Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Request for reinstating indefinite topic ban on User:Ohconfucius

Greetings, Ed. I'd like to bring to your attention some edits by User:Ohconfucius, who was previously indefinitely topic banned from Falun Gong-related page. I believe his behavior warrants reinstating that ban, which was provisionally lifted last year (subject to some conditions).

In addition to several POV edits, a 3RR violation, and general inability to work constructively with other editors on these pages (details below), Ohconfucius has also reinstated an anti-Falun Gong personal essay in his user space against the explicit instructions of a member of the arbitration committee. This essay is wholly inappropriate, and insofar as it contains attacks against named individuals, groups, and specific Wikipedia editors, it also appears to violate several policies and guidelines including WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, and WP:POLEMIC.

Let me first remind you of the background. In July 2012, Arbcom voted to indefinitely ban OhConfucius from Falun Gong-related topics due to repeated edit warring, incivility, and violations of WP:NPOV (e.g. edits that misrepresented the positions of reliable sources). The direction of his edits was generally to improve the image of the Chinese government.

In April 2014, Ohconfucius appealed to lift the topic ban. He assured the arbitrators that he would not return to editing Falun Gong, but said he only wanted to restore his good name.

Seven arbitrators agreed to provisionally lift the ban with a probationary period of one year, stating that any admin could re-impose the indefinite topic ban if Ohconfucius again ran afoul of policy. One arbitrator added that his agreement was conditional and asked Ohconfucius to "steer well clear of matters of controversy" related to Falun Gong. [1]

Within two weeks, Ohconfucius reneged on his promises to Arbcom and returned to making controversial edits to Falun Gong-related articles.

He was brought back to Arbcom. The arbitrators again warned him again to apply caution. One arb asked him to "move on" from editing Falun Gong, and another (Seraphimblade) told him that he must permanently delete all of the anti-Falun Gong essays that he kept in his userspace or else he (the arbitrator) would request reinstatement of the indefinite topic ban. [2]

Ohconfucius again deceived the arbitration committee. He deleted the offending essays in his userspace, but soon after the ArbCom case was closed, he simply reposted a permalinked, older version on his user page, where it remains. [3] This only recently came to my attention.

He has also made several more edits that appear to violate WP:NPOV, some of which very closely resemble the edits he was initially banned for. Most of these edits involve deleting reliably sourced information on the Chinese government's human rights abuses, claiming material is not supported by sources when it actually is, and otherwise misrepresenting the sources. I can provide more details if needed on why these edits are problematic, if it's not obvious otherwise.

[4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Ohconfucius also violated the 3RR in a two-hour period on a Falun Gong-related topic Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. The other editor involved tried to start a discussion on the talk page, but Ohconfucius opted not to discuss.

These were the edits where he violated the 3RR:

Revert 1:

[17] – Misstates facts about the history and mandate of the 610 Office. User:TheBlueCanoe then did a partial revert and explained why on the talk page. [18] – Ohconfucius reverts without discussing (apparently convinced that he's right on points of facts. He's not.)

Revert 2:

[19] (at bottom of diff) – deletes information about the Chinese government's propaganda initiative because it was unsourced. [20] – a source was added, he deletes it again (bottom of diff).

Revert 3: [21] – deletes information that casts doubt on the Chinese government's narrative [22] – deletes again

Revert 4:

[23] – adds quote from Chinese government and omits Ownby views [24] – repeat

Revert 5:

[25] – deletes information about Mr. Tan in Chengde (he's actually right about this one, but a revert is a revert) [26] – deletes again

Finally, his conduct toward other editors doesn't seem to have improved. This talk page discussion is quite illuminating: [27]

Best regards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello TheSoundAndTheFury. You're concerned about recent edits by User:Ohconfucius. Consider reporting this at WP:Arbitration enforcement. If you do so, I recommend shortening your statement. I have to notice that many of these diffs are from 2014. You have argued that User:Ohconfucius broke 3RR in September, 2014 but I only see three reverts there. I agree that Ohconfucius sometimes leaves intemperate edit summaries. If it were up to me, I wouldn't do a topic ban, though some kind of warning might be justified. Some people claim he is pro-PRC, but my own review suggests he is more anti-Falun Gong, and he labels some of his opponents as 'FLG editors' when they may not be. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I like your response, Ed. Yes, this is mostly rather old news, which makes it a little puzzling. When it came up before, I chatted with OC about his attitude to the topic, and noted that he felt perplexed as to the interpretation by some editors of that attitude: to him, there was unexplained tendency to frame him as being biased on either one side or the other, with precious little evidence. My own understanding from our conversations was that he's keen to seek balance between the pretty emotional arguments that sometimes engulf this topic. Tony (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. I left off a couple of the reverts. There were two more, which I've added above. Had a 3RR complaint been filed in a timely manner, this presumably would have resulted in a block. And per the terms of OhConfucius' parole period, any block in this topic area would automatically result in the restoration of the indefinite topic ban. See clerk's note here.
I'm happy to go to AE if necessary, but brought this directly to you because a) the terms of his "parole" say that any administrator can reinstate the ban if Ohconfucius again runs afoul of policy (presumably without going to AE, unless I've misread), and b) the one year mark of his parole period is ending soon. I think there should be some kind of review of his behavior before he is let off, hence the diffs from 2014. Also, see these words by @Seraphimblade: "If Ohconfucius' pattern of commenting on editors rather than edits continues or speculating on their motives, I'll be in favor of reinstating the topic ban. In that vein, I will be requesting reinstatement of the topic ban if you do not get rid of all of your userspace material on Falun Gong and leave it gone."
I also only recently noticed the restoration of the userspace essay in which Ohconfucius makes personal attacks against myself and several other editors (among other things). Restoring a polemical attack essay after being told to remove it (on two occasions, by two members of the arbitration committee) seems like an actionable offense. This edit was from just a few hours ago: [28]
I may ask some other arbs who instituted his one-year probation about how we may go about evaluating this and the user's other contributions to this topic space over the last year. Maybe it is AE. Either way, appreciated your input. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I still disagree with your claim that he violated 3RR in September. Your counting is off. A string of successive edits counts as no more than one revert. Here is the listing of everyone's edits on September 9 and 10 at Tiananmen square self-immolation incident:
  • 21:54, 10 September 2014‎ Zujine (t | c)‎ . . (+836) (+836)‎ . . (Per talk page. I'm restoring info to lede, resolving a historical anachronism, and adding sources for previously removed detail.)
  • 05:28, 10 September 2014‎ BG19bot (t . c)‎ m . . (+2) (+2)‎ . . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix. Section heading problem. Violates WP:MOSHEAD.) (×)
  • 07:27, 9 September 2014‎ Ohconfucius (t . c)‎ . . (-1408) (+2)‎ . . [13]
  • 03:21, 9 September 2014‎ TheBlueCanoe (t . c)‎ . . (+743) (+743)‎ . . (Restoring some info to lead, restoring deleted info and resolving NPOV and factual issues (see talk))
  • 03:15, 9 September 2014‎ Ohconfucius (t . c)‎ . . (+376) (-19)‎ . . [4]
  • 02:51, 9 September 2014‎ TheBlueCanoe (t . c | block)‎ . . (+100) (+100)‎ . . (partial revert. Not the place to be propagandizing on behalf of the PRC government. Also adding source for deleted info.)
  • 02:45, 9 September 2014‎ Ohconfucius (t . c)‎ . . (-2202) (-1)‎
The above listing combines groups of successive edits. Since there are only three groups of edits by OhC on September 9, he made at most three reverts per the language of WP:EW. It takes four reverts in 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
As someone who has not been involved in that content for some time, having recused myself from it, I have to say that based on my memory there were serious questions expressed regarding not only Ohconfucius, but other editors involved as well, and that, although I as I said have recused myself from that content, I believe it has rather degenerated into being more one-sided than it had been earlier. This raises questions at least in my eyes, about this being an attempt to "win through sanctions" in a content dispute, and I would suggest, possibly, that if the request here is found to itself be dubiously supported, that perhaps the requester be at least advised to not engage in perhaps dubious attempts to perhaps intimidate others, if not, in fact, to try to get a "win" through litigiousness. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Ed, I hadn't realized that multiple reverts performed consecutively – with no intervening edits – count as a single revert. I was just looking at the fact that he reverted different material each time. I'll be sure to characterize it properly going forward. Thanks again. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, perhaps you could have a look at Organ transplantation in China - Ohconfucius added a copyvio template on 27 March, rendering much of the page invisible, and the issue hasn't been resolved since then. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Need assistance from users who know well the MOS:LEAD policy

Extra opinions are necessary at Talk:Székely_Land#The_name_in_the_Old_Hungarian_alphabet regarding the inclusion of the name DLÖFLYEKÉSZ. Thanks in advance for your help. 109.230.28.210 (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of a Warning

Mr. Johnston,

Thank you for offering me additional help here. Your request at WP:ANI has been closed. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking deletion of a Warning. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My intention is not to drive anyone crazy at Wikipedia; I feel I have a valid request to have a Warning removed (the warning appears on my Talk page under "Campus rape"). I am requesting this because it was an honest error- I was re-submitting my edit not realizing that MaterialScientist was deleting them simultaneously. I feel I do my part in contributing to Wikipedia and don't like a Red Flag on my history. Is that unreasonable?

Could you help me get this done?

Scottlovessue (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Scott scottlovessue

The original ANI which caused you to be warned was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Seeking deletion of a Warning. This is all water under the bridge now. We are not going to undo the ANI. If you want to remove the messages that others leave for you on your own talk page, please do so. If you have difficulty editing Wikipedia from an iPad, try something else. This episode will quickly be forgotten if you can do good work in other areas. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Further Deletion Requests.

I have a few more pages I'd like deleted.

TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:TheGRVOfLightning, I'll be going offline soon. Can you put WP:CSD#U1 tags on these? Then they'll be taken care of by the admins who patrol CSD. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hello, Ed,
Now that I'm an ARBCOM clerk, I check AE fairly often and saw this request today. Since it is an admin board and not under ARBCOM per se, it's not my place to hat the request or talk to the editors involved so I'm hoping that you or one of your talk page watchers can act on this ill-formed request. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That request is not going anywhere, but I wouldn't close it just for being ill-formed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your opinion. Much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 10:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


Hi, Ed. User:Lowercase sigmabot III has archived the OhC AE request, yet no decision was made. What should be done? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I undid the archiving since no AE action has occurred yet. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

About Nihal Atsiz and Pan-Turkism

Thanks for the information. But what is the exact "sanction" on these articles? If my addition revert again by another user, (or other possible edit wars and etc.) what should I or anyone do?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

See WP:AC/DS. You are merely alerted that these sanctions exist. On certain topics, admins watch any edit warring with extra care. If you make effective use of the talk page before any controversial edits you should be on safe ground. The sanctions allow editors to be topic banned by any administrator and they allow placing WP:1RR restrictions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with semi-protecting Urdu

User:Thomas (or whatever his name is) removed several informative external links that were already there. This does not give IP editors a fair chance to contribute while allowing the user to repeatedly removes links without fair justification. He has made it a point to scan for anything linking to Omniglot, an online encyclopedia of spoken languages and scripts. This is also despite the sites main page using valid academic sources as citations. Prior to this the user made several excuses for removing external links and comes up with a new excuse each time to do this. I would appreciate that the article be unprotected or the user be at least informed to stop removal of informative external links. I also presented the argument that individual articles on movies use IMBD as an external link which he keeps evading or even once bluntly lying, claiming that it's used as a reference and not an external link. I'll even provide the diff if you require.

Previously he claimed that adding it on a few articles is OK (which I did- I added it to Finnish, Hindi, Urdu and Carrebean Hindustani, all which were removed). As you can see his stubborness and evasiveness makes it very hard to avoid this problem. Please unprotect the article or at least warn the user to stop blanking out informative external links; especially when they are in no way or form "advertising" which he insists on calling them.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Consider proposing your links for consideration at the WP:External links/Noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I never had any contact with the IP until well after reverting the first link I saw, on Finnish language, and right after that also removing them from a few other articles I found them on, so the claim that I have said that it's OK to add it to a small number of articles is a blatant lie. And I don't call the links "advertising", they were reverted because they clearly violate WP:ELNO (it's a personal website, run by a single guy from his bedroom: http://www.omniglot.com/about.htm ; a guy who is just a hobbyist, and not a recognised expert in the field...). Thomas.W talk 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about an informal advisory

Would this reminder be considered a sufficient reminder for AA2? Or should I just remind that user again more formally? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

See WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. You need to use {{ds/alert}}. This is the sole method of notification that will permit future application of discretionary sanctions by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Hello Ed, Thanks for your comments and advice on my talk page regarding the conflict over COI issues. I am, however, greatly disturbed by the behaviour of Jytdog towards me on these matters and would appreciate your mediation if possible. He is making a number of false accusations about "advocacy" and "agendas". Thanks, Anglicanus (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide an example? You seem to think he is defending TITUSIIX against some valid charges of yours, but it's hard to get any idea of what you're concerned about. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I am unable to be more specific because of Wikipedia's restrictions on outing and slander etc. For these reasons, even though my concerns are both informed and legitimate, I am constrained in saying much about them. If I could I would. If the editors who have been criticising me knew about the real story with this then they would, I hope, appreciate my concerns instead. There are a number of other editors who have been very aware in recent years of the promotional, COI and sockpuppet activities on other articles related to this very newly created "Old Catholic church" so I am not at all alone in my concerns. Anyway, thanks for your advice and listening to me. I appreciate your helpful manner. Anglicanus (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Usually, with a COI issue there is something bad happening to an article which you can point to. All I can see from your post is that you are putting quotes around "Old Catholic church", suggesting you see something fishy. What can it be? EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There are many recently formed bodies, especially in the United States, calling themselves an "Old Catholic church". They usually have little if any genuine connection to the historically established Old Catholic Churches. Some of these bodies, particular American ones, are the ecclesiastical equivalents of fraudulent diploma mill "universities". Many of these "church" bodies also offer unaccredited degrees and this is often the prime focus of their existence. Anglicanus (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you look at List of Old Catholic churches and notice some that you don't think are legitimate? What would the test be? EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I will have a look. Most of these will be very small bodies, often only a few people or even an individual. Some only seem to exist in people's minds or on the internet. There is a long history of psychological fantasy and charlatanism with many of these "Old Catholic" bodies and they are often very active on Wikipedia making themselves seem more legitimate than they are in reality. As a general rule the more concerned they are to assert their legitimacy the less legitimate they actually are. Anglicanus (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Hello. I was researching the Yom Kippur War and found that Wikipedia's information on the result of the war to be misleading(slightly). Wikipedia claims Israeli victory. This is not entirely true. After watching a reliable documentary (Western, not pushing for Western and/or Arab views) claimed that there was no clear cut victory. Israeli sources also claimed so, yet claim victory was theirs. However, the war ended in a military tie (arguably a military victory for Israel) since it lost the last battle, broke the cease-fire, was trapped between Egyptian armies after losing the Suez Battle yet surrounding the Third Army. In terms of diplomacy and politics, Israel lost to Egypt. Israel did not keep Sinai as wanted to and Egypt got it all. Therefore, it was a political victory for Egypt. On the Syrian side, Israeli military victory is unarguable, however, in diplomacy, Israel lost a strip of the Golan Heights. Furthermore, Israelis staged protests against the government after the war, claiming the government failed because of the losses and loss of Sinai. Therefore, Military Stalemate on Egyptian Front, Egyptian Political Victory, Israeli Military Victory on Syrian Front. This is based on plenty of sources. Please do reply since this war is a sensitive topic for the countries involved (except America). Infor4fun (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun

Hi decided to re-read the article on Wikipedia. There is a claim that Egypt violated the cease-fire. I researched this point. Both Israeli and American sources confessed that Kissinger gave Israel the green light for an Israeli offensive that violated the ceasefire. Furthermore, the link for the citation about this is a dead link (possible removed by the site owner). I am seriously upset at the lack of accuracy and bias in this topic. It is not professional for such things to be written on Wikipedia. Due to your interest and revisions of this topic I thought you would be the best person to contact. Please do see to this matter. False information on Wikipedia is a saddening matter especially that Wikipedia is intended to be accurate. Thank You. I hope to see you reply soon. Infor4fun (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun

Speaking as a regular editor, I wouldn't find these arguments very convincing. The outcome of the war is uncertain because the battle was frozen by the cease fire. Without rerunning history, we can't tell what would have happened if the armies had continued to fight. If you include outcomes reached by the later Sinai peace deal, you are blurring the causality. Due to the 1978 Camp David Accords, Israel achieved a guarantee of her Sinai frontier which could have been worth the tradeoff. Portraying that as a 'loss' for Israel due to the 1973 war is far-fetched. Our article on the Camp David Accords says that "In Israel, there is lasting support of the Camp David Peace Accords, which have become a national consensus, supported by 85% of Israelis according to a 2001 poll taken by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies (Israel based)." EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank You for your reply. I agree that the outcome of the war by military is uncertain, which is why using the term stalemate is more appropriate unless you were to say result: cease-fire which may be even more appropriate. When I discussed result about win and loss with Egypt I talked about the Political side not military! Based on your words, we both agree about the military side of things. However, Israel broke the initial cease-fire, in wars this signals the desperation for any gain, this is not necessary if the country is winning anyway! Anyway, speaking of the Camp David Accords, several Western and unbiased sources have pointed out that Egypt achieved the most out of the accords, which demanded Israel leave the Sinai. Israel's benefit was the peace and some trade between her and Egypt. I say loss because Sinai had traditional and economic importance to Israel -- particularly oil. Furthermore, note that Egypt's goal of the war was to regain Sinai so that is a victory for her. Please do not base your replies upon Wikipedia sources. Please use other sources that are valid, I only say this because Wikipedia is unreliable in so many articles. It is banned from usage in Universities and usually in schools in this country -- and probably most in the world! Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun

- Hi. I live in Israel. Both sides won by signing the 1978 peace agreement Israel- Egypt, and no one lost.
-Concerning the 1973 war, Kissinger took advantage of both sides problems, in order to end the war in a position in which the U.S can press both sides. He wanted Israel to surround the Egyptian third army so the Egyptian became dependent in the U.S in order to save this army from a disaster. On the other hand he made it clear to Israel that destroying of the 3rd army is forbidden. Israel had to accept the demand since it was dependent in the U.S for fighter aircraft, weapons and shells.
- At the war beginning, the Soviets supplied the Arabs with an airlift but Kissinger delayed the American airlift to Israel in order to press the Israelis. After 1 week Israel had to accept his proposal for a ceasefire in the current front line, which was a good achievement for Egypt and militarily bad for Israel. However, Sadat became too confident and refused to this ceasefire proposal. Kissinger responded by opening the gates and releasing the full scale American airlift to Israel. This supply enabled the Israeli crossing of the canal which became the Israeli military victory. As I recall, initially there were no Egyptian tanks between the Israeli army and Cairo and no defense line. But this is an hypothetical scenario since the U.S wouldn't allow such an attack. BTW it seems that Arab sources , other than Egyptian or Syrian, are not claiming that Egypt won the war.
- The Israeli popular protest after the war was not related to the future "loss" of Sinai. The public justifiably felt that the government and the general let them down with their pre-war hollow assessment that the Israeli army was prepared for a war. The large number of killed Israeli soldiers and the misbehavior of the generals were not conceivable for the public. Ykantor (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank You for joining the discussion Ykantor. Nice to know you especially that you are an Israeli (at least live there). I am a New Zealander. Thank You for that well-explained reply. All the more, it seems this war has no actual winner as you said both sides won! The American airlift (Operation Nickel Glass) was a very important decision for Israel. Now concerning the result displayed on the English Wikipedia I find it inaccurate to claim that Israel won solely. Simply because of the Camp David Accords, which gave Egypt the Sinai it wanted and Israel the peace it wanted. With the research I've done so far, it would be more appropriate to state how each country 'won' the war. Egypt's accomplishment of regaining Sinai, Israel's military turning the tables and a Peace lasting till now. Or simply UN Ceasefire. Which would you go with and why? Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun

This discussion should move to Talk:Yom Kippur War. As an admin, my role is only to be sure there is a discussion instead of an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Thank You. So I will take it that you would prefer any further discussion concerning this topic to be in that page right? By the way, this is not an edit war, just merely a discussion as to what the result actually is. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun

Thanks

I added that very quickly this morning, copying from Roger Davies page, and noticed there were problems. But, I was off to a bread-making course and didn't have time to fix it. I was very pleased to find that you'd taken care of it in my absence! Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Information on the Old Catholic Church in the United States and associated organisations

In response to our previous discussion I have been doing some online research about the educational programs offered by the Collegium Augustinianum of which the rector is also the primate and archbishop of the Old Catholic Confederation and the Old Catholic Church in the United States (which has no direct connection to any of the historic Old Catholic churches of Europe).

OCCUS and the confederation have the same website address at http://www.occus.org/ The collegium's prospectus is also found on this website at http://www.occus.org/CA%20Prospectus%202014-2015-3.pdf

There are also some comments and questions on the Collegium Augustinium's Wikipedia article's talk page about the physical location of the collegium's two educational institutions by an editor who I have noticed in the past seems to be something of an expert on these "Old Catholic" groups. The editor's comments are found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collegium_Augustinianum#Locations

I double checked things for myself and was able to confirm that:

1. Its address in Philadelphia is actually the physical location of the Athenaeum of Philadelphia:

2. Its Orlando address is a shared rental office building:

3. The photo of a building on the collegium's prospectus is not of one of their buildings in America. A Google picture search indicates that it is of a country house in France. Although the collegium claims to have been "founded" in Paris it offers no further information about this. It also claims to have an association with the "Institut Catholique Supérieur de Philosophie et de Théologie de Paris" but the only results of an internet search on this name are on the collegium's website and other webpages about the collegium.

I hope this information helps to clarify some of my previous comments. Anglicanus (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's useful information. The discussion at Talk:Collegium Augustinianum is also revealing. We should probably check that the college's article doesn't overstate its legitimacy. Also we should check that the people who are said to be affiliated scholars truly are affiliated. If the faculty have publications, do they state their affiliation to Collegium Augustinianum in their byline? EdJohnston (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
yeah it is clear that CA is virtual. here is there annual report to the State of Florida. They use a corporation agent (see here) which is what many virtual companies do, and yes their office in FL is virtual ( see here). to me none of that is terrible... lots of good entities are virtual today. and their literature hints at it, but doesn't come out and say it clearly. that is a ~bit~ scammy to me. i looked through the recent annual reports of the antheneum in philly 9here) and their website, and found no mention of CA, which is the most weird thing to me of any of this.
and that CA's "prospectus" is on the OCC website.. here is funky.. or again, maybe just cheap and easy for the rector/archbishop. (their degree programs are really, really inexpensive. $6K/year! (from the prospectus, near the end) so it seems unlikely to be a money making scam. seminaries around where i live are $20K/year. really.
it is hard for me to "scam" right now. these are clearly non-mainline religious groups. which are generally poor. and poor and getting by on a shoestring doesn't mean evil.
am right now leaning toward poor and shoestring. but still digging. so interesting!
anglicanus, you seem like a left-wingy religious person... kind of love dorothy day maybe? i do. there is some stuff in the OCC that i think is really attractive.. to heck with the pope and celibate clergy and a lot of the RC baloney...i am not sure there is bad stuff here. i wonder why you are so convinced there is? Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
tax form - apparently formed in 2012. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
incorporated in PA in 2012 yep Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
they trademarked "collegium augustinanium" in 2012 Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
their PR] does say the US college is new but cites the paris one from 1999.. hm on that Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, this is a bit kooky about de Paulo Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog : Please also read my comments above in a previous section. I have been interested in these "Old Catholic" groups for over 30 years and have come to know quite a lot about them in that time. They are an interesting but also frequently a very disturbing phenomena. A few of them I do in fact have some respect for. But many if not most of them are essentially little more than episcopi vagantes groups which engage in a considerable amount of dishonesty and smoke and mirrors behaviours in order to seem to be an authentic "Catholic church". Some frequent characteristics of them are:
Excessive and inflated information on how legitimate they are, including:
  • An emphasis on asserting the validity of their ordinations through various lines of episcopal ordinations back to the Roman Catholic Church (or, sometimes, one of the Orthodox churches), usually via one or more characters such as Arnold Mathew or Rene Vilatte.
  • Having grand sounding titles for their bishops, such as "Archbishop of the United States".
  • An emphasis on memberships in chivalric orders, often bogus ones which they have created themselves.
(I may add to this list later.)
What I would say about the "Old Catholic Church in the United States" and its associated organisations is that they manage to present themselves as looking much more legitimate than they actually are. Some very professional looking websites (with some impressive looking photos). Lots of inflated claims about their "renowned faculty" and suggestions that they have some kind of formal association with "prestigious" educational institutions in Europe such as Oxford University (which, in reality, does not seem much more than having some library rights at them). Impressive sounding claims to have conferred honorary doctorates on some prominent theologians (who probably in my view were not aware of the true nature and status of the collegium). The use of some very nice looking church and other buildings for their liturgies and academic ceremonies which actually belong to other churches and organisations. To me all of this indicates a clear intention to seem impressive at the expense of honesty and transparency. Anglicanus (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
so crazy and interesting! but do they hurt people somehow? Jytdog (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
In my view yes, at least financially if not in other ways, if they are misrepresenting themselves. If they are being honest and transparent about themselves then not so much. But my opinion on this is already known. (If we are going to continue this discussion we should probably move it off Ed's talk page unless he wants to stay involved in it.) Anglicanus (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyone following this thread should take note of WP:Articles for deletion/Collegium Augustinianum, an AfD opened by User:Jytdog. That could be a place to reach agreement on notability and to verify that the article's references are reliable enough for Wikipedia purposes. If the college turns out not to be notable then it would save us the burden of verifying all the facts offered in the article. The fairly surprising claims in the current article, the use of questionable photos, and college's claim to be located in a state (Florida) where it apparently has no physical presence do raise eyebrows. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
These two articles have been significantly trimmed by Dianaa today. Apparently, there were copyright violations. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski's case re: Rosa Raisa

Hello Mr. Johnston,

Let me provide you with the extensive quote from her biography written by Charles Mintzer, who is a close friend to Raisa's family, a scholar and specialist in her life and career, and whose biography with her published letters is considered the most authoritative source about this singer. The book was published by one of the most prestigious academic presses in classical music and opera in the US. It was reviewed in top-tier academic journals including The Opera Quarterly (Oxford). I know Charles Mintzer personally and he is aware of this ongoing dispute. He is shocked about Oliszydlowski's editing harassment and onslaught on her identity (at one point, Oliszydlowski even invented a Polish version of her name (removing her documented Yiddish name) on her Wikipedia page (using his IP address!) .

The quote follows: "Raisa's languages included Yiddish, Hebrew (for prayer), Russian, Italian, French, English, and probably Spanish and some Portugese from her extensive stays in South America. ... Considering that she eventually became a naturalized U.S. citizen, probably the best definition of her ethnicity and unique persona is as an Italian-trained Russian Jew who ultimately lived the American dream of success as an internationally acclaimed opera singer. From her unpublished autobiography and other interviews over the years there are descriptions and accounts of everyday life in Bialystok. Raisa tutored students in Russian and Yiddish ..."" ) pp. 5-6 in Charles Mintzer, "Rosa Raisa: A Biography of a Diva with Selections from Her Memoirs" (Northeastern University Press: Boston 2001).

Do note that she was a polyglot, but did not even speak Polish. Charles Mintzer then later in the book documents further sources for this conclusion, including her concert programs that included Yiddish and Russian-language songs. She also wrote in Yiddish, Russian cyrillic, and English, and Mr. Mintzer has the documented evidence of her handwritten letters and notes as well.

I understand that you want to resolve this dispute in good faith, but I believe that this fully documented biography, based on the interviews with her close family, her own letters, and Mr. Mintzer's research of several decades, is a better authority on her identity/ethnicity than asking people from the area of her birth who were not even born when she lived there. Please note that she left Bialystok for Italy and then US in 1907, when she was 14 years old, never to return to live there again. I am more than happy to provide the link to this page number of his book after the first sentence about her identity in the Wikipedia article.

Quickly to explain that I just now created my Wiki account in order to report this editing abuse and for this reason my IP address shows on Oliszydlowski talk page and edit history (I did not expect that I would need to create my Wiki account, because I thought that Oliszydlowski would be reasonable when I provided him with the reference). My apologies for this confusion.

Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuserthea (talk • contribs) 23:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Wikiuserthea. For the benefit of any talk page watchers, this thread is about a 3RR case concerning the Rosa Raisa article. Anyone interested is encouraged to join the discussion at Talk:Rosa Raisa to resolve the disputed matters. User:Wikiuserthea, you should be making your content arguments there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see Oliszydlowski's flame war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus#Vandalism_for_Rosa_Raisa Instead of providing the facts and evidence for his constant reverts about Raisa's identity, he is now reporting the alleged "vandalism" and lying that I didn't provide any source. I fully documented the book on his talk page earlier this morning. There is no point discussing anything on the Rosa Raisa talk page because this is a farce. This is clearly the case of an obsessed ultranationalist (see his claim that Lithuania should belong to Poland on his Wiki contributor page) and not about the facts concerning one soprano whom he knows absolutely nothing about. Not once did he provide any source or evidence that he knows anything about her life, let alone her identity. Please let this lady rest in peace and tell this man to use someone else for his ultranationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuserthea (talk • contribs) 02:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: You advised to look at Simon Segal page for an example of someone Jewish born in Bialystok in the 1890s for the comparison. Soon after you posted it, Piotrus, who got involved into this issue without any knowledge of Rosa Raisa, immediately changed Simon Segal's identity by inserting "Polish-Jewish". See the timing of his edit of Simon Segal; it was done soon after you had suggested we look at Segal's page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Segal&diff=658929021&oldid=583198045 Other books designated him as "Russian-Jewish" but Piotrus decided to ignore it. See the references in my note to him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus#Your_edit_for_Simon_Segal

This is the tempering that should cast serious doubt on this user's legitimacy to discuss the matter of Rosa Raisa.

Regardless, at Talk:Rosa Raisa I provided full quotations from Raisa's published interviews where she identified herself as a Russian Jew. Also, there is Mr. Mintzer's message to you as well, advising to retain her identity as a "Russian-Jewish" soprano and explaining why. He originally authored the Wikipedia article about Raisa, as well as her published biography.Wikiuserthea (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ed, I think some reminders about WP:AGF and NOTABATTLEGROUND are in order here. I am clearly in favor of a Polish-Russian-Jewish compromise, per the clear no consensus in the sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Piotrus refuses to acknowledge Rosa Raisa's public expression of her own nationality as "Jewish" AND "Russian," but NOT "Polish", as documented in fully verifiable sources that I quoted on the talk page. She was born and raised in Jewish faith in Bialystok when it was a part of Russia, she left at 14 in 1907 when it was still a part of Russia, and Charles Mintzer provides multiple documented reasons for her sense of nationality as "Russian-Jewish" (NOT "Polish-Russian Jewish" as Piotrus would want to impose on her). Piotrus's "compromise" is between the person's expression of her own nationality and HIS imposition of "Polishness" on that same person who never expressed herself as Polish nor was she ever a Polish citizens. I alerted him that this is in violation of the international law and the UDHR that does not give anyone the right to impose the nationality on someone else. Instead, he as constantly switching the grounds and his new "trick" is to come to you to invoke a "good faith" argument. If anyone is not in good faith, that's him. We looked at the archives yesterday and saw that this is not the first time that he is forming the WP:CABAL with Oliszydlowski in bullying other contributors over the issue of nationality of diseased Jewish people. The definitive source about Rosa Raisa are her own words and expressions of her nationality. There is the public record of it as I quoted it and the rules of the international law on human rights mandate that this must be respected.Wikiuserthea (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The sources that Piotrus is referring to are general books and references that do not discuss Raisa's nationality but simply use the national adjective in the standard sense of the default designation of someone's place of birth. For the places like Bialystok that changed the sovereignty AFTER that person's birth, some sources refer to the country that controlled that area at the time of the person's birth (hence "Riussian") and others refer to the country that controls that area at the time of their own writing (hence "Polish"). Piotrus is fully aware of it and intentionally conflates the adjective references to the origin of her birthplace with the issue of her own nationality for which she publicly expressed to be ONLY "Jewish" and "Russian." According to the international rules on human rights, this should not be compromised as Piotrus and his compatriot Oliszydlowski would want it.Wikiuserthea (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiuserthea and Piotrus: How Rosa Raisa preferred to be known is not the final answer on her nationality for purposes of Wikipedia. The above references to UDHR are really beside the point. If you keep on mentioning human rights I have to question the extent of your reading of Wikipedia policies. There is no need for you to talk about BULLYING (in all caps). Wikiuserthea, you should be cautious with behavior that could cause you to be blocked for personal attacks, as on the article talk page. The best guide for how to describe someone's nationality is to review what has been decided in similar cases. Even then, a judgment call may be needed. In any case the place for further discussion is Talk:Rosa Raisa. Use WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. If nationality enters the picture be aware that WP:AC/DS gives admins extra tools for dealing with nationalist disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Please see Talk:Rosa Raisa for my apology as well as the explanation for using the word "bullying." I do not intend to be a Wikipedia contributor in the future (except for this current edit of Rosa Raisa), but nonetheless tried my best to learn the Wikipedia markup language and policies in this rather short time so to address the issue of Rosa Raisa. Given such a short period to learn it all, I did everything in good faith. For the record, I have no association with either Russian or Polish nationality and no personal stakes in any of this. But I personally know Mr. Mintzer, who spent 40 years of research on Rosa Raisa, as well as my own long-term admiration of her, to get involved in all this after it was pointed to me that Mr. Mintzer's original Wikipedia article has been several times distorted regarding her nationality. I have responded to Piotrus on Talk:Rosa Raisa with the hope toward a final resolution. (BTW, speaking of Wikipedia policies, a couple of years ago, my scholarly book in the completely different area was plagiarized on Wikipedia, but my students warned me about it and they went ahead to correct for it. It now stands corrected thanks to my students.)Wikiuserthea (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I have left a comment on the edit warring noticeboard about my warning about edit warring. Please commentRobynthehode (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What????

