User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Result of your complaint at WP:AN3

Why am I being warned for his actions? I already had the consensus, the sources and I changed my edits to comply with his wishes instead of just reverting with little reason like he? Is it because I'm a new registrant? I'm only that because I were discriminated against as an IP editor. Now I get the same as a new registrant? Why does the number of edits matter so much? I also noticed he went and edited Columbian Exchange after I had linked it at the noticeboard. He completely misquoted an article and tried to morph it to say what he wants. The content there is a massive fork anyways, for there is History of syphilis, which is patrolled by a scientist whose field this is; so troublemakers can't ruin that article however they want. The scientist seems to hold the 2011 big study most credible with its 60 scholarly cites and it's the study that majorly supports Columbian origin. It seems the scientist patrolling that page ranks studies by how peer-reviewed they are and the 2015 Austrian one doesn't seem to be very, being cited only once. Etsybetsy (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You might have the better side of this argument, but the only way to find out is to have a proper discussion. You've never posted to an article talk page. If you are actually the same person as 93.106.50.229 (talk · contribs) you would get credit for acknowledging that. In general it is a good thing to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I now understand that from your perspective it might not have been that clear. It was my mistake not to manifest that. Etsybetsy (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ed & Etsy. I'd like to comment on some of the assertions made above:
All of my interactions with Etsybetsy have pre-assumed that he/she is also 83.145.195.17 (talk · contribs), 93.106.32.38 (talk · contribs), 93.106.236.105 (talk · contribs) and 93.106.50.229 (talk · contribs). They all geolocate to the same area. Under each IP or account, Etsy has attempted to insert the same inappropriate syphilis content into genocide articles. The problematic addition has been removed (not always by me), and since June I've repeatedly asked what that syphilis content has to do with those genocide articles - I have yet to receive a response. Even in your solitary Talk page comment as an IP, you evaded explaining what possible relevance your edits have to the article subject. I think it is great that you've finally decided to register an account, but I disagree with Ed that acknowledging your past IP editing will work in your favor. It will make even more evident your persistent content pushing in contrast to your almost complete lack of collaboration on Talk pages.
Regarding your assertion, that you "changed my edits to comply with his wishes" - no, you did not. My concerns are expressed in great detail on the Talk page, and you've not addressed a single one of them.
Regarding "your" consensus, I see where RockyMtnGuy says ...introducing syphilis to the human race. This is all very interesting, but has little to do with genocide. I see where I then responded, I agree with much of what RockyMtnGuy just said..., and I see where OoflyoO said, Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy.... What I'm not seeing is a consensus to add your syphilis content.
He completely misquoted an article and tried to morph it to say what he wants. --Etsybetsy
That is a serious accusation against a fellow editor, and is a gross violation of WP:Civil and WP:NPA policies. And no diffs or details to substantiate? Ed, can you address that please? I would normally let that kind of BS slide, but I just noticed his most recent comments here which also make uncivil accusations of "belligerence", "bad behavior", accusations that I'm "attacking" him/her, misattributes edits to me that I've never made, and ultimately avoids responding to my concerns about his proposed content yet again. It's not developing into a good situation at all, and your guidance would be appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Both parties should review the thread at Talk:Genocides in history#Parenthetical insertion. See if you can condense the open issues into an RfC. (Or perhaps an RfC with two or more parts, if there are several questions). Personal attacks make it less likely that others such as User:RockyMtnGuy or User:OoflyoO will be motivated to read the statements and offer their opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Consensus, or lack of it (continued discussion, copied from Xenophrenic's Talk page)
Further to the 3RR issue which you have now removed from your page, if you read the discussion at Talk:Genocides in history#Parenthetical insertion you will probably observe that the thread doesn't arrive at any clear consensus on what ought to be changed in the article. My warning is for you and User:Etsybetsy to make no further change on the disputed issue until there is consensus. An RfC is one way, but there are others. An RfC usually opens with a concrete proposal and we ask what people think about it. See also WP:Dispute resolution. If you really have no idea how to proceed, I can draft a multi-part RfC on what people have been disputing, but it would be mere clerical task, since all the questions are already there. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
-IF- I read the discussion at that link, Ed? Please note that's the discussion I initiated; that's the discussion to which I was the primary contributor; that's the discussion in which I was the last editor to post, and left waiting in vein for a response. If you aren't aware, that's also the discussion I referred to in my note to you here; but you may have missed it. So yes, I'm intimately familiar with the discussion you linked, and as such, I partly disagree with your suggestion that I "will probably observe that the thread doesn't arrive at any clear consensus". It does indeed arrive at clear consensus on the syphilis matter. Given that the discussion was opened about the repeated insertion of the parenthetical text stating: (and the Europeans likely brought back to Europe a strain of syphilis which killed millions of people there, the Great Pox), where I pointed out it has nothing to do with the article topic of Genocide, and RockyMtnGuy pointed out the same, while not a single editor (not even Etsybetsy in their one and only comment) voiced an argument showing how it was relevant to the article topic - consensus is clear. Or alternatively, if you prefer, the status quo consensus remains unchallenged. If you disagree with my interpretation of present consensus on just the "syphilis content", I'd like you to explicitly say so.
Etsybetsy did also briefly mentioned in their solitary Talk page comment the completely unrelated (to syphilis) matters of "Amherst" and "Fort Pitt". You are correct that the discussion you linked doesn't arrive at clear consensus on those matters -- because that isn't where the consensus discussion was conducted. You'll note that Etsybetsy said, "You stopped responding to RockyMtnGuy above, why?", indicating that the actual discussion on those matters is elsewhere in other discussions.
As for RfCs, I've lost count of how many I've participated in, and created, and re-worded for clarity or specificity, and had re-listed/extended beyond 30 days for more input, and publicized, and non-admin closed, and had close-reviewed, over the past decade. I'm confident in my ability to initiate yet another RfC, once I'm clear as to the nature of the dispute. If you'd like to assist, I think the most productive thing you could do would be to summarize in clear language what Etsybetsy's reasoning is, as you understand it, for proposing the edits he/she is proposing. I'm failing at getting an intelligible response. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Since my comment could get lost here, I've posted at User talk:Xenophrenic#RfCs? to find out if you have participated in any RfCs about the present dispute. What's going on here might better be described as a big argument than dispute resolution. It is not up to admins to organize dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Ed, the present dispute between myself and Etsybetsy has metastasized now across four articles, four User Talk pages and the AN3 noticeboard. I have not participated in any RfCs with the 5-day old Etsybetsy account. My comment about RfCs above was only intended to convey to you that I am very comfortable with creating them. I can draft the RfCs (with Etsybetsy's input and approval, of course) but I am really at a loss as to how to properly characterize Etsy's position, especially after his change of heart in his latest comments (see just below this comment). It now sounds as if Etsy considers his syphilis content to be unimportant, and s/he agrees with RockyMtnGuy and me that it doesn't belong in a Genocide article after all — But, s/he now contends that smallpox shouldn't be mentioned in Genocide articles either. If that is the position Etsy wishes to stick with, it should be a simple matter for me to craft an RfC asking if the smallpox content (and its reliable sources) is appropriate for, and within the scope of, these genocide articles. Sound like a plan? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
That is fine with me, if User:Etsybetsy agrees. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I miswrote when I stated that RockyMtnGuy said mention of smallpox doesn't belong at the article, for he never wrote that. He wrote that it wasn't genocide. Past that he may agree that a refutation of the belief that smallpox was genocide does belong at the article.
You also keep misquoting on purpose:
But, s/he now contends that smallpox shouldn't be mentioned in Genocide articles either. If that is the position Etsy wishes to stick with, it should be a simple matter for me to craft an RfC asking if the smallpox content (and its reliable sources) is appropriate for, and within the scope of, these genocide articles. Sound like a plan?
I never wrote any of that and now you're apparently aiming to remove something all sources I can find agree with, that smallpox was the main reason for depopulation as there were too few Spaniards to have caused the kind of loss of life that happened. Etsybetsy (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I've not misquoted (nor willfully misinterpreted) anyone. I'm trying to find a way forward with your article-related concerns so we can quit making Ed's eyes bleed, but for some reason I keep getting sucked back into defending myself against character attacks. I'll now wait for Etsy's suggested RfC wording. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I just showed you above and below how you blatantly misquote people.[failed verification] At this point you're ignoring the broad side of the barn. Etsybetsy (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I only now noticed this here. You want diffs of you misrepresenting facts? All I point out are mistruths in the very posts I reply to. Now you claim OoflyoO only agreed with RockyMtnGuy, but he wrote, Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy (talk) and the unregistered editor 93.106.50.229 (talk) over those of Xenophrenic Does that help? Likewise RockyMtnGuy was the original editor to bring up the flawed Amherst case, not me. You only focused on the case I wrote was less important. He also wrote that he agrees the strain was brought to Europe (which you disagree with), but that neither smallpox nor syphilis really belong at the article for genocides. The only reason I'm adding syphilis because smallpox is already mentioned, as a counterexample. Etsybetsy (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You want diffs of you misrepresenting facts?
Yes, please. I notice you still have not produced any.
Now you claim OoflyoO only agreed with RockyMtnGuy...
I did not. Here, I'll cut & paste what I actually said for you to review: I see where OoflyoO said, Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy.... You never made an argument as to why "syphilis" content should be placed in a genocide article, while RockyMtnGuy made an argument why it has little relation to genocide.
You only focused on the case I wrote was less important.
That is incorrect. I've focused extensively on the Ft. Pitt incident and the Amherst incident in other sections on that Talk page, and also on other Talk pages.
He also wrote that he agrees the strain was brought to Europe (which you disagree with), but that neither smallpox nor syphilis really belong at the article for genocides.
Incorrect. I haven't disagreed with any of the competing theories. And what [RockyMtnGuy] opined is: it was really just plain old ignorance rather than genocide that caused the deaths of millions if not billions of people on both sides. Which while that may or may not be true, it isn't asserted in our Genocide in history article, and is beyond the scope of our article, so is beside the point.
The only reason I'm adding syphilis because smallpox is already mentioned, as a counterexample.
That is nonsensical to me. A counter example? Our articles convey that some scholars cite as evidence of genocidal intent the following incidents (not saying whether I concur or not):
  • (1) the highest ranking British officer in the Americas (Amherst) authorized/ordered (Colonel Bouquet) the use of germ warfare against the Native Americans and "Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race", and
  • (2) in a separate incident, British officers and militia (Captains Ecuyer, Trent and McKee) actually attempted germ warfare against Native Americans, hoping "it will have the desired effect", and
  • (3) When smallpox swept the northern plains of the US in 1837, Secretary of War Lewis Cass ordered that no Mandan (along with the Arikara, the Cree, and the Blackfeet) be given smallpox vaccinations.
Please provide the reliable sources indicating why "syphilis" should be introduced to the Genocide articles as a "counterexample" of genocidal intent. I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record as I repeat that request over and over, but it is rather key here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Should I provide a diff of the post above each of my reply? Because what I'm pointing out is in the posts I'm replying to.
And you yet again misquote OoflyoO. This is the second times you give his opinion as:
Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy....
even though it was in full:
Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy (talk) and the unregistered editor 93.106.50.229 (talk) over those of Xenophrenic Does that help?
And you have only focused on syphilis here for some reason, even though I keep asking for you to focus on the Amherst matter.
And you're now arguing that smallpox was in fact genodical, even though the main sources you use state that it wasn't likely, or particularly effective. I'm quoting them. Etsybetsy (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Please provide the reliable sources indicating why "syphilis" should be introduced to the Genocide articles as a "counterexample" of genocidal intent. I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record as I repeat that request over and over, but it is rather key here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
No, that's a strawman argument. It's a counterexample of an accidentally introduced disease inadvertently killing millions but not being genodical. It's even more related when it was spread by the same people who originally spread smallpox. Etsybetsy (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not an argument, it's a request for your sources. A request you are avoiding for some reason. And the Genocide articles aren't about the "accidently introduced diseases", which have little to do with genocide -- the article (or that part, anyway) is about intentionally introduced diseases, which does (in the opinion of several scholars) have something to do with genocide. So we don't need counter examples of accidental disease; that content you are proposing has no relevance to this article. Do you have reliably sourced content about intent & attempts to deliberately spread syphilis? If not, then we can move on to your "Amherst"-related concerns. Would that be okay with you? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you know what a strawman argument is? It means you depict my argument as something it's not to make it easier to attack. And what sources? You mean the 2011 study cited by 60, vaguely countered by your study CatPath removed as controversial and not yet trustworthy? You mean your main sources about the smallpox blankets? Which ones? And all our sources mention disease as a big part of the depopulation so it would make zero sense not to mention smallpox when talking about the depopulation. Etsybetsy (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
No; perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase: Do you have reliably sourced content about intent & attempts to deliberately spread syphilis? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
But that is what you're supposed to provide to the paragraph you have added. If you have no sources for it, then it shouldn't be there. Etsybetsy (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for a reduction in page protection for Side to Side (song)

Per the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 5, the article is allowed to be recreated. Could you reduce the protection level of Side to Side (song) to its normal state?

Also, the following fully protected pages should therefore be redirected to Side to Side (song) at the moment:

Side to Side

Side To Side

Thank you! —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In view of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 5 I have unprotected the above three titles. If you believe there is a consensus for redirects you should go ahead and create them. If there is not already a general agreement on the name, you may need to open a {{Requested move}} to decide the title for the article on the song. User:Dennis Brown might be someone you could ask about this, since he closed the DRV. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, but you may/seem to have forgotten to unprotect Side to Side (song), the article in question in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 5 I plan to create a discussion on Side to Side (song) regarding the move. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Now done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I didn't see anyone mention the protection or I would have. Thanks Ed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Osman bey

Sorry for asking this personally on your talk page. Could you please have a look at the contributions of User:Osman bey? I think he is a Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry and likely it belongs to a user you banned a few days ago. He constantly adds Turkish spellings to some Seljuq-related articles, even though I have told him those spellings are irrelevant. Although Seljuqs were of Turkic origin, they were Persianized and there is no reliable source to support the claim that they spoke or used a Turkic language (those two sources in the infobox for Oghuz Turkish have been challenged in the talk page for being unrelated). Does being of Turkic origin make Modern Turkish relevant? Thanks. -- Kouhi (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I left a warning on the user's talk at this link. If you believe he is a sock of anyone in particular, please specify. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Someone like Kouhi shouldn't be allowed to edit the Seljuk articles if he really thinks that "there is no reliable source to support the claim that they spoke or used a Turkic language", that is like saying someone born and raised in France, starts being a king in his early 40s somewhere else can't speak French. The family originated in Jand, nearby the Aral Sea, next to the Syr Darya river. They spoke fluent Oghuz Turkic language, and was the common language between the Turkic people at that time in the Seljuk Empire, (Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, page 615 for a good summary) Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
the source is confirmed, so you are vandalizing the article by removing the Psersian spelling. And why don't you cite a reliable source for Oghuz Turkish if you are sure they spoke the language? Unless you don't cite a reliable source, your theory is only a WP:OR (and don't misuse the sources that are actually talk about Sultanate of Rum which also called Seljuqs of Rum). If you know any source, discuss them on the talk page, otherwise don't remove sourced materials from the article. -- Kouhi (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I recommend you watch your tone and be a more civil next time, I realize you must push your Iranian bias in every article, and your hostility towards Osman Bey. It seems not only are you not educated about the Seljuqs you are willing to push weird claims, the article is already referenced and if you want to discuss references please go to the article talk page. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Your comment is nothing more than some personal attacks. I ALREADY discussed the references on the talk page. Anybody can confirm that those two sources are fake. Anyway, go on and make your points on the talk page. -- Kouhi (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kouhi: There was no personal insult toward you I opened a new section just to show my love for you and my compassion, you are just interested in edit warring as I have told TWO times to come to the talk page and discuss but you had to throw a childish tantrum and I let you have it, you are welcomed to come and discuss the changes if you want. We didn't discuss anything, the previous discussion wasn't finalized or concluded. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure if this talk page is a proper place to discuss Seljuks. But since the discussion has already begun I'll add a few things. Seljuks were a Turkic people. During the empire period they were somewhat Persinized, but not fully. For example, Seljuks of Rum an offspring of the main Seljukids in Anatolia, were bilingual and soon Turkish proved to be the language of Anatolia. Thus adding the Turkish name (in paranthesis) to Seljukid articles is a good idea. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
These are all unsourced claims. This is what the source says about their language:
The Seljuks spoke Oghuz Turkic, one of many Turkic dialects. However, the Seljuk leadership and military had already begun using the Persian language while living among the Ghaznavids in Khurasan. Throughout the period of Seljuk imperial expansion the rulers of the Seljuks used Persian in government and sponsored the writing of Persian literature. But the great numbers of Turkic nomads, herders, and raiding bands whose migration westward coincided with the rise of the Seljuks spoke Oghuz Turkic or other Turkic dialects and continued to do so. A century later, when the Mongols, another Turkic people, overran much of the Middle East and Central Asia, they brought still more Turkic-speaking soldiers and migrants into the region.
Stokes, Jamie, ed. (2008). Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East. New York: Facts On File. ISBN 9780816071586. p 615.
Seljuqs were Persianized before gaining any power. Oghuz Turkic was the language of "Turkic nomads, herders, and raiding bands" and they have nothing to do with Seljuqs as a ruling dynasty. The source is talking about Turkic migration during Seljuq era. That's it. Beside that, the language was Oghuz Turkic, and there is no surviving evidence of that language as used by Seljuqs. Modern Turkish specially with Latin alphabet has nothing to do with Seljuqs -- Kouhi (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This is plainly original research, I suggest you follow Nedim's advice. The ruling Saljuq did speak Oghuz Turkic language. There is no way this information will enter your head, we tried our best Alexis Ivanov (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok all, I would suggest here that we clarify what WP:CONSENSUS is on this with commentators so far on the relevant Talk page. If it is vague then I would further suggest Wikipedia:RfC be used to gather additional uninvolved opinion. Alexis Ivanov It's good to see you are developing a much more WP-improvement focussed tone and way of doing things. The mentoring has helped, but it is you have shown the courage and self awareness to modify your behaviour and the humility it takes to stick to an enforced "mentoring" regime. I hope this shows the community the potential of more widespread use of mentoring to those who want to be helped. I congratulate you. One little thing. Try to be completely cool and only discuss the subject in discourse. Irondome (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Osman bey is now blocked indef as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blahhhas. So I am archiving this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Shelbystripes

