User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 33

Dire straits
Hello - thanks for closing the discussion, but I think you misread the consensus. I think the consensus was to keep the redirect as it was - to Dire Straits. Most people agreed that that would be acceptable, especially after the dab page was created. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but would you mind taking another look? Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since User:BDD is the author of the new DAB page at Dire Straits (disambiguation), and I thought he was voting for that to be the target of the redirect I've asked him to clarify his opinion. Since he may be on vacation this could take some time. The most obvious interpretation of the slightly ambiguous votes was that either two or three people favored this solution. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I boldly undid the redirection, but was promptly reverted. In my opinion, this should be reopened due to a misreading of the consensus; reverting the closure myself is very tempting but I want a second opinion on it first.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

AmirSurfLera note


When I repaired the operation defensive shield article in the aftermath, I noticed that anytime you edit that article (and presumably any other israel palestine article) there's a notice that the article has a 1RR restriction, so there's no way he couldn't have known about the 1RR restriction having edited the article twice.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be unhappy to see any more reverts of this article without a talk page consensus. Left a message for the other editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I addressed Sean.hoyland's concern, and sought talk page discussion on the reverts, leaving the article roughly as it was before this editing cycle started. I did adjust one of the sentences in the second paragraph that I don't think is under contention.  It is getting a little frustrating because the edit he keeps inserting seems to be mostly unsupported by the sources, in fact, contradicted by some of the sources he himself is offering.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good that you are discussing at Talk:Operation Defensive Shield. Consider making a draft of your preferred version of the Bethlehem section and posting it for review on the talk page. There is a page at WP:IPCOLL  where you could post if you need to get more opinions. You might also contact others who have edited the article recently to see what they think. I'm giving a ping to User:Sean.hoyland and User:AmirSurfLera since you mentioned their names above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing the paragraph entirely or even the entire Bethlehem section and working on it on the talk page is something that might provide a motive for finding consensus fairly quickly to restore the agreed content. Also, although it throws a spanner in the works, I've just noticed that it says see also Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem at the top of that section (...it should probably say Main article). In principal, that means WP:SYNC is relevant. In an ideal world, the Bethlehem section in the Operation Defensive Shield article would be an exact copy of the lead from the main article, Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (with citations). That kind of cross-article consistency never happens though, but it's another option i.e. work on and update the main article including the lead and then copy the lead over to Operation Defensive Shield. Just a thought.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello!
I noticed you mentioned me somehow to the moderators/administrators board as being a possible alias of EnlightenedOne? I can assure you I am simply a new user, though I realize this may be difficult to prove... but simply let me know if there's anything I can do differently! Thank you! Santacide (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Alleged Pseudoscience and Fringe Science
NOTICE : "The topic of Plasma cosmology is covered by an Arbcom case".

REPLY: Plasma Cosmology is a legitimate alternative cosmological model postulated by professional physicists in accordance with accepted interactions of phyics. On these terms - it is neither Pseudoscience, nor fringe science. It is simply an alternative model.217.208.57.69 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology is pseudoscience, as agreed. The page need to be semi-protected. Furthermore, this same IP User 217.208.57.69 is again 3RRR Edit warring on Plasma cosmology again after a recent 48 hour sanction. Could you please advise on further action against this disruptive user? Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Plasma cosmology is now semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate the hat-tip regarding the edits at Marco Rubio. Collect may have been in the wrong with how they were editing, but they were making a good point. -- McDoob AU93  15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The article coolie
I am not going to give up because the article is false and racially offensive. A mater of fact I am going to get more people to edit this article because this is what is necessary to have the truth written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Protections
Hi, thanks for protecting Ancient Macedonians, however, your protection of Talk:Gaulish language may have been a bit of an over-reaction. Only one IP edit, the latest, was a ban-evading Wikinger sock. All the previous ones are a single, apparently legitimate user. He's been making a bit of a nuisance of himself by refusing to sign his posts, and he has something of a penchant for OR arguments, but other than that I think he should still be regarded as legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (Seeing as you won't probably be back online for the next few hours, and there is a current need for continuing the discussion with that IP editor, I've left a note about this at ANI, presuming a quick unprotection would be uncontroversial.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have lifted the semiprotection per your request. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dave Brat article
I just wanted to point out that I understand your decision about the 3RR ruling you made about. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But furthermore, I just wanted to point out that there is more information that happened after your decision that I think you need to be made aware of. pasted the immature, "See I told you so comments below on my talk page." I think these comments indicate his attitude clearly. It indicates that he arrogant and unwilling to work with those who disagree with him. He will violate 3RR again, which he has in the past (he didn't get a pass that time) and I will report him again. Hopefully the new admin will be like the last admin and hold him accountable for his arrogant and self-righteous editing. I hope you have a good day!--NK (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hope you learned a lesson [], but if you haven't, here are some suggestions:
 * Next time there is a dispute, discuss in talk, not just go around making edits and reverting others.
 * Before you post in the 3RR noticeboard, make sure you have concrete proof of a violation.
 * Blocks are not punitive, so don't go around trying to punish your opponents in a dispute, in particular after arriving at a consensus.
 * Happy editing. Cwobeel   (talk)  04:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC in Dave Brat
As someone who previously participated in the article Dave Brat, I am letting you know a RfC has been opened on an issue regarding that article. BlueSalix (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding an editor under a topic ban
User:Jaqeli nominated Pharnavaz I of Iberia for Good Article status. After I did the review, I realized that they are under a topic ban against editing articles relating to Georgia and Armenia. Does the ban extend to ancient Georgian history? I noted on their talk page and on the nomination list that the user is under a topic ban, and that once the ban is lifted they can address the issues that I brought up with the nomination. Today they edited the article in question in response to my review - is this within the scope of the ban or not? Please let me know promptly.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please contact User:Sandstein who imposed the topic ban originally. He has the power to make an exemption to allow User:Jaqeli to work on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will do.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Shugden socks
Please see Bushranger's talk page. Bush seems busy in real life. These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:
 * Prasangika37
 * Essence37 - obvious sock.
 * March22ndHeicth (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Septate/removal of images of Muhammad from Islam
Hi, in April you blocked User:Septate for 48 hours for edit-warring with deceptive edit summaries to remove a particular image of Muhammad from the Islam article, in response to my 3RR report here. Today, he removed it again here. Someone else gave him a 3RR warning in response. What's the correct process at this point and can action be taken because of this one further removal? To be honest I've given up on AGF for this user and he seems to be waiting for "the dust to settle" so no one will notice (as he thinks) to try it again. DeCausa (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's too late for me to act on this now, but if it happens again consider filing at WP:AN3 with a link to the previous report. A long-term slow-moving edit war is also a violation of WP:EW. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator
In January, you consulted me regarding the topic ban on. I'm afraid that there's been no actual improvement despite the second chance. The flamewars at Talk:Pavle Đurišić appear to be back, and in general there's been way too much acrimony for a situation where someone is given another chance after having been banned for inappropriately causing acrimony.

More specifically, there's been a number of largely unproductive and often unpleasant interactions with him with regard to Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo, Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars, Articles for deletion/Skaramuca, Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia, Talk:Đurđevdan uprising. I believe that his interpretation of the sourcing policy is largely shoddy, and that his argumentation is largely specious. I have diligently tried to address each of those sourcing issues with a focus on the content rather than the contributor, but I can't help that I notice a pattern - it's often the same editor behaving in such a specific way - writing articles based on cherry-picked quotes from Google Books searches, which are usually in various Serbian nationalist topic areas.

In response, he's approached me directly on my talk page several times now (you can also see that in the last archives, I can send you specific links to that if you need them), with various claims how I was abusing him, the combined effect of which I see as WP:DEPE, pretty much; when I told him off, his instant retort was that I was doing the same to him. *facepalm*

I thought I'll be able to tolerate this, and let him continue to occasionally vent, but the straw that broke the camel's back for me this time is the fact that I got into an unusual amount of trouble recently with fellow admins thinking I was editing while involved, where one of the contentious points was a tiny bit of Antidiskriminator's taunting at Talk:Vukovar that I had reacted to in an annoyed manner. He asked me "wasn't I involved", and I told him to not beat around the bush - if he actually thought that I was involved, he should provide a modicum of explanation why. He didn't do that, just as I expected. Yet, the point that he asked was later brought up by, because I could have used that opportunity to consider that issue myself, yet I just dismissed him because I knew it was his habit to make these sorts of annoying statements. I didn't stop to think how this might look to an innocent bystander, and this slip-up was one in a series that led to me being preventively blocked because JamesBWatson thought it all added up into me being actually involved.

In retrospect, my takeaway from that situation is that Ad's actions are really starting to get to me, and that if left unchecked, this is going to boil over one way or another. Since JamesBWatson criticized me for not asking for help earlier in that (unrelated) situation, and rightly so - here I am, asking for your help.

I realize how this may sound - I'm asking a ban-imposing admin to reconsider a ban on a user, while saying I don't want to drive that user away. I honestly don't care whether Antidiskriminator leaves or stays - but I do want this ridiculous downward spiral of increasingly poisonous interactions to stop.

I thought of a self-imposed interaction ban with him, but the problem is that I see that Ad's interactions are having an eerily similar effect on, which is making me think that the main problem isn't really with me.

I suppose it's also possible that two unrelated people from different continents are just being subtle jerks towards Ad, but I don't think that's likely in this case because Pm67 is a user who actually seems to have a sound understanding of the policies and has made a substantially positive contribution.)

Sorry for the wall of text, but this just isn't a trivial thing to explain :/ Thanks. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just commenting here because Joy pinged me above and I've just been through yet another obtuse discussion with Antidiskriminator. I am no saint, and the constant carping gets right up my nose, but he just went back to the same thing with the Đurišić article as soon as the ban was lifted (which frankly was always what was going to happen), and it hasn't let up. I believe I understand WP policies reasonably well, particularly WP:RS, and Antidiskriminator just doesn't appear to, or just ignores them, or cherry-picks phrases out of context in an attempt to get around them. I could give dozens of examples, and I am also being harassed on my talk page almost daily about my supposedly "harsh" comments, but have been trying to avoid taking the bait. It isn't ok to have this level of disruption on an article or harassment of an editor through an article. For every valid point he might make, there are twenty that just aren't valid. There must be a case for re-imposition of the ban, which really was lifted without any proper argumentation even by Antidiskriminator himself, let alone anyone that has to deal with the consequences. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Joy: Few admins are willing to spend time in this topic area and I appreciate your work. Before considering a conduct complaint, I'd suggest going forward with an WP:RM discussion at Talk:Đurđevdan uprising. If User:Antidiskriminator responds by going in circles and not listening to others, that could provide evidence for a future complaint. His previous topic ban was due to a perception that discussions involving him would never reach a conclusion, which led to a judgment of bad faith participation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Because I myself don't really know the best move destination, instead of an RM I started an RFC. It should appear both in that notification system and in five article alerts, so hopefully other people notice. Let's see. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, "fun" with regard to this topic has continued at the two of our talk pages. I hereby formally invite you to observe, if you weren't doing that already. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Joy - so far nobody besides yourself has joined in the RfC at Talk:Đurđevdan uprising. My suggestion is that you make your own recommendation for a title there. Or even change it into a conventional move discussion. Regular WP:RMs are often closed even with a small number of participants, if one side makes a reasonable proposal and the other side doesn't appear to have any evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. We'll probably get to an individual solution there. What worries me more is that Ad has proceeded to blithely accuse me of employing a crude logical fallacy and acting in bad faith for filing that RfC. IOW the sour taste in my mouth remains. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A sock wot you blocked
You blocked here. I think they're back as : similar pattern of weird deletions (eg: at Yadav today) and interest in an article that has been at AfD under various titles at least twice (Poudar - see here and here). Does this tally with your experience of, who also seems to be a sock of someone else? Should I log a case at SPI? Last time round, it didn't really get anywhere due to lack of overlap etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The newbie also seems to have hit a whole heap of problems at Ann Pouder and Ann Pudar. For starters, it was deleted at AfD in 2007. I could live with the recreation because it is sourced but I can't actually verify two of the three sources and there is no way that this person has written that text. I've no idea where they got it from (see what maybe a cached version of our original article here) but compare it to the stilted creation here and note that that creation misrepresents the source in a way that make me think there may be issues with English comprehension. Obviously, Manzilnfl has been to those articles before and we have similar user pages for the two accounts. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the user pages do it for me. I'm logging at SPI. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now blocked 48 hours for the blanking of Kumari (children). Probably the next step is an indef block per Sockpuppet investigations/Admirenepal. You seem to think Admirenepal is the master rather than Blackhu20, but perhaps it's not an important distinction. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just how it has been determined previously. I didn't bother checking whether Blackhu20 came before or after Admirenepal. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism at Germany
I see that the vandalism which, for years, used to take up a lot of editors' time at Germany (whenever semi-protection was lifted) has restarted. Could it be that the expiry of your recent full protection unintentionally removed the indefinite semi-protection? --Boson (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I restored the indefinite semiprotection that was there before. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Extant Organizations/Noticeboard
Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). You participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM (Talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How does this address a niche not currently handled by WP:COIN? EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User notified
I notified here of the SAQ ArbCom sanctions. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If this keeps up a warning from an admin may be needed. A brand new person arrives and knows exactly how to fix everything, on a hotly disputed article that has been through arbitration. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I got a notification about this comment. What does this mean and how does it concern me? FatGuySeven (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was an automatic notification. Someone complained to me here about your editing, and now you are aware of what was said. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Great Seljuq Empire moved?
Was the discussion over? I see that user:elmasmelih moved the article again. I was not aware of a consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted the move. We should wait for the discussion to finish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

AN3
I just created a second report at AN3. Can't remember when I've created two in the space of a few days. It's hard work. Some of the instructions are confusing. What does "Previous version reverted to" mean? I always ignore it when evaluating reports, but it's not obvious to me what you're supposed to put there. Going to bed now.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'previous version' is not always needed. If it's easy to tell there's an edit war just from looking at the history I think it can be left out. But consider what to do if scanning the history shows you a bunch of additions and removals that are all different sizes. In the worst case the submitter might have to give a rationale for why each thing should be considered a revert. Also there could be two edit warriors whose changes were interleaved with others who were doing unrelated improvements. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're referring to, but often those have to be explained on a revert-by-revert basis so the evaluating admin doesn't have to hunt into the past to see that what looks like new material is in fact restoring material removed before. I don't see how an overall diff at the top of the report would help with that. And even assuming that in some cases it did, the instruction should make clear that it's optional: "Previous version reverted to (if applicable)" or something like that. There's another instruction that says to put in a "diff" but the word in brackets is "link". Then there's one more that says a link is preferable, and I always put in a diff because, to me, that's better than a link. Nor do I understand why in that one instance a link would be preferable. Enough nit-picking - at least for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work as usual
I think this is fine in relation to Kohala Pakistan. But didn't notice at the time that there were two Kohala Hawaii articles. I'll leave a note on the relevant article Talk pages. No need for you to do anything, just heads up. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikieditorpro
Do you believe that this editor needs to be alerted again of the existence of discretionary sanctions at WP:ARBPIA? As I understand the complicated instructions at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, he does not because although he was warned more than a year ago, he was also sanctioned by you in February 2013. His block log shows it, but I believe you neglected to log the sanction (you logged the warning). I don't think that matters, though. Your view?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles&diff=539284464&oldid=536543577 my log entry] from February 2013 records both the 1RR block and the subsequent ARBPIA notice. If you think that is not explicit enough, please add whatever entry you think is needed. In the past I may not always have logged blocks for 1RR violation in the case since I'm never sure whether a 1RR block is truly an arbitration enforcement block. You could argue that a block for 1RR on I/P articles is done under the community's 1RR. See the formal announcement of the 1RR at WP:AN in November, 2010 by User:Phil Knight who was just a regular admin at the time. But I see that when other admins issue these blocks they usually mark them as AE blocks. I suggest you issue a new Ds/alert to Wikieditorpro since the rules are not 100% clear on whether he requires a new notice. Unless a 1RR block is a 'sanction' then then he may not still be notified. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User: 64.4.93.100
Hello Ed, I am somewhat concerned by the antics of the above IP regarding the wholesale deletion of "Quotes". They have now reverted my comment on their Talk page regarding the whole discussion. Whilst I fully accept they can delete from their Talk page, it does seem rather strange that they are also trying to censor comments on their actions. I consider their wholesale deletions with a comment that they would not transfer them to Wikiquote to be pure vandalism. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Further to the above the IP has again reverted the comment, in spite of a revert and request to stop from another admin. None of the IP's actions are in the spirit of the community. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a risk that censoring his own unblock discussion could backfire. Other admins must be watching the debate now, so let's see what happens. You also have the option of posting your comment in the ANI. Before this morning I didn't realize how extensive his activities were. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help and advice. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have any questions
I could have written much more in my request at ARE, but I was trying to stay within the 500 word limit. If you have any questions, please let me know. Also, I left some explanatory replies on Sandstein's talk page. Personally, I think the editor in question is trying to wear me down. He edits a lot of porn-star pages, and he knows I'm a woman. I doubt he has a lot of respect for women - though, of course, that is only my opinion. Lightbreather (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by IP
Does this qualify as harassment? After I reverted an unsourced BLP addition at Billy Connolly that was removed by another, 173.58.213.175 reverted my edits thrice (, , and ). TLA 3x &#x266d;  →  &#x266e;  03:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP is now blocked for harassment. Thanks for pointing this out. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt response! TLA 3x &#x266d;  →  &#x266e;  05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Toolserver substitute
Hi Ed, in the past you helped me keep and eye on a number of IP ranges to keep tabs on an IP sock (self-styled as "Cassandra"), such as this:

