Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Antidiskriminator on AE

G'day EdJohnston, can I ask you and the other admins that have commented on this report to keep an eye on the current RM at Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia#Proposing_a_move_in_good_faith? It was agreed it would stay open for 14 days, but it is now nearly 21 days, and most admins with a sense of self-preservation may have taken one look and hit the back button. It might be appropriate that closure there (whichever way it goes) is done by an admin from the AE discussion so that there is consistency between the decisions, particularly if a move ban is implemented. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has now closed the move proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Why can I not contribute to Wikipedia without Richard and or Esoglou changing, modifying or deleting my contributions?

How is it OK that Richard made the edits and comments in the body of the East-West schism article?

Why would you deny this behavior has contentious? What would any other editor expect to have as a reaction to this type of behavior. How is this not edits that appear to seek to instigate an edit war? So now if Richard does not like what something says he can remove it from the article by complaining about it's syntax? Since his last excuse of removing a huge chunk of information that describes why the Eastern Orthodox are resistant to the Roman Catholic church use of the filioque is that the Roman Catholic church started killing people and warring against to East to make them also say the filioque WAS THAT IT WAS SIMPLY IN THE WRONG PART OF THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION.[3] But again my concerns are invalid. Why is he allowed to do this kind thing? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is Richard edit warring with citation tag abuse [4] and then deleting my contribution outright [5] is there someone at Wikipedia that will listen is there someone there that will stop this kind of behavior? Anyone? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a content dispute. Use discussion on the talk page to work this out. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears that you will not confront the edit warring and instead wish to defer. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I requested that Esoglou and Richard post on the East West schism talkpage a list of what books on that subject that they have read. What Eastern Orthodox theological works that they have read (completely). I noted that I was posting this here as well. I will also list which ever ones I have not already contributed to the article. I think this fair and this is something that needs to be done as Esoglou Richard appear to not be informed on the subject and are editing warring and deleting my contributions and distorting them and putting off important perspectives being put in the article because they don't understand the subject but instead want to fight about it. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If you find yourself unable to keep your composure in this kind of editing, you might consider taking a break from the article. East–West Schism has had a troubled history on Wikipedia, and patience is needed for editing there. Part of the problem could be that Cleenewerck is more of a popular writer than a historian. According to Google Scholar "His Broken Body" has not received any academic citations by others. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA notification request

I declined to notify AnkhMorpork. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Ed. Please review this to see if you feel a notification of the case is warranted. The first issue has been self-reverted, so I dont see the need for AE, but I feel the conduct egregious enough to warrant a notification all the same. nableezy - 20:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, can you clarify which of these steps you disagree with?
  • I removed an unquestionably unreliable source.
  • You restored the same information with a dead link to a primary source.
  • I reverted this and explained why on the talk page.
  • After much blustering, you produced secondary sourcing on the talk page.
  • I self-reverted pending an inspection of the sources as I assumed you had taken greater care this time round.
I do not expect to have my edits that remove unreliable sourcing impugned with allegations of ""Palestinians are bad people" narrative that you have spent the majority of your time promoting." Ankh.Morpork 20:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the repeated performance of calling Nathan Brown, a renowned scholar in the field, an unquestionably unreliable source makes AE the right choice. I dont intend on arguing here, I just request Ed review the evidence and make a determination on whether or not what occurred there, from the gaming the 1RR to the actions at Fasting, merits a notification of the case. nableezy - 20:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
And please dont modify a comment that has already been responded to. nableezy - 21:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I made no substantive changes unless you are inordinately allergic to some bullet points and a request for clarification. Perhaps if you had avoided conducting yourself in this petty manner from the onset and focused on the provision of reliable sources as opposed to resorting to crude personal attacks, this would not have been necessary. Moreover, I executed an amendment my comment two minutes after your response; do you not think there might be an innocent explanation? Ankh.Morpork 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I already said I wont be arguing with you here, especially if you keep up with the inane assertion that Nathan Brown isnt a reliable source. Ill stand by that statement now. Ed, if you have any questions, please feel free either here or on my talk page. nableezy - 21:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
A non sequitur to my previous comment which nimbly sidesteps my suggestion of assuming good faith, something at the heart of this dispute.Ankh.Morpork 21:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I assume the net result of this is that AnkhMorpork will accept Nathan Brown as a source and he will not continue to refer to Nableezy's words as "your incoherent babbling about Nathan Brown". If so, it seems possible that this is resolved. I don't see why AnkhMorpork would think that Brown's article is a primary source. The crack by Nableezy at RSN about 'Palestinians are bad people' seems unnecessary. Both sides should avoid any further colorful language about the other person. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The revert at Fasting, with no talk page discussion, remains, and I still think AM should be notified of the case. But I also think a bot should notify everybody of the case (and my own notification even came at my own request). Here I think there was a demonstration of tendentious editing that, if it reoccurs in the future, should be sanctionable at AE. Id rather not have to need a side argument about whether or not a user past involvement at AE renders moot the requirement of being notified. nableezy - 22:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Nableezy considered the detailing of a Palestinian prisoner's fasting notable to the general article of Fasting and equivalent to that of Gandhi's and Bobby Sands. I obviously do not. Perhaps, Nableezy can be encouraged to stop threatening users with AE and to make use the talk page of article to gauge the consensus for what I consider a perfectly justifiable edit. Ankh.Morpork 22:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There was no 1RR violation at Fasting, and it is unclear how that particular incident belongs in a general article anyway. There must have been thousands of political hunger strikes and they can't all be included. Bobby Sands and Gandhi may be OK, but a talk discussion seems to be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I leave it to you to decide on what to do, but Ill just note that, obviously, I dispute Ankh's characterization of what happened at fasting. I think the by hook or by crook line in the linked sandbox adequately summarizes how I see those events. My issue with what happened there was the means through which that Ankh choose to achieve his goal. The initial removal based on "non-RS" for material that he knows to be accurate and could be sourced to thousands of other sources is my biggest issue there. If he doesnt feel it belongs then fine, make that argument. Trying to play games with WP:INSERTACRONYMHERE isnt that though. nableezy - 22:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you maintaining that this insignificant incident should be included in the Fasting article? If so, begin by articulating on the article talk page your objection - a place you are yet to visit, as the grounds for removal are glaringly obvious. That you should disagree with this assessment and cite this a exhibiting "tendentious editing" is more indicative of your own style of editing than my own. Ankh.Morpork 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You initially removed material that you knew to be accurate, neutral, and could be sourced to any of a thousand other sources on specious grounds. If you feel the material didnt belong you could have made that argument. Instead you played a game of "how can I remove this material today". I think that is indeed tendentious editing, as you choose to use a technicality to remove the material instead of making the argument that you are now doing. If the material shouldnt have been included at all, why was it removed on the grounds of improper sourcing? And did you not know, regardless of the source, that the material was accurate? Finally, Adnan's hunger strike was covered more widely than any of a number of articles that you have created on individual attacks, or to use your phrasing insignificant incidents. That goes to show a more general issue with your editing, but one that I dont see the need to discuss at this point. nableezy - 22:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
All right. But as it seems that others have no problem doing the notification themselves, Ill just do that now and in the future. Sorry for the bother. nableezy - 22:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
AM has twice reverted at the log file. See here for why I may notify the user myself. nableezy - 23:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediator Barnstar

