User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 32

The user keeps vandalizing the following pages: Special:Contributions/50.240.235.141 and he's received multiple warnings here. May you please do something about this user? 99.46.224.17 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you help summarize this for me? Your complaint is that he adds pages to redlinked categories. Can you find where he was warned about this, and show examples of him continuing to do that after the warning? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A report was also filed at ANI and the IP user has now been blocked by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Cassandra IP sock has just returned to the talk page of what is probably their favourite article, Scots language, tagging their usual themes to the most recent thread. Would you consider semi-protection for a period? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed, just wondering again about semi-protection, Cassandra having revisited the article today. (A thesis they've repeatedly posted before, as usual.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Scots language. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I posted this at ANI a few days ago: We have had problems in the past with editors promoting concepts and terms from Europa Universalis - creating categories, renaming articles, changes of government types within articles, etc. Several socks were blocked last September over this and copyvio issues- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis/Archive. Yesterday I discovered some page moves relating to this and today I have found a number of IPs doing similar edits, all geo-locating to Rio de Janeiro. Two IPs in the same range were involved last year. Recently - that is from January until yesterday, other IPs have been making the same type of edits. Most recent ones are 187.15.70.13 (talk · contribs), 187.14.224.110 (talk · contribs) and 187.15.48.73 (talk · contribs). Others include 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.53.42 (talk · contribs) 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.38.249 (talk · contribs), 187.15.8.12 (talk · contribs), 187.14.230.20 (talk · contribs), 187.15.71.7 (talk · contribs), and 187.15.73.173 (talk · contribs). I'm still searching for recent additions of "Noble republic", Administrative republic, Republican Dictatorship, Revolutionary empire, Administrative monarchy, all of which can be found at the game's wiki[57] and were part of a now deleted template here which Admins can view.[58]. Part of the tactic is to add sourced text to force the phrase into an article, eg [59]. Note this is copyvio from [60]. Some edits have misrepresented sources, eg [61]. These are all throwaway IP addresses.

I spent some lovely hours (and ended up buying Charles Esdaile's Peninsular War, Kindle edition, when I found more copy from the same 187.15 and 187.14 ranges - the same problems we faced before with

I've never created an edit filter so I'm not the best person to answer this. Try asking at WT:Edit filter. Have you checked the ranges to see if there are any good-faith anon contributors? EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, thought you were. I've been told the collateral damage would be to heavy. This is one editor or group quite clearly, as some of the Europa Universalis stuff adds non-Esdaile copyvio. I'm wondering if there might be other copyright violations I'm missing which don't relate to Esdaile or the videogame.

talk

) 14:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least, and kind of disheartening. Thank you for for pointing out specific examples of our intersecting work. Greatly looking forward to proving the opposes wrong in the future! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrwallace05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I opened an SPI, at which the user claimed he didn't know he was logged out while editing; his "master" account is currently blocked. Today he edited with IP 86.137.2.12 [62] which is part of the same range he'd supposedly been unknowing editing while logged out. His edits are almost exclusively limited to genres at articles about The Beatles. Could you do a range block, and possibly increase the duration of his block? Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 18:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I should correct myself and say the IPs don't resolve to the same range per se, but they do resolve to Bedforshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire counties in England, which all adjoin one another; it's unlikely that three different editors in such close proximity have an interest in changing genres. Radiopathy •talk• 18:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there is a recently-closed SPI case, memories are still fresh. I suggest reopening the case to add this IP. If you use the standard SPI submission form with the name 'Mrwallace05' it should do the right thing. The various IPs are so far apart that a rangeblock does not appear practical. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone opened an SPI; do you want to have a look? There are over a dozen IP socks, plus registered accounts. Radiopathy •talk• 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thanks for the lock on the Syngenta article while Binksternet, Jytdog and I try to sort things out. I wanted to bring to your attention that Binksternet's response in the Edit War page indicates he either didn't realize, or doesn't believe, he was also guilty of 3RR. I am not trying to "tattle" or reopen the discussion; I am bringing this to your attention only if you think saying something is necessary in order to prevent a repeat. (For what it's worth, I certainly won't be repeating 3RR.)

Oh, and if you're interested, most of the Syngenta conversation is taking place on my talk page. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change to the Bayer Corporation/Bayer USA web pages. I think they now best represent the current organizational names and structure. Littleboybrew (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you willing to justify your actions? I'm not an obvious pseudoscientist as far as I can tell. So I must be, by your logic, in group two or three. Please share your reasoning. Khimaris (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Per

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted'. You added some tags at Vitamin C megadosage questioning some statements in the article, and you made a talk page comment citing http://www.orthomolecular.org as a possible source for improving the article. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that large doses of Vitamin C are not currently accepted by mainstream medicine as a cure for cancer. Vitamin C megadosage is about a topic in the domain of fringe science. In fact, the related page at orthomolecular medicine is in the Category:Fringe science. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything being a cure for cancer. Posting a link as background information does not make me a supporter. Don't put words in my mouth. I posted the link to the orthomolecular papers because they were talked about in comments on the Cochrane review that were already post. Othomolecular medicine maybe pseudoscientific but the very concept of Vitamin C megadosaging is not. Like I said in the talk page, it's like labeling anyone who eats their

five a day as a nutter because some quack practitioner agrees with as much. Further more, what does Lipoic Acid have to do with any of this? I reject the label you've placed on me and I want to know the mechanism to remove myself from this list. Khimaris (talk

) 18:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You have chosen to edit an article where claims about fringe science are sometimes discussed. It can't hurt to make you aware of the rules for editing such topics. At present there is no way to become un-notified, but Arbcom has been debating the matter for years. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So basically it's a permanent

scarlet letter used to threaten and scare off the riff raff? So why am I being singled out again and why did you link to Lipoic acid on the warning page? There is a fairly extensive list of people who are editing the megadose page who haven't been branded as craycray. And what about the retraction by Magog the Ogre on 01:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)? You can maybe understand why I feel apprehensive about the selective enforcement of regulation can't you?Khimaris (talk

) 19:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You first came to my attention due to a 3RR violation. If the other people you mention from the same article also were reported at the 3RR board, then perhaps I'd check them to see if any Arbcom notices were appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ed,
Since the time I posted the report against the IP at

And you have been provided with valid reason too. If you have your own valid reasons then let me know, else I don't believe buddying up around here is going to help.

 웃  

23:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Rolf Furuli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was so impressed by the IP's 21 reverts that I didn't look closely into the others working there. Another admin could use their judgment if they think other editors should be blocked or warned. Possibly Amit thought he was reverting vandalism (unexplained removal of content). EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2014

Which I thought I was and had reported the IP too on AIV. It might have looked like an edit war but i assure you it was not. I dont prefer people trying to bloat an issue on some one else's page here instead of using my talk page and asking me directly on my talk page for which i think it exists, unless the editor above is hunting around for victims?