http://toolserver.org/~helloannyong/range/?range=92.5.0.0/19

With Toolserver out of the picture, do you know if there's an alternative tool which I could use for range monitoring as Cassandra still occasionally re-surfaces with POV-pushing edits. (Your "revert, ignore" advice seems to be a productive strategy though, as they tend to disappear for a while thereafter.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:HelloAnnyong has ported his tool to wmflabs.org. It is available at http://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/ though you should be patient if the listing doesn't come back immediately. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed, I'll check it out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm having limited success with the new incarnation of the tool. For the link above, entering 92.5.0.0/19 was successful. For http://toolserver.org/~helloannyong/range/?range=92.5.8.0%2F24&contribs= and http://toolserver.org/~helloannyong/range/?range=92.12.0.0%2F16&contribs= though I'm not having any luck, unsure what to enter in the search field. I tried "92.5.8.0%2F24&contribs" and "92.12.0.0%2F16&contribs" but this gave me no meaningful results; I take it the syntax is incorrect. Could you give me a pointer please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'll dig into this a bit in the next day or so. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm most grateful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The database table I was using wasn't fully optimized; it should be better now. http://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/?range=92.5.0.0%2F19&limit= gets the results in around 10 seconds, which is fairly good considering the amount of processing required. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm finding I do get results in that sort of order of time sometimes for that link (18s just now) but it can be a minute or two and it hs timed out on me as often as not today. That said it is clearly working and I'm very pleased to have such a useful tool back. Thanks again and all the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have a few minutes free
Ed, if you have time, would it be possible for you have a quick read through User talk:Sean.hoyland to see whether an ARBPIA notification for editor Midrashah (or other advice) might help address Dovid's concerns about the editor, which seem reasonable.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I left a note for User:Midrashah that they are being discussed. If anyone has made a 1RR violation at Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir then it needs to be spelled out. The existing article looks reasonably balanced though I don't know who we have to thank for that. The editor you're discussing has been here for five years and made 3,500 edits without ever showing up in the ARBPIA log. He must be doing something right. The only anomaly I noticed is that he took 48 consecutive edits to make one set of changes, which might recommend more frequent recourse to the WP:Preview button. It seems possible that User:Dovid could write directly to the other party if he has concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think Dovid was probably motivated by having to go offline for the weekend and not wanting to come back to see all of his good work there reversed, or more editing that met the 5 criteria he listed, and was looking for anyone to help. Those 5 things he listed are all true as far as I can tell, although I see that Midrashah has stopped using bare URLs there which for me was the most concerning aspect as it's very time consuming to fix things like that, but I'm not sure these issues matter very much at this stage of an article like this about a current event. There doesn't seem to be any edit warring but I don't think Midrashah is very active in ARBPIA so they may not be familiar with the 1RR restrictions.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ed, Sean is correct, balance was only a minor concern within a larger context. The article wasn't very WP-like when I got to it. That seemed to reflect a language barrier and perhaps lack of familiarity with WP:MOS, etc. After I completely overhauled it to have a good structure and language, more compliant sourcing, etc., I found that there were probably 3 dozen edits made in the next two hours by the creator of the article, Midrashah. Some of them were good quality, some of them bad, including several that would qualify as either reversions or not WP material. I could see that the motivation was not edit warring but passionate editing, which is why I did not open a case on this, I just wanted to make sure that someone was looking out for the state of the article when i could not. - much thanks for following up on this.  Dovid (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler at WP:AE
Hey, regarding this, what do you want to do? Note that according to contribution, Plot Spoiler hasn't edited since June 26. Suspend it longer, or? - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 13:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=615701786 my update of the suspended report]. Do you think this takes care of the matter? In my opinion a report can be suspended but should not be allowed to 'age out'. It should stay on the books until User:Plot Spoiler makes the 'thoughtful and detailed response' that he he told us he would make. The alternative would be to announce a date by which a sanction would be imposed anyway, even if he doesn't participate further. But the situation doesn't appear grave enough to require that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think - this is just my opinion - that the request should resume as normal if PS doesn't respond within a certain amount of time of return to editing. (Say, 24 hours.) We can't really suspend it forever (and then there's that dnau that needs to be updated too...) - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 01:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think it should be reopened, please un-hat the report and add your own proposal of what to do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would only re-open it if PS returns to active editing without responding to the request. In the mean time, it does not hurt to let it sit there. (I have extended the DNAU timestamp for this reason.) - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 17:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

re
These pages no longer needs to be salted after creation are limited to administrators, account creators, and template editors. These will no longer be a target of abuse, and account creators and template editors can create it per consensus or techincal reason.--GZWDer (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are saying that the sysop protection prevents account creators and template editors from creating these edit notices? EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the salt is no longer necessary.--GZWDer (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: ARB/E
If it might be helpful, I will have time this weekend to make a statement concerning this request. However, I'd hate to prolong the death of that thread unnecessarily. Please advise. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's my guess that the thread will be open for another day or two. If you have something to add, please go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Having looked over things this morning, and in the light of recent admin comments on the request, I don't think there is really anything more to be said. As such, I will not be commenting on the matter. Thank you for all the work you do around here. It is appreciated. Enjoy! — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering that my immediate future as an editor in my (currently) preferred subject area hangs in the balance, I would be most beholden for feedback from either of you concerning the subjects that I appended to my statement this weekend: Reply to EdJohnston, Reply to Sandstein and Scal, About "sensitivity", and Reply to Sue Rangell. They all apply to counter-accusations that have been made against me. I know this takes up a lot of your time, but again, as my future is involved (I love editing, believe I'm a good editor, and believe the articles I've edited have been improved by my contributions), I do appreciate it. Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Qualcomm
I have a COI. Concerned about a recent IP edit and was wondering if you had time to take a look CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the IP's new paragraph isn't properly sourced. See my comment on the article talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Makedonovlah
Hi Ed. started his disruption again after the 2-week block which you gave him. A longer block may be necessary. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed
I asked consensus. Why Mister Δρ.Κ. doesnt talk on the talk page? Why he only wants to block me? I Asked consensus and i gave the source for my change. Mister DrK has something personal with an user? Thank you. (Makedonovlah (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC))

User:User talk:Yagmurlukorfez
Hello Yagmurlukorfez. I noticed this unusual page title, and figured that it was created by mistake. It's now been deleted per WP:CSD. Generally user pages and user talk pages are not moved. Nobody is required to have a user page, but you generally need to have a user talk which corresponds to your account name. If you desire to change your user name, let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention. I was trying to redirect my user page to my talk page. But I'am stucked. How can I do that? special request? Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a redirect at the top of User:Yagmurlukorfez so anyone who goes there will be redirected to your user talk. Hope this is what you wanted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you then. So, I can't do that by my own right? If I want to revert that, I need to come to you or another admin?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are free to undo the redirect. See User pages for what you can do with a user page. Search for the word 'redirect.' EdJohnston (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I've answered your questions

 * Just a heads up, because it's hard to tell who's seen what in ARE discussions: I've added info to my request, as you suggested on 14 July 2014 - unless you or, or , or have more questions?

The addition is Reply to Admins, and you might review the details of my reply to Scalhotrod, too. Lightbreather (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Slow burn edit wars
Hi Ed, thanks for closing the AE re Baghdad Bombings. You mentioned that my edits have caused concerns, but didn't mention what/how. As you may know I often edit in this very difficult area of our project, primarily because I believe that the passions of the opposing editors can be put to good use in creating a more balanced and neutral narrative on the I-P conflict than is otherwise available anywhere else. I am very cognizant of the challenges of the area, and so strive to hold myself to the highest talk page standards. The problem is that it's not always clear what those standards should be. I had been following the advice of User:Georgewilliamherbert, as I mentioned at the AE, but from your closing comments I now wonder whether George's advice reflects admins' consensus view of how to work with editors who are reverting but not contributing. In your closing comment you mentioned Dispute Resolution, which of course ultimately requires convincing a third party to care enough about the subject to (1) bother reading all the sources, and (2) spend the time to negotiate with both sides to find an acceptable solution. Which is why in disputes which depend on reading a lot of sources, Dispute Resolution often hits a brick wall and just wastes a lot of time. The core issue in my mind is why should a third party have to waste their time getting involved if one of the two opposing sides are simply not pulling their weight at the talk page? Anyway, the reason for this post is to ask whether you can be a little more specific in your views, and /or whether you have any other advice for me going forward to avoid such concerns? This is not the first time I have come up against a slow burn edit war with an editor who doesn't have the time or inclination to discuss the sources, and it won't be the last, so any advice would be appreciated.

TLDR: What exactly can I do better next time, recognising the shortcomings of WP:DR?

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When there is a dispute, a WP:Request for comment or a filing at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard may be the best way forward. GWH's advice is consistent with what it says at WP:Dispute resolution. While getting your opponent topic banned is another way of resolving these disagreements, it's not the preferred way. Your edits during May seemed OK but during June it just looked like you and your opponent reverting each other. (Though the talk page showed you had done more reading). If you are concerned about wasting time, you should ask yourself whether it's a good use of anyone's time to use WP:Arbitration enforcement as the quickest way to a solution. Since the WP:ARBPIA log shows you've been warned twice before, and since boomerangs are unpredictable  you might consider if AE is good direction for you to go. Verdicts at AE are not easy to predict unless the situation is extremely one-sided, which this case was not. Your recent proposal on the article talk page looks reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't want my "opponent topic banned". I want my opponent to be incentivised to contribute so that we can have constructive discussions.
 * You asked me to consider whether it is a good use of anyone's time coming to WP:AE. My perspective is that it often is, as arbitration incentivises editors to self-police, rather than relying on never-ending WP:DR.
 * The key point is buck passing to WP:DR is much less efficient and will waste much more admins' time in the long run. To my mind the admins at the various WP:DR forums are no different to the admins at WP:AE - i.e. they are hard working volunteers who are very conscious of using their time efficiently and effectively.
 * To make this a little conceptual, imagine that on 4 articles in a year an editor's modus operandi was identifying things they don't like, reverting slowly but consistently over time, but not contributing any content to talk. And let's assume the 4 disputes are deep into the sources so a third party needs to invest a total of 1 hour to negotiate a middle ground per article. So to ensure the right outcome for wikipedia, which is better: (1) different admins at WP:DR forums spending 1x4 hours sorting out each problem, or (2) admins at WP:AE or WP:ANE spending 1 hour on one dispute, thereby incentivizing the editors to resolve the other three disputes on their own.
 * Does this make any sense at all? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this make any sense at all? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Fallen between the cracks?
I have just read the essay Responding to a failure to discuss by User:TransporterMan.

The essay states clearly, "As noted in the Dispute Resolution policy, all content dispute resolution procedures — Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Request for Comments (though the requirement is very weak there), and Formal Mediation — require thorough talk page discussion at the article talk page before a request for DR can be properly filed."

My situation therefore appears to have fallen between the cracks:
 * Transporterman's essay is clear that WP:DR is not applicable for a case without two-sided discussion. His advice (You must have asked the other editor to discuss the matter at least twice / You must have given the editor plenty of time to respond / The other editor must have reverted your edit without discussion after you made those requests) is exactly what I did on the talk page over the last two months. As mentioned, I was following this advice from User:Georgewilliamherbert at the time, which aligns well with Transporterman's essay
 * At the AE, Sandstein wrote : "three reverts are a somewhat thin evidentiary basis" (albeit as mentioned, all I wanted to achieve was / is a clear understanding by Plotspoiler that he/she needs to either discuss or desist)

So unless i've misunderstood, I cannot use WP:DR or WP:AE, and Plot Spoiler continues to ignore my pleas to discuss, so I am totally stuck. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Plot Spoiler has not edited 1950–51 Baghdad bombings since 25 June. If he reverts again without discussion you might have a complaint. Since there has been an AE about this article I assume he will be careful in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've not dug into what's behind Oncenawhile's last posting immediately above, or even read the preceding discussion, so I don't know what's at stake here, who is right or wrong, and this is a wholly off-the-cuff, perhaps-not-apropos-at-all observation, but here goes: You might note the part about the discussion "requirement" for RFC being very weak. It is, indeed, so weak as to be arguably only a suggestion, not a requirement. It's contained in Requests for comment and consists only of this: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page." If it's not already been tried, an RFC might be used in this situation, but be sure to say that you've unsuccessfully attempted to get the other editor to discuss. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks TransporterMan. That's a helpful suggestion and I will try that - I have just begun an RfC on the topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User Dailey78 has broken his restriction again
I've been trying to deal with 's NPOV editing of a quote and other issues and just realised that he's ignoring the restriction he accepted instead of a block, see User talk:Dailey78. He simply doesn't seem able to or willing to follow our NPOV policy and continues to edit without gaining consensus at both articles, which of course causes more work for others as well as breaking his restriction. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since 10 January, 2014 Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann provides for discretionary sanctions for Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles. Do you think it might be time for a topic ban under that case? EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably past time. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to engage in rational debate with this editor. He fills the talk page with interminable rants, and trots out learned catchphrases like "this is not a forum" or "No personal attacks" whenever people disagree with him. The situation is impossible. Paul B (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the above nonsense. The same users accusing me of reminding users that "this is not a forum" routinely remind users that this is not a forum on the talk page.  It's okay for them to say it, but not for others.  Paul Barrow engaged in a series of personal attacks, calling me "ignorant" on the talk page and other nasty language.  I used the "no personal attacks" template because Paul wasn't addressing the article content he was attacking me personally.  Please review the talk page history and you will see the nasty language directed at me.  You can't trust him to support a call for a ban, because like others he is biased.  They all share a POV and will do anything to silence anyone that opposes their POV.  They fill the talk page with rants and then accuse others of filling the talk page with rants.  They are hypocrites, par excellence.  Paul Barrow accused me of not owning a source that I cited, although I have been citing from that source since Sept. 17, 2011.  Check my contribution history.  I have cited "the Making of Egypt" by Flinders Petrie since 2011, but Paul Barrow is on the Talk page ranting that I'm making up my citations and don't own the book.  You CANNOT TRUST THESE EDITORS to be fair when trying to ban someone from these articles.  They invent problems that aren't there to silence any opposition to their POV pushing.
 * They tried to silence Big-dynamo and countless other users that won't accept their POV pushing on this topic. I haven't reverted one single time since I started editing this article again recently.  Not even once.  If I add anything to the article, even a small change, it is immediately reverted by the others seeking to ban me.  In one case, I noticed that only one of the competing theories mentioned that the theory was heavily contested.  We all know that all of the theories are heavily contested.  I added a few short words to the other theories to indicate that they are all heavily contested and Dougweller apparently agreed, as he removed the heavily contested language from all theories.  This is just one example of how my contributions are helpful to the article and help to balance the POV pushing that would have led lay readers to believe that only one of the theories was heavily contested and the others are somehow mainstream.
 * If you check the history of the editors that are trying to ban me, they routinely edit without gaining consensus such as adding new DNA testing info the arbcom protected article without gaining consensus. On the Talk page the consensus is clear that the DNA material should be moved to the Population history article, but do you think that has stopped these same editors from leaving the DNA info in this article?  Of course not.  If I try to add balancing info, it is immediately reverted.  Those that want more balance and additional DNA studies included have been systematically silenced over the last several months (because the other studies showed that the mummies were from East Africa). However, once a study is found that says Ancient Egyptians were from Western Asia (which is against the scientific consensus on the origin of Ancient Egyptians), the study is allowed into the article.
 * This pattern of biased "monitoring" of the article is plain to anyone that doesn't agree with the POV pushing by dougweller, paul barrow, auo, and others. They feed off of each other and are incapable of seeing the other side of a topic.  Even when they are wrong.  They revert everyone else without any time for discussion, but other editors can't even add or reorder sentences without being threatened with sanctions.Rod (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above says it all really. Rational or reasonable debate is impossible. It's been tried for years. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Check the Talk page. Paul accused me of not owning "the Making of Egypt" and then went about trying to actually prove on the Talk page that I don't own a book that I actually own.  When presented with evidence (I edited the Ancient Egypt article and cited the book in 2011), he will not concede that he is wrong, or that he would never accuse any other editor of making up their sources.  There is no actual content in their messages, just their opinions and fluff.  Take responsibility for your own inappropriate behavior before accusing others and trying to ban themRod (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of making up your sources. I said that what you added was not a source, which it wasn't. I then told you the correct source . I also responded to your claim that you had repeatedly referred to the book, which you hadn't. Not once. Obviously I can't be expected to know what you have written on entirely different articles. That's absurd. I was not wrong about what I said, though I'm certainly willing to admit it when I am, which can be quite often. The morass of confusion into which this talk page is rapidly sinking is typical of the problem. Productive debate is just not possible. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't go through your entire contribution history without losing whole days off my life, but I can check the talk page archives, which I did. You claimed you'd often referred to it. You've never once mentioned it. Ever. Talk: Ancient Egyptian race controversy: one mention, not by you: ; Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis: no mentions at all . Your citations are typically excerpts from various sources copy pasted from websites. The main problem was that you referred to a passage from the book, but cited it to something else entirely: a nonsensical phrase, which was not a source . This is strongly suggestive of a regurgitated, misunderstood, phrase from a website. I told you the correct source, and then you replied informing me of what I'd just told you as if it proved me wrong, and ignoring the actual issue. The sheer topsy-turvy logic is evidence of major wp:competence issues. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Paul, it would be easier at this point to just admit that you're wrong. You can easily go to the Ancient Egypt article, view the history, switch to 500 listing per page and go back one or two pages until you get to edits on Sept. 17th, 2011.  There you will see my edit and full citation from "the Making of Egypt."  That was the first time I used it.  I've used it again to flesh out the black queens content, which is a quote from Petrie.  Here's the text from the Ancient Egypt article on Sept. 17th, 2011 since I am the only editor that now has to prove that I own the books that I cite in your unfair and biased approach to wikipedia.


