaddeniro, who you blocked for edit warring, continues to misrepresent sources that clearly state "Turko-Persian" is a culture, instead insisting these sources mean "Turko-Persian" is an ethnicity.

Meanwhile, Javaddeniro continues to make false statements;

• "Kansas bear has made an original research that is forbidden in wikipedia.he says ethnicity is different from the language and the culture , but as we clearly know etnicity is based on the culture and the language.."[69]
• "while the user kansas Bear is trying to make an edit war and is not answering the questions in the talk page and is asking wikipedia adminastration to block me that is obviouslly meaningless"[70]
• " If you search kansas bear messages , firstly he sent a warning message for me later I just copied and pasted that warning in his talk page because of continuing changing my edits and giving meaningless answers in the talk page"[71]

Oddly, according to Canfield, Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, page 12, "This composite culture was the beginning of the Turko-Persian variant of Islamicate culture. It was Persianate in that it was centered on the lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkish in so far as it was for many generations patronized by rulers of Turkic ancestry..."

I believe my assuming good faith with this editor is over. Anyway, if you wish to peruse the sources I have posted.[72] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

After your entreaty to user:Javaddeniro, said editor's response was to first, canvass user:Zerershk by leaving a link to editing the Seljuk dynasty article and then posting another accusation on my talk page. This clearly shows Javaddeniro's unwillingness to accept academic sources, their continued attempt to incite some type of personal response from me and their POV pushing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Some words of advice on a move request

Hi EdJohnston

Recently, a user who initiated a move request on the article Turco-Albanians was found to be a sock. The issues outlined and the concerns of multiple other edtiros regarding the article for move request remain. Will the move request no longer be valid? Can a another editor such as my self take over and place my name and reason for the move request (and if so how)? I was looking through Wikipedia policies and could not find something as to what to do in this instance. I would really appreciate any advice on the matter. Kind regards.Resnjari (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The move request should continue and be closed in the normal way. The opinion expressed by the sock will be disregarded by the closer, but the move will take place if it has consensus among the remaining editors. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HughD

The above appeal has been closed but there is no result. What does this mean? Biscuittin (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The appeal is now posted at WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement appeal by User:HughD. Further discussion should occur there. Uninvolved admins will decide whether to grant the request. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I moved this from 2015 to 2016. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Front National (France)

• Front National (France) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• National Front (France) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am requesting another semi protected status on the Front National article, as several different IP users have removed a part of the text that is flagged as dubious/discuss, without making comment on it first, and I'm getting a bit fed up with reverting their changes e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_National_(France)&oldid=697809654. Would you please investigate? I am quite new to Wikipedia so don't know what other options are out there to encourage consensus/discussion rather than just edit wars. Phatwa (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the protection log of the old name this article has been reported at AN3 in the past. It has had both full protection and semiprotection at various times. I'm imposing six months of semiprotection, for now. I notice at Talk:Front National (France)#Far-right descriptor: evidence of usage that there's been a lot of discussion of the right/far right terminology on the talk page. If we see wars resuming again about that terminology, the editors involved should be referred to the prior discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for protecting it, it seems a bot has removed the semi-protection as there was a move back to the old name after consensus. Can you please reinstate the semi protection on the new (old) article location? Phatwa (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: pinging... 94.194.42.49 (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you refresh my memory on why semiprotection is needed this time? There was a December report at AN3: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive302#User:82.19.126.221 reported by User:Semitransgenic (Result: Semi). Somebody was warring on 'right' versus 'far right' using multiple IPs. Do you believe something like that is continuing? The page we would be protecting this time around is National Front (France). Here are all the changes since 6 January. Is there something in there that is against policy? EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

After this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_National_(France)&oldid=697809654) you semi protected the article for 6 months as there was evidence the right/far-right argument was continuing from IP users. I'm not saying they are related to the previous discussions but they were not discussing on the Talk page, just reverting etc. This 6 months of semi protection was removed by a bot a few days ago after the article was moved. I am assuming that the bot removed it because they couldn't find any correct reference to it due to article move. Phatwa (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Unclear why moving a page should lose the protection. If somebody wanted to file a Mediawiki bug, it could be worthwhile. I put back the 6-month semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Feedback about page disputes

• Potiskum Emirate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed previous Wiki pages for Mai Umar Ibn Wuriwa Bauya had been deleted from wiki. I would like to remind you all that his royal highness was awarded a national honour of officer of the order of the Niger (OON) for the federal republic of Nigeria. I believe we should respect such exemplary leadership especially at this time when the region is facing adverse crisis. It is of concern that a group of people have set up this page 'potiskum emirate' just for the sake of spiting the good works of the potiskum emir and its supporters against oppressive groups in the area. We must all understand that we cannot use Wikipedia to spite the good work of other people. Wikipedia page for 'potiskum emirate' should be short and clear and without relating to the works or benefits of the Fika emirate. I believe the cause of this dispute is due to lobbying by the fika emirate followers which is hugely sad as it is spiting the good works of Mai Umar Ibn Wuriwa Bauya. I believe EDJohnston and SchroCat especially are using articles from the daily trust, Nigeria, and writing from a circular group which cannot be relied upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga.gatto.sa (talk • contribs)

If you want changes made to Potiskum Emirate you need to get support for your opinion by discussing on Talk:Potiskum Emirate. That article has been semiprotected after report of edit warring (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi EDJohnston thanks for your reply, I am glad to hear you are the administrator here - cheers! I am not here for a campaign but alerting you that you already have one going on already. Hence the on-going disputes. Both pages should be clear and simple if you agree.