The Mediator Barnstar
I hereby award you this barnstar for great work in mediating disputes on Wikipedia in contentious topic areas. Jethro B 22:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Jethro. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, Ed. Please, just one more note here. I think that blocks and bans are not necessary now, but just tell him what are POV template actually used for, or something similar... At least we are making progress, this article is the last one in dispute between those two... --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red

Removed all the warnings and notices - and called one warning required by policy "disingenuous". So he was fully and porperly warned and given a full shot at self-reverting. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Harassment of one editor by socks

Thank you for helping out there. This happens every week or so now; what do you recommend I do? Obviously the users are all blocked so an SPI won't result in them being more blocked, but would a checkuser there enable any kind of rangeblock that would forestall further harassment? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of any other readers of this page, here is the problem:
Recent vandalism-only accounts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Stream of vandalism-only accounts being created. See user creation log, search for 'Lesbianism'.

These four accounts were created over a period of one minute.

If this starts up again, it is possible to ask a checkuser to block the underlying IP from which the accounts were being created. This particular vandal may have got bored, so I didn't pursue the matter any further. I no longer know any checkusers who are often around. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
"This particular vandal" is, I would also assume, the person behind any or all of:
and others whose name I cannot remember. (Although the names are typically the same sort of thing, they are frequently oversighted so it's impossible for me to find them; see eg. the one that Bsadowski blocked at the bottom of this log which I thanked him or her for, and the one that followed me here and here that was blocked by Acroterion.) They've been around for at least two years (and, I see, harassed other users before harassing me), so clearly they do not just get bored and go away. Should I request help from an oversighter in compiling a list for checkuser?
Also, I was incorrect about every week or so; I guess it just feels more frequent when I don't edit as much as I used to. It looks like it's more every two to three weeks. (I also don't know if this person is the same as some of the other stalker accounts I've had, like Ywreuv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but maybe a checkuser would find that out.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
If this is a long-term problem then by all means open an SPI, or add this information to an existing report. The active checkuser clerks are listed at Wikipedia:SPI/Clerks#Active_clerks and one of them might be able to tell you who this is likely to be. I would suggest asking Dennis Brown. Though Bsadowski1 helped out last time around, he is not listed as active. If any of the harassment has also come from IPs, the addresses might help to narrow it down. EdJohnston (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Now it seems other admins have looked into this. The main SPI case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/God Condemns Homosexuality. Others seem to have been placing sock tags on the user pages of these accounts. So long as tags are placed it may be unnecessary to reopen the sock case. If more accounts with names like this show up, you could file at WP:AIV and mention the sock case or find an admin who is online. After an account is blocked, its user page should be tagged with {{blockedsock|God Condemns Homosexuality}}. So long as the sock names don't mention you personally, I think it best not to oversight the account names, since that makes it harder to track the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Imalbornoz

Spillover from a new outbreak of the GIbraltar dispute following a lifting of the original restriction at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See [6], Imalbornoz has returned and immediately prefaced his remarks with reference to past disputes. Look I've put this behind me, all I wish to do is publish my articles and leave. Yet it seems both Imalbornoz and Ecemaml after months of inactivity return the momemnt I start editing. It is worth noting that Ecemaml has now been banned indefinitely from es.wikipedia for effectively bullying another editor. They're raising irrelevant and tangential issues and it seems the only reason is because I've published an article with a DYK. It seems also clear this is being co-ordinated off-wiki, come on this can't be a co-incidence that Imalbornoz shows up on a completely new article after not editing for months.

I have already had to put up with years of bullying from these guys, yes it came to a head and I responded by becoming uncivil. I really don't need to have this start all over again as they effectively got away with it last time. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Wee Curry feels that he is being persecuted by Spanish editors. (sigh) In fact, I have (very happily!) ignored Wee Curry Monster and Gibraltar articles until I saw an announcement in my talk page saying that the ban had been lifted and, several days later, out of curiosity I looked up the other banned editors' activity. What I saw was that Wee Curry was reverting other people again in a new article (a bit biased, in my opinion, although not terribly so) and I have proposed to discuss in the talk page (normal procedure for dispute resolution, I guess).
I am a bit worried that Wee Curry might start all over again instead of reaching agreements that, in my opinion, are not that difficult to reach, really. I hope he is able to discuss normally, instead of reverting (he's made 5 revertions already in a quite new article) with comments like "disruptive use of tags - editor is simply continuing a vendetta against the originator of the article", "(...)instigator knows it)", "(...)supply demanded cite as instigator already knows(...)", ...
I don't want to be dragged into a confrontation with WCM. Please, tell him to stick to the discussion and try to (quickly and calmly) solve the content disputes. Please. Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello WCM. I left a notice for Imalbornoz on his talk page that the restriction was lifted. The point he is making at Talk:Political development in modern Gibraltar/Archives/2024/February#Disputed issues seems logical. You currently have in the article "For the next 16 years Gibraltar was reliant on an air-link with Britain for formal access to the outside world". Are you defining 'formal access' as preventing the use of the ferry to Morocco? This seems puzzling. It should not require the wisdom of Solomon to reach a compromise on the wording. You insist on your wording and you are reverting the 'Disputed' tag. You have stated "Seeing as the two points are resolved, I'm removing the tag presently." The admins at AE were looking forward to a new spirit of cooperation, but we are not seeing it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed,

No I'm not saying that at all. The goal posts have been moving, my comment reflects the source. The initial claim made was that the source didn't say that, it does verbatim, now they're making a semantic comment about transport links including the Tangiers ferry. Dodds, the source, is quite correct, to get anywhere from Gibraltar you had to fly to London and from there to onward destinations. You couldn't get anywhere from Tangiers other than a ferry to Spain. Its a nitpicking semantic argument, does that reflect a spirit of co-operation.

He also refer to reverts, please look at those. As raised here WP:ELN#Link to a BBC History article hosted in an academic site a link to a copy of an article from BBC History magazine that appears to be a clear copyright violation. I have a DYK nomination at the moment and a copyvio is a red flag. He also several times claimed the same source didn't support the comment in the article, when it does verbatim, which you can verify for yourself if you follow the link.

I don't wish to get involved in a protracted discussion on your talk page but would ask you to note that I've been followed here. And he is looking at my activity but also claiming that he is ignoring me. If he wishes to avoid a confrontation, why would he weigh prefaced with a remark referring to past disputes and, contrary to WP:CIVIL, by referring to past conduct that hasn't been repeated. Again I put this behind me long ago but it seems clear from the comments above that they wish to continue with the same dispute, whilst continuing to try and paint me as the aggressive party, why else would someone repeatedly refer to an episode of from 3 years ago for which I've repeatedly apologised and there has been no repeat. I raised this at WP:AE, why are they allowed to get away with it?

