User talk:EdJohnston

Question

Obviously I disagree with your decision since Sherif reinserted the edit while the AE was still ongoing-four reverts in 2 days including a violation of 1rr. Water under the bridge. I have a procedural question concerning reverts. If an editor makes four reverts in one article concerning four separate and distinct edits, does that count as four reverts or does the 3RR rule mean that the reverts must deal specifically with one particular edit. In other words, four reverts on one specific edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing four reverts. He broke 1RR on the 15th but then undid his edit. Then he made a group of consecutive edits on the 16th. That might not have been advisable. I've left notes for both you and Sherif advising against further modification of the numbers in the infobox before consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what consensus would be in a situation where there are only the two of us in the dispute, and where I have, as you pointed out, based my information and facts on the same sources used by Jiujitsuguy. I'm not sure why this matter would require such a long debate and a need to establish consensus in the first place. I'll try to conform to your recommendations nevertheless... --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yom Kippur War
• Talk:Yom Kippur War#Infobox numbers

Several other editors have been commenting on Talk recently. You could open a new section, state the matter to be resolved, and ask their opinions. Maybe you need to present some verbatim quotes from the sources. It is hard for me to even understand what you are disagreeing about, and others could have the same problem. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue between Sherif and I has been resolved with a simple asterisk and notation. Thanks for your advice and help.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

AE comments

I regret you see fit to give credence to Offliner's allegations. In particular I am disturbed by your appearing to taking "anti-Estonian" (as violating my topic ban) completely out of the context of the conversation it was a part of, which was the result of Petri's blatantly false allegations against me at Shell Kinney's talk. If I have misinterpreted please let me know. I have responded. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments in the AE have not been especially helpful. If you would offer to strictly adhere to your topic ban from now on, we might be able to get this issue done with quicker. If admins have the impression that your judgment is off, to the point where you really don't see how your further EEML-related disputation is causing trouble, they could decide to take firmer action. It seems as though you just can't keep quiet when an issue is being discussed about EE involving anybody you have quarrelled with in the past, like Petri. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You possibly missed one....

Thanks for doing that. Justin talk 17:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again thanks, the move seems the best solution. Justin talk 18:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the pages

Thank you for boldly moving the pages to my userspace (I thought I was creating them there in the first place). Cheers! Imalbornoz (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Martintg

Hi! I see that you rejected taking an action with regard to martintg, because he posted on the Arbcom page. But note that Vecrumba has been already blocked for participation in a similar case by Future Perfect at Sunrise. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vecrumba&diff=361905761&oldid=361890882 I see no difference between that case and the current one.--Dojarca (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The prime issue back then was not that of breaching a topic ban per se, but whether involvement in the original Russavia-Biophys case violated the interaction ban. The drafting Arb did allowed some leeway with respect to interaction ban, but as indicated by Shell's comment a line was crossed. My involvement in the original Russavia-Biophys case was due to a legitimate dispute I had at the time with Russavia, as Shell's comment above states, she appreciated my decorum in that case.

My recent comment in the Russavia-Biophys amendment, being that I was involved in the original case, was addressed directly to the Arbitrators. In any case, Dojarca wrongly cites in his AE report the remedy applicable, that broad EE wide remedy is no longer applicable as it was amended by motion some months ago. --Martin (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

More sockpuppets of User:BrianBeahr

Hello yet again. User:BJW111 and User:Since1873 are both obvious sockpuppets of the indefinitely blocked User:BrianBeahr. Same articles and same kinds of edits. Thanks for your attention to this. Afterwriting (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Related note

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

i see you have blocked an anon "user" for his actions on my talk page (calling me a "faggot"?!?!?!). This was all because he vandalized Juan Manuel Lillo's page and i reverted it (if you check the summaries, i did not insult him whilst reverting his gross violation of BLPs). Please pay attention, the same "user" - bet my life!! - with another IP, has vandalized the page again, i have reverted it, let's hope the next insult he throws at me is more original...i am getting a bit tired of these human wastes, don't care how old they are, this is unacceptable, what on earth is this?!?

Thanks for your hard work again, keep it up, have a happy week overall - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your statement

Thank you for your comments in my case, although you did not comment in my favor. You helped me to better understand some of the issues. Hence I provided some diffs from my talk page [1]. I understand that you might have some questions about this. If so, please ask, and I would be happy to discuss any possible misunderstandings here, rather than on arbitration pages.

It would also be great if you suggest how exactly my existing ban could be modified. Limiting the scope of the ban would not be a good solution, because it does not address the problem. Actually, I thought about two possible options: (1) keeping the existing topic ban for a few more months (but do not make it indefinite), or (2) replacing the existing topic ban by 1 RR restriction for a few months. You probably would not recommend anything less than that. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion at User talk:Biophys.