No further comment needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, Ed. It's User:MattChatt18. An editor called User:Shelbystripes keeps harassing me and WilliamJE about the article Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286. Shelbystripes thinks it should Continental Express Flight 2286, but me, WilliamJE and the other editors agreed it should be Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286. Can you place an INDEFINITE blocking of him, please? Thanks. MattChatt18 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to be abundantly clear about this: I have done no such thing, and I have said at least three times today already, both on my own Talk page and on Talk:Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286, that I will not revert without a consensus. In fact, I've been accused of "harassment" for leaving comments saying that I won't revert the move. I've also asked why I've been threatened with an indefinite ban for responding to MattChatt18 on my own talk page. As far as I can tell he is literally demanding that I do not respond to him on my own Talk page! How can I be harassing someone by posting that I won't move a page without consensus, or by protesting their threat to have me indefinitely banned??? Shelbystripes (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that you admit that the article should be Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286, I'll stop as well. MattChatt18 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have never said that it should be "Trans-Colorado", as I still believe the name violates WP:COMMONNAME. Even after a consensus has been reached, I still have the right to hold a dissenting opinion. What I have said is that I will not revert a consensus decision, and that's all I'm required to do. I'm still allowed to voice my disagreement with the decision (especially when it's in response to attacks on my character). Shelbystripes (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
And to be clear, I already said that before MattChatt18 opened this request for an indefinite ban. I will not revert a consensus decision. I don't see how that gets translated into a threat to revert. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, Me, WilliamJE, YSSYguy and Petebutt agree the article should be Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286, but the article can still mention it was operating as Continental Express Flight 2286, but Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286 is the MAIN subject. This is your final warning, say anything about violating WP:COMMONNAME and you are out the door. MattChatt18 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ed, I have stopped responding on Talk:Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286 altogether and will refrain from editing that page for the foreseeable future. I do now believe (from the above exchange and from the exchange on the article's Talk page) that I am being unfairly silenced. My whole point, this entire time, has been that I believe the requested move violates WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody on that page addressed my point, other than a claim that several newspaper articles used as reliable sources on the article itself aren't relevant to the discussion because "News reports can butcher facts". Now I'm literally being threatened with a ban for saying on the Talk page that this point was never adequately addressed. Even after conceding to the page move, I have been treated as though I'm not allowed to hold or express any dissent or disagreement. (Notice above, how MattChatt18 specifically said he'd drop his demand for a ban against me if I "admit that the article should be Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286"). Even after I concede to the page being moved, I'm still yelled at (and now threatened with a ban for harassment) if I just want to point out that my concerns about WP:COMMONNAME were never addressed, in the hope that someday in the future some editor might actually come up with a decent response one way or the other?? Shelbystripes (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that the article should be at a different name is welcome to open a {{Requested move}} on the talk page. Since User:MattChatt18 is not an administrator Shelbystripes should not be too concerned about his block warning. In my opinion this thread can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, me, WilliamJE, YSSYguy and Petebutt said that the article is staying as Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286. Issue finally resolved. Thank God. MattChatt18 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned, especially given the new response above, that in the future nobody will want to request a move of that page, because they see on the Talk page that they will be shouted down if they want to do so. (I also don't get the "Thank God" comment, since I have already conceded repeatedly that I wouldn't revert the move.) Shelbystripes (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Shelby, I'm sorry. We have now reached a PROPER consensus. I won't do this to you again. MattChatt18 (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

My question is, will you do it to someone else? Will you allow for the possibility that, in the future, other editors may come along and want to change the name? Or are you claiming that you and the other three editors you mentioned WP:OWN the article, and that nobody should ever disagree with the four of you since you collectively form "consensus" at this moment? This is an honest question, because I honestly can't tell the answer at the moment. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
We don't own the article. Consensus can change but at this moment the consensus is Trans-Colorado....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point from WilliamJE. That's enough now, bye. MattChatt18 (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Request to renew page protection for Dennis L. Montgomery article

Thank you for your previous page protection of the Dennis L. Montgomery article in March. The protection has expired, and obvious repetitive block evasion and sock puppetry has resumed under various newly-registered account names (most of which have since been blocked, including two that were blocked as violations of the username policy). I ask you to consider renewing the protection. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The history of this article is sobering. I've applied indefinite semi, but will listen to any feedback that this is too much. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Makeandtoss AE

Hi Ed, I just wanted to remind you that the AE action has nothing to do with categories. I brought it because Makeandtoss has a habit of adding State of Palestine to the lead of articles. He had a 1RR violation and I have tried to keep the lead neutral, even adding West Bank or just leaving it as Jordan River Valley. At the end, I only added the Cat of Israeli tourism because that site is administered by Israel. I then changed it to Tourism in the West Bank. Regardless, as I wrote earlier, since Cliftonian helped out and made the lead more neutral, I don't see any further need to the AE and it can be closed. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

User Issue

Hey EdJohnston,

According to JustDoItFettyg, the IP address 220.240.130.204 keeps adding false chart positions, for example, [1] [2] [3] [4] and many more on his contributions. Maybe you could ban them or do something? Thanks. Xboxmanwar (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked one year. See the user's talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem, thanks again to you too. Have a nice day. Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yadav

Sigh, Kiranmayi pal received a note from you in April re: edit warring to include some stuff in the lead of the Yadav article. They have just added it again.

This has been going on sporadically throughout the summer (or winter, if you're in the southern hemisphere). It is becoming tiresome and their walls of text are difficult to comprehend. I am going to try one more time at the talk page but I am not hopeful. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm. And they have created Talk:Yadav/doc, which seems odd. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Warned the user. Let me know if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing neutrally

LMAO. To understand whether I'm editing neutrally you have to understand the topic. And you don't. Just "you called somebody a liar". This website is a public embarrassment. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ed, see [5], [6]. clpo13(talk) 18:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Another admin has now blocked 2 weeks for the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Tiny Dancer 48

He was blocked tonight for 48 hours for personal attacks. His response immediately after the block was ":::Bye for now US kike slave. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)" and when reverted "oh no I used an "ethnic slur" while kikes demonize and genocide whites". EvergreenFir raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev and I think TD has proved that he's Mikemikev. Mikemikev is now in the UK which further confirms it for me. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

You on September 1: "If either party reverts again at Genocides in history or Genocide of indigenous peoples without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page they may be blocked."
Etsybetsy today: Returning the edit because the other editor was completely confused...
I count at least three issues with Etsy's edit, which is basically a revert with a minor change, none of which are supported by consensus. I've been refraining from making any article improvement edits while we discuss the content at issue, but then Etsy pulls this. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't touch the syphilis bit at all? RockyMtnGuy also agrees with my stance on the Amherst, along with OoflyoO? Rocky calls it myth. There is clear consensus on it... Etsybetsy (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
'Clear consensus on the talk page?' I am not seeing it. For one thing, we would need to have a description of what was changed. EtsyBetsy moved some paragraphs from one place to another and, while doing so, added 310 bytes. Who on the talk page supported this change? EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, EdJohnston. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you protect 21 Savage?

Hey EdJohnston, Can you please protect 21 Savage because a lot of random IP addresses keep attacking the page. Thanks. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Towns_Hill

Towns_Hill has constantly and deliberately violated arbitration enforcement sanction. [7][8] Spartacus! t@lk 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Protection of the CON talk page

Might I inquire as to why you would semi-protect a talk page for personal attack, when the semi-protection policy makes it clear that semi-protection is not for combating personal attacks but for vandalism, and since there are IP editors that are not involved in such personal attacks that are also engaged in that discussion, I ask you to revert the protection as it currently very clearly violates the WP:Protection_policy#Semi-protection by first of all having both article and talk page protected at the same time while not directing editors to WP:RFED as the policy mandates, but it's also clearly not being used to fight vandalism as the policy says it is to be used against, not to mention that the policy says the protection should not be used to create privilege of registered users over unregistered valid ones, which the semi-protect clearly does as it currently blocks legitimate IP editors that were engaging in the discussion. I realize that as an admin you may have further information of why that would be needed, but your edit comment refers to personal attacks for which semi-protect would be the wrong tool, hence my question.84.219.225.109 (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Crash Override Network is a Gamergate related page. Hence it is the Arbcom rules (rather than the community rules) that apply to any protection that may be required. Talk:Gamergate controversy is under the full 30/500 protection and logic suggests (due to the type of discussion going on at Talk:Crash Override Network) that 30/500 protection should also be applied to that page. However, Arbcom prefers that we use the minimum admin action necessary to do the job, so I have begun with just semiprotection of the talk. Can I ask if you need any assistance in creating an account? EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
No. Just no. The sanction available under 1.2vii in that ruling (which is the only sanction that allows for protection at all under that ruling) still requires that protection to be warranted. The protection policy is very clear that your protection here, is NOT warranted, nor in line with the policy which can not be overridden by Arbcom. As an administrator, you are expected to answer questions truthfully and since I asked if you had other reasons, you gave this so I would have to assume that means you have no other reasons and therefor make a strong request that you bring the action in line with policy as it right now clearly violates it.84.219.225.109 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfair Immoderate Comments on WP:AN3

I wish to respond to your immoderate comments alleged in regarding WP:3RR by Tarl N. on WP:AN/EW, in which you've mostly ignored the reasons for the actual impasse.

Essentially, if the problem was not having a citation for the alleged incorrect text. Instead of revert both Tarl N. and User:Lithopsian should have added a 'citation required.' Both had 14 months to do so, but instead of discussion such problems on the Talk page prior to this, both just removed the questioned text. (Which I had already discussed to the nth degree in supporting the text, but received no response nor agreement to get consensus.) I suspect these changes was a test in case I was not watching this page or had 'forgotten' about the earlier debate.

I ignored the illegitimate WP:3RR and just expanded the explanation with a new citation too.

As for the comments "There isn't a 3RR violation, but User:Arianewiki1 is surely capable of editing more diplomatically than is shown here. You've been blocked twice before for edit warring, once for a week. Since you appear to be a real content contributor, it's in your interest to be more harmonious. As another editor told you last June, "Please, take the warning about your confrontational manner to heart, as some editors may not want to work with you"."

Notably, I'm not actually responsible in maintaining any kind of diplomacy regrading this matter. The complainant has alleged that I've somehow broken WP:3RR, which wasn't true, and my responses was appropriate and measured. I.e. Tarl N. said "But continually re-adding a controversial statement after being reverted without addressing it on the talk page will eventually result in administrative sanctions."

The same Tarl N. has the same threatened attitude towards me with similar problems. I.e. User_talk:Arianewiki1#Reverts.

My own response here and there was appropriate and measured. "As for the silly threats of "administrative sanctions" – well go ahead. This individual User:Lithopsian in question has stated that they have no wish to discuss such changes with me any further - either in article Talk pages or their own talk page. As they refuse to engage in the process, I've no choice but to revert those edits that are clearly incorrect. Furthermore, as they cannot state any reason why this is wrong by facts nor actual evidence to the contrary, there is no need to remove it. Unless they do, there is no chance of "administrative sanctions" being applied if they are unwilling to: "without addressing it on the talk page.""

As the material in question was discussed in much detail but both the Users refused to engage in obtaining consensus. (See discussion User_talk:Arianewiki1#Fights)

1) My previous Edit warring was irrelevant to this complaint.
2) The issue last June "...another editor told you last June, "Please, take the warning about your confrontational manner to heart, as some editors may not want to work with you"." was nothing to do with WP:3RR, and the complaint I made was deliberately being isolated from the process.

As for saying: "but User:Arianewiki1 is surely capable of editing more diplomatically than is shown here"

Frankly, working with both these current Users is nee impossible, and I feel I'm being unfairly targeted without justification. Do suggest you read WP:Don't go out of your way to be diplomatic, but other than that, I fail to see anything in the rules about being an "diplomat' nor needing to act via advocacy nor negotiations.

Clearly your response should have been only "Result: No action. There isn't a 3RR violation." if you think I have acted on something outside of WP:3RR, I'd really welcome your complaint on another ANI page to justify these somewhat quite unfair comments - if only to defend my own alleged poor behaviour.Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you specifically pinged me me, allow me to quote from WP:WAR Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. I complained about edit warring, stating explicitly that it hadn't crossed the 3RR boundary. But reverting the same edit six times (and removing the year-old "citation needed") is generally regarded as edit warring regardless of how rapidly it takes place. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Swedish bruhaha

It would be unfortunate, mainly for constructive work on this project, if the very infectuous bruhaha on Swedish Wikipedia should be continued on English Wikipedia, and if any antagonistic user from there would succeed in inciting such a huge argument here. I have by necessity mentioned Swedish Wikipedia here, especilly in these comments, and the type of misleading arguments that have prevailed there in this comment. My quoted comment "And I think you'll find that the vast majority of users here don't give a hoot about what's been going on at Swedish Wikipedia" has been taken out of context to make me look much worse than I am. That's the sort of personally confrontive stuff that's been going on at Swedish Wikipedia for years. I have always felt mainly appreciated here, never there.

We all make mistakes. I make many. If I have made any serious mistakes, I would appreciate being (1) warned on my talk page and if necessary (2) reported on appropriate project pages, so that such matters can be handled as per normal procedure here. I have now been permamently blocked on Swedish Wikipedia, which is sort a a relief to me, without however being given such opportunities to be dealt with through what most of us would consider normal channels.