You refer to a spirit of co-operation, please tell me how that is fostered by remarks about past conduct, which you and he knows I am sensitive about? And why is he allowed to get away with doing so repeatedly. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be ironic if the continued warring were to sabotage the filing of your DYK on this article. It looks like a perfectly respectable article. It would seem optimistic on your part to suppose that an article mentioning the current status of Gibraltar would sail through without controversy. Your reference to semantics and your remark "Seeing as the two points are resolved, I'm removing the tag presently" suggest to me that you are putting very little energy into negotiation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Ed, I haven't removed it, I'll strike through the comment if you prefer. But I ask you at what point I would be reasonable to remove it, when the discussion is filibustered - a genuine query. Is he allowed to insist it remains for ever and a day?
As you say its a perfectly respectable article but no I don't expect there to be no controversy. I don't think its too much to expect the discussion to follow WP:CIVIL and not refer to past mistakes. But have you looked at Imalbornoz's comments and asked yourself whether they're intended to promote civil discourse or to provoke a reaction? The tags are being used disruptively, the arguments are semantic and we're seeing a repeat of similar behaviours by Imalbornoz that are designed to frustrate other editors. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have the source he claims to have referred to, last year he admitted he didn't have it.
You know I'm beginning to feel like I wear the mark of Cain. Yes, over THREE years ago, whilst in poor mental health I made a series of uncivil remarks. Yes, I was sanctioned at arbcom, but I haven't repeated them. Can I expect them to be thrown in my face again and again and again? Do I have to put up with it? Please could you address this. You refer to a spirit of co-operation but you're focused on my response to comments that appear to be a mere continuation of past disputes. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It is too soon to start looking into editor behavior when the discussion of the content matters seems to be stumbling helplessly. You know all about WP:Dispute resolution I'm sure, but just a small willingness to compromise could probably settle the point about Gibraltar's travel arrangements in five minutes. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
At what point did I say I wasn't willing to compromise? I just give up. You know something, having to acknowledge a mental illness is really hard, its worse to have it flung back in your face repeatedly as if you're unfit to consort with normal human beings. How hard would it be for you to warn Imalbornoz that its unacceptable? I really would like to know why you don't consider it appropriate, you might as well encourage him to continue now. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I hope this thread has sufficiently answered your original question. Your actions are too warlike to attract much admin sympathy. Please continue this elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes it did, Imalbornoz is free to fling references to past disputes with impunity. I get the message. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Topic banned reviewer

I think that indefinite (?) ban you imposed on me is unjustified. I responded to invitation to review the article and discovered its numerous flaws. I helped resolving most of them trough 27 consensuses achieved with other editors. That way I significantly improved the quality of the article. It was not easy because of the very persistent editing of group of editors who initially opposed almost every single proposal I made. Therefore I had to persistently provide numerous sources and to carefully explain my position more than once before reaching (27) consensuses with them. There is nothing wrong with persistence (their or mine) as long as wikipedia policies are respected. This article would not have been improved without persistence of both parties (in Cross case they were persistent much more than me, since their very first edit on wikipedia (diff) and many other discussions which were held before I began my review).

Will you please be so kind to:

  1. allow me to continue improving the quality of this article under condition that the issue of the weight of Cross assertion in comparison to "some obscure Serbian or Montengrin award" (diff) is discussed only at mediation, not on article's talkpage?
  2. consider replacing a one-year freeze to move proposals at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia with six-month bans to participate in move discussions of that article imposed on all editors who used the "name issue" of this article to struggle for their position in another "statehood" dispute, using statehood arguments and ethnicity of other editors to prevent renaming existing (wrong) title. A one-year freeze to move proposals is better than nothing, and I supported it, but I do believe it is better to deal with real problems (i.e. conduct of couple of editors) instead of dealing with the consequences (freezing wrong title for a year) and having the same problem a year after. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't find your argument persuasive. Disputes that are connected with Serbia occasionally lead to endless discussions. In these cases, it may appear that some editors are serving their national loyalties rather than the best interests of the encyclopedia. That is the type of problem which led to the original filing of the WP:ARBMAC2 arbitration case. It was a naming dispute about Macedonia where a group of editors aligned with one country were voting in a consistent way. Arbcom stated:

"Protracted naming disputes are not a highly productive form of encyclopedia building and should be avoided if at all possible. Effort spent on actually improving articles as opposed to engaging in disputes over their names is highly encouraged."

- EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand your position at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and actually support it. It is better to deal with consequences of someones disruption than not to deal with it. Still, I believe that it would be better to deal with the real problems not with the consequences. The real problem is editing pattern of the small group of editors who, based on national loyalties and ethnicity of other editors, misuse the name issue of this article to struggle for their position in another "statehood" dispute. It is good that one of them is banned (I supported his sanctions) but allowing the other members of this group to continue with their disruption was mistake.
  • I still expect your answer on my question related to my topic ban. My editing about the Cross issue was maybe persistent, but it was necessary because of the editing of the other party which was not only persistent but non-neutral and disruptive too.
Explanation about persistent, non-neutral and disruptive editing of other party related to the Cross issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. They started editing wikipedia with comments about Cross (diff).
  2. The only award they presented in the article was Cross, which they considered quite remarkable award unlike Serbian or Montengrin awards which they consider being obscure (diff).
  3. Only after I presented several sources for Star award it was added to the article
  4. When I asked why the Star award was given much less weight (mentioned only in the aftermath section) then Cross award assertion (presented in the lede, two times in the main body of the article and with two images and their caption) the other party explained it was because of the "exceptional nature" of the Cross (diff)
  5. When I asked the other party to present exceptional sources for this exceptional award they changed their position to avoid it and proclaimed Cross completely unexceptional (diff) using WP:CITATIONOVERKILL to struggle for their position and violating Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline (link)
  6. After they realized that they did not resolve this issue because they gave different weight to two "completely unexceptional" awards they proclaimed Star award as exceptional and in serious of disruptive edits removed it from the article and started a couple of threads on the talkpage link.
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
If you disagree with your own sanction you can follow the appeal process. There is no way to appeal someone else *not* being sanctioned. When you refer to a small group of editors I am not sure who you mean. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • During this discussion I already explained who are three most active members of this small group who wrote more than 2,000 comments at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (link). Only one of those three editors who (based on national loyalties and ethnicity of other editors) misuse(d) the name issue of this article to struggle for their position in another "statehood" dispute is topic banned. I believe there is more productive action than freezing the move proposals for a year. The six-month ban to participate in move discussions of that article imposed to them would remove the main obstacle to resolve the name issue of the article.
  • I think I explained you why I believe your decision to ban me (and not the other party which deserves it much more, based on the rationale you used) was not justified nor neutral. Therefore I appeal to you to lift the ban you imposed. It would be also in the best interest of the quality of the article because there are many other issues I did not have enough time to resolve. I will not lose time and energy to follow the appeal process over this unjustified ban. I appeal to you to think about what I wrote and if you agree with me to accept your mistake and lift this ban. Whether you accept my proposals or not this will be my last comment about this ban on this talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Asking for an opinion

An editor didn't like what I did[7] to a DYK nominee of his, Mike Redmond. The matter has been discussed at a talk page and the only editor to comment agreed[8] with what I did.