Responding to your question, I certainly do not mind archiving my talk page. Why I feel uncomfortable? Well, this is because of defamatory postings off-wiki that are linked to my talk page. In fact, I would strongly prefer to delete it, or at least change my username. What do you recommend? Biophys (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A change of name is unlikely to help. People seem to know who you are, and there is not much that can be done about it. Even Arbcom can do nothing about what is said off-wiki. If you were to get a new account but then edit the same subjects, people would make the connection. To get a rest from annoying comments, consider a switch to scientific and cultural articles, at least for a period of time. We do need editors who are willing to write about Russian topics. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly would not mind switching to scientific and cultural articles related to Russia, for a period of time rather than indefinitely. But it might be a problem to define what exactly would be off-topic. Everything in Soviet topics may be "controversial". For example, the culture in Soviet Russia was officially a form of propaganda; many writers were sent to Gulag, and one of them even wrote such book. And you never know in advance what will cause a dispute. That's why I suggested a more general approach in the request for amendment. In fact, I am not even sure if I am going to edit a lot in this area. I can try carefully and see how it goes... But I do not want to be a subject of indefinite sanctions. That's for sure.Biophys (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you give examples of some scientific or cultural articles you would like to edit, that risk infringing your ban from Soviet Union topics? EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything. Soviet culture, just to start from something. But this is not the point. Actually, I edited a lot of articles that may be considered highly controversial without meeting any opposition, such as this. It was me who created Soviet program of biological weapons and List of Soviet agents in the United States, and no one objected. Can I create Soviet program of chemical weapons? Biophys (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you make a list of a dozen or so articles, and include it in your current request to Arbcom, it might be approved. Judging from the tone of the Arb comments in the original WP:ARBRB decision, it seems unlikely to me that they would entirely lift your topic ban at this point. We could also request that you be allowed to present further articles at WP:AE to be exempted from the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable option if I was desperate editing anything about Russia. But I do not really care. Neither have I strong nationalistic feelings. I can edit something else as well. All I wanted is not to be a subject of indefinite sanctions, because I am a law-abiding citizen of this project. Whatever they decide is fine.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. It seems to me that such an approach is unlikely to get you a favorable result, if that's what you are seeking. You were not restricted for no reason at all. If you address the reason, you might get the sanction loosened, or eventually, lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope I addressed the problem in my statement. I am a rational person. If I could foresee the sanctions, I would certainly left these article to POV-pushers and allow them to do with articles whatever they want. I am not a fool to repeat my own mistakes twice.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking rationally, I do not see any reason why Arbcom can not allow me editing with 1RR restriction in this area. What kind of trouble can I possibly create? Certainly not edit-warring. And I am civil in discussions. If there are any "battleground" concerns, just ban me from all administrative pages, or whatever. I do not care.Biophys (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

POV-pushing. Activism. Creating an impression of consensus against neutral point of view. Is it enough? --Dojarca (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account how many editors with opposing views edit in this area, there is nothing I can do except creating new content on the subjects that do not cause anyone's objections. What's wrong with this? Nothing wrong, except wasting my time here instead of doing my work. So, maybe you are right after all. Biophys (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, I am amazed that you could create an article about Soviet program of biological weapons without running into any controversy. I guess it is a different type of article than Communist terrorism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent question and related to your administrative duties. The answer: this is not about articles. Do you think that people who edit war around "Communist terrorism" article are really interested in the subject? If so, why did not they add more sourced content to the article as I did? See my comment at AE page. No, this is all about wikistalking.Biophys (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill has now responded at A/R/A and he advises against lifting your ban at this time. I still think you should propose a list of articles that you want to be cleared to work on; I don't see your ban being lifted any time soon. Your comment about stalking suggests that you don't accurately perceive the problem. Communist terrorism is one of the articles where I am amazed that any consensus could ever be found. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked arbitrators if it would be possible to limit the scope of the ban, as you suggested, just before you made your last comment there.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about my "problem". Could you please explain what is it? Sure thing, I realize that I have certain POV, but my edits are sourced to books and improve the content. To be specific, did I do right thing by creating article "Soviet program of biological weapons" you just mentioned? Would it be better if we did not have such article at all? Biophys (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion is over. I presented some things you could agree to, and you did not agree. Your alternative ideas don't seem credible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry for excessive comments. Could you or someone else please set up archiving my talk page for a time period of ~1 week? That was your initial suggestion. I do not know how to do it.Biophys (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've set up archiving by MiszaBot on your talk page. You should expect to see some threads archived by about 29 November. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made a kind of inquiry, and it looks like these off-wiki postings are damaging for my scientific career. Probably, it might be a good idea to move/rename my user page (together with talk page) and indeed focus on harmless subjects if I am allowed to edit in this area. Do you think that would be something reasonable, and how should I proceed? Thank you for your help.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask at WP:CHU to have your account renamed. It is not clear to me how that helps you. If you are truly willing to change fields of interest, then create a brand new account, and stop using the old one. The new account should not contribute to Russian topics, or others may figure out who you are. If you decide to create a new account, you should send email to Arbcom telling them about the old and new account names, since the new account would inherit your current topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The easiest way to identify who am I is by looking at my science-related contributions. This might help as long as I stay away of certain subjects here.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Teramo