When I saw that this latest delevopment was taking place, I was in the process of writing a post at WP:RSN, as you suggested, since I may well be wrong, and I would find it very helpful to get the question discussed there neutrally. I'll go back to that now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Continuing at WP:RSN is a good idea. Though the actions at one Wikipedia don't officially transfer to another, it appears that the content issues that were presented in the Swedish thread are very relevant to our usual concerns here. Without my fully understanding the issues over there, it seems you are risking being seen as a FRINGE person. We are in a domain where regular news media would certainly have commented on these noble titles if the mainstream considered the arguments convincing. Hence the use of a self-published site appears to be an end run around our sourcing standards. Are you aware that we don't even like to use birth certificates, per WP:PSTS? So, your asking us to read and parse some original Luxemburg documents about titles of nobility is a stretch. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I have conceded that I was wrong in this case, after constructive input at WP:RSN and on the article's talk page. If the item had not already been removed (5 times) from that article by what I felt was inconsiderate edit-warring, I would have done so today myself. It's always very good for all of us to get neutral and constructive assistance when mistakes have been made.
To you I apologize for reverting too many times myself.
On the subject I opened with you here, I'm glad that this has now been added for a bit of balance to my Swedish talk page:
  • I'm reinstating this message since it was not Yger who did the block, but I. In the voting (!), in addition to those mentioned below [sic - user now means above after moving the post], there were neutral users, and there were more who made statements in the debate that preceded the vote (!). Yger has already summarized the various reasons given by different users, even if not everyone signed off on everything (some expressed themselves clearly against some of the reasons). The reason that led me to block was that several behaved badly and that the situation regarding etiquette and POV looked (and looks) hopeless for continued constructive participation by SergeWoodzing. I will not reply to this or make more comments but think it's important to write this to clarify why I did the blocking. افيراتير (diskussion) 27 september 2016 kl. 07.40 (CEST)

Respectfully yours, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Adventure Time season 8 debacle

Hi, I see you are active on the edit war page. Can you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adventure_Time_(season_8)&action=history and related pages (those edited by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maya515). They are acting in good faith, but they keep reverting at an alarming rate. Cheers! Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Sock Puppet

Thanks for the help at Southwest Airlines. Really appreciate it, have a great week ahead! Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Link from Nana ET Matvey to Enfants Terribles (artists)

Hey EdJohnston, thank you for your message. I want to link Nana ET Matvey to Enfants Terribles (artists) because it´s the same. But now I have done something wrong and can not do this, because Nana ET Matvey exists, how can I replace it?

Best regards --Justus Tler (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I hope I have now fixed and/or deleted all these redirects. The first problem was that you moved your sandbox to the new page name when you could just have created the new redirect from scratch. Then you moved one of them to the "Wikipedia" namespace which is reserved for internal policies and discussion but does not contain article content. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi EdJohnston.

Almost three years ago you reviewed the draft Whitepages (company) article that is now in article-space. Since then it was GA-rated by a reviewer that is no longer active.

Also, the article has become out-of-date to the extent of being erroneous. The company's business model changed (subscriptions instead of advertising), its mobile apps were spun off into a separate company and a recently published in-depth Forbes piece makes the company's struggles with investors (and following buyout) in 2011 a glaring omission.

I posted some suggested updates that would bring the article up to date here almost a month ago. Since you were involved in the original draft, I thought you might be willing to give the revisions a lookover? Let me know if you have a minute to review.

CorporateM (Talk) 00:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Resveratrol

Hello Ed. You left this fair-minded message below on my Talk page and on Seppi's. Moments later, Seppi was back editing at Resveratrol, inserting the same disputed and non-consensus extensive quote from the day before (see comments by Jytdog, an active editor who had agreed the source was bogus, calling it "woo", as stated). I simply removed that quote and copyedited the new sentence added by Seppi, feeling overall this was not a violation of the closed 3RR, but rather a constructive edit. Jytdog claims on the Talk page that s/he will be thoroughly editing the article over the coming days/weeks, so I will restrain my further editing unless I see non-consensus primary material being added as Seppi did in the Skin section earlier today. For now, I am satisfied with the Resveratrol article and plan no further extensive editing. Thanks for your overview; watching your reply here. --Zefr (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Warning: You've been warned for edit warring at Resveratrol per the closure of a 3RR complaint. You may be blocked if you make any more reverts on this article that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page.

@Zefr: This "quote from the day before" is not this quote that I added today, hence I did not revert anything while you further violated 3RR with your 7th revert in around 24 hours by undoing the latter edit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you protect a page?

Hey EdJohnston, Can you protect the page Russ? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for the help on that uncivil, edit-warring editor. I think he encapsulated his attitude well himself with this edit, in which he removed the block log and gave the edit summary "Hahaha." Man ... some people. With thanks and regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Neo-psychedelia

As you have protected the article I am taking it off my watch-list and allowing you to handle the ongoing dispute. There is discussion on the talkpage, and you will note that both users have been warned for edit warring. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Blocks were another option that might have been considered. Each party reverted about seven times over three days though they both seem to be well-intentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_Enforcement_review. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Arbitration Enforcement review. We don't usually see appeals against the declining of a sanction. There is wording at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications which suggests this is not allowed: "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction". EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity expert at it again

This may be the same person with a different IP address adding ethnicity categories to a wide range of articles [9]. I am currently rolling back all that I am able. Hoping you are interested because you blocked the other IP address just one or two days ago for this behavior. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked two months for evasion, for the same reason as in the the original ANI thread. The new 36.* IP is from Indonesia, while the last one 109.* was from Ireland. Maybe someone would have the patience to check if these are open proxies. Ping @Rms125a@hotmail.com: since he has posted about the same IP. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Western Armenian

Ed,

The conversation was dropped and I was the ONLY person to provide evidence. Is Wikipedia based on factual sources or opinion. If it is the later, then we are dealing with a useless platform. Please check the talk pages and review the decision.HyeSK (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you continue to negotiate at Talk:Gyumri#Western Armenian and see if you can persuade anyone to change their mind. Until such time as there is a consensus in your favor, my warning stands. As you may have noticed, Wikipedia has some regular editors who know the Armenian language and regularly contribute to articles about that part of the world. You may not find yourself in 100% agreement with what is currently in our articles about Armenia, but discussion is good. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Ed - Your reasons, and their reasons, for stating I am incorrect is due to not having sources. There are sources I provided on the Gyumri page - 3 of them which were deleted from the ANI thread. How is one supposed to properly edit on Wikipedia if solid sources are provided then ignored? Does consensus trump fact? I speak, read, and write Armenian and live in Armenia. None of them provided sources, on the Gyumri article, just myself. And every time I provided what they requested, they would change their argument. HyeSK (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The place for you to make these arguments is Talk:Gyumri. Which of the possible alternate names to use is up to editor consensus, not admins. But admins are used to seeing nationalistic disputes about names. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This makes no sense. You have issued a warning on a false premise - no sources. Sources are present, yet being ignored. The least you could do is repeal your warning, as it's not warranted. HyeSK (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
You aren't going to continue without support from other editors. It's that simple. I am not optimistic about the future because you don't seem to be listening. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Problem editor

Hello Ed, you have blocked this "individual" recently, but their Talk page shows that they just don't seem to get it: User talk:WelcometoJurassicPark For your info, Regards,  William Harris |talk  22:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This editor was last warned by an admin at 15:47 on 25 September. Do you see any bad edits he has made since then? EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Atlanta United FC

Hi Ed, I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Atlanta United FC, where I'm asking for the "right version" to be restored. --RexxS (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

responseHelper

Hey! Looks like you're not using responseHelper? This might help you at WP:ANEW and other noticeboards :) Also see you're loading confirmationRollback-mobile.js in your personal JS, this is now a default-on gadget. Best — MusikAnimal talk 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added responseHelper and removed the rollback script that you say is unnecessary. Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

AE withdrawal

Hi Ed. I have decided to withdraw my AE request. Is there anything else I need to do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Death threat at ANI

I am being accused of a "False accusation of death threat" which was very quickly agreed to not be false. I am therefore completely at a loss as to why the thread is still up a week later. I am also being accused of WP:Bullying because I removed the death threat. I did this because if you look up WP:Death threats there is no advice about what to do; I now know there is an email you can contact. I removed it myself (after considering it for a few days) because I thought that would attract the least attention to the threat, particularly from state-sponsored death squads (see Rodrigo_Duterte#Anti-drug_campaign and Rodrigo_Duterte#Media_killings). It was thus my intention to deal with it quietly. That didn't work out too well.

Yesterday I contacted the admin who responded in the thread but no response, and it seems that he is currently inactive. I do not know how much longer this situation is going to continue. I find it extremely disappointing that my personal security is being sacrificed for... some reason, you tell me. I know that you are in the habit of looking at ANI and assuming that anyone complained about is guilty (at least when it refers to me). Perhaps you could close the thread and archive it, (which of course I would not be allowed to do), since it really is very simple and would not take more than 5 minutes. Thanks in advance for looking into this. zzz (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed a link in the above. Archiving of WP:ANI threads that have not been formally "closed" seems to be based upon the date stamp of the most recent participant. In this case that is about two days ago, so probably the thread will get archived soon. I did see a mention that archiving seems to be slow at the moment, so perhaps it will take slightly longer. I am sure it will be gone very soon. I am not closing or archiving the thread myself due to a lack of knowledge of the procedures and of the situation, but perhaps Ed or someone else will. MPS1992 (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Signedzzz, it sounds like you are still very concerned about the Rodrigo Duterte article. The thread at ANI which seemed to be referring to a 'death threat' is very confusing. I do not believe that you are going to be sanctioned, or anyone else, unless you or they get completely carried away. Talk threads at ANI usually archive 72 hours after the last comment that anyone adds. Since the last comment was on Oct. 23, the time has not quite passed yet and some editors may want to say more. If you are concerned about your personal security, I suggest you take a complete break from editing Wikipedia for the next few days. If I were to try to archive this ANI thread prematurely it might just cause more drama. I am willing to remove it after 72 hours if it is still there and it seems that the archiver is not working. Since I don't understand the thread it's unclear if I would know how to 'close' it in the conventional sense. If I did close it, it is unlikely there would be any admin action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, "don't edit Wikipedia" is pretty much the conclusion I've come to, already. zzz (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Al Atkins wikipedia page

Hi, you semi-protected the Al Atkins wikipedia page, after I was reported. I was new to making contributions to wikipedia, so I guess I made some mistakes along the way. Feel free to lift the semi-protection if you will, those mistakes won't happen again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.86.32.98 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The IP you are using here is not the same as those who were editing Al Atkins, so I'm unsure of the connection. If you think an update is needed at Al Atkins, go ahead and use the page at Talk:Al Atkins to propose it. Be aware that we expect to see good quality sources to back up any statements about living people. Due to the closure at WP:AN3, the article is protected against anonymous edits until November 15. I am unsure whether the Metal Archives website qualifies as a good source, and Facebook is marginal. A published book is better. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply. Not sure how the IP works, it was me making the edits, and being reported. OK, I'll try with the book next time, and hope the editors consider it a valid source. I guess I'll wait until November 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.86.30.5 (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
You are not prevented from using the talk page in the mean time. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Move page?

Hey EdJohnston, Can you move the page Aminé (rapper) to Aminé, Thanks. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This might not be a good idea. Not all printed sources or web pages may handle the acute accent properly, so people might be searching for him as 'Amine'. There is another performer called Amine (singer) who gets 7 times more page views. We also need to keep in mind Amine (disambiguation) which has a zillion entries, including both of those performers. If you still favor the move, you can open up a {{Requested move}} at Talk:Aminé (rapper). EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ed Mangano

Thank you for your protection of that page. I've tried to discuss that unacceptable edit with that user and I've gotten nowhere. Since another revert would be a violation of WP:3RR, my instinct tells me I should wait to see if the editor adds anything of actual substance at talk. Problem is, that stuff is really in violation of, at the very least, WP:BLP. Am I good to toss it for a fourth time? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not propose your change first on the talk page and see if anyone objects. I doubt that anyone would mind if you immediately took out the partisan language about his tax changes, though. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Okey-dokey, I'll do that. Thank you. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about edit warring

I have a question about edit warring. At Zephyr Teachout, a registered editor and a couple of IPs have been removing and restoring the same chunk of content for weeks. None of the editors have initiated a talk page discussion. I could request page protection, or I could file a report at the edit warring noticeboard, or I could do nothing. Just wanted to see what you would recommend in this scenario. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Since IPs have been reverting with no participation on the talk page, i've semiprotected the article. If you see the war continuing, let me know or report it at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ה-זפר

I've copied an arb enforcement appeal to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ה-זפר, after a request on the user's talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thankless job

Hi EdJohnston,

I realize you have a pretty thankless job, dealing with what is probably the least pleasant at Wikipedia. I'm really troubled by the non-enforcement of WP:Civil in the Froglisch-FNAS case too. Has this policy been deprecated in practice? I did not realize that it was not permitted to undo a reversion, I had not read the talkbox carefully enough. Of course, this ensures that advocates can control access to information. But if that's policy, so be it. Thanks for doing your best. No hard feelings. SashiRolls (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Another admin can take action on civility if they wish. If you want the restrictions at Clinton Foundation changed, you can make a proposal at WP:AE. It is possible that few editors are aware of the consensus requirement that has been imposed on these election-related articles per WP:ARBAP2. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston! Thank you for provideing protection on Black Pink's page. Wish you all the best! Phthalocyan (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Kurzon

Hi, EdJohnston. I hate to bother you with a block-evasion thing when you're dealing with editors getting apparent death threats — holy cow — yet it seems that while Kurzon sock 78.129.111.57 was blocked for a month on Oct. 7, he somehow got back into Jerry Siegel on Oct. 24. I want to thank you for addressing his block-evasion before, and I hope you can do it again. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to sat this block-evading anon IP is still active today at Jerry Siegel. Thank you for any help. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I am so sorry to bother you again about this, but Kurzon has taken on yet another sock, Lungjungsulver.
As I wrote at that editor's talk page: "Your edit here is virtually identical to that which block-evading anon-IP sock 78.129.111.57 made here."
Would your recent block of the IP also block registered editors using that IP? I don't know technologically if it works that way. I guess I should probably add this to the Kurzon investigation so that there's a record, and I thought I should let you know. Thank you again for all your attention to this; I know it must get tiresome, and I and other editors who have worked on these Superman-related articles appreciate everything you're doing. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
To stop all editing through that IP we could use a hardblock, but it is more kosher if we let checkusers do that. I've blocked User:Lungjungsulver indef and noted it in the Kurzon SPI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about my agreement

You requested my agreement not to edit Motion picture rating system for four weeks. However, during that time, what do I do if I spot and obvious mistake and want to change it, (e.g. syntax, punctuation and spelling), do I edit it then? If not, what do I do? Please answer my question as clearly as possible if you can. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No edits means no edits at all. But if you see a problem with the article that needs correcting, describe the problem on the article talk page and other editors will be able to deal with it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. I still have two more questions, however.
  • Is there any consistency to this agreement with the other content ratings articles? If the answer is no, will I get blocked if I accidentally edit Motion picture rating system when I really meant to edit the other content ratings articles?
  • When you say four weeks, did you mean I could start editing it again on 22 November 2016 or 25 November 2016? SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you should be able to resume editing Motion picture rating system on 22 November. It is safer if you stay away from all the content rating articles until then. Though you can still make comments on talk pages in the mean time. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
However, There may be moments when I accidentally edit an article when I really meant to edit another one. If this happens to Motion picture rating system, what do I do? By the way, you said 30/500 protection is not possible, so what about pending changes protection (lv2)? SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
The article was semiprotected on 23 October. Pending changes is a weaker level of protection than semi, so I don't see the need. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I feel it is possible to combine semi-protection with pending changes protection lv2. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

One more question regarding that issue. What would happen if I accidentally edit a content ratings article when I meant to edit a different article? Do I just revert my change, or what do I do? SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Hello EdJohnston. If your time permits, I'd like to ask of your advice; particularly as the admin who entrusted me with the page mover permission. I find that I am much more reluctant to log a bold page move than I was before receiving that flag. For example: I came across Ammonium nitrate disasters. This article is clearly list class, and it should be moved to an appropriate title like List of ammonium nitrate disasters. Furthermore, "disasters" is not correct as most of the list entries are about ammonium nitrate explosions as a disaster must meet specific criteria, namely it must be the common name for the event. Therefore, List of ammonium nitrate explosions is better in my opinion. From the bold editor who once logged this action, I have thus far done nothing with the example shown. Please advise me on how best to balance the desire to do what is right with taking a good faith risk that some may see as wrong. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Moves should either have consensus or be innocuous, in my opinion. If you have the Page mover permission I don't think it should affect that rule one way or the other. Just from looking at Ammonium nitrate disasters you can tell that opinions are going to differ as to the best name. So any move of that article should have a discussion. Are there any other examples where you think you know a better title but would hesitate to do the move? EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
There was a four year old uncontested thread at Talk:Klaatu where I agreed with the OP's suggestion, felt it could be an uncontested move, but requested comment in lieu of what felt like it would have been an involved supervote had I effected the moves. After studying wp:primarytopic, I've come to believe there is no primary topic for that title and I suspect the RFC consensus will end up reflecting this. In this example, I am glad that I gave yield to my more cautious self. Perhaps being less bold is the appropriate balance?--John Cline (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, your plan to have a discussion at Talk:Klaatu was correct. Keep in mind that {{Requested move}} is a more common technique than an RfC. Since it creates an entry in WP:RM It is likely to attract more people who are regulars in move discussions and know the usual practices. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