 * In southern Egypt, the Anu and Naqada culture, similar to the Badari Rod (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Paul, you are making up a false reality to fit your POV. A false reality where I don't own books that I actually own.  There's not much more I can say about it.Rod (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dailey says he hasn't reverted. This is simply not true. This is a clear revert. I think his changes to my quote from Alan Lloyd (breaking up the quote to add 'however' in the middle might be seen as a revert, and if need be I would argue is an example of his failure to follow NPOV. His reponse to my posting to his talk page about that edit was to accuse me of being on a witch-hunt. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with doug about the revert. I expanded on a quotation using the same source and the same paragraph.  I didn't remove any content.  I also grouped statements by Lloyd together.  I appreciate Doug being civil about this, although we disagree.Rod (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Now, let's address uncivilized behavior. In his rant above, Paul accuses me of mostly citing excerpts copy/pasted from websites.  This is completely untrue and more nonsensical false reality from Paul.  Any one that has seen my edits in the Ancient Egypt article, AE race controversy article, Black egyptian hypothesis, Race of Tutankhamun article, would know that I almost exclusively use full citations from books and almost never cite websites.  If Doug wants to be honest, he will support this statement.  Here's a short list of books that I've cited in these articles:  Herodotus (the Histories), Williams (The Destruction of...), Diop (several books), Mokhtar (General History of Africa), Jackson (Intro to African...), Bernal (Black Athena), Snowden (Blacks in Antiquity), Heeren (Historical researches...), Davidson (African Civilization...), Emberling (Nubia: Ancient...), DuBois (several books), O'Connor (Before the Pyramids...), Welsby (The Kingdom of Kush), Aubin (The Rescue of...).  I'm afraid that next Paul will accuse me of being an alien from outer space.
 * We don't have to speculate, check my edit history and my citations and you will see that what I am saying is absolutely true and what Paul is saying is absolutely and completely false. Furthermore, the Lloyd quote that Doug is mentioning was added by others and it's from a google search of a book's contents.  I hate that I had to expand on it, but the brevity of someone else's addition of that quote made it misleading.Rod (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not changing my quotation to split it and add 'however' is a revert is debatable, some Admins would see it as a revert and others would not. But that doesn't really matter, it was a violation of your restriction. The first one that I said was a clear revert[]. And a violation of your restriction, which is why I came here. Nice that you appreciate my being civil, but your statement that I am on a witch-hunt rather devalues that. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies Ed for posting again. I see this is concluded with a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I will appeal here before using the official appeals process. Many editors have suffered short or long term suspensions from these controversial articles.  Suspensions, have ranged from a few hours to 18 months.  I only noticed one other permanent ban and it was for a person that immediately reverted the article back to their version the day that their temporary suspension ended.  Therefore, a permanent ban seems unusually harsh for edits that even doug admits may be interpreted as reverts by some and not as reverts by others.  The official revert approach was never used by me in my recent edits.  My additions are open to interpretation.  The conclusion is extremely severe for such a debatable infraction.Rod (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As someone who hasn't been involved with the content in question for some time and whose non-admn opinion may well be questioned on that basis I will just say I looked it over and think the ban reasonable, justifiable and appropriate. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And he's decided to ignore it, I've just deleted an attempt by him to get a 3rd Opinion on something related to it. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think that the ban doesn't cover this let me know or restore it yourself. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The 3rd opinion is strictly on the user conduct of Paul Barrow and has nothing to do with the topic. The help text asks users to phrase the third opinion as if it is about the topic, even if it is strictly about user conduct.  It's about defamation and groundless claims by PB.Rod (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dailey78, as a result of your topic ban you should have little reason for further interaction with User:Paul Barlow. Since your topic ban prevents you from mentioning the Black Egyptian hypothesis I think your only reasonable option is a formal appeal of your sanction. If you will fill out the form at Arbitration enforcement appeal on your talk page I can assist you with the further steps needed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ed, this is how I interpreted the help text on 3rd opinion. Now that I've read your message, I won't have any further interactions with PB.


 * I have not violated the ban. The third opinion concerns Paul Barrow's user conduct and is not about the topic.  I am excerpting the help text from the third opinion page, where it clearly states that third opinion can be used for user conduct issues:


 * Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue.Rod (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's for where conduct is inseparable from content, which is entirely inapplicable in this case. It's really for cases where probems are long term, not some personal obsession about being "proved right" over a trivial point. The very fact that you are making a mountainous drama out of something that's fundamentally irrelevant to real issues of content is the real conduct problem here. It destroys meaningful debate. Having said that, I don't care whether you leave a report or not. It's a exercise in futility. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is about personal attacks and defamation.Rod (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to look up the definition of a personal attack. See WP:WIAPA. Third opinion is simply not the appropriate forum, and I can't see how you can raise the matter there without violating your topic ban. As I say, you are free to try. Civility issues used to be dealt with at a noticeboard, but this was discontinued because the community decided it was not productive. See Wikiquette assistance. I think your best option for further addressing this "issue" without violating your topic ban would be Requests for comment/User conduct. Paul B (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Paul, Ed has asked us not to interact and you are making that extremely difficult when you continue to address me directly. Furthermore, I choose not to interact with a person that falsely accuses an editor of making up sources and absolutely refuses to admit his mistake when it has been proven over and over again that the claims are groundless.Rod (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't try to blame me for your transgressions. There was no need to reply to my last message, which simply provided information for your benefit, pointing you to an appropriate board. And you were not accused "making up" sources, so stop misrepresenting the facts. If YOU make false allegations, you are the one who is making a reply necessary. Take it to Requests for comment/User conduct or even WP:ANI if you wish, but stop wasting everyone's time by sniping. If you wish to continue this ridiculous debate use my talk page. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Third opinions are for content; ANI is for behaviour. As such, going to 3O would be a topic-ban violation  the panda ɛˢˡ”  15:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hellenism
Hello EdJohnston.

My edit wasn't incorrect. I am aware of the revival of Greek religion. The problem is that the name "Hellenismos" has been chosen and imposed throughout Wikipedia by user Reigndog, who I suspect to be the same as Dchmelik, the same user who "coined" the term creating the portal. The name "Hellenismos" has the problem to be a hybrid word neither Greek (the transliteration is conventional) nor English, where English has its native term "Hellenism".--Karl&#39;s Wagon (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus for the use of "Hellenismos", as you can read here, here and here, contrary to what user Reigndog claims.--Karl&#39;s Wagon (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the naming of Hellenismos you can open a Move discusssion at Talk:Hellenismos. The discussion will run for a week and allow a consensus to be formed. If you need assistance with the technical steps let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I said that, to the extent that there is a consensus, it is in favor of "Hellenismos". You, Karl's Wagon, are the only editor in favor of your particular position.  In addition, the article was originally titled "Hellenismos".  Apparently, there was a discussion several years ago and there was a consensus decision to rename it Hellenic Reconstructionist Polytheism.  I say apparently because although the decision is clear from talk about prior redirects, the actual discussion is nowhere to be found.  Then, without any discussion whatsoever, someone renamed the article "Hellenism (religion)".  There was never any consensus whatsoever for that name change.  The editor simply got away with it, without anyone noticing.Reigndog (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I am not Reigndog, and I did not coin the term, which has been in use by pagans for probably at least a decade. The problem with using the term 'Hellenism' is that it may normally refer to philosophy (as in 'Hellenic philosophy'), but 'Hellenismos' has been used for the religion, so I would appreciate if you could move the portal back, Karl's Wagon.--dchmelik (t|c) 23:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @EdJonhston: I have opened a request to move the portal.
 * @Dchmelik: ancient Greek civilization never distinguished culture, philosophy, and religion, as still is in Eastern cultures and was in pre-modern Europe. The portal and articles on the modern Greek faith reflect this, discussing philosophical interpretations as a part of the religion. Emperor Julian's term "Hellenism" was coined to define all this complex.--Karl&#39;s Wagon (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What I have tried to explain to you, Karl's Wagon, is that "Hellenismos" is not the religion of the Ancient Greeks. It is the Reconstructionist version of the religion of the Ancient Greeks.  As I have also detailed before, the Ancient Greeks had no name for their religion.  You are right of course, that the Ancient Greeks mixed their religion in with their culture and their philosophy.  In part, that is why "Hellenism" has so many different meanings.  This is also why it is so important to have a different term for this Reconstructionist Polytheistic religious faith.
 * Lastly, your final statement is about as wrong as can be. I mean absolutely no disrespect, as I have no idea who are and have barely interacted with you.  But just look at the Wikipedia page for the emperor Julian, no further research is necessary, although I have done such.  In the relevant section of the article, it states, "Julian started a religious reformation of the state, which was intended to restore the lost strength of the Roman state. He supported the restoration of Hellenistic polytheism as the state religion."  The term he used was "Hellenismos".  It is clear he was only trying to restore the place the polytheistic faith once had in the Empire and decrease the place Christianity had in it.  His Rome was not Greece of centuries prior.  He had no more intention to restore Ancient Greek culture than do modern practitioners of "Hellenismos" do today. Such a thing is impossible and many people who claim "Hellenismos" as their religion today, openly state that they have no desire to do so, for a multitude of different reasons.  This is true inside of Greece as well as outside of it.Reigndog (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion should probably continue at Portal talk:Hellenismos. I don't understand these issues and have no opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was writing the text above while you were writing your bit. I will continue the issue on the relevant page now, as you suggest.  I thank you again for your help.Reigndog (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The talk archives of Trance (music genre) still need moving
thank you, have fixed it. Semitransgenic talk. 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Lugnuthemvar‎
I just blocked him per WP:ARBPIA for violating 1RR. We are permitted to block without warning after a 1RR violation, but generally I don't like to. In this case, your warning satisfied me. That said, I wanted also to alert him to DS because using that as a basis for sanctions in the future does require an alert. However, the template is so unsuitable in these circumstances. The final sentence ("This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.") is so dissonant as to be ludicrous. This isn't the first time that sentence has bothered me, but it's the most stark.

My preference would be to eliminate the sentence. I don't see why we need it. If that won't fly, I would strike "only" and add the bolded word as follows:


 * This message is informational only and does not necessarily imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbcom debated for a long time to come up with that wording. My guess is we are stuck with it. They don't want there to be any reason for the recipient to question the propriety of a DS notice. You can add your own personal message as a separate edit if you want to leave a warning with stronger language. The new DS system gets rid of some problems with the old so I don't object to this feature of it. EdJohnston (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankie Grande
Hi, Ed. Any idea when the AfD brought by the blocked user might close? It has been open for awhile. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there has been a dispute I would rather let the AfD run for the full time. There is not much risk of it ending with deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was just asking, how long is the full time?  I haven't been over to AfD in a long time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP:AFD, the discussion period is at least seven days. (I think the seven days comes from Genesis). A full-length AfD discussion carries more weight than a speedy-closed one if I remember correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. Thanks!  Happy editing!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to Blocking request (Blue Army)
Hello, I have made my response to the accusations made by user Faustian. The reply is a bit on the lengthy side, but I included some very valid comments made by other contributors to the Talk Page who also had issue with user Faustian's editing, and potential bias. The reverts are due to Faustian continuing to add highly controversial material despite recommendations by other users against doing so. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your notice on reverts not being heeded by that editor
Hi EdJohnston; From the notice you left for Editor BigBaby regarding the "Wikipedia" page, I have noticed that he/she has ignored your fair warning and is continuing the reverts now into August 1. Three of us have engaged on Talk page there and have been involved in cleaning up the page without success. This is the latest time stamp from after your fair warning to that user. If you would like me to post the links and diffs for all these, then let me know and I'll try to fill them in if the ANI is needed to help to protect the page. The 4 of us trying to help are getting pretty exhausted:

(cur | prev) 01:11, 1 August 2014‎ Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs)‎. . (216,787 bytes) (+403)‎. . (Undid revision 619351965 by LawrencePrincipe. This violates WP:NPOV by using WP:WP:SYNTHESIS&WP:COAT to completely nullify the Criticism section. Intro=represent article in full.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 13:15, 31 July 2014‎ Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs)‎. . (217,177 bytes) (+403)‎. . (less text (as commented before) this paragraph was all WP:SYNTHESIS&WP:Peacock.Now it is reflecting and summarizing the vast Criticism section as per WP:LEAD) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 14:33, 30 July 2014‎ Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs)‎. . (217,345 bytes) (+1,073)‎. . (reverted LawrencePrincipe .BRD policy guidelines are being misused and misrepresented in order to block a legitimate edit) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 13:25, 30 July 2014‎ Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (217,345 bytes) (-193)‎. . (fixed mistake (double sentence)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:19, 30 July 2014‎ Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs)‎. . (217,538 bytes) (+1,266)‎. . (Reverted LawrencePrincipe. This has nothing to do with the MAY edit. the Slate reference is misrepresented and Major Criticism of Wikipedia has due weight in the lead. See talk page) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 12:43, 30 July 2014‎ Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs)‎. . (217,345 bytes) (+322)‎. . (continued from last edit) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:32, 30 July 2014‎ Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs)‎. . (217,023 bytes) (-285)‎. . (This notable and scholarly sources have not "examined" they have criticized wikipedia. the Slate article is a negative article about wikipedia, misrepresented as a positive reference. WP:LEAD requires us to add main criticism in lead.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 13:45, 28 July 2014‎ Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs)‎. . (216,004 bytes) (+974)‎. . (added the major criticisms from the most scholarly sources from the wikipedia criticism article to the lead.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 01:24, 28 July 2014‎ Bigbaby23 (talk | contribs)‎. . (217,221 bytes) (+674)‎. . (→‎Criticism: I read the main criticism article. somebody made a mess here with the citation and text. I put the right reference + presented the citations criticism in a NPOV) (undo | thank)

If you would like us to continue to try to reason again with that user, then let me know and we can try again. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * is now blocked for edit warring at Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, will you please take a look at WP:AN3 for the other half of this? Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 14:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked. Your approach seems correct. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi EdJohnston; (&Tiptoety); Thanks for your comment about the Chealer version of the edit which I posted on the Wikipedia page. No sooner had I posted it, however, than User:Chealer apparently decided to make opportunity out of it and change it further for his/her own personal gain. I had already set up Talk page discussion based on the neutral version which you indicated should be posted, only to have it put aside by User:Chealer who posted his/her own version for personal gain without Talk page discussion first. May I ask for one of you to glance at this. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a verifiable source to add the the MAX HAVOC page but you have locked it
the truth about the entire max havoc/albert pyun story is here: http://impactonline.co/features/1704-albert-pyun-max-havoc-unclassified

Could you please list it on the page. The LIES NEED TO STOP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.128.123.119 (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You've already posted this information at Talk:Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon which is not a protected page. One of the regular editors may be able to add it to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

COD T 3
Is User:COD T 3 still blocked? It appears, when I edit his talk page, that he is still blocked. He posted a request to his talk page asking me to help him prepare an RFC. I declined the request. However, it now occurs to me that maybe that was an inappropriate use of his talk page while blocked, to request conduct assistance rather than to discuss his block. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Question
Ed, are you reading my comments or Collect's Where have I not been clear that I understand I violated the ban and won't do it again? I'd appreciate the input. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed my previous comments and made a comment that makes it very clear I understand why my edits to the talk page violate the topic ban. They violate the topic ban because the discussion is really about the TPm and not just a BLP sourcing issue as I had believed. I also promise to not go near another page that could even remotely be related in any way to the TPm because to do so would violate the ArbCom topic ban. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about my edits
Hello, here: you made a comment about me "I have some concerns about User:Faustian's edits but I don't think the problem is severe enough for anything more than a warning at this time" and I would like your advice, which maybe would help me deal with disruptive editors in the future. What could I do, that I did not do, when someone decides to just blank information in an obscure article without other editors around to, for example, "outvote" him by reverts? When it is only me, and the guy deleting stuff. He deleted, I added, and it became an edit war. But if I didn't add the info, he would just essentially have had veto power over the article. I opened two RfCs, each of which had few outside voices, but in both the outside commenters agreed with me and the RfC was closed. I then again added the statement, and then other guy again deleted it. So I added it again, and he deleted. So, how else could I have approached this? If I were dealing with a collaborative editor acting in good faith to build the encyclopedia my multiple reverts would have been wrong, but they were clearly in response to someone simply motivated to keep the info off the article for the sake of keeping negative info off an article. In that specific context, what was concerning about my edits? Respectfully,Faustian (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Outvoting by reverts' in a two-person war is always a bad idea. If you see someone reverting against the result of a properly-closed RfC you can ask an admin to take action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I agree it's far from ideal.  But after he reverted my addition of the statement following the RfC, an admin didn't do anything for that when I asked him to: .  On the admin's talk page, the other editor wrote a lot of dishonest stuff about the content of the RfC (long story), probably successfully obfuscating the issue, claiming the RfC's concluding statement was wrong.  I don't blame the admin for not dong anything here - it's a lot to untangle. So then what - another RfC about that RfC? The other editor placed an undue weight tag on the section.  This tag could not be removed, because it would be a revert war.  Based on the tag he himself put in, he then claimed that even if info was properly sourced it can't be put in, unless maybe there is another RfC. An RfC for the tag also?   Etc. etc.  It was a kind of spiral.  I feel that the only way to have kept my hands clean would have been to simply walk away and let him have the article (which seems to be what others have done there), but that seemed wrong.  I understand that without context my pattern of editing that article was bad (ideally there would be no more than 1 revert) but within that situation it seems understandable.  And although I disagree strongly with Robert McClenon asking that both of us be sanctioned equally, I am grateful that he at least drew many other peoples' attention to this situation so that someone could finally sort through it in detail.


