User talk:EdJohnston

"low-seniority single-purpose accounts"

Hi, is this a term that you have just now coined, or has it been used before? And if the latter, do you know if there has been any other on-Wikipedia discussion about it? Meowy 23:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is my coinage. It's a way to refer to a class of accounts that are easy for sockmasters to create. There may also be some good-faith editors in that category, but the SPA aspect is easy to check, and the edit count is easy to check. I am planning to suggest a discretionary sanction that might restrict low-seniority single-purpose accounts from editing one or more articles in AA, such as Nagorno-Karabakh. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So really you are using it to define a category of user that could (if actual evidence existed rather than a suspicion) already be sanctioned using existing means. I was thinking a "low-seniority single-purpose account" was more along the lines of a genuine editor who edits almost exclusively in a very narrow range of articles, or even on just one article, and edits problematically because they have either some pov-buzzing bee-in-their-bonnet about the article's subject or they do not know much about the wider issues to realise their edits are problematic. Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles are, as a whole, not a very narrow range of articles - it is very loosely defined and there are probably hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that could, if an administrator was so inclined, fall under its sanctions. Perhaps there should be some general Wikipedia-wide guidance that could apply to all low-seniority single-purpose accounts who edit problematically. Meowy 02:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cases for which Arbcom has authorized discretionary sanctions are cases where admins are allowed to consider measures that are out of the ordinary. Admins are expected to have a good-faith belief that these additional sanctions might do some good. If you check the log of enforcement at WP:DIGWUREN#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions and other cases you will see some very specific restrictions that were adopted for particular articles. We already have WP:SPI to deal with blatant socking, but in the AA articles the debates at AE are full of sock charges which are difficult to confirm one way or the other. A WP:1RR restriction is one of the unusual means that is authorized and used for articles that are often subject to disruption. Arbcom has frequently mentioned the use of 1RR as a remedy, so the Committee is willing to consider article-specific restrictions that are designed to limit abuse. A restriction against 'low-seniority single-purpose accounts' is a new kind of restriction that enforcing admins might, in the future, be asked to consider as a discretionary sanction. Since it would be applied uniformly to all parties it would not be a partisan remedy. Whether it's a good idea is something that would need wider discussion. I have not yet officially proposed this at AE, though I've mentioned it at User talk:T. Canens#Next steps for WP:AE#Nagorno-Karabakh. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And what of the issue I brought to your attention?[1]. You are going to restrict "low edit" editors from Nagorno Karabakh, yet anon IPs can, and still, canvass for and cause disruptive editing in the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles!?? IF if ANY editors are to be restricted, then anon IPs should not be allowed to canvass for or edit in any Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear. You must be referring to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 25#Clarification. As I mentioned then, this issue needs to be written up with a full complement of diffs. If you believe it's serious enough to justify widespread semiprotection, it is necessary to persuade other admins that it's a real issue. I also suggested that some enforcement at Kars, or some warning about changing alternate-language names might be considered. I hope you have some time to make a more specific proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:NULL

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.

April Fools day

Is this another April fool day. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Three edits is not much to get an impression from. But if you think that is Hackneyhound, consider filing an SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting my skittles in order, just in case an SPI is required.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably just test edits. I noticed this one earlier, and I remembered this observation by -Sarek. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, just a heads up on an SPI I've filed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Quack quack could you take a look please

Could you have a look at the edits] of this new user please very strong indication sock of recently blocked editor. Mo ainm~Talk 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A chara, flagged this editor in the above tread! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Al-Ahbash

Baboon43 (previously, he has used 70.54.66.158), has removed edit-warring messages twice (here and here) from his talk page, constantly ignores and discredit all the peer-viewed sources provied by the other editors. He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind:

• Ahbash follows shafi madhab
• Ahbash follows Ashari doctrine

Currently, he is engaged into edit-warring in the name of "expansion" without even getting consensus from the other editors who have been on that page for years. Please, looking into that. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been handled at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

undoing others work?

i am not undoing anyones work they are the ones undoing my work im trying to contribute to the article and i keep getting reverted..amandaparker is not discussing anything the user has not even approached me on why they object to my edits Baboon43 (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are not listening. You are continuing to ignore the requirement of WP:CONSENSUS. If you edit the article one more time (without getting someone to support you) I will file a new edit-warring report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Are we understanding you correctly?