So you are saying i should stop editing??? WHATTT! . why im editing perfectly fine I'm doing you all a favor cant you see im ordering the information Coolidon (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If your edits are perfectly fine, then you shouldn't mind responding to the complaint about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Huge number of edits with no summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

how do you respond?

how i dont know how Coolidon (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you agree here to stop editing articles I'll post your response at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

so your flipping me

do you mean i cant edit anymore why i use reliable sources to my edits???? Coolidon (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

AE revisited

You and I had clearly advised Xtremedood not to engage in any edit war concerning Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.[29] However, previously the figure was "8,000" for Indian losses,[30] now it is again "8,000" for Indian and now it is also "3,000" for Pakistani losses.[31]

I wouldn't mind if you would take some time. Other edits such as [32],[33] are also concerning. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Admins can't decide who is right about the number of casualties. This is a content dispute. Consider opening an WP:RFC or using other methods of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
That's correct. I believe that different resolutions should be tried before I would come back here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

OhC AE

Hi Ed. Once again, User:Lowercase sigmabot III has archived the Ohconfucius AE discussion, even though the case hasn't been resolved. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same. And also to note that I responded to your question here. Let me know if there's anything else.
p.s., I hope some action is taken to permanently delete that essay, an archive of which OhConfucius is still promoting on his user page. I'm not upset about it personally, but it doesn't seem right that someone should be able to accuse other editors of being SPAs and sockpuppets with impunity, especially on a subject where they have a history of sanctions against them. This is pretty clearly a violation of Wikipedia's conduct policies against personal attacks, IMO.TheBlueCanoe 13:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the unresolved AE discussion still hasn't been restored from the archive. I'm hesitating to do this as a non-admin, but if you feel it's appropriate, I'll go forward with it. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Users: DVdm, Surtsicna clear case of an agenda account

Collapse a lengthy comment by editor who is now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

LOOK AT THIS clear case of vandalism

BLOCK THIS AGENDA ACCAOUNT - DVdm Surtsicna

I have irrefutable facts
RELIGION: TVRTKO I OF BOSNIA
Titles
In 1377, he signed himself "King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Maritime and the Western Parts"

King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Martitime and West Parts - Wiki

Magyar könyvszemle (Published 1897), PAGE 163
"Stefanus Tvrtko dei gratia rex Serblorum, Bosnae Maritmaeque"
look at my sources
1.
Mavro Orbini
Il regno de gli Slavi, hoggi correttamente detti schiavoni; page 358
Mavro Orbini says that Tvrtko crowned in Orthodox monastery Mileševa. Metropolitan monastery Mileševa crowned Tvrtko.
Tvrtko is a Orthodox Christian.
2.
Željko Fajfrić
Željko Fajfrić(2000). Kotromanici
tekst/text
"To je ohrabrilo Tvrtka da se u Mileševu, na grobu Svetog Save kruniše za kralja (26. oktobar 1377.). Osim kraljevske titule uzeo je i ime Stefan (Stefan Tvrtko I)"
translate
"It encouraged the Tvrtko to be in Mileševo, at the tomb of Saint Sava crowned king (October 26th 1377). Besides the royal title and took the name Stefan (Stefan Tvrtko I)"
Tvrtko is a Orthodox Christian.
3.
Vladimir Ćorović
and other relevant historians

______________

First

In the Charter of 1382, Tvrtko says that he follows the faith of our first parents, Messrs Serbian. Which means that he was an Orthodox Christian.

Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska
Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska, page 73

Second

Holy Archdeacon Stefan - Slava of King Tvrtko Kotromanića.

link: http://www.spc.rs/sr/vesti_iz_eparhije_budimljanskonikshitshke_6

spc.rs - The Serbian Orthodox Church

3rd

To be crowned a king in the Orthodox Church, he must be an Orthodox Christian.

Tvrtko is a Orthodox Christian.

Even handed

Thanks your comment re my warning of 3RR. Perhaps I hadn't made my point clear. My point re your (and other) admins decision was that the decision you made is not even handed. I have been reprimanded in the same manner as the other editor despite the fact that he has a history of rule breaking and he was abusive. This is not an even handed decision clearly. I expected him to be banned for say one month (despite his apology, which I accept but which I think is too easy. Words are cheap, actions are what counts and his past actions speak volumes including his attitude re editing that he expressed to me) so he can reflect on his totally unacceptable behaviour. I will not be happy unless something more is done about this editorRobynthehode (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for further action at WP:ANI. If you had not broken 3RR yourself you would be in a stronger position to ask for sanctions. AN3 is primarily a board for prevention of edit wars. As you have noted, he did apologize. If he continues with this kind of behavior it is unlikely it will go unnoticed by admins. Any repeat of his actions will probably get a vigorous response. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Would have been good to post it on my talk page as well. Your suggestion that because I broke the 3RR rule undermines my position to ask for sanctions is nonsense. My breaking 3RR has nothing to do with the behaviour of another editor. I broke the 3RR rule, if there are sanctions against me so be it - namely the warning this time. The other editor has repeatedly broken Wikipedia rules and guidelines and yet it seems they have not been proportionately sanctioned for there rule breaking. If you can't be even handed then it undermines Wikipedia.Robynthehode (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The claim that there will be a "vigorous response" is completely false. BMK has repeatedly abused editors, made personal attacks, and in this case, gone way beyond what is acceptable, yet you just credited this as a simple edit war and then told Robynthebode that they would have a better case if they hadn't edit warred. That's totally incorrect. Personal attacks are entirely independent of edit warring and should be treated as such. BMK has a recent history of going full tilt and swearing and abusing editors. The fact that this kind of behaviour has been discussed at the edit warring noticeboard that you dealt with is indicative that it is being glossed over. It's very easy to apologise once threatened with being blocked, but a quick check will reveal that BMK has abused a number of different editors in this very same way. You are sanctioning it with your inaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Resuming ew

Hi, FYI, immediately after one week block expired, user BosnaSRB RS (talk · contribs) went back to Tvrtko I of Bosnia with this, as if nothing happened. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor is now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions

A few days ago you placed a comment on my talk page under the title "Result of the edit warring complaint about you and Robynthehode". Because, for various reasons, I like to have comment titles on my talk page be as short as possible, I changed this to "Result of the EWN complaint about you and Robynthehode". Since an uninvolved third party has objected to this, my two questions to you are:

  • Do you, personally, object to this change? If so, I'll change it back.
  • In general, do you think changing the title of a comment - not the comment itslef - is a legitimate change, as long as the alteration is basically innocuous?

I wouldn't, of course (and don't) change the actual content of messages left on my talk page (oh, I sometimes add a wikilink if it would be helpful in conducting the discussion) - I either leave them as is, or I delete them, and I think you know that I'm not shy about doing the latter. However in my opinion, the title is not the same as the comment itself, and I'll frequently shorten them, or add a wikilink, or make other alterations which generally leave the meaning, but conform me to how I want my talk page to look. I've done this because, in my opinion, it's simply part and parcel of maintaining my talk page, but I'm curious to know if you think it oversteps the bounds of what is allowed. If so, then I'll have to consider simply deleting any comment whose title I don't find appropriate for the format of my page, even if the comment itself might be perfectly acceptable -- and that seems rather silly to me.

Any thoughts? BMK (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I just went through the various guidelines on user pages and talk pages, and I don't find anything which is on point - some stuff comes close, but nothing actually addresses the issue.
I suppose the underlying question would be is the title part of the comment, or is it a header separate from the comment? I guess I'm taking the position that it's separate from the comment, but I also note that I'm prone to post comments in which the title is a phrase ending in ellipses which is completed in the body of the comment, as in TITLE: "Thank you..." COMMENT: "...for blocking that annoying sock.". In those cases, I'm acting as if the title is an integral part of the comment, and changing the title would effectively be changing the comment. Of course, if someone posted that kind of comment on my talk page, I would leave it alone, although if the title phrase was very long and convoluted, I suppose I'd be tempted to move the title into the comment itself (leaving the ellipses) and renaming it "Comment from XYZ". BMK (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
In this case I don't think it matters. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. BMK (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You asked for editing in non Bohra areas

Dear EdJohnston you asked that I edit other areas of wikipedia. That has been done over the last few weeks. Please see my history.Noughtnotout (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you let me know what you would consider to be reliable evidence that one party or the other had won the Dawoodi Bohra succession? EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ed. You have asked a tough question which I have been thinking over and over but I fear there is no outright answer. How do we define a 'winner'? The winner has to be the one upon whom Nass (Islam) was conferred. But that is exactly where the same reliable facts are seen by different parties in different ways.
Nass is the cornerstone of Shi'a belief. It requires every predecessor to appoint his successor before dying.
The 51st Da'i al Mutlaq, Taher Saifuddin wrote a treatise[1] on the entire concept of nass with examples of how it was conferred from the time of Muhammed himself through to his day. And it is from that first instance of Nass (Islam) that the differences emerge. Evidence is acknowledged by both Sunni and Shi'a of Muhammed's high regard for Ali and its reliablity is not disputed, the historical fact is that the Sunni have not interpreted this as Nass (Islam) and instead upheld an electoral process that took place to nominate Muhammed's successor after he had died.
A precedent with similarity to that being witnessed today is the one that lead to the naming of the Bohra as 'Dawoodi'. The incumbent Dawood bin Qutubshah was challenged by Sulayman bin Hassan. This challenge was taken to the court of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. Whether as an outcome of Akbar's decree or otherwise - Dawood bin Qutubshah remained 'Syedna' to the majority which became what we know to day as the Dawoodi Bohra while another faction still exists known as the Sulaymani Bohra - mainly in The Yemen. To my knowledge the evidence of nass that Sulayman proffered was a signed, written document - the authenticity of which was disputed.
In the present dispute it seems again that it is not the existence of evidence that is in question but its authenticity or its meaning. From the Saifuddin side there is a video, relayed live and to all Bohras around the world, showing Muhammed Burhanuddin in an apparent direct conferral of nass in Mumbai. However Qutbuddin refutes both this - as Nass (Islam) - as well as another video taken on a mobile device of Muhammed Burhanuddin apparently conferring nass for the first time publicly whilst in his hospital bed in London after suffering quite a severe stroke. (This took place in the same month as the worldwide relay but a few days prior). Qutbuddin and his followers contend that neither of these demonstrates an explicit nass and suggest that both are, to some degree at least, being stage managed and without Muhammed Burhanuddin's consent.
Additionally Saifuddin has shown in public written diary entries said to be signed by Muhammed Burhanuddin and witnesses designating him as his successor. Their authenticity is questioned by Qutbuddin and the signatories are no longer alive. The witnesses of Burhanuddin's privately spoken nass (those that took place before the public ones and spoken of after his death) are the brothers of Saifuddin and so their word is refuted on the basis of nepotism.
From Qutbuddin's side the evidence is the claim that he was privately given nass by Muhammed Burhanuddin some five decades ago when he says he was also instructed not to reveal it until Burhanuddin's death. He cites as precedent of the 7th Da'i al Mutlaq who is said to have pronounced nass in private to his successor without any witnesses. There is no report that the validity of that nass was disputed although interpretations of the texts about this nass are again different. Since it happened many centuries ago and written record is sparse it is probably going to remain a matter of contention even for scholars.
Qutbuddin gives examples of what he says are 'esoteric' nass - words, actions or instances - that he says constitute an 'inferral' of nass and carry equal weight. eg 'the beloved son الولد الاحب ' address by Burhanuddin which he says is resevered for a spiritual 'son' and successor. His side also highlights his position as Mazoon for 50 years, the second highest rank in the mission and is a mantle they claim indicates that he is beyond reproach. ie that he would never claim something unless it was true. It should be noted that not all successors have been Mazoons and not all Mazoons have become Da'i al Mutlaq.
This and no doubt a great deal of other arguments are what the Bombay High Court are going to try and adjudicate on. As I am hoping that I have shown, any adjudication is unlikely to result in a significant change of heart of the followers of the 2 sides. Even if the court declares a 'winner' almost certainly the process will continue with appeals from the 'losing' side and in India this could be extremely protracted. In the meantime the two groups will most likely continue to follow their 'Syedna' as was the case with the Sulaymani/Dawoodi Bohras and then later the Alavi/Dawoodi Bohras.
The situation on the ground at this time is that Qutbuddin sought interim relief [2] preventing Saifuddin from administering the community's affairs. This was not granted by the Bombay High Court. Separately the UK Charities Commission continues to name Saifuddin as the Sole Trustee in accordance with the UK Dawat Hadiyah Act[3] which recogizes the authority of the Da'i al Mutlaq. A similar situation is found in North America. Saifuddin is administering the waqf properties of the Dawoodi Bohra such as mosques, madrasahs, schools and other educational institutes and mausoleums. He has taken the oath of allegiance from all the community members who volunteered it to him. There is no report of any jamaat body (local adminsitrative bodies in towns and cities where Bohras reside) taking any stand opposing his succession.
It is this administration right over the mission and its assets that the Court ruling will affect but not necessarily the allegiance of the followers.
Has this answered your question? If not then I'd be happy to try again.Noughtnotout (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Risala Ramadahaniyyah Dhow'o Nooril Haqqil Mubeen
  2. ^ https://lockerdome.com/dnaindia.com/7602973320822292
  3. ^ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1993/10/enacted


'Syedna' Mufaddal Saifuddin elected Chancellor of Aligarh University.
Court case media reports, Siblings do not openly support Qutbuddin, allegiances unaffected by case, 'nass' conferred in secret in 1965. 'Beloved son' means successor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noughtnotout (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This is interesting but I don't see it as evidence that either party has won the succession. But if the court reached a definite conclusion that would be worthy of notice. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes you could say the court case can declare the victor but Wikipedia articles should not really wait for an outcome and in the meantime have so many inaccuracies. I would be happy to run things by you if you want to see and make changes yourself - frankly almost all the current Bohra articles are poorly sourced, inaccurate inferences are given and a lot is just plain innuendo or POV.Noughtnotout (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not advisable for me to get into a discussion of content here. Admins don't rule on content. The instructions for how you can appeal your ban are in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The appeal process is highly complex - unless of-course that is what you want, that I don't understand and therefore can't appeal and stop being a nuisance to you? So what about the integrity of the Wikipeadia entries? Its quite remarkable to me that its perfectly permissible to write in Taher Saifuddin that "He was made honorary chancellor of this university, which had only few Bohra students, in 1953, after a series of strategic donations " without giving any sources. Even more unfathomable is how the section 'Criticisms' which comes immediately below that has an entire paragraph on reformists' allegations of claiming to be a god allegations which, in the very next paragraph, are said to be not supported by Court records. This is ok?
Yet for me to reference that every Indian national newspaper, the Indian Prime Minister and several other heads of state plus a leading university and the UK Charities Commission (all state level bodies) have all 'acknowledged' (not 'declared a winner') Mufaddal Saifuddin by referring to him as incumbent or Syedna is grounds to be banned?
The appeals page states quite clearly to first speak to the person who imposed the ban - that was yourself. I should point out there was no warning given, not by you. The warning I did get was not related to the ban that was imposed and was given barely an hour or so before this ban by someone else. This is not soap-boxing, it is relating the facts on the ground so that a reader of Wikipeadia is not misinformed. I'm really disappointed that you are showing no real interest in reviewing the decision given what you said to be about the model of Wikipaedia. Even after all that I have written and espcially after I have shown my intent of avoiding similar mistakes. Several allegations were made such as sock-puppetry all of which should now have been shown to be untrue and certainly no grounds have been shown as to why that was thought in the first place.
Honestly Ed, why did you ask my 'opinion' if you do not even think me worthy of editing?Noughtnotout (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

mail

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

Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Malik-Shah I page

Hi, EdJohnston. Could you please share your thoughts about this discussion, Talk:Malik-Shah. I need a neutral user's thought about that discussion. The problem is one group want to delete full name of Malik-Shah, sultan of the Seljuq Empire, from the infobox. If we take a look on pages such as Taizong, Chinese emperor of the Tang dynasty, Tiberius, Roman emperor etc. we can see their infoboxes contain the full names.