1RR

Hi EdJohnsoton,First of all I addressed another editor for this issue but he didn't respond on my issue so I checked the WP:GS/ISIL and noticed that you are an admin for this issues and wanted to inform you that both editors Ahmedo Semsuri and Niele~enwiki have broke the 1RR on the S.C.W.M! Ahmedo Semsuri - first rv. second rv. Niele~enwiki - first rv. second rv.Lists129 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have left messages for these two editors. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Aerozeplyn

Any objections to my upping the block to indef? I just reviewed his (very limited) edit history and the every single one supports irrational nonsense, usually in highly combative style. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me. He was not doing himself any favors. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Fine, I guess wikipedia is a place to shut out ideas and silence people.... if that's truly what wikipedia is all about, I don't want to be a part of it. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey

You never logged the block of ה-זפר

It should have been done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#2016 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Now done. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Hi, what are you talking about ? Where did I mention "Matters for America" ??? Xinheart (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I posted a correction on the AN3 noticeboard. To justify a phrase like "..cover actions intented at supporting right-wing, neoconservative, pro-Israël bias.." you would need to make some assessment of the source of that opinion. We are allowed to use biased sources but cautiously, per the terms of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources. The edit of yours whose neutrality I am questioning is this one. You would need to show that the opinions of Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed and Habib Siddiqui are authoritative for describing the views of Caroline Cox. This assumes that either you can determine that these writers are experts who can be trusted to be neutral, or you have some way of discounting or allowing for their biases. Siddiqui's article is entitled "Jerusalem Summit: What are the neocons cooking?" which suggests he is not writing from a position of perfect neutrality. In fact, his article might be viewed as editorial opinion rather than factual reporting. Surely the Jerusalem Summit was also covered by mainstream media in US and UK. If could locate mainstream references such as the New York Times commenting on Caroline Cox we could be happier about the sources used . EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
OK thank you for your answer. References [1] and [2] are academic and tell similar critics. Balanced refs on the other side have been added also, so I don't think it's uneutral. I'll try to add more academic refs if you want. But the problem was that the other user has deleted academic refs in this article, that was the purpose of my note on the noticeboard. Xinheart (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sunsunsun78 evading block

Here. Thanks very much, GABgab 03:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing more block evasion on that article, and I'd greatly appreciate if you could block the IPs and extend the master's block. Thanks again, GABgab 15:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Widr has semiprotected Eye of a needle for 3 days. That should take care of it for now. See a further note on the user's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Electronic cigarettes

Thanks for the link to the guideline about medical refs - I did not know about that before. I will try to replace my ref with one conforming to that in the next hour or so. I don't think my change is major or controversial but if you or anyone does I will not take any action if they revert it after an hour or so as I do not have time to have a debate on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Appeal

I wish to appeal the ban you placed on me 6 months ago on Indo-Pako conflict topics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Towns_Hill#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

Towns_Hill 04:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Towns Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towns Hill (talk • contribs)

You were blocked as recently as September 30 for violation of your ban from conflicts between India and Pakistan. I don't see a case for lifting your ban yet. See WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications for your other appeal options. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Albanian Nationalism

Hello there EdJohnston,

I have noticed that the Albanian Nationalism page has gone into semi protected mode due to some recent issues.

I would like to request an opportunity to edit that page, and clear some of the issues raised by user Alexikoua (sp).

A lot of the reversals made are actually academically and scholarly approved information which serve as great additional information for the page, especially for research and should remain. The user has a history of reversing a lot of Albanian details that change the tune of the pages, and this is unacceptable from an academic standpoint.

I study Balkan history, especially Greek and Albanian at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, and recognize a lot of incorrect and bias notions on the page and would like to correct these - many of the unregistered users edits are items that should be included.

Is there any chance for the protection to be lifted to allow the re-editing? I would like to also point out the page 'Albanian nationalism' is heavily emotional against Albanians than factual and does not resemble other pages such as Serbian nationalism, Greek nationalism or Macedonian nationalism.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgdotcom (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Virgdotcom/User:Virgiliosarvanitis. You are welcome to contribute at Talk:Albanian nationalism even if you are not yet able to edit the article. We do have some concerns about people with no track record suddenly jumping into hot debates in the area of nationalism. If you can offer good sources and well-balanced prose, and if you can establish a record of contributions, the other editors will most likely look forward to your participation. I feel skeptical about your intentions after seeing your edit here where you complain about Greek bias, apparently just because the other editor has a Greek-sounding user name. (Sounds like an ad-hominem argument). Please WP:SIGN your posts on talk pages. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Dr .S. Amar Prasad Reddy

I saw that you salted Dr .S. Amar Prasad Reddy. Dr.Amar Prasad Reddy has also been salted. How do you feel about salting the other variants which have previously been deleted, Amar Prasad Reddy, Dr.S Amar Prasad Reddy, Dr.k Amul & S. Amar Prasad Reddy ? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I salted Amar Prasad Reddy because there was an attempt to recreate it on November 10. The others appear inactive. Let me know if you see further problems. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hindko RM

Hi, thank you for the detailed explanation at the close of the requested move of Hindko. I would however ask you to reopen it, as two of the participants who opposed it have recently been blocked as sockpuppets.

Also, I think there are a few aspects of the discussion that at least one of us two is misunderstanding:

  • The proponents are not clearly explaining how they would resolve the 'dialect' versus 'language' question The question should be resolved in the article text where all the subtleties could be explained. The whole point was not to turn the article title (with its simple binary choice between "language" and "dialect") into an arena for fighting that out.
  • it's unclear how the 'primary topic' argument fits together with WP:NCLANG The relevant bit of NCLANG is: "Articles on languages can be titled with the bare name of the language where [..] the language is unquestionably the primary topic for the name (e.g. Arabic)." (emphasis mine).
  • There is a hint here that Google hits would be used to decide this, which seems to go against WP:NCLANG, which wants published sources. This wasn't google hits, but google scholar hits, and these sources are published, if not always in quality peer-reviewed journals. – Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I see that User:Yoyi ling is blocked as a sock, but who else? Also, can you find any other examples of language article where the article is about a dialect, and has a name with only a single word, such as 'Hindko'? Your quotes from NCLANG refer to the 'bare name of the language' but not the bare name of a dialect. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The IP user. As for a bare title about a dialect – that's beside the point. The guidelines at NCLANG apply to any language variety, regardless of whether it's a "language", a "dialect" or a "register". Anyway, there do exist examples: American English, Awankari, Arvanitika... – Uanfala (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
DId I miss noticing an IP who is blocked? American English isn't an example of a one-word title because it has two words. I admit that Awankari is about a dialect. Most of these articles state in the opening sentence whether it's about a language or a dialect, so I'm unclear on how you are going to dodge that issue completely with Hindko. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not about dodging the issue, but about not glossing over the complexity. You can have a look at an example in the second paragraph of the lede of Saraiki dialect. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
As for the IP, to be precise, it's not blocked, but it was demonstrated to be a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoyi ling/Archive. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are exaggerating the results of the SPI. User:Yoyi ling was blocked indef as a sock while two 39.60.* IPs (who were not active in this move discussion) were given short blocks for evasion. There were no blocks of anyone else involved in the Hindko move discussion. I'm going to leave my move closure in place, though you can appeal it at WP:MRV. It seems that several other language move discussions are still running, and they might be instructive. If it looks like there is a trend in the direction you favor, I suggest you might open a new move discussion after a few weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
If you really have any doubts about the IPs not being socks and you haven't been convinced by their own posts, I'd suggest you read the SPI case as well as the discussion on User talk:RegentsPark. – Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I've grudgingly started a move review.

Even though I obviously still disagree with the close, I agree with you that starting another RM in a couple of weeks would probably be the best way to rename this specific article. However, what I'm seeing across the recent RMs in this topic area is a consistent failure of these discussions to separate the wheat from the chaff and I think something is probably wrong with our RM mechanisms. I'm not convinced the move review would really do much, but I can't think of anything else to do. Thank you for your time so far. – Uanfala (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Graph Database

EdJohnston,

Thank you for your contributions and support of Wikipedia. Recently a user started to threaten to ban me during a Talk page discussion and he appealed to you without giving me a chance to defend my case. If you would be willing to review my appeal it would be greatly appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Graph_database . Thank you for your time and consideration, and sorry if I do not reply immediately as I have been traveling a lot lately so it is hard to find time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmobii (talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The reply was put into a closed ANI - however the diff is here. -- Dane2007 talk 02:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Dane2007 for opening it back up, I really appreciate understanding my delay from traveling. Best regards, Tmobii (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Tmobii. I see you've already reopened your request at ANI, at WP:ANI#Graph database. People have already explained Wikipedia policy to you at some length, at Talk:Graph database. If you find that you are unable to persuade the editors who have already replied to you on the article talk page, I don't see any reason for admins to get involved. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are theoretically open to you, but you seem to be engaged in promotional editing, which is unlikely to win you much sympathy. You want to add a particular open source product to the article but you don't seem to have published reliable sources to show what third parties think about it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply and understanding! As you noted yourself, the databases I (and others) have been restoring from deletion (there was previous consensus for over half a year, see my appeal for the evidence) are ArangoDB, Cayley, and in particular GunDB. I hope you can see that I am trying very hard to abide by Wikipedia policy, but I also hope you can understand how when other editors accuse D3x0r, me, and others of being a "SPAMHOLE" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graph_database&diff=744222819&oldid=744210160 ), especially when that editor is an employee of Oracle, it comes off more as an ad-hominem and a form of censorship rather than explaining Wikipedia policy (Dane2007 is a perfect counter example who has done this very well). Another example is that they several times cite the three-revert policy while ironically ignoring (and acting like it does not apply to them) the fact they were the ones who initially reverted the long standing inclusion of ArangoDB, Cayley, and GunDB since 2015.
You are correct, this definitely is not your battle (and I appreciate the fact you've taken time to hear me out) which is why I am confused about why you accepted user HighKing's complaints (which were initially personal threats at me) even though the talk page (as you mention) is very active. The main contention has been over notability and reliability which I have made strong arguments for (which several other editors have accepted), but they have consistently not addressed (and have complained to you instead, which seems like a waste of your time) why established peer review sites (GitHub, etc.) are not qualified - on this subject they were unable to cite any policy and instead admitted to it being "IMHO". Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB have nearly as high of ratings as Neo4j, which is the undisputed exemplar of graph databases. Additionally other independent sources have been given that matched one of their initial requested requirements of "an article that either interviews actual users of the database, ...".
Again, there is evidence of the extent that others and I have gone to to abide by their requests, but they kept reverting anyways and changing requirements up to the point they demanded "trade journal citations" without any clear definition on what would count as a legitimate trade journal (or even citing policy to back it up). After I asked for clarity, the HighKing himself even admitted that "It really is a judgement call on whether an article ... can be regarded as independent" and then quite biasedly offered "If you've any issues with a reference that is in use, let me know and I'll look at it for you." which sets no clear standard (no policy reference) and reads as if he alone is the sole judge since his own requirement is vague. I pointed this out to him and he then started threatening me and complaining to admins rather than working with other editors and me to create a clear standardized policy. I hope you can see how from my perspective this feels very ostracizing and unjust.
Maybe I am an irrational crazy person that just does not get it - and I am open to hearing arguments for this since I have done my best to "discuss with the other party", had many other "third opinions" (with 4 editors pro and 4 editors con), having "stayed cool" and "focused on content" (I am a proponent of continuing this in the Talk page without wasting your time). But I do not think I am being unreasonable here (especially since 3 other editors are on my side). If I am being unreasonable, then I absolutely believe it is in your, EdJohnston, right to assert and/or ban me. Once again, thank you for your time - I look forward to hearing your response. Tmobii (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. You are likely to be disappointed if you try to use Github as a basis for showing notability. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment at Talk:Graph database if you wish. But the fact that not a single person agrees with you does suggest that you would not be successful there. If GUN has actual users, has anyone published their experience, or mentioned their use of GUN in a scientific publication? EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you I will try to get a Request for Comment going - this definitely seems like a more appropriate avenue than the ANI the others opened. I am confused on what you mean by "not a single person agrees with" me, as I already listed several others - why do they not count? Yes, this was a requirement Michaelmalak and others requested that was already satisfied "an article that either interviews actual users of the database, ..." the citations in the Wikipedia edits were to these user's experiences: http://myrighttocode.org/blog/artificial%20intelligence/particle%20swarm/genetic%20algorithm/collective%20knowledge/machine%20learning/gun-db-artificial-knowledge-sharing , and https://medium.com/a-weekend-with/a-weekend-with-gun-a61fdcb8cc5d . Despite requesting and accepting them, the other editors then required additional sources like trade journals without an explanation or policy of what qualifies as a trade journal. Finally, you mention that I would be "disappointed" about GitHub's peer vetting - how do you mean? Is there any specific policy that disqualifies these sources? Maybe this is the missing piece I do not understand, but I would be surprised that GitHub's rating system would be disqualified as it is one of the biggest signals in the entire programming industry worldwide (as Wikipedia's very own article recognizes it as the world's largest source code host, has an Alexa rank of 57, and over 14 million users), at an industry level it is the equivalent of peer review from academia for programmers. And each Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB (all 3 which they've historically been trying to revert from inclusion, despite long standing consensus since 2015) are rated highly, comparable to Neo4j and others. I love it though when my assumptions are challenged, so if you know of any Wikipedia talk page on why GitHub's peer review rating system doesn't count that would be greatly informative to me. Again, I want to be as respectful to Wikipedia policy as I can, but if there is no policy or consensus on this, am I wrong to say that this is still legitimate open grounds for discussion and not something I should be banned or written off over? Is this an unfair or non-neutral stance? Thank you for your thoughts, patience, advice, and guidance - I can see why others have recognized you with Admin status. Tmobii (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Update:
Per your recommendation, I got the RfC out. I have also followed up on your question about academic connections to GunDB by writing a page with as many sources I could find on GunDB's history, and the page has already gotten approval and been reviewed by another independent editor. I also noticed that this complies with another requirement of Michaelmalak ("To re-add, establish notability by either linking to a dedicated Wikipedia article about the database or ...") that was on somebody else's section. I was able to find sources from UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, hackernews, angel.co, BoostVC, reddit, and others. Would these be acceptable additional sources on top of the "actual user experiences" sources I provided based off your request? If so, may I have approval to edit the Graph page again (if you want to verify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GunDB page ontop of the existing review, that would be great but you don't have to)? Once again, thank you so much for your consideration - I hope am I building trust with you that I am trying to be respectful of policy and taking time/effort to abide by any requirements and that HighKing's complaints weren't admin necessary. Thanks! Tmobii (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Captain Eddie Leathwood

Hi, Ed. It's User:MattChatt18 again. Another editor named Captain Eddie Leathwood keeps vandalizing List of Mayday episodes by constantly changing the original names into the alternative names. Can you block him, please? Thanks. MattChatt18 (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I left a note. You appear to know something about the alternative names. Could you add something on the article talk page about how the original names and the alternative names came about? It does seem that some of the name changes (in the past) have been well-intentioned so we should have something to explain to people what the issue is. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Captain Eddie Leathwood kept changing the titles from original to alternative. For example, He keeps changing "The Killing Machine" into "Hijacked". The Killing Machine is the original title and Hijacked is the alternative title. I told him multiple times to stop because it appeared to constitute vandalism. Mayday is a Canadian show and Canadian titles are original. Alternative titles come into UK, Australia, and the US. Adding alternative titles can be discouraging. We put them in charts that are below the episodes. Only original titles should be on the actual list episodes of each season, where the description of the accident is located. MattChatt18 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
If that is some kind of a WikiProject decision, can you link to where that practice is recommended? EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
In List of Mayday episodes. If Eddie strikes again, it definitely blocking time. MattChatt18 (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Concern