 웃  

23:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Amit, I think the conversation is over. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Back in August 2013 you indefinitely blocked User:Blackhu20 per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive220#User:Blackhu20 reported by User:Vejvančický (Result: Indef). What is your opinion of Special:Contributions/Manzilnfl, which I'm fairly sure is another account of the same user? Disclosures: I started an SPI here, even though he disclosed the accounts at my request. I also initiated AfDs for Poudar and Pouder, and I've reversed a number of Manzilnfl's edits. Cnilep (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked for vandalism. He is erasing articles or large sections again for no apparent reason, just like Blackhu20. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/29/14. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Responded, thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

... for moving

Talk page moved as well. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit [63], may I ask for your reasoning behind the decision? I am not familiar with how the "move" action works, so your explanation would be highly appreciated. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Synsepalum2013. The background for Articles for creation is explained at

WP:RM, but people will be asking you why you're trying to promote a draft which was declined at AfC. The comment by the AfC reviewer was "Too much of a fringe theory for a stand-alone article. Topic covered adequately in the existing articles Auditory hallucination and Microwave auditory effect". Consider following up with the reviewer as suggested in the decline message. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk

) 13:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, EdJohnston. Since I already contacted the reviewer here without reaching a consensus, I guess my next step should be to ask for a controversial move and face the possible objection. What do you think? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can open a requested move, but I wouldn't be optimistic. There is existing material at Microwave auditory effect#Conspiracy theories. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. As I stated before, I believe the topic Voice to skull is notable enough to deserve its stand-alone article instead of a mere section under a related (not even a encompassing) topic, such as microwave auditory effect. Both can exist and they are not mutually exclusive. I have seen numerous precedents on Wikipedia. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I pinged you ed, but it looks like I had to close yet another RM on this.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know as much about AfC as I would like, but Synsepalum2013's approach looks to be improper. I think he's close to being hit with a discretionary sanction under

WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

AFC has its own accept/reject system, and the same article was already deleted at AFD. Technically, since it was rejected for being covered by other articles, it is eligible for CSD#A10, but I'm already knee deep in it, so it would better for someone else to send it. RM is improper there, it was just a work around. He is basically using it as a magic 8 ball. He has a serious wp:hear problem. He's trying to argue that it is notable because no one has convinced him it isn't notable.... I don't expect this to end well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm rethinking that proposal; my notes about Warm Springs peoples were ignored but per "Self-identification" in NCET and MOS and elsewhere, what the people call themselves should be taken into account; I perhaps should have struck out the "Tenino" proposal and substituted "Warm Springs people" for it. Being ignored I'm getting used to...when not being insulted, that is.Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the climate, noting that redlink ready for use, it's probably better than I don't speedy move it to the correct title.Skookum1 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Any further move of Tenino people should be backed by reliable sources to show that the new name is reasonable. Having another move discussion is a good way to have the sources looked at. If you want a new article called Warm Springs peoples it should be coordinated in some way with the existing article on the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. If you check out the confederation's web site at http://www.warmsprings.com, the word 'Tenino' only occurs once and it's from a 19th century treaty. To refer to the Tenino as the 'Warm Springs bands' (as we do in the Tenino people article) may give them a more prominent role than the warmsprings.com web site indicates. Maybe the sub-tribes of the Tenino prefer to use other names for themselves. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As in certain other cases, terms used by anthropologists have turned out to be egregious and sometimes offensive, e.g.

Tygh have their own article. Per the coordination with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, that's a given; though I'm not sure if all the peoples covered by the anthropological term "Tenino" are part of that government and/or on that reservation. The current title is not a "commonly recognizable name" (being of anthropological and not COMMONENGLISH origin) and may in fact offend some of the peoples in question who would not call themselves "Tenino". As you know I dislike the "people" dab unless absolutely necessary; "peoples" is obviously preferable when there are more than one people involved. "Tribe" is definitely wrong in this case, however.Skookum1 (talk

) 10:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that some names are considered offensive, you should provide reliable sources for such a claim. We are limited here by what the available sources tell us, which per the article's references are mostly by anthropologists. There is a book about the Warm Springs people written by a tribal elder, George Aguilar. See a JSTOR article interviewing him. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was not terms that are derisive, but mistaken and very often with bad connotations for the people described incorrectly by the name; the

Denesuline

is about an actual term of derisive origin that remains in wide use by linguists and anthropologist; the latter like other names just mentioned is now standard Canadian English, which avoids terms with derisive origins and openly embraces native names now. This has been pointed out there, in the text apparently added by a member of the group long ago, or by someone informed about them, and though precise cites for it are not yet found; the situation is a common one re Eskimo/Inuit and Slavey/Deh Cho and Sahtu and more.

Reason to mention all of this is to compare an offensive, and/or alienating mistaken usage with one that actually is visibly derisive in its etymology. But the chorus of naysayers who maintain that {{Canadian English}} and CANSTYLE/ENGVAR do not apply, and that global "sources" should prevail against modern reality and usage in the country these peoples (not "objects) are in.

Citations are needed, yes, but it is already an established fact that most modern sources now use

Tenino I would have to study the four groups in question and find out why one group lives with the term Tenino and maybe that's their original endonym, I dn't know; what I know is there are four peoples, not one, and

Hi, when you made the "Mitrovica, Kosovo" move, the talk page didn't move for some reason. Could you fix that please? Kind regards IJA (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers mate IJA (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I have a question about a dispute at Administrators' noticeboard where you gave a resolution few days ago: [64]

The dispute was concerning editwarring at an article Talk Pages between User:QuackGuru and I, and as a result we both received a warning. I am sorry to bring this up again, but the following day after the warning, user QuackGuru deleted my posts at the article Talk page (Pseudo-Science) again: [65]

I have not made any changes to the article Talk Page thereafter. However, I did remind user QuackGuru at his user Talk Page kindly that he is violating against the warning we both received, and asked him to please recover my post at the article Talk Page. As a result, he just deleted my post, and hasn't taken any action to recover my post at Talk:Chiropractic: [66]

