Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Jeffrey Fitzpatrick's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The more I think about this, and while I agree you've crafted something that could possibly address the N-K issue we are having, I think we should be going for something broader as part of WP:ARBAA. These constant fights go across numerous pages and numerous other areas subject to sanctions. I just keep thinking we should take the socking issue to ARBCOM for some input and direction lest we have incessant complaints from partisans of being censored or treated as second-class contributors. --WGFinley (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to find a broader consensus on what direction to take. What do you think you could ask Arbcom to do? Asking the community could be more promising. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. That was a community discussion, and the result got adopted as the blanket 1RR on ARBPIA which is still in force. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should present the issue concerning socks and SPAs to ARBCOM with the suggestion you've put together and asking for direction from ARBCOM. Since this behavior is not unique to WP:ARBAA, N-K within that or otherwise I think we should try to come up with something that will more broadly address the problem that extends to ARBPIA and ARBMAC as well. Alternatively we could go for community discussion like was done on the 1RR on ARBPIA, maybe that blanket 1RR is the way to go. I don't think we're going to get a sound measure from the current AE report. --WGFinley (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can offer to close the NK report on that basis. If you do, then we look forward to your eventual proposal. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it should be closed but would definitely want to work with you on something to move forward if you were interested. --WGFinley (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make a draft of your new request (whether to Arbcom or community) and I could comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's consensus for your proposal so I closed it and put it into effect. I took the liberty of one slight change and that was substituting "seniority restriction" with "single reversion restriction" so as to avoid the appearance some special status is being created. This keeps it clean and simple that the restriction is there because of the sock and meat issues on the article and that's it. I'm going to mull over something broader for all these article but think I'll just see how this works for that article first. --WGFinley (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I may have not been clear enough that experienced editors are *also* under 1RR, though reverting low seniority accounts is an exemption to their restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Realized I missed some spots and cleaned it up a bit more. [1] --WGFinley (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a bit different, let me fix that then. --WGFinley (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think I have it. [2] --WGFinley (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your final version at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh looks good to me. That is a better way of saying it than I had originally. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, even after your block expired it seems User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick has insisted on continuing to edit war at Talk:Demographics of Greater China, seen in this diff. What's the correct process here, should I make a new report at AN3, or at ANI perhaps? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is getting a little out of hand. Jeffrey has reverted reverts across multiple pages in the last day and made three reverts at Category:Gondola lifts in China to try to force a C1 tag on the page despite being told it doesn't apply because the category is being discussed at CFD. He's also been going back and forth with SchmuckyTheCat over a link from 2004 that Schmucky fixed (as allowed by WP:TPG) which Jeffrey is inexplicably reverting. Admins so far haven't addressed the AN3 report, is there any chance you might be able to draw attention to it or call in a favour from another admin to get it looked at? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he breaks 3RR at Category:Gondola lifts in China that might justify a sanction. Since the report at AN3 is still open, we should wait until it is archived. If you have some time, look into the Instantnood sock connection. There is a limit to what any admin ought to do without concurrence from others, and shopping for a sanction is not advisable. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply canvassing, my apologies. I'm less concerned with the outcome of the report, I'd just prefer someone actually look at it. I'll try to look into the Instantnood possibility this evening. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you with some investigation results on my talk page. If you can offer your advice on whether the evidence is sufficient, that would be great. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 09:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that page protection is being used for "content control" on the article. In the latest version I am supposed to have engaged in synthesis and OR. Several attempts to get the complainer to state exactly what I synthesized have been ignored for the plain and simple reason that I did not synthesize anything. Pretty mush all the material I added was in the Legal Tender Cases article. The complaint of synthesis was a fallback position to a complaint on the use of primary sources which I demolished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gold_standard#wiki_policy_on_primary_sources