 * Well, that is my little rant, thanks for indulging me and feel free to delete it. Faustian (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user User:COD T 3
User:Wikiman 36 appeared right after User:COD T 3 was banned. And he jumped into the same editing:. I reverted his changes (is it okay to revert changed of a banned sockpuppet without getting into 3R trouble? I'm not close to 3R yet of course). I've contacted the 2 admins who blocked/banned User:COD T 3 but am hoping this gets resolved quickly. Thanks.Faustian (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent consequences to the Blue Army (Poland) article
After account COD T 3 was blocked, user Faustian edited the Blue Army (Poland) article. The edits are significant/bias and were made without initiating any kind of discussion on the talk page (not covered by any of the RfCs). Also, the changes were made immediately after user Faustian received a ArbCom warning regarding his approach to editing the article. Please take action against such disruptive and bias behavior.


 * Name of disputed section changed: "Controversies" to "Anti-Semitic Violence" - 14:16, 7 August 2014‎
 * Removed long standing Undue Weight tag from disputed section, originally added after an unsuccessful Mediation Board: "Undue|section|date=June 2014" - 00:56, 7 August 2014‎

--Wikirun 20 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The sockpuppet master is back.Faustian (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please report this at Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3. I have semiprotected Blue Army (Poland). EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin action
Hi Ed,

Thanks for handling that issue on ANI. I don't know if you read through it, but things were starting to get a little hostile. And it's not the first time, either. Now that that episode has been dealt with, I was hoping you might be able to offer some advice on how best to proceed with a related issue.

Over the past few months, I have been repeatedly referred to various ANIs by the same editor, Tvx1. The reasons for those are many and varied, but nothing has ever come about from them aside from the odd warning. I don't mean to be flippant about it, but that's separate to the issue - the fact is that Tvx1 refers me to an ANI shortly after he and I dispute the best way forward for an article, and I feel it is happening a little too frequently for it to be coincidence anymore. He claims to be acting in the interests of articles, but I have only ever seen him refer people he has disagreed with to ANI. Between that and some of the tactics he uses on talk pages to get his way, it's very hard to assume good faith. Nevertheless, I think it is an issue that should be explored in some way, but I don't know what the appropriate format would be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

WotP protection
Thanks for protecting the article. I hope many editors participate in the RfC to get an idea of the correctness resp. bias of the views involved in the discussion. Please, stay by to intervene if some editor run out of arguments and begins with personal attacks. --Keysanger (Talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Mr. Johnston. I wondered why user:Keysanger continues being allowed edits in War of Pacific article? I look back on article record history and find he been making trouble since 6 years ago (or more). Is there place where I can report user so that he is prevented from continuing disrupting article? you can call me Eddy in my page. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Join the discussion at Talk:War of the Pacific and try to establish a consensus there. My guess is that admins will now be paying closer attention to this article. Since your account is brand new (and perhaps was created specifically to edit this article) it is rather early for you to be deciding on the correctness of others' behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Mr. Johnston, it makes no sense for consensus when authors agree when war started (February 14). Only Keysanger and friends oppose and create long confusing statements. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is hard to believe that the war started on February 14. If you check the works of real historians I wonder if you can confirm that opinion. As an admin, it is not up to me to decide the issue, but we can check whether people are searching for proper sources. Using travel guides is rather borderline. You can ask at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard whether a source is usable for the question you are asking. Reputable works of history often receive reviews in academic journals. Bruce Farcau is a professor of political science and he has written a number of books about wars in South America. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * William Sater is real historian. Pike is real historian. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston, i'm currently interested in the RfC forum and i've made my contribution to it. However Eduardo seems to be making Personal Attacks on Keysanger and his attempted rebuttals of anything written by Keysanger is just getting repetitive and clogging up the section. Even his reply to my comments somehow attacks keysanger. what is your opinion of this behavior? I'm just asking as a curious contributor to the project.210.50.245.62 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello EdJohnston,
 * I request you according to WP:DCL to review Talk:War of the Pacific concerning the RfC, apply it and close the discussion. Best regards, --Keysanger (Talk) 10:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can take this to any admin, not just me. Whoever closes this may want to see your proposed summary of the start of the war. You could add your proposal to the article talk page. Sources have been offered that favor different starting dates. If you look at the second paragraph of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_the_Pacific&oldid=617896451 a 21 July version of the article] you see a summary of the various events that occurred near the start of the war. (Bolivia and Peru officially declared war on different dates). You may not agree with the 21 July version, but I'd like to see what you'd produce instead. I can't close the RfC and say 'the following wording is endorsed' if you have not offered actual wording. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I added (diff) an indented paragraph at the beginning of the request to explain the proposed summary. It is only the difference between the 21 July version and the protected version (non controversial changes discarded). --Keysanger (Talk) 20:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Added to the request. I hope it helps. --Keysanger (Talk) 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankie Grande
Could you please take a look at Frankie Grande. User JHUbal27, an editor you previously blocked for edit warring, seems to be at it again. I've already tried to fix things twice, and I realize WP:3RR doesn't apply in such cases, but it's getting a little tedious. Sorry for laying this on your doorstep, but I don't think adding another warning to this person's talk page is going to make much of a difference. Perhaps as an admin, you can try a different course of action. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to take any action since another admin has issued a 72-hour block. Sorry if I brought some unwanted drama to your talk page. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Istotretinoin
Hi Ed, You intervened in a content dispute at Isotretinoin a few months back with a temporary block. The issues have come up again here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:User931_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29

I thought you might be able to add some neutral input to the discussion.

It is not my habit or intent to canvass, and if you feel this solicitation of your opinion is inappropriate, please disregard this request. Frankly I'm not sure what you will say, but you seemed to have sensible things to say last time around, and that can't be a bad thing. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I left a note for User:User931 and am recommending that he rejoin the talk page. There is an incomplete discussion at Talk:Isotretinoin. Since neither side of this dispute has engaged on the talk page since late May I recommend that you do your part there as well. Since issues related to WP:MEDRS can be confusing it would be helpful if you can summarize on talk what you see as the main items in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the last go-round, I see [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Some_difficulties_at_Isotretinoin the ANI discussion] in May that I closed, where I recommended an RfC. There does not yet appear to be an RfC. One editor stated there was 'unsourced addition of novel adverse effects.' Do you believe that is the main problem with User931's changes? Or is it the addition of primary sources to a drug article contrary to WP:MEDRS? EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, thank you for your time and for taking a look at this. I have to admit I may not have handled this ideally the last time around. As it was primarily (at least from my POV) a dispute about what WP:MEDRS permits as a reliable source, I took it over to the Medicine Project Talk page instead of to RFC.  Only a single editor from the medicine project came over to the article and left a comment, and the comment itself was open to interpretation.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48


 * I will be honest with you and say that my reluctance to bring this up on the general boards was based on the impression that non-medical editors here often do not understand the specifics of or the reasoning behind MEDRS. As a result, even cases involving very clearcut violations of the medical sourcing rules often turn into inquiries about the motivations of whichever side is perceived to be taking a more "pro-pharma" position, especially when there is disagreement about the sourcing of adverse events data. Perhaps I am guilty of forum shopping here.


 * The problems with the most recent addition from my POV are as follows: This is a series of statements added with case reports and other primary research papers as the only source. Per MEDRS, " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" (this statement in bold in the original document) and "Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources"  This may sound like overkill, but there are reasons for these rules, and they have been hammered out by the medical editor community after much discussion.


 * A related issue is the involvement of BobMeowCat in this discussion. Several months ago, Bob was on the opposite side of a disagreement from Doc James, Jytdog, and myself with respect to an issue on the paracetamol article.  He responded to every attempt to reason with him by questioning our motives, and dragged Doc and myself into a very short-lived COIN session.  (I was very pleased to have the head of the Medicine Project as a co-defendent, as there is always some risk in these things). Since that time he has developed a habit of showing up when Jytdog or myself are involved in a dispute and voicing support for the other side of the argument, generally on topics that he has shown no previous interest in. Withdrawn with apologies to Bob.  Upon reviewing Bob's edits in greater detail, it appears that most of these involvements can alternatively be understood in terms of his long standing interest in birth defects and childhood health.


 * Well, there it is from my admittedly and unavoidably subjective point of view. I am not sure what involvement on your part is appropriate at this point, given that this issue is now at the edit warring board (where it was submitted by Jytdog). But any advice you can offer will be appreciated.

Thank you for taking the time to look into a subject which I am sure holds for you only a small fraction of that it holds for me. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is an unfounded claim and lacks difs (See WP:AOBF). I responded to this on my talk page regarding following noticeboards and becoming involved in Isotretenion following noticeboard listing a while back and asking that you provide examples beyond Isotretenion   but instead of providing them you report me to an admin?   I actually edit and watch a wide variety of WP pages and honestly do not recall being in multiple disagreements with you.   I’m pretty sure I’ve only been involved with any of the editors from the disagreement on paracetamol since then if it was on a noticeboard I follow or else regarding an RfC, with exception of recently responding on your talk page to provide feedback when an uninvolved editor wrote that your threatening me during the paracetamol discussion wasn't good for debate. .  (PS - and I’m not wikiwhounding you to see this.  I’ve had EdJohnston’s page on watchlist since he blocked me  back in April for violating 1RR on abortion related pages and was involved in talk page dialogue with him to clarify what counted as revert) .   I'd like to ask that you please strike unfounded claims. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Add: I did recently participate in talk page discussions and participated in an RfC regarding a multi-page dispute between Muffinator and DocJames. I agreed with Doc James regarding using person first language for individuals with autism.    I'm not talking sides regarding our past debate but rather I'm responding to current issues.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98, Thank you for striking, I do have a long standing interest in health, but I’m still confused by the “most of these involvements” comment. I honestly can only remember ever editing two articles with you (Paracetamol and Isotretinoin). Regarding disagreement, we obviously firmly disagreed on Paracetamol, but at this point, I’m not even sure I disagree with you on Isotretinoin. Just feel the issue there isn’t clear, but will try to chime in on talk:Isotretinoin when get a chance. Also, I do have multiple noticeboards on watchlist, and I comment on notices semi-regularly. I really do not feel comfortable refraining from commenting on a listing, if I notice something such as not enough reverts for 3RR violation, because your name is associated with report in some way. I do appreciate you apologizing and striking.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

IP Address
You contacted me about the IP 205.232.106.254, asking me if this was my IP. I'm not sure if it is or not. I did edit the status box in that article, but I wasn't the only one making edits. Furthermore, I have used multiple IP addresses in the past, so I'm not sure if that was one of them. In all honesty, I don't really keep track of that stuff. I hope that answers your question, and sorry I couldn't give a better answer. Toolen (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Deutschlandlied
Please review recent edits at Deutschlandlied, in which user Comitus has resumed edit warring by reinsertion of disputed content based on original research, synthesis, and misrepresentation/misinterpretation of sources as well as pointy deletion of an entire long-stable section. 2600:1006:B120:5E5F:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't obvious that User:Comitus's recent edits are a violation. You yourself have never participated at Talk:Deutschlandlied, while Comitus has. Consider adding your own comment at Talk:Deutschlandlied. If you expect to work on controversial articles and you think you may have to appeal to admins for help, your continued use of a fluctuating IP places you under a handicap and might even lead to a block for sockpuppetry. As a registered account you would be in a stronger position. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI
You recently instituted a 48 hour block (see User talk:Texasreb). Upon his return he made the exact edit that was involved in this block and I have again referred it at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please advise

 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=619082782 WP:AE closure on 30 July 2014] for a previous iban violation.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=619082782 WP:AE closure on 30 July 2014] for a previous iban violation.

I would be interested in your opinion regarding this John Carter (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ed, this has turned up at my page too. Generally, it's not a good idea for an Arb to enforce Arbcom decisions - so I'll leave this down to your judgement. It might be best to take the entire incident to AE. Worm TT( talk ) 07:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From the discussion at User talk:Worm That Turned, it seems that User:Ignocrates is aware he can file at WP:AE if he thinks User:John Carter has breached their interaction ban. And vice versa. Both parties might have been better off asking an admin if it was safe to join the ANI discussion before they did so. John could have responded to Fearofreprisal's original ANI complaint by saying that his iban restricted him from commenting. Since John Carter has just returned from a two-week block for an iban violation it would have made sense for him to be cautious. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Would it be considered petty to file a second request based on this edit? I know it is a bit of a trivial violation perhaps, and so soon after your recent finding of no violation, but it does seem to meet the minimum requirements of the 3rd bullet-point at WP:IBAN. And my apologies to you if you think it too trivial to deserve any attention. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a violation there. At least the discussion on Ignocrates' talk sheds some light on the long-running dispute that is now at RFAR. Whenever I see a Request that looks poorly-formed I feel the urge to suggest improvements, so people can see what it's about. In this case it would not be a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong link from having too many screens open and and mouse troubles today. I meant the comment timestamped 17:52 whose link doesn't seem to reproduce correctly despite several attempts on my part in which he seems to have forgotten who filed the 1st Ebionites arbitration at [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites], and who he was arguing against then, but I take your statement as given and thank you for your response. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)
DearEdJohnston, it seems not logical to have this page fully protected. The title of the page itself is 'succession controversy' and if all fact/information whatever available is not presented in whatsoever manner best to Wiki rules this article is of no use/weightage. This article should help reader to decide what are the facts/information being discussed in various sources and they should be free to decide themselves. We can let this page edited in whatever best Wiki possible, such that facts/information which are best represented in all the reliable sources (including primary authenticated source( max.it can be marked for, such that reader can decide themselves about the source) as relaxed at  WP:WPNOTRS, let it be allowed for both the claimants primary sources to give equal opportunities to have best NPOV possible).

Hope this controversy article need not to be fully protected. Semi protected level upto auto conformed editor may be sufficient please.--Md iet (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm the admin who imposed two months of full protection on the Syedna controversy article, after a complaint of edit warring at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive254. The rationale for the protection was "Constant addition of badly-sourced material about an ongoing real-world dispute". The WP:Request edit process gives a way to ensure that new material won't be added without a chance for it to be reviewed by experienced editors and checked against our WP:Reliable sources policy. In my opinion, User:Md iet has already added material that fails this criterion. In your above request you want to make room for "both claimants primary sources." On a hotly disputed topic, where the primary sources are little more than press releases by the contending factions, we are better served by press accounts in reputable newspapers that meet the Wikipedia standards for WP:Reliable sources. You are welcome to make your case on the talk page, though you will persuade more people if you can manage to be brief. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection for "Vaccine controversies" Article
Hi, you recently placed a protection on the above article, ostensibly for the purpose of controlling an edit war. However, if you actually look through the edit history you will see that it is the other editor, and not I, who was hell-bent on some sort of "war of the words". If anything, you should have repremanded or perhaps even blocked *that* particlular editor for their behavior (who, by the way, has a history with distruptive edits), instead of punishing the rest of us as you did by locking out the page. Your response would be appreciated. Thanks! Sebastian Garth (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a *real* edit war on that page, no matter who you believe is at fault. (On September 5 there were at least nine reverts by various people). If you think your version is better, please make an understandable proposal on the talk page on how you think it should read. While you've made some comments on talk, an outsider will have trouble figuring out what the dispute is about. If you think you need wider participation you could open a WP:RFC or use one of the other options listed at WP:Dispute resolution. Any of these methods would require you to precisely specify what you want to see in the article, which would be beneficial. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not necessary - the matter appears to be resolved. The article must be unlocked before we can edit, of course. Sebastian Garth (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi!
Can you semi-protect En otra piel too, User:Damián80 was warring there too. Dswq78 (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Request Response
Hello,

Thank you for responding on the the request page (penguin changes reviewer). I'll wait a bit longer to get more experience. In the meantime, I'll work on editing articles, reverting vandalism and spam, expanding articles, etc.

Batreeqah (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Custom
Hi,

Someone made that for me. It's not taken exactly from the game Club Penguin, it was made by someone and given to me.

Batreeqah (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a derivative work from a copyrighted figure. As such it falls under the same copyright protection as the original. You can check at WP:Copyrights for the policy. If you want, ask for assistance at WP:Editor assistance/Requests. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Banned USer: Iaaasi use user "INeverCry" as his meta puppet
Dear administrator!

User:INeverCry act like a meta puppet of Banned user Iaaasi on Wikimedia Commons, and she deleted many old Hungarian historic photos and paintings from the medieval to pre ww1 era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iaaasi

Banned Iaaasi is a well known chauvinist romanian troll, who is known for his anti-Hungarian sentiment.

Here is the meta puppet's wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:INeverCry

Meta puppets must be deleted.

