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.

The guys are battling for a few days in several pages. Each made a 3RR violation here. But I would hate to report them to 3RRNB: they are good contributors. Maybe some kind of a warning? My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an actual 3RR there, and the two guys are discussing this quite a bit, mostly on user talk. Each of them is already notified under WP:ARBEE in case of further trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I also noticed a discussion between two other users on your talk page. You gave them notices and protected the article in dispute. It seems that one of them just resumed edit warring on this page, immediately after expiration of your protection [1], without having consensus on this article talk page. Given my previous history, I will not participate in these disputes any longer. Just letting you know as an admin who protected this article... My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to help, you could start a new section on the talk page at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany. Try to summarize the issues in dispute and give the current status, if you can. At present no admin would understand the issues without reading 10,000 words of discussion, which they are unlikely to do. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute I had with the other user was settled and I added some text back since it was agreed that it was not coat racking.[2]

The user above wants all text sourced to Russian historians removed. I told him to start a new discussion about this and prove his point. I don't understand why he came here. -YMB29 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the user above recently reverted without consensus a large piece of text from the article,[3] which others have spent time discussing and editing in the last few days.
Oddly, above he claimed that he "will not participate in these disputes any longer." I don't know what to say... -YMB29 (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EDJohnston. I realize that the thread is very long, but one should really read it from the very beginning to understand what is happening: a prolonged WP:TE dispute between YMB29 on one "side" and all other users on the other "side". Same in the edit history of this page [4],[5],[6],[7],[8] (reverting edits by five other different contributors). Same on other pages [9],[10],[11] (countless reverts like that [12],[13]). But whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do those diffs supposed to prove? Where do you see me reverting against consensus? Obviously, the page has been a target of POV warriors, who seek to make changes without consensus. The revert I mentioned above shows that you are guilty of this too.[14]

Do I need to post the diffs of you following me to four different articles to revert edits that I have made in the past few years, right after you returned to editing last month? I don't think this is the place to post that. -YMB29 (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Talk page message, yes, have indicated on singer's Talk page that agree with AndrewA new dab being made the baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. I've now closed the move discussion at Talk:Tulisa (singer)#Requested move 17 January 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you online atm? I saw you've been active at the 3RR noticeboard. Can you have a look at semi-protecting Stargate and perhaps blocking the IP who keeps vandalising that page. There's a few of us who have been reverting the more obvious instances. It's been an ANI for a couple of hours but most northern-hem admins are asleep. The IP now seems determined to do as much damage as possible before being blocked. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected Stargate one month. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, mate, much appreciated. I'll close the ANI thread. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the block notice which he then removed again. Murry1975 (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People are allowed to remove block notices, though they can't remove any declined unblock requests. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AH, thats a bit counter intuitive. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS he is going off on one, accusing of discrimination based on his (unknown until now) autism. Murry1975 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serb1914 has now gone on the offensive. He is posting ludicrous claims about Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović (without any sources) and associating it with extremism. Do you now see what you have done? I URGE you to IMMEDIATELY protect the page, in order to preserve its true, original content, just as you protected his pages. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to any place where you have tried to discuss this with him. I am leaving you a notice under WP:ARBEE because you haven't accepted any of the prior suggestions of how to resolve these quarrels. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think The Destroyer Of Nyr is going to go quietly. See User talk:Meters#BPS and Serb1914 Meters (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I ask you to block The Destroyer Of Nyr. He have attacked me personally promoting violent Bosniak nationalism and is starting again an edit war without sources. This is outrageous I claim a reaction from Wikipedia. --Serb1914 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Please continue whatever you were doing previously. If User:The Destroyer Of Nyr prevents you from actually doing your work, bring it up with an admin. And if you want me to look into something, please link to where the problem is occurring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Serb1914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I ask you to block Serb1914 as he is continuing to wage edit wars on several articles. This cannot be tolerated. I (and other contributors) can not even work normally. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And he is promoting violent Serb nationalism, Greater Serbia and even denying the genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, does 'working normally' include discussing your ideas with other editors? You and User:Serb1914 could be blocked by any admin for breaking the WP:3RR rule. It looks like you have made nine reverts at Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina). If you expres willingness to wait for consensus, you might be able to avoid a block. The simplest thing for me is to block both of you, if some other admin doesn't do so first. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a talk on the talk page of The Destroyer of Nyr and on the page SNSD, but he refused talk and started violent edit war and personal attacks, so the situaton is very clear.--Serb1914 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're both at or past 4RR today on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović, Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and Alliance of Independent Social Democrats. Meters (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Destroyer of Nyr was blocked 36 hours by another admin for edit warring. But The Destroyer did something useful by opening up a discussion at Talk:Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina). I encourage anyone interested in Bosnian political parties to participate there. Bosnian topics will benefit from the attention of editors who can read Serbo-Croatian. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User: EdJohnston, would you like to act for something on the behavior of this editor.