Infobox is easy way to explain full name of Medievel Muslim rulers for readers. With it, readers can learn easily what is laqab, kunya, nasab, why they important, what is the difference among them. --Qara Khan 19:50, 05 May 2015 (UTC)

Not easy to tell what you are referring to. What is the real name you want to put in the Infobox, and where is the prior discussion about that? EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I am referring to Encyclopædia Iranica and Cambridge History of Iran volume 5. I have put his real name including his laqab, kunya and nasab but that group wants to delete it from the infobox. --Qara Khan 20:16, 05 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like you have to persuade the other people at Talk:Malik-Shah I#New section. An opinion expressed there is that the full name is 'unnecessary and useless fluff'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You know that i have had many troubles with User:HistoryofIran so i don't think i will could persuade him. The other user, LouisAragon is his friend. Just take a look on their talk pages. They know nothing about titles of Roman emperors, Chinese emperors, Medievel Muslim rulers, therefore they think that full name is unnecessary. --Qara Khan 20:55, 05 May 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I will try to persuade him. --Qara Khan 21:55, 05 May 2015 (UTC)

Move-request closure with alt proposal

You closed Talk:National Aquarium in Baltimore#Requested move 27 April 2015 as not-moved, without comment. During the discussion, there was an alternative proposal made by a commenter that multiple later commenters mentioned. Did you find no consensus at all, or any consensus that the current title is correct? Or even a conensus for/against the specific alt proposal? DMacks (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, the alternative proposal has enough support. And it now appears that adding '(Baltimore)' keeps it from being US-centric. So I revised my closure. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! DMacks (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I would like to a file a complaint against Volunteer Marek for disruptive editing of "Criticism of the Federal Reserve" article. The type of disruptive editing is deletion of material he dislikes. Specifically there has been continual deletion of material, ALL of it from Federal Reserve sources and therefore both reputable and mainstream that Federal Reserve money printing (EASY MONEY POLICIES) caused the inflation that started in the 60's and peaked in the late 70's.

Please notice that according to wiki policies disruptive editing includes repeated deletion of material based on reliable source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.71.184.179.236 (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Changes at Criticism of the Federal Reserve need to be supported by editor consensus on the talk page. Material is not kept just because it is sourced, it is kept because it is judged to be relevant and important enough for inclusion. You have some opinions about the Federal Reserve that have trouble getting any support from others. In the event that you ever find backing on the talk page, it will be time to look into this further. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I would (gently) suggest that you get an account. IMO, it gives your edits more credibility (I know it's not supposed to, but appearances are important. But it is your decision. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The inflation of the 70's is described by the source material as the most important monetary event of the second half of the 20th century. The source material are Federal Reserve publications. It is both relevant and important enough to be included in the article.
That inflationary episode has long been considered the second greatest failure of Federal Reserve policies. However, with the recent Great Recession it may be down to #3.71.184.179.236 (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic bans

Suppose, an editor has been blocked from making an edit to WP:AN, regardless of zero disruption, and another admin comes up to propose a topic ban, ranging ban from all administrator boards(WP:AE, WP:SPI, WP:ANEW, WP:ANI, etc.) and also from seeking any administrative action on their UTPs.

Question is, if an administrator is allowed to propose such a wide ranging topic ban even as unblock condition.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You haven't said where this comes from. The 'regardless of zero disruption' suggests you might be skipping over some details important for the answer. I can't answer this without more information. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Well this all happened to me.[34] These events would be investigated at this ARC. I just wanted to know if I could get your view about such a topic ban, within the scenario I mentioned above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything the matter with the admin comments at User talk:OccultZone#An offer, and the proposed topic ban. In any case, Arbcom has accepted a case and this will cause your situation to be thoroughly investigated. In fact, your posting here might be taken to be admin-shopping because your recent activities have earned you plenty of admin attention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You are kinda correct, before I would spout any more word, I just thought of asking if I can be correct or not about the possibility that I asked above. Consider this as resolved. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Rarevogel sockpuppet

Seeing how you blocked Rarevogel, I thought I would notify you. I noticed the edits of CamTalbot who has removed Persianate from the Shaybanids article, match exactly the same edit made by Rarevogel. CamTalbot's edit summary for two of the three times he has removed Persianate has been disingenous, "Mongolian Origin" was removed. The Shaybanids did not have much Mongolian ancestry. According to many sources, such as Bartold, they were mainly of Turkic origin. Mongolian part was edited to better inform readers", "Removed irrelevant information in order to better inform readers". Neither edit summary stating what was really done in the article. After a request to take it to the talk page CamTalbot simply removed Persianate again, this time with no edit summary.

How many edits are required to prove this is a duck or to file an SPI? Rarevogel has been known to use sockpuppets in the past. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Warning Notes

That is ok. The topic ban on Nulla Taciti seemed a bit too mild though, considering the user's personal attacks against me on AN/EW ([35]). I do not remember ever interacting with them in the past before their edit-warring and removal of links to Wahhabism, so their comments makes no sense. Also, reporting a user for an obvious violation of WP rules does not equate with harassing a user, it was only an attempt from me to protect the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant from disruption. Thank you, anyways. Khestwol (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this is now resolved per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:Nulla Taciti reported by User:Khestwol (Result: Restriction for one week). EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston. Nulla Taciti is back now from the topic-ban you issued him. And it looks just as he came, he is yet again removing any sourced link to Wahhabism that he finds from multiple articles ([36], [37]). This is the exact reason he was banned for! This time he is reverting other users for it, but is still attacking me personally ([38]). Could you, again, please help protect articles related to Wahhabism from the POV he pushes and his disruptive edits? Thank you! Khestwol (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
So far as I can tell the editor hasn't been continuing to revert about Wahhabism after 6 May. Otherwise some kind of topic ban under WP:GS/SCW could be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Whyedithere

Thanks for warning Whyedithere (talk · contribs), not that I think it will do much good. He demonstrates very poor judgment, including the lack of ability to apply common sense to situations, which is what lead to the CSI and CSI:Cyber edit wars. You might want to look at the sequence of edits (it's short) that begins here, over whether a press release dated May 8 and released in Los Angeles before midnight, although after midnight Eastern time was actually released May 8 or May 9. He reverts three editors who point out that, just because it was May 9 in his time zone, doesn't mean it was released on May 9. And then there's the issue of his refusal to abide by WP:BRD. Sorry, venting!

And hands up, I'll take my medicine for my part in it all. I know better, but sometimes… --Drmargi (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If you find a need to report him again, you can link to the prior discussion. When there is a pattern that can be demonstrated, it may be enough to justify admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Irawan Deletion

Hello Kind Sir, I've found the reference that you asked me to look. it is not an English page or english reference, but it is an official website of Waasland-Beveren that contains information about Arthur Irawan Debut. thanks for your attention. I'm sorry if by doing this I broke some rules, because I'm new and I'm still learning how things work here. thank you.--Dikamesywara (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this reference shows he has taken the field for a fully professional team. Why not ask User:GiantSnowman if the article is now ready to be restored to main space. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dikamesywara: @EdJohnston:  Done. GiantSnowman 14:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank You so much Dikamesywara (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Getoverpops

After his 48 hour block he returned and made the same reverts he did before. You gave a really good summary of the reason for your block so I quoted it on the new referral. Somehow I screwed up the referral so that even though it shows on the TOC, it doesn't have a separate EDIT button -- the only way to edit it is through the referral above it. I can't figure out what I did wrong or how to correct it. I can understand why you might not want to make a decision again on the same editor (seems like some admins do and others don't), I would appreciate it if you can correct the technical problem. Thanks. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I have asked for clarification on the block I was given. I think the information NS gave to you outside of the notice board was not correct. NS is correct in that the previous neutrality discussion had gone stale while I was away from the computer. Thus he was right to remove the edit tag and I was wrong to replace it. However, note that I did that assuming the neutrality discussion was still active. That was my mistake. To that end I have brought the discussion back since it had not been completed. It is currently still in discussion (I have provided the reviewer the information he requested and I'm awaiting his input. Since the discussion is current it seems the Wiki rules do support keeping the tag. If the reviewer/moderator says the discussion should be closed then I agree the tag should be removed. Until the discussion is concluded why is it incorrect to have the tag? ThanksGetoverpops (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You should not need a moderator to tell you whether the article needs to be tagged. That is something to be worked out by talk page consensus. Since you are the only person restoring the tag and others constantly remove it it suggests that the tag doesn't have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
But that seems ripe for the abuse we are seeing here. We have several editors who seem quite happy with the overall bias displayed in the article. If you look at the talk page history of the article it's clear a number of editors have been unhappy with the overall bias. However, we also have several editors who want to guard the article. Let's assume for the moment I'm correct, how can I keep the neutrality tag up if the other editors want to remove it because they are happy with a biased article? It seems this is a way for a select few editors to chase away people who might want to bring balance to a poorly written article. I would also like to point out that the POV page [[39]] does not say consensus is required. It says the tag should be removed when any one of the three is true:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
There was not a consensus on the NPOV board that the issue was resolved. Certainly the mediator never made such a claim. The second is also not true in this case. The final was true but was no longer true once the NPOV complaint was brought back. Given the rules I don't see why the edit tag should be removed from the article and would say that those who are removing it are the ones in the wrong. Am I miss reading the rules?Getoverpops (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You want the POV tag to be 'sticky' and unremovable except by you. That's not going to happen. The text shown in Template:POV is neither a guideline nor a policy. But WP:Edit warring is a policy. If they conflict, WP:EW will take precedence. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it was NS who has accused me of that. That is NOT what I want. I am trying to get some level of ruling from the NPOV board for my sources and the changes I have proposed. This is complicated by Scoobydunk who is trying to object to every detail in an effort to derail the conversation. If the text I quoted is neither a guideline nor a policy why does it even exist? I was acting within the rules set out by that page yet now I find that I have been "guilty of edit warring" for following what were to the lay editor the rules. Sadly I think the edits to the article will again end up in a dispute forum because NS is unwilling to be reasonable and Scoobydunk seems to want to be disruptive more than anything. Note that SD had NEVER contributed to the article in question prior to my neutrality dispute. He joined the dispute discussion out of the blue and in a way that was hostile and condescending (and often wrong). That complaint aside, I strongly disagree with the claim that I want to simply label the article. I want to get some balance into it but instead I have to fight with editors who simply want to be obstructionist or even dishonest about claims I have made. Is that how Wiki edits are supposed to work?Getoverpops (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, there is such a thing as losing the argument. See WP:IDHT. I don't know whose side I agree with at Southern strategy, but your approach seems to have alienated enough people that you may not get anywhere for now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I guess it's hard to argue with that. You are probably right that I have alienated some editors (I still have no idea how Scoobydunk randomly decided to join into the debate out of the clear blue sky). Regardless, I will try to keep on improving things while trying to stay within the rules. What I find troubling is a case such as my first request for mediation. The other editors simply refused to play. Let's assume I was right but the other editors refused to play. Howe does that "consensus to obstruct" work when an editor is trying to present new information?Getoverpops (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If you carefully study the sequence of events, you will probably discover that you were outvoted. You tried to persuade the other editors, but they were not persuaded. Admins can't force people to agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No doubt I was out voted the first time (the dispute resolution request, not the neutrality discussion which went stale because I was unable to reply for a while). However, is there a mechanism in which an outside reviewer can tell a clique of editors that they are wrong? I think the first time I didn't have my evidence all lined up. The pushback from the other editors did force me to clean up my arguments. That said, I now have several peer reviewed references that I've added to the article to try to add some of the balance I have been asking for. Let's suppose the clique of editors simply removed the changes without comment and refuses to discuss on the talk page? What next? Who do I appeal to?Getoverpops (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Per the message you sent this morning I would like to know what constitutes an edit war in this case. If you look at the stale neutrality board I was asked to make changes based on my views. I have made those changes. When they were undone this morning I did not revert the parts that were identified as problematic. Instead it was moved to the talk section.
I would ask that you discount claims by Scoobydunk. I believe he has lied about both my POV and the quality of the links I have provided. I would be happy to discuss these items but I would ask that you actually review the facts yourself rather than believe SD's claims. Please see my recent edits as evidence that I'm not simply engaging in an edit war. Getoverpops (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

Yamaguchi先生 17:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our next evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Deconstruction page, again

After geting consensus with other editors about the leading in "deconstruction", an anonimous editor started a new "editing war". He just added comments about the article being "Essay-like", "research paper", "POV" and "Systemic bias" without giving any reasons to do so and ignoring appeals to go to the "talk page". Considering that the article is the result of so many editors, most of them with bias against Derrida, and that everyhting that is in the lead results from adapting "Stanford enciclopedia" about the subject, a famous interview from Derrida himself (refered by Stanford Encicolpedia: "But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions”(Positions, pp. 41-42)") and Rotry, I don't see how this can be. The rest of the article is almost 90% result from an editor that is cleart against Derrida. I should I proceed? Thanks Hibrido Mutante (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the IP-hopper from BT is back, so I restored the semiprotection to Deconstruction. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

user:Binksternet and the 3RR

Can you please block the above user as they have abused the three revert rule on A Beautiful World and are disruptive editing the page and keep reverting my sourced edit; also could you protect that page too? 86.131.166.129 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What we have here is socking, an IP-hopping genre warrior, using the following UK-based IPs and accounts: 82.132.213.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); 82.132.236.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); 86.131.166.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); A Puppy Called "Dudley" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); and UKoXYgen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This is likely block evasion by MariaJaydHicky, and I was reverting this person based on that assumption. Do what you think is right. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
An interesting sequence can be found at WP:RPP: IP removes my request, then a registered account replaces it with a nonsense accusation of their own. (Diff.) I think the way forward is clear. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I did some blocks; another admin already semied A Beautiful World until May 14. Especially impressive that they removed your post from WP:RFPP. I haven't done anything with User:UKoXYgen; need more info. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like to add; Binksternet to not get me involved and I saw that genre war you and the IP was having on the Kelis album "Food" page and I reported it; if you've got a problem with me doing that then tell me directly and not do the dirty later on up here, thank you UKoXYgen (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I am terribly sorry that I got involved defending myself on your talk page; but I literally saw red and I didn't want their personal vendetta/personal attack that was including me; can you do something about that? UKoXYgen (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki

Hi EdJohnston. I have included some of your posts in my Incident report above. All The best, Itsmeront (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Please don't do that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the information as you requested. I apologize for linking you in, without talking to you first. I'm sure you can tell I am not terribly well-versed in Wikipedia Protocol. I have also made a more detailed explanation on the incident report, if you have an interest in the original issue, I would be happy to have your reasoned opinion. Itsmeront (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Idle question...

If you in your capacity as an admin applied a specific editing restriction (as a result of Arb-enforcement, discretionary sanctions etc) that would expire when another (already existing) restriction expired, only the other restriction not only doesnt expire but gets lengthened/indeffed, would your sanction also lengthen or would you consider it to expire when the original was due to? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That probably needs a discussion with whoever imposed the original restriction. If you can give an actual example that would help. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving archive page

Hello. Since you're the only admin I know, I need to ask you what to do about moving archive pages to their proper name?

I have problem with article about this archive. The article is named "Friedrich Hayek", though, the archive page is titled "Friedrich von Hayek". I tried to move the archive page (rename it) earlier, but that wasn't possible. What to do about this issue?

Thx. --AnulBanul (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I did a text merge, so there is now a single archive file at Talk:Friedrich Hayek/Archive 1 covering the whole period 2005 to 2013, instead of two different Archive 1's with different spellings for his name. Hope that solves the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Alex Guerrero move

Hi. You contested my request for an uncontroversial technical move. Perhaps you are now satisfied that there is no reason not to do this? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Replied in the move discussion. The move should occur. Now we just have to wait for someone uninvolved to close it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

3RR

I have no idea how you're counting a "3RR violation" on my part at Controversial Reddit communities. I made one related set of edits, and have reinstated that set only once. Per WP:3RR, A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Further, one of the changes I restored is on the basis of BLP, and was endorsed at BLP/N. Meanwhile, I'm being called a "pointy vandal", "not serious" and "POV" - all groundlessly - in the edit summaries of the editors who have seen fit to oppose these changes, and they have made no effort to contact me (I am about to open the Talk page discussion now). 74.12.93.177 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right. After considering the consecutive edits, you didn't cross 3RR. Since you don't appear to have a fixed address, is there any way you can be contacted in the future for questions? Articles related to Gamergate have frequently been semiprotected. That would be an inconvenience to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how "Controversial Reddit communities" is an "article related to Gamergate". That said, from what I can tell, it's unusual for Talk pages to receive the same protection as the articles, and anyway when semiprotection is invoked, I treat it as part of the price I pay for my ideological stance WRT Wikipedia (and supporting evidence for it, too).
To elaborate: my observation over the last several months (if not years; all evidence available to me suggests that things have been like this since at least 2007) has been that IP editors are treated as second-class citizens, while certain established editors are given enough WP:ROPE to build bridges and somehow never deemed to have hanged themselves. I cannot in good conscience create an account while these egregious double standards remain. From what I can tell, the system practically encourages established editors to cause trouble for newer ones; the entire thing is grossly undemocratic and I refuse to subject myself to the abuse of trying to protect an account from stepping on the wrong person's toes for long enough to gain respect, only to turn around and cause the same problems for others (as the apparently intended reward for playing along). Say I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia" if you must; but in my view, pointing these things out is the most important thing I could possibly do to help the encyclopedia flourish. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
AE is often the venue for disputes between entrenched factions. The record of both parties is generally reviewed at AE. You are choosing to conceal your background. This does affect how seriously you will be taken there. You are welcome to come forward and disclose your previous connection to the topic, and where you have edited. Otherwise, there is a big incentive for a long-time participant in some painful area to simply log out of their account and then file a complaint at AE about the other guy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

Hello. I am notifying you that the above is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura, and your input (positive, negative, or otherwise) is invited there. You have received this notification and invitation as you participated in the previous ban appeal in 2009 and may be familiar with or remember some of the earlier context, you may be aware of other matters which are relevant to the appeal, or you may wish to express whether or not your view has changed since the last discussion. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

There is an obvious meatpupperty between these two ultra nationalist Azeri users: Samak (talk · contribs) and Asparux Xan Bulqar (talk · contribs). Please check their contributions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.163.169 (talk • contribs)
If you are also editing as a different IP at Template:Kurds infobox it is better if you make your identity more clear. I see User:Asparux Xan Bulqar adding respectable sources to that template. There is a thread at Template talk:Kurds infobox (where I assume you are active) but it's hard to follow since people are not signing their posts. Participating in a controversy as an IP-hopper makes it hard for you to get support since nobody can follow your comments from one day to the next, or from one comment to the next. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The meatpupperty occurs at Azerbaijan-related articles. Especially West Azerbaijan.