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArtifexMayhem#Gold_standard71.174.135.204 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing prevents you from opening a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. If editors agree with you there, then it is expected that the change will be made in the article. Before semiprotection was applied, your own changes to the Gold standard article seem to have been routinely reverted. This suggests you do not have consensus for the reforms you desire. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the general run of wiki editors LOVE to shove wiki policy down ones throat without having read those exact same policies. This current tempest is one in a long line of that kind of conduct. For instance one editor deleted material because it was based on a book review and he thought it was against wiki policies to include references to book reviews. Wiki policies do in fact allow references to book reviews. One editor even deleted material which stated that higher interest rates reward savers and punish debtors because he disagreed with it. He must never have had a bank account or taken out a loan. From that experience I firmly believe that wiki should cull the terminally stupid from its ranks of editors. While not as severe, this current dispute involves material on the US gold standard which is already included in the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases. If it is included in that wiki article, with acceptable references, why is it OR or synthesis or some other made up excuse, when included in another wiki article, with pretty much those exact same references?71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to persuade the other editors at Talk:Gold standard that you are right about this. Your own record does not suggest that you understand or respect consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not mean that I have to accept a looney's opinion that savers get PUNISHED and debtors REWARDED by higher interest rates. See wiki policy on fringe opinion.71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Chinese Prostitute in korea' Is a pre-existing data. but User Azload(Smiling Demon Lord) again and again Blindly deletes it. and 'Chinese Prostitute in korea' is far from Human Trafficking . therefore, 'Chinese Prostitute in korea' Preserve this section plz, — Preceding unsigned comment added by OOggii (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that every source could be used even if WP:RSN says its unreliable?There are only one editor suggested that biased sources(and I agree with him actually) should be used with attribution he did't even speak about IRMEP specifically most of the editors said that its unreliable and shouldn't be used in Wikipeida because its not "an institute", not everyone that setup webpage and call him "institute" is really is.--Shrike (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I mistaken about the policy my AE report was in good faith so I don't think should be sanctioned just because my misunderstanding--Shrike (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not getting this. Facts and opinions are different. I don't personally see IRMEP's opinion in this case as being terribly interesting, but they are a reliable source for what their own *opinion* is. That is not in doubt. EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just their opinion its factual statement about their donors.In case of ADL it was attributed too nevertheless you thought than sanction is on the order. But what I don't understand how can your overlook the comments of uninvolved editors in WP:RSN.--Shrike (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask for assistance in resolving a neutrality issue on Haller's Blue Army page. As a anno IP, I understand that I'm at a disadvantage here. But, I do believe that I have a legitimate case against users Faustian and Malik Shabazz. Both of them are re-adding text that was deemed as inaccurate through discussion on the "Talk" page, and when I tried to remove the disputed phrases, they both went on the offensive, accused me of war editing, and threatened to block me. Yet, they totally disregarded any fault in their own actions. I also bought up a legitimate issue that the entire "Controversies" section is written in a language that holds a "POV" and the linguistic style used is sensational in nature. To illustrate my case, take the US military in Iraq, you could fill an entire Wiki page full of individual cases of war time brutality against civilians, and call the US military "anti-Islamic crusaders". But, you don't find that kind of language used on such a page. Same standard should be applied in the Blue Army articel. Some soldiers did commit brutality against local Jewish and Ukrainian civilians. But, as user Faustian himself noted on the "Talk" page, they viewed them as Bolshevik collaborators, and to further prove my case, Polish-Jews who were loyal to Poland, served with-in the army's ranks, so you can't just call this a case of anti-semitism, and you can't frame this narrative in such a blunt way, only seeing things in black and white. So, in the end I ask for assistance in this matter, and ask that we bring in neutral parties to look at this issue. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This false claim about "re-adding text that was deemed inaccurate" is debunked, with links, here: [3]. Blaming the Jewish victims by claiming they were all Bolsheviks is not nice, either.Faustian (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no... Faustian, here is what you are intentionaly leaving out. You continue to insert this statement in the introductory paragraph: "Some soldiers from the Blue army were involved in antisemitic actions during the struggle in the east".