Bye!--Brelczer (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a concern about Wikipedia Commons you'll need to address it over there. Commons:User:INeverCry is a sysop on Commons. The term 'meta puppet' doesn't exist here. You would have more credibility in exposing sockpuppets if you had some previous Wikipedia edits yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Moon
That IP user is still causing issues over at Sailor Moon S: The Movie. Can you please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you start a discussion at Talk:Sailor Moon S: The Movie that explains what this is about? If you perceive that two IPs (from the same location) are editing the same way it could be worthwhile to open an SPI. Existence of an SPI could justify more admin actions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a run of the xtools rangecontribs tool (from wmflabs) on some IP edits that appear to be the same person. If this were a true pattern of abuse then a rangeblock might be considered. So far I don't see much beyond stubbornness, and that's not enough for a block. Things might be different if there were a pattern of long-term edit warring on a specific issue that could be documented. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hit-Girl
Yes indeed. Thanks for cleaning that up. Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Those sheep
Hi! Those sheep have been there for a couple of weeks now without opposition, or indeed any comment of any kind. Unless you, or  has any objection, I'd like to suggest that they now be moved back to WP:RMTR and dealt with by the ordinary process. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave it a relist yesterday (sorry it took so long, RM is pretty backlogged) and if it went another seven days without further comment I was going to move them. I won't move them earlier than that but if Ed or Anthony want to go for it now I won't object. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Jenks24 for doing the relist. I would be against restoring these to WP:RMTR, now that the formal discussion is in progress. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Egyptian Hypothesis
Thanks. I need to find time to see if an SPI should be raised for the new account, just too busy, but given that it's basically the same content being added as by earlier socks... Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner's removal of sourced content
How would you describe this edit? Bobrayner shows up, doesn't write a word on the talk page and removes a well-sourced review by VICE (magazine). Do I have to ask for permission from anti-Malagurski and anti-Yugoslav editors to add well-sourced content to the website? Isn't he inciting another revert war? --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BATTLE much? If it's very important to you which reviews get included in The Weight of Chains article, consider opening a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. If your aim is to add reviews favorable to Malagurski's thinking and omit unfavorable ones you might be revealing bias. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How is expanding negative criticism by relevant sources considered "omitting unfavorable" reviews? Please, could you explain this to me. Because it seems Pincrete and Bobrayner have manipulated you as well, since anyone who is not anti-Malagurski must be revealing bias, is that correct? I'm not about bias, just relevant sources, that's all. And because I'm not anti-Malagurski, I've been subjected to personal attacks and harassed for every edit I make that favors the quality and not anti-Malagurski POV the two above mentioned editors have pushed. OK, if they want to run the show with your blessing, let the article only have negative reviews (as is the state at the moment, the only positive review --from the reputable VICE magazine-- I added, was removed, to leave 2 blog posts, one by some guy who was kicked out of his blog and called an "idiot" by his own editor, one by some teaching assistant). --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorely tempted to respond to UrbanVillager, but will resist. Thankyou EdJohnston, for your prompt, courteous and impartial involvement in this matter. I shall no longer 'watch' this page, so again thankyou. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP / Philosophical Disagreement
Hi Ed,

You've helped out in the past when I found myself in incipient edit wars, and once again I find myself in a disagreement in which there is a lot of emotion and strong differences of opinion.

Was wondering if you could join us over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tyrone_Hayes and provide a little neutral oversight of what is shaping up to be a difficult discussion.

Much appreciated. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of unpleasant stuff in the Tyrone Hayes article. Neither side of the real-world dispute has behaved optimally. My instincts are to *not* quote the primary material on the view that we don't have to make the article more icky than it already is. Whether policy requires that the material be omitted is another matter. I hope you guys make a good decision. If Hayes is right about the dangers of atrazine then we should indeed be worried. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I agree with your statement about the level of "icky stuff" in the article. I've placed a proposed compromise on the BLP page that we balance the article by cutting a lot of this stuff out rather than by adding the primary reference or any of the more inflammatory secondary references that quote it. Thus far it has not gained any traction.


 * But I wasn't hoping for you to take sides in the content dispute so much as to remind everyone to seek consensus, and avoid edit warring. As we speak, all of my edits to the article (including additional amphibian studies, information that some studies were peformed at unrealistically high atrazine concntrations, and all mention of Hayes harrassment of Syngenta employees) have been reverted with no detailed explanation provided ("reverting per BRD, discuss before editing").  As there are comments on the BLP page suggesting that these were "tit-for-tat" reversions taken in retaliation for my reversion of changes that were made while the discussion was still ongoing, it seems that we are headed into a full on edit war and I was hoping to bring a referee on the field in order to avoid that.


 * I have no idea whether Hayes is right. Its unfortunate that the discussion has to rely on primary sources, as there are not really any secondary ones. Currently the argument about amphibian feminization seems to boil down to Hayes, who seems to have lost his objectivity, vs. a bunch of other scientists, many but not all of whom were funded by Syngenta. I think the article should reflect this ambiguity.


 * It sounds like you don't want to get involved here, so I'll thank you for your time and for your past help and move on. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion doesn't have to rely on primary sources. Ref 1 (Mother Jones) and Ref 6 (Nature) discuss the unusual emails sent by Hayes to company people. We have a separate article on endocrine disruptors which reveals some of the uncertainty in this kind of study. If there are disagreements about using primary sources you might consider WP:RSN. 'We are headed into a full on edit war' -- I think you know how to avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ed. I apologize for the phrase "we are headed into a full on edit war", which of course we are not, because that requires the participation of at least 2 people, and I have no intention of doing that.
 * I think I have shown good faith here by requesting assistance (requesting oversight by an admin is one of the recommended options on one of the policy pages, but I can't find it right now) rather than counter-reverting.
 * I am fine with using the secondary references but even these have been deleted with no explanation that is sufficiently detailed to allow me to respond
 * As I understand it, since we are already on a general request for input board (BLP), moving to another board might be seen as forum shopping.
 * I think I"ve done my best here to obey the rules, avoid edit warring, and seek compromise.  I do not feel the other party's behavior, which includes massive reversions performed with no detailed explanation that I can respond to is in the same spirit.
 * Given that it takes two to compromise, and two to edit war, and the other party currently seems disinclined to do to the former, I will walk away from this dispute. it is difficut to see how to proceed.
 * Formerly 98 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

History of User talk:Notwillywanka in wrong place
Currently the talk page history is associated with the archive, not the talk page. Would you please fix this? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Ed. I would like to let you know that another SPA is making fringe edits and edit-warring on Ioannis Kapodistrias adding fringe information about alleged Albanian relatives of Kapodistrias. They also left a nasty PA on my talk. This is while I am in the middle of the latest SPI regarding similar disruption in other Balkan-related articles such as Ancient Macedonians. I would appreciate any help/advice. Thank you and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ed for your professional response. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Users Pincrete and UrbanVillager


With all due respect, your decision here:- makes no distinction between reverts that remove refs to BLPs, or inserts prejudicial descriptions of BLPs, or which have the agreement of the majority, and mere blind 'making a point'. What is an editor to do when another editor does not engage in discussion, but then sails in and reverts, again and again and again, for many years and against the wishes of the majority? I accept a 'rap on the knuckles', but also did expect some credit for 'calling a truce' and repeatedly attempting to resolve the matter on talk. Should I post this? Probably not, but will do so anyway … … thanks for reading this. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When there is a huge list of reverts by the two parties which has been going on since June, you and the other party should both have expected a block. If you think there is a BLP concern, you can ask for advice at WP:BLPN. Even if you are right about the issue, you place yourself in the wrong by continuing the revert war. There is still time for you to self-revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry we seem to have an edit conflict, this is the text which I was writing at the same time as your reply: … … …Re:- your message on my talk page "Your are risking a block due to your edits", I beg to differ, the edit you refer to was YESTERDAY, 22 hours before your decision, and was part of the 'truce' between UrbanVillager and myself which I initiated, Here (edit at 16:10 4 September 2014). In the circumstances, do you still want me to demonstrate consensus? Pincrete (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry for my mistake. You don't have to self-revert, but please be aware of the issue for the future. If you plan to make any controversial change again, you should get agreement for your change first on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Understood. And thanks for remedying so quickly.Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies for going back on this subject, I cannot prove consensus for my many reverts, but I can prove that they were the majority wish of the editors currently - or previously - involved, (the principal other current editor having a long standing relationship with the page). I actually intended to add these proofs later today, not expecting that your decision would be so swift. Would such proofs make any difference to your decision? Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you could obtain a clear consensus on the talk page for your desired change, that would make a difference. It requires that people actually come and give their agreement; it couldn't just be a resurvey of old history. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, I understand the principle and have successfully, and cautiously applied it across almost all of the pages which I have edited. What you are effectively saying however, is that a single editor (if s/he so chooses), has an indefinite power of veto over 2, 3, 4, X others, all of whom may be operating closer to guidelines. I understand that you are implementing policy and thank you once again for the courtesy and clarity of your responses. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

UpDate: UrbanVillager has just made 3 consecutive edits on the previously disputed text, diffs here:. The first diff which claims to be 'as per talk' is the most serious … the second and third are trivial concerning only an acceptable renaming of a section and a link to a newly created page concerning a sequel … for which not even a release date exists. They are here:- and here:-.

That there is NOT consensus about changing 'Criticism', despite recent patient discussion by me is evidenced here:, here:- and here:-. Since the discussion is a long one, you might want to read the LAST link FIRST, as the last very explicitly states that I do not agree with these changes, this last was written this morning and both read and replied to by UrbanVillager prior to his making these changes. All these discussions are SINCE the warning from you.

I apologise for bothering you, and if I am posting in the wrong place please advise me.Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Further update, I notice that UrbanVillager has just restored the Pavlica, at the END of the criticism section. However the rest of the section is his own 'mangled' version as inserted this morning, which EXPLICITLY had no consensus (including a considerable amount of material copied direct from an 'ad' for the film).


 * UrbanVillager has done what you LITERALLY asked, but ignored its spirit entirely. I am prepared to revert to the text that existed this morning, but will not do so without your 'say so'.Pincrete (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Further complications, another editor has 'stepped in' and removed the most offensive/least consensual parts of UrbanVillager's edit. I shall 'tidy' in the understanding that my tidy will not leave the section substantially different from how it was this AM. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC) … … ps I have now restored the text to approx. this morning's state, I have retained parts of UVs text which would have been acceptable had he proposed them and corrected factual BLP issues. I cannot contact the other editor tonight, but have no reason to believe that the changes would be unacceptable to him. Thankyou for your efforts.Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies again for bothering you, UrbanVillager has just inserted two completely new 'reviews' in the disputed section of the article. Both are in Serbian and neither seem to be reviews at all, rather articles, one of the reviews is written by a (very small) magazine that the film maker himself works for.

Neither review has consensus, since neither has been submitted for discussion or evaluation (or translation). It is possible that parts of either COULD be used, but having engaged in completely DIFFERENT discussions on talk for the last week, these reviews suddenly appeared tonight. Neither I nor any editor even knew about them.

It is impossible for me to believe that UrbanVillager is doing anything other than intentionally acting in bad faith. … ps I'm not sure whether it is proper to tell you this, but the three principal editors connected with the page are currently at ANI:- . Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston, apologies yet again, I would be grateful for any response, whether it was telling me I shouldn't 'involve' you, telling me the matter is in hand, or … whatever, I am 'pinging' you only in case you did not see the message above. I will interpret silence as a wish to not be further involved. Thanks. Pincrete (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

RcLd-91
Hi Ed. The remaining sock of Biar122/Arb12345/Malbin210 has reactivated again after his first 3RR block. Due to the delay in Sockpuppet investigations/RcLd-91 we have a problem. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you again and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Now blocked indef as a sock. If the regular clerks and admins at SPI reach a different conclusion they can revise this action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. Thank you very much Ed. All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputed content on MOS:DABSYN
Hi, thanks for protecting the page while the RfC is being discussed! I notice that the current version of the page has the proposed guideline included. Would you mind reverting to the previous version until consensus can be reached as to whether or not the new guideline should be added? Otherwise this may mislead other editors who are unaware of its non-consensus status. Thanks. Augurar (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose this, for a few reasons. One being that it's the subject of an edit war which got the page protected. Two being that the individual who's requesting it's removal seems to be the only one with the objection. Three being that it will not harm the project to remain there until the RfC is finished. It does not require the use of admin tools to better the project.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 02:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could at least be tagged as disputed? Note that I am not the only one arguing against the addition of this content.  By my count there are three editors in favor and two opposed so far, including myself. But this is irrelevant.  It was added without consensus and should not have been.  This should be corrected. Augurar (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The usual practice is for admins to protect the current version of the page, whatever it may happen to be. The RfC can make the decision about the permanent wording. If we need to wait a week or two for the outcome, we can remind ourselves that there is no deadline. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Thanks! Augurar (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sock


Hi, I noticed that you gave TitanSlayer232 a Ds/alert. From his contributions on Ariel University page it seems like it is a sock either of JarlaxleArtemis, Kipa Aduma, Esq. or AmirSurfLera. I have opened an SPI. I am not experienced in SPI matters, so I am not sure if I did the right thing or perhaps I moved too quickly. Kingsindian (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't hurt to make a report, but three suggestions you made for the sockmaster don't seem very likely. The three people you named have edited at Ariel University but are not blocked and have never been shown to be socks. The only one that could make sense is JarlaxleArtemis, but you would have to provide more data on the resemblances if you want to give any serious help to whoever handles the SPI.  If an account has only four edits it doesn't provide us with much behavior to analyze. Better to wait and see where he goes from here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it seems you are right: the SPI has been closed as unrelated. I will keep your points in mind in the future. Kingsindian (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Resumed edit warring by User:Ism schism


Hi Ed. On September 15 you closed this 3RR request as stale, which it was, since the user after being reported for a 3RR violation ceased to edit war. In your closing note you wrote "But report again if the user resumes warring on the POV tag.". Well, Ism schism has resumed the edit war. Additionally he has also started new edit warr over other issues with other users.  Volunteer Marek  03:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, note that they have not engaged in any talk page discussion regarding the tag in between the closure and the resumption of the edit war.  Volunteer Marek  03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And more.  Volunteer Marek  03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And stalking.  Volunteer Marek  03:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

3rr violations of Volunteer Marek

 * Tags do require consensus and User:Volunteer Marek has not attempted this on the talk page. They have simple reverted, , are 3 reverts of the POV tag in the last day. This is disruptive editing without an attempt at new consensus. Many editors have commented in numerous threads on the talk page in order to address POV. The issues are there, and are being addressed by many constructive editors, aside from this editors attempts to simply delete the tag.
 * Also, the accusation of "stalking" is a bit absurd and/or paranoid. I edit articles related to Ukraine. This editor know this as well.
 * I have use the talk page to address these issues:, , , and work with other editors in trying to construct articles, find and address issues, and move towards NPOV. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is continued at User talk:Ism schism. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hasmens Here
Its not the removal of the sections that concerns me, it is the whole notion that the removal was are targeted racially motivated act on behalf of Dr.K. Dr.K's comment on GiorgosY user account clearly is evident of his nature, this is the exact remark he made; note that this user is now banned from repeated disruption and violation on wikipedia. On the other hand I feel that Admin Diana is possibly abusing there admin role. The nature that this was dealt with wasn't very positive nor constructive, nor was it neutral in any nature. I also noticed that sections that were not added by me were also removed leaving the article on Northern Cyprus in a terrible un-repaired state. I would like to foward this

I don't believe that Admin Diana has acted in an appropriate nature when dealing with this issue, I am aware that the sections were copyright but the nature in which it was dealt was wrong. This is not what Wikipedia should be about. I was not aware of the copyright issues as I was still new to editing on Wikipedia and still learning, if I were to put the information into my own words Dr.K still disapproved of my edits by saying there not well sourced when they were clearly taking from books written by historians. Even if I were to provide more than one source he would still disprove, it seems the truth has disturbed this fellow Wikipedia user, if am not aloud to write well sourced truths, than my time on editing Wikipedia an even reading Wikipedia articles will be over. The level of inaccuracy and bias articles seen on Wikipedia will in future lead this site to losing much of its popularity and legitimacy as it already is declining. Good Day. ( Hasmens (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC) )


 * Hi Ed. The quote of Hasmens above has been made by GiorgosY and not by me. Aside from that, how long can this account go on accusing me of such vile things, even after the ANI thread? I think a block is needed at this time. Thank you and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Hasmens. You are not doing yourself any favors with your post here. I'm assuming that English is not your first language. Might you be better off editing a Wikipedia in your own language?  EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not very professional of you to insult my language EdJohnston. English is indeed my first language. ( Hasmens (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC) )


 * Hi Ed. I think Hasmens, a militant serial plagiarist, at this stage, has become an attacking troll who proliferates transparent lies and racist attacks against me because he enjoys doing it. Please observe that although I exposed his transparent lie he made no attempt to rectify his lying accusation that the quote above is mine. I think this must stop. As you know, as a respected and professional admin at AE, this area of editing is very toxic. If these trolls have their way it will become a walled garden run only by them.  The troll made his racist attacks against me as a kind of aversion therapy. He hopes to deter me from editing the Northern Cyprus-related articles so he keeps repeating these vile lies.  He already got a level-4 NPA warning by me on his talk and another NPA warning by  at ANI. I think that he should be blocked for his racist attacks if NPA and the policy on harassment mean something. I also think that he should be stopped to give him a message that his crude attempts at aversion therapy cannot be successful and that personal attacks as a form of aversion therapy do not belong in Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  18:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hasmens should be aware that making politically-sensitive changes to our articles on Northern Cyprus will get him in trouble quickly, since he has a poor grasp of consensus. He has uploaded some new pictures of Northern Cyprus which seems harmless. His comments above where he attributes changes by GiorgosY to Dr. K. do suggest he is not fully paying attention.  It would show good faith if he would correct his own posts above and strike out the mistakes. His failure to understand copyright (as discussed at ANI) is a fast route to an indefinite block if he continues along that route. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ed, I fully agree with your comments. But the issue here is not the repeated copyright violations by this longterm, serial plagiarist or his clumsy and clueless attempts of falsely attributing GiorgosY's comments to me. It is his repeated harassment of me in an attempt to enshrine his copyvios in the article of northern Cyprus and to intimidate me so that he can have a free hand in proliferating his violations of the copyright policy on Wikipedia. He should not be allowed a free hand to pursue his campaign of harassment against me because it not only violates our relevant policies, but it gives him the impression that he can continue doing it without repercussions. I am not here to second-guess your approach on this or to put pressure on you to change it. My respect for you would preclude such choice of action on  my part. But I just wanted to put on the record the additional dimensions of this unrepentant plagiarist's ongoing attacks. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  19:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The volunteer left the DRN discussion about WP:ARBPIA issue.
Hi