Hi Ed. I randomly chose to write to you because you seem to be active at ANI. I have a concern but I'd rather not post it at ANI, on the off chance I'm not correct. I'm very certain that IP 184.189.217.210 is being used for block evasion by "User:BatteryIncluded". On the article Myron Ebell, BatteryIncluded was about to enter the 3-revert range, when the IP began to make very similar and supportive edits. Shortly after, BatteryIncluded was blocked, primarily because of profane comments made to "User:Zigzig20s". Since being blocked, the IP has made edits to denounce Zigzig20s. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Even a brief "I'm not interested" would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
There is too little for me to go on and I have not worked on any of these articles. Your filing at ANI about the alleged personal attacks was appropriate. But if you think there is socking you should file at SPI and provide evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Peter A. Allard School of Law

In regards to the edits that were made, how can I make a third party arbitration request? I can understand certain parts being deleted, but completely reverting the whole page was a bit unfair. Please advise. CanadaRed (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with my closure at WP:AN3, you can appeal it at WP:ANI. The Arbitration Committee will not usually take cases unless they have first been thoroughly discussed at the lower levels. Keep in mind that the simplest way for me to close the AN3 would have to been to block both of you for 3RR violation. Protection of the article leaves you free to engage in discussion. If you continue to edit the article without waiting for a consensus on the talk page, you are risking future trouble. Please get familiar with the options that are available to you under WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't your closure (protecting the page) that I was unhappy about. I was unhappy with User:Kingofaces43 reverting the page right before your closure. The changes that I had made weren't unreasonable, and to make the process fair, they should have at least waited for other editors to weigh in on the changes before completely reverting it. I just want unbiased third party opinions on the changes, and was wondering if there is a process to go about getting that.CanadaRed (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The article talk page is the place you should be seeking other editors' opinions. Making a WP:Request for comment is one way you can attract opinions other than those already present. If you read WP:Dispute resolution you may get other ideas. In actuality, the process that Jytdog has suggested at Talk:Peter A. Allard School of Law#Work doesn't sound bad. On Wikipedia we do tend to discount what organizations write about themselves, at least when judging notability. Getting third party publications is best. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at the "Peter A. Allard School of Law" talk page? Jytdog is not working with me in good faith to fix the page. He is fighting me on every point. He isn't willing to compromise even when others disagree with him. He goes so far as to make insults and threaten others. Isn't this supposed to work based on consensus? CanadaRed (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Admins can't force regular editors to agree with you. If you don't like dealing with User:Jytdog and you want to attract new people to the debate, you could open a WP:Request for comment. That will lead to a type of voting process in which you will still need to persuade others that your version is best. Some of the new people you attract may also be resistant to promotional editing, so anything you can do to make the prose sound more neutral will help you to win the argument. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure I am resisting badly sourced promotional content. User:CanadaRed if you find independent sources for the history and write neutral content based on them, I will have no objections. I realize that is more work than just looking at the school's website but if this is Really Important to you, as your complaining here implies, that is what you will need to do. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuing problems with Snooganssnoogans' behavior

I have drawn your attention to continuing behavioral problems in post-1932 US politics from a user you had to warn recently. [10]. I apologize that it is always the busiest of people who end up getting called in, but insofar as you are the only admin who has addressed this pattern of abuse, I thought you should be aware that it continues. SashiRolls (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taking action at this time, though there could be something to this. Since the election is over some of these disputes may go away. EdJohnston (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Renewal of problematic editing from a user you blocked

In July, you blocked Zakawer after two separate edit war reports (here and here) in which concern was displayed by the community due to his rejection of consensus on 2013 political events in Egypt. His answer, if you recall, was "F*** Wikipedia," after which he took a break from Egypt-related articles.
A few days ago, he begin building his own version of the main article in dispute, in which he includes all the edits of his that were rejected by repeated RfCs and which led to his blocking when he tried to assert ownership of the article. He then submitted that draft article as a new replacement for the current article, attempting to bypass all community consensus and content dispute methods in one sweep. It won't fly of course, but it seems to be a flagrant disregard of the warnings which you and others gave to him about his obsession with the topic.
I don't think the individual is here to help build the encyclopedia, and I believe that this attempt at skirting consensus is proof that the editor's behavior will not change. Do you have any advice for how the problem should be handled at this stage? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Zakawer's recent edits at Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état don't look bad to me. He is only making a proposal and has not yet attempted to change the article. The only weakness is that he hasn't yet used the talk page to list out the alleged problems in the current article. If he did so it would be easier to form a consensus on what (if anything) should be changed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I am trying my best to improve the article and remove all POV elements from it. I am here to help build the encyclopedia no matter what. When I find something on an article to be problematic, I try to improve it as much as possible. If edits alone can't change an article, consensus can. I've also improved your punctuation as well, EdJohnston and MezzoMezzo.Zakawer (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

János Bihari

May I ask to restore editing option for general users? We have consensus now. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, the protection is removed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Thx. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi EdJohnston.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi EdJohnston,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello

We've had run-ins, and I get the impression that you don't think much of me (although I certainly could be wrong about that), but I am serious in saying that I think you're a good admin, and would probably make a good arbitrator as well. So, if you're interested, you might consider running. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. At the moment, the work of Arbcom sounds like an ordeal, and I have enough trouble getting motivated to deal with AE complaints. This seems to be the final day for nominations, but there are enough good candidates in the list that I don't have to worry much about the next committee. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

why delet many useful content

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Taekwondo_Championships&oldid=707029882 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsenkhenge (talk • contribs) 08:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please answer ALL my questions then here, I have to understand since I want to avoid such cases in the future

- Question series 1: As checking earlier complaints, you argue that you are not entitled to judge any validity of any edit, roughly you just assess the number of edits/reverts.

- Question A: If you are able to check quickly and easily that an edit is for a correction of a mistake and that is blatantly reverted on improper grounds - so the case is NOT a content dispute - how is that possible that you warn the innocent party of edit warring, moreover that one made the complain against the disruptive user (having that what you were demonstrated about this in the incidents main page?)

- Question B: Could you cite a proof of the violation of WP:NPA because I read through again - despite I know the content, I was a victim of such a case but I have never run to raise incidents, not my syle - and I have found nothing?

- Question series 2:

- Question C: Why to insist "it does not seem worth the effort to reason with you" if I pinpoint that the reasoning fails regarding an other editor (i.e. to visonate personal attacks where it is not the case, just because he does not like the description of his negative behavior)?
- Question D: What are my options if I see from an other editor that he's primary activity in WIkipedia to check other users contributions and immediately persisting trolling on talk pages, reverts, provocations, generating incident and this goes over more months? (I see WP:NOTHERE or WP:I just don't like it not enough and I don't know any rule that would sanction this)

Question series E:

- If I describe literally a negative activity of a user, why it considered as an attack? Does it matter if it is true or not? Will that mean that nothing can be named on his name and under the pretext of personal sensitivity it is considered as an attack?
- i.e. if I tell "EDITOR A is beating an old lady in the street", just because I described an activity that is true, it really happened and it is verifiable, am I to be condemned because my proper description points EDITOR A negatively?
- Not EDITOR A would be guilty for what he commited, but the one who name it?

Question F: How is that possible a removal of the protection of page because of a consensus achievement request without checking on that the consensus requirements really met?

Thank You Very Much for your time and clarification!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

I've tried explaining my thinking to you in the past but it hasn't worked. If you still have a grievance, please pursue it at WP:ANI or ask a different admin. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately your epxlanation had scarcities and improperties, that's why I raised further questions. As I told first of all I need answers to understand regarding the Wiki rules how the admin decisions are made, I am sorry you quit the questions also that you never responded. Why would an ANI incident needed to answer to me? It is not necessarily a revision attempt of former decisions, as I told, but understanding. If in the next two days you don't mind to reconsider and answer, I will ask another admin, although you would be the perfect since you were involved.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

Another editor wants to recreate the Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83) duplicate article

We've already been through this, but now another editor says he's going to recreate the Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83) article, which you (and I) moved to Spain and the American Revolutionary War, and is mostly a duplicate. Carlstak (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:Spain and the American Revolutionary War#Redirect suggesting at new WP:Requested move discussion. See also User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 40#Duplication of content in two articles. People keep wanting to expand that other title, so you should consider whether a new arrangement of the material might be possible. For example, details of the British naval defence of Gibraltar are included in full in this version of the old article, but in a very reduced version in Spain and the American Revolutionary War. (Perhaps that was an editorial decision to minimize that aspect). Or you could add a Seealso from the current article to Great Siege of Gibraltar. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, EdJohnston. I am aware of the situation and intend to come up with a solution that I think will make everybody happy, if they can hold their horses and give me a chance to finish another project. Then I can give this the attention it deserves; in a week or so I should be able to get it together a proposal including a synthesis, or a partial rewrite if necessary, taking your suggestions into account. Someone who can write proficiently in English is needed for the task, and I don't mind doing it. Carlstak (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopper edit-warring at Self-esteem

Sorry to bother you again, EdJohnston, but would you be able to take a look at the "Self-esteem" article if you get a chance? A serial IP-hopper, apparently from Kerala, India, is waging extreme edit war there. Carlstak (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

AE question

Do you know, is any particular reason to keep the AE thread about me open for so long? It seems that my edits (almost a month ago!) were not serious enough to warrant any sanctions according to opinions by three admins. Since then, I did not do anything particularly disruptive. Actually, no one even seriously objected any of my edits on various pages during this time. I think this thread is currently being misused by one of participants with comments like that. Yes, I "sneakily removed" my previous edit because it was irrelevant. Was that a problem? That was simply a link to a publications in NYT or Washington Post. Well, if there is any reason for this AE thread to remain open, that's fine. I do not really mind waiting until it will be automatically archived next time. But may be I am missing something? Should I tell something on AE or do something differently? I would be very much willing to follow any reasonable advice. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That whole AE report is just one giant obnoxious battleground vendetta. And I'm not talking about the original filer. I mean, isn't it at least strange that Athenean, EtienneDolet, Tiptoethroughtheminefield and James Lambden show up to EVERY SINGLE drama board discussion together as a group and always say the same thing together? And of course that's when they're not all showing up to the same article together and say the same thing. The irony of course is that they run around accusing others of "tag-teaming".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for asking on WP:AE! P.S. No, I am not going to jump editing something like that. I usually prefer editing pages about subjects I like. Love, not war. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for making the distinction clear between lowly users seeking fairness and the administrative caste. I had already decided not to bother adding circumstantial evidence; it's obviously futile: those with power on AE do not seem to be concerned with justice, parity, or protecting Wikipedia from bias. All I will say is that the [15th rule] of the Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia is a very useful reminder about friendly-sounding volunteers and very best wishers... SashiRolls (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, EdJohnston. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Expired RfC at Motion picture rating system

It has been brought to my attention that the Request for Comments on motion picture rating colors is over now. Since we need an admin to close the discussion, could you please be so kind as to close it if possible? The link to the RfC is here: [11]

Thanks for your help. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
If it is convenient for you, could you please do the same with this one? I feel very appreciative of your assistance. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Towns Hill again

I don't want to go to AE again for this nonsense so I thought it better to just so you a diff that seemed to be in violation of the tban (the appeal of which was denied it seems): [12], [13], [14]. As I said before, seems this user has no interest in abiding by the tban but I feel I'm being litigious at this point... Let me know if you think this should go to AE EvergreenFir (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Left a comment on the user's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

21 Savage and move page

Hey Ed, Can you protect 21 Savage again because after it was unprotected a lot of ip's were vandalising the page. Also can you move the page SWEETSEXYSAVAGE to SweetSexySavage, Thanks. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I did the semiprotection. But the album is not released until 2017 and it's unclear whether or not it will have the all-caps title. Why not ask for a rename at WP:RMTR once the title is certain? Kehlani uses all caps on Twitter, but some cover art has been shown where the name is in mixed-case. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

SageRad AE

Hi, Ed. I noticed you changed a header level,[15] and it made me wonder if you have any thoughts about this? As I say there, it's all my fault. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC).

No need to apologize for clerking AE, or even attempting to clerk ("it's all my fault.."). We don't have any clerks! (Unless you are our new victim volunteer). You can have the official AE clerk hat. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Beshogur and Mehmedsons

Hi, EdJohnston. Please be carefull with following sujestions from user Beshogur and Mehmedsons to block other users. No other users come close to their amound of times violating the rules about pages about Syrian civil war. User Beshogur describes himself openly as a pan-Turkish Nationalist and 90% of the edits done by the account of Beshogur are edits targeting wikipedia information about Armenian, Kurdish, Jezidi, Cypriotic, Greek and other minorities,... ethnic, culture, history, organisations or human right abuses against them or glorifying pan-Turkish organisations that are targeting minorities in Turkey and the region, the Turkish state.

They now openly state they are going to target wikipedia-users they state are 'PKK-suporters'. In present dag Turkish nationalist revival anyone that defends Kurdish people is automaticly labeled 'PKK-supporter' and the actions of TAK (Kurdish falcon fighters), Daesh, others are atributed to PKK instead to frame the organisation as a terrorist organisation and justifying the human right abuses against Kurdish people and all AKP opposition in Turkey. In the same way they frame the Syrian YPG and the Syrian Democratic Forces, the ally of the international coalition in Syria as 'PKK'. So Beshogur labels all wikipedia-users trying to stop them from targeting Kurdish, Jezidi, SDF,.. info and replacing it with false info as 'PKK-supporters'.

Being on wikipedia since 2003, I personally find it regretfull that users that have an account only for one racism driven hate-goal and NPOV-pushing against minorities on wikipedia get so much room. Kind regards,--Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

--- Pleace note that user Beshogur did 3 reverts of edits of other users in a time-period of 24 hours (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=752264460 (Revert of sourced 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled village Azraq and Jubah) (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=752151926 (revert of sourced 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled controlled village Azrak) (3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=752147406 (revert of 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled village Jubah)

The 'Syrian National Resistance' is neutral force both loyal to SDF and Regime and using Damascus Syrian flag created so that Kurds from SAA territory and 'indirectly' SAA itself can help SDF advance on Al Bab. A list of 13 sources of SDF control of Jubah you can find on http://wikimapia.org/28004322/Cob%C3%AA-Jubah Including Daehs sources claiming they shelled SDF-positions inside Jubah village.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like User:Beshogur is already reported at WP:AN3, so I don't need to take any action here one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

New element names are approved

See This

Please move Ununtrium to Nihonium, Ununpentium to Moscovium, Ununseptium to Tennessine, and Ununoctium to Oganesson.--Abelium (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like another admin already did these moves, and the new names are move-protected which seems justified due to the past disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

reflist-talk

Thank you for sorting out the references thing, and also really thank you in regards on how I conduct the various discussions with other editors when it comes to Syria. Yes, I really try to be calm and reasonable in my discussions, and also try and find compromises within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Even when some editors often choose to violate (some more then others) WP policy regarding civility, assuming good faith from your fellow editors, and making edits based on their own unsourced POV. EkoGraf (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Syria Turkey war talk page

Hi, I would like it if you could warn Mr.User200 for refusing to use the talk page and keep vandalising the article Hakan3400 (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

2601:407:8402:D91:7158:EB55:45E5:7529 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is another sock of 78.129.111.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It is still active. You may want to block that IP. DarkKnight2149 21:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence? EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me for taking so long to respond, but I've been a bit busy. Yes, I'll post the evidence pretty soon. DarkKnight2149 07:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Solntsa90

Hi Ed.

In February 2016, you indefinitely topic-banned Solntsa90 from "the topic of Vladimir Putin on all pages of Wikipedia including talk." Similarly, in January 2016, Drmies issued a six-month topic ban to Solntsa90 "from the article RT (TV network) and its talk page."

Despite these active topic-bans, Solntsa90 has engaged in edit-warring at fake news website to add text about, and cited to Russia Today (RT), see diff 1, diff 2.