What should I do? I have already contacted the user, and filing a dispute about the same matter feels somewhat redundant. Thanks for your time still! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru made a note in the edit summary that he was archiving, on 5 April. He put the material in Archive 37. The section called 'Pseudo-Science' is now at Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Pseudo-science, so your comments are still in the record. I would prefer that both parties stop archiving so long as there is a dispute, but I wouldn't take action at this time. The page at Talk:Chiropractic is already set up for bot archiving with a ten-day interval. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your answer. I think 2 days is pretty unreasonably short time to archive discussions, especially when there's been popping up edits over the matter even after (e.g. [67][68]). That's why I think it would be really nice if the post could still be active instead of "just being hidden" in the archives. What I am scared of, though, is another editwar at the Talk Page if I happened to recover my post. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comments in the archived thread are unclear: Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Pseudo-science. It is not obvious what change you want to make in the article: "chiropractic is nowadays acknowledged by the traditional medicine as a special field of treatments, as well as included in the Current Care Guidelines on an International basis." The fact that chiropractic is paid for by some health plans is still consistent with some chiropractors having pseudoscientific beliefs. Anything you do unilaterally will most likely be challenged, so you should find some way of getting others to support your change. For example, use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! In the thread I quoted a part of the current article, and after that I gave few sources that offer alternative aspects to the matter. I would have wanted to discuss those things with the public, that's why I made the post on the Talk Page. Archiving a post only after two days time-period in unacceptable though in my opinion, especially after QuackGuru just had got warned from editwarring at Talk Pages. If QuackGuru is accepted to "kill conversations" like that, shouldn't it be accepted as a general rule? I don't think it's really fair if anybody could just archive posts that do not please them after such a short period of time. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The claim is well supported in accordance with V: For most of its existence it has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence[69] that are not based on solid science.[70]

Joseph C. Keating, Jr., Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. Chiropractors' tendency to assert the meaningfulness of various theories and methods as a counterpoint to allopathic charges of quackery has created a defensiveness which can make critical examination of chiropractic concepts difficult (Keating and Mootz 1989). One example of this conundrum is the continuing controversy about the presumptive target of DCs' adjustive interventions: subluxation (Gatterman 1995; Leach 1994).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link

)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya, please move on. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversial revert to Acupuncture talk page

After he was warning Jayaguru-Shishya restored the section where editors did not make that comment on that talk page. It was originally made on his talk page. He was also warned not to revert at the acupuncture talk page. If it was an accidental there would of been an autogenerated edit summary. He claimed he was Sorry, I was unticking the "Watch this box".

Dear QuackGuru, maybe you haven't noticed but[71] as you can see, there is no harm done: your post still stands there safe and sound. However, we are discussing here about you archiving my post at the article Talk Page[72] only two days after it was posted.

Absurd changes to Chiropractic lede

"Studies on chiropractic, moreover on its principle intervention spinal manipulation, have found it to be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment for many cases of lower back pain."[original research?]

This is not a summary of the body and the sentence is original research.

"However, as with most medical interventions, there are reports of mild to serious

• Rubinstein, SM (2013 Feb 1). "Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review". Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 38 (3): E158-77. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Rubinstein, SM (NaN). "Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain".
  doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008112.pub2. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
  )

References added to the lede do not very the claim. Hence, the text failed V. The accessdate was on April 1, 2014. This looks like an April fools joke in mainspace. You can read the body of the article and you can see the lede does not summarise the body. There is no point discussing this on the talk page with Jayaguru-Shishya when he is not getting it. I don't see a content dispute. I do see, however, a disruption dispute. As long as admins treat original research added to the lede as a content dispute this will continue to happen on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not the topic we are discussing here. I have already given you my answer, so could you please not to stick with it? I also hope that you could take my proposal of reconciliation[73] seriously. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The text failed V and the other text was original research yet you were claiming the text passed V because the sourcse were strong. That was disingenuous.

When you connect the dots this shows you are not interested in improving the article and you have not given me an answer why you added original research to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

One edit that has been reverted does not constitute such an important page history. It all falls under the "revert controversial undiscussed moves" header. Matthiaspaul's wordiness does not change that fact, particularly because every single item he lists is just a redirect he created.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The rules are not 100% clear on whether the briefly-existing DAB can be deleted per the G6 criterion. It does contain more than 'two links to existing Wikipedia articles', even if the links are redirects that he created. Why not open a move discussion? EdJohnston (talk

) 13:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've started a thread on User:Synsepalum2013 at ANI. [74] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, I previously asked a question about 1RR, on abortion related pages, that I'm still not clear on. The question involves conduct policy, after the initial revert, with respect to further general editing on that same page. For example, if I revert the contribution of an editor, and then that revert is later reverted by another editor, and then I don’t touch it again, I leave that editor’s contribution exactly as is, but within that same 24 hour period, I edit content from another uninvolved editor, is that a violation of the 1RR? I’d like to be clear on this policy so I don’t accidentally violate it. BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Two reverts within 24 hours, even if they are of independent material, violate the 1RR rule. To be safe you should wait to get consensus on the talk page. It appears that you have strong views about the matter being discussed, and that's likely to attract the attention of admins. Any indication that you will negotiate calmly and wait to persuade others (before reverting) will be in your favor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, thanks for your reply. I actually have strong views about NPOV and abortion pages often seem to struggle with this. Please refer to talk:Becky Bell to see I have been calmly negotiating, and also began my edits in response to request on that talk page to improve article with respect to bias/NPOV.Thanks BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's one thing to participate on Talk and it's another thing to wait for a consensus there. If you have questions about the usability of a source, you can ask for an opinion at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually did raise concerns over deleted quote on talk page, and when I did, none of the talk participants defended the deleted quote, or said anything about why it should maintain in article. I initially hesitated in deleting it, because it went well with a sourced quote from the New York Times regarding use of Bell as a "poster girl in bitter debate over abortion", but this quote was deleted without explanation or consensus to delete. I think it might be helpful if reminders about consensus building, especially before deleting well sourced material, could be given to all participants, given the bias concerns on page. -thanks again for link to sources noticeboard. BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You've been singled out for notification because of the complaint about you at

WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

In reference to your closure of this AN3 report, will you please review recent edits of User:Munir hussain1 at the article Anusha Rahman, as I still stand by my earlier request. -- SMS ^Talk 16:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I already saw the reverts there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I edited under pschmehl, but I've forgotten my password. When I used the forgot password link, I never received the email. So I started editing under my IP. I prefer using a username, however, so I created a new account.

If you read the history of the page and the complaint that I filed against MiG29VN you will see that he constant removed the cites that I entered, reverted back to previous cites he had created which I had cleaned up (but not changed) and constantly insisted that I needed to prove what I was citing because he couldn't find it on Google Books. If you look up Vennema's book on Google Books (The Viet Cong Massacre at Hue), you will find that it doesn't allow you to view the pages. When you search for something you get two or three hits, not necessarily the one you're looking for, and you can't scroll up or down to read the context.

I told him repeatedly that I have the book in my possession and I'm citing directly from it. I finally gave up and included exact quotes to prove that what I had written was accurate. He then demanded that I prove that there were 27 graves and 2397 bodies. To do that I would have to quote the entire chapter. So he calls it an unreliable source and removed it.

I have spent a great deal of time cleaning up all the cites on that page (I use the wizard so they will all be formatted consistently), and he keeps reverting them back to incorrect format.