Amendment request archived

The amendment request for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

TBAN violation again?

Since you were involved in this TBAN violation discussion [73] I wanted to ask you about this edit [74]. The link added is to the John_Birch_Society article. JBS is a conservative advocacy group founded by the Koch family. I would think that is a violation of both the post 2009 conservative politics and the earlier Koch topics ban. I wanted to ask your opinion in case you thought I was off base. Thanks Springee (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Vsevolod Chaplin and Patriarch Kirill

Hello. I was blocked illegally and ask you correct this. If you think that Im violator - you need delete this article totally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vsevolod_Chaplin (our team has relation to the ROC in Smolensk region and this article was started via our team). We use remote administration software - including. Does not exist any sock. You can ask User:Alex Bakharev https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vsevolod_Chaplin&action=history who can explain you (IPs are common team - not one man). I ask you unblock me. And I ask restore my contribution in the article ("under protection of RonaldR" - an admirer of Leon Trotsky and Marx). He created situation when began war of edits. Wikipedia must keep independence instead be slave of the 4-th International. The Russian Patriarh is not an agent of the KGB in English Wikipedia (via our team totally - by the way). He is living person and no of good proofs to write something other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaccy_Jaydy = 95.29.88.195 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC).

It looks like you are part of a campaign of sock editing at Marxism. Other admins have now issued blocks and semiprotection to curtail this. If you are here to boast about your ability to evade our defences, I don't see why I should humor you further. Your personal attacks against User:RolandR do not strengthen your case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaccy Jaydy. The use of 'ROC' as an abbreviation for the Russian Orthodox Church, and the use of 95.* IPs from Smolensk, was also seen in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you about Valenciano - it is very fun person (he uses the Need1521 for "all cases of life"). But you must remove any edit of Need1521 (by the way). Article about Chaplin (90% or even 100). Besides, Kirill must become an agent of the KGB again!, not only this issue. We saved reputation of Kirill on very good level. The ROC (if you believer - you will be sent in hell because you act against almost prior + you defend RobertR (who respects Red terror anywhere). You don't respect victims of Marx. He is worse than Hitler in 4 times. Iron fact! If you normal man - you need act as normal man (not supporter of the 4-th International and RobertR). Unblock me or - see above. Removal of Chaplin and Kirill - including. 95.29.88.195 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hello. Do you wish additional references for the article? 95.29.128.59 (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hello. Platform of European Memory and Conscience - project of the European Union (belongs to the EU). It was speech of Ján Čarnogurský (politician of the world level). Additional source can be used for the respecting this rule of Wikipedia on best level (original source to check). Having the original source, Wikipedia is sure that the EU is not against compare Marx with Goering. It was historical discussion. Exists even paper book. And exist opinions of many researchers, which say that Marxism has great relation to very bad things. The crimes of communists have relation to the Marxism forever. This is encyclopedic information. If Marx made something useful in other scope, nobody urges forget this. Additional source: the agenda (5 June, 2012), http://www.memoryandconscience.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Crimes2.wav.ff.mp3 (0:13:18 - 0:13:59) - Ján Čarnogurský says that Marx and Trotsky is nothing good (audio). - 95.27.113.132 (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

• Hello. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/FeaturesManager-View-EN.asp?ID=349 (number of victims and other information). - 95.29.138.156 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC).

Your noticing of an arbitration enforcement sanction

EdJohnston: You recently suggested sanctions upon me at AE, and then subsequently took the action to close them out. Your notice explained you would answer questions. The standard form says you will take the time to respond. As you know above, I had attempted to get information from you prior to you closing the AE. A follower of your page, took the unusual step of commenting there, and then moving over to an AE they have no involvement with and supporting your decision. That seemed odd. My Questions are:

• 1. Do you believe you are an uninvolved administrator, to me, and this AE? Take into consideration our prior actions, and my myself specifically stating your involvement with me, specifically, prior to this AE.
• 2. I asked for what edits or my actions were a cause of concern, you never explain which. Why the lack of specificity? Why not explain.
• 3. The AE was created by an long time editor, who has had a series of conflicts with other editors, including CFCF, which they created an AE about also....in the process of the AE did you examine any of their actions?
• 4. In the AE, the only items raised before your recommendations to other Admins (note you were the first to make the recommendations of banning me)....was a series of edits which were reverted out. You will notice that the editor who did the revert was not a common editor to the page ever before, and another related page just had a sockpuppet reverting me. More specifically the items entirely in the AE were reverted out, and those reverts remained, and the discussion was ongoing in TALK. I do not understand how the BRD method of editing...becomes subject to an indefinite ban? Again you never references any differences in my edits, it seemed more like your personal frustration with doing anything with Ecig pages. Is that fair to say?
• 5. The first action that was ever suggested toward my editorship, regarding any type of official action or warning was your suggestion of a 6 month topic ban. How did you arrive at that figure?
• 6. Do you have a person frustration with E-Cigarette articles?
• 7. There was no finding or otherwise that I was an SPA with a POVpush in the AE. Did you use SPA as the basis of your recommendation anyways?
• 8. Why did you have me explain in TALK that I was not a sockpuppet, and accuse me of being a SPA (in the negative sense). Why did you make that request? Did you ever do a sockpuppet investigation on me?
• 9. What policy did you use to make the following recommendation to other Admins "He edits aggressively, but lacks experience. People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite"
• 10.If you feel that I edited aggressively, what edits were those after the first AE was rescinded? Can I see the Differences? Is aggressive your way of saying Bold, in the BRD process? How is aggressive different than bold?
• 11. AlbinoFerret notified multiple editors of the first AE he created on me. However the 2nd he did not. Yet he claimed other editors were effected beyond himself. When I put notified a comprehensive list of active editors that an AE was in process. You decided to close out the AE without getting there input. I had said that Doc James had said he would look at this. And he is a frequent editor and reviewer of these pages. Why did you not allow editors to comment before you closed out that AE?
• 12. When I asked you the above questions, in the previous subject listed above, you never responded, why?
• 13. Where you aware that the requestor of the AE, opened up a section on Spartaz page shortly after the first AE wanting to immediately open another AE on me? Spartaz never replied. But DeltaQuad was forced to ferret out a sockpuppet who was the person that reverted me. Where you aware that a sockpuppet was reverting my edits?
• 14. Did you follow the ARB and its ruling, when you began asking that I be banned for 6 months and then indefinitely, or were you using a different policy? If different, what policy. And which edits?
• 15. QuackGuru was sanctioned previously. You asserted as did the first AE, that I was their sockpuppet. Was your determination of 6 months Topic Ban then saying it should be indefinately premised upon a belief that I was QuackGuru, a sockpuppet, or an associate of any other editor?
• 16. When I asked for Full Protection on the pages, to the AE, which was provided for by the ARB, why did you disregard the request, even though it was your suggestion that it could be done inside of the TALK pages. Why did you an none of the others in AE every respond to that request? Why did you find that request unusual, noting that the ARB called out for it as an option?

As you know, I am tremendously disappointed, feel that processes were not followed, that yours and others acted like "hanging judges", and that your actions were exceedingly overkill, and indicitive of your prior involvement with me, to which you should have stepped back, and not twice said I should be banned for 6 months, when none of the other admins had remarked of any sanctions at both AEs. Being a person that believes in good processes, and knowing that Wikipedia can only function well if Admins take processes with due care, I am sure the time it takes to answer the question I have listed out, will be well spent for you. I can say I wish I did not need to spend the time on my side, but you know your decisions require the time of others. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff, the notice I left on your talk page explains your options for appeal. AE is one of our most heavily-documented processes, and I hope you can answer some of your questions just by reviewing the AE record. The most recent complaint about you was opened on Jan. 2 and closed on Jan. 9, which is enough time for a reasonable discussion. Three admins participated in the closure, and all of us supported a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, your instructions that you posted, offered that you would answer questions, and that I could appeal directly to your talk page, prior to do the appeals process. So I believe my questions are germane. There was not a dialogue or any questions asked in the AE, and while it was open for days, on an item that was already resolved in the TALK pages, there was no discussion of anything within the complaint made by AlbinoFerret. I do not know the basis for which you made your decision, beyond generic comments that could have been made about any editor, at any time. I was engaged actively in a dialogue with editors, and my edits were already reverted out, without 3RR The ARB did not place a 1RR on the pages. Nor was one placed on me. And I did not edit war. This is why number 9 above seems to be significantly excessive, but it is what your first recommended. I do not know why. This then would be my appealing to you, for you to rescind the sanctions or in some way make them appropriate to what you actually see in my edits. I have to say that it is unclear if you reviewed them to me, especially since they were resolved at the time the AE was generated. I want to make full availability of my options, so I am first appealing to you, and asking for clarification here. I think clarification is appropriate. Please let me know. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

To aid in my seeking clarification, and reconsideration, I would like to know if you were aware of this exchange started by Spartaz, with comments by the requester of the AE AlbinoFerret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:S_Marshall#Mystery_Wolff

Now S Marshall now resumes what were previously described by S Marshal as "drastic edits here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&oldid=699194574#Smoking_cessation

Of note is the removal of this from the article which is an important Study, that existed prior to any my editorship here. "A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group. "

That sentence was removed by S Marshal, I had replaced it, S Marshall agreed to not remove it. It was removed again, and then replaced by Doc James. It then became a proposal to have it removed again, which was abandoned, when I AE rescinded. It now has been taken up again. That is a very important study, and it was reviewed by Doc James. There have been no assertions I have been pushing a POV. Doc James reviewed the edit and kept it in, what is ironic is the complaint in the AE that your ruled on, was related to removing MEDRS content.