Would you mind commenting on Nug's interpretation of your post at at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#IBAN_wording? I think Nug is right, but you of course would be the final judge on what you meant to say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have suggestions for how WP:IBAN could be made more precise? Ideally it would become something like WP:3RR where anyone who has learned the technical definition can enforce it without needing to use any discretion. Perhaps IBAN needs to be revised to list out specific items like DYKs or AfDs. Or, in the other direction, it could require that editors succeed in staying out of disputes with one another. That would tend to require more discretion. If they *do* get into a dispute, how do we tell whose fault it is? EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think IBANs are precise enough now (note I am not saying they are wide enough, just that the current definition seems precise). The problem we see, IMHO, is due to editors trying to interpret them more widely. This creates a problem like, hypothetically, would interpreting 3RR as "editor X did not remove/readd the same content, but his new paragraph/edit to a new paragraph adds/removes related content". Now, I am open to discussion if IBANs should list more specific examples of a forbidden interaction, but I am a strong believer that we should not bend/blurry the existing rules, not unless there is a clear and uncontroversial benefit to the project (which I rarely see with arguments for blocks, but I digress here). Anyway, since it is a repeated issue, we do need, IMHO, a clear ruling (in IBAN) over whether ibanned editors can comment/vote on one's another AFDs, DYKs, FAs, and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think such bans are already precise enough, then, do you think it is acceptable for two ibanned editors to participate in the same AfD? Explain your reasoning :-) What if one of the parties has created the article? EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As the iban is currently worded, it seems to me they can (provided that there is no commenting on one another, or direct replying; the latter does raise a question if voting is a reply?). Now, that does not mean they should, and I think we may want to discuss the pros and cons of adding a provision to ibans specifically forbidding this. The question of authorship is related, but I am wary of the "first mover" gaming. What is editor A creates an article related to favorite subject of B - in essence extending the iban into a topic ban? On the other hand we have to consider when an editor is trying to circumvene ibans by a form of tedious editing. I am still not sure about this myself, but I'd think that the latter can be dealt with through regular procedures regarding whether an editor A is stalking B or not, in other words, is he targeting B's articles often, or rarely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Bridgette B

• A couple of days ago, I made a request at WP:RPP for the above article to be unsalted, as she does pass WP:PORNBIO now (and I provided proof). I normally would have easily asked the closing admin to do so (as you later suggested), but as I stated in my reasoning, that admin had a post on his/her talk page indicating that s/he was on a wikibreak. I did ask anyway, but s/he didn't acknowledge it and then even went on to make more edits after the fact. I don't know; maybe s/he doesn't think the situation is important. Long story short, I'm not trying to canvass, but...do you have any other suggestions about the situation? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Consider making a request at WP:REFUND. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has been unsalted. Thanks. :) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My posting in AE

Ed, i posted mu thoughts on Nagorno in AE forum [2]. Take a look. My basic points:

• by keeping this AE request that exists that long risks inadvertently creating an common identity for all the accounts you dubbed SPAs. They can spread their editing activity to articles other than Nagorno - will you then propose your 500/1RR for all articles where I, Winterbliss, Nocturnal781 and Grandmaster's group are likely to lock horns??
• Contagion is setting in. [User:Shrike] suggests to use the 500 edit thing [3] in Israeli-Palestine area. Opa! Dehr (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Further update

I filed this report previously which you correctly identified as needing a thorough and patient look. The pattern of undue POV pushing is persisting and the editor in question has made further edits of this nature. Editor's modus operandi is unilateral deletion of unfavourable material followed by unnecessary demands on Talk page without reference to Wiki policy. See previous report where no discussion was broached multiple times. [4] Removed Islamic radicalisation content [5] Removes term French Muslim used by many sources [6] Removed Islamic radicalisation content
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if AnkhMorpork discussed more often. For example, on April 1, the user repeatedly reverted my edits in the lead, but did not respond to me even once on Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Lead, where I explained my edits/expressed concerns about the user's edits 3 times (the user finally responded to me April 2).

I also think we need a third party commenting on these issues. (You can find my specific responses to AnkhMorpork's specific objections on the article's talk page).VR _talk 21:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of people working on that article. You could open a WP:Request for comment on the talk page if you want to get consensus on a specific question. Admins will not make rulings on content matters; that is up to the editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I just want to know something. Would the above message posted by AnkhMorpork be considered a non-neutral description of the content dispute? If so, would be considered an example of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning? I want to also contact users who have recently edited the article for comments, so I'm just wondering how to (or how not to) describe the dispute. Thanks,VR _talk 21:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Can anything be done to make the RfC more clear? What exactly are people supposed to agree or disagree with? They can't really write 'Support' or 'Oppose' when there are so many questions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there are a lot of questions.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but the questions seem clear. E.g "Is it or is it not UNDUE to mention that Merah was a Muslim, Salafist and Islamic in the same paragraph?" Users can answer to this by either agreeing with the current lead, or suggesting ways of improving it.