I've been researching the Hue Massacre for several weeks now and am working on an article. So I thought I would look at Wikipedia to see what it had. I saw some places where I could add useful content and some things that needed to be corrected, so I went to work. Then that jerk kept deleting everything I was doing or reverting it back to his poorly formatted style.

I hope this explains it. Txantimedia (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This information is helpful. But your editing record as User:Pschmehl in 2004 was so brief that I imagine there must be more to the story. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should chime in here, but based on my limited interactions with Txantimedia and his IP, I see no reason to doubt that he is very much an inexperienced editor (and I have exposed my fair share of sockpuppets in the past). Both the IP and Txantimedia have engaged in behavior characteristic of beginners, from struggling with formatting to repeatedly contacting the Reference Desk and Teahouse for help, to the point where Txantimedia did not initially understand that his edits were "disappearing" because MiG29VN was repeatedly reverting them. Txantimedia's earliest sporadic IP edits included no formatting at all; on examination, one can progressively watch him learn how to cite sources through both example and trial-and-error. I assume Txantimedia found out about

WP:ANI--and once there I had to correct the formatting he used.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk

) 04:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

TheTimes, thanks for your comment! EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, your interpretation and application of the Topic Ban policy is being cited as an example at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Do_topic_bans_extend_to_the_banned_editor.27s_user_talk_page.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at Yadav, where a likely sock of the editor you recently indeffed has appeared. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a sock of the other guy, but I left him a {{uw-castewarning}}. Since then he has managed to get himself blocked 24 hours by another admin for removing content with no discussion. In my view this is heading toward an indef block if the person won't discuss. By now, the path of the caste warriors is well-trodden. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF&diff=606269936&oldid=606269118

Txantimedia (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

SPI filed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. While you wait for a result there, I've semiprotected the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

How do we get his reverts removed? Txantimedia (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Since MiG29VN is now indefinitely blocked, it seems unlikely that anyone will object if you undo the recent edits by his IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed! I can be such a pest constantly poking editors to look at my COI contributions. I try to spread out the annoyance and I haven't bugged you in a while, so here I am! I just submitted a new article to AfC on SinnerSchrader here. They are one of the largest digital marketing firms in Germany. Oh the meta-ness of doing marketing work for marketing companies (or is this marketing? I don't know). AfC is usually backlogged by a month or more and I guess I am just selfish and impatient enough that I tend to see if I can find someone willing to review in a more timely fashion, even if it takes a week or two to get around to it. And I thought you might be willing to take a look.

You'll have to excuse my attempt at a bit of jolly sarcasm - spending such a disproportionate amount of time following WP:COI can make me annoyed at how annoying I am. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I believe that you have mishandled this case. I reported my suspicions about it being a

The SPI is not open-and-shut. Somebody will eventually deal with it, but I didn't let it decide the result. The other party is now blocked 48 hours per a straight 3RR violation. You should be careful about getting into a two-party edit war. The most logical response for an admin is to block both. If your position truly has merit, you should be able to get additional people to participate and give their views. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have closed 3RR cases which were opened much later than the SP case. I also don't understand the terms of your warning. Are you saying that I cannot revert ever again without reaching consensus at a talk page? There is simply not enough editing traffic on this site to do that. Indeed in this case there was a third user (Wee Curry Monster) who supported my edits, but they were reverted twice as well. I also note you have taken no action against SSHamilton. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Another admin will eventually deal with the SPI case.

WP:3RR. To settle the edit war, it may be sufficient if you will make a proposal on the talk page of what to do and then wait to get support from others before you change the controversial items again. It is not easy for an outsider to see what the dispute is about; all I perceive are some very large reverts that change many paragraphs at once. You could break this down into smaller issues and try to get support for individual changes. EdJohnston (talk

) 21:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

He's beginning again, now he's removing sourced material.. Per WP:LEAD information that is mentioned in the lead does not need to be referenced. Now he's removing information from the lead, even if its mentioned in the sections "Institutionalization" and "Secterianism" on the Hafez al-Assad (I should know what is mentioned in the article, I wrote the darn article....) ... Stop this vandal from continuing. --TIAYN (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no discussion of this matter at Talk:Hafez al-Assad. That would be good place to start. Also, you made a beginning at taking this to GA in October 2013. Maybe you should try to continue that. If you can get an outside GA reviewer to look at things it may give you some leverage. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As per your prediction, User:Ring Cinema has resumed edit warring on The Godfather Part II the moment his block expired. I've reverted his edit until a consensus is reached on the talk page, but I would suggest a longer block, particularly as he has already been blocked seven times now. 88.104.17.77 (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Another admin has handled this, appropriately in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

After the block of

That editor is now blocked for having an offensive username. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay if I revert his edit? I am concerned with

WP:3RR.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k•

18:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the change by the editor who is now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 18:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello I added some of the info I have on Professor Kline as a generic dumping if you will to my talkpage to sort out and start an article on Professor Kline. I now have alot of data on him and will need help forming it into an article so I was hoping to ask for just alittle bit of help on it. LoveMonkey 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:LoveMonkey#George Kline. LM, please fix your signature to link to your user talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, the comment on the closing discussion on OLR was buried in my talk page. The discussion still rages. I welcome the debate as to which sources to use to include more information regarding the crimes for which OLR was convicted, since these form an essential part of the debate as to whether he should or should not get clemency. Alas, the debate is wordy enough on the OLR talkpage.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope that people will be waiting for consensus at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Oscar Lopez Rivera. If they continue to revert after the protection expires, admin action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if this the right place to mention it (I noticed you were an administrator and responded on the same page I'm mentioning); but, the referenced user is kind of spiraling out of control on the Naive Set Theory talk page, at this point they're mainly just saying nonsense, very insulting, and clogging up the page and impeding it's actual function (their ranting is spanning several sections). To prevent escalating the situation on the page itself, I have refrained from addressing the user as it appears that it would do no good. Thank you, I apologize if this is the wrong place to bring this.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you have opinions to offer at Talk:Naive set theory#Proposed move I encourage you to fully participate in that discussion. Since this user is employing an IP address they can't edit the article at the moment; they can only vent on the talk page. There is no need for you to answer Thomas Limberg directly if you feel he is not making sense. I am hoping that those participating in the discussion, if they have access to a copy of Halmos's Naive Set Theory (book), may refer to it in preparing their own position. There is also the subject classification of the American Mathematical Society at http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/msc/pdfs/classifications2010.pdf. Someone could check how the various flavors of set theory are referred to there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - my concern wasn't so much with them even editing the article, or with their opinion, but that they are making the talk page itself difficult to use by filling it with aggressive comments full of randomly bolded words - it makes it difficult to discuss when having to wade through song recommendations, random somethings about Jesus returning, and ad hominems without content. At any rate, I'll drop the matter since I've said my piece; thank you for the quick response.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A "new user" posted this on the Portal talk:Turkey[75];
"Certain Armenian wikipedia editors are going from page to page and "Armenianizing" everything. Most of the time, what they write is completely false and unsubstantiated. They've even managed to make "Sabiha Gokcen"'s page about the 'Armenian Genocide' and also about how "the racism of Turkish society was revealed". I'm a very new member, but I've already seen the following users on multiple Turkish pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarshallBagramyan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EtienneDolet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yerevantsi

Virtually every Turkish page on here, whether it's about Turkish history, cities, or people, is either denied, slandered, demonized, or made Armenian. I can't understand how this happens, and why Wikipedia is so ridiculously subjective?".