I do not believe you took any of these factors into your consideration, and perhaps were unaware that there was a tag team operating.(shown in links).

I fully agree that ECIGs is contentious, but this was/is long standing without regard to myself. I have operated well in this area, and my edits have for the most part not been challenged. The AE and your recommendation of 6 months does not seem to factor in any of this, and mistakenly attributes long standing issue, with my editing. There editors believed me to be a sockpuppet of QuackGuru who was an individual who was sanctioned out the the ARB. Ironically one of the editors who did revert me, was a sockpuppet, who DeltaQuad replaced and blocked, before the 2nd AE, in the same complaint made by AlbinoFerret to Spartaz on his talk page. CFCF also sanctioned in the controlling ARB was brought to an AE, and CFCF was given a warning. This is why, in part, I feel that your AE recommendation and ultimately the action, is far in excess of what my contributions merit. And why I would like you to reconsider. The ARB itself did not prescribe such harsh treatment as remedy, in its documentation. The first AE was on a different matter than the first also. My preference is to resolve this with you, and am open to some amounts of middle ground, 6 months is simply extreme, and not a fair reflection to my actual contributions to Wikipedia. Surely a through review for such a large sanction would talk into consideration these factors, and efforts by AE requester, making the assertions Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion my previous answers satisfy WP:ADMINACCT. None of your comments since the closure persuade me that the decision was wrong, so I urge you to pursue your other routes of appeal. If you continue to post here about the ban, you probably won't find my answers very satisfying. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You pointed me to a section which says "Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)." I have mostly been asking questions, have your read X, did you consider Y, what part of my comments did you have an issue with. Thats the real basic one you have not responded to, which edits, what things in talk. Those are reasonable questions. And yes I believe you should have responded, and I think it reasonable for me to be seeking those answers. Editors like myself, deserve more than just a rubberstamped TB across our foreheads. Your refusal to answer questions, has exasperated this entire process, from a non-admin's perspective. But yes I do understand you won't be examining this further. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please note, I have opened up an Appeal regarding your recommendation, you closure, and you involved nature to an AE where you indefinitely topic banned me. If you would like this notification to be done in a alternative format please tell me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Mystery_Wolff Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific

You said you wanted me to make a "voluntary offer to forestall a ban." I'm afraid I find this a bit vague. You need to be more specific. If I'm to agree to something, I need to know what it is in advance. As I said earlier[75], if you think that I did something wrong, please say what it is or else I can't address it. The response that I gave in the AE thread is the result of my guessing at your mind, and I'm pretty sure it's just muddying the waters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Lists" and whatnot...

Hi, Ed!

What about the rest of these pages? "Per consensus," shouldn't they all also be reverted to include the former "List of" title? I feel it would be best for all of the pages to follow the same lead... do you not agree? I look forward to hearing from you and also from Fortdj33 as well. Thank you (both) in advance for what I'm sure will be a prompt response. Cheers for now!Cebr1979 (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That move discussionwas closed by User:Jenks24. His closing message may give you some ideas on where to go from here. He suggested an RfC, since many articles on soap operas would be affected. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ya, but it was you who started it, remember? So... in essence... he was only following your original wishes so... What do you think? I mean, all of those pages were mentioned in the talk you originally alerted me to on my talk page... I think the consensus is to have them all reverted back. I'll wait for your next response before pursuing it further. I do find it odd, though, that you defer to Jenks24 without giving a response... "List of" is how you wanted things, no?Cebr1979 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please give a link to where you and I have discussed this previously. Also, if there were any other RMs or RfCs can you identify them. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Olympiacos B.C.

EdJohnston first of all I'd like to thank you for your admin work and your timely response. I'd like to ask you, should I revert the last edit by the ip user (he has blatantly violated 3RR) or should an admin take care of this? Thank you very much for your attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not offer your proposed change for consideration on the talk page? If nobody objects, go ahead and do it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't clear, I didn't revert the ip edit because I didn't want to violate the 3RR myself. As you can see I reverted it twice and I stopped there in order to report his violation. An admin also reverted it once, but the ip user kept going. Nevermind, I'll revert it myself, I am pretty sure the 24 hours have passed. Gtrbolivar (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Suicide of Rohith Vemula

My dear friend, I have replied on Notice board. Terabar (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Terabar, I respect your opinion, but you may not impose yourself indiscriminately. You are unwilling to compromise and you discard all contrary source while you quote selective narration extensively. You have not acceded to any middle path on the article talk page. You still hold that your version exact to the letter is the only acceptable version. --Ekvastra (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for at-least understanding my emotional feelings. I will try to find a middle path on article's talkpage. You already know that I don't break promises. But please check the edits of Ekvastra also where he was reverted by almost 3 editors on other articles. See 1st Revert , 2nd revert and 3rd revert . Many editors have expressed his edits as wrong. See Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#User: Ekvastra reverts Terabar (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston

Greetings! I would like to explain for you the issue with user:Jobas. This male is one of those impostors about whom Jesus (peace be upon him) said "Wolves in sheep's clothing" and about whom Prophet Muhammad said "Their tongues are sweeter than honey, but their hearts are more bitter than aloes". This male pretends to be nice and polite, but in fact he is not. I am very much familiar with his habit of approaching certain admins, from whom he expects to receive patronage, with words sweeter than honey in order to receive protection for his corruption.