Sock case

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive280#User:91.148.76.220_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_Semi.29 - three or four articles are still being targeted. Should I open a new sock case and list all the previous IP's? --NeilN talk to me 17:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Tiptoety has blocked Special:Contributions/91.148.76.220 for two weeks. Meanwhile I semiprotected Battle of Košare. If you think other articles deserve semiprotection let me know. You must be thinking of Attack on Prekaz or Battle of Maritsa. For POV-pushers semiprotection is often effective. If the IPs always geolocate to the same place I suppose that's of interest, and could make an SPI worthwhile. The latest IP is from Belgrade. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Currently active on Attack on Prekaz --NeilN talk to me 14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Now considering a rangeblock. See User talk:NeilN#Belgrade IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

AE and GGC and TS

Does "Tony, if you see a discussion being unhatted at Talk:Gamergate controversy and judge that to be inappropriate, consider reporting that at AE. Use informal language if needed." apply just to Tony Sidaway? Because this is getting really annoying. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You could join the AE discussion and ask for the change by User:Chrisrus to be reverted. I admit that some of User:Chrisrus's comments seem oblivious to the serious problems that WP:ARBGG was trying to address. The Gamergate controversy talk page is not like all other talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I see the thread at WP:AE#The Gamergate hatting thing has blown up again has been closed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise per "Not an actionable request at this point." That appears sensible. The floor is open for new complaints if anyone thinks that behavior on that page by any one person has gotten bad enough to deserve a sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't think of how to approach this. I want the meta stuff to go to the right place, which I'm pretty sure isn't the GGC talk page, but where would the right place be? And I am horrified by the idea that the right place for meta stuff for GGC would be AE every time. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You could ask an individual admin for suggestions. Except for that, I don't see anywhere but AE to question the special restrictions that have been placed on Talk:Gamergate controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

War in Donbass

Can you explain why do you ascribe such bad faith in IP editors so you are in result block editing even as there weren't any violation of 3RRs rule? In fact I made three edits. One, big, to revert highly controversial and NPOV content included by obvious SPA. This one was reverted by one user because he felt that I do not properly described my changes. I agreed with him so I fragmented my edits. Second one was accepted by the same user and finally third was not. I tried my best to include contructive arguments and all my edits were in line with TALK page and previous edits, particularly by Ekograf and yet I was labeled with such unpleasant term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.247.228 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your post here on my talk page is your only Wikipedia edit. If you want to participate on a contentious article, you are more believable if you have a track record. Either with a registered account or a stable IP. When you say "all my edits" I have no idea what you are referring to. Feel free to identify other IPs which are also you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't awere that my ISP is changing my IP so frequently. I am http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.172.247.216 and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.172.247.247 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.172.247.241 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.247.227 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Feel free to make your argument at Talk:War in Donbass. It seems you haven't yet participated there, unless some of the other IPs are also you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

DC Comics' cinematic universe films

You recently closed my request to move this page back to DC Comics' shared universe films and then copied my request on as a requested move at Talk:DC Comics' cinematic universe films. I know there is always a wrong version, but shouldn't you have resotred the status quo before the disruptive (yet good intentioned) undiscussed controversial move? Also you can't use my request for a uncontroversial technical move as a request for a controversial move. The rationale for a controversial move would be completely different. It doesn't make sense as it stands and thus unfairly puts the request at a disadvantage. Please move the page back as I originally requested and let Mike150517 supply the WP:BURDEN to make a proper request if he so chooses. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

My other option was simply to decline your request, since the move was obviously controversial. Now at least a discussion is going forward. If you don't want to have a move discussion, and are willing to live with the current article names, I can speedy close the move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Correcting an improperly moved page is hardly controversial and as I said the burden for justifying the move should be placed on the person who wanted it moved in the first place.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not post in the discussion, and provide diffs showing that the original move was undiscussed. That will help your case, since a No Consensus should result in restoring the original. Your original post did not specify who had done the undiscussed move or when. Also, the mention of history merging suggested the prospect of complexity, indicating that it might be less work to wait for a full discussion to sort everything out. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
That is working backwards, it should start from the original location. Also a no consensus in the current discussion would result in leaving the page where it currently is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be annoying, but this is a sort of local practice regarding undiscussed moves at WP:RM. Your request sounds to me that it exceeds the usual expectations. So far as I know there is nothing written in policy about what actions admins should take regarding undiscussed moves. This one was especially complex since I couldn't see who had done the original move, or what the reasoning was for each side. In that case, going directly to discussion seemed to be the safest bet. Your theory about the 'burden for justifying the move' is just your own theory, and is not written down in policy. It's essentially an appeal to common sense, and I'm suggesting that admins can appeal to common sense also. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean that you will not move the page back to its original location? I understand how it might be difficult for an admin to reverse a decision that he/she has already made, but I think you should really consider it. I'll even suggest and give a direction to Mike150517 (since he seems new here) on his talk on how to request a proper move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you link to the move that you think should be reversed? And have you left any messages for User:Mike150517 to explain the problem? I was not aware that Mike was the culprit. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't link to the actual diff because it seems to have been covered up by the WP:HISTMERGE that was preformed after User:Mike150517's cut-and-paste move. I have not left any messages for Mike but Joseph2302 left a couple on his talk page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

CALYX is not an acronym

The examples you cited in the CALYX move decision (IBM and SAP SE) are both acronyms, which is why they are correctly capitalized. Calyx is not; it is merely stylized in all caps on the company's website. In fact, further down the page on that website, you can see the name in normal title caps (i.e., "Calyx"). Do you have better examples of companies whose names are NOT acronyms, but whose WP articles are all caps? (If so, I would assert that perhaps they should be changed as well.) Krychek (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Where do you see 'Calyx' lower case on their website?
In the box with the Lois Cranston Memorial Poetry Prize. Krychek (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
And I would argue that the title of this obscure stub written in 2002 should be changed or, preferably, the article deleted based on notability criteria. Krychek (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes: "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks," in the "All Caps" section. This directive appears to apply across the board; it is not a judgment call as is the case with CamelCaps. Krychek (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Unclear if these items are decisive. The script in the box about the Cranston prize is a name in some decorative handwriting, not a piece of regular text. Does it seem to you they have put a capital 'X' at the end of CalyX? The wording at MOS:TM doesn't explicitly handle the CALYX case, though it does tilt the tables against upper case generally. Also, it wants the trademark in lower case "if this is a style already in widespread use". I assume that's the ground for having our article on the magazine at Time (magazine) and not TIME. If you believe that lower-case Calyx is in widespread use by third parties to refer to the magazine, that data would be relevant. If you disagree with my decision, you can appeal at WP:MRV. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

AN/I – Volunteer Marek

Hi Ed,

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The thread is POV pushing, removal of sourced material. Thank you for your time. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban Appeal

As per your instructions I have filed an appeal on the above topic ban.Noughtnotout (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sanction

I don't see for how long I have been banned in your decision, if you can, please, make a note about that for safety reasons. Also, I don't see my name on the sanction log. --AnulBanul (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have one question. Am I allowed to report an insult made in this edit summary? It has nothing to do with the article. It's about personal insult made by this user, who said to me to "fuck off". --AnulBanul (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I left a note for User:C3r4. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thx. --AnulBanul (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand

How, as an admin, can you decline to answer a general question, regarding the propriety of one or another clear editorial choices? If you wish to understand my chagrin, look to Neil's comment at my Talk page—he is arguing that there are no firm principles, just whatever one can get a couple of mates to agree on, on the fly. The bolded question I have asked there, is simple, and I will continue to elevate it until I get an answer. (I have now seen two case adjudicated, and in complete opposite directions on the same question.) If you cannot answer personally, and I have to elevate, I will have to ping you when the matter goes forward (wherever such general questions go). Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, no I didn't say anything close to that. [40] Given the way you have twisted my words, I think EdJohnston has more useful things to do than playing your games. --NeilN talk to me 18:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Let him speak for himself, please, just as he can go to the Talk, and see what indeed you wrote. I have no further time for your nonsense. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
In general, we try to be guided by consensus. You seem to be refighting past battles and want somebody to invent a new rule that either confirms or opposes what you did in past cases. We're not about to create new rules on demand just because you would like such a rule to exist. EdJohnston (talk)

Page protect

Hi. Do you mind page protecting this article (Somaliland)? AcidSnow (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not try to open a discussion with the IP? If that fails, we might consider semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I see, thank you. They have stopped anyways, so I will when tent return. AcidSnow (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Indonesian National Revolution - edit warring continues

Hi, Despite the recent blocking of a user responsible for edit warring on Indonesian National Revolution, there has been another identical edit today from an IP editor. Could you advise me if there is anything I can do or request? Thanks Davidelit (Talk) 11:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Now semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Davidelit (Talk) 05:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit protection on Atiśa

Hey there, you just semi-protected Atiśa - same guy is doing a similar thing on Kadam (Tibetan Buddhism). Ogress smash! 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotected Kadam (Tibetan Buddhism). EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You have a reply on [[41]] Anmccaff (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:DC Comics' cinematic universe films#Requested move 20 May 2015

It's been a week, do you think that you can assess the requested move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Now closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

AnulBanul

I would like to inform you that user AnulBanul has already broken the topic ban regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to troll. [42] I also feel obliged to inform you that this account is controlled by the same individual that editted under the Wüstenfuchs handle (registered and active since 2008). Not one of the reasons for using a legitimate alternate account can be applied in this case and it's obviously evident from this entire persona he's crafted (female Armenian from the University of Belgrade with a self-portrait image, fake birth place, and all [43]) that the purpose of the AnulBanul account was to distance his past as much as possible so as to avoid scrutiny which is an explicit misuse of clean start. Despite his outright lie that he has "no connection to the said user whatsoever" [44], its been made clear from the overwhelming evidence that he engages in the same exact disputes and editing patterns as his prior account [45], and a CU admin has already noted that he edits from "the same ISP and geographic area". [46] --Potočnik (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked 48 hours for violation of the topic ban from everything related to Bosnia-Herzegovina. The SPI claiming that he was Wüstenfuchs has been closed with no action, though these editors could actually be the same person. I take note that Wüstenfuchs is blocked on the Croatian Wikipedia but the grounds for that are unclear. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
His continuation of his past editing in the same tendentious areas is evident likewise is his attempt to avoid scrutiny by hiding it and deceiving fellow editors via a new persona under a new account. Why the user was not blocked despite all this evidence following the SPI, I don't know. Regarding your note: The Wüstenfuchs account on the Croatian Wikipedia was blocked for "unconstructive debate and moves and categorizations. The highlight being Srebrenica." [47] and for "personal attacks". [48] The AnulBanul account on the Croatian Wikipedia was blocked for "sockpuppetry (abusing multiple accounts): Wüstenfuchs". [49] --Potočnik (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
If there was a Croatian SPI report, can you link to it? And if there was a blocking discussion, can you link also? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a proper SPI system like the one here exists there (likely the same case for the Bosnian and Serbian Wikipedias), but after all it's a much much smaller project with a lot less active members and in which case it's super easy to spot such obvious abuses. Indeed it's hard to believe it's anyone other than him when he does such obscure and specific edits such as [50][51] (among the litany of other identical ones). At the SPI on the English Wikipedia other users voiced similar concerns and evidence albeit under the AnulBanul SPI rather than the Wüstenfuchs SPI. [52] I don't know if this split in dialog caused confusion and affected the outcome. Vanjagenije, the closing admin, claimed that "nothing WP:ILLEGIT was proven" but I had already said this was quite an obvious and determined attempt to avoid scrutiny.
Note that the Wüstenfuchs account became inactive on 20 September 2014, [53] two days later the AnulBanul account became active on 22 September 2014. [54] The last edit of Wüstenfuchs (Bilal Bosnić, ISIL recruiter) and first edit of AnulBanul (Military intervention against ISIL) are both related to Islamic extremism. Further note that Wüstenfuchs' IP was blocked for block evading in order to edit war. [55] That IP (93.180.104.124 (talk · contribs)) edited three articles, all of which were created by Wüstenfuchs and all of which were later edited by AnulBanul/Wüstenfuchs with same POV: Avdo Humo (IP: [56], AnulBanul: [57]), Hasan Brkić (IP: [58], Wüstenfuchs [59]), and Osman Karabegović (IP: [60], Wüstenfuchs: [61]) Also despite his "Armenian who lived in Serbia" persona he never once edited the Armenian Wikipedia (hy.wikipedia.org) or Serbian Wikipedia (sr.wikipedia.org). [62] If this all isn't an elaborate abuse of WP:SCRUTINY then I don't know what is. --Potočnik (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
AnulBanul's claim of an Armenian connection always seemed fishy, but we don't block people for telling implausible stories. You'd need to find an actual policy violation if you think admins should take action about him on enwiki. If you listed all the edits by Wüstenfuchs and gave him also all the edits of AnulBanul and associated IPs, do you think the overall pattern violates anything? EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If taken as a whole: the denial of any connection to his prior account, the creation of a fictious persona to appear more neutral and completely unrelated (even going so far as to upload some random woman's image), the splitting of his past edit history to deceive users and continuation of his past modus operandi, and the forging of a clean slate that is without previous ARBMAC warnings and blocks. It's hard to assume good faith here and I would say that this is at a minimum the intentional misuse of WP:CLEANSTART and a violation of WP:SCRUTINY, the latter of which I've stated many times already, but is something that no one appears to want to address.--Potočnik (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit war at Anthony Watts (blogger)

Ed: since you're following this, could you please look in at that talk page. Discussion continues at No consensus....

Just FYI, but I'm not optimistic that we will reach consensus there on our own. I'm not sure how (or when) to proceed. Thoughts? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There's always the option of an WP:RFC. If an edit war does break out, the existence (or non-existence) of an RfC result will carry some weight. People can wave their hands and say there is consensus, but you can't always take that seriously. In fact there was one RfC about a different subject back in 2009 at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 2#RfC: How should this page be disambiguated?. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) reverts

He's stopped fudging the numbers themselves. However, he still writes in that the figures both come from pro-Hadi sources which is a misrepresentation of the sources. In regards to the Houthi losses there are two references for the 49 killed. 1st (20 dead) is a pro-Houthi soldier, 2nd (29 dead) is simply stated officials and at no point is it stated whether they are pro-Hadi or pro-Houthi. So at least when it comes to the first source he is misrepresenting what its saying. So what do you propose? EkoGraf (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a WikiProject or a more-heavily-viewed page about the same war, where you could take this? EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There is both a Wikipedia:WikiProject Yemen and a Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Asia both they both appear to be inactive as talk page comments receive no responses. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history? There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force but it doesn't have its own talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone might ask User:Kudzu1 if he has any suggestions. He's an experienced editor and has worked on some of the Yemen war articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@EkoGraf: I don't have any particular insight in this specific case, but my degree of patience for people who want to strip out or try to discredit reliable sources because of "structural bias" is rather low, especially when the only "competing" sources they have to offer are inherently problematic (Yemeni and Iranian state media, Hezbollah-controlled media, conspiracy blogs, etc.).
That being said, I don't mind attributing contentious claims in prose as they are in the articles we're referencing. The issue, as you identify, is parsing some of those sources.
In this particular situation, I think presenting a range inclusive of competing claims is appropriate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kudzu1: When there are competing claims I am all for attributing those claims. However, in this case this editor is attributing a Houthi claim to a Hadi claim and attributing a unidentifiable claim to a Hadi claim as well. EkoGraf (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Kadam and Atisa

Hi. Atisa and Kadam must be unprotected, as I did not do any vandalism. See this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kadam_(Tibetan_Buddhism)&action=history. I always made a clarification but the two others they just undid my edits by saying nothing. I also took it on the talk page but none is answering. Even the article itself (Kadam) mention that Atisa was Bengali. He was born in Bengal and raised up there and then moved to China. He has nothing to do India. Please see Bengalis, in which he is included at the top. Regarding this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ati%C5%9Ba&diff=664458518&oldid=664446621, I improved the article. I added the honorific, clarified most of the sentences, added reliable sources, improved grammar mistakes and did many other things, so why all of them have to be reported? The only thing which may be considered as controversial is "considered by Buddhists to be one of the reincarnations of Gautama Buddha." This can be taken in the talk page and be removed for now, but others are really improvements. Hope you understood. Please reply. Thanks! 78.149.114.101 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please use Talk:Atiśa and Talk:Kadam (Tibetan Buddhism) to persuade the other editors. This edit flatly states in Wikipedia's voice that Atiśa is one of the reincarnations of Gautama Buddha. You are making us propound a religious belief. We are supposed to be neutral and simply describe what the believers think. Your use of a fluctuating IP makes you less credible than you would be with a username or a fixed address. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. As I said before, that religious belief will not be added, but others are IMPROVEMENTS of wikipedia. None answered at the talk page. Please unprotect them. I already explained on those issues. Thanks. 78.149.114.101 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I answered you on the talk page yesterday. You didn't discuss anything on Atisa... Ogress smash! 19:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"Buddhist Brâhmans"

Okay I nominated for deletion this terrible article Buddhist Brâhmans, you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Brâhmans to weigh in, as I understand it. What a truly terrible idea for an article. It's wrong on so many levels I don't know how to start: brahman isn't a discrete category, we're talking thousands of years and many different cultures, it's unclear that the individuals cited as "brahmans" were so or that they meant what brahman does now; it's literally a glorified list of anyone who has had the word "brahman" attached to them who is affiliated with Buddhism. Ogress smash! 19:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like User:Tokyogirl79 has taken care of deleting this as a G5 per the result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Rarevogel sock?