The DYK nominator wrote on the nominating page complaining of what I did. I replied back with an explanation but the nominator deleted it[9]. I reverted it[10] saying he brought the topic up, so it necessitated a reply. Was the nominator wrong in deleting my explanation or was I wrong in putting it back up. I'll abide by your decision. At the moment I'm bringing up another concern about the nominee article on the talk page but this time it looks like consensus doesn't agree with me.

Now he is saying[11] I can't comment at the DYK page because I'm not a contributor. A check of my edits at the Mike Redmond article history[12] shows that to be false. I'm not replying back, but let you handle it. So far as my concerns with the Redmond article, I'm through but Bloom6132's behavior could be compared a stalker. He's following me[13] and at the same time telling me where and where not to edit....William 19:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with your edits. Unless he tries to remove your comment from DYK again, I suggest that you wait and see what others have to say. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely ludicrous lies by William! How the heck is that stalking when we're both involved in a WikiProject community discussion. Unless William thinks I don't have the right to edit the WikiProject's talk page, I don't see how there's any truth in his false accusation. And it's true that William hasn't contributed any significant prose towards the article (see the article history for more info). If he had, his name would be under the "Created/expanded by" section. It isn't, and rightly so. My question is—why is William editing the nomination template when:
1. He's not one of the "Created/expanded by" users, and
2. He's not reviewing the article.
If he doesn't fall in either two of these categories, I have to question his motive of editing the template. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC
Ed, he's clearly following me around. Is it time for me to file a harassment or cyber bullying complaint at ANI?...William 20:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey! You have no right to talk behind my back. Anything written that involves me in some way is my business. And you want to "file a harassment or cyber bullying complaint"? Get a life and take your soapbox somewhere else! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It is common to see a variety of people commenting on a DYK nomination. Unless WiliamJE is somehow obstructing the process, I don't see why his comment doesn't belong. Anyone who is surprised to see controversy at DYK must be new around here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It's debatable whether he's obstructing the process, but what he did was completely unnecessary, since there was a thread that was already active on WT:MLB. Why is he taking it to the DYK nomination when he's not the nominator or expander? On a separate note, I'd like to counter-file a harassment case, since William has been falsely and maliciously comparing my behavior to that of "a stalker". This is a complete lie, is basically a personal attack and to let it go unpunished would condone malicious and false statements being spread across WP. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Taking down my comment at the nomination page and your repeated attempts at telling me where and where I can't editisn't stalking or cyberbullying? Ed above said none of my edits were wrong. File at ANI yourself if you want, but WP:BOOMERANG could be a result.
Ed, I've never nominated anything for DYK but Swissair Flight 316 an article I created went through the DYK process and I learned about it only afterwards.
As for Bloom6132, I will go to ANI if he continues to tell me what i can or can not do on WP or makes personal attacks....William 20:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't told you what you can or cannot do. I'm just sayin', usually only the expanders of an article or a reviewer comments on the template. It's extremely peculiar for someone who falls into neither of the 2 categories to do so. That's all. And for the record, it is you who has been making personal attacks on me, calling me "silly", then falsely accusing me of being "a stalker". The words "hypocrisy" and "passive-aggressive behavior" come to mind when evaluating the situation. In fact, I think ownership issues arise when you consider how William dictates to me what can and cannot be added to the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bloom6132, you're rapidly forfeiting any sympathy I might have had for your position on this. Both of you please stay cool and wait to see what others have to say at DYK. If you take this to ANI you will probably be greeted with humorous remarks about boomerangs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you still think I shouldn't bring this to ANI or another board after the comments[14] Bloom made today? That came one of the DYK contributors said they thought my edits were appropriate. I want to move on, Bloom however continues with the personal attacks....William 19:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I've given evidence about personal attacks on your part. So please do the same and substantiate your allegation of personal attacks on my part. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
How am I forfeiting sympathy when I'm just stating the facts? Am I wrong by telling the truth? I'd also like to inform anyone reading this thread that I have never reported anything to ANI, and do not intend to do so even with this situation. Even in the three incidents I've been involved in, nothing has ever had to transcend to ANI. I've always maintained civility, settled all disputes outside of ANI and know the rules plain and simple. That's the reason why I've never been blocked—my track record speaks for itself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I've added userlinks above for both of you. I'm going to be offline so I can't offer any other opinion right now. It would be interesting to know if either of you is following practical steps to resolve your dispute. We expect both of you to have diplomatic skills; admins are not referees. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hugle COI

I am not sure if you are aware of this discussion Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Frances_Hugle and/or whether you feel that any additional statements by you there would have different/more impact than your comments directly on the user's talk page? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the entry at COIN. The current problem in my opinion is that Talk:Frances Hugle contains no useful information about what's still wrong with the article. It seems to feature a battle between Cheryl and those trying to explain Wikipedia policy. If you understand the issues there, it would be helpful if you could summarize on Talk what improvements in the article you think are still needed. If Cheryl continues to edit against consensus I think admins will take action, so don't be too worried about that aspect. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, there have been detailed attempts like [15] there have been brief attempts like [16] there have been referals directly to the policy pages. I am not sure what other ways to attempt? Do you have some framework in mind? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My reply

Hi Ed. I undid my reply to you at ANI due to my promise to Lothar and Mtking that I would not comment there tonight. But here it is FWIW. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
You are very welcome Ed. BTW I agree with most of your well taken and good humoured points about closing the thread. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

re: Micro Cabin

Let's be rude about this one: "Micro Cabin" is incorrect. It was a mistake that turned into a bandwagon. People who understand Wikipedia should be able to understand this easily, since Wikipedia is under Creative Commons and is otherwise the first go-to for info (no matter how much people try to say otherwise).