This male was caught socking with 9 female sock-puppets on Wikimedia commons and all his female sock-puppets were blocked and tagged in July 2012 as you can see here. Several months later in December 2012, he was caught socking again with 12 sock-puppets and all these were also blocked and tagged as you can see here. In February 2015 and later in January 2016, he used an IP-duck together with his main account in order to corrupt the pages of his blocked sock-puppets as you can see here here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. This vandalism caused the names of his sock-puppets to disappear from this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sockpuppets_of_Jobas

You can also see how he corrupted the link to the page of his sock-puppets which I provided in my own comment here in a deceptive way intending to cheat the reviewers.

This user was blocked on the English Wikipedia in the past for the same reasons: Inserting false information & sock-puppetry as you can see here.

As you can easily notice, this male sock-master has given the majority of his sock-puppets female names. This clearly indicates how sick this sock-master is. I encountered him for the first time on the Arabic Wikipedia where I was trolled by one of his female sock-puppets (he named her Tinaliza as I remember) which was used by him as a straw-man sock-puppet in order to get me blocked.

This user is very malicious as he has become an experienced sock-puppeteer. I am most concerned about his tendency to troll others with his female & straw-man sock-puppets.--92.96.139.88 (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop harrasment, and leave me in peace, again these sock-puppet it wasn't mine, i used to live in the campus so we shared IP with several students since we used the same Internet line. so it wan't mine as the test later show. and the i'm still working in wikipedia commons project, since user:Martin saw that there is no connection between these accout. (I never been blocked there for sock puppet as you claims) So calm down.

You know why i did this remove. To Stop your harrasment to stop your pesrsonal attack in every page i'm working in where you calling me name. doing videos which show the level of your troll. Maybe it's mistake but it's way to stop your harrasment. I don't need to explain for every user the same story.

Wow interesting that you showing fake respect for jesus (we saw in the Arabic Wikipedia your vandalism), didn't you called him that way befor? since you are famous for your anit-christian vandilisim.

Well you been blocked in Arabic Wikipedia For your 53 sock-puppet and vandalisim in Christianity articles. I think admains in the arabic wikipeida as user:باسم and Meno25 can tell alot about this syrian who lives in the UAE. And can tell about your lies here. And by the way the account that you accusing me on it. It was yours the admains in the Arabic Wikipedia can tell that too.

don't tell lies. I never been blocked here in English Wikipedia for sock puppet as you claims, I don't know where you even read it. I been only blocked once for 72 hour before 10 years in 2007 when I was new here for adding information without source. So you bringing thing happened in 2007 when I was new here. Keep with your imagination.

Leave in peace, This the last time i will talk to you. By the way are you user:Xtremedood, Your defence for him is very interesting.--Jobas (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

ATTENTION PLEASE:

• When Jobas was asked in the past on Wikimedia commons about the reason behind creating all these socks, he said: Yes these all mine you can see here the reason why in: user:Martin H. talk page, when I was new here every time I uploaded a picture and I log out I forget the password so when i upload the next file i do it in anther account. after that when user:martin H. explain told me how the rules are here and explain to me how to make this account user:jobas that I can use it in different wiki project. I never did anther account and you can check if you want, that after user:Martin H. help how the project work here and I reared the rules it's was in 20 December 2012. I had only one account and never did new account, and all these accounts have nothing to do with my last uploads and you can chick that I didn't use any of these account in last uploads.--Jobas (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jobas&diff=124135910&oldid=124097908
• Now, here, today, in this thread: Jobas is telling us a completely different story: these sock-puppet it wasn't mine, i used to live in the campus so we shared IP with several students since we used the same Internet line. so it wan't mine as the test later show.--Jobas (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Source (First two lines in his first comment in this thread): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdJohnston&type=revision&diff=702254147&oldid=702249182

Every single person now can see who is lying. Every single person now can see with his/her own eyes who is cheating others. I was trolled by this impostor before and I don't want others to experience the same feelings.--92.96.139.88 (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well selctive contribution from wikimedia commons doesn't change the fact you are troll.