You notified me in the past about a DRN discussion.This discussion is now stale as volunteer decided not to continue .Maybe you as admin can help somehow.Thanks.--Shrike (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an unexpected outcome. I wish we could avoid the whole issue by adding a suitably vague statement to the article about the reasons for the rocket fire, but the people who care about these things really care, and it's hard to change their minds. I'm unsure how helpful it is for admins like myself to participate at DRN because the mission there is one of pure mediation. Even if the DRN has failed, you could try negotiating with User:Nishidani directly and see if you can reach a common view. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm amenable to any negotiation that refrains from personal views. If any editor wishes to use any office of wikiworks to resolve this contretemps, they should simply declare that they will (a) avoid all personal constructions of the evidence (b) answer point by point objections raised, concisely (c) the result must satisfy WP:NPOV, without blaming either side, but simply stating what the relevant RS say. The plaintiff consistently has theories unsupported by any evidence, and second-guessed motives and sources. We must not do that. Re (b), when pinged to contribute to the DRN, I wrote a lengthy analysis of Goldberg's 2 articles. The answer was to talk past it, and raise more personal musings over jihadis and Hamas, and Hamas. This flagged the possibility that we'd be hauled into another enormous tongue-wagging exercise. I've a few serious articles totally unrelated to this I/P nonsense, and can't afford spending time if I can see that the probable outcome is just chat, while an already deeply compromised article I've dropped trying to help edit, continues on its merry way.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki
Hey, you were involved with the incidents between me and Hotwiki that led to his banning and my agreeing to avoid X-Men related pages for a week. I just wanted to let you know that now that Hotwiki is back, he has taken it upon himself to revert several pages to how they were before he was banned, and in many cases has given no or inadequate reasoning for it. I can't get involved, as I have agreed to leave the pages and user alone until Saturday I think, but I thought I should let you know about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, my edits have no reasoning? Adamstom.97, okay
 * Fantastic Four in film
 * X-Men: Days of Future Past
 * X-Men (film series)
 * Take a look at those links, I've given an edit summary to most of my edits there. Plus when I was banned for 1 day, those articles especially the X-Men (film series) were added by information that didn't have a source, list of cast members which not even 100% confirmed, and I cleaned them up myself and then you are gonna report like as if I reverted your edits again... And FYI, Adamstom.97, you also admitted to the talk page of X-Men (film series) that you removed things from my edit that shouldn't be deleted (like the updated box-office gross and 20th Century Fox Entertainment releasing the home media releases) and I just recovered them because you wouldn't do it yourself.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is hardly the place to be having a discussion about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit wars are usually about something in particular and this time it's hard for me to follow what's in dispute. So I recommend that User:Adamstom.97 consider following WP:Dispute resolution after 15:10 on 26 September when he is once again  free to pursue this matter. If in the future you wind up filing a second AN3 report you can link to the first one. Of course, it would be better to find a negotiated agreement on the talk page of one of the articles or at WT:FILM. EdJohnston (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR warning
Thanks for closing the report Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. My original request was for making Red Slash aware of the possibility of 1RR applying to this LAME by asking for the editor to be notified with a Template:Syrian_Civil_War_enforcement. As only admins can do that, and 1RR isn't binding until the user is notified with it, we've now got the situation that I gave several warnings and escalated it there (more than I'd want to), but as it hasn't been given, 1RR still isn't in effect. The irony is that I'm not even against that editors proposed PRIMARYTOPIC, it just needs to follow process and not cause breakage and disruption for one of our most highly accessed content. Widefox ; talk 07:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be concerned that the 1RR is not binding. The community 1RR applies to all editors and doesn't require a prior notice using Template:Syrian Civil War enforcement. (Though someone will probably not be blocked for 1RR if they can argue convincingly they were not aware). Red Slash is now aware and I assume that he will watch himself in the future. User:Red Slash's interest in the ISIS page is apparently due to his being active at WP:Requested moves and in disambiguation issues and not specifically due to a prior interest in that part of the world. If subsequent events show that my assumption about Red Slash being careful was not correct then I'll issue the templated warning. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Appreciate. Keep up the good work. Widefox ; talk 17:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration
Hello EdJohnston,

I'd like to request you to check out my response here and reconsider your decision. You can also look at [this article where people keep adding fixtures where it was meant to be just Draw. And I've to undo these types of edits so that I can help keep the articles according to their purpose. So if I'll have rollback right I can do it with ease. Ashesh 01:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by Asheshneupane95 (talk • contribs)
 * Replied at WP:PERM/R. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

arbcom question
I really don't want to get involved in another arbcom case, but I wanted to point out something relevant to one of the cases. Specifically it's about Neotarf on the AE page and comments they made on another arbcom post. Am I able to just mention it to an arbiter like you on your talk page? Or do I need to file it on the AE page?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Filing it at AE won't do any good since he hasn't been notified of the discretionary sanctions. Maybe you're referring to [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Callanecc_.28with_arb_clerk_hat_on.29 the issue already mentioned] by User:Callanecc in the AE complaint. Unless something that happens on an Arbcom case page is really awful I think the Arbcom clerks can handle it. By the way I'm not an arbitrator. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought you were an arbiter for some reason, but ok. The statement I'm referring to is this (factually incorrect) statement: Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. I did warn Neotarf about that statement and mentioned the discretionary sanctions, but no templated warning. Neotarf was clearly aware of the Manning Dispute and its resolution, so the only issue is that they weren't formally templates (which to me doesn't seem like a big deal, but it might be to the arbcom). If this info should be added to the AE, let me know. Cheers.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are confident that Neotarf is aware of the Manning sanctions per his page here why don't you add that information to the AE. This might change the thinking of the admins. The statement you quote above by Neotarf doesn't seem very incriminating, though. He is making that statement to Arbcom.  If Arbcom believes Neotarf is out of line by making that statement they can take the appropriate action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring evidence gathering
Hi, could you show me how to get evidence for edit warring reports so I can use them for the future? If you can please leave the message on my talk page. Thanks! - Theironminer (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

AE Comments
If you took just a few minutes you could easily find evidence that Neotarf is intimately familiar with these cases [] and even more telling []. I do not expect you to go back n my talkpage archives but when it's at the top of the page I'm reporting it's a little frustrating that requests are declined. Maybe I wasn't clear enough but either way they are aware and have been for some time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparent COI Editing
Hi EdJohnston. I misunderstood at first the WP:COI and the WP:Lead sections. I now understand them and there should be no additional need for action. I am clear as to how Wikipedia works now and am willing to work with other editors who are also willing to work with me to make factual corrections to articles. Thank you for reaching out to me. One note regarding the statement but you removed most of the other information from the lead about her albums and other matters.: my edits will show that I removed sections which did not have proper citations and reworded existing content to match WP:Style. Ssilvers is upset because I did not understand about WP:COI and is understandably over-reacting slightly with some mild hyperbole. I'm not upset by it, Ssilvers was simply trying to make a point. I have no intention of rewording the lede at this point unless there is a relevant event, there are grammatical or spelling errors. Loudersoft (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation
As always, I appreciate your calm and wise approach at 3RR. I just disagree that BLPNAME allows for what you suggest, and what others are suggesting. Nonetheless, you are one of the admins I respect and have high regard for. Even when we disagree. Cheers, -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Systemic Bias Tag
Just to clarify regarding your previous decision, am I permitted to replace the Systemic Bias tag at American-led intervention in Iraq to continue solicitation of discussion or was it your feeling 6 hours was enough of a discussion on that? As I am the subject of active block-shopping by a tightly coordinated group of editors interfacing on IRC and elsewhere, I want to proceed with an over-abundance of caution in all my edits. Sorry for the hassle of this direct request and thanks, in advance. DocumentError (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind your direct request, but a distant view of your activities suggests you are at the center of a disagreement. You are a sort of whirling dervish of discontent, portraying the others who disagree with you as members of a conspiracy. While this may sometimes happen, it seems unlikely. It is rather more common to see an editor with distinctive views who has trouble persuading his colleagues on the talk page, and reacts to that by seeking help from administrators. The fact that you have used multiple venues adds to that impression. Since I have no time today to get to the bottom of this, any further adventures you have will be on our own. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand. I would just note that at least one case of meatpuppetry has been uncovered: . Given the colorful block history of the other participants supporting the meatmaster, I would suspect there is a lot more going on here than I am able to uncover being only a single editor with no special insight, but I do appreciate that it's sometimes more trouble to look into or lend some help than the article or editor is worth. Thanks for listening and I'll take your advice to disengage and let this group and/or individual do what they/he likes in these articles without further objections. DocumentError (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is only the latest in a string of promises to disengage, each broken. He is heaping ridicule on insult on false accusation against any editor that does not see things his way. I was once blocked for a year on BLP for saying somethings about another edit that were very mild (I learned my lesson) compared to the nonsense this editor is spreading.  I'm not an expert in Admin processes - I just like to write - but I'd appreciate you looking into his recent history when you get a chance. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You said you were "once blocked for a year" and yet your block log is clean . Can you understand how this, coupled with the meatpuppetry (whether intentional or not), uncovered above, and the tightly coordinated edits (among a dozen other things too numerous to mention) creates a frustrating degree of suspicion for those on the other side of the edit discussion as you?
 * As for disengagement, I unilaterally retracted my 1RR complaint against you in hope of disengagement. At that point you began block-shopping me and triumphantly declaring you had "won" the argument and my attempt to disengage was proof of my "guilt" - a display of a type I've never seen on WP ever. At that point I reintroduced the 1RR against you - as I noted, to disabuse you of the notion that I was admitting "guilt" (whatever that means) - which the admin chose not to act upon, as is his right.
 * Each of my attempts at disengagement has been met with similar hounding. But don't worry, your trio won. This is something I've never experience on WP and is way too much. It's just not worth it to me. I'm retiring so you can do what you like with the ISIS articles. Best - DocumentError (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal opinion
I'm new here and I do appreciate input -- esp. when the person giving it actually reads the material (e.g. "Kingsindian appears to be saying that the reasoning for your revert is poor") and asking questions to understand what I am saying. The issue (I believe) is over but perhaps a sanity check is in order. In your opinion, was it poor judgement to note that a statement from a bomb disposal official from the police force is not the same as "Ministry of Interior said"? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Address your concern to the other editors on the article talk page. Some of your statements suggest a WP:Battleground attitude: "Do the project a favor and don't post these as a means of silencing people you argue with. Fascist behavior is uncool." This was your response to being given a routine ARBPIA notice. If you intend to work on WP:ARBPIA articles you should not expect sweetness and light. Too much complaining to admins will hurt your credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will try to keep your advice to heart. Don't worry about my sanity-check question. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to thank you. I would have placed another request for guidance by now but you've made it clear that I should just roll with the punches. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you for efforts to direct me in the right path. I have, for example, opened a dispute at WP:RSN and there appears to be clear consensus against using a comic-book in neutral voice of history. I am very new to English Wikipedia and have had another issue, which is more troubling, and I would appreciate your insightful comments on best ways of handling this complex issue. I am noting a couple admins so they see my attempts to improve future collaboration. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The complexity involved here is that people jump to the wrong conclusions based on shallow understanding of the material and bad faith (no offense intended). I had linked to the discussion part, my diff above includes a link where I add the full explanation to my userpage. Thank you for your consideration. I am very much open to suggestions on improving this, in hopes that no one will assume I think one side or the other is evil. It is merely a longstanding dispute over self determination in the same territory. That people on both sides do terrible things cannot be disputed. That I have bad intentions and have called someone an antisemite, is wholly incorrect. Thanks in advance. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * First update here. Probably far from perfect, but I think it makes progress. Let me know where else you I can improve it to reduce (and/or quickly diffuse) bad-faith allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

BKWSU
Ed,

Where has this result been discussed and decided and by who? If you look at the edits they were both gradual and incorporated others neutral edits.

The reverting going on is by a group of individuals all connected to the religion, reverting back work to their chosen version which reads like an advert. It is impossible to justify it as it contains many errors or mistakes which Wikipedians are clear encouraged to act upon, e.g. unreferenced, out of date references, blogs references, self-published references etc etc etc.

Members of this group appear to be doing little more than filing complaints against others, and reverting their article.

In addition, why did only I get a warning when this group is clearly revert back any chances?

Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As I predicted, despite another editor editing, the first thing that happened in the lead BK editor reverted back the page to their preferred revision, deleting not just some but basically all of the development.


 * I suspect the reason for this is a gamble, a provocation to see if I would continue editing it after which they would report me in order to try and remove me from the process.


 * As I have pointed out, it is impossible for me to discuss, and I have documented the reasons for my changes as I went along, if they refuse to answer.


 * Your warning says, "may". I think that you need to look a little closer at what is going on here. They are not even attempting to "talk out" any changes, like politicians, it has just been one identical revert after another.


 * I am not skilled in Wikipedian language and game playing, and do not have the time to construct endless reports, but it seems to be clear what is going on.


 * Would you ask them if Danh108 if BKs are being centrally coordinate/supported/tutored by other BK adherents to control their religion's topic page? They won't answer me. Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Admins are aware that adherents might be trying to influence the page. At the moment we are discussing your behavior, not theirs. If you try to be a good participant in the discussion there is hope for the future. See my comment on your talk page for some ways of doing that. I linked you to some talk threads where your participation would be welcome. If you continue to make a lot of reverts without waiting for support, things won't look so good. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My behaviour has included taking a page that was littered with problematic content, cleaning up and rationalising why. No one appears to have taken that into consideration and judging it.


 * Personally, I thought that was what the Wikipedia was all about, not war gaming to block others from "your" pages? I am at a loss because I am only one person and I don't have the time and energy to invest learning the game. Nor is it my personality type to play it.