The company website uses MICROCABIN, the Japanese article for the company uses MICROCABIN, and any of their games that don't just use the katakana form should be using MICROCABIN. The best thing to do is either keep "MICROCABIN" or change it to "Microcabin". That is what matters, not these fake "English sources" that steal the mistakes from everything else and know so little about any bit of info in their databases, especially obscure Japanese or Japanese-only works. Despatche (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you source 'Microcabin' from any website published by the company itself? I could only find a website in Japanese. How about this page. Is the word transliterated there somewhere in katakana? Did the company ever publish a formal document in English containing their name? EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. It contains マイクロキャビン in heavily stylized katakana as the header. That would normally transliterate as MAIKUROKYABIN, but would serve for MICROCABIN as well. Note that the copyright notice on the page includes "MICROCABIN", not "Micro Cabin". If was important to them that their name to be treated as two words, it would be マイクロ・キャビン. All told, I think the odds of Despatche being right are quite good.—Kww(talk) 18:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Kww, thanks for your very informative answer. Please share your views about the proper title at the move discussion on Talk:MicroCabin. It does appear that Microcabin hasn't specified the title they want to be used in English for their company. (How much would it cost to maintain an English web page). We should still do the best we can with the limited information. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Navman101 is still editing around the block as Navman2013.[17] Edward321 (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Paoli Dam

You had protected this article and also Mushrooms (film) which was very helpful! I'll ask to elongate the protection limit soon. But, now in every few days he is adding edit requests in talk page. Please see from here. He never signs or adds headers. Every time he posts I do it for him. He has been told to discuss first or provide RS which he does not care! Any suggestion? Should I only keep ignoring? --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And also I have just noticed he has asked for help in someone's talk page archive here which is not a common practice in Wikipedia,I think. I'll notify him. I did not follow contribution of his other IP addresses. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The repeated edit requests from 122.163.*, like the one here, are not vandalism, they are just annoying. I recommend ignoring the requests (or closing them with 'See above') unless you think that semiprotecting the article talk page is justifiable. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Frustration

Hi, Ed. Can I ask how you did that? I tried to use the 3rr.php tool, but it wouldn't give me any results. You'd think it would be easy… but if I put "Australian Christian Lobby" in the "Article" field and Zaalbar or Dominus Vobisdu or Bishonen or whatever in the "User" field, it just says "Got nutin'". All the other fields are optional! But even when I effortfully added diffs and stuff to them (cursing, as it largely ruined the convenience of using the tool), it still gave me nutin'. What do you think I'm doing wrong… ? Bishonen | talk 14:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

When you invoke 3rr.php, fill in the form and press 'Generate', you ought to see the following appear in the URL field of your browser:
http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php?article=Australian+Christian+Lobby&user=Zaalbar&revid=&warndiff=&ishtml=1
Is that what you get? To double check, you should be able to click on the above URL and it will show you the expected list of diffs. Possibly you are putting in 'User:Foo' instead of just 'Foo'. Don't use any square brackets when filling in the form. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No, the URL I get is only http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php?article=Australian+Christian+Lobby+%E2%80%8E+&user=Zaalbar&revid=&warndiff=. Thanks for your suggestions, but no, I didn't make any of those mistakes. Perhaps the tool is temporarily on the fritz, or perhaps it doesn't like my browser (SeaMonkey for Mac). I suppose I'll try Firefox and Opera.. groan. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
  • Firefox worked! Sorry to have bothered you.. though why the tool has to fuck with a normally completely trouble-free browser like SeaMonkey.. grumble, grumble. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
Your version of the URL (as printed above) has extra characters at the end of 'Australian Christian Lobby': %E2%80%8E. Remove those and it should work, perhaps even in SeaMonkey. There is complaint on the web about an Opera bug that does this, but there's no obvious reason for you to be running into that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Aha. It's a little weird, because it's been several weeks since I last upgraded SeaMonkey, and it hasn't messed with any other URLs in the meantime. Oh well, the Opera guy did say it didn't happen to him all the time either. Anyway, now I know what to look for. Thank you for taking the trouble to check it out. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

A request for clarification has been filed

And you have been mentioned as an involved party. Please review the request [18] and consider assisting to clarify the matter before the committee. Thank you, My76Strat (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra/Scots language articles

I'm most grateful for your advice about Cassandra's edits on Scots language articles and have requested semi-protection for the two articles as advised. Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at IP edits on Scots language and History of the Scots language which fit Cassandra's line of edits and tagged the IPs as being socks of each other (see this cat (the choice of which IP is puppetmaster is by necessity fairly arbitrary)), largely to have one place where these edits can be viewed together more easily. I did start investigating IP edits to other articles this initial group of IPs has also edited but this could be a major task and there is already somewhat of a pattern establishing itself so I thought I'd give you a shout.
I think the earliest edit so far is this one, which informally identifies as "Steve A." rather than Cassandra. There are some other edits identifying as "Steve A." and also as "Yorkshire Tyke". Almost all of the IPs are in the range 92.5.-. Of the ones outside of this range, the one starting 90.- has made more clearly vandalous entries to an article page than fits the pattern with the 92.5.-s but does make a reference to "Tyke" (emboldened to misbehave more when the IP points less clearly to them?). The current main target of the edits seems to have moved to Middle Scots incidentally.
The constant IP-hopping and multiple informal identity names used further points to nefarious intent. Can you advise on any measures which would be appropriate in the light of this? Can one warn an IP range, or could one make a temporary block to an IP range, if that's appropriate or practicable, or would it be so wide as to have a likelihood of blocking blameless users? Any other advice? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The range 92.5.0.0/16 is probably too large to block. You can periodically check the contributions from that range using this rangecontribs link if you wish. If in the future you find that he is trying to actively edit some Scots-related article (making several controversial edits per week) you could let me know or make a new request at WP:RFPP. If the problem is still going on in three weeks I'd suggest you file a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations just to simply the recordkeeping. I can assist with the report if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The link will be very handy to keep track of where he's popping up. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, just to keep you updated, Cassandra has been persisting in their socking, largely with blatant soapboxing across several Scotland related article talk pages, including a transparent attempt to ostensibly suggest one change whilst slipping in another in their suggested wording (the first easily shown to be factually inaccurate, the second fitting the pattern of their soapboxing). The articles he is targetting are increasingly distant from the more central, pertinent ones, Scottish language and History of the Scots language, to the point of even greater redundancy of their posts (lately Scottish national identity and Scotland in the Late Middle Ages?!) presumably in an attempt to evade scrutiny. There is no attempt to focus on improvement to the articles, just a personal reflection based on their own impression. I have posted four warnings for "Using (a) talk page as forum" in just over a day, two each at User talk:92.5.12.6 and User talk:92.5.6.144, with notes at the latter linking the two sets of edits.
If, following any further like activity, I were to formally report this, as the recent edits are split across two IPs would it require a Sockpuppet investigation for action to be taken? The quacking is ear-splitting though. I guess this would only result in sanctions against the IPs in question as he'd pop up elsewhere but it would be a start in building a case. Any thoughts?
Incidentally, I did some further trawling to expand the list of IP edits suspected of being the same editor, per [19]. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It's good that you are keeping on top of this. The category at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 92.5.15.139 will serve to document the extent of the problem. I've blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. The rangecontribs is here. Let's see if that does any good. I don't think that leaving any more warnings for this editor is worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Not knowing how IP addresses work and out of interest, is that a slightly different result than the similar range ending in /16 that you mentioned above? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The /19 range contains 8 times fewer addresses. You can see from the rangecontribs that most of the edits seem to fit the known behavior of Cassandra. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it seemed to be a closer fit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hi mate!

I want to report another edit warring between me and User:Edward321 , he was reversing all my contributions even if they were inevitable as that route in this article Pernik which you can see is wrong and you can be sure about it just with a simple look at the map of the Balkans.