I find it odd how this self professed "very new member" knows about Portal talk:Turkey already. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Knowing that there is a Turkish Portal on Wikipedia is not indicative of having had a previous account on here. I don't know how to do anything other than delete material, and can't add references or sources or link things up or anything. The Turkish portal is something I knew about before I joined Wikipedia, and it's wrong for this knowledge to be used against me. Also, the post I made there is absolutely true, these people go around Turkish pages and make unsubstantiated edits, and when I report it to people it's me that gets targeted? That is just wrong. The reason I joined Wikipedia was to try and make the content less biased, but I'm being targeted here for reporting that people are spreading subjectivity across Wikipedia? I really don't understand why you people are so hateful. I've done nothing wrong. Also yes, I've entered into an edit war on the Sabiha Gokcen page over an issue so simple it shouldn't even be matter of discussion. Why is it that I'm the one being targeted for that, but the Armenian users who have re-edited all the material on there seemingly for years, and have consequently been in various forms of editing wars for years, are not? This is like going on Napoleon's page and writing that "his origins are disputed" because of an article published in a German nationalist newspaper. To argue against that gets me a warning, but to make that into fact is alright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobjektivist (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

At

WP:SIGN for how to sign your comments on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not disputing that there are claims regarding her Armenian identity. I haven't removed the the whole sections on the page which talk about these claims. What I'm saying is that a claim published in a single newspaper article which was moreover denied by her family should not be grounds to state her early life as being "disputed". I have read her autobiography and so this issue is close to heart, and I'm sorry if that makes me look bad by starting off with an edit-war. But like I said, looking onto the page's history other users have also warred with the Armenian editors on that page but not only does this seem to not be cause for a warning against those editors, but their edits are the ones being preserved. I've looked into other language versions of Sabiha Gokcen on Wikipedia and none of them state her origins as being "disputed". I've googled non-Wikipedia links and it is the same. Saying that there are Armenian claims about her ethnicity is different than saying her ethnicity is under doubt. Also, this is a list of academic sources posted by another user regarding Sabiha Gokcen, http://www.centennialofwomenpilots.com/node/57 http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/gokcen.html http://goefoundation.org/index.php/eagles/biographies/g/goeken-sabiha/ http://cinemaguild.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TCGS&Product_Code=2146 http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Fl-Ka/G-k-en-Sabiha.html At this point I would like your help on this issue. Like I said, there is not problem stating that there are claims about her origins. But just because there are claims about 9/11, does the Wikipedia article on it start by stating "the origins of 9/11 are disputed" or does it say "9/11 was a terrorist attack"? But that page does contain the claims about 9/11 on it, but the claims don't mean the event is "in doubt". Thanks Theobjektivist (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that her family denies the claims is evidence that there is no dispute? Where in

WP:RS/N if you think this is a reasonable source on a nationalist matter. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said I simply posted links another user had already posted. From what I can tell, there is no issue with the other sources. These are academic publications made after the 2004 newspaper article of Hrant Dink. But as I also said, I'm not arguing over whether or not there are claims about her ancestry. I'm saying that having claims about her ancestry are not grounds to start off the article by stating "her origins are disputed". I'll repeat, does the 9/11 article start by saying that "9/11 is disputed"? Or, there are countless academic, archival, and newspaper articles rejecting the Armenian Genocide, but does the Armenian Genocide Wikipedia page start off by saying "the Armenian Genocide is disputed" or does it simply have a section on "Genocide denial claims"? Also please understand I don't really know anything about the links you're posting the "WP" stuff. They look really technical and strange.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobjektivist (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though WP:Reliable sources may look 'technical and strange' I urge you to read it before making more reverts on contentious articles. Otherwise it's not wise for you to be here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Man, I'm just trying to be honest. You don't have to mock me. Simple truth is that I'm currently working on a graduate thesis at University of British Columbia, and don't have the time to get into the specifics of Wikipedia. I feel the points I've made about 9/11 and the Armenian Genocide are completely reasonable but for some reason you're ignoring them. The issue here isn't about reliable sources, it's about wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theobjektivist (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you 'dont have the time to get into the specifics of Wikipedia' and you haven't read the page at WP:Reliable sources it would be in your interest to stay away from highly contentious articles until you have more experience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no real reason to restore the semi-protection on Naive set theory. The reason for having it semi-protected is gone.

Out of curiosity, why did you do so? Did I just miss to fill in an adequate edit summary (again)? YohanN7 (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well, I can guess. Only admins can add or remove these thingies (without being reverted by an admin). Seriously, there is no need for it, so please remove it. The original "reason" now has an account and has, besides, shown no signs of editing against consensus. Edit: In fact, not even once, not even before things got heated! YohanN7 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The editor you mention is not behaving well on the talk page and may still manage to get himself blocked if he continues to promote his own personal theory. It is distracting that he won't confine himself to his registered account. Notice a complaint here by User:Phoenixia1177: "they are making the talk page itself difficult to use by filling it with aggressive comments.." EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, so my post may not be up to date) I fully agree, but I think there is a a fair chance he made an honest mistake there. He did right away admit that he was he. He might have been trying something out, but that would be speculations.