 * I wish some neutral others would look at the actual content and accept that I have actually done a half decent job at starting to clean up a page which was a mess for the lack of any discussing or questioning what the BKs were up to. Thanks. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Most people who revert an article think that they have good reasons for reverting. But they can't all be right. You can't just appoint yourself to be the keeper of the article and decide that everyone else is wrong. "I am only one person and I don't have the time and energy to invest learning the game". This makes it sound like you don't have the patience to wait for a discussion. But that's how we do things here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, I would just like to inform that after starting this conversation, and therefore evidently being aware of the warning you gave, the User:Truth is the only religion already made another identical revert of 15,000 bytes. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ed and sorry to butt in. About a year ago I fully protected following an edit war. I've been fairly inactive since then so I was a tad surprised to see the page pop up on my watchlist with essentially the same edit war still ongoing. User:Truth is the only religion is, I have no doubt whatsoever, the latest incarnation of. Same combative approach, same arguments, reverting to a version written originally by said user. See also the SPI archive: Sockpuppet investigations/Januarythe18th/Archive. User:Nyttend made the original block, however, rather than myself. If I had seen the account back when it started editing, I would have just blocked it but things have moved on since then. CIreland (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:CIreland, please consider adding this information to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Januarythe18th. If a long block turns out to be needed then an SPI filing is good to have as a record of the issues. I'm also leaving a ping for User:Adjwilley who participated in the same SPI earlier. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In spite of his discussion with me above, and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Truth_is_the_only_religion&diff=627847786&oldid=627841250 a warning not to do so], Truth has gone ahead with his program of revising the BKWSU article to his preferred version so I've issued a one-week block. Two other threads on the socking issue are these comments by User:JamesBWatson:
 * Comment by JamesB on Truth's talk page (12 August 2014)
 * Comment by JamesB to User:GreyWinterOwl on the existing sock data.
 * User:CIreland, if you are confident about the sock matter then you should proceed with whatever action you think best. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read this section and read through the archived SPI, but I have no memory whatsoever of the situation. Looking at the account's edits and block log, I expect that January outed someone at Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University on 8 October last year (several edits there have been oversighted, and that's two days before I blocked him), but that's literally all I can tell you.  I'm happy to help with the situation if anyone would like me to, but please don't expect me to be able to do anything that requires prior familiarity with this user.  Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:CIreland. I am the editor who was outed and the same guy is back. I find SPI's are hard because like Nyttend states, not many people engage enough with the blocked editor to recognise their new account....I smelt a rat very early on but it blew up in my face and got used to paint me as the religious nut trying to control the article. I can definitely contribute some diff's to an SPI. User:Januarythe18th's talk page pumps out the same conspiracy theory rhetoric being used on the article talk page against any editors who disagree with his POV. Plus this hive mind comment got used a few times by the past account - I can track back to find it. User:GraemeLeggett was also a neutral observer of the previous account - I would be interested to get his opinion (I will ping him re this convo) CheersDanh108 (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read this section and read through the archived SPI, but I have no memory whatsoever of the situation. Looking at the account's edits and block log, I expect that January outed someone at Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University on 8 October last year (several edits there have been oversighted, and that's two days before I blocked him), but that's literally all I can tell you.  I'm happy to help with the situation if anyone would like me to, but please don't expect me to be able to do anything that requires prior familiarity with this user.  Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:CIreland. I am the editor who was outed and the same guy is back. I find SPI's are hard because like Nyttend states, not many people engage enough with the blocked editor to recognise their new account....I smelt a rat very early on but it blew up in my face and got used to paint me as the religious nut trying to control the article. I can definitely contribute some diff's to an SPI. User:Januarythe18th's talk page pumps out the same conspiracy theory rhetoric being used on the article talk page against any editors who disagree with his POV. Plus this hive mind comment got used a few times by the past account - I can track back to find it. User:GraemeLeggett was also a neutral observer of the previous account - I would be interested to get his opinion (I will ping him re this convo) CheersDanh108 (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping EdJohnston, and sorry for my slow response. I have been editing the article itself, trying to hammer out some of the problems, and I appreciate your intervention, as that users edits were quite disruptive to the editing process. (It's a bit discouraging to spend a couple of hours on a few paragraphs only to have everything wiped out every day in mass reverts to some old revision.) Anyway, I have been participating as an editor rather than an admin, as I tend to do around religious-themed articles. I had been meaning to file an AN3 report, but hadn't found the time to actually sit down and gather diffs. Regarding the SPI, I looked into that a week or two ago but hadn't found enough diffs for a really convincing report, though the MO is a match, as is the apparent inability to collaborate. I remember there being very suspicions that the old (Januarythe18th) account was a sock of someone else, but it was kind of the same deal where nobody could prove anything. In the end, it was the outing that led to the indef block, combined, if I recall correctly, with an obvious sock-puppet of either Januarythe18th or (as he claimed) someone trying to impersonate him. Anyway, I think the block was appropriate, and wanted to say thanks for the effort you put into resolving this. I also thought the warning you gave was an appropriate and creative approach :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice
Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year block topic ban due to my nomination of American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, "getting" a page locked from IP editing, and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here: ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.) DocumentError (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment
May I comment here without running afoul of my restrictions? I wish to make a comment in support (ironically) of the person against whom the filing was made. Imo, the original comment that led to this filing was completely tendentious. diff An editor with an axe to grind against both parties thought they saw an opportunity for a two-fer and they took it. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed comment as a sign of good faith. - Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, though whatever action is taken at AE is likely to be based only on the evidence presented there. Ret. Prof, you must be referring to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=628276491 your recent edit], but there are no Ebionites in that ANI discussion. If you want to refer at ANI to a 'group of user accounts working together' you would normally be expected to say who your are referring to and give evidence, or withdraw your statement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the interaction ban? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Two parties can be in the same thread so long as they don't interact. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, then I will strike. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Request
You semi-protected the Ephesians article, after a report that after only two edits I was accused of both sock puppet and edit warring. I request that you rescind your blocking as I have been unfairly accused and now blocked for an entire month from editing this article. I was an IP when I made one revert, and right after created an account. Then I made one more revert. So only two. Now I've created an account and would like to edit, but cannot. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please use the article talk page to explain the change that you favor. That's the best way to establish your good faith. Neither you nor the IP has any editing record, which is a handicap if you are hoping to be taken seriously. Starting an account and using it to make an edit, while giving the other editors no indication that you are the same person as the IP, is questionable under the WP:SOCK policy. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the sock puppet article, and what I did is not even close to abuse. 1 edit is not abuse. I think you are over-reaching and over-reacting. Don't you think? I ask you again to revert your protection. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain (a) why you still haven't used the article talk page? (b) why you are [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JudeccaXIII&diff=prev&oldid=628396696 still using the IP] even after the 3RR report was closed? Are you planning to use both identities on a continuing basis? If so you should read WP:SCRUTINY. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I used ip as a response because that's where the user left me a message, simple. And why did you delete my comment on the trial board? Am I not allowed even one single comment in defense? This is quite concerning Tikki-Tembo (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe I deleted your comment, please provide a diff. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I click on the link you provided and I don't see my comment anymore. I give up. Trying is just too hard. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston, the user is violating WP:MOS/WTW and is refusing to read the policy as this edit shows in this other article: |1. What will the user do once you removed the protection? Already, this user has made this new account to send this request, and hasn't informed me yet. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * JudeccaXIII, please use Talk:Book of Lamentations to explain your concern. It's hard to be sympathetic when two editors are in a dispute and neither one will use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Umm... What's wrong with my other edit now? It's neutral and sourced. Please use talk page of article to interact with me, and my edits.Tikki-Tembo (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

UST Global Now Again Removing The Documented Founder from The Wikipedia Site


Hello Ed. I hope you are doing well. After just a few weeks of the 'Edit Protection' being lifted - we have now reverted back to an individual making multiple edits to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross.

Thanks for considering what you had done the last 3 times of placing a restriction on edits for a period of XX days.

I am grateful to you Ed for this. Thanks & Regards, SteveJRoss Stevejross (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Stevejross (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have left a note at User talk:Esvobo. In the mean time, have you come across any other reliable sources which discuss the founding of the company, which might be helpful? Any press coverage which is not already mentioned in the article? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your note to Esvobo. He will not be able to provide a citation for Menon as founder because it was me who Brought Mr. Menon into the business (who I consider a dear friend) 1 year after I started the business. Thank you for watching to see if you receive a response (or no response) from this individual. We need this site to go back to a) being factual and b) so UST Global responsible individuals can go back to making accurate edits about their business.

Here is a citation about the founding of the business:

http://www.hklaw.com/news/Holland-Knight-Secures-75-Million-Award-in-Arbitration-Over-Interest-in-IT-Outsourcing-Company-01-15-2008/

I will send other citations to you as I find them.

Thank you Ed.

Sincerely,

Steve Ross Stevejross (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ed,

We have noticed that over a week has gone by, and user User talk:Esvobo has not responded to your note.

Can we put the site back to where it was before this user removed the factual citations. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Steve Ross Stevejross (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Steve. I can't stop you from changing the article if you want to do so but you will be on safer ground if you first make a proposal on the talk page for the change and then wait another 24 hours. If there is an edit war and you haven't participated on Talk it won't look so good. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ed,

I noticed that the UST Page is now 'Semi-Protected.' Can I ask you what does this mean. Am I able to make changes to the site while it is semi-protected ?

If the individual User talk:Esvobo continues to remove our documented edits, without responding to either you or me (and without any citations of backup) - will you then consider putting back the block on edits for a period of time ?

I do appreciate your suggestions and guidance. I will post to the talk page of User talk:Esvobo as you suggested.

Thanks for your reply to my questions when you have a chance.

Best Regards,

Steve Stevejross (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Steve, the semiprotection won't affect you. It only prevents editing by anonymous IPs. Under our policy, that is the highest level of protection that is currently justified. EdJohnston (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Renewable resource
Hallo EdJohnston, with regard to the Renewable_resource conflict, there is no sign of an interest in consensus so far. The discussion on the talk page drifts into allegation of a conflict of interest on my side. I am not willing to continue like this, being asked to "explain myself" instead of discussing the sources in question. Is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring closed? What would you recommand? Thnx Serten (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that the issue of the German-language source was resolved in your favor. Now there appears to be a dispute about the nature of renewable resources, but in a quick glance I can't tell the nature of the dispute. So long as people continue to write walls of text, newcomers may hesitate to come and give their opinion. Consider opening a new talk thread with a proposal for a specific, small change and try to gather opinions on it. Try to limit your own proposal to 300 words, including the rationale. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer Preachermen in blonde to calm down. ;) Thnx for the advice, I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten (talk • contribs)

Banning moves under sanctions
Yes I suppose I could take that approach but to all intense and purposes I did that with the posting to Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

The problem is that some editors initiate talks about possible requested moves in a new section (as was this section "An RM to ISIS?"), and other who would rather not discuss moves again immediately feel compelled to reply (presumably because silence equals consent).

In the case of the editor I have given a topic ban, that editor was notified of the editing restrictions, in which I pointed out that the editor had started at least two sections on the talk page about possible name changes while the last RM was still open (it only started on 17 September 2014 and was not closed until 3 October 2014).

The editor then presumably read my statement and made it quite clear (see the exchange in the collapse box below my statement) that the statement was not going to stop that editor from initiating an RfC on a move "in the next week or so" and that as far as this editor was concerned when it was suggested that my comment was read replied "Closed? I see no binding arbitration on a move for this article. You must be thinking of something else".

The editor was also changing the names within the article to match what that editor thins are the most appropriate names.

So at that point I decided that it had became necessary to follow up on that part of my statement which stated "In the mean time If I think that editors are being disruptive over this issue then I will take administrative action under the general sanctions that apply to this page". The three month ban is for the same length of time that I have stated that further requested moves/discussion about moves are disruptive.-- PBS (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Hong Kong protests
Hi EdJohnston. I left a message at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but I fear you wouldn't see it because the discussion will be archived soon. User:Dark Liberty is back in action at 2014 Hong Kong protests, edit warring, blanking sections and generally being disruptive. If you had time to check out his contributions it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus, US Pro-life movement article
Hi EdJohnston, here is a reply to the note you left for me on the TALK page of the US Pro-life movement article:

Excuse me, I've been blocked once for reverting twice within a 24 hr period (by mistake, actually) so I'm trying to be extra careful not to offend again. Please note that my removal of my edit has been reverted (i. e. the sentence about the pro-violence rtl fringe element has been restored), but not by me, as the history shows, I didn't do it, nor did I canvass for it (just recently learned canvassing is a no-no). As far as consensus goes, I would call your attention to USER:Cloonmore, who repeatedly undoes other editor's edits with flimsy justification, and often does not discuss his reversions on the TALK page at all. When he does discuss them on the TALK page, his tone is often curt and arrogant. If you look at previous entries on the TALK page you will see that I am in fact pretty conscientious about justifying my edits on the TALK pages of articles I edit and seeking consensus, even from those who disagree with me (such as USER: Juno).

Best wishes,  Goblinshark17 (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus topics
Hi Ed. I just wanted to check with you once more the eligibility of Northern Cyprus topics under ARBMAC. I am thinking of filing an AE report on an SPA and I would like to confirm with you before any decision on my part to proceed. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 20:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBMAC includes "the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted" which should cover Northern Cyprus. The unstated assumption is there is some kind of nationalist dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Ed. The actions of the SPA involve longterm nationalist POV-pushing. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 21:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed. Now he is making misrepresentations that I have been rejected by the Arbitration committee on the talkpage of Northern Cyprus and edit-warring with attacking edit-summaries about the AE decision and currently at 3RR on Northern Cyprus. His edit-summary is copying 's comment. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  08:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed. He just broke 4RR on Northern Cyprus. I have filed a report. And he is still repeating his lie that I got rejected by the Arbitration committee at 3RRN. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 09:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it appears that the committee decided in 2012 that Cyprus was not covered by WP:ARBMAC. That limits your options. It is still possible that this editor is a sock, but the last SPI was declined. Maybe you could ask User:Future Perfect at Sunrise if he has any suggestions for what you can do. He and User:Richwales were two of the participants in the 2012 ARCA request about Northern Cyprus. User:Richwales has also participated in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Justice Forever/Archive. User:Alexyflemming's very long posts are not helping his case. If the SPI were refiled, it might conceivably go the other way but the evidence would have to be super well organized and easy to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Ed for your advice, as always. Your points on the SPI are well taken and I fully agree with you. I'm not sure though if Rich or Future would want to embark on another Arbcom clarification drive, since they were unsuccesssful last time. But I may contact them for advice. That's an option worthy of consideration. Thank you again. Take care. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed the spelling of a user's name above. Can I urge all parties to remain as calm as possible? It's not always easy to get admins interested in off-the-beaten-track disputes. Let's not encourage them to believe this is a huge mess with lots of angry people. I actually don't think another filing at WP:ARCA would be sensible. The committee last time seemed to imply that they wouldn't go forward without a case. Now cases are seldom enjoyable so that wouldn't be the first option I would advise. The SPI (if there is good data) would be a better bet. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by calling all parties to remain calm or by "Let's not encourage them to believe this is a huge mess with lots of angry people." This is clearly one single SPA which has demonstrably caused longterm disruption in the area of Cyprus-related topics. The continuing misrepresentations, tendentious editing, and personal attacks of the SPA are well documented and disruptive. That's the extent of the problem. I think that filing relevant reports at 3RRN and AE were a calm response. I also think that the reaction to the disruption caused by the SPA was measured. I don't see any problems there. Except if my reporting it here disturbed you for some reason, for which I am sorry. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 19:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your general direction seems correct. Perhaps I reacted to the use of 'which is a lie' in your 3RR report. Also, if an editor misbehaves in several ways it may be best to single out the worst example and not give all of them. Long reports may not be read in detail. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed for the clarification. I fully agree with you on all points, including your comment about the term "lie" which I pondered for some time before I used it in the 3RRN report, due to the nuances involved. But when AlexyFlemming plastered in multiple articles and in edit-summaries, talkpages, including mine, the false allegation that Arbcom rejected me personally, I finally decided to use the term "lie", in my report, to highlight the amount of misinformation being attempted. Not sure if that's a good justification, but it is true. :) I also enjoyed your advice about singling out the worst examples of bad behaviour, rather than giving all of them. I plead guilty to that. :) Anyway, thank you again. All the best. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 20:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Postcards
Hello - would you mind reversing your close at Talk:Postcards (disambiguation)? It seems to be based on a misunderstanding of WP:PLURALPT. In your closing statement, you said that "The exceptions documented at WP:PLURALPT envision a singular and a plural that have different primary topics." But that's not true. The guideline specifically allows for a plural leading to a separate dab page: "Just as with any other title, a plural base title can direct to an article (Bookends), or to a dab page (Suns)." There are at least three examples of this on the page: Axes, Suns, and Walls. "Postcards" could certainly fall into that category. Thanks for your consideration. Dohn joe (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's possible that the wording of my closure was too glib. But are you saying that Postcards does not have a primary topic? EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - I'm saying that when you combine the plural of "postcard" with the dozen articles or topics called "Postcards", that "Postcards" does not have a primary topic. Just like Sun is the star we revolve around, but Suns is a dab page. See also Talk:Confessions, where some plurals were found to redirect to the singular, but some kept separate dabs. Dohn joe (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Having seen the complexity of the move discussion at Talk:Confessions, I'm undoing the close at Talk:Postcards and leaving it for someone else. Perhaps you want to add a link to the Confessions discussion in your own vote. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is consensus for the move, and there is policy backing it up (see Talk:Parachutes (album) for a comparable case, and the overwhelming consensus against Dohn joe's quixotic crusade to give excessive weight to pop culture efforts to reference topics of historical importance. The second prong of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC permits us to determine if a topic is primary based on its historical importance, and it is absurd to think that obscure songs, albums, or other such works outweigh the importance of a form of communication in use for over 150 years, and for the foreseeable future. Axes, Suns, and Walls are not comparable (Axes is the plural of two equally important concepts, the mathematical concept of the Axis, and the basic tool, the Axe; Earth has only one Sun, and the article Sun is about that unique object; Walls is debatable, but is widely used as both a surname and a place name. I am reinstating the close. There is nothing worth reversing it over. bd2412  T 17:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:BD2412, you are the promoter of the move. How can you act as the closer of the discussion? I suggest you revert yourself. A relist might be appropriate, because the language of the existing votes does not address everything that was brought up here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The page move eliminated incoming errors; reverting the move would make incoming links erroneous again. It would be like restoring an obvious misspelling to a page to humor one editor's belief that readers who don't know the right spelling might expect to see the wrong one. bd2412  T 17:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting this. Involved closures of contested move proposals are just not on. Fixing incoming links is a long-term issue, not an emergency. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Having thought it over, I have reverted to avoid any question as to the propriety of the close. bd2412  T 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

↓↓↓
Yes, go ahead. I don't even want to edit Wikipedia anymore, I think it's waste of time and energy. You can edit, revert, move back, delete or whatever you want to do with anything I've added here. Feel free, I don't mind anymore. Thanks for stopping by. I just want peace. No arguments, no harassment, no verbal wars but just peace. Hemant DabralTalk  19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

5RR
Cwobeel, the OP at ANEW seems to be at 5RR on the same page where he reported another editor. Diffs posted at ANEW. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've protected the page, but just FYI, Ed, there is a TON of edit warring over there. If you're handing out blocks, those two are in the middle of a much larger edit war that spans an entire history page.--v/r - TP 18:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

1RR question
Hi Ed, Are the 1RR restrictions on abortion related articles still in effect? If so, there are editors on United States pro-life movement who need notification.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GS the 1RR restriction is still in effect for abortion. I've alerted User:Goblinshark17. Let me know if anyone else ought to be notified. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's currently a report at AN3 regarding a violation of 1RR on an abortion article. I came here to ask you about it and saw this topic. I'm having trouble following the entry at WP:GS. The community discussion occurred in early 2011. The arbitration decision occurred in late 2011. The note in the rightmost column at GS says "superseded by" the arb decision, which, to me, means that the community sanctions were superseded, which makes some sense given the chronology. Can you help illuminate this for me?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GS the community made a two-part ruling. In the first, they established a 1RR. This is still in effect in my opinion. The second part is the sanction regime which was superseded by the Arbcom decision. It is not common for Arbcom to impose 1RRs on their own, so this makes sense. If you want to check against the text of the decision, see the remedy clause. It says that the ‘authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community’ is superseded but nothing about superseding or abolishing the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. So any block for violating 1RR would not be an ArbCom block, even though it looks like it would get logged in the ArbCom decision. Far too complicated in my view unless you deal with it frequently enough. As an aside, although in this instance Roscelese was clearly aware of the 1RR restriction, the article has no notice on the talk page and no edit notice pops up when you edit the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Sathe.steel is back :/
It appears that has created a new account as  (probably from a different PC to get around the account creation block), with the same behaviour at Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.-- Jeffro 77  (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded. This appears to be block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Galerie Gmurzynska



 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive259
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive260

Regarding recent edit warring on this page, Gmurzynska is using a third IP address in order to suppress public material it wishes to keep hidden - Andemw3 (see previous edits and undos of the reliably referenced material by this username). The latest edit is, to my mind, simply a continuation of the edit warring in this regard. Spurious grounds have been found for removing most of the (to them) undesirable material by misusing the WP:V and WP:BLP tags. Other material has simply been deleted without explanation.