His edit been removed by the neutral editors as below :

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

Even after different warning given as below;

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

You are acting so stern under WP:ARBIPA like on User:Noughtnotout and others. This fellow is habitual offender and not responding to earlier section specific warnings and last POV advice given above by User:Bjelleklang. His material pasted are removed thrice from a BLP article of DB in a week on POV ground by neutral editors. Is any further proofs are required?

Please act suitably.Statewatch (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two admins have recently been looking into the Daiwoodi Bohra dispute, User:Black Kite and User:Bjelleklang. In case User:Summichum is not behaving correctly, he is already alerted to the WP:ARBIPA samctions. I trust this will be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After warning on JAN,23 he has continued his partisan activity one way or another and on 29th he crossed all the limit and added the same material which was deleted by one of admin. You are so active and alerting all admin/editors of sanctions and banned 3-4 editors instantly within few mins/hours without giving them fair chance. Here this fellow doing the things of his will/choice even after one week of warning. You still feel that warning sufficient. Is it not strange?223.176.135.192 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are probably a sock, which may explain why this report may not get as much attention as otherwise. Anyway I've explained my concerns to User:Summichum. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EDJ, All the valid reasons, argument, justified concerns shown in perfect Wikipedia style are opposed in the name of sock and the voice got eliminated. Thanks again for explaining the thing to the user. Hope you get succeed. 117.239.216.82 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, Can you advise why you have added a Semi Protection template to British Nigerian, according to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#British Nigerian the request has been declined, thanks Tmol42 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My semiprotection was to address the possible IP socking, as explained in the AN3 report which I just closed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Looks like your efforts and actions have calmed this editor down pro tem at least, much appreciated. Tmol42 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ed,

Could you please advise me on my next course of action?

My main endeavor since the beginning to have accurate data on British Nigerian academic attainment. Despite the fact it was user MiddayExpress who first changed the British Nigerian page without seeking any consensus at all https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Nigerian&oldid=640865401

My efforts were aimed reverting the change on the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Nigerian&oldid=644882849 and asking the user to seek consensus beforehand. For this I was censured with a warning and user MiddayExpress's changes are still on the current page.

I have played by the rules and not immediately tried to change the page again, since your warning. But since user MiddayExpress has suddenly gone quiet despite the provision of more supporting information on the talk page, I am not sure what the next step should be?

Should I change the page? since I feel I have provided more than enough information to support the sources of data. Also at the same time, I have compromised on acknowledging that older data should not be used.

Finally what I find most peculiar is that the link which MiddayExpress objected to the most ^[1] citing WP:QS and WP:REDFLAG is used without issue in the Education section of Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom?

Also please note that the Economist itself is well known global economics publication dating back to 1843 with a current circulation of 1,574,803 (print); 100,000 (paid digital subscribers, so in no way can this source not be described as reputable.

Finally I appreciate I was warned about my communication with user Bbb23 with regards to the 3RR, so I feel I am talking a big risk in contacting a wikipedia administrator as I don't wish for this message to undermine my efforts to revert changes that were made by MiddayExpress without gaining consensus.