How would you improve the questions?VR _talk 22:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could draft up an a new version of the paragraph in question. Make a new section for it on the talk page. Ask people to comment on it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please can you help draft the RFC question and finally rid yourself of us squabbling on your Talk page. I'm dissatisfied with current RFC question which is misleading, and would really appreciate experienced involvement. Please.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done.VR _talk 23:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Takis Fotopoulos entry

I am in the unfortunate position to inform you that, following what went on regarding the 3RR thing with User:Nikosgreencookie on the Takis Fotopoulos page, I have come under an ad hominem attack by a rather vocal (please see the talk page on the Takis Fotopoulos article) supporter of Mr. Fotopoulos and his Inclusive Democracy movement, User:John Sargis. Seeing that other people (such as User:Nihilo 01 - see his talk page) have come under attack by supporters of Mr. Fotopoulos and the Inclusive Democracy movement, I am being led to believe that there is a behavioural pattern that might constitute various forms of abuse (such as WP:OWN and even harassment of other users). Could you please offer some assistance? Furthermore, I would be grateful if you could point me to Wikipedia administrators or prominent editors that are fluent in both Greek and English, so that they can offer you some reliable information (as I might even be partial or I may misunderstand what I have read) on certain positions of Mr. Fotopoulos and his supporters that are only available in Greek (and are therefore flatly denied by his supporters here on Wikipedia - the language barrier seems to be put to rather good use). Thank you in advance and I hope this issue will be resolved soon. SentientContrarian (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Try making a report at WP:COIN. That is a good place to get advice in cases where people connected with an organization might be editing its article. If you can post links to the Greek-language material, some of us may be able to figure out what they are saying. The person you are complaining about is John sargis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Be sure to spell his name correctly if you are asking for assistance. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SentientContrarian (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have also notified User:Esparcadia, who is fluent in both English and Greek. I suppose this user can provide testimony on the Inclusive Democracy movement's and its leader's (Takis Fotopoulos) Greek-only announcements and their actions on the Greek-speaking internet. It's a pity that these announcements are so incredibly long and that there are so many of them, thus making their translation a very tedious task. You might also find this announcement, which is basically an attack on Wikipedia that does not let them treat the articles on Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos as mirrors of the articles on their own websites, quite interesting and revealing of the way they believe things should be done. If you could be in touch with User:Esparcadia and discuss their findings, I think it would be extremely helpful, not only regarding my own case, but also to protect other users from abuse by Inclusive Democracy members and supporters, and to prevent and discourage further behaviour from organisations that might feel like repeating the Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. SentientContrarian (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you arrived on Wikipedia on March 20 you have paid special attention to the Takis Fotopoulos article or its talk age (You've made 13 out of your 51 edits there). If you came here with the intention of making some reform in this article as well as Inclusive Democracy, it might be better to declare openly what you have in mind, and if you've had a personal connection to those topics in the past. It hardly works to claim that real-life supporters are editing the article if you also have a real-life connection to the topic that you don't declare. Your user page speaks of articles edited by a fan club, and this hints that you see yourself as here on a mission. The link you supplied above is from 2006, a date so far in the past that it does not suggest any imminent threat to the neutrality of our articles. It would also help if you could state whether you have used any previous accounts on Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A previous dispute about Inclusive Democracy is described at User:JWSchmidt/Talk from 2006 first half#On Inclusive Democracy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at and I can't blame you. I think I got a bit carried away; with the benefit of hindsight, I think I should perhaps handled the whole issue in a different manner. As far as having had previous accounts goes, no, this is my first account here. And also, I have no connection to any particular movement of the Libertarian Socialist family; what led me was pure curiosity, as these movements were first mentioned in an offline discussion I had with some friends of mine; they suggested that I do some research and see if I find something that I can relate to. I hoped that by adding that tag I could get other people, more knowledgeable than me, to help improve that article. I never thought it would lead to an edit war and I am honestly sorry for becoming part of a problem. SentientContrarian (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against interested people making the Takis Fotopoulos article better. The fuss about primary sources may not have been a good beginning, but other improvements can surely be proposed on the talk page. From a quick look, the article does not look bad. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Boron