Well if i was the reason of your blocking in Arabic Wikipedia {which is not true}, why you were blocked from wikimedia commons as it's show here, why you been blocked in English Wikipedia for several times as show here for example, why many users complain about you. Why users here as User:Cliftonian, User:Jeppiz, User:DeCausa had problems with you, and called you the troll IP from UAE. So who's the troll here?. i, still working in teh Arabic wikupeida, English wikipedia, and wikimedia commons and Hebrew Wikipedia, While you blocked in Arabic wikupeida, English wikipedia, and wikimedia commons. So who's the troll here. This the last comment from me for this troll.--Jobas (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• dsf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliev2 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your disruption-only account

FALSE, ed. It is not "socking" to start an account if you were editing as an IP-only before. To foolishly suggest that it is would be like saying that once someone edits with an IP they "have no right to start an account." Also, you're trying to redefine "disruption" as "editing one article to match a WIKIPEDIA MOS and other articles that already follow that MOS." It's not "disruptive" to add something to an article to match what the MOS suggests! Plus, ed, disruptive escape orbit already agreed that having an older style mention didn't seem good in the LEAD. They're not disputing the one in the lead anyway, but the part that's NOT in the lead. Therefore, now that I put that NOT IN THE LEAD, what you're saying here doesn't even apply. So neither he nor you should be complaining.

Also, your point that prodego blocked me at the IP level holds no water because I waited until the block ENDED to create and then use my account. So if protecting the article from IP-only users stops only IP users from editing it, then there's nothing wrong with someone who has an account editing the article, especially if the editing does NOT go against consensus, the content of which you are obviously misunderstanding.

Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The next time you make a change at eBay that isn't supported by a prior talk page consensus you may be blocked, per above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I replied here at *your* talk page, ed. Why do you still go to mine instead of replying at my reply here on your page, ed?

You're not good at paying attention to what even *is* in the consensus, or even what explanation is given about changes that were made that were *not against* consensus, are you, ed? You just assume anything you want instead, don't you, ed? How about you actually *read* what the consensus says, that they don't want the previous style mentioned "IN THE LEAD," and then read my explanation that my edit is NOT in the lead, ed? Why don't you define "lead" for me then, ed, since you seem to think it's something different from what the MOS says it is?

And nice job possibly recruiting another one of your little "friends" to go change that back for you so that you can appear to not be edit-warring, and so that you can make it look like you've got another "consensus" (but unwritten), huh, ed? I bet, though, that if I asked one of my friends to come and change that back for me, you'd accuse me of "sock-/meatpuppeting," wouldn't you, ed?

Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding topic ban of Darkfrog24

I am contacting you because of your involvement in the topic ban that was placed against me. I would like to make the best of the next six months and am requesting your input on how best to do so.

What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule? My own take was to initiate no new threads or RfCs but participate in those started by others (which happens once or twice a year). This clearly was not something that you guys consider acceptable. What do you think I should do instead? Is it just that there was too much of it?

I notice that my offers to engage in a voluntary restriction were not accepted. What would you have seen as more suitable? Is it that I was asking you guys what you wanted me to do instead of making my own guesses?

What can I do over the next six months to give you guys confidence that I can be allowed to return to work?

I am understanding the topic ban to cover both MoS pages, articles concerning quotation marks, and their respective talk pages. Is this the case? Before I became involved, both Quotation marks in English and Full stop contained significant amounts of unsourced material and I am worried that that content will be returned. If I should happen to see such a case, am I allowed to notify someone else that the unsourced material is there?

I also feel that user SMcCandlish was not honest with you and should be treated as an outlier. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In general it's up to the community at what point advocacy for a change is perceived as disruptive. Can I ask you how receptive you would be to an editor who wanted to re-introduce linking of dates in articles? You have probably been here long enough to remember that fracas. Whatever advice you would give that person probably applies to you as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Or if every time a newby were to post "Why don't we capitalize all the major words in titles and headings, like I was taught to do?", you would jump in with, "I know, I hate that, too, and I have a whole bunch of style guides that say to capitalize. This is just an odd wikipedia thing, frequently challenged, and we ought to change it!" How long before that stoking of discontent got seen as disruptive? I'd guess that's the MOS provision that's most frequently "challenged" (not LQ), but those challenges usually go away quietly, with responses such as "That's the style adopted by Wikipedia for a variety of reasons; see some previous discussions..."

And DF, I bet nobody could object if you notified Ed or one of the other participating arbs when things are going astray in an area that you can't touch. I will be on my best behavior, but let them know if you think I'm not. Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about date linking, so maybe that's not a great example. Let's say someone came in and wanted to change the rule requiring using double quotes instead of single, which is also longstanding. My take is "Both double and single quotes are correct in British English, so I would support a change to allow either in British English articles." But, unlike with WP:LQ, there's also a non-arbitrary technical matter, the way that single quotes affect search functions. I'd say, "As soon as the browsers have been updated, this rule is no longer necessary and can be dispensed with."

Dicklyon, I'd say, "In all major forms of English, both title case and sentence case are allowed, so this rule doesn't require you to capitalize incorrectly, just differently," which is not true of WP:LQ. My own take is that title case is better for Wikipedia because it's easier for people to get right, but if it got switched to allow both styles, I wouldn't think that was a big deal.