Ciao! Just to notify you that, immediately after his ban expired, the Teramo vandal has returned, abruptly reverting to his awful version, and losing all the changes I had had made basing on his inputs!! See the article's talk page. Notice also how a bot immediately re-added an interwiki on his version. Ciao and thanks. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I left him a final warning, since his last edit was five days ago. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So far his only move was that to blank his talk page. Is this allowed? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Teramo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DDF19483 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yes. I'm afraid he is not getting the message, though. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

• Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 65.112.21.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey there! Wanted to let you know that soon after the ban you placed on Rabbi Pinto's page was lifted on 11/24, user 68.173.122.113 returned on 11/26 as user 65.112.21.194 and added biased information that had been removed over and over again by multiple contributors (not just myself). User 68.173.122.113 is user 65.112.21.194 and vice versa (perhaps this is sockpuppetry). Is it possible to ban both of these users from the page? I'd like to avoid future edit wars with this person. Thanks! Photocredit (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP only made one edit since the semiprotection expired on 24 November. Not enough to justify renewing the protection, since the edit wasn't defamatory. I will leave a note for the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand. If he continues to include slanderous or defamatory material, or if he chooses to frame things in an overtly biased manner -- whether it's amended or not -- I will be sure to notify you. Thanks for your help. Photocredit (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Whats truly amazing is that all of the primary users on Pintos page are people who never before edited any Wiki pages when I am in fact the creator of the Pinto page. What constitutes vandalism is it truth and balance ? Please advise what is biased about including the cost of perhaps the most expensive synagogue in the US ? Or that he is considered controversial ? You of course are aware I credited this page, and that user Photocredit has never before used wiki previous to this entry ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Babasalichai, perhaps you can clarify whether the IP address 65.112.21.194 belongs to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring @ Holodomor

It's being ongoing for weeks but I think it's getting worse (potential IP socks are popping up, 3RR be damned, discussion page is futile, etc.) The current issue is with user:Ingy pushing his pro-Soviet POV and edit warring1, 2, 3. I recommend getting it to the last stable version (where it said broadly 2.6-10m victims to stay neutral) and putting a temp lock on it to get some consensus? I tried getting a discussion going to get all scholarly estimates together to come up with a neutral solution but that wasn't adopted. I dunno, I'm out of ideas..--Львівське (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article two weeks. If you think that the main dispute is the number of people who died in the famine, perhaps you could open up a WP:Request for comment. Either that, or arrange a talk page straw vote to see where people stand. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Hopefully this time-off will give people a chance to sort out their issues. Thanks.--Львівське (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Concern about IP edits at Hugo Almeida

• Hugo Almeida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 86.166.73.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

please pay attention to Hugo Almeida's article, some anon "user" has been using the page the last hour, writing all kind of Peacock/Weasel/POV words, with appalling grasp of English and engaging in overlinking as well. I have already rolled it back, but maybe he will come back to add his "contributions" again and/or insult me...Kids.

Thanks very much in advance, happy week (and also note - i think you are not familiar with soccer, so you'll have to trust me on this one - the "user" is doing that in other articles as time "marches on") - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that this user could be committing copyright violations. His new material looks like typical 'sports talk' from newspaper columns, complete with the usual cliches. if you have the patience to do some Google searching, perhaps you could find the website he might be copying from. Maybe the player's own website, or that of his football club? You have not yet tried to communicate with this IP, and I would suggest you try that. I changed the heading of this post to be more neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your assistance, indeed. I have also rolledback his next "tirade", at Ezequiel Lavezzi - there, the player "runs another team ragged", amongst other charmers - Get in touch with the IP? I would not be surprised at all if HE gets in touch with me, and not very friendly i suspect (i might be wrong, but that's how i feel). - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• And asking your question: no, that kind of "phrasing" does not appear in either the club's website or the player's (he does not have one). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Pay attention to these charmers, in Fernando Llorente (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Llorente&diff=next&oldid=399462851), the user says the player "is likely to score a career-high in goals", a "testament to how good he really is" (written here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Llorente&diff=next&oldid=399463344) ...what on earth is this?!? If you do decide to block, i better brace myself for some serious insults. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have included a dscussion of your recent actions, which I'm slightly confused about, in the request for clarification. Please could you comment there? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Although I do not support the idea to apply the 1RR restriction to this article (as well as the 1RR as whole, which in current situation became a hidden form of vote, and, therefore, is against WP policy), I suggest you to be consistent in your attempts to restrict an opportunity for edit wars. IMO, the article should be permanently semi-protected, because in a situation when one cannot make more than one revert it is very tempting to use IP for that (the recent example is [2].) I have no desire to initiate any sockpuppet investigation against this IP, however, let me point out that during last six months no IP made useful contribution to this article, so it can be safely semi-protected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So far there is only one IP edit in the month of November. If it continues, semi may be considered. I am surprised that the editors on this article get along so badly. The underlying issue (how to structure the article) does not look like it should be terribly hard to reach agreement on. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you commented at AN/I

You wrote here So please see here. I would really like to get this resolved. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)