Yet, back in January you yourself agreed that such a statement is out of place in the introductory paragraph. Please see what you wrote below:

Discussed on the "Talk" page: I will look over this again in more detail later. Taking a quick glance for now, it does seem like the sentence in the lede "While fighting in the East, soldiers from the Blue Army also engaged in antisemitic violence." implies that this characterized the entire formation and all the soldiers of the army. Given that Haller and others condemned whatever excesses happened and made efforts to stop them this does not appear to be an accurate implication.VolunteerMarek 05:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed!Faustian (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I changed it by adding "some", and VM accepted that change. You were edit-warring to remove the version with "some." Please stop wasting others' time.Faustian (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No further comments. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 91.150.222.225. Per the 3RR report here you have violated WP:SOCK by carrying on a dispute at Blue Army (Poland) with multiple IPs. Come back and ask your question here again when you have acquired good standing, for example by registering an account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect... I'm using a commercial net-service, if they have an alternating IP address, than I can't do anything about that, and ask that we focus on the dispute itself, not trying to label me a sock puppet. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've already violated WP:SOCK and are eligible for a block right now. Editing any disputed article with an IP is frowned upon. A fluctuating IP has no usable talk page on which people can leave messages. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, going forward I will set up a profile. But, just to prove my case, user Faustian just added that disputed sentence back into the article, right after you restricted the page. Why is he not blocked for edit warring? Please excuse my direct tone, but that is why many people out there see Wikipedia as losing its credibility. I think that my case is legitimage, and if user Faustian was truly committed to creating a neutral, and informative article he would have requested help form a un-bias third party as I requested, instead of engaging in edit waring, and then blaming it on me.--91.150.222.225 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added something that had already been accepted by a neutral third party, Volunteer Marek (who can hardly be accused of anti-Polish bias!), as described here: [4] and which is well-sourced.Faustian (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you changed it by removing the entire statement back in January, please see your own edits... then when everyone agreed and left the discussion you went back in and added the sentence with the word "some"... But, that's just disingenuous, to say the least, and that's how you are discrediting yourself. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nice thing about wikipedia is that lies are easily disproven: [5]. Please stop being disruptive.Faustian (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faustian, I understand that you have contributed to Wikipedia in the past, so excuse my blunt language, but you are lying to cover yourself. Look at your last edit dated 15:24, 9 January 2012‎ Faustian (talk | contribs) that is also the last edit for January that ended the discussion, you removed the disputed phrase, and the neutrality tag. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, I've moved all the edits that you userfied on this page back to the main namespace, because I thought there was no reason not to restore the old history. I came across this page while importing old edits by Css. Graham87 14:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You put the deleted revisions under the redirect. Seems harmless. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bias tag has been removed with NO, ZIP, ZERO discussion of the issues that caused it to be placed there. This removal is in violation of wiki policy, which requires discussion of the issues raised.

Please restore the tag or unprotect the article so that I can restore it.71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come back after you've gained consensus for your changes at Talk:Gold standard. You don't seem to be getting any traction there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an answer to the question I asked and you deleted. Does or does not wiki policy state that a bias tag stays on until the issues causing it to be placed are resolved? When were those issues resolved?

And I would really really like to know WHY I was banned for a reporting a 3rr violation? which was in fact a 3rr violation. A violation on which the only action you took was to ban the person that reported that 3rr violation. Seems a bit biased to me. What do you think?71.174.135.204 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article tag is like any other piece of content in the article, and the decision on whether it stays or goes depends on editor consensus. It is fairly common for submitters of 3RR reports to be sanctioned, if it turns out that the problem is more with them than with the other party. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the guy who actually did engage in a 3RR violation is not guilty of a 3RR violation and doesn't get punished, while the guy NOT having a 3RR violation and reporting said violation is guilty and has to be punished. Sounds like brainwashing straight out of Orwell's 1984. Congratulations on your contribution to the world's insanity.

and I believe the guy who did engage in that 3RR was the same guy who removed the bias tag, contrary to wiki policy. Let someone get away with one violation and he figures he can get away with another. Isn't that the way the world works? Again thank you for your support of the jackasses of this world.71.174.135.204 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! same guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_standard&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Somedifferentstuff&diff=487088816&oldid=471897587