PS: Please take a look in my case again if you have some free time. The reason I edited this article is because as I stated there official language of a state can't be a language that didn't exist in that time. I think it makes sense :) . I you still don't get my point I will give you the example with Ancient Macedonia we don't use the nowadays Macedonian language to identify them, but the Ancient Macedonian. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudbulgarian (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

PS2: If you look at the talk page of User_talk:Edward321 you will see that the other person who was involved in the edit warring MacedonianBoy is trying to "advise" Edward321 to edit another page that I have contributed to. The reason for all this is that the Macedonian version of Wikipedia is strictly controlled by a group of users that keeps everything about the Macedonian history in the way the Macedonian government likes it, which is completely different from the real history. Again about Independent Macedonian - the idea for this state belongs to Ivan Mihailov, ethnic Bulgarian as it is stated in the article, in this video from 0:57 minute to 1:07video there is an interview with him where he clearly states his Bulgarian identity. In my opinion, I hope you will agree with me as well, the nowadays Macedonian language has no place in this article. Thank you very much for your time. Proudbulgarian (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Admins are unlikely to be sympathetic to hairsplitting as to who was or was not a Bulgarian or a Macedonian during the period when IMRO was active. That article explains why the nationality issue was so complex. Use the talk page to get consensus before making any charge regarding nationality. If admins become convinced that you can't edit neutrally in this area, you might be placed under a topic ban. As you know you've already been warned under WP:ARBMAC. If you make any further undiscussed changes at Independent Macedonia (1944) you are risking a sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, can you please tell me what happened with this user Edward321 he is reversing all my contributions... Can you check his account or at least tell me how to report him. Thank you.Proudbulgarian (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
You have not made any effort to resolve this at Talk:Karposh's Rebellion. Why not start a thread there? You could notify him at User talk:Edward321 that you wish to have a discussion. Should the article assert, as you prefer, that Karposh's rebellion was a Bulgarian uprising? Previously the article only stated that it was a 'Christian anti-Ottoman uprising'. Given your interests and point of view, it may not be easy for you to reason neutrally about this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ed. Thanks for taking the time to review the EW/HOUND issue between myself and Cantaloupe2 and for providing advice on my Talk page. We have already gotten into another content dispute here, though it is at least not as obvious as the CrashPlan issue.

Sorry if I am asking for baby steps here - Cant is my first time going through dispute issues, but am I handling this right? Do I need to take it to DRN? It's a small thing, but I might as well go through the motions. I have already given up on too many arguments with him because I just wasn't interested in doing battle over it. Corporate 00:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider making a list of the examples concerned at Talk:Astroturfing. If you do succeed in arranging for outside input (as in a WP:3O or an RFC) you will want to present the questions to be decided in a brief way so that others can look them over and comment. At present I have no idea what the dispute is about. It would also be good if you would propose your changes first on the talk page before making them. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I just setup an RFC. Corporate 02:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ununpentium

I've agreed not to edit any articles or templates related to Uup until 20 Nov. But there is a serious mistake in the ununpentium article. The last reaction on the page mentions 132Sn, which is a very short-lived isotope (see isotopes of tin) and could not possibly be used in such a reaction. The page should be corrected by removing the last sentence ("One way to create 299Uup would be:") and the reaction. Double sharp (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Answered at User talk:Double sharp#3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you and  Done. (I'll still keep away from the Element 115 in popular culture article, though.) Double sharp (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Blacklight Power

Hi, you put a protection template on Blacklight Power saying it was the subject to a WP:ARBPS. Could you direct me to the appropriate ARBPS discussion please? I couldn't find it, but may be looking in the wrong spot. Thanks. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The subject of Blacklight Power is a company that claims to produce energy by a mechanism that is not accounted for by standard physics. The USPTO would not issue a patent, according to the article, because: ".. the applicant was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry". That would seem to place Blacklight Power in the same category of articles as Perpetual motion. If you want to read the text of the ARBPS decision, you can find it at WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. One of Arbcom's findings was: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... I looked there but couldn't see anything relating to BLP. Is it an archived case? Can you point me to where it is exactly? As for USPTO, you (and the article) appear to be operating on out of date information. But given I can't get "bullshit" quoted from a blog out of the lede, I don't like my chances of making any more substantive changes at this stage!! Here [[20]] is the patent. Presumably this renders it no longer within the realm of perpetual motion in your mind? Are you happy to make the relevant changes to the article (given I can't)? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Semiprotection might not be needed if the IPs working on the article would engage with others in a search for a talk page consensus, one to which all parties would defer. Editors who want to work on highly contentious topics are well-advised to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you can reasonably characterise my work as not attempting to engage with others. The difficulty has been getting them to engage with me on the salient points. I am attempting to improve the article - and a whitewash or POV account does not make for a good article. Are you saying you wont make the changes, nor remove the protection? Or do you think it appropriate for erroneous information to remain? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If the other editors don't find your arguments convincing, that's not a problem that I'm willing to solve for you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not the problem I'm asking you to solve. I'm asking you to either make the edits yourself, or let me do it. Please note that: i) you have not shown me to be a vandal; ii) have not shown me to be unwilling to engage with other editors; iii) have not accepted that your own justification for the semi-protection is based on outdated information; and iv) that the page is still protected. So you leave me in the position of asking you to make the changes, or remove the protection so that I can. Or are you saying that the only way I can continue to edit the article is to create an account? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to remove the protection or contribute yourself, can you indicate when it will lapse and I can resume editing? I believe that my attempts should be viewed in a constructive rather than destructive light, and my subsequent attempts to garner any responses from co-editors on the Talk and NoticeBoard pages appear to have failed in the absence of me being able to edit (update: Ooh! someone has replied). I might also draw your attention to the following: Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. I think I have provided sufficient evidence that this is a valid content dispute - please advise if you think this is not the case. Thanks. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your five reverts starting at 02:21 on 7 November suggest to me that you were edit warring on this article. That takes away any defense of good-faith editing. If you can get consensus at Talk:Blacklight Power for a change to the article, use the {{editsemiprotect}} template to get the change made. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Since when did BRD = Edit warring? Did I violate 3RR? No. Did I try pretty hard to engage other editors? Yes. Was I vandalising the page? No. Was I genuinely trying to make the article more encyclopaedic by removing "Bullshit" quoted from a blog from the lede? Yes. Did anyone ask for the page to be protected? No. Are you effectively privileging registered users over an unregistered user in a valid content dispute in violation of policy? Yes. Have you addressed any of the points that I've raised with you in trying to resolve this matter? No. Have you assumed good faith at any stage? No. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. 05:52, 1 November 2012 (edit summary: "toned down dismissals of 2009 and added validation claims from 2012")
  2. 07:39, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 520863813 by LeadSongDog (talk) Let's take it to talk")
  3. 08:16, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521639561 by Bhny (talk)You inadvertently reverted more than the refs - please take it to talk")
  4. 08:25, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521640166 by Bhny (talk)please take it to talk - or edit instead of reverting since you are also reverting valid material - happy to discuss")
  5. 11:32, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "reworked lede to accomodate more current WP:RS")
  6. 02:21, 7 November 2012 (edit summary: "gentle change to lede to remove emotive language - no other changes pending talk.")
  7. 01:45, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521767937 by Bhny (talk) a blog is not a proper source - please discuss on talk")
  8. 08:06, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521951547 by History2007 (talk) Please look up the meaning of 'unjustified' then read the Talk page.")
  9. 10:02, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521965554 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) Note to History2007, DV's was an unjustified edit. There is a discussion underway on Talk, please engage in it.")
  10. 02:01, 9 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521977142 by History2007 (talk) Quality trumps quantity")
That looks to be ten reverts by you at BlackLight Power beginning on 1 November. Can you indicate which of those reverts were supported by the consensus of other editors on the talk page? A version of the article which is supported only by you and not by anyone else is unlikely to survive. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not familiar with tag team editing? I was (and am) engaging with editors. Most of my early attempts have been dismissed out of hand, seemingly without giving any thought to what I was trying to achieve. Nobody engaged with my arguments or evidence, they just reverted. If I left their version, my attempts at discussion were ignored - reverting generated enough interest for them to at least come to the Talk page. One editor openly expressed their exhaustion at trying to "defend" the page on a notice board and called for other editors to help. I recognise that one voice does not a consensus make, but I believe I am making (slow) progress. There are obvious issues with this piece: it has obvious unencyclopaedic parts, and is obviously out of date. How do you propose I go about remedying those flaws when I am up against a group who are determined to 'protect' it - warts and all. I am not partisan in the BLP debate - I am neither convinced BLP is right or wrong. The problem is that the other editors are convinced of the latter, and so to them I look like the former. I also recognise that it will take time for them to see that the edits I am proposing are actually fair minded, not a whitewash or POV puffery. However your block severely limits my scope of action in that I can't make modest changes that will demonstrate my point through iterations of BRD. So while I may seem like a pain in the arse, my intentions are quite reasonable - and in my experience it sometimes takes a great deal of persistence to break through some people's mindset for them to see that just because you're not entirely in their camp doesn't mean you are in their enemies camp. I just want a good article. The topic is of interest to me, and this article doesn't do it justice. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Our policy does not require that we let you revert the article indefinitely. Your best plan is to try to persuade other editors on the talk page. If you find that nobody shares your view on this, you should let it go. EdJohnston (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Our policy does require that unregistered users are not needlessly treated as second-class editors. You are being unreasonable. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
A registered user who reverted as much as you (without waiting for support on the talk page) would be in the same amount of trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I seem to have triggered a punitive streak  :-) I always figure with WP there are two kinds of pigheadedness - intentional and accidental. I'll assume this is of the second kind and wait patiently for your ban to expire. Thanks anyway. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
On reflection, "pigheadedness" is stronger than I meant, so I hope you recognise there was an underlying good will in my comment above. Apologies if that wasn't clear. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello,it looks like the case is with you now.It's not the case regarding reliable sources.The matter is little different from what User talk:Ashermadan is thinking then please check edit summaries by me with proper attention and his talk page too.After that,whatever you would like to decide,I will accept without any problem.Thanks---zeeyanketu talk to me 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello sir ,my intention is only fixing references and write the lines in a complete and proper manner .Others lines would be add too.But in between ,he started reverting in aggressiveness.I offer him discussion for why i was doing that but he refused to listen.---zeeyanketu talk to me 06:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 18:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