My desire to change the British Nigerian page is coming from a pure place which is why I have contacted you and I have deliberately focused on the articles and document despite consistent provocation from MiddayExpress while tackling this matter on the talk page.

At the same time I am uncertain whether I can even remove the 3RR warning on my userpage? so I have also left that in place

Thanks

Nograviti (talk)

• See WP:DR for some steps you can consider when trying to resolve a content dispute. Simply reverting again will not address the problem. One option is the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Another is to open a WP:Request for comment. If you want your talk page comments to be persuasive they should be shorter. Also there's something about your signature that is unusual; it includes no date or time. This will confuse the archive bot. Please consider going to Special:Preferences and clear the checkbox in the Signature section. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed, I am not sure why my signature doesn't have a timestamp, nothing deliberate on my part. Since I have tried to gain consensus with the user I will open a a WP:Request for comment Thanks Nograviti (talk)

Are you trying to sign with three tildes instead of four? That would cause the date and time to be omitted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance Ed, but my signature formatting looks the same as yours (excluding the username of course) when I compare them when I select edit, am I missing something here? The only thing difference I can see is that you have #top in the User talk section of your signature Nograviti (talk) Thanks again

Your signature is still missing the date and time. Are you sure you are signing with four tildes, like this?: ~~~~. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ed, I have stuck with my logged in account as agreed and I am discussing all issues amicably on the various talk pages of the wikipedia. Actually if you are interested, we would like your input to the discussion on the British Nigerian talk page.Nograviti (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article today for the first time. The article states that the (deceased) subject engaged in all sorts of extraordinary ethical violations. The sources for these statements are

1) "In addition to LSD, he experimented with various paralytic drugs and electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power" - no citation given

2) "His "driving" experiments consisted of putting a subject into a drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple statements. These experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression" - A book, called "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate" published by NYTimes Books. The jacket flap describes the book as "John Marks reveals what was perhaps the most sinister activity ever engaged in by an organ of the United States government. He describes how the government conducted a series of secret programs to find ways to control human behavior.", which hardly sounds like a dispassionate academic investigation of the story.

3) "These experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression; many suffered permanent debilitation after these treatments." Such consequences included incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents" - sourced to an anti-ECT blog

4) "Naomi Klein states in her book The Shock Doctrine that Cameron's research and his contribution to MKUltra were not about mind control and brainwashing, but "to design a scientifically based system for extracting information from 'resistant sources.' In other words, torture."[21] She then cites Alfred W. McCoy: "Stripped of its bizarre excesses, Cameron's experiments, building upon Donald O. Hebb's earlier breakthrough, laid the scientific foundation for the CIA's two-stage psychological torture method." - Sourced to "The Shock Doctrine", which is described here as "In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.", which again hardly appears to be a dispassionate and careful reciting of the facts, more so the commentary of someone with a political position to push.

How much of this is allowed? The blogs I would think are clearly out of line, but non-textbook texts written by people pushing a political POV hardly seem to me to be sufficiently reliable to use to make these sorts of judgements about somone who presumably has living relatives.

I have no prior knowledge of the subject of this man's life or work. It may have really been that bad. But I worry about the sources here. I hate mass marketed books as sources because they are often written to promote a POV or to tell a good story so as to sell a lot of copies, but I don't know if my feelings are reflected in the sourcing rules. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's well-established that Cameron (as a highly-respected psychiatrist) did some questionable experiments on people that most likely would not be approved by ethics committees today. Just for one opinion see an op-ed published by Leonard S. Rubenstein in the New York Times on November 7, 1988. The title of his op-ed (which must have been approved by the NYT editors) was "The C.I.A. and the evil doctor". If Ewen Cameron were a living person special requirements would apply. Since Cameron died in 1967, BLP is not in force and the steps open to you seem to be those of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see enough crazy, poorly sourced stuff posted in articles here that I found some of this troubling, but if he really was a bad guy I probably won't worry about it further. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[21]