Do either you or Drmies consider these edits to be a violation of the active topic ban(s)? I think this is pretty clear (and sanctionable) but wanted to flag it for you both before a trip to AE. Neutralitytalk 21:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that another editor (Sagecandor) has just now made an AE request on it. Neutralitytalk 21:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This topic has literally nothing to do with Vladimir Putin, except in the most cursory stretch of the context. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

That's why my advice at AE was: "I would favor a three-month AE block for continuing problems with neutral editing in the area of WP:ARBEE, since they have got themselves named twice in the WP:DSLOG for ARBEE this year alone." EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it; Am I forbidden from even mentioning Russia, or even using sources that have the most tenuous links to Russia, lest I end up under some sort of disciplinary regime? I followed the rules of my topic ban very well I think, and I did very careful not to violate it whatsoever. Solntsa90 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The complaint is at WP:AE#Solntsa90. You can reply there. If you see no problem using RT as a source, you must not get around much. There is always the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in case of doubt. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think using RT TV as a source would not be a violation of t-ban about P., however making a substantial edit (like [16]) could definitely be. Putin is frequently credited with creating the RT TV, and he certainly supports and uses RT TV as an important instrument of his power. That was widely published, like here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
You realise what silly mental gymnastics you just performed there, right? Also, I don't believe your opinion was called for, this was a conversation between me and Ed Jonhston. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Your edit also tells about "trolls". What trolls? Let's follow the reference in your edit. It tells: "The hoaxer said that he was fed up with hearing about Putin’s trolls". So, it does related to the subject of your t-ban. Is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm back

Hi EdJohnston, I notified Wordsmith today that I'm back and to feel free to proceed. Thank you. KamelTebaast 04:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Gibraltar

[17] Ed, I don't believe it is acceptable to label another editor effectively as "racist" or a "far-right nut-job". I've pinged you several times about this gentleman resorting to personal attacks, the guy has already had a block from you for doing this, but as you've not responded its been escalating and now its going too far. I've kept my cool so far but really I expect to be able to edit without being targeted in this way. Pinging Nick-D my mentor who I've been discussing this with. WCMemail 13:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Left a note at User talk:Asilah1981. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Well it seemed clear to me (anyone who has been following these arguments) that the edit in question had racist or xenophobic undertones. Once WCM run out of arguments regarding the content of a General Assembly Resolution on the "Disputed Status of Gibraltar" Article, he included a long paragraph in the "Spanish position" section (evidently without consensus or discussion) explaining how the General Assembly resolution was only accepted with the votes of "arab, african and south american countries" and that America and Western European countries abstained. Besides being an outlandish edit in the context of the article and section meant simply to summarize the Spanish position, the xenophobic rationale behind it was clear. Demeaning a UN resolution by virtue of which continents have been determinant in the result. I gave up on the discussion after seeing this, it was insane. That was followed by the frankly childish new thread in the Gibraltar article on Ceuta and Melilla designed simply to spike other editors and exacerbate the hostile tone. I accept the Stonewalling. Its the way it is. But these edits are just pushing it too far. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I read the thread; I saw no "racist or xenophobic undertones". I'd invite other opinions so that I may be educated, though. Regardless, Asilah1981, your reaction was neither collaborative nor collegial. You probably should've walked away before you aimed your comments at other editors. I personally won't be exercising my block option at this point but it would not surprise me if other admins saw things differently. Tiderolls 21:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A selection of just today's personal attacks [18],[19],[20],[21],[22]. To make the point this editor's contributions today have been filled with personal attacks, there has certainly been no positive contribution on content. Just how far is this allowed to go? WCMemail 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Tiderolls You know, I argue on merits, rather than report people or befriend admins to support me. I have tried to be collegial and collaborative for months on this article. That until I eventually realized what was going onm after literally dozens of hours wasting my time trying to reach consensus and discuss constructively. I don't try to anymore. I just take a short amount of time daily to ensure these articles are not further destroyed by a small group of hyper-nationalistic edit-warriors one of which seems a friend of yours. That edit did have xenophobic undertones and was totally outlandish. If you don't see it, it is because you have never been subject to xenophobia yourself or because you agree with its implicit rationale. In any case, if you are an admin I suggest you get involved in disputes where you don't have preexisting sympathies for this specific editor who has breaking every Wikipedia rule in the book he has felt he can get away with. Asilah1981 (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Solntsa90

I was going to up the block to three months, but I'm leaving it to you, as the closing admin of the ARE thread. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

User is now blocked for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Do we get paid overtime for this AE stuff? Drmies (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Optimists might think that good AE closures would forestall having at least some Arbcom cases. Not that you guys wouldn't do a better job; it's just that AE takes less time (usually)... EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Clear-cut violations of AA2 topic ban

Hello Ed,

Abbatai is making clear-cut violations of his topic ban: here and here. He has been blocked from such violations before, and it appears he hasn't learnt his lesson. The edits in and of themselves are pretty disruptive as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you just not going to be doing anything about it? If so, I'll have to find other avenues of stopping this disruption. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Etienne, in the section above I was kidding--we don't get paid overtime, we don't even get paid time. Maybe Ed is eating a well-deserved dinner. You can always post on WP:ARE, for instance. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Étienne Dolet, the extension was for six months, starting on 27 May. It's over now. Then again, perhaps you want to ping Coffee... Drmies (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, just because his topic ban was over by a couple of weeks doesn't make his disruption any less disruptive. But I'm sure you know that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sadly, User:Coffee is taking an even longer break from Wikipedia than we had envisioned. Let's hope he misses us too much and comes back soon. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Yes. I remember now that he had been gone for a while. Doesn't he know we need folks? Should we offer him a raise, Ed? Maybe your friend Bbb23 can thrown in his Christmas bonus. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Complaint

EthiopianHabesha refuses to verify citations being posted on the article and editwars on this page for a long time, with many people. Block is needed. Duqsene (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've requested temporary full protection on Abyssinian people as being a content dispute, as both these accounts are happily editing-warring back and forth just short of 3RR while also firing off warnings at each other and on the talk page. It may be that you or someone else will prefer one or more blocks rather than full protection of the article. MPS1992 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Poland protection template

Hello, could I request your assistance with re-establishing a protection template for the Poland article, I'm not sure what's going on, at this point, but this article has always had semi-protected status (as most European country articles). Yet, for some reasons in the last few weeks admins started to mess around with that, and sure enough petty vandalism started to occure on the page. Is there a way to just re-add the protection lock, especially since this article had such an designation for years now. --E-960 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Poland has been under indefinite semiprotection most of the time since 2010. The semi may have been taken off briefly due to a short period of full protection and nobody remembered to put it back. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Kurdish topics

Hi Ed,

Do Kurdish topics fall under AE? If so, which case? Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The Kurds in Turkey, probably not. Conflict involving the Kurds in Syria falls under WP:GS/SCW, which is a community sanction. But if you see anything that looks to be ethnic POV-pushing it is probably worth telling an admin so they can take a look. Even if no arbitration case seems to apply. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
At ANI? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
ANI risks going nowhere. Better to ask some admin who has worked on disputes in the same part of the world. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Alright thanks. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban of Md iet

Hi, according to Md iet's talk page, you imposed a topic ban relating to all Dawoodi Bohra articles. Then it is probably of interest to you that Md iet has been editing and expanding the former redirect Moulai Abadullah, the first Bohra missionary. This page is now up for its second AfD (first one resulted in delete), but considering that the redirect was created by a sock puppet and turned into an article while topic-banned, I have put a WP:G5 deletion tag there. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems to be justified since the original creation was against the rules. But we may be asking ourselves what would happen if User:Md iet tried to *recreate* that article now through the proper channels. The article does not mention the Dawoodi Bohra, only the Ismailis. He could try using WP:DRV and might succeed, but the new article might be deleted anyway at AfD unless a stronger article could be created. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Moulai Abadullah came into India at the time of Fatimid Imam Mustansir in 11th century. He was missionary of Ismaili Fatimid. He represent all Ismailies in India, including Nizari, Sulaimani, Alvi, Aghakhani and all other categories created after that period.

I am topic banned for 'Dawoodi Bohra' related articles only. Dawoodi Bohra belongs to Islam and you all will agree that banning me of Islam would not be justified. I agree that there should be a boundry line drawn, whereon my ban should be effective and that could be from the period DB came into existence I feel. I will be OK with whatever decision, as by now I know what is just for Wikipedia and not going to insist or overrule if any body have any objection or even small resistance whatever it be.

I am thankful again for lifting block on me and allowing me to join talk pages of DB related article. Any further advice from any of editors to improve my editing practices would be welcome.--Md iet (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A

Thanks, and a question.

Thanks for PP the South Beach Diet article. I was wondering if someone could also do a checkuser on the drive-by account, to see if it matches any of the usual suspects? Anmccaff (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC) PS: I know this isn't your area, but I forget who I should be asking.

Who are the usual suspects? You could file at WP:SPI if you think you see misbehavior, but it requires evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
In this case, I suspect it's Munchausen's, anonymous self-trolling to gain sympathy, but it could be some other kind of NetKook, too. The only evidence would be from an actual check of the edits against edits while logged in, though. Dunno if they'd open that on circumstantial evidence. Anmccaff (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That's assuming there is actual evidence you can present. The checkusers won't go looking on their own. You would need diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Decentralization in Turkey

Dear EdJohnston, less than two hours after your warning on his talk page, the folk is up again:

He had just before for the first time ever started to engage in a talk page discussion, but apparently intends to unilaterally change the decentralization issue paragraph to his liking irrespective of what is and will be discussed there.

What am I supposed to do now? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

See the other party's talk page. In an edit war, it is common for both parties to be extremely certain that they know the truth. You should be looking for agreement on the talk page. Your addition to the article does sound a bit like a personal POV, though I haven't looked into it carefully. You are putting 'extreme centralization' in Wikipedia's voice as though it was objectively true that Turkey is too centralized. If you were to ask more people, you might or might not find anyone who agrees with you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The term "extreme centralization" actually sought to pick up what was/is said in the first two paragraphs of that article section, I do not care about that term at all. My question is procedural: Are you saying that I am supposed to restrict myself to talk page discussion, while that folk is free to edit the article, including 3RR violations, as he wishes? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Both of you are under a warning that keeps you from editing about decentralization until there is a consensus in your favor on the talk page. The other party is now blocked for ignoring the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Just to understand the procedure: You say that I may not undo stuff he just did, so the future of that paragraph depends on how willing he is to sacrifice 24 hour blocks for "suicide editing" of that paragraph? Sounds strange to me. Or may I partially undo his recent edit? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't anyone listening? *Any edit at all* about decentralization is expressly forbidden (to either of you) unless it gets prior consensus on the talk page. If your view is so obviously correct it should be easy for you to get support on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, it is hard to believe, but the folk does it again.

This is getting absurd. In implementing your advice/ruling, I spend hours of my lifetime researching sources and making cooperation friendly presentations on the talk page, and it appears that this folk simply deoes not care. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  • This edit of Balki seems to be moving a reference from one place to another and doing trivial rewording. Do you disagree with this? EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
His edit does the following: (1) It further distorts the language in the beginning of the paragraph, in particular removing the term "governance", which is the technical term central to the concept all this is about and which appears central in all sources. (2) It then even more than in his previous edit (and contrary to reality) seeks to present the entire decentralization topic as an alleged partisan interest of omnious "some parties". (3) It moves the Worldbank reference/source, which had indeed become absurd at that place due to his previous edit, to another place where it is even more absurd. (4) It inserts some Turkish technical term to a place where it reinforces his previous edit's line to turn this paragraph into a presentation of the static state of affairs (which is already done in the first two paragraphs of the section) instead of a presentation of the topic of this third paragraph, the decentralization issue/debate. To sum up, yes, I strongly disagree with every element of this edit. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I have never ever seen such an extrem display of WP:OWN than by this user here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This dispute led to a report at WP:AN3 but it's hard to see that either party is going about this in a good way. Your debate is about very esoteric stuff. Whether Turkey is decentralized enough sounds like a good seminar topic for a university department of political science, but it's hard to see that it deserves to be a top line item on a country-level article. Is every newspaper full of this issue? Are international negotiations taking place on whether Turkey is decentralized enough? EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at the original version of the paragraph, as once more presented by me in the start of the talk page discussion for consensus? And the only third user who gave his opinion there agrees with me and the restoration of my original version (with softer language at the start), recommended to add more sources to the sentence concerning European institutions, and I spent hours this evening digging some up, they are presented in the talk page discussion. But to give you an explicit answer to your question, yes, indeed, there is "every newspaper full of this issue" (see the sources for the last sentence of the original version, which he deleted in his previous edit, it cites inter alia the previous prime minister of Turkey in a 2015 op-ed making decentralization a central topic for the 2015 elections), and yes, there are "international negotiations taking place on whether Turkey is decentralized enough", see for example the Council of Europe source, or the sources which I just digged up during talk page discussion, concerning both the CoE's Charter and Chapter 22 of the EU acquis, which is an open chapter in the running EU negotiations with Turkey. And further, see for example the reference on the conference in Istanbul on the topic this April 2016, another one of the additional sources which I just digged up during talk page discussion. This user is pushing an ultra-nationalist fringe POV, which desperately seeks to silence the whole debate and make it "taboo". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Towns Hill

Ed, I think you've imposed the current discretionary sanctions on this user but I'm afraid it doesn't appear to be sufficient. The user is now going ahead with performing similar edits on other articles. While I'm not involved (editorially or administratively) in the original area of India-Pak disputes, I'm involved as an editor at India where edits such as this are being made. Could you please take a look? thanks. —SpacemanSpiff 13:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The edit you cite is about a military conflict between India and China. It doesn't seem to be a violation of the user's topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

AldezD

He removed your warning. Might be time to revoke his editing privileges for a time, given his disregard for the community's ruling? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

People are allowed to remove warnings. Let me know if you see further reverts at Judith Barsi. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Beau Davidson

This page needs to be semi-protected now. WP:RFPP is slow. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ed do you know what is going on here? I have proof of the content Chris Caesar is posting and violating Beaudavidson (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You have reverted the page back to a version that the subject himself wrote and which contains several unsourced or dead links. Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D081:5100:20D0:9D58:A732:D1B1 (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. The man writing above is Chris Caesar who is spending HOURS harassing me. He has violated copyright already so I thank you for restoring. I am having to sue him for digital harassment and defamation, as you can see in his complaint above. He will not stop. Beaudavidson (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No claim that this is the best version. I am only fixing WP:BLP violations, not making a judgment on what material is the most valuable. If you think further changes are desirable, you could propose them on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Beau. I'm not Chris. I'm not even a man. And I'm not "harassing" you but trying to ensure that the Wikipedia page you wrote about yourself is fair and accurate. Unfortunately, I found some questionable language and dead links that necessitated removing the bulk of the entry but I did add a recent controversy in which you were involved.