---zeeyanketu talk to me 18:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

By a vote of 8-0 in response to a request for clarification, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Jab Tak Hai Jaan

Please give a look at edit warring section of Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan and provide a solution.---zeeyanketu talk to me 05:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If the other editor is actually leaving, as he says, I don't see the problem. As for the protection, it will expire on November 17. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Did I do wrong in editing a subsection entitled "Augustine of Hippo", which I found under a higher category section entitled "Contemplative differences between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity", and which I did not notice was part of a very extensive still higher category section entitled "Eastern Orthodox Church"? Is all that extensive section, including even its statements about Western views (not Eastern views about Western views) out of bounds for me? I presume in fact that I am not free to edit there. See also User talk:LoveMonkey#Edit regarding Western theology. Esoglou (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please take this to some other admin or to WP:ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the time and attention you have given. I regret that your patience has understandably been worn out by LoveMonkey and me. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Request protection against vandalism "2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea"

Kindly see the talk page where I have written about how that article is being subverted with half-facts, biased comments and also quotations of legal experts who are Italian Govt legal advisors ! Please help on what can be done. I am too new to know who to proceed. THANKS ! 87.64.53.178 (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute and not a case of vandalism. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. You may find it advantageous to create an account. When you negotiate with others, it is a disadvantage to have a fluctuating IP address. Your post above shows that you have a red-linked talk page. Not having a fixed talk page means there is no practical way for others to leave you messages. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I am one of those who beg to differ with editor 87.64.53.178, so I put on relevant talkpage a Request of Comment, in order to receive other editors input.2.40.81.135 (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou vio AGAIN

I actually was not going to report this and or just ignore it however Esoglou decided to accuse me of edit vio on my talkpage [21]. I can only guess this is to cover up the fact that Esoglou actually committed the restriction vio with this edit here. [22] This dif from him [23] is where he made an edit to the article under section 5 of the article. Section 5 is under the header 'Eastern Orthodox Church, look at the article table of contents. Again I was just going to ignore what he put in the article after I restored the subsection header about the Eastern Orthodox practice of hesychasm being rejected by the West. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please take this to some other admin or to WP:ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I need to know what other Administrator you would suggest since you have been the one responsible for the agreement and enforcement in the past. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Please use your own judgment. The previous restrictions are in WP:RESTRICT and any admin can enforce them. It seems to me that a misunderstanding about the table of contents would not be that hard to rectify. Why don't you ask Esoglou if the problem still exists, and if so, can he recommend a solution. It should not be unreasonable to expect the two of you to work out differences of this magnitude. If you ask Esoglou and he is completely uncooperative, then you might consider other steps. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That 3RR report I made

Seems sorted,I've commented there now that it can be declined. Thanks for reminding me, appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Given that I feel a personal need to remain logged out of Wikipedia for the present following the ANI episode I have therefore blanked my user page including a recent reply to you which you may not have seen:

Thank you for the link (whether he's a PhD, MD, or whatever is clearly immaterial here, btw) and the pertinent question. At a very rapid glance, the article does indeed seem similar in approach to, say, a chapter of a book providing a reasoned summary of the literature, together with some viewpoint comments, and therefore, imo at least, effectively meeting WP:MEDRS. Whether or not it's an appropriate source for clinical claims such as these I'm not altogether sure right now. My own preference (and this is admittedly a personal one) would be to use a review like this in a thoughtful editorial way in conjunction with the Cochrane reviews and other meta-analyses etc. (Fwiw, I never opposed use of this source for the more general information currently provided in the first sentence: ie Several meta-analyses have shown psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy to be effective, with outcomes comparable or greater than other kinds of psychotherapy or antidepressant drugs).