If you look at our DRN, we had with Robert McClellan here [22] , the conclusion of that DRN was to specifically include the 7/8ths european ancestry designation in the body rather than the title, yet, aergas has unilaterally removed this once again. I am reporting this now, because I genuinely don't want to escalate this into an edit war. Alon12 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alon12, Robert McClenon was clear enough when he directly told you that the DNR was inconclusive [23], why do you ignore everybody? after the blocking ended I started to discuss the issues with and called other editors as is supposed to be, but you are in the same plan you were two weeks ago. Didn't you learn anything? Aergas (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the IP, which I suspect is Erik the Swed, from adding their opinion/information into my comments made on the Huns talk page.[24] After giving the IP a warning on their talk page, Erik the Swed reverted my edit, placing the IP/Erik's opinions within my comments. Can you resolve this issue? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have semied both article and talk for the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get into any drag out dispute here, especially since Bear here posted implied IRL threats to my talk page. However If you review the contribution I have added three new proposals with source and links to the talk page which directly relate to the article. I cleaned up the prior revisions to which Bear complained about for him, only his rollback brought them back. I appeal for calm in this as I have 7 other sources on DNA and entomological details to contribute. Can you please unlock the talk page so that I can continue contributions please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Swed (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that you are abusing multiple accounts. Perhaps you can find a way to make useful contributions elsewhere until the semi expires. This would be a good time for you to announce whether you've previously edited under a different account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually I created this account because it was just using my IP addresses (which is what I believe wiki wants right?), so no this is not account abuse. Its also worth observing that I was actually contributing to the discussion by providing online sources to references made so people can read original sources directly. I am even in the process of getting UC Burkley to release a source paper that is not available online, yet is sighted multiple times. While I admit my formatting was poor that it hardly a reason to have threats made against me or just a blanket rollback under clearly BS claims. I've avoided contributing in the past because people had such horror stories about meeting page bullies, which I can see is actually a' thing' and I have to say has really soured my views on continuing to contribute to subjects I have studied and researched some 20 years now. So the answer is that I have to buzz off for 7 days, right.Erik the Swed (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are still able to talk to User:Kansas Bear on their talk page. Maybe you can make a persuasive case there. If you do so, try not to break up anyone else's comments with your own post. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean beg the guy who jumped all over me and threatened me? Ahh no. I am sure he will revert everything I posted the moment it unlocks. Clearly the loudest voice always wins, just as people warned me. I've given up on contributing. Its been an entertaining 25 hour experiment in how good intentions means nothing. Good day.Erik the Swed (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about your closing of this issue as it seems in your closing you haven't addressed what I see as the issue at all. What is the position on the editors refusal to discuss the issue, the editor's continual claim of ownership of the article, and the otherwise uncivil behavior? In my view, the inclusion of the information in the article is secondary to that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has previously been blocked once (correctly) so I think the problem has been drawn to his attention. What remains now is to resolve the content dispute and I've suggested how you can do that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had posted here sometime ago.[25] Then asked Callannecc to know what he thinks, but he seems to be offline for a while. Would you like to see if reverting the implementation of the outcome from AN is valid or not, also see discussion at the talk page of Sunrise. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the issue but don't have any comment to make. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that the moves from Daniel to Daniel (biblical figure) and from Daniel (name) to Daniel resulted in several incorrect incoming links to Daniel. I'm in no way against the close, but it may be beneficial to have Daniel temporarily set as the disambiguation page to bring attention to its amount of incoming links (possibly via the WP:DPL process when their related bot tags the page with an incoming link banner.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether this would actually speed up the link fixes. I checked the first incoming link to Daniel in the list, and it turned out to actually be actually a reference to the Book of Daniel and not a link that should be changed to Daniel (biblical figure). This kind of problem existed before, and presumably the move of the article did not make it worse. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually dealt with something similar when Wolverine (comics) was moved to Wolverine (character); I eventually found out that some of the links were intended for subjects that didn't even have the word "Wolverine" in its title, such as Logan (comics). Anyways, this analogy is to illustrate that if Daniel is either made or redirects to the disambiguation page, that DPL bot would be able to register the links, and allow editors to fix them with haste. Also, speaking of which, I added a link to Book of Daniel to Daniel (disambiguation) per what you stated. Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can check and fix incorrect incoming links even if the page is not tagged as a disambiguation page. If it is going to be one, move the dab there; anthroponomy pages are not ambiguous topics. bd2412 T 21:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What action are you proposing? EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not proposing any action - I have removed the dab tags from Daniel (currently a page on the name) because it is not a dab. I will work on the page more and fix any errant incoming links later tonight. Actually, I would even like to merge in any encyclopedic content from Daniels (name) and McDaniel, and then break out the lists of names from the anthroponomic content. bd2412 T 22:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed most of the incoming links (in the article namespace) that now correctly point to Daniel (biblical figure) (and in some cases Book of Daniel). Incoming links to Daniel (name) have been redirected to Daniel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About that move... Ed, your close did not say how you chose between the various suggestions about which article should get the title Daniel. At least a couple of us supported on the basis of Daniel becoming the disambig page. Did you not notice? Or ignore? Or did you consider and decide but forgot to mention? Inquiring minds want to know... Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me. I thought they were leaving it up to the closer's discretion. Anyway, my impression was that more people in the discussion wanted Daniel (name) at the base name. My own research seemed to show more page views for Daniel (name) than for the DAB page. The 'name' page (for a personal name) is in effect another kind of DAB page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why not say so in your close statement? Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand the rationale for the close. Two of the "supports" were explicitly for the disambiguation page (Dicklyon, 65.94.40.137) and only one (bd2412) was for the name page, but even then the comment was "I would suggest that the primary topic is just the given name, now at Daniel (name), but would not find it to be a great wrong if the disambiguation page were at this title." How can you say "My impression was that more people in the discussion wanted Daniel (name) at the base name"? StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both User:Jeffro77 and User:BD2412 preferred Daniel (name) at Daniel. An IP editor 65.94.40.137 (talk · contribs) explicitly favored the DAB page at Daniel and I think User:Dicklyon also favored it. Did you notice a clear statement from anyone else? Do you think there should be a follow-on move discussion to decide what should occupy the base name Daniel? EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't really get a chance to say anything. I opposed the move, but now that there is a consensus to move it, I strongly prefer a move to the diambiguation page. So yes - there should be another discussion. (And we still have the issue of how to disambiguate the hundreds of incoming links...) StAnselm (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not open a new move discussion at Talk:Daniel. You could ask for Daniel (disambiguation) to be moved to Daniel, and the current Daniel page back to Daniel (name). EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but the thing is, you've said there was consensus to move to the name page, when there wasn't any. StAnselm (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus to move Daniel to Daniel (biblical figure), but not everyone seemed to care about what happened to the base name. You participated in the move discussion yourself, opposing the main move, but without expressing an opinion on what should happen to the base name if the article was moved. Something had to be done with the base name, and if there is no obvious consensus, the closer might do whatever they think best. If you disagree with my choice, ask for a new discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Daniel. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User "My very best wishes" has been following me to articles that I have edited in the last few years to revert my edits.[26][27][28] He did the same thing last month.[29][30][31][32]
This is obviously edit warring and wiki hounding, but should this be reported to AE, because all of these articles are in the EE topic area? -YMB29 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried to get consensus on whether the remarks of Yelena Senyavskaya are a reliable source for our historical articles? I suggested in a section above that User:My very best wishes ought to make a good summary of the issues at a suitable page, for example at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany. It helps if whoever makes the summary has access to the sources, for example Beevor's book. If you want sanctions against anyone else, your data needs to be short, punchy and persuasive. Nothing either of you has posted so far on my user talk is of high enough quality yet to justify a noticeboard discussion, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to write a short summary of the dispute on that page later. However, it is basically that many Western sources write about mass Soviet crimes in Germany, while Russian sources refute this (without denying that crimes occurred). A group of like-minded users active in the EE area wants to remove the Russian sources from a number of articles here under any pretext (unreliable, fringe, coat racking...).