You just sprot'd Boron. I want to be clear that what's been going on there is evidently quacking in the vein of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab/Archive. While Materialscientist has come at it with slightly soiled hands, there is clearly an attempt by involved parties to refspam their own research, and it appears he was trying to stop that. As it stands, the page includes the latest push of user:Aoganov's work. Would you care to unwind that insertion, or is there a discussion needed somewhere?LeadSongDog come howl! 19:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If you believe you have consensus, you can unwind the last change by User:Aoganov yourself. Since Aoganov doesn't exactly have a wonderful reputation on that article, I doubt that it would be controversial. If you are sure that the IP is really Aoganov, you may be able to rely on the fact that Aoganov is banned from the topic of boron. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to jump on that myself, given your "edit warring" edit comment. Even if it isn't Aoganov, the effect is to do what he would have. I don't see sock vs meat as a really useful distinction, particularly when there's a documented track record of globe-hopping IPediting. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 20:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dheyward case

There was nothing frivolous about that report. He compared me to Jeffrey Dahmer for fuck's sake.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

why some user Materialscientist deletes references?

I have added references to some articles that I found very useful, but user Materialscientist deleted them without explaining his reasons. If I find these references useful, many other people will find them useful too. For example, I referenced the recent special issue on boron with the below list of papers:

The high-pressure phase of boron, γ-B28: Disputes and conclusions of 5 years after discovery A. R. Oganov, V. L. Solozhenko, C. Gatti, O. O. Kurakevych and Y. Le Godec 380-387

On the nature of chemical bonding in γ-boron P. Macchi 388-393

Comparative review of theoretical and experimental equations of state of orthorhombic boron γ-B28 Y. Le Godec 394-400

Spectral analysis of the electronic structure of γ-B28 P. Rulis, L. Wang, B. Walker and W. -Y. Ching 401-408

Large shear strength enhancement of gamma-boron by normal compression X. -F. Zhou, Y. Tian and H. -T. Wang 409-420

Mechanical properties and hardness of boron and boron-rich solids S. Veprek, R. F. Zhang and A. S. Argon 421-428

Experimental study and critical review of structural, thermodynamic and mechanical properties of superhard refractory boron suboxide B6O O. O. Kurakevych and V. L. Solozhenko

If people will find these references useful, why Materialscientist deletes them? Why not explain his reasons? I want to complain to you about that or ask advice. If people like me cannot add useful information in the Wikipedia, why is it called open Encyclopedia? Why I add and someone delete without reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I please ask you stop the vandalism of my editings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See #Boron for an earlier discussion. We are not an 'open encyclopedia' in the sense that anything goes. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive194#Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov. If you continue to remove posts by other editors from Talk:Boron the talk page may be semiprotected to prevent this. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your reasonings. I see some unhealthy history of the page of the Boron, and some user Aoganov not allowed to edit this (is this the famous A.R. Oganov whome papers I cited? Even if it's he, why can't I cite good papers of a good scientist? And I cited the papers of many other people. All were deleted by Materialscientist. Please revert). I edited Talk pages because reading how different users and people insult each other makes me sick. Seeing how some users delete what the others write makes me sick too. Please explain why I can't add the useful articles of the 10-15 good scientists listed above. If I find them useful, other people will find them usefull too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you participate in a civil manner at Talk:Boron, you may continue the discussion there. The papers will not be added to the article unless you can persuade others that they are a net improvement. If you personally are connected to any of the research groups you cite it would be helpful if you could mention that. This could be a way of having your contributions viewed with greater respect. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, I do my best. I added the useful references and to my surprise found uncivilized behavior of Materialscientist who gave no reasonings absolutely for deleting these references, excepting his personal hatreds. I will mention to you if I have personal connections. Maybe Materialscientist has personal interest in the story? I see from the Boron talk-pages that he hatreds Prof. Oganov and this harms harmony and objectivity on the Wikipedia. Hatred is a personal disconnection and also should not be taking place, maybe you can find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment about 9/11

You mentioned on User:John's talkpage that I appeared to be under an indefinite civility restriction on 9/11 pages...that notation in the case was made by User:Tango...who not only unilaterally imposed that restriction, but was subsequently desysopped by the arbitration committee for his block on me as well as other issues, but his excessive block is what did him in. A discussion at AN/I and elsewhere indicated at that time that Tango alone did not have the authority to impose any restriction against me at all. I never bothered to have the issue adjusted so it still languishes there from years ago...if I am able to provide the diffs to you and other admins, would you be willing to make this correction to the case in the log section?MONGO 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll adjust the case log if you can find a diff showing that the restriction was lifted. If the situation is not 100% clear then a discussion at WP:AE might be needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm on slowish connection...so I'll add diffs below as I dig them up...it should be noted that Tango tried to use the 9/11 arbcom case as a means to impose a unilateral civility parole on me across the entire pedia...anywhere...I don't know why, after he was desysopped, that arbcom didn't then amend his notations on that case, since part of the reason he was desysopped was due to his actions against me.