If anyone has been really insulted by this guy, it is me. But, it is also fair to say that I told him that I could take it, but that most others wouldn't. I can take it, and I would rather try to make him into a good Wikipedian than to have him banned. Give him a day or two more. He is pretty impulsive, so another warning right now will automatically set him on fire. Please just ignore for a short period of time what he does unless he goes bananas over somebody else. YohanN7 (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm again here bothering you with the Teramo matter. The usual local troll has restored last January his previously rejected version, full of all the inconsistencies we spoke last years, and losing all the improvements and changes made in the meantime since his version (I think dating from 2011 or so, always the same). I'm of course open to improve the version by searching within the small lot of changes made in the meantime his his last abrupt reversal. Thanks for attention and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You must be referring to this edit. There is an IP-hopper from 151.26.* who returns to the article periodically. I've applied one year of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I just replied to you here on Matma Rex's talk page about Safari dropping the URI fragment which comprises the anchor, thinking it was a recent post (and not the 3rd of march!). I don't know if someone got back to you on that but AFAIK it's a known bug in Safari. Protonk (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you say I should not have posted at Arbcom recently, per BANEX. The comments I posted had nothing to do with any content or topic of a WP article, but were solely about behavior. Could you point me to the provision of BANEX which directs me not to have done that? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased." 'Other pages' includes AE discussions that are related to the Ludwig von Mises institute. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I see, but isn't this block appeal related to a personal attack on me as cited by Arbcom in the block rather than to the Mises Institute or associated persons? Do you think that the BANEX language was intended to prohibit the comment that I made in this thread? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You should not be on the AE page at all if Carolmooredc is appealing a sanction. Arbcom has tried to exclude a set of people from the topic area to improve the tranquility of that area and let other editors make progress. If those sanctioned people all show up at AE to report one another (and add their own testimony to reports started by others) then the desired goal of tranquility will not be achieved. If Carolmooredc happens to behave badly and you are not given a chance to point that out, you need to rely on others to make the observation. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, but I'm asking whether anything remotely like that is stated in the BANEX text. If there had been an interaction ban, I would read the BANEX language to bar the comment I made, but Arbcom did not invoke that remedy. On the other hand, in the spirit of trying to prevent disruption of Arbcom business by editors venting overt or veiled personal agendas, we have Gaijin and Srich -- both of whom have a history of hostile interaction with me -- chiming in to support quashing the sanction arising from Carolmooredc's personal attack on me. I'm not talking about her allegation that I violated my topic ban. I'm talking about her personal attack on me at Arbcom Enforcement, cited in her block. I don't envy Arbcom, which has a very difficult role in preventing these personal attacks and coalitions of editors who manage to persevere in them at ANI and force them into your lap. On the other hand I think it would help if a clear and thorough statement of BANEX could be made so that others don't misconstrue it in the future. I note that you didn't respond to my question above as to the intention of the current BANEX policy, but since I don't dare pursue this matter, I think there's no point continuing to discuss it for now. Thanks for your replies. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's absurd to suggest that the topic-ban extends to talk pages related to the discussion of or appeal of the topic ban (as opposed to pages related to the Mises Institute). Under this logic, one could never appeal one's topic ban, because mentioning it on the appeal page would make the page relate to the topic at hand (in this case, the Mises Institute). Please use all the tools at your disposal to check your logical reasoning. Steeletrap (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BANEX explains how you can appeal our own ban. That's what it's there for. Banned users intervening in complaints about other banned people is what's been disallowed by recent decisions. But if your name has been mentioned in someone else's complaint then you can respond. (People are allowed to defend themselves). EdJohnston (talk

) 20:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I have seen your post.[76] I don't know if there was any abuse of rollback by DS or not. But I have a suggestion. I think we should not grant Rollback rights to anyone who had been blocked for edit warring, and they should have clean block history from edit warring, even for 1 year.

You think it will be possible? OccultZone (Talk) 06:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

See

WP:PERM/R, a page where requests for rollback are considered. If you look in the archives of that page you can see how past cases have been decided. It is not uncommon for rollback to be suspended if somebody uses rollback during an edit war, but the rule you are proposing is not currently on the books. EdJohnston (talk

) 13:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A month ago there was a dispute regarding the presence of Franz Kafka on the Czechs page, User:Der Golem keeps putting him there, even though he's demonstrably not Czech. I requested him to be blocked for edit warring, but you just locked the page and ufortunately, it was the incorrect version with Kafka present. I waited a month until the lock ended in hope that the user would give up. He didn't and he keeps vandalizing the page. I therefore request you to block him, because he's never going to stop.--Liongrande (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk

) 13:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed, I noticed that you closed this edit-war complaint involving Person of Interest because it turned into a content dispute. The same thing is occurring at this dispute involving QuackGuru and Jayaguru-Shishya. I've seen these disputes about pseudoscience areas that start being about conduct and end up being arguments over content. This really has the potential to continue, on and on. It would be nice if the case was closed with some result before it takes over the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to muster the patience to study enough diffs to figure this out. If nobody in the dispute can *briefly* show a violation, in 200 words or less, admins may not do anything useful. This dispute doesn't appear to be a breach of 3RR. It might either be long-term edit warring (by one or more people) or an ARBPS violation. Have you been operating as a regular content editor on any of these articles? Do you understand whatever it is that they are arguing about? EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I follow the disputes over pseudoscience but I have only commented on talk pages,

WP:ARE

in order to get editors blocked or topic banned. Those who are sympathetic to or neutral about fields like Chinese medicine or acupuncture try to improve the articles but the articles are closely watched and every edit can be challenged by those who are skeptical about these subjects. I'm not commenting on the quality of their edits, just that it is difficult to work on these articles without either edit-warring or giving up because of the near constant conflict. It's nearly impossible to work in this field for any length of time without finding oneself reported on a noticeboard.

I'd close this as "No result", no sanctions but warnings to all parties. In the future, I hope admins can address 3RR reports before they spin out of control, as discussions tend to do in this field. Just my two cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am, of course, absolutely in support of prompting more users to take part in the discussion about Kafka. But this is not another Kafka outbreak; because actually the problem here is not Kafka. The user in question is against inclusion of any Jew categorically in the article about Czechs. So Kafka became the object at the moment because he is the only Bohemian Jew that I insisted to keep in the article. But if any editor wants to add any Bohemian Jew or any Czech Jew, this editor will be here to remove the Jew from article about Czechs. And because not many editors are concerned about this rather less important topic, the editor attempts and might easily succeed to keep that article free of Jews. That is what concerns me. So I suggest not to make Kafka the scapegoat but rather make this point clear about what is this categorical removing of Jews. I have made the point clear on the Talk:Czechs, and editors understood my point about Kafka and everybody "was happy" until the user in question had the chance to "clean up" the Jews again from the article after it was unblocked.

I fully support any discussion about this topic but honestly I don't remember making a decision to join Wikipedia in order to spend time to stand up for the Jews, as that is where the situation surprisingly seems to bring me.--Der Golem (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please observe the need for consensus. And perhaps you can tell me whether Gregor Mendel was German or Czech! (At present our article calls him Silesian; I think he used to be Austrian). Although the debate may seem trivial, admins will have to intervene if people won't follow WP:Dispute resolution. Nationality in many parts of Europe is difficult. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

People such as Gregor Mendel, Gustav Mahler or Ferdinand Porsche are considered Germans or Austrians, because they originated from the neighboring German or Austrian society, and they were generally listed as such in their lifetime, so they are now. That is very different with Kafka, who was a Bohemian Jew. Bohemian Jews or Czech Jews are listed as Bohemians or Czechs just like German Jews are listed as Germans or Italian Jews are listed as Italians. But I am not here to rescue Kafka from being declared stateless on Wikipedia. Neither am I trying to declare that Kafka was a pure, typical Czech, just like I am not claiming that Ashkenazi Jewish Einstein was a pure and typical German. But I noticed, looking at the articles of European nations, that the consensus is that Jews are indeed included in their country of origin if they are significant. Therefore I don't believe that people can be excluded from the article on Czechs because they are Jewish if they are included in articles about other European nations.