That's very good of you to offer, DL, but Thryduulf doesn't agree with you on that point. That's the point of asking, though. Good luck with the next six months. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I didn't mean to goad you into mentioning your arguments about LQ again; no more from me. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "goading"; you just asked me a question within the context of my larger inquiry about the terms of the ban and plans to move forward. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• See also: User_talk:KillerChihuahua § Regarding_topic_ban_of_Darkfrog24
• KillerChihuahua 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello

• Mia Khalifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jobas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello how are you?, I have a complaint about the IP troll here, here operation out of UAE (for accuracy he is a Syrian resident in the UAE), He used to caused a month of extensive disruption and some fifty thousand ranged block IPs and targets articles about Christianity articles as user:Jeppiz show here and here the user is pushing an anti-Christian and pro-Muslim POV on several articles, this user and IP troll was blocked the arabic wikipeida months ago for his vandalism and insults, besides racism and disruptive comments relating in particular to the Christian articles in Arabic Wikipedia. and he has also more than 53 sockpuppeteers. - you can ask the admains of the arabic wikipeida as user:باسم and Meno25 about this IP troll.

Now im facing harassment and personal attack from him, in my personal page and talk page, and Mia Khalifa talk page. he sended https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0rMEBan4Nc&app=desktop this video that he create] for me title=User_talk%3AJobas&type=revision&diff=697625490&oldid=696495263 here, I'm asking to protect both my personal page and talk page and Mia Khalifa talk page (he called me pervert there).

There is something draws my attention, his sudden appearance (after few hours after the complaint Xtremedood filed), and his strong defense of the user:Xtremedood, after i brougth up the sockpuppet of user:Xtremedood, and accusing the User:Capitals00 (who had a problem recently with user:Xtremedood) having sockpuppet, the same accusing that user:Xtremedood did. I think it's a strange thing that this IP defend in that strong way of the user:Xtremedood (who by the way is an active sock-puppeteer who has operated at least three others accounts as well as several IPs).

Thank and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your posts must be a follow-on to the recent 3RR case about Mia Khalifa. I notice that another admin has semiprotected your user page which is reasonable. At present your user talk page only shows one IP edit in January. If you need any further admin action, you should post at an admin board or WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff

It appears that Mystery Wolff has broken the topic ban you placed on him. He left a comment in a WP:AE section dealing with edits that happened to the e-cig page after his ban started.[76] Not sure if he understands that he is not to be involved in any e-cig discussion regardless of page with exceptions like discussing his own ban. Would you warn him of this please? AlbinoFerret 14:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Notified Mystery Wolff. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. AlbinoFerret 16:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

3RR violations

• Boomer Vial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fast Low-Ionization Emission Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I reported a user for making four reverts in 25 minutes.[77] The 3RR page says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period".[78]. So I cannot understand why you said "There isn't a 3RR violation here".[79] The user reverted for entirely spurious reasons, left dishonest edit summaries, and made personal attacks against me. It seems to me that you endorsed their behaviour, and encouraged them to repeat it in the future. Why did you do that? 217.17.137.178 (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It seem I was mistaken. They did make four reverts, and you made three. Even had I counted correctly, the result would still have likely been protection. The other editor is rather inexperienced. They must have thought your removal of the paragraph was vandalism. It is a stretch, though, to say that the other person had 'completely spurious reasons'. The paragraph you removed was more than half of the short article on Fast Low-Ionization Emission Region. At first glance, the removed paragraph appears to be on topic. If either of you resumes the fight after protection expires, that person is risking a block. If you know something about astronomy maybe you can suggest how to expand the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So you wouldn't bother to block this user for their unquestionable 3RR violation, and you wouldn't even bother to warn them about their conduct? And you think that if I leave a clear edit summary describing what I did, then a claim of "unexplained removal of material" is not completely spurious? And you think that nonsense like "Red in color, they bolt out from planetary nebulae" is so good that the article should be protected to keep it in there? And that the pronunciation of an instrument on the Hubble Space Telescope is "on topic"?