User:CamTalbot is back and has removed referenced information, again. Would you prefer to handle it, or would you like me to file a 3rr/edit report? I'm fine with either option. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The diff that you find decisive must be this one at Shaybanids. So the common element is that this is a Turkish-vs-Persian edit warrior, with a bit of Armenian genocide denial thrown in? He also worked to remove Berber descent from the biographies of famous people. There was an SPI of CamTalbot here that didn't find a technical connection between Rarevogel and CamTalbot. But I notice that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Roverlager in 2014 as a sock of Rarevogel. Consider asking Future Perfect what to do. You could also point him to the 3RR cases: first , second, third. The Dutch IP at Special:Contributions/84.83.145.241 was supposedly Rarevogel as well, according to one of the 3RR cases. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Ed. I was unaware of the SPI. That simplifies things. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Rodney Moore (pornographic actor)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Rodney Moore (pornographic actor). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Western Illinois University

Hi, Ed. Thanks for acting quickly on that. As the blocked editor has threatened to have others put in his desired content, do you think a couple weeks of semi protection may be in order? John from Idegon (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please semi-protect, a sockpuppet has turned up already. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability

The band in question did chart in Germany, but I was unable to find any specific charts. Please don't encourage CrazyAces' bad behavior, I know you are a smart user. He/she is only doing this as revenge and it's wrong. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 15:53, 21 April 2015

Need an experienced user's opinion

This article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading) is being considered for deletion. It is about a nationally charting album and we need a well-placed opinion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:48, 25 April 2015

Uncooperative editor

Hello, you blocked User:Iraqi man10 for a month. He normally never leave an edit summary and actually never do constructive edits. Any attempt to talk to him is fruitless, he simply delete the conversations 12. Now, he is out of the block and back to his old habit. He made this [63] edit to Syria which ruined the infobox (look at the Government and GDP lines). I reverted him so he reverted me and I reverted him back and left him a note. Syria is under the 1 revert per 24 hours rule. He made me break the rule, but his edits are semi-vandalism so I'll take my chance. However, he is continuing his disruptive edit (and deleting sourced material to push a propaganda 3) and he was approached by other users for similar edits. He does not respond or explain whats he's doing !.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello - again

Hello EdJohnston. There is a little problem, or well, actually a big problem, and it has been going for some while - the edits (or should I say disruptive edits?) of Qara xan. One of the recent ones being him deleting sourced information [64], because, well, maybe because he doesn't like it? (Wikipedia:I just don't like it). Mind you, this isn't his first time, and he continues his reverts/deleting of information, no matter whose edit it is, and even without discussing. Shouldn't this problem have been fixed some time ago? I wonder, how is it possible that not even one admin have paid attention this. The reason I write this to you, is because you are one of the few admins, who actually seem to care (and actually respond, "cough cough" a certain person whose first name letters sounds like "dog" when you pronounce it.) As a user who has been here for some time and made many large contributions this really concerns me. If you ask me, Qara xan isn't really here to Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, up to now I have not seen a liar like you. EdJohnston, please take a look these pages: Template:History of Iran, List of rulers of Aq Qoyunlu, Iskandar Beg Munshi. --Qara Arslan Khan 22:55, 04 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Qara xan, can you explain why you should not be blocked for a 3RR violation on 3 June at Template:History of Iran? You made four reverts in 24 hours, and there is no sign you made any effort to get support on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't count my reverts at Template:History of Iran. It was my mistake. I will not violate 3RR again. --Qara Arslan Khan 08:25, 05 June 2015 (UTC)

Redux

Warned (including by you), blocked, and now back at it. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Commented at User talk:Myrmusp#June 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Antiochian Greeks

Hello sir, well, Syria was under the rule of Byzantium for 600 years and most Syrians were Hellenized and followed the official state church (the roman , that is east roman). Genetically they are the same with other Christians and moslims in the region. and the majority of them consider themselves Syrians not Greeks. However, a small movement mainly outside Syria is trying to claim Greek ancestry. I fixed the page and sourced it explaining my edits here Talk:Antiochian_Greeks#Is_that_a_serious_article_.21. I provided around 13 reliable sources that all got reverted by a user with multiple IPs. I asked for a sock puppet investigation [[65]]. I took it to ANI [66]. and Im starting to look like an edit warrior.

Antiochian Greeks is an ethnic name, Real Greeks would never accept those Syrians as one of them and there is really no ethnic meaning to them as it is clear by the report of US Committee on Foreign Relations [67].

So I want the page to be removed into Antiochian Greek Christians. this is the official name of them, they are a religions sect not an ethnicity. Ofcourse 98% are Orthodox but there is 2% Catholic.

For example, the user added this sentence : and a growing number of Antiochians are using it as an ethnic designation due to the Levant's Hellenistic and Byzantine past. He added it before my source of the US Committee on Foreign Relations which clearly says that they are Not Ethnic Greeks !.

I would like a help on changing the Page title to reflect their religious reality not a false Ethnic reality based on the name and the language of the liturgy.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to pursue this, but you'll need very good sourcing. Because of the mention of Greeks, it's possible that this dispute falls under WP:ARBMAC, which would allow admins to sanction people who appear to be edit warring for nationalistic reasons. Though the people on the other side may not be behaving well, you really need to have better arguments if you're going to convince regular Wikipedia editors that you have a case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Im not Christian of any dominion, hence I have no nationalistic feelings about being Greek or anything. As for them, I have this Genetic study proving they are the same as their surroundings and not closer to Greeks [68].. and then I have those scholarly works [69][70][71][72][73][74].--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Vietg12

You blocked a user for edit-warring; he started again as soon as the block wore off. User:Vietg12. He asked for a third opinion, and it was "stop adding that", and so I guess he decided to just edit war without even edit summary. WHYYYY. Ogress smash! 06:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked. Thanks for following up. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Hi! I've left you a message at User talk:AnulBanul#Violation of your topic ban. Surtsicna (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh... Well, I left a further explanation at Surtsicna's talk page. Note - Bosniac National Council has nothing to do with Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is a representative body of Bosniaks in Serbia. Entire article concerns only Serbia and Montenegro to some point. --AnulBanul (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
A party that promoted/promotes unification with Bosnia and Herzegovina has nothing to do with Bosnia and Herzegovina? The article you created yesterday mentions "Bosnia and Herzegovina" five times. The DYK hook you nominated yesterday mentions "unification with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina". Yet here you state that the article has nothing to do with Bosnia and Herzegovina. How dumb do you consider us? Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It's in a grey area but I would allow it. See my comment at User talk:AnulBanul#Violation of your topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Agostino.prastaro seems to be using IPs still

81.168.78.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has put back, for a second time, the Prastaro rant on Talk:Poincaré conjecture. I assume it's him, the second time is after the block. I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is, I assume you'll do the right thing. If I should proceed through RPP,ANI,SPI,etc., let me know here. Thanks. Choor monster (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The IP is now blocked 1 month. WP:BAN provides that block evading edits may be reverted. If he only evades using IPs then opening an SPI is probably not worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well.....

[75] Hey Ed! Sorry for bothering you (again), but could you take a look on what Qara xan has written by clicking on the link? That's taking the word "personal attack" to a whole new level. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked User:Qara xan to withdraw his post. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Kansas Bear replied with many Personal Attacks to my polite message. He used f... word 8 times. He also wrote to his ally that Though, I was upset that I was only able to use "fucking" eight times in my response. It shows that he is proud of what he did. So in this case do i have to be blocked? Is that fair? --Qara Khan 15:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
My offer isn't negotiable. You need to withdraw the threat of violence: 'I will find you in real life and you will pay for it.' EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You are on Kansas Bear's side. I did't threat. I will do it. He will pay for what he wrote to me . --Qara Khan 16:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Now blocked. Any followup should occur at User talk:Qara xan. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Mull

Thanks for moving Isle of Mull to Mull. Could you please also move Talk:Isle of Mull to Talk:Mull? Cheers! --Deskford (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --Deskford (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

Hi, Ed. I have placed on hold a block request at User talk:81.168.78.73. You blocked the IP address for evading a block on Agostino.prastaro because of the IP editor restoring a removed edit by Agostino.prastaro at Talk:Poincaré conjecture. I agree that the edits in question looked exactly like block-evasion by Agostino.prastaro, and the block was reasonable. However, I suggest that the block should now be lifted. The IP editor denies being Agostino.prastaro, and claims to have restored the comment because of a belief that it deserved discussion. I have checked the editing history of the account and the IP address, and apart from the reverts at Talk:Poincaré conjecture I can see absolutely no similarity whatever between the two. The areas where they have edited are totally different, the styles of commenting are different. (Indeed, one of Agostino.prastaro's hallmarks is bolding headings in talk page comments, and the IP editor even removed bolding from the heading he or she restored.) It therefore looks to me as though the IP editors denial of being Agostino.prastaro is likely to be true. Even if the IP editor is Agostino.prastaro, he or she has offered a promise not to edit Talk:Poincaré conjecture, which is the only place there has been any overlap. If the block is lifted and the IP address starts editing related to Agostino.prastaro, then the answer will be simple: an immediate block for a much longer period, so nothing will have been lost. Any opinion? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: As an editor who has followed AP closely, I'll state that the IP's English in his unblock request is clearly much more fluent than AP's, and I'm now convinced it's not AP. Note the IP's first unblock request where he does not show understanding of TPO, FORUM, NOTHERE. Choor monster (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Now unblocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Getoverpops

Unless I'm totally missing something, the above user is resuming his edit warring at two different articles. Same issues, same sources, same arguments, same refusal to follow BRD. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You are missing something. You reverted edits without justification and you haven't answered my questions on the talk pages. If you notice on the SS page I have made almost no edits and have been working with SD to discuss all changes and proposing changes. Rather than accusing me of entering into an edit war I would ask that you discuss the edits I've made on the relevant talk pages. Getoverpops (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

AnulBanul (Wustenfuchs) topic ban evasion

He's at it again. This time violating his topic ban via IPs 185.38.146.201 (talk · contribs) and 93.180.126.249 (talk · contribs). See: [76], [77], [78] And: [79], [80], [81] Also: [82] [83] --Potočnik (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is AnulBanul. These IPs don't have very many edits, so they are not yet a major hazard even if we assume the edits are bad. If you see nationalist warring on some articles, consider recommending some of the articles for me to semiprotect. Still, I take note that the Sarajevo IP, 93.180.*, is from the same /16 range as the one we think Wüstenfuchs used, judging from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wüstenfuchs. But perhaps all Sarajevo IPs hosted by Telemach are from this range. I'll notify User:AnulBanul that he was mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
No offense, but are you serious? Do you expect a confession from the guy? You have the same exact lines and POV on obscure articles with one of them being pushed against Dragodol, his edit warring buddy that you also topic banned, in the Nijaz Duraković article [84] and in the Jovan Divjak article the same exact line of nonsense that he was a "show general". Both IPs are used in Mostar [85][86] and in all seriousness him going into one of the 50 million Bosnian cafe bars with internet to push this nonsense is not unlikely. Do you really think there's some unrelated guy in Mostar that is coincidentally pulling this identical crap? --Potočnik (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Also look at the 93.180.126.249 IP contributions on the Croatian Wikipedia. He picks up where Wustenfuchs and AnulBanul left off on the Croatian Party of Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina article [87] and on the Croatian Democratic Union 1990 article [88] where his Herr Ziffer (blocked) and Wustenfuchs accounts formerly edited and on the Croatian Party of Rights (Bosnia and Herzegovina) [89] article where Wustenfuchs formerly edited. Another IP (blocked) that edited all those same articles in the same manner also created the Nijaz Duraković article on the Croatian Wikipedia. [90] --Potočnik (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Those are my IPs. --AnulBanul (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I'd agree to be blocked for a longer period (for six months or so) if I violate my topic ban another time. That is, if you'd agree to that. Also, for now, I think a one week ban would be ok, if you think so as well. --AnulBanul (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

KSFT

You marked the request as {{done}} but I don't think the user right was assigned. Did you mean to mark as not done? — MusikAnimal talk 22:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I left the computer without hitting 'Save'. Now fixed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month will also feature on a review of past and upcoming editathons, including Black Lunch Table Editathon @ MoMA on July 13.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Mondschein English

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Mondschein English has been repeatedly making unwarranted references to what they think my nationality/ethnicity is, in contexts (disputes) where this nationality/ethnicity is completely irrelevant to the issue under dispute (latest [91], in the edit summary). Some of these references are thinly veiled insults [92] or outright ethnic insults (previous diff, and also [93] which consists of mangled "fake Polish" - "shoriski, fuliski, moorishki". Basically it's like leaving a message on a Chinese person's talk page consisting of references to the fact that they are Chinese and ending it with a bigot's parody of the Chinese language).

I'd appreciate it if this stopped.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Left a note at User talk:Mondschein English#Complaint about your edits on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Further to the ethnic slurs aimed at VM, the user is engaged in DE on a number of articles, currently prominently regarding the Azov Battalion and introducing undue content in other articles regarding the battalion. At the moment, there's little information about the battalion's status as, according to reports, they have been merged into a regiment and there's little available information on these changes. The article is subject to the usual POV traffic and moves without any form of discussion. In order to establish whether or not any changes have taken place as regards how the 'regiment' functions (ideologically, etc.), I've attempted to get editors on track by tagging the article as being outdated, and by creating a new section on the talk page here. Within a half an hour, Mondschein English followed by creating a new section deliberately veering focus away from constructive development to tossing in a new SOAP section below (here).
Normally, I'd let a bit of stupidity like this stand, but I felt compelled to remove it as that talk page has been underused for constructive discussion (understatement as it's been used as a forum for trolls: I won't even go into the not using English issues). Ultimately, I can only construe Mondschein English's presence as NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll keep it brief folks:
Marek: "shooriski, maliski, etc." is my stab at Russian: you accuse me of being Russian, and I gave you my best Russian. :-D Plus, since when is "Polish" an ethnic slur? I knew a Polish guy named Marek in college, and Marek is a Polish name. Now, if I had called a guy named Fritz "Kraut", now *that* would be an ethnic slur! :-)
Irina: you keep leaving uninvited soliloquies on my talk page. Stop.Doing.That. :-) Also, you write: "Normally, I'd let a bit of stupidity like this stand". In not so many words you are calling what I am saying stupid. Right back at you, bother.
More importantly though: you two keep reverting my edits claiming the Azov Battalion, or Regiment, no longer reports to Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs... Do y'all have any sources stating that the Azov folks no longer report to the aforementioned Ministry (it even says so on the English Wiki article)? If so, just publish it and we are done, but if not, why do you keep reverting my edits?
The same goes for the FPÖ: one very biased article groups this Austrian party with far-right groups in order to make it look like only far-right folks stand behind the Crimean People, but many other sources define the FPÖ for what it is, i.e. a populist or right wing populist party (Die Zeit is without a doubt more authoritative in all things related to the German Speaking World than the New York Times). What do we do here? What is the rule? I gather all sources that point in the one direction, y'all gather all the sources that point in the other direction and we weigh them against each other?
I am not here to start a ridiculous feud with people I don't even know, I would just like Wikipedia to remain NPOV.
Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Mondschein English, please stop lying. I have never "accused you of being Russian" as first, that's not something to "accuse" somebody of, and second, I simply have never speculated or referred to your nationality or ethnicity. You're projecting your own odious behavior onto others. Please provide diffs or stop making false accusations.
And the fact that you combined your ""shoriski, fuliski, moorishki"" with the Polish (not Russian) "do widzenia" and did the same [94] when you combined "Shorisky, Poliski, Polski, Pollakski, morrishky, fasheesky!" with the Polish word (not Russian) "Tak" sort of suggests that you were doing exactly what I said you were - trying to ridicule what you thought was someone else's language. Regardless, this kind of behavior is unacceptable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You, Marek, stop lying: accusing someone of being a Russian guy's sock puppet is indeed accusing someone of being Russian. I constantly detect (badly) restrained hatred in your words. You don't simply revert an edit of mine, you also throw in a little dig, and you do that with other users, as well. Why do you that? Why don't you focus on facts, e.g. how to go about the Azov Battalion or the FPOE, instead on calling me troll many, many times and engaging in what looks like a war? If you reply more of the same, I may simply start ignoring you. Da Widzenia is indeed Russian, or Ukrainian, by the way. Regardless, stop taking digs at me, it is unacceptable for you to continue to do so. --Mondschein English (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Mondschein, all this vituperation is not helping your case. Admins like to see people cooperating. In case of any doubt, we will probably block whoever seems to be behaving the worst. At the moment, you are behaving the worst. (You easily qualify as the angriest person here). Consider backing away from the dispute for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have never accused you of "being a Russian guy's sock puppet". I did accuse you of being another user's sockpuppet, because your style and editing interest are very similar, but just like I've never commented on your possible ethnicity/nationality I've never commented (or for that matter, cared) about that user's nationality/ethnicity. Again, "accusing someone of being Russian" is not something I'd do, mostly because that'd be ridiculous.
And no, "da widzenia" (you actually wrote do widzenia, which is clearly Polish) is NOT "Russian, or Ukrainian". That would be "uvidemsya", "dasvidania", "do vstriechi" or just "poka". You are just making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, you did accuse me of being the sock puppet of a guy named Lokomotiv something, and Lokomotiv is the name of a Russian Soccer team, that I know, so I assumed the guy was Russian and I put two and two together, that's it, but if you say the guy is not Russian, so be it. For what concerns the Russian greetings: I am not making anything up, my Polish friend always said "Da Widzenja" or "Do Widzenja" and told me Russian was pretty much the same, but you apparently know a lot more about Slavic languages than I do, so I have no reason not to believe you. Anyway, look: you accused me right off the bat of being a sock puppet (of what I believe to be a Russian guy) and that ticked me off, since being a sock puppet is truly the lowest, sure as heck worse than Polish or Russian. That being said, if I am truly coming across "angry", like the independent arbitrator stated, then it is time for me to let it be, because that is absolutely not the way I want to be perceived. I have no horse in this race. --Mondschein English (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I never accused you of being a sock puppet of a "guy named Lokomotiv something" and furthermore I honestly have no idea if there is a Russian soccer team named "Lokomotiv something" or if there is or was an account by that name. And it's not about you being angry, it's about you 1) behaving disruptively with regard to Wikipedia content, and 2) when faced with a disagreement, personalizing that disagreement and throwing in a whole bunch of... well, bigotry (don't know how else to put it - click that link). If a user here on Wikipedia got into an argument with someone whom they perceived - based on their user name - to be Chinese, and then showed up to their talk page insulting them and then ending their message with "hey, ching chong, ching chang, chong my Chinese friend!" (like you did with: "shoriski, fuliski, moorishki") they'd get their ass banned in a second. And rightly so. You're just lucky that you decided to indulge your racism in an obscure topic area. But hey, I'm willing to chalk it up to immaturity or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Dispute