• check section 5 Blocked...I'll check AN/I archives for more shortly...bear with me.
• section 32
• Opposition comments regarding Tango's block and actions against me when Tango attempted to get readminned.

• No clear-cut diff that I can see, but my guess is that consensus would lift your civility restriction if the question were raised. Consider posting at WP:AE if you want to pursue that option. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can I ask a question? What does a civility restriction mean? Aren't we always supposed to be civil? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• See WP:RESTRICT#Types of restriction. Civility restrictions are claimed to exist. Also, such restrictions have often been handed out by Arbcom, as you can see from the table further down on that page. Arbcom must think they do something. A useful exercise would be to check Arbcom case logs to find any examples where people have been blocked for violating such a restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• It means the usual warnings before a block can be bypassed as the editor should already be aware of civility requirements and there is a history of incivility. It helps uninvolved admins deal with problematic editors without having to waste time. It prevents people with an incivility problem from gaming the system and always pointing out they need to be warned before being blocked. Like everything else it has a good side and bad side. It's like being on a 1RR restriction. We're not supposed to edit war either but we have tools and methods to deal with those that do and routinely do it. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Just interjecting, Arbcom case statement by Tango says it wasn't supposed to be "forever" but obviously his desysopping would prevent him from lifting it. Also, this opinion by Arbcom member [User:Sam Blacketeer] was stated but never ruled on (sorry but the page was moved and I couldn't find actual diff but his comment is easy to find). It's probably an open question as to whether the civility restriction was ever lifted but basing any block or action on the original Tango civility restriction would be problematic so as a practical matter it's moot as to whether it was lifted. I don't know if arbcom has ever ruled on whether a single admin can issue a "civility restriction" indefinitely without community backing as Sam Blacketeer commented. Probably the best course is to either issue a new restriction if it's warranted and supported and free of the taint of Tango issue or treat the Tango one as moot as it would be unenforceable. My concern with it being "unresolved" is that an uninvolved admin might get baited into enforcing it by the kind of diffs shown. We can lose good admins that way as we've seen recently so if it's cloudy enough to be a moot restriction, that should be noted somewhere so an admin with good intentions doesn't get hammered thinking they are just enforcing a noted restriction. Those logs are supposed to help them, not set them up for a pounding by the community. Just my 0.02. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Digging into the ancient history could take a lot of time. It might be simpler for MONGO to just file an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} at AE. A third option would be to just ignore the whole thing, since it's unlikely to be enforced. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of ignoring it but pointing to the Tango Arbcom under the civility restriction so an uninvolved admin doesn't stumble into something they are unaware of. Neither conforming or denying the civility ban, just pointing to the cloud so they have an idea as to whether the ground they are on is firm or loose. I will be bold and add it and see if anyone complains. --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I imagine EdJohnston is correct...I haven't been blocked since Tango blocked me...I don't think it's because anyone is scared to, but more likely that I'm not the same editor I used to be on 9/11 pages or elsewhere.--MONGO 00:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but it hasn't stopped people from bringing up the civility restriction. A truly unwary and uninvolved admin could be hoodwinked by that log and make an honest mistake. I think Tom's topic ban was an honest mistake made by an admin that was hoodwinked and found himself buried in criticism to the point he left. I'd rather they stay "uninvolved" than make a poor choice. A sharp comment and a link to that civility restriction might seem like a routine and uncontroversial block or temp ban to someone unfamiliar with the history. The result hasn't happened but there are those that still try to make it happen. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not convinced that this is a technical matter of a previous error. WP:ARB911 has always provided for discretionary sanctions. If Tango were still around and were still an admin he would have the ability to lift his own restriction. In the absence of Tango, the only alternative is a community consensus. Of course Arbcom could have undone this in WP:Requests for arbitration/Tango but they may have not seen MONGO's restriction or forgotten. Another possibility is that they actually thought the restriction was an OK idea. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a previous error and I am not suggesting correction. I am only concerned about the next "Look at MONGO's uncivil comment here and look at his permanent civility warning here" report. An admin may feel justified with those two pieces of information to make a block or other action and it would be a supportable action based on the immediately available evidence. As a practical matter, though, there will be much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments if that particular civility warning were used as justification because of it's history. The admin may be technically correct but there will be much criticism for them for not "knowing the history." Of course, the admin can undue his action and that would be preferred if the community weighs in against it but we all know that the criticism starts as a drip and the immediate response is to defend their actions, not change them. Tango case is an excellent example of it. If a link to that case makes an admin look for community input before enforcement, then that is a good thing. If an admin looks at the link, decides a block is still justified and defends his action knowing of the history, then that is also a good thing. If an admin doesn't know about the Tango case, cites the permanent civility warning and then makes a block, that would be a bad thing and would be a basis for criticism. Also, editors that cite the permanent civility warning as the basis of a complaint should also know about the history before using it as a basis for enforcement. Reviewing admins that know the history may not be kind to an editor that uses a cloudy and old civility restriction as the basis for a complaint and a good faith request could BOOMERANG on the editor. Lastly, a bad faith request by editors to rehash and reuse old arguments and restrictions should have a clear path to understanding why their complaint is considered a bad faith request and fair notice that some restrictions, particularly old ones, that have a cloud should not be the basis for discretionary sanction complaints. We have recently seen in this case a very experienced editor claim not to understand why their complaint cited a poorly chosen and old sanction. That should not happen again. We can table this until it does happen again, I suppose. I am only suggesting a link to the Tango case (and perhaps a link to the recently hatted MONGO complaint that cited this civility restriction), not language that would imply it has been overturned or was incorrect. This is my last comment on this as I don't want to enter the dead horse zone but I wanted to clarify that was not advocating that there was an error or that a correction was required. --DHeyward (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone feels this discussion should be continued, they should open a request at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to pursue this any further...here or elsewhere...appreciate you adding insight and advice on this matter.MONGO 14:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Demographics of Greater China