I know plenty about astronomy. I know plenty specifically about these objects. That is why I edited the article. But if you allow other users to revert my work for no reason, to break the rules without any consequence, to make personal attacks against me and to force nonsense into the article, I'm hardly going to bother wasting any more of my time on it, am I? 82.151.49.225 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You must admit that 'an IP removing a paragraph' is frequently a red flag for vandalism patrollers. Though this doesn't excuse the inattention of User:Boomer Vial in this case. It is probably worth your trouble to create an account. Posting on an admin talk page about a single issue using multiple IPs doesn't put you into the most credible group. If there was any 'nonsense' inserted into the article this can't be determined from any references that you yourself have supplied. You are probably aware that the matter can be settled by a proper talk page discussion, which is open to you at any time. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to have much of a clue to recognise the nonsense that was in this article. As you prefer to attack my credibility and criticise my edit, rather than do your job as an administrator and protect articles and users from 3RR violators, there is nothing further to discuss. You may keep the article in the state it is in and enjoy reading about things that "bolt out from planetary nebulae" and "squirt horizontally". Perhaps, as you've forced the text into the article, you might like to add an explanation to the article of what "horizontal" can possibly mean in the context of an object in space. Or perhaps you might like to admit that you failed to act as required here, and restore my obviously sensible edits and warn the 3RR violator that their conduct was unacceptable. 82.151.49.225 (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Content issues belong on the talk page, not here. The material that have objections to had been in the article for five years. I left a message for User:Boomer Vial explaining your concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You're taking a position on the content issues so here is as good a place as any to discuss them. Though you're prepared to protect the article and mention the time that the article has been in a poor state as if that somehow makes the poor content better, you're not prepared to actually read what you restored, it seems. I don't think you have any idea how insulting you're being. Your attitude has been disappointing and offensive. I have nothing further to add. 82.151.49.225 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Two issues are at hand here: your removal of the Hubble-related paragraph and your alteration of the article lead. The former does not look immediately constructive and you did not elaborate about it in your edit-summary. This makes it appear as unexplained removal of content which is considered disruptive. Your edit to the lead looks constructive. But it is not entirely clear given your removal of the Hubble paragraph if your entire edit is constructive. Admins are not supposed to take sides on a content dispute but wholesale removals of paragraphs without explanation is often a sign of vandalism. That's why your edit was not accepted by Ed. Your removal of the Hubble paragraph needs a more detailed explanation that has been provided so far and that discussion should take place at the article talk, not here. Dr. K. 17:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you know anything about astronomy and how to write, my edits did look immediately constructive. I explained the removal of irrelevant material in my edit summary. It's remarkable how someone can violate the 3RR and receive not even so much as a vague suggestion that they did anything wrong, while people spend their time instead attacking me and my edits. Now you are joining in the fun and repeatedly claiming that I did not explain my edit. This is half witted; the edit summary is there in the article history for anyone to see. So why are you slandering my edits? Why are you not bothered by the person who reverted them with dishonest edit summaries and broke the 3RR? They should have been blocked; EdJohnston has yet to explain why he endorsed their conduct and chose to attack me instead of blocking them. They will break the 3RR again, no doubt; I will not bother to improve this article again. 82.151.49.225 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that your edit-summary sufficiently addressed the reasons for removing the material. The removed material did contain a reference to the nebula mentioned at the lead and its FLIERs. Using terminology such as "half-witted" and slandering my edits as well as your aggressive edit-summaries shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and a lack of assuming good faith as well as avoiding ad-hominem arguments. This is a collaborative project. Your attitude so far seems self-centred and does not promote cooperation in the least. I suggest you change your approach. Dr. K. 20:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, because letting someone break the 3RR and attacking the person who reported them really promotes cooperation, doesn't it? 82.151.49.225 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Ed attacked you. In fact, he fully-protected the article which means that it can only edited by admins. This is a sign that he thinks your edits may have merit and no editor is allowed to edit the article until the issue possibly gets resolved through discussion at the talkpage. The other editor also risks a block if he continues to revert you without discussion. If you went to the talkpage and put forward an argument supporring your edits and if any other editor did not oppose, then you could restore your edit after the protection expired. As far as the other editor, Ed explained he hadn't seen the fourth revert. But by fully-protecting the article no editors get blocked because edit-warring stops. Sometimes this is used as an alternative to blocking. The other editor could have also been warned about his edit-warring but given his/her restoration of the removed paragraph which at first glance looks justified, this action could have been a factor for not issuing a warning to him/her. Dr. K. 21:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you too approve of the user's breaking of the 3RR. If EdJohnston didn't see the fourth revert, it can only be because EdJohnston didn't bother to read the report I filed before acting on it. Why didn't he have that basic courtesy? Perhaps it's time for you to stop trying to explain things on other people's behalf and let them explain themselves. If only EdJohnston would simply admit that he made a mistake and failed to block or even warn someone who unambiguously violated of a very clear rule, and apologise to me for attacking me instead of doing that, then we could all move on. 82.151.49.225 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, per here[80], he did apologize for missing it. Boomer Vial^Holla 22:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing resembling an apology in that text. 82.151.49.225 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Reynolds and Reynolds

Just FYI in case you have a minute to take a look. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 22:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

AE proposal filed

Thanks for your suggestion, I filed the AE proposal here after receiving the support of Eperoton, a great user with whom I always disagree on content but who is here for all the right reasons and whom I respect, as well as general support at the Muhammad talk page. Thanks again for your support and keep up the good work! Jeppiz (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Need some guidance

Was going to ask slakr^\ talk / since I referenced him but I don't think he is available, but I was curious as to if I may have filed an incident report incorrectly. [81] It has been over 14 hours, the ones before and after me have been addressed and I may not have hit the proper link. Figured someone would have told me my error by now. Some of us with sharp writing or editing skills occasionally need help with how the technical parts work around here. Thanks. JustAGal2 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)