As for Senyavskaya being reliable, I have recently created a new section[33] that has information about her from Western publications. However, I realize that no matter what evidence I present, users "My very best wishes" and Sayerslle probably will always try to find reasons to reject it. -YMB29 (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not really try to justify anything because I do not have time. But that is what I think:

1. Yes, I can easily explain why sources by YMB29 should not be used [34],[35],[36], but he does not listen [37]. He claims a well-known historian to be a "blog" and refers to real blog by ordinary folks [38],[39]. Many other contributors also tried to explain him something like that, but without any effect [40],[41].[42][43]
2. Yes, he is involved in long term slow motion edit wars on multiple pages. Should I provide a series of his 6 to 12 obvious reverts on almost every page he edited?
3. He frequently claims that his reverts were consistent with policy because a consensus was on his side, and he therefore promise to continue his edit wars (do you need diffs?). These claims are wrong because there was no any RfC or other discussions closed by uninvolved admin as "consensus". Instead, we have numerous extremely long discussions where YMB29 expresses his disagreement with multiple users. My very best wishes (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change something in the articles, it is up to you to show that consensus has changed, and not by reverting.

As for you insisting that a blog entry (yes this[44] is a blog, it even says so in the url) is more important than what two reliable sources say, this just shows that you are not willing to admit that you are wrong.

Of course you also ignore the fact that neutral users have disagreed with you on your claims about Russian sources.[45][46] -YMB29 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not blog, but Mark Solonin and Russian publication by Senyavskaya [47], which is a patently absurd by itself [48]. However, a typical content discussion with YMB29 looks like that. I do not think we need it here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is how discussion goes with you; you keep denying the obvious. The source is a blog by Solonin (amateur historian, no academic degree), which is a copy and paste from his personal website.[49] You should check out the wiki policies and guidelines regarding such sources.

So you promote the blog/personal website entry over two reliable sources, which is ridiculous.

And why do you keep bringing up the Winter War article? -YMB29 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see than an RfC was tried on a few sources about the rape question, in March 2014. It is unclear to what extent the RfC settled the disputes about Battle of Berlin. We have an article on Mark Solonin, but from the article it is hard to know whether he is perceived as a recognized expert. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is a somewhat popular writer and publicist, but is not an academic source.

Meanwhile, there should be no questions about Senyavskaya's academic credentials, given the references to her works in Western publications and what sources directly say about her.[50]

So the revert by user "My very best wishes",[51] as well as earlier revers by Sayerslle,[52][53][54] were unjust. -YMB29 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My reading of this RfC closing [55]: there is no consensus to include claims noted in points 1 to 3 by Dianaa. Is that correct reading? My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC's closing comment, as well as its original wording, was ambiguous. The wording was biased and did not reflect the dispute accurately. I tried to get it changed, but no one listened. Yet there was still enough support for making changes.[56] Eventually, the sources were included, and there was a sort of a compromise.

Also, it applied for the article about Berlin, not this article. I don't think anyone would argue that the Russian view on mass rape in Germany should be completely excluded from an article about the topic. -YMB29 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I also have a question about this edit warring report.[57] Why is it taking so long for Sayerslle to be blocked/warned? He is edit warring not only in Rape during the occupation of Germany (even continuing to revert after the report was opened[58]), but on another page too (also after the report was opened), as noted by an admin.[59]
He had received lengthy bans for edit warring in EE related articles not too long ago. Plus he constantly insults others.
What is worrying is that his disruption is spreading to other articles.[60][61] -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YMB29, a piece of advice. You might really want to tone down the constant block-shopping and admin-begging since you're not here with exactly clean hands. As it has been pointed out previously, you've been engaged in a slow motion edit war against multiple users, you display a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, and you're also casting some baseless WP:ASPERSIONS against other users. Just as an example of the last one, you claim that "his disruption is spreading to other articles". Nonsense. What you got there is a diff for the fact that Sayerslle made a ... comment on a talk page. If that's "disruption" then you have a very wacked idea of what "disruption" is. It appears to be "oh no, someone disagrees with me! How dare they!". Which sort of shows that it is *you* who are (at least a big part of) the problem, not the other user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what he wrote on that talk page?