The referencing by Art&Design3000 (and his other identities) is also highly dubious. The references to the promotional material don't seem to have any actual connection to Galerie Gmuzynska (if they do, this should be clearly identified) - see footnote 3, for example, a highly dubious claim and link to an article in which I cannot see any mention of the exhibition in question. There are also instances of willful misquotation of the published sources. For example, 'Antonina [Gmurzynska]appears to have sought out the artists' families in Russia and became adept at sneaking art out of the country' has been changed to 'Antonina 'sought out the artists' families in Russia and was moving this art out of the country, to Europe', so that a documented case of smuggling sounds like an act of charity.

As such, I am reediting again in what I believe to be a balanced way that reflects the published sources properly. I do not consider this 'edit warring', but a restoring of publicly available material, accurately sourced and cited. I welcome Administrators' views and am happy to engage with them in producing a satisfactory version of this page. I do not, however, wish to see a valuable reference resource used as a form of sanitized advertising board. I have not engaged in Talk with Art&Design3000 and his aliases because I do not see that as having any potential to produce an accurate version of the gallery history, given the editing methods it uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammophone (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain why the editor wants to discuss the contents of the article here; the appropriate place would be the talk page of the article, so that other editors involved can see it and respond. That he has never acknowledged his edit warring despite having had his editing access to the article blocked twice (once through page protection, once through a 72 hour block) and that he has launched in once again to similar actions does not show an understanding of the concern. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . NatGertler's point seems well taken. You have never left a comment on the article's talk page. Please try to make your case there. The page is on my watchlist. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have moved the comment I made here and put it where you suggested on the article's Talk page. My apologies, I have never had a dispute over Wikipedia content in the past so I am still learning the protocol for doing so. Grammophone (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Grammophone and Art&Design3000 for one week for a resumption of the battle after expiration of their last blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:EddyVadim
This user been engaged in a slow-motion revert war with me, consistently imposing a rather bizarre and tendentious text onto a heavily-trafficked page. As always, he refuses to engage in discussion, except for this: "cine esti tu sa ma explic in fata ta?" ("Who are you that I should have to explain myself before you?")

You recently blocked him for edit-warring. Even if he's technically staying on the right side of 3RR, the time for another block may have arrived. - Biruitorul Talk 17:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now blocked indef. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

George Kline
Since the Professor passed away last week I am thinking now might be the time to post his BIO. Is there a way I could get you to show me how to change the article from a draft and actually one published? LoveMonkey 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have time to do this soon. Meanwhile anyone who has an interest should take a look at WP:Drafts/George Kline. I think the format of your references might be tweaked, and there are perhaps too many publications of Kline listed. It is intriguing that he translated a work on probability by A. N. Kolmogorov. If you know of his death from a reliable source, that should be added. Did anyone create a Festschrift for him? EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so far no honorary books on Professor Kline that I have found and I agree with the article changes you suggest. I have asked for help and gotten some so I hope that continues as there is really no one place as a collection of Kline's achievements and I was making it so it was something that Wikipedia had and no other online sources did. LoveMonkey 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * LoveMonkey, your draft work on Kline is already well-known on the web! It's the #1 hit from a search for 'George Kline philosophy'. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that is exceptional news. LoveMonkey 18:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies
Sorry, it was inadvertent. I noticed after I finished typing that everything was underlined, and I wasn't crazy about how it looked, but as I rarely am at Editwarring/3RR I just quickly assumed it was the default format for extended comments. My bad. Thanks for fixing before it seemed like I was screaming. Yours, Quis separabit?  21:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

QB3 redirect
Hi Ed--thanks for moderating my request to swap the redirect "QB3" with "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences." As you may have noticed, I'm the institute's communications director. We ourselves do not use the long form of our name and rarely hear from people who do. It's an archaic form for us and Wikipedia may be propagating it, because people who want to know about QB3 will get redirected to the page titled with the long name. So it's a chicken-and-egg problem.

You mentioned that the long form of the name appears on our website. What's the URL for the page? I'll correct it.

Also, a minor issue, but I noticed that maybe 10% of the Google results for the search "qb3 -berkeley -ucsf -"santa cruz" actually refer to us. They just don't mention a particular campus.

It is true that no other entity worldwide is using the long form of the name. But, then, neither are we, anymore! So, it's specific, but not really correct.

Does it support our cause that Wikipedia has to date required no disambiguation for the redirect "QB3"? Nobody else has seen fit to create a page for any entity that shares our name.

Also, if you look at the number of Google searches for "QB3"--acknowledging that some of them might be for other purposes--they are far larger than the searches for "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences" -- in fact the number of those searches is so small as to be effectively zero.

I'd appreciate your input on what constitutes "reliable sources." Evidently the world still thinks of us as having two names, but most sources overwhelmingly use "QB3" after, in some cases, making a nod to the long form of the name. Some recent media references (apologies for the URL gibberish):

http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2014/10/06/university-of-california-incubators-eager-to-scout-startups-co-investors-for-uc-ventures/ http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/biotech/2014/08/startx-qb3-incubator-stanford-uc-labs-accelerator.html http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/New-Palo-Alto-lab-for-life-science-startups-5717097.php?t=b83a2c613c&t=b83a2c613c

Please take a look and let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scerevisiae (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll reconsider my close of the move discussion if new information can be provided. The best data might be from some place like Google Scholar. Since QB3 is surely intended to have academic impact we would expect to see QB3 mentioned in published papers. Could you find the relative number of hits on the short vs. the long form of the name in such publications? In your link to the bizjournals.com article the organization is mentioned at "QB3, or the California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences..." SF Chronicle says "QB3, which stands for the California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences." My previous comment was actually wrong. I didn't find the long name on QB3's own website, but on the sites of the corresponding institutes at at UCSC and at Berkeley. See WP:NCA for the guideline page which says whether to use the abbreviation or the full name of an organization. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct in that the UC professors do seem to be using the long form of the name, at least at cursory glance in Google Scholar: 5610 to 720 over the last year. One might expect faculty to prefer to use five words instead of one... But there is the question of how many people are exposed to these usages. How many people read the citations in Angewandte Chemie as opposed to the text of a story in the San Francisco Chronicle?

And also yes, the media articles often quote the long form of our name, but they use the short name in the title, and the long form is only used once, pushed several paragraphs down from the top, indicating the lesser importance the journalists give it. My point is that in daily, casual usage (and try searching Twitter for "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences") people who write about QB3 from the outside refer to us predominantly as "QB3". The long academic form of the name is used by a subset of on-campus stakeholders. There are two names, but the short one is more commonly used in mass media, and therefore the redirect should be from the long form to the short one. Scerevisiae (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the two links you provided above, both the short ('QB3') and the long form of the time are provided in the article. So those references don't show the primacy of either one. The case for the short form is still not very strong. Intuitively, the issue is between a long name that explains what the thing is and a short form that gives no hint. Wikipedia articles will often be read by people not familiar with the topic, so to expect them to know the abbreviation before reading the article seems unhelpful. If I thought there was a good chance of reversal I'd unclose the move discussion and let it run longer. Another option is, if you disagree with my closure you can use WP:MRV to appeal it. WP:NCA says "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for your explanations. Like many phenomena, this one is evolving, and from my perspective I can see which direction it's going--but I accept that it is not clear to someone who has not heard of us before. Also I can see that a major contributor to confusion lies within the institute's own governance and constitution. If we were more strongly centralized we could enforce our own naming conventions more effectively. Another factor is that QB3 operates in two distinct domains: research and commercialization. In research we are not externally recognized; but our affiliated faculty prefer to use the long form of the name. Yet most of our external recognition is for commercialization, and in that arena--which encompasses a different demographic (one which I believe is likely much larger in number), "readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize [QB3] by its acronym." In this we are similar to the Silicon Valley accelerator Y Combinator, which is widely known, but whose name explains nothing up front. I'll have to think about how we might best demonstrate that this holds for us. Cheers. Scerevisiae (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ed, I wish to appeal your closure, but I followed the link to the appeal page and I admit I am not sure how to do it properly. I do not want to screw it up. The instructions are rather confusing for a Wikipedia novice. Can we discuss it here?

These are the two points I would make, relevant to "readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize [QB3] by its acronym.": 1) Substantial Google searches for "qb3" compared to nonexistent searches for "california institute for quantitative biosciences" Keeping in mind, of course, that "qb3" has a long tail of meanings for what I would argue are usages that people seldom search for ("qb3 chess", "qb3 football", "qb3 design" have negligible results). 2) This may be unorthodox, but one of the primary ways people show interest in us is to request a visit/tour. I looked back at my emails over the past year or so and compiled a redacted file--There are 19 messages that I could locate easily. Of these, 17 people make first contact with us saying they want to visit "QB3". Two say they want to visit "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences." See the record here. I'm going to take this file off the web after our discussion, in case there are privacy concerns, although all visitor contact info is blocked out. Scerevisiae (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you disagree with my closure, I've decided to undo it and leave the discussion for someone else to handle. I've now added some comments from my original closing statement to the discussion. If you want to expand your rationale at Talk:California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences you can do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I appreciate your unbiased approach and the education I'm getting on how Wikipedia works. Scerevisiae (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexyflemming activity update
Hi Ed. This is to update you on a specific aspect of the activity of. He is apparently preparing to move the POV "List of wars involving Northern Cyprus" from userspace to mainspace. The list of wars starts from Ottoman times and includes wars of modern times when TRNC did not exist historically. The account is on full-swing lately on other fronts as well, but I am focusing on this incident because it is obviously POV and ahistorical propaganda. I have objected at the talkpage of the userspace draft but I would also welcome your advice. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 09:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What a non-sense approach: "He is apparently preparing to do something...". Dear Δρ.Κ., I form Wiki page articles in consensus with other Wiki users. There I noticed that a Wiki user prepared something. You may have objections to this. That is natural. I frequently create Wiki articles in consensus with others. Your last defence line also invalid: List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus starts at 1955 whereas Cyprus was founded in 1960. List_of_wars_involving_Turkey starts at 1919 whereas Turkey founded in 1923...etc. If you object why it dates back to so early, then that is plausible. But, if you object the creation of such a Wiki article, then you are wrong since there are Wiki articles: List_of_wars_involving_Abkhazia. Clear?Alexyflemming (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, dear Δρ.Κ., if you have some objections towards some Wiki users edits or pre-edit behaviours, just complain them to the very same Wiki users; writing and complaining those things in some other Wiki users' Talk pages does not address your problem that much!Alexyflemming (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * if you object the creation of such a Wiki article, then you are wrong since there are Wiki articles ... Right, but there have been no wars involving Northern Cyprus. The only conflict that could maybe be listed is the '74 invasion, since it's effectively led to its establishment. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP editor. Alexyflemming's example of List of wars involving Abkhazia, starts with the introduction at the lead: "This is a list of wars involving Abkhazia since its independence in 1993." There have been no wars involving "Northern Cyprus" since the independence of Northern Cyprus" in 1983. Even if we count the 1974 invasion as "involving Northern Cyprus", this hardly qualifies as a list. As far as Turkey and Cyprus, the nations and geographic locations of Turkey and Cyprus respectively preexisted the formal declarations of their countries. "Northern Cyprus" did not even exist as a concept of a separate entity prior to 1974 and moreover was identical to "Cyprus" prior to the 1974 invasion. That is a false analogy. So making a list" out of a single war is the usual POV from this account and obviously he is committed to creating the list. That is why I did not bother to approach him directly. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tangentially, I've started a discussion about whether we should list wars before the establishment of the RoC here. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Ed. I did not want to pollute/disturb your Talk page with the discussion, and I took the discussion here. It goes there. Alexyflemming (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Continued at User talk:FPSTurkey/List of wars involving Northern Cyprus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Where to complain the prevention of creating a new Wiki page
I am prevented from creating a new Wiki article ("History of Northern Cyprus"): See, here. The meddlers are Dr.K. and TU-nor. I know and saw Northern_Cyprus many times before. Also, I have already edited there many times as well.

I wanted to create a separate article on "History of Northern Cyprus". The article "Northern Cyprus" consists of only a small part of History of Northern Cyprus. There are many things to add to the history. Adding all these materials will unnecessarily inflate the Northern Cyprus article.

Look also the "History of..." Wiki articles of partially recognized states: History of Abkhazia, History of Kosovo, History of Somaliland, History of Transnistria, History of the Republic of China, History of Western Sahara.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.Alexyflemming (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is up to consensus whether a separate article should be created on History of Northern Cyprus. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment. This may allow bringing in people who are new to the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation. Alexyflemming (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RESTRICT
I knew topic bans had to belong somewhere. I forgot about that page. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Lower casing proper names
There are many more articles that have been lower cased by this single editor. I had only listed the moves he made in October. He has been at this since August. Is there some more efficient method of handling more of them that opening move requests for each one separately on the Requested Moves template? The samples on the Requested Moves article do not seem to be applicable either for single moves or multiples. Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a move-multi but it might be better for you to wait for the result of the first discussion at Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919. Arguments made there may give a hint as to how other discussions would end up. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. I am usually not involved in such things, but this seemed so obviously amis.  Thanks Hmains (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

subst:RMassist|Drama uprising|Drama Uprising|reason=capitalization of proper names per WP:NCCAPS and its included reference proper noun and Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919 This and several variations of this do not work. What does work? Hmains (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am trying to use move-multi and followed the instructions, but I cannot get it to work. Within, I tried the following:
 * Copper riot|Copper Riot
 * Do you have a list somewhere of all the moves that you think should be reverted? EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Look at User:Hmains/worklist in edit mode.  Hmains (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not propose the first of these moves at WP:RMTR. Include a link to User:Hmains/worklist. Then whoever closes the request can decide if all of the moves should be done in one go. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok; I tried this. Hmains (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the admin only reverted the single article I listed and did not do anything about the rest in my referenced list. What next? Hmains (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Leave a note for User:Anthony Appleyard and see if he wants to perform the rest of the moves. Another option is that you may be able to do the moves yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Large discussion needs closing
There is a huge discussion that I initiated, WP:AN, which needs to be closed. You're uninvolved, and seem to be familiar with such matters as these. Would you care to digest that discussion and close it as appropriate? If not, perhaps you could suggest someone I could ask to close it? RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that the conversation is continuing, even though it is split between noticeboards for reasons which aren't entirely clear:
 * WP:AN
 * WP:ANI
 * If a discussion is continuing for good-faith reasons it's unwise to interrupt it. At some point the good faith might run out, but I don't think the time is here yet. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The "good faith" ran out long ago. PBS opened that AN/I thread for bad faith reasons, and now he has opened an illegitimate RfC to disrupt the discussion and forum shop. No one other than PBS is protesting, and he has been making a mess of the discussion for weeks. He hasn't helped to work on the proposal, and I've repeatedly asked for clear things I could do to resolve whatever "concerns" he might have. Instead of doing that, he has essentially lined-up a unilateral filibuster of the proposal. No one is discussing the proposal anymore, just whether or not PBS's behaviour is appropriate. It clearly isn't. If he wasn't an administrator, he would've been blocked for it ages ago. I followed the standard procedure, I've tried to resolve a long-running dispute, and I'll I've got from PBS is repeated badgering. Everyone else agreed, but PBS just can't let his objection go. It is having outsize impact, and is not at all constructive. There is no reason why PBS should have a filibuster, nor why he should be able to use my proposal for his own unilateral RfC.  RGloucester  — ☎ 21:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Alzira Peirce controversy
Since you've blocked me for my criticism of Rms125a@hotmail.com re the Alzira Peirce article I'd like to draw your attention to evidence of Rms125sa@hotmail.com track record of abusing editor role available at http://www.questpedia.org/en/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com, http://en.wikipedia.atpedia.com/en/articles/r/e/q/Wikipedia~Requests_for_checkuser_Case_Rms125a@hotmail.com_b1fd.html.Margerypark (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're digging up bad conduct from six years ago. It would be a better use of your time to use the page at Talk:Alzira Peirce to explain the factual issues on which you disagree. Feel free to supply WP:Reliable sources to back up your views. In your edits of Alzira Peirce so far you have never added a reference. If you issue more charges of vandalism like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alzira_Peirce&diff=631790059&oldid=631789657 the one here in the edit summary] it is likely you will be blocked again. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alzira_Peirce&oldid=631790059 One of your article versions] contains numbers in brackets suggesting that you are copying from an original in which references were supplied. The bracketed numbers are 1 through 10. Do you have those references? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If you track back beyond Rms125a's cavalier edits to the page you will find that all the revisions I made were scrupulously referenced. It is a pity that Rms125a's actions weren't reversed previously. If I can find the time I'll get back to it.Margerypark (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Third rail of politics
KeyboardWarriorOfZion is edit warring again. Also for some reason they question the reliability of CNN, which IMO doesn't bode well. So far its just 1 revert, but I really don't feel like reverting and forcing the matter and then filing a report. And some of the comments on the talk page are straddling the line of personal attacks. Can you delve into the matter when you have a chance? Thanks. --Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 09:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Input at AE
Hi Ed, if you had a minute I'd appreciate your input at the Plot Spoiler thread at WP:AE-- Cailil  talk 13:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)