This is not about Kafka. I am not trying to change or make a consensus about Kafka's "Czechness". I am trying to stand behind the already existing consensus that Jews are included in articles on various nations and just apply this consensus on the article on Czechs.--Der Golem (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you link to where this consensus was reached? And even if Kafka is eligible for inclusion, shouldn't the local editors at Talk:Czechs get to decide which of the eligible people get included in the picture? EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"A link?" That is a general knowledge, look up articles about European nations, they have numerous Jews in the infoboxes. Typical examples would be Einstein and Marx, both Jews included in Germans article. There's your link.

To answer the Kafka question: yes of course should "local editors at Talk:Czechs get to decide which of the eligible people get included in the picture". But that is why I explained recently that this is not about Kafka but about this editor's problem with Jews in general. Editors on the talkpage have supported several other Jews to be included but the user in question can and has removed them anyway. And because in practice the few other editors have things to do in their life, they don't come back to re-add the Jews. In this way, one persistent racist editor can actually achieve his/her goal of removing specifically Jews on purpose. But this is not your problem; you just followed the rules because that is how Wikipedia works. I get it. I don't care about Jews, just making a point here for no reason.

Obviously, also persistent disruptive editors will vanish sooner or later, so this makes no difference on the long run and the article will return to its neutral state at some point.

Have fun editing. Cheers--Der Golem (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid this doesn't solve the problem about edit warring at

WP:RFC/U. If you are hoping to come out of this looking more credible than Liongrande you should avoid the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk

) 20:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all those suggestions, I see pursuing them would solve the problem effectively - if I had the time to do so, I would have done it already. I'm simply backing away from this; as I said, I'm not here to stand up for the Jews and their right not to be declared stateless on one Wikipedia article by one racist editor and his sock puppets. The editor in question is a sock puppet of an account that openly suggested categorically excluding Jews, resulting in a backlash by other editors and was blocked for racist edits. Subsequently, he/she expressed that he/she doesn't understand why they were blocked. So he/she simply opened another account. You can check their IPs as an admin. Unfortunately I don't have the time to put up with the bureaucracy to prove myself credible as Wikipedia is a sporadic hobby/entertainment for me these days...thus my lax tone in recent discussions.

As I said, a disruptive editor will vanish, so will his/her edit warring. It would just be sooner if the topic was relevant enough so that someone would care enough to do something about it. I don't anymore. In the meantime, one article on the internet will be free of all Jews until that person has something better to do in their life. That is not a disaster.

Have a nice day :) --Der Golem (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thank you very much! Bearian (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed, you might like to know that immediately after his block expired, user Mpc755 came back with this new piece of original research, in the line of his previous edits for which he was blocked. I have reverted and put a 3rd level warning on his talk page. - DVdm (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to ping user @Callanecc:. - DVdm (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thx and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston! I filed earlier a 3RR report that you also commented on Kww's Talk Page[77]. As the result[78], Kww first decided to give me a warning for edit warring. After I explained him that 1) I have not been involved in any edit war, 2) nobody has been accusing me of such thing, and 3) user QuackGuru hasn't received any warning from Kww even the diffs demonstrated QuackGuru's edit warring behaviour, he changed his warning to:

"The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block'."[79]

.

I don't think that I'm receiving a fair and neutral treatment here. I never pushed any POVs at my 3RR report, and if you take a quick look at it, you can see that I was the only one who didn't participate any of those lengthy point-of-view discussions there. Therefore, I think that the warning he gave me is completely groundless and arbitrary.

Also, user QuackGuru reported me at WP:ANI on the basis of following him to other articles[80]. Kww seems to have involved himself there as well, and resulted that one for QuackGuru as well (without any explanation). The whole report QuackGuru made is totally absurd: I told him that I haven't followed him to any articles, and I even asked him for a complete list of the supposed articles that I have been following him to. He refused to answer me. Still Kww involved himself in there and resulted it against me without any explanations.

At the moment, I think we are editing three same articles a with QuackGuru: Chiropractic, Traditional Chinese medicine, and Acupuncture. Compared to the total number of articles that I have been editing, those three articles form a tiny minority.

In my opinion, Kww's actions are arbitrary and I'm not receiving fair and just treatment. Could you please take a brief look into this? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to

RfCs on the contested points and then wait for the result before doing further reverts. At present there are no RfC templates on the talk pages of any of these three articles. EdJohnston (talk

) 16:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't want to sound like a broken record so enough about it. Thanks for your answer still, and I must say that I am not quite familiar with RfC but I'll delve into it with better time! Thanks for the advice and cheers! ;) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I am now being constantly harassed by user QuackGuru who has been involved in the previous incidents. He has started bombing me with different allegations at my User Space:

1. First here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayaguru-Shishya&diff=609840207&oldid=609838731
2. Second here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#WP:IDHT_violation

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You are in a dispute with QuackGuru, so it is not a big surprise that he posts on your talk page. Why not agree to wait for an RfC before changing the tag again? Your immediate removal of posts from your own talk suggests you are not much interested in discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree for a RfC sure, but the tone of QuackGuru's message on my Talk Page was all but constructing: Do you agree you won't restore the NPOV tag against consensus again? That's a highly loaded question. In my point of view, the tag hasn't broken consensus. I also explained him that nobody has been actually objecting the tag in the link he gave me, unlike he still keeps claiming.

Thanks for your answer still, I appreciate that! And sorry to bother you constantly! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ed,

At the end of January you handled a 3RR complaint related to the Ripple (payment protocol) article. The immediate cause was a 3RR incident, but the underlying cause was a content dispute. You expressed the expectation that the editors involved would be able to work this out among themselves. Unfortunately we seem to be no nearer a solution today. The dispute is centered around User:PirateButtercup and myself. The other day I asked User:Chrisarnesen, who had been involved with the previous dispute but not with this one, for help, and he forwarded the request to some others. I have a feeling we may need the help of a neutral third party. I'm not sure if ArbCom is the right place for that, I've never come into contact with it. What I think is needed is some constructive diplomacy, not sanctions, rulings or anything. If you can give some good advice on what to do next, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'll leave a message on the Ripple talk page linking to this message here, so people are aware of it.