You are an agent then of Chris. No one would spend this much time attempting to slander and defame a person. I will also be suing you if you continue. Any material that you quote or source that is in violation of applicable copyright and harassment laws will be held to account in the court of law. Beaudavidson (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Beau, if you want to be a public figure and make your own Wikipedia page then you have to accept that it may have things on it you don't like but which are nonetheless noteworthy and worth including. You have your own website to write all the self-aggrandizing stuff you want, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. I trust that Ed here will look over my edits and see that most of the links you used as references were dead, the writing is all POV, and that you calling one of your fans and threatening to beat him up and asking him if he's "a homosexual" -- and incident which was then written about in other news sources -- absolutely merits inclusion and does not violate any copyrights or defame you in any way. It's your voice, you said those things, and they were legally recorded with your knowledge. And with that, I'll leave Ed to make up his own mind and hope that he reaches a conclusion that is best for Wikipedia and its reputation as an unbiased source of information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D081:5100:20D0:9D58:A732:D1B1 (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Inserting links to purported YouTube videos and self-published Medium articles which contain negative claims about a living person is not permitted on Wikipedia. Our articles are to be exclusively based on what reliable sources have published. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Then you'd better remove pretty much the entire entry as written by Beau because the links are either missing or dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D081:5100:20D0:9D58:A732:D1B1 (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ed -- I'm still waiting for a resolution on the NPOV issues with this page. If you'll look, most of the links don't work, leaving much of the page unsourced, and the rest has clearly been written by the subject himself, which is against Wikipedia's rules as I understand them. Let's work together to clean this page up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D081:5100:2D9F:8E42:6EF5:27B6 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Use the talk page. Now that the BLP problem has been addressed, I don't have much to say about the content. Try to come up with a version that meets Wikipedia standards. Make proposals on the talk page. During the protection, you can use {{Edit fully protected}} to ask for changes that have consensus. If you don't think the subject is notable, the article can be nominated for deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, no, the problem has not been addressed. There are still major NPOV and sourcing issues in this article. Since you took it upon yourself to protect it and it can't be changed, the least you could do is address the obvious issues the page still has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D081:5100:20D0:9D58:A732:D1B1 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the page protection Ed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello EdJohnston: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 16:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

IP socks of Igaalbania

Hi Ed. The newest wave is from 92.228.154.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). We need protection of Tourism in Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and cities Durrës (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Sarandë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Vlorë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Korçë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IPs are from Germany, which is classic Igaalbania. Please see also this IP edit:

Berat lies on the right bank of the river Osum, a short distance from the point where it is joined by the Molisht river. The pine forests above the city, on the slopes of the towering Tomorr mountains, provide a backdrop of appropriate grandeur.

which is direct copyvio from this report by the Albanian Telegraphic Agency. This is just a small sample only. Dr. K. 23:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Also please see this edit where the IP adds File:Kruje Kruja 2016 Albania.jpg, a file originally uploaded by Igakuqezi, a sock of Igaalbania. Dr. K. 23:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I've put ECP on Tourism in Albania and one other city page. Let's see how it goes from here. If you feel like updating the SPI, this evidence is looking good behaviorally. This edit summary "The cities will be edit tomorrow" suggests that this is a sock or meat of Igaalbania who is planning to resume his usual activity on the cities. But, as an alternative to updating SPI, if no one complains I may go ahead with ECP on more Albanian cities in the next few days. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Ed. Your protection of Tourism in Albania and Durrës, two of the main targets of the socks, will help a lot. Normally, I am reluctant to open IP SPIs because they can change so easily. In the absence of a rangeblock, an IP SPI is normally a waste of time. I prefer to wait the few days you need to add ECP to some of the other articles. I don't see why would anyone complain, given the torrent of sock activity in these article. What's even worse, is the amount of copyvios these socks dump on these articles. And that's not counting the blatant advertising-brochure type of language. It's basically a circus. Dr. K. 02:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

They started again. Same geolocation, very similar to identical edits as all the other socks. Dr. K. 07:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Vlorë and Albanian Riviera for one year each. Let's see how it goes from here. I hope you will keep tagging these new IPs as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Igaalbania. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. Vlorë and Albanian Riviera are two of their main targets. As far as tagging the IPs, I'm on it. I will also take this opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! All the best. Dr. K. 17:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Massive Biased edits made by Pro Turkish Anon Users.

Dear EdJohnston, I have just noticed a massive attack and disrutive behavior at Modern Turkey related articles, specially those regarding the Turkish Kurdish conflict and the Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War / Turkish military intervention in Syria. Could you care to check around these articles please.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Turkish war of independence revert protect

Hey. I see that you semi-protected the Wiki page of the Turkish war of independence. However, the current version is not the one before all of the edit war happened. The last edit made by 92slim is the version made by the editor who seems to have refused it. And I can't change it back to the version before the edit war took place. May could you help with this to get the version back before the edit war happened? Mriondas (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to explain the change you have in mind. The recent edits are so confusing it is hard to tell what is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Just had an ANI thread disappear...

...just as it was about to get interesting. I suspect an archiving bot malfunctioned. How do I get it back with the least fuss? Anmccaff (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If you are speaking about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Long term disruption on South Beach Diet, it looks like the thread archived normally, without formal closure. One option is to open an RfC at Talk:South Beach Diet on use of the term 'fad diet'. If you do so, try to link to all the past discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Salih Muslim Muhammad

Hi EdJohnston, alright I understand I should not keep trying to save the work I added, even if they are referenced, since the guilty party could complain and make it seem like they are innocent. I accept my fault, but has the other user been punished with the same block for their edit warring? Sincerely, -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki requested move

Hi, you're welcome to comment in the move discussion taking place at Talk:Saraiki dialect. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Stalking and harassment by sock puppets

Hi EdJohnston,

I am being stalked and harassed by sock puppets. How can you help? Thanks. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If you had a registered account you could ask for your talk page to be semiprotected, thus keeping IPs from posting there. But since you are an IP yourself, there is not much to be done. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Junosoon AE appeal

Please note that when Junosoon - who opened appeals for the same sanction at both AE and AN - indicated at AN that he wanted the AE appeal to take precedence, I NAC'd the AN thread, and copied your remark to AE. If you wish to undo this, please be my guest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hello, I noticed you recently protected a page on my watchlist and I was wondering if you could also do the same for Jesus in Islam, or perhaps place a certain lock on it. That page has its constant butchering, deletions and vandalism. Please take a gander at its history in consideration. Thank you kindly. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your quick attention. What would be needed for the page to have a lock? I've spent some extensive time developing a scholarship-based article and have a bit more to add, but stopped for a time after so much obtrusive activity. I think a lock would encourage others who have properly cited edits to contribute, an effort to improve this article's quality. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you talking about Islamic view of Jesus' death? You might try to have a substantive discussion on the article talk page. I'm not certain that your claim of vandalism against the recent IP editors is justified. Your post at Talk:Islamic view of Jesus' death#Vandalism & Unwarranted Edits is short on details and full of harsh criticism of the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I am speaking to the Jesus in Islam page and the history of contentious deletions and biased edits that remove what is derived from scholarship. As for details at the other page (Islamic view of Jesus' death), it is also a bother having to undue unwarranted deletions and opinionated edits. The vandalism is consistent and has been going on for some time. There is an individual who demands changes at my talk page periodically, but from a different anonymous ip address every time. Whether it is this same individual or simply someone new disliking the scholarship they read at the two pages, I'm not sure. One only has to click through the history to see what I am talking about. I appreciate your time and attention.-- HafizHanif (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Please consider what you can do to remedy the lack of discussion at Talk:Islamic view of Jesus' death. Calling your opponent's edits vandalism doesn't make them so, without further analysis. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EdJohnston!

Happy New Year!

EdJohnston,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 17:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Reply from User:Slavuta33

Replying to your message. I am not promoting any agenda, as my corrections were well cited and linked. I was providing new information on these interesting individuals and offered my help to others for a collaborative work based on the existing policies. I am new to the Wikipedia' editing and was learning as I went along. Unfortunately, my efforts were not welcomed by an individual who has a different opinion on the subject and who apparently knows more on the inner workings of this site. Unfortunately, this looks more like a battle ground of opinions, rather then space for mutual understanding. At this point, I do not see a point for me to continue contributing, as it takes to much of my time and energy. Thank you.Slavuta33 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved the editor's response here from my user page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed on topics of India , where I can edit or write

Hi, I would kindly request to guide, in reference of the topic ban on me, from content relating to the economy of India, including but not limited to taxation, currency and associated policy, process or practice. With my concern on this, which other topics I can write or edit, in related to India, that don't violate the ban. Example. Can I edit or write on Indian Parliament Acts, or subjects related to Parliament?.Kindly advice on this, thanks.Junosoon (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Junosoon, I'm not speaking for Ed here, but as the admin who imposed the sanction, I'll clarify: you can not edit any act or bill of parliament that pertains to the Indian economy, this includes but isn't limited to Finance Bills, GST Bills, Budgets/Railway budgets, labour bills, wages bills etc, Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 (is a specific example of what's not allowed). —SpacemanSpiff 14:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Junosoon, since SpacemanSpiff is the admin who imposed the ban, you should follow his advice about scope of the ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Thank you,Junosoon (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you.Junosoon (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Eastern Europe has TWO arb rulings

Just FYI Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Improving confusing names of two closed cases NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

They aren't particularly confusing. This has been discussed before on the arb pages. Arbcom goes out of its way to avoid naming cases after specific individuals, and sometimes that leads to case names that are hard to interpret. ARBEE was originally DIGWUREN, and that was very precise. If we were doing everything over from scratch, it might have been better to call the second case ARBEE2 rather than Eastern European disputes. The second EE case has no discretionary sanctions and is unlikely to be referred to from now on, so the sound-alike case names are unlikely to cause confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The second EE case has no discretionary sanctions Ah.... thanks for pointing this out, I just assumed they were in there and that's what I get for not reading carefully. Then again, if I had read carefully, I guess I'm new enough at ARB decisions that I would not have thought to look, and then notice their absence. So thanks for that bit of education too. Sorry to bother you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hallo EdJohnston

Ottoman Empire captured in this war the Russian territorys South Ukraine and that Chigirin and you reverted the result into Indecisive this is incorrectly. Also, Ottoman Empire owned those territorys until to second Russo Türkish 1686 1700 War. Please check the war again also in Brian L. Davies, Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700 book number 169 and 171 tells about Ottoman victory. Thank you Historiker123454 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If you make more edits like this one, at Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) you are likely to be blocked. People have been giving you advice but you don't seem to be listening. You just repeat the same argument over and over. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Email

{{ygm}} JbhTalk 02:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your mail; noted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I need help

Not planning to help any further with this. There isn't much reason to unblock Bleckter23, per User:Drmies. The issue of the porn links is very strange, but appears to be confirmed. If he is ever unblocked, he should have an unblock condition that keeps him away from White Costa Rican and similar articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Hi Ed, Im Bleckter but I lost my account and I try to recover it, my problem is for the users Triptothecottage, Not with all those rocks about and Dereck Camacho, They try to accuse me maliciously saying that I insert porn links when it is not true. Derek Camacho is misrepresenting the figures of White Costa Rican in his favor, he is from Costa Rica, and discriminates me by email for being Mexican. Thanks for everything. --Bleckter23 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears you have just been indef blocked. Please contact the blocking admin, User:Drmies, for any advice on your situation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, stuff happens. EdJohnston, there's an ANI complaint started by this editor; I blocked them because they can't seem to stop adding links to naked lady sites in their edits. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
EdJohnston + Drmies, as an aside on this case, Bleckter contacted me on my own talk doing the aspersions thing. Although Derek Camacho is making some slightly off-topic changes to the article he was accused to lying about, it's a genetics thing (which hate like poison) but - in checking the sources - the content changes are AGF. I've tried to point him in the direction of the main article on Costa Ricans and the genetics section there. I suspect that there are COMPETENCE issues all round, but calling Derek Camacho a racist (the brunt of the offensive) is right off the mark. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, first I have never send any private email to Bleckter23, no idea where he takes that but is a total lie. Second I do not have a white agenda, I’m NOT white, I’m mestizo. Third I don’t know the other users and have no idea they had any problem with him, though for his edits I can imagine why. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full-Face Helmet Award

 Slakr's Full-Face Helmet Award

For being cool when people might otherwise trigger a reflexive, full-scale, category-5 Facepalm facepalming due to their actions, I hereby award you your own face-guarding... helmet... thing.

You never know, one day it might come in handy should someone's absurdity become too great for you bear, thereby causing you to smack your palm to your head with blistering force. No need for you to risk self-injury just for dealing with that sort of crap, eh? :D

Oh, and uh... sorry... they were all out of palm protectors, so... uhh... I guess maybe worst case, alternate hands for now(?)

... or maybe grab some of those padded boxing gloves?

I dunno. *shrug*. Keep up the great work, and cheers. =)

--slakr\ talk / 03:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I see you reappear at AN3 from time to time, and always to good effect. Your 3RR-counting thing is still missed. Though Twinkle tries its best. Its user interface is clear only to those who have used it before. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Issue with recently blocked user

I know you received my ping, but wanted to inform you that he reverted my remark too [23]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that User:KrakatoaKatie has perceived the correctness of your advice. I did not make a close enough study of the previous blocks. but I thought the user was already making rapid progress towards the exits, under their own power. People are not usually quite this careless unless they are socks. (Socks have little to lose when they are blocked). The fact that KK is a checkuser might help get to the bottom of the situation if there is indeed a sock aspect. Now that the indef is in place I don't see any need to me to participate further. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Ed. Sorry for the situation with Bleckter23. He is a sockpuppet with a large history vandalizing pages and insulting users. He took advantage of my inactivity to pretend to be me. Greetings. --Bleckter (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Left the project

I leave Wikipedia in protest because I feel discriminated against my ethnicity. My country is named Hellas and the name Greece offends my ethnicity. The Romans used the name Greece when they conquered my country and they used the word Greek to mean slave. When I wrote the article I used "Hellas (Greece)", then they reverted me and I tried to solve the dispute by using "Hellenic Republic (Greece)" and even "Greece (Hellas)" but they kept reverting me. My country is glorious and I'm a devout Hellene nationalist, calling my country "Greece" is unacceptable because it is a name used by the evil Romans. I edited the Name of Greece article giving sources about the Hellas-Greece issue and references to calls by politicians to change the international name of our country but other users deleted my additions, further offending my ethnicity. I will not edit on Wikipedia anymore as you have offended my national emotions. When the time comes Hellas will establish a worldwide empire and Wikipedia will come under the control of Hellenes, when this happens I will return to this site. For now, goodbye! Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

See the web site of the 'Embassy of Greece in Washington DC'. The Hellenic Republic does not mind referring to itself as Greece in English in diplomatic contexts. Since Wikipedia follows mainstream usage, we use the term 'Greece'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Igaalbania's successor

Hi Ed. I have been watching with concern the contributions of Iaof2017 that look very much like those of Igaalbania. Today, he was warned about copyright violations. If you look at the history of his/her talkpage he has copied large segments of other articles within Wikipedia without attribution and was warned about it by Diannaa. He has also been making large-scale edits to the same articles as Igaalbania, in a very similar way to the sockmaster, including massive text aditions and playing around with images. He has also edited articles about Mother Teresa, a favourite of Igaalbania's. I haven't checked for more copyright violations yet, but I am concerned by the whole business. However, as you know, the SPI on this editor did not prove any connection to the master. Do you have any ideas? Dr. K. 22:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your own summary of Igaanlbania's behavior was written in November, 2016:

His usual MO is adding copyvios and shifting images around while making a huge number of small edits at a given time. Mass-reverting of his/her disruption has been ongoing but it is a repetitive and onerous task because Igaalbania keeps edit-warring incessantly adding this stuff back. He is also not communicative and rarely, if ever, participates in talkpage discussions. Many of Igaalbania's edits had to be revdeled by Diannaa due to copyright violations. Issues of CIR are definitely present.