{{tb|User talk:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick#Continued edit warring at Talk:Demographics of Greater China}}

You must be referring to this post on your talk page. I've indeed seen it, but I remind you that any more talk page refactoring (not supported by others) may lead to a block. "I don't think any consensus is required to restore my own comments deleted by some other people." This seems to be an instance of WP:GAME. You are trying to protect your own controversial changes from being reverted by mixing some comments of your own into the change. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The only controversial part was the {{unsigned}} tags. I agreed not to restore the tags and I was only restoring my own comments. Please take a look at the edit history of the page before you mistakenly block anyone. Thanks. Jeffrey (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's look at the edit history. The ninth green box on the right-hand side of this diff (which got you blocked) shows clearly that what you just said isn't true. No mistake here on Ed's part here. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That particular tag is necessary because I was posting a question to Schmucky. Please make some sense here Null. Jeffrey (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

I've deleted the survey notice, now that I completed it. The survey encounters the usual ambiguity as to what is or is not dispute resolution. So WP:ANI is considered not to be dispute resolution, while arbitration is. Yet 'incivility' is listed as one of the problems that dispute resolution might be able to address. Policy violations and content matters seem to be mixed up together. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My reply and posting

Ed, I posted a comment on WGFinley's talk pages on your proposal [7] for your information as well. Winterbliss (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

9/11 AE case question

Would you mind describing in more detail the edits and behaviors you think merited the topic ban?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

AE has gone over the issues in some detail. You can still file an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I would want to know what specifically you think justified it. That is not an unreasonable request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Appeals are not for getting explanations. Generally, admins are expected to explain why they took action.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A full length discussion at AE that allowed plenty of room for evidence, statements and replies, and where three admins agreed on the result, ought to meet any requirement for justifying an admin action. If you think an error was made, you can appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this simpler, presuming that you read over all my comments (the ones in collapsed sections included), why don't you tell me why you did not find my arguments compelling while finding the arguments of others compelling?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

AE Proposal

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Realized I missed some spots and cleaned it up a bit more. [8] --WGFinley (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Now I think I have it. [9] --WGFinley (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

Good Friday

Hi, The Crucifixion of Jesus may also do well with protection until Monday. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Fitzpatrick again

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request for removal of protection on Gold Standard article

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)

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)

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)

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)

Prostitution in South Korea

'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)

WP:RS.

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)

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)

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)

Haller's Blue Army

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)

This false claim about "re-adding text that was deemed inaccurate" is debunked, with links, here: [10]. Blaming the Jewish victims by claiming they were all Bolsheviks is not nice, either.Faustian (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [11] and which is well-sourced.Faustian (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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)