There is a dispute involving you here [95]. Xtremedood (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Responded at DRN. You should consider having a proper discussion at Talk:List of converts to Islam from Hinduism if you think that more people should be included in the list. Consider WP:RSN if there is disagreement on what sources can be used. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10

You warned Z07x10 (I am not pinging so that I don't poke the bear) about edit-warring at WP:ANEW. In the meantime, he began flaming about "cliches", and it appears that a "cliche" is an editor who don't share his POV. However, then he engaged in vandalism on an unrelated article: ≤https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enumclaw_horse_sex_case&type=revision&diff=667607533&oldid=666540696 in order to insult his enemies or his cliches or whatever. He is now blocked by another administrator, not for edit-warring, but for vandalism. I had not expected that he would turn to vandalism. Just an update. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Strange. It does remind me of the 2013 ANI case, where several people favored an indef block of this editor. The same issues were involved then. This editor should be wary of being reported at AN3 too many times about the same article, because there is a limit to everyone's patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he means cliques, not cliches. Meaning, in his eyes, he is being ganged up on by a group of other editors. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand

I was hoping you'd be able to tell to me why every report, except one, on the Edit Warring noticeboard that has been posted after this one[96] has been resolved. Am I suppose to contact an administrator directly? This is the 5th time this user has demonstrated this behavior and all the links of previous noticeboard reports are there, so I don't understand why other cases are being resolved before this one when this one was posted first. Any help would be much appreciated.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm the admin who issued the two previous blocks this editor has received. At some point it's desirable for more than one admin to look into the conduct issue. I was hoping that some other AN3 closer would take this on (or maybe I can get a comment from some admin who is watching this page). The next logical step (for whoever does it) is an indefinite block of User:Getoverpops. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, I would like to ask that Scoobydunk be specific about why he thinks I'm in an edit war vs making a good faith effort to edit an article. I felt we were making good progress on the article and told him as much on his talk page. What he use to trigger this claim was a disagreement over an opening sentence to a sub-paragraph. He feels that I have only minority source views and thus the opening sentence should be phrased as such. Please take a look at the actual sequence of edits before deciding this is a war vs just a minor disagrement. I think Scoobydunk is trying to game the system here perhaps because RightCowLeftCoast is agreeing with the points I'm making. Anyway, I ask for a fair shake here and I don't feel that Scooby is presenting things objectively.Getoverpops (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
In context of the complaints Scoobydunk has against me I would like to point out this post by RightCowLeftCoast [[97]]. I think he hits on an issue I've had while trying to edit the page. I'm making a good faith effort to edit in a fair and neutral fashion but I suspect the article in question is one that gather's more enthusiasm from editors of one political leaning vs the other. Please take my enthusiasm as WP:STRAIGHT Getoverpops (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I certainly understand a willingness to have other admins look into the case. Sometimes I feel multiple admins will overlook something, waiting for someone else to come along, and I didn't want this to become "stale" like a previous instance. I appreciate your bringing attention to the subject and appreciate your provided input.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Getoverpops is now blocked by another admin per WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


How to edit Yoga page

Hi, today is International day of Yoga and many people from around the world will try to access Yoga wikipedia page. But we are not able to add more to this page. All previous edits seem to try and add genuine details about Yoga. I don't understand why they are removed and edit is disabled. It looks like that wikipedia's slogan that anybody can write and add content is broken by some dictator fellows. Unless one is anti-yoga, the previous edits didn't deserve the removal. Feels like for these monopoly a WikiLeaks page should be opened for wikipedia. Try researching the topic Yoga and check whether the information added is genuine or not. Sometimes in the name of free service to wikipedia many enthusiasts deny vital information to reach to the masses. Its yoga day and millions will turn to wikipedia for getting to know abou it, if new edits are not added in time they will loose there significance all together.. Missing Aron swartz like fellows.... Freedom is in danger.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himalayan river (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox Church

I'd like to bring to your attention a brewing edit war on this article. There seems to be little community activity on it, and it's just me and one other editor so far, although User:Alex Bakharev, another administrator, thanked me for reverting disputed edits on the article. The other seems intent on insult or some such yawn, but not discussion, which I have opened on the talk page. At any rate, I've gone far enough in reverting to protect the article, and there are apparently no other eyes on it. Alex is apparently on vacation, so I wanted to ask if you would pass your eyes over recent events there, and consider what might be done to protect the article. I don't see any point in replying to the last talk page message, either. I pass on further activity unless called upon or engaged by other editors. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Warning!
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Road8985 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Editor now blocked per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


Edit request for Bhumihar Brahmin

sir please edit in bhumihar brahmin page that they called as babhan in magadh region of Bihar and also called bhuinhar brahmin in eastern uttarpradesh.

pls also remove bhumihar community origin from rajput men and brahmin women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adding founding (talk • contribs) 02:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This request can be made at Talk:Bhumihar Brahmin. I hope that the shift key on your keyboard is working? You need WP:Reliable sources if you want to propose a change. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yehuda Glick

I'm OK with the punishment. My complaint wasn't about 1RR or 3RR but rather on an editor who reverts multiple times but doesn't bother participating in discussion on talk page. Then join User:Cwobeel ‎who havre the guts to blame me for not talking about the issue. I am not asking for any further action on your side some editors participation was as unprofessional as it gets. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Secret Admirer

I am currently being followed around by my secret admirer. This individual has opted not to discuss my edits with me but rather enjoys simply reverting them instead. They don't poses an account either and are simply an IP. However, with every revert they make their IP changes while still staying within the range of 2001:590. Is there anything I can do about this? Anyways, ciao. AcidSnow (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Economic causes of the War of the Pacific

You are mentioned in the case Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dentren_reported_by_User:Keysanger_.28Result:_.29. --Keysanger (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've responded in the AN3 complaint. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Pony!

Pony!
Congratulations! For helping User:Tigerboy1966 (who is the heart and soul of WikiProject horse racing) with that harassing IP and sockpuppet, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 04:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

AE

Hi, just following up after my addendum. I sometimes suspect admins at AE don't notice comments that trickle in later.

That the AE request has now been open for three weeks seems to be indicative of the decline in the number of active admins. Wikipedia's policies and practices generally assume that admins are available to handle whatever comes up, and things can go wrong when this assumption is violated. I once felt the practical effect of this when an SPI languished for two weeks concerning a user that had been harassing editors with sockpuppets (and worse, using the evidence of harassment he created with socks to initiate an arbitration case about harassment). When the SPI finally closed and I brought additional evidence of problematic behavior to AE -- evidence which depended upon the SPI being closed -- the AE case was tabled for lack of activity. As was completely expected, the user in question eventually continued engaging in similar problematic behavior.

The subject of an AE or SPI will often cease or cut back on editing, laying low while the case is open. When a case languishes for weeks, there is a conflict between the unwritten "disruption must be current" rule and the time it takes for admins to handle cases. Not that I blame you or any particular admin. Maybe this is an issue for the village pump -- whether Wikipedia practices need to be revisited in light of the decline in active admins. Manul ~ talk 15:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

82.11.33.86

You unblocked this IP and made it conditional that the IP would not edit war at the Gulf War article again. The IP has obviously chosen to ignore that [98]. Mar4d (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That looks like a "joe job" to me, someone trying to set the IP up, because the two IPs don't geolocate to the same locality, the latest one is in London, UK, while the "original" IP is in Swindon, a bit over two hours by car and more than that by train west of London. So I'd be interested in knowing if the new IP matches an existing registered user account. Thomas.W talk 18:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Add-on comment: The edit also seems to be correct, because I haven't seen any sources supporting your claim that Pakistan was an active partner in the coalition, even the article about the Gulf War coalition says that the Pakistani contingent was a "backup team", and not an active participant in the war. But if you have any realiable sources supporting your edit, please provide them. Thomas.W talk 18:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sill on same IP 82.11.33.86 (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I now have account The last Watch (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello there

I answered you in my talk page. Dentren | Talk 23:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Message from RHB100

Hi Ed. Please see the message below from RHB100 which I moved from your userpage. Thanks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not make these snap judgements. Give me a chance to state my side of the issue before blocking me for nothing. I have told you that I have concluded that it appears useless to try to educate these people on how GPS works. What more do you want me to do. I did nothing but try to make the GPS article correct. I didn't know that normal editing was counted as reverts. Other people were far more guilty of edit warring than me. Is there anyway to change an incorrectly written article. I will keep in mind that what I thought were normal edits is sometimes considered a revert. I will refrain from making changes until I understand the difference between normal editing and reverts better. RHB100 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Responded elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ABEditWiki broke his promise to you

If you recall, ABEditWiki made a promise to you. He broke that promise.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And ABEditWiki is also making inappropriate comments towards Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is funny. I am not sure I should write this as I assume an admin of WP must have seen this drama umpteen times. Still, I'm clarifying. The promise was on " to be sure I understand you ABEditWiki, you are promising to make no edit regarding any of the recently contested material at Caste system in India until the others on the talk page support the change? For example, the claim that the caste system was constructed under the British?" The contested material refers to the claims found in second paragraph of the lead. In spite of discussions in talk page, user JJ without any consensus on the topic, inserted the contested material into opening statement of the article. It has been reverted. Please see the diffs, before taking any view. ABTalk 06:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ABEditWiki is still edit warring against multiple editors including @Kautilya3: and @Ogress:.VictoriaGraysonTalk 07:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
He also reported me to ANI, apparently, although he failed to link it. (He just wrote that he had on my page.) Ogress smash! 08:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ABEditWiki is still edit warring.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ABEditWiki is now blocked for a week per the latest AN3 case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste System in India

Hi Ed, i just wanted to say that i endorse the views of ABEditWiki (talk · contribs) in the article on the Caste System in India. Since he is new to wikipedia he indulged in edit warring and has now been blocked for a week. However, i would strongly appeal to you to not impose a topic ban on him since he has made some solid contributions to the talk page of the article and is very obviously a scholar on the subject. Some discussion with him on your part about how wikipedia operates might be beneficial. Soham321 (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your note. Very argumentative people tend acquire lots of opponents in a short time, and it's not easy to protect them from themselves. From my very quick review of the article talk, he seemed to be reading sources badly or ignoring what they said. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the material on Caste System in India is genuinely disputed can be construed by the fact that Human3015 has said in the talk page of the article that the content in the main article needs to go for dispute resolution, and Mr Toad 2 slams the content of the main article--in the article talk page-- giving reasons endorsed by me and also by AB (based on AB's edits in the talk page, and his edit on Mr Toad 2's talk page). I was not aware of what does and does not constitute WP:Canvas and so i left a note on the talk page of Kenfyre to take a look at the caste system in India page (since i was agreeing with the edits he was making on a page that had a connection with the Caste system in India page--again, i did not know at the time that this could be construed as canvassing), and this was his response: It seems some editors are cherry-picking scholars who support their point of view. It also seems to have been written from a Hindu-apologist point-of-view. We could include more diverse views, and expand and clarify upon their views, like which scholar said exactly what. It would take time. It is seems even the simplest edit would be fought over. They have purged all references to castes from Rig Veda, Mahabharata and Sutrakara Baudhayana. I will try to support the above issues and the genetic studies edits proposed by you. I think AB's mistake was to take this to ANI and not to wait for someone to take this to Dispute Resolution. But this was because he is a newbie to wikipedia.Soham321 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Block of 148.178.32.0/20

Hi Ed. I checked your range block of 148.178.32.0/20 through WHOIS after your comment at the SPI of Miss Paris Slue and it appears 148.178.32.0/20 is not provided by webhost Cloudmosa. The SPI mentions IP sock 107.178.46.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is provided by Cloudmosa but to me it appears to be currently unblocked. Can you please check into this? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is blocked but you need a different tool. The block shows up in Special:Contributions/148.178.46.170, though it doesn't appear in the IP's own block log. A rangeblock doesn't create individual block entries for the IPs contained it it. But the person still can't edit. If you use rangelinks you can see a block log for the range: 148.178.32.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. It's resolved. I can see now that IP 107.178.46.170 is rangeblocked also. It was not showing as such before. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, updated again. This was yet another Cloudmosa range, not included in the first /20. It's good you asked about it. I wonder how we can discover how many subranges belong to cloudmosa? Lately WHOIS has been giving me terrible results; surely there is a good WHOIS somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. I'm not sure if there is a way to list all of the subranges of a webhost. At the SPI Materialscientist agreed with your rangeblock and even proposed extending its duration. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Snackbag sock

Probably need to do a rangeblock, and also remove some edit summaries: see here. Also, I filed this, hope I did it right. Montanabw(talk) 10:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

All the IPs I've heard about are dealt with. A couple more semiprotections are possible. Your SPI was fine. Just remember they don't do indef blocks of IPs or reveal connections of IPs to accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
And the same IP went to a new coffee shop today to continue his harassment of Tigerboy1966. Sigh. Any idea what to do with a situation like this? Dynamic IPs are hrd to block... sigh... Montanabw(talk) 22:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste in India

Hi EdJ, it was one person warring against many at Caste system in India, and they were doing so without regard to the existing sources. Against them was me, Kautilya3, Victoria Grayson, Joshua Jonathan and perhaps more: some of us really do know what we're talking about here. All I was doing was trying to clean up the citations etc. Locking the thing down seems a bit disproportionate. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Long past, but quick comment

When I agreed to an editing ban at the Nassim Nicholas Taleb article, I did not, as you stated in closing at any time, as you say here, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive281#User:Leprof 7272 reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Voluntary restriction), agree not to reply to false statements made at noticeboards. I did agree to not edit the article, or engage in chat there, or with the two offensive editors involved at their Talk pages. These I agreed to, and did.

I accepted stepping back, ultimately, because another couple of experienced editors/admins came in and turned the matter around, via another Noticeboard, moving the article away from being broadly sourced from Taleb's personal web pages to having statements modified or otherwise sourced.