I am not block-shopping/admin-begging, but simply pointing out that the disruption is spreading, and not only to articles that I edit.

Also, why are you here? I have not talked about you here and did not even interact with you much on wiki at all? It looks like the old EEML tactic of supporting like-minded users and following other users to different talk pages to harass them is still alive. -YMB29 (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To prove my point, you also attacked the admin who "dared" to report Sayerslle's misconduct.[62] -YMB29 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such list. Period. I have no email communications with any Wikipedia participants for many years. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying there is necessarily a mailing list now, but the behavior of many of its former members remains almost the same (stalking and harassment of users who are deemed "pro-Russian"). -YMB29 (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, people who edit in the same subject area know each other, see each other edits, and help or correct each other. This is nothing special. I am not quite sure what does it mean "pro-Russian". For example, I believe that ideological positions by the Stalinist and Putinist historians you quoted are in fact "anti-Russian", because they whitewash crimes against Russians, just as they whitewash crimes against other nations. For the same reason Holocaust deniers are not "pro-German". My very best wishes (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are continuing to throw baseless accusations against historians, simply because you don't like what they say, and making ridiculous comparisons to Holocaust denial.

And I am sure that Volunteer Marek was only here to "correct" you... -YMB29 (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be explicit about what it is you're trying to insinuate? If I'm going to be accused of something, I'd like to know what that something is. If you don't wish to accuse me of anything, then don't. The fact that you're resorting to vague (and of course unsubstantiated) insinuations sort of suggests you're full of it. See WP:ASPERSIONS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I summarized the current issues here. I am not sure if that is exactly what you asked for though. -YMB29 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, the semi-protection has expired and the Russian guy is back again,

• Terence McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 91.122.4.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.110.6.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.110.24.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Systemizer/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive

(If anyone thinks it's worth the bother, those SPIs should be merged.) Manul ~ talk 18:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My last semiprotection of Terence McKenna was for a year and it seems that wasn't long enough. Since the socks have shown they are prepared to go on forever, I've gone ahead with indefinite semi. User:Bishonen has blocked the first IP you listed above and we might consider action against the other two if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nograviti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.188.154.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston. It turns out that the account and the ip here were indeed the same user, ([63], [64]). Could you please confirm whether there are any other sleepers? This also seems rather odd for a first website edit. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a checkuser, I can't look for sleepers. But I'll leave a note for Nograviti asking them to avoid editing while logged out if they intend to work on contentious topics. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your note indicated to me that I should respond. But I do not know how to respond. I am hoping that this is a response. I took a look at the article "A Streetcar Named Desire," and thought that it deserved an "F." It was a mess. I tried to update the plot summary. Immediately, Stickman "undid" all my work, and made sniping remarks to me, with no edits of his own to correct me, and no constructive criticism. Since then, whenever I make an edit, he immediately deletes most of what I do, adding back some of my own ideas in a rewritten middle school style. I have actually never been able to make the edits that I would like, because he immediately changes everything around. I am aware that my plot summary is too long, but he chops up all of my edits, before I get a chance to edit my own work. He is trying to write a plot summary, yet he has declared to me that he cannot remember the plot. Well, I remember the plot, very well. And I am aware that some of his recollections regarding the plot summary are WRONG, incorrect, false, and not true. He is mean-spirited to me, and childish, like a middle school brat. The silliness of his comments and edits undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. I only want to make Wikipedia better. I stopped reading his comments because all he does is obstruct my work and hurt my feelings. If you think that his childish sniping about my improvements to the article are good for Wikipedia, then I will be happy to bow out, and let him have complete control of that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinbriar (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to take a break from working on A Streetcar Named Desire. You've been trying to discuss at Talk:A Streetcar Named Desire (play)#Discussion and criticism of plot summary but the results are disappointing. People are likely to complain about WP:TLDR since you seem unable to write briefly on talk pages. You are already over 11,000 bytes of text in just that one conversation. This is a bad omen if the task at hand is to write a crisp plot summary. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me asking, what is your opinion of my handling of this? I admit that it might have been better if I had been less revert-happy but I'd like to know what I could/should have done differently. Thanks, TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thing you might have done is open an WP:RFC on one of the disputed points. The WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard is another option. To improve article quality, a WP:GA review is a good idea but it's not always easy to find reviewers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You closed it as a duplicate report. Could you please show me where this other report is, I tried using the search and was only able to find the report made by Toddy1.[65] Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two reports that concern the Husayn ibn Ali article and involve the same two people are:

• WP:AN3#User:Ialiabbas reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Duplicate report)
• WP:AN3#User:Toddy1 reported by User:Ialiabbas (Result: no violation)

EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, but how is either a duplicate report of the other? One was Toddy1 reporting Ialiabbas; the second was a retaliatory report by Ialiabbas. The latter concluded Ialiabbas' report was unfounded but no conclusion was ever made about Ialiabbas' editing. Edward321 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a two-person war is reported, the closing admin usually checks to see if either party deserves a block. So one closure should cover both. Since you have raised the issue, I took another look. I see there were unusual edits by User:Ialiabbas but the article was protected on 7 February. So it's too late for any follow-up action. If this resumes, report again and try to explain in your report that the editing is unusual. For example, the editor was piping article names to differently-Romanized names in the infobox. It's hard to see any justification for that. If you disagree with how something is named, a move discussion is needed. You can't just pipe the name to a different spelling wherever it appears. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Toddy1 has filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ialiabbas. If Ialiabbas is found to be a sock, this might save us the effort of trying to persuade him to follow WP policy regarding names. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently semi-protected a couple of articles that are being edited by an IP editor who will not work collaboratively. The editor is engaging in the same behaviour at Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917) and Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The latter includes persistent reinstatement of a copyright violation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This[66][67] is getting silly—particularly the edit summary, in addition to the continued misrepresentations at ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could suggest that he follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Advising people to stop changing IPs seldom works. They insist that it's their inherent right as Wikipedia editors or that it's beyond their control. Semiprotection is sometimes justified if a set of IPs is reverting an article and two or more of them seem to be the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not that concerned that the IP has changed, but that the editor has twice changed their story about whether the edits by the other IPs were his. This is in addition to other false claims the editor has made about consensus and sources. For these reasons, I don't see an intention on the editor's part to edit collaboratively.

The editor has indicated at ANI that he no longer intends to edit articles (and that instead I will face the wrath of his deity.) But if he does continue to edit, I'll try to get him to pursue proper dispute resolution channels.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When people promise to leave a topic you can't always count on it happening. If there is more trouble, filing an SPI may eventually be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's now moved on to Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and Charles Taze Russell.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had just about enough of you! Since you have been following me around to different articles I decided to check your contributions and find you secretly posting about me on this talk page. Apparently the ANI you've been posting to wasn't enough? After you obsessively reverted all my sourced edits to the few pages from yesterday, I decided to disengage and move on to other pages. But you've followed me to new pages and continue to revert everything I do without discussion! I understand that there is a subtle bias against IP editors, so this probably won't happen, but you really should be topic banned for this sort of ownership and harassing behavior. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments here are hardly a 'secret'. I simply advised the admin who acted on your initial inappropriate behaviour that you are engaging in the same inappropriate behaviour at other aricles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has returned to using 73.11.72.255.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is continuing with the original behaviour of editing articles and then reverting to his versions without any attempt to discuss:

• Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
• Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline
• Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs
• Jehovah's Witnesses practices
• Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse
• Raymond Franz
• Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
• Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions

He's not even pretending to try to edit collaboratively and his behaviour now appears to be purely retributive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've blocked the user and unprotected the pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take you look at this? --Երևանցի ^talk 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]