Now continuing at Talk:Ripple (payment protocol)#Outside help. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey. About a month ago, you asked me about my range contribs tool. It looks like X! ported over their tool to here and it seems to work pretty well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at HelloAnnyong's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments

Furthermore, please look at this message I left on the Talk of User:VSmith, an admin I have interacted with prior, long before I was reported and you conveyed the same to me. I have clearly mentioned there that a couple of my edits have appeared under 117.194*. I reported User:Smsarmad and the other user User:Maharashtra1 (to User:VSmith) along with a London-based IP 81.157* for repeated vandalism, removal of reliable references, and sock-puppetry. You can see for yourself from that edit that I did concede on my own that those edits were made by me without logging into that account.

These nationalists insert all kinds of BS in the analogous India articles and yet remove reliable references from those like the two in contention here. My issue was primarily with the Gallup poll at http://www.gallup.com/poll/161159/americans-least-favorable-toward-iran.aspx which shows pakistan as a heavily 'unfavored' nation in the US. I put up that as a reference for that pakistan is disliked (along with an article from huffingtonpost.com). The user keeps deleting them from two different usernames and one IP.

I again apologize that I did not show the patience in logging in and making the edits that I wanted to every time. Looking back at the revision history of the page [[81]] its been reverted again and again. I would not have been making those edits in the first place if a well-referenced claim like that was not being repeatedly deleted which I hope you shall appreciate.

Moreover I am pretty sure that Ssarmad and Maharashtra1 are the same user editing from 81.157*. I am posting this response of mine on the ANI page as well I believe WIKI would be just with me in the light of what it can see in this matter.

SumerianPrince (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

SumerianPrince, you are replying to this. I'm not going to evaluate your content arguments. You are expected to persuade the other editors that you are correct. If you continue to revert without waiting for others to agree with you you will most likely be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed, as regards the 'sock puppetry' part, I assure you I will be logged in every time I make an edit in future. If very inconvenient at that juncture, I shall prolong it, to a point when it shall be feasible. Seeing WIKI the way I do I have not indulged in S.P the way I have seen countless cases on here and shall never do so. That is all I can say regarding that.

As for this particular dispute I again am giving you this link from GALLUP at http://www.gallup.com/poll/161159/americans-least-favorable-toward-iran.aspx that shows pak with a fav rating of over 80% and 14% otherwise which is the third worst.

Since I have been threatened to be most likely blocked and I do love editing on WIKI I shall MOST CERTAINLY NOT continue with the warring that I was indulging in a few hours earlier. But what I don't understand is what there is to discuss about a comprehensive, legitimate, and perfectly reliable reference.

While I am being approached sideways, are you going to spare the other party who has most likely been guilty on all counts that I am being considered so, AND been reverting edits/references that meet RS? Just asking. SumerianPrince (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok Ed, I would like you to kindly tell me as to what I should do regarding the comment and the corresponding reference that I was trying to put up on the page, and I say this after having read your notification about the South Asian nations.

If you are not willing to moderate or decide that is fine with me. What is not is that in all likelihood a very valid reference with a very clear assertion is going awaste. Am not aware if you looked up the link but that clearly shows a near-extreme dislike/hate for pak in the US. What irked the other party was India doing almost as well as his own nation did poorly and that is something he couldn't clearly stomach. I hope you appreciate that I had already approached an Admin on this and had no intention of indulging in a back and forth reversion war whatsoever.

SumerianPrince (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's my guess that you may avoid sanctions if you will agree not to change any articles related to India or Pakistan for 14 days. If you agree to this, let us know in the complaint at

WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I shall not be editing on any of those articles. In fact I rarely do. I have replied where you asked me to. I had said I do not intend to edit-war in the typical sense that 90% of them do occur on WIKI (I have seen plenty and visited countless banned users' profiles). Good number of times, they were actually wrong (in the sense that they were indulging in OR or POV-pushing or using sources that were not RS), which explains to a great degree why they were warring and even using S.P's.

In this case nobody seems to say anything about whether the site/ref itself is an RS or not. It looks like a wrongful edit can be pushed through (or a righteous one deleted) by merely not edit-warring; whilst a justified/legitimate edit might never make it just because the concerned editor happened to get into a brief edit-war when that E.W itself was on account of the dishonesty of the other party. Anyway I guess I have done enough explaining and pleading. SumerianPrince (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What would save you from a block is a promise not to edit India or Pakistan-related article for 14 days. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The exact same promise/word given any number of times means the same I beleive. In the message prior, I have said, that I shall not be editing on any of the India or Pakistan related articles. Just one thing to clarify though - I believe you mean the political/geopolitical ones (the kind where this all started) - I do edit on Hinduism-related articles and pages on Indian places etc far more. I hope I can continue editing in them (they do not come into the picture here I understand). Or can I not edit on those too? SumerianPrince (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to accept the deal, then you need to abstain from *anything* related to India or Pakistan for 14 days. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer not to remove the green (although I would happily go with another colour if you want to change it), as I do not want it to look as if the text was placed there by the editors who text I have copied. It may be that an RfC would be a good idea, but I currently do not have time to shepherd such a discussion so although I would participate in such an RfC I will not initiate one :-\ . -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

So why bother copying the thread if you don't intend that anything should come of it? You already put a closure box on the WT:AT discussion. It could make more sense to let the discussion finish in its original location. Then you could leave a comment at

WT:AT if they have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it is for a change to the wording in the RM procedure not the AT policy that is being discussed and it is better such discussions happens on the talk page of the procedure rather than some other place. -- PBS (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have kept Sarek in the loop on this. If it comes to offering him a deal, I will be notifying the relevant people and probably starting a thread on AN or AN/I to reach some sort of community consensus on it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed. It was great to meet you face-to-face at the Wikipedia conference.

I've been looking for someone to review my Request Edit here. The current article contains a lot of content that is not actually supported by the sources, unsourced, or off-topic, etc.

I was wondering if you had time to take a look. I know it's difficult to compare the two versions and review the content, but I also know of no better way to do it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In the new discretionary sanctions, is it no longer necessary to log a notification of the sanctions?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If you give a notice using {{

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. Notices under the old system remain in effect for one year starting May 2014. After expiry of a previous notice a new one is required, but notice may be given no more than once a year. EdJohnston (talk

) 01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

When you say filter notice, do you mean it trips an actual filter? If so, I don't see any evidence in ThisIsaTest's filter log. The filter notice isn't discussed on the sanctions page, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The filter hits show up in his talk page history, and the events go in the logs of the admins who leave them. His own filter log is for notices that he issues himself. See two entries in the history of User talk:ThisIsaTest that are marked Tag: discretionary sanctions alert. If you look at the top of any history page for a user talk, there is a box labeled 'Tag filter' in which you can type 'Discretionary sanctions alert' to search for notices. The log of all the notices ever issued is here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's complicated. I'll have to write it down somewhere because I'll never remember. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just try notifying User:ThisIsaTest using {{subst:alert|b}}. It is self-explanatory from there. Nothing can go wrong unless you try to append a long message to the basic alert. If you want to leave a long message you can do so in a following post. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)