The bottom line is, the two editors that ganged up, though were never challenged, despite their winning their petty Noticeboard matter, eventually allowed the article to be moved in a direction consistent with WP policies. This was achieved only after moving it away from the narrow Noticeboard to which the offensive editor brought it (seemingly know in which "Court" he would find narrow, favorable hearing). Why you serve there is a mystery to me; it cannot be because of a strong commitment to true, just adjudication of matters. Well, to me, only the article quality matter. Justice is not a goal of this place, nor of mine, anymore, here. Cheers. Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I fixed the above link to the 11 May 3RR report. The main purpose of the WP:AN3 board is to prevent article disputes from continuing, whenever they consist of wars on the article text itself. There are other problems with articles that AN3 may not give much help with. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Ed, just wanted to thank you for protecting the Caste system in India article. Soham321 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeas, it's great, isn't it. Just the way to stop a lot of good work that was going on and all because of a naive caste warrior who didn't even bother to read the recent talk page discussions or the cited sources. I just love Wikipedia sometimes, especially when the idiots win. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Sitush, (Personal attack removed) Soham321 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed a personal attack above. If there is enough vituperation it takes the matter toward the territory of WP:AE. Despite the high level of hostility, I see some good work on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

East Azerbaidjan Province

Could you please move this page to East Azerbaijan Province, which is how Azerbaijan is spelled in English? Alakzi (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in India

Thanks very much for changing the protection to semi. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

On a related tangent, would Category:Anti-caste movements be a POV category? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 15:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Not looked at it but I don't see why it should be. For example, the SNDP and the B. R. Ambedkar-related movements would be likely members. Anti-casteism is a valid and significant force in Indian society. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Plz See nationalism editing such this user.SaməkTalk 21:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That editor is now blocked per WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI thread

Sorry Ed, I've always ANI a *****. One of several reasons I prefer to contribute as an IP. Probably better I just "go away" from Wikipedia for a few days. Cheers, 5.80.198.100 (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it might be better if you would stay and work this out. It's not a superhuman task to refrain from editing or moving others' posts, if they turn out to be touchy about it. And using an IP to reduce confrontations seems not to be working. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Fyi, I believe the only time I moved a post was here – I did that in gf (please see edit summary) following the constructive interaction/s on my my IP talk page. Additionally I believe I made a proposed minor change to some indenting for the purposes of clarity. (feel free to move this to the ANI thread if that helps)
Btw, for me using a registered account has been far, far worse (fwiw, I remain logged in on Meta). Regards, 5.80.198.100 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thousands of people use regular accounts without suffering greatly thereby. Especially the people who aspire to make real content contributions, as you do. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ed, but I believe I actually already have a history of real content contributions. For example, as an IP editor I was one of the main contributors to bringing Pancreatic cancer to FA (in active collaboration with an initiative involving Cancer Research UK). 5.80.198.100 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


RE your closure [[99]]: Yes, I do indeed wish the serious points I raised to be addressed. This sort of treatment leaves me with a bitter taste, and does nothing whatsoever to encourage me to log in on Wikipedia (I'm far better logged out or away altogether, thanks!). Fwiw, I blame the woeful inadequacy (imo) of the ANI process as a whole, rather than any individual admin. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In reply: The thread seems to have been re-closed by you anyway. Fyi, I wasn't even informed that the case had been opened. Whatever possible personal considerations there may be (regarding other individuals) which I don't know about, I have to say that the whole process appears to me have been absurd. No, I do not wish to open a complaint that might lead to another constructive editor being blocked. What I did – and still would – request is that someone try to explain to the editor about the relevance of WP:REDACT, WP:AGF, etc in this sort of context. That seems to me to be a reasonable request which is unlikely to harm anyone. Alternatively, I have to confess to the temptation to request to be self-blocked. Whatever the esoteric procedural bureaucracy of ANI, I don't think this is the way Wikipedia as a whole (and please note I'm not saying you personally) should be treating its contributors. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Without looking into it deeply, it seemed to me that you *were* making changes to others' posts in ways that weren't strictly necessary. That reduced my willingness to do a complete study of what everyone said and did. I've no opinion on who is actually behaving better. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Look I find that comment absurd and frankly insulting. I have been trying to be as considerate as possible to all concerned. Kindly consider that the other user has been accusing me of sock puppetry without the slightest cause. That the user did not even inform me of the ANI case. That I've repeatedly tried to dialogue constructively with the user about the relevance of TGF over the last week or so. That I've just wasted my afternoon raising my blood pressure providing you with fiddly diffs. Yukkk!!!! 5.80.198.100 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia sure knows how to distance contributors from Wikipedia! 5.80.198.100 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
...Oh, and btw, the case was taken to the edit-warring noticeboard... I'd really like to know what possible cause there could possibly have been for that (other than wrecking my day!)? And all you can say is stuff like:

Without looking into it deeply, it seemed to me that you *were* making changes to others' posts in ways that weren't strictly necessary. That reduced my willingness to do a complete study of what everyone said and did. I've no opinion on who is actually behaving better.

Sorry, goodbye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.198.100 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Template Error

Hi EdJohnston,

When you moved {{snd}} on 22:05, 29 June 2015, you broke it. Instead of working properly, it currently displays

REDIRECT Template:Spaced en dash This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. For more information follow the category link.

I think the source of the problem is that you forgot to include <noinclude></noinclude> around the redirect notice template, but I'm not entirely sure of that as I'm not an expert in that area. Please correct this mistake and try to avoid it in the future. Thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You can see the unpleasant results of this edit in the references for Widener Library (refs 30, 85, 122, among others). Please fix ASAP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have reversed the move, and will let the original requester, User:Alakzi, decide whether he wants to open a full move discussion. The Widener Library page seems to be back to normal. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
This was a double redirect. After moving a template, you need to ensure that you've re-targeted all of its redirects; {{Spaced ndash}} has got 8. Alakzi (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll leave it for now. Since template moves are usually cosmetic (the name isn't visible to the reader of the encyclopedia) we can wait for the outcome of a full move discussion, if you want to start one. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Why might we need an RM? We've already agreed that "en dash" is a better name at Template talk:En dash#Requested move 21 June 2015. Just move it back and I'll get the redirects sorted. Alternatively, lower the protection to template, and I'll perform the move; 25k transclusions do not warrant full protection. Alakzi (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:Spaced ndash is under cascade protection. I'd prefer not to mess with that. If you don't want to wait for a move discussion, ask any other admin who knows how to deal with cascade protection. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not ask for a protracted move request; if you don't know to move a template successfully, just leave it to somebody else. Alakzi (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd leave a note on your request at RMTR advising people about the double redirects, but you didn't do so. By opening a move discussion, I'm able to document the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You could've left a comment directly under my TR. How is opening a RM helping anything? Alakzi (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Twobells

Hi, I just seen this rewriting of wiki-history while commenting about an unrelated matter (ie: not following Twobells around). It's practically agitation, claiming there has been an effort to ban them, canvassing etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And then followed by this (sorry, there is a bit of an unrelated edit by Kenfyre in that diff). - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

AE Appeal

Ed, you said you take note of the promotional language. The language was quoted from a medical journal review with inline text attribution, so what exactly are you taking note of in your close? It appears you took others at their word and did not look at any of the information I provided. I contest your close and the language you used, and ask that you please reconsider. There were other reasons mentioned in my appeal which you also seem to have overlooked. The reason I contest it follows from WP:CLOSE: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.[2] If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. He or she is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument."Atsme📞📧 12:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC) M

Talk:Panic bar

I'd be very interested to hear how you came to the decision that there was a consensus to move this article from the British title to the American title, since those who supported the move didn't seem to be aware that this was an ENGVAR issue (the nominator, an American, said that panic bar was more common, which is only true in North America; another contributor, also an American, said that he'd never heard the term "crash bar", which is irrelevant; and an anon made a statement which didn't seem to make much sense) and there was not sufficient discussion after I pointed out that it was. We do not generally call them panic bars in the UK, and therefore under WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN the article should clearly have remained at the original title. I'd request you to reconsider this close. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Per your objection, I've undone my closure at Talk:Crash bar#Requested move 31 May 2015 and have advised more discussion on the matter of WP:ENGVAR. The best solution might be something that is recognizable in all regions, if such a term exists. Some Google searching might show what that is. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see comments on my talk page

--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to add why wasn't the other user facing the same, despite my requests to him to goto talk page, and his obvious history of reverting without EVER going to the talk page?--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

My rationale was given at at ANEW (permalink). Only one party was blocked because only one party broke the WP:1RR. Two other people in that thread are already notified of WP:ARBPIA. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment or use other methods of WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hello Ed Johnson, I'm requesting a page protection for article: Zeitgeist (film series). The article is causing major disputes over sources, information, etc. The article's history shows plenty of reverts already but no violations of 3RR. I'v already warned some editors for 2RR, but it seems that some believe they can still revert and get away via main dispute of source WP:3RRNO exemption #7 and WP:GRAPEVINE. Are these policies a "get away with it" pass to revert continuously...? Thanx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've applied one month of full protection at Zeitgeist (film series). If I recall correctly, this page is the subject of almost continuous dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the article protection. Hopefully this will calm things down once the protection expires. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ed Johnson, I'm contacting to ask for a down-grading of the edit-protection on Zeitgeist (film series). At least two of the reverts today were a mistake caused by a 'patroller' misunderstanding an IP edit. I was on the point of asking myself for protection, though I would have asked for a lower level. You and JudeccaXIII are quite correct that talk page is in a state of 'almost continuous (acrimonious) dispute' but there is little actual edit-warring. There may well be a number of SPA's, but they have confined themselves mostly to 'talk'. My own involvement is very recent as a result of a RFC.Pincrete (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pincrete, If Ed Johnson lowers the protection standards to where editors can edit the article again, wouldn't those other editors return to bicker amongst each other again and possible weekly to daily reverts? It may not look like edit warring, but it is in a caution status. In the end, this is up to the admin's decision. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the talk page is a constant state of disruption, and there has been low-level edit-warring, just not to the point of 3RR. Will you, User:EdJohnston, be monitoring the talk page to deal with the personal attacks, or will some other admin do that? I would hope that the article can be unprotected after less than a month, but that is largely up to whether the editors will collaborate. Two of the three RFCs have now completed their 30-day course. Maybe closure of the RFCs might help. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
JudeccaXIII, of course it is the admin's decision. The I.P. 'warring' today was actually largely right (text not in source, refs attached to wrong quotes), I thought EdJ should know that. Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for speedy deletion help

Hi Ed,

I'm beginning to implement an article page move that has entanglements in the name space involving a disambiguation file and various redirects, one of whose histories it would be well to preserve. It will require the touch of an administrator to delete a couple of redirects at the right time. While I could submit normal requests and then wait, I'd like to expedite the timing of the changes, since it affects namespace stability as much as it does, and since I have tasks to do both before and after the help. I've documented the whole process of implementation (so I don't forget things) on my talk page so I can also keep a record in case I need to refer back. Description of the specific help and how it fits in can be found there. If you accept, would you please contact me at the bottom of that section, and we can ping each other there to coordinate efforts? Thanks much, in advance! I'm already starting on the first tasks. Evensteven (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's all done now. Someone else stepped in. Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing dispute

Hello. Can you please help me solve a editing dispute. I enhanget some time ago this family tree articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5), but the user Jaqeli keeps deleting my contributions. His sole argument is that there are too much informations, but I have the opinion that this is what a family tree is about, to show the family relations of the monarchs. To make a comprehensive family tree, not just a simple monarchs listing. Those are usefull informations for a short articles like that. What's your opinion? I'm asking you, because some time ago you told me to ask for help in solving a editing dispute. --Daduxing (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:IINFO, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate selection of information. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. You are adding many entries for people who don't have their own articles (and thus lack notability) and you often use names for them which are not unique, so we can't be sure who you are referring to. Your additions aren't linked to any references so we can't tell if your information is even correct. If you and User:Jaqeli can't reach agreement, consider using the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Role account

Ed, take this to WP:ANI instead. We need this role account to edit Wikipedia rather than doing it as an IP. Besides, ASDA by the Trafford Centre has a role account editing here, too, it's done so for 4 years running now.

Julie @ Stockport Council. --Stockport Council Users Shared Account 1 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of this edit from the account, I have difficulties believing that it's here to contribute to Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection expiry

Hi, in protection templates, please don't set |expiry=3 weeks as you did here, since it has no defined start point - notice that it displays "until July 26, 2015", which is three weeks from now, not three weeks from the moment that you protected the page (17:02, 3 July 2015). The |expiry= parameter expects a valid time and date; a date without time may be used, but that is treated as expiring at 00:00. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll try to include a better time designation in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Chotaripple

After being blocked for edit warring, Chotaripple then changes referenced information[100] on the Battle of Chamkaur, without any discussion. The reference even has a quote! Would you like to deal with this issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Will leave a note. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the article talk page. This situation is getting to the point of nonsense. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Austin 30 hp

As Luke has taken it upon himself to ban me [101] [102] from his talk page, can I suggest that we relocate this discussion to Talk:Austin 30 hp, where it really belongs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to open a new thread at Talk:Austin 30 hp if you wish. It is best if you confine any new discussion to content matters and not make any observations about other editors' behavior. (If some people can't get along with each other, maybe they should propose a voluntary interaction ban). If there is any consensus regarding these infobox issues and engine issues, somebody should explain it clearly. The WT:CARS discussion seems vague, at least to an outsider who has spent only two minutes looking into it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Luppy-GT

Sadly no change in this editor's behavior. Even still changing the spelling of quotations. Doug Weller (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to an example of 'changing the spelling of quotations'? EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
In an odd drive-by, I can! Ogress smash! 03:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll wait and see if there is any response from Luppy-GT before deciding how to proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Good luck, AFAIK they've never written a single word that wasn't in an article page. Ogress smash! 04:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Prohkorovka

I really am at a loss with this article. Bold Edit, Revert, Discuss is ignored. The talk page argument goes in circles. It does not seem like it should be this hard. I would put him up for edit warring as he has violated three revert, but I had the sense you all had no interest. I am tired of the bullying. Any suggestions? Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk)

You're complaining that the debate is going in circles, yet you refuse to bring sources that explicitly support your claims. And to be frank with you, your chances of finding reliable sources that support your claims is almost zero. Because it's honestly an invention, or more likely you're just getting the facts badly mixed up. But then you're insisting that the sourced information should be removed and replaced with your own claim. You know what? Have it your way. I'll put you claim back with cn tags until you provide sources. BTW, neither of us has broken WP:3RR. And it's very ironic that you accuse me of bullying. EyeTruth (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, I came here to call EdJohnston attention to the debate, but you already did, except with very skewed words. EyeTruth (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Signature linking

What is this editor so insistent about? [103] LoveMonkey 19:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid point. Per WP:SIGLINK your signature should contain a link back to your user page, user talk or contributions. Your signature at present is only plain text and doesn't link anywhere. If you want to fix this, go to Special:Preferences, click the tab for User Profile, and then be sure the box for 'Treat the above as wiki markup' is unchecked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Antiochian Greek Christians

Hello, there seems to be another problem in that page. Another user has came and this time he want to delete sources and push his view without a discussion. I reverted him and asked for him to go to the talk page yet he decided to edit war. I approached him on his Talk page and again no reaction. Just reverting. How to deal with those people ?. He is very aggressive and wont engage in a discussion. Even when he participated in the article talk page he was aggressive. And reacted aggressively when I approached him on his page [104] even though I apologized to him [105] and tried to be very nice to absorb his frustration.

Update, in the end he came to my talk page with this insulting message [106]--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That’s (just another) gross distortion from the part of Attar-Aram. I therefore have to reply rapidly – I’m fairly busy & have to catch a flight later today
1) For the record, I was only trying to correct (some of) the gross approximations and blatant inaccuracies Attar-Aram has inserted (in the past 4 months) in what used to be a B+/decent Wikipedia article (not stellar, but decent) – turned into an incoherent, dogmatic, poorly written propaganda piece
2) The mildly sarcastic tone of some of my comments were/are meant essentially to open his eyes, not to “show disrespect” to a selfproclaimed censor -I’m sorry- but that’s the impression he gives. On that point I agree with Gramaic and the other/earlier contributors unjustly “reprimanded” by Attar Aram.
3) I sincerely believe/hope he’ll change his views one day. Until then, I wish him a good continuation … B.Andersohn (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The current dispute seems to have two parts: (a) whether to include the statement that the Antiochian Greek Christians are genetically the same as the surrounding populations, (b) whether to allow the remark about Melkite church history, which at first sight appears to have no reference. Though in his edit summary B.Andersohn announces that it's the mainstream academic view: "Undid revision. This is not "my preferred version" (?), by the MAINSTREAM CONSENSUS of the Church of Antioch itself, the Vatican as well as secular academics in Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford... Clearly, you have no academic credentials on the subject". If this is truly a mainstream view, surely a reference can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Not only this, he also deleted the part where Crusaders called Antiochians Arabs. This is a sourced historic fact. All I wanted was a discussion on the article talk page. The discussion on his talk page is worth reading as well ((since most of the insults (or ridicule) were there User_talk:B.Andersohn#Antiochian)). He said official church history. But Wikipedia isn't a platform for Official histories. The official history can be mentioned but not replace other views.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Antiochian Greek Christians is the right place to resolve this. Whoever has the best sources will most likely win the argument. Personal attacks (like the ones at User talk:B.Andersohn#Antiochian), won't advance the debate. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gringoladomenega

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gringoladomenega. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_36&oldid=1079043650"