Again thank you for your support for the jackasses of this world!71.174.135.204 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this AN3 report where Darklordabc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an Australian IP were blocked, since then Australian IPs 58.173.129.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 203.45.124.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have carried on edit warring on the article. Don't know if you want to extend Darklordabc's block or not? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin has semiprotected English Defence League for three months. If Darklordabc resumes at English Defence League with the identical POV that would strengthen the case, and a longer block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for locking my page! Tboii99 ✉ 16:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you are going to reply, please reply on my talk page, because I'll get it immediately. Thanks again! Tboii99 ✉ 16:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EdJohnston, yes, you understood correctly, will accept your suggestion as a good faith effort as the topic area is so full of content disputes. I do however not appreciate that the closure does not reflect that it was no violation. If you think it was a violation you should tell me why exactly you think so, as to know what to expect in the future and to fully understand the ruling in this case. This would be appreciated. Further, I have a dislike for threats (as I understand your last sentence) especially when they are based on the outlandish accusations and suggestions by someone who - as I told him personally countless times - should be as far away from anything involving me as possible, writing stuff like

• "we live on the other side of the globe and don't give the tiniest of shits about their stupid border and ethnic rivalries" (What is my ethnicity? Where am I from? What is my border? And what the heck is my rivalry?)
• "get him the hell off the back of the community ... If we go to ANI with diffs about his disruptive behavior, then we're in for a party" ("Party"?)
• "he does basically nothing on Wikipedia other than complain and stir the pot of controversy; even when he does make edits, they are so blatantly bad" (Really? Wow.)

I know you have friendly relations to him, but maybe you can still understand that this person - over whom I went to arbitration remaining respectful saying I consider him a good, hard-working administrator who just slightly lost his way in this one dispute - should not deal with anything related to me but leave it to everyone (anyone) else. Yet, he keeps bringing up my name everywhere even when I am not involved in a dispute the slightest like in the ANI case between DS and TG. Yes, I do not consider the blocks issued by Magog against me valid, and I have presented my arguments. The same goes for some other editors. If you ask Bwilkins and others, I never did that when he issued a well-balanced block. I have never been involved in any disrupting dispute with any other editor but TopGun and sockpuppet master User:Lagoo sab in the past. So, I'd appreciate you taking what I say more seriously. Privilege (everywhere, not only on this online encyclopedia) means responsibility, also the responsibility to listen to another person may he be titled editor or administrator. Still respectful regards, JCAla (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Your 30-day restriction at Pakistan is now in effect. All restrictions can be enforced by blocks. You and I are not in agreement on the other things you have mentioned above, but I am content to leave the matter where it stands now. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this discussion, somehow this person is editing again, with the same disruptive pattern as before. Radiopathy •talk• 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some diffs of edits that are clearly incorrect or against consensus? EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. He's on a campaign of some kind, he makes many unsourced changes and hardly ever uses the same IP twice. Violates WP:SOCK in my opinion. Reblocked for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for protecting my page! MONGO 05:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably meant malik not magog.--Shrike (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library

Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch. Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227). Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time) The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 19:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

--Shrike (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

The user:Iloveandrea have left very problematic message on my talk page[6](that is also a blp violation).How should I proceed with it if at all?I have left message on his talk page [7] but he deleted it.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I note that he previously wrote this on your talk page.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have logged a warning of Iloveandrea in WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following ANI mentions don't exactly paint Iloveandrea in a good light:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#User::Iloveandrea
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#Need a clue

Still, he has over 3,000 edits and he must occasionally do something useful. He seems to have done serious work at Mau Mau Uprising. You can see him participating a few times on the talk page in a normal tone of voice. But then you also get this comment (to VolunteerMarek): ''"Blah blah blah. I couldn't care less what you think, you arrogant fool." This led VM to open the 'Need a clue' post at ANI on 8 March 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason people like Strike complain is to get people like me banned, so s/he and his hasbara slime can run amok with their hasbara. The description 'slime', aside from being ridiculously mild, that I applied to Regev was in a private comment made on Strike's talk, not in an article. The guy just overreacting for the reason I explained at the outset. I am perfectly entitled to hold my low opinion of Israel's hasbara chief. I made one silly edit to one article, and this is the hysterical reaction I get? Maybe a bit of perspective is required at your end, as well as some maturity at mine?
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take a break from I/P, if it is so upsetting for you. It's not what I usually edit on anyway.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]