I am not yet convinced that Iaof2017 shows the same style, but it is worth watching. We could do more ECP but there would be a lot of pages to cover; so far ECP is only on Albania. Iaof2017's work on Ethnological Museum, Pristina looks OK to me and the composite image at the top is nice. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. Perhaps, it's not exactly the same style, but parts of it are remarkably similar. Apart from the large dumps of info of questionable origin and the continuous shuffling of images, we also have nuisance edits like blanking of information, for which he was warned by other editors. Then we also have this removal of a reliable source, without any explanation, which I reverted yesterday. I don't have time currently for an exhaustive analysis of this account's edits, so I can't advance any more in-depth arguments. But thank you for your advice. Take care. Dr. K. 18:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User:92slim

Quite recently you blocked User:92slim for making personal attacks at User:Iryna Harpy's talk page. It seems he hasn't learned anything:

  • [24] "didnt add that myself you liar" (as an aside, he *did* add it [25])
  • [26] "self reverted - you're still a liar"
  • [27] "self reverted again - yeah, VM is a liar still"
  • [28] "reverting liar"

This is all in a quick succession (the edit also broke 1RR which applies to Syria related articles).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The revert-then-self-revert-then-revert-then-self-revert seems to be done simply to be able to put "you're liar" in the edit summary a few more times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: From now on, don't lie on edit summaries. Hopefully you will learn your lesson. And no, I didn't - so you're a liar. --92slim (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So you reinserted it rather than inserted. Still no excuse for you to call people "a liar".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't reinsert it, I actually removed it. Nice try, though. --92slim (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
VM your contributions on SOHR have not been helpful IMHO, [29]. Really its no surprise this has happened. SaintAviator lets talk 02:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, bollocks to that conclusion, SaintAviator. The fact that you like 92slim's POV, and that your hatred of VM is the stuff of legend is irrelevant. 92slim has been BATTLEGROUND from day one, and throwing tantrums calling other editors liars, abusing them on their talk pages when it is he who has made errors is not tolerable. To return from a block for overstepping NPA big time, only to repeat the same behaviour is not acceptable. We all get hot headed and go OTT (you love your POV diatribes on talk pages; I've been 'erhem' known to get a tad blustery; etc.), but behaving as if one has an irrefutable right to assume bad faith in spades is disruptive to the nth degree. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Lol. Legend. I like it. But Hatred is too far though. To hate someone you have to have feelings about them. This is not the case. As for Slim, you know Irnya, I like you, but you gotta admit the ever abrasive VM draws Slim to him like a Moth to a candle. They are made for each other like two sides of the one coin. SaintAviator lets talk 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondly about previous blocks / bans. I have been meaning to bring this up and you have raised it here Iryna. You now and VM often brings up previous bans as being grounds for more bans. But is this fair? Has not a person done his / her time? Do we not apply that in society? Has not VM done his one year ban WP:EEML and should we forget that, even though he has since had lesser bans for similar behavior? I say yes, we should forget old bans, for VM and in this case Slim. VM must stop bringing up past bans as grounds for more bans. Otherwise its hypocrisy. SaintAviator lets talk 21:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but 92slim is currently edit warring with multiple editors and continuing with extreme bad faith behaviour. Add to that the fact that the block is not 'history', but very, very recent. This demonstrates that the user has learnt nothing, and shows no signs of abating. I was certainly not abrasive toward him, yet was abused in no uncertain terms. In fact, I'd left an AGF response explaining where he had drawn wrong conclusion as to my having pinged another user who he had pinged. The section is still open on my talk. I was not expecting an apology, but an acknowledgement of having misinterpreted the sequence of events would have been a good faith gesture leaving me more confident in his having recognised his error. I can ignore that no more was said on the subject... but an obvious return to the same battleground behaviour does not bode well. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
History is yesterday. Ok Slim has several front lines going on. I see you're one of them. I have seen times VM is arguing with a lot of editors too. Im saying what I said. I believe its relevant. SaintAviator lets talk 22:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Help

Hi EdJohnston, i have come to talk to you to discuss something. Basically you might know that me and Magnolia677 had problems in the past (and we still do) about unsourced content. So i went to another editor's talk page to discuss this issue i had that is still going on. He told me to bring it up to an admin about it and since you are the only admin i know i figured i message you. There is this issue i had on Rae Sremmurd discography page about the "Other charted songs" section. I made this edit here because the song charted and i saw it and i added it. Then he made this edit here which he changed to "Other songs". And i undid it and said "It ain't like this" because that is not how a discography page should look. He then went on to remove the album "Sremmlife 2" because it was unsourced. And then i undid it and another editor reverted my edit. I mean there is a blue link to the album which you can click on and see it. Also i don't think that there should be a ref because there are plenty of discography pages with the section "Other charted songs" and they don't have a ref. Also Magnolia likes to undo edits i make that don't have sources to it. And I always add stuff that is right but the edit's i make just keeps getting reverted by him. He then went on to report me for that. I mean i don't know what should i do now at this point. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks as though agreement has been reached between you and User:Magnolia677 at Talk:Rae Sremmurd discography. Am I missing something? If there is disagrement on how to do discographies, you might ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Towns Hill again

I feel like I'm being punitive so I'm just gonna post this here and let you decide. I noticed this page while looking through the New Pages Feed: Pashtun Atrocities against Kashmiris. Appears to violate tban but does not seem disruptive per se. If you want me to it to AE, it think it should be, ping me. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Economy of Iran

Could you please leave [the discussion OPEN? The reason is that the edit-warring issue with Spider has NOT been resolved. He has been reported by several unrelated editors (as you know) and he has decided NOT to engage in any meaningful discussion on the talk page of the economy of Iran article. NO consensus has been reached there either. That would set a bad precedent IMO if his edits wars are not reverted. Regards,

47.17.27.96 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

3RR cases are not discussions. They are an opportunity for edit wars to be reported. Once the report is made and an admin has decided on an action, you should start again if there is a continuing problem. Since User:SpidErxD has not reverted at Economy of Iran since 8 January, his reverts are stale and no block was justified. If he resumes you can make a new report with a link to the old one. If you think the controversy may be long-term you should consider registering an account instead of editing anonymously. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of courtesy and to keep the PEACE, I have refereed the issue to ANI and another editor to "3RR cases". All his edits should have been reverted until a consensus is reached. Also, please revert your "closure notice" at "3RR". Thank you.47.17.27.96 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I am declining to re-open the 3RR case. If you want to restore a previous version of Economy of Iran, why not announce your proposal on the talk page and see if anyone responds. The future behavior of User:SpidErxD is what will decide if any further admin action is needed. If he makes no reply to your talk page arguments, you might consider you have consensus and you could go ahead and change the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
EdJohnston Can you please ask him to update figures according to IMF oct 2016 report [30] and add latest values from CIA World FactBook [31] and also update JCPOA agreement.I am not editing because whenever i update latest values he revert it because he is anti iranian. Honestly i updated after 2 hours reading about Iranian economy and he reverted all my edits. Just ask him to update latest values himself. Also ask him to use his orignal account -> User:SSZ instead of this ip 47.17.27.96. I Updated China and Philippines economy too with latest values but no one reverted my edits there. SpidErxD (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I converted the refs to URLs in your statement. Please make these arguments at Talk:Economy of Iran. It is not up to me to overrule the judgment of the regular editors. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree completely with SpiderXd. He has engaged (again) in edit wars. Proof he is not looking to improve the article (as he/she pretends). Please see here and here and the article's talk page where he refuses to engage in a debate and instead reverts the long standing version. As he has been told by other editors who reverted him 4 times in one day, the onus is on him to explain his revisions and obtain consensus before reverting. What are the admins doing here?? 47.17.27.96 (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

SpidErxD makes repeated unsubstantiated personal attacks like above "anti-Iranian" comment (which is strange since I have been editing economy of Iran & US-related topics without a glitch for over 10 YEARS) and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.96 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I hope someone will go to the article talk page and explain the issues that are in dispute at Talk:Economy of Iran. While User:SpidErxD seems well-intentioned (except for a few personal attacks now and then) it is hard to know what this change of January 7 was about. The edit summary was 'Minor fix'. Surely that's not a correct description; it is a big change of the top-level numbers in the article. Anyone who has time to edit this article surely also has time to explain on the talk page what they are trying to do. The previous AN3 about SpidErxD was here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


This is not true. Explanation was given from the start to user:SpiderxD and on his talk page about the content of his edits to the economy of Iran (as it was also previously discussed in the talk page archives regarding the difference between actual, "forecast" and "estimates" by the IMF). SpiderxD (and same IP editor from Pakistan) just IGNORE their warnings and delete them. It is obviously a disguised form of wp:trollism and he/she must be stopped immediately. It is a behavior issue he/she has (and not just with me, as he/she has been reported by other editors to wp:admins for same issue before and who asked him to stop edit warring and instead discussing on the talk page his/her content issues).47.17.27.96 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE block user:SpiderxD (as IP editor from Pakistan) if they revert one more time. Thanks, 47.17.27.96 (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

All Economies page contain estimates figures from IMF Oct 2016 report. see example : Economy of Brazil, Economy of China, Economy of Philippines, Economy of Japan etc. but you don't revert those, maybe because you are just anti iran. Also i just not only updated according to IMF. I also updated latest figures from CIA World Factbook. I will revert all my edits. promise me that you will update infobox of Economy of Iran according to latest figures from CIA World Factbook and IMF latest report yourself?. SpidErxD (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

AfricaTanz at it again

as 172.56.30.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Maracha District. Cobblet (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston

Can you please check the actions of a recent user who keeps removing the properly-cited references and pieces of information from some articles? (e.g. 1 2 3) The same user even opened a section on the Administrators' noticeboard to report the person who is reverting her mistakes whilst the opposite was supposed to happen.

Sincerely, Listofpeople (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Consider opening a discussion at Talk:Naglaa Fathi or the talk pages of the other articles as to what sources ought to be used. I'm leaving a ping for User:Rita saber1. One party says the links are dead, the other says that the content of the links has been archived. You should be able to discuss this. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Sir, the reason why I addressed this issue to you as an administrator is because that new user who won't stop removing content from Wikipedia reported me on the Administrators' noticeboard. This is very surprising considering I am the one who is correcting her own mistakes. All I need is a third party like you otherwise she will keep removing the references no matter what I say. This is not only about archived links only. There are many sources available, some of which are (were) already present in the article. Here I am asking whether you can check out those Wikipedia articles and revert her edits accordingly or not. Regarding Naglaa Fathi, for instance, I honestly believe this edit is not even worth discussing. It should be reverted immediately. Before that, the user said the link was broken and removed it. Well, I rescued the link. She reverted again. Then I added more references from other newspapers available online, besides also keeping the archived references. And she removed them all. I want to believe that she did not see the newly-added ones, otherwise this is far from good intention. Moreover, the information at stake is a widely-known one. They are quite famous actors and actresses whose ethnic origins are already known to public and can even be found in English-language newspapers as well. I am quite confident in this, and I would go for it again and again, but to avoid further discussion, it should be another user to revert her edits. Because I have already talked to her enough, and there is nothing more I can do to persuade her of the truth. It should be very easy for another user to check those pages and decide on what to do. I would appreciate if you in particular check them out. Listofpeople (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Same here. I think you see what I mean.
Sincerely, Listofpeople (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear, Listofpeople. You are adding fake links and claiming them as reliable sources while they are not--they don't even exist! So please, let an administrator take care of the subject. Also, you are not supposed to use Arabic-written articles as sources for articles on the English Wikipedia, let alone adding information that was taken from internet forums which cannot be considered reliable sources. --Rita saber1 (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

What is your definition of the word "fake"? Akhbar Al-Yom, Arabi21, Al-Ahram, Hayyes, etc. They are not unreliable sources. Here you called Akhbar Al-Yom a "fake" source. Before that when there was another source, you called it unreliable because the link was broken, albeit archived. Now the fact that Al-Ahram or others are in Arabic language makes them fake according to you. How they do not even exist? English-language interviews or newspaper articles should be preferable to those in Arabic since this is English Wikipedia, but why would it be forbidden to use them? You can even find the original quote and its translation in the template "Cite news". I had a solution for every single complaint of yours, but I am afraid you prefer to ignore the solutions. Calling something "fake" will not make them fake or justify your actions of removing valid content from Wikipedia because anyone can check what is fake and not. So instead of those articles, am I supposed to quote from IMDb as you did in the article of Youssef Chahine? There you removed several sources which mention the actor's Lebanese ancestry and replaced them with IMDb to show that he is Egyptian because the profile says "an Egyptian actor." That was not even necessary because everybody knows he is Egyptian. He was born and grew up in Egypt. He held Egyptian nationality. However, it is definitely true that he was Lebanese by descent and Lebanese Melkite Christian by religion, and there were properly-cited reliable sources which mention this until you removed them all. Why are you doing this? Foreign ancestry does not make them less Egyptian if it is what you are worrying about. Sometimes you remove both the source and the information, sometimes you keep the former but remove the latter. This link is broken, the other is in Arabic, this and that. You even said that I should not edit Wikipedia articles because, according to you, I do not have an adequate command of English. I still cannot believe how you can even defend your actions and say that an administrator should take care of the issue as if it is possible that an administrator would approve of your edits. Why am I even discussing this whilst everything is crystal clear? Rita saber1, please tell me that you are kidding. Listofpeople (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Rita saber1, if you sincerely believe that the archived Al-Ahram quotes are 'fake links' and not usable as sources, please make your argument at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. At first sight it's hard to take you seriously. It's not wise for you to begin an argument with a position that is so easily refuted. In general we accept foreign-language sources. I would caution User:Listofpeople that Wikipedia is not always interested in the nationality of someone's 'descent'. For that to be worthy of mention, we expect there to be an obvious connection between their 'descent' and the activities they are notable for. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sir, the thing is he either provides broken links that do not exist or provides links to articles that don't confirm what he has written! In the case of "Naglaa Fathi", "Hind Rostom" and "Maryam Fakhr Eddin", there's no sources that confirm they are of 'Circassian' origins. Where does the source he provided mention that Mariam Fakhr Eddin's father was an Egyptian of "Circassian" origin? Where does the source he provided mention that Naglaa Fathi is of "Circassian"? The problem is he provides sources that don't even mention what he has written in those articles; that's why an administrator needs to check those articles out. All I care about is keeping the information on Wikipedia as genuine as possible--especially when it comes to unprotected pages. --Rita saber1 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you not understand that we accept Arabic sources? And now that Listofpeople has made this update at Hind Rostom can you explain if you still see any link you find unacceptable or broken? EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
She reverted the article of Hind Rostom again. Again. Of course she did. Rita saber1, just because you do not want some content on Wikipedia, do you think that you can get them removed by saying that the cited references do not mention the added information whilst they do it very well? Do you really think that another editor would not check if it is the case? There are enough English and Arabic sources on Wikipedia. There were until you started removing them just because they are against your agenda. There are many others on the internet, too. Search engines do exist, and people can find the information. You know what? For Arabic ones, it is not even very difficult to translate it online. You edited the article of Hind Rostom again. This is enough! And your explanation is that "The user 'Listofpeople' keeps adding dead links and claiming them as reliable sources. An administrator needs to check this article out, please." Seriously? There were two links, one in English and one in Arabic. Only the latter was archived, but it is not a problem either. Moreover, most people in Egypt already knew about her origin. What are you even talking about? And how are you telling me that you do not see where the source mentions the Circassian ancestry of Fakhr Eddine? Do you even know how to open an URL and read an English text? It was not a dead source either. Naglaa Fathi, again, you removed two sources saying that "they do not exist." What? I do not believe that you cannot read. You obviously read, but you ignore. Now I believe you are blatantly lying. Why do you ignore the newspapers again? You remove them and added a Google Plus page instead. What is going on? You are not getting away with this. All the three pages will be reverted. Your harm to those articles will be fixed. "An administrator needs to check this article out, please" Well, here is the administrator. He can check them out very easily. EdJohnston, please see those Wikipedia articles. Please. Not only them, Youssef Chahine and any other articles that she edited. Their foreign origins besides Egyptian are very well known to public. Lebanese for Chahine, Magyarab and Circassian for Fahr Eddine, Turko-Circassian for Rostom, Circassian for Fathi (Well, actually, the source does not mention Turko- for Fathi, but if it were up to me, I would call it Turko-Circassian as well, not because she had Turkic ancestry, but because her ancestors did not come directly from Russia to Egypt. They came from Russia to Egypt through Turkey, and they were first based in Turkey as part of the Ottoman bureaucracy in Istanbul. Turkish ancestry in case of Egypt refers to such bureaucratic or aristocratic families. Same for Rostom, her ancestors were ethnic Circassians who migrated from Russia to Turkey first, and from Turkey to Egypt.) Rita saber1, I cannot believe how you dare to say there are no sources provided to confirm their European ancestry. This is not true, and you know this. They were of Circassian origin. Except Chahine. Seriously, do you really think that people cannot read and find some pieces of information about the most famous artists of Egyptian cinema? Here we have the administrator who will end this unnecessary discussion. Sincerely, Listofpeople (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Beyond-the-pale threatening summary

Thought you should know about this beyond-the-pale summary. Carlstak (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Scoville scale. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hello EdJohnston. You remember some weks ago now I applied for my topic ban on Balkans affairs to be lifted. I started the conversation on AN but due to my inactivity, I guess the application and talk just withered away quietly. I was unblocked by Swarm some time earlier but Swarm has yet to edit in 2017 (I hope he's still about and ok). Are you in a position to help or advise in my case? Thanx. Sinbad Barron (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've decided that I will not be supporting lifting your ban at this time.
Though I am not in support, maybe you should try to persuade User:Zoupan to support lifting your ban. If the ban is to be lifted it would require filing an appeal at WP:AE per instructions at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications, since User:Swarm is not currently available. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Can you semi-protect Shape of You to persistent unsourced content? 123.136.107.237 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. EdJohnston (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_41&oldid=1142983146"