Perhaps I should make a general disclaimer here: I do actually have an open mind on the relative benefits of therapies, and recognize that they may be effective irrespective of the scientific validity of their theoretical constructs. My only concern in starting the talk page thread was to try to improve the way the current evidence is reported in the article. WP:MEDRS does seem to me to be the right guideline to follow for that (even though it isn't pertinent for many other parts of the page).

I'd also like to thank you for the dialogue which has helped revive my feelings about contributing to Wikipedia after some somewhat painful thoughts tonight (it's now several hours past my normal bedtime). Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again, —MistyMorn (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Cache

Hi Ed,

Thanks for reading through the 3RR. Am I still able to contribute to the talk page? Or just avoid that article? Is Ring getting a similar statement? Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You could still use the talk page. If you accept the deal I'll then decide how to approach Ring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DRN Bitcoin case

FYI: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Bitcoin as an investment (DRN case filed on a page that you had protected).

Note: although the case currently says "Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments" DRN generally welcomes brief statements by admins who had previous dealings with the page or the editors, even if the discussion has not been officially opened. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning

By mistake I used 2 computers, but most of my posts have been from this computer, and I will be strict with it from now on. I agree that the matter should be discussed as you pointed out, and some people have already voiced their opinions on the talk page. Thank you for the intervention.187.36.81.70 (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Cisplatine War

Daniel Stowell cites as a reference for his statement the following: "Ron Seckinger, The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republic, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984), 59-73." The book "Balancing Evils Judiciously" focuses on Zeph Kingsley, but throughout the book Stowell explains on events mentioned in the Kingsley writings. One of these is the war between Brazil and what Kingsley calls "the Free Republic of Buenos Ayres" (i.e., the Cisplatine War). This is the full text of Stowell's statement:

  • "The war between Brazil and the Republic of Buenos Aires stemmed from a longstanding Spanish and Portuguese rivlary over the Banda Oriental, the area of modern Uruguay. In 1816 Portuguese troops from Brazil occuppied the area during the Spanish American wars of independence. In 1821 the area was incorporated into Brazil as the Cisplatine Province. In 1825, the Republic of Buenos Aires took advantage of a rebellion in the area to claim the Banda Oriental as part of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. This action amounted to a declaration of war, and Brazil reciprocated six weeks later. Contrary to Kingsley's positive portrait, the war went disastrously for Brazil. Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries."

So, as you can see, my actions are perfectly justified as the information is accurate and well-sourced. The IP editor, on the other hand, bases his arguments on original research and his self-proclaimed nationalist agenda ([24]). I know you meant well, but now is a good time to please correct your mistake, block the editor for edit warring, and restore the material. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please add this information to the article talk page. It is not up to the admins to make a decision in a content matter. Nothing forces any given source to be included in the article, especially one that seems to be giving only a high-level summary. If there is a dispute on whether the Stowell source is good for this assertion, the matter can be raised at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
As you can see here ([25]) and here ([26]), the IP editor does not actually dispute the veracity of Stowell's statement. He only wants the article to present things how he wants it, based on his nationalist perspective. Based on this situation, it is a good time for an administrator to step in. Again I suggest you to please enforce the 3RR block and let the IP editor think about his actions. By not enforcing the block, you are pretty much telling him "it's all good, go ahead and continue with your nationalist position". Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I personally think that User:Lecen could be helpful in this discussion, since he is the main author of some featured articles on Brazilian history. Can someone get hold of the Ron Seckinger book that you mentioned above? If Stowell is actually relying on Seckinger for his information about the Cisplatine War, then going to the real source could be beneficial. You could also ask User:Cambalachero for his opinion. From a look at his user page, he is more likely to be connected with Argentina than with Brazil. If we have people participating with a variety of different national affiliations, we should worry less about nationalism. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Lecen constantly demonstrates an unstable behavior and a problem of Hispanophobia. Added that he has openly stated he does not know much about the war. Therefore, I prefer to avoid dealing with that editor. As for the article, if you (the administrator) will not block the disruptive IP editor, then I simply prefer to step away before I am the one ending up with the block. Ultimately, it's the article which loses a valuable piece of information. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This may seem frivolous, but could you consider working on an article where you don't dislike so many of the other editors? If you can't find anyone to support you on the talk page, taking things to AN3 is unlikely to get what you want. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I dislike Lecen's behavior, not him as a person. By the way, since when is he considered a one-person majority? Cambalachero agrees with me that the text is relevant; we only disagree as to where it should be placed. That's 2 and 2, if you want to play sides, but that's not what Wikipedia or this matter is about. The IP editor claims that the information is incorrect because the Ph.D. historian did not get a Ph.D. in "military history". The IP editor next decides that Stowell is not an "expert" because Stowell's statement does not agree with his opinion on the conflict. He proclaims that he has other sources to demonstrate otherwise, and yet up to now only provides his original research. This is all just plain absurd.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Cisplatine War, part II

Contrary to what the poster MarshalN20 is claiming, I am a responsible poster, and I stand for neutrality and impartiality as much as possible. Don't distort what I said MarshalN20. I did not say Stowell is a good source. He is not. It does not come from someone expert on the subject, nor from a military historian, he never wrote about the Cisplatine War, nor is the book written by him (the book is not specifically about the conflict).

As a proof of my willingness to compromise, I agreed on posting it as suggested by Cambalachero, i.e, not as a big-quote text, which is entirely misleading. And I am not basing it on "original research", as falsely claimed by MarshalN20, I based it on facts. If the Brazilian army was weak, so was the Argentine army. If the Brazilian army did not have control of events, neither did the United Provinces army. They did not expel Brazilian troops stationed in Uruguay nor did they put an end to the blockade: on the contrary, by the end of the conflict the United Provinces lacked a fleet.

MarshalN20 posted this from Stowell: "Contrary to Kingsley's positive portrait". As one can see, Kingsley gave apparently a positive portrait of Brazil during that conflict. One can see Kingsley had a positive portrait. As mentioned Stowell is not an expert on the subject, posting his opinion as a big-text quote is misleading, so much so that Lecen has agreed with me on it.

A final note, I'm not a nationalist. I just don't want anti-Brazilian sentiment to distort what happened. My comment in the page of MarshalN20 relates to the fact that from what his editing suggests, if the United Provinces had paraded in the capital of Brazil like Brazilian troops did in Buenos Aires, he would not hesitate in posting a pic of it. I've never cared to post a depiction of the Brazilian troops in Buenos Aires during the Platine War, because I'm not a nationalist. And this is what I was trying to show to him.187.36.81.70 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Over the past couple of days I've encountered two cases where people used outright hate sites as sources on article talk pages. As you can imagine, I find that unacceptable. Where would I report something like this? The articles were ARBPIA related, but I'm not sure which exact remedy they are violating. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any more details? EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
One example is this, where Dailycare uses radioislam.net. It's a well known hate site, but even if someone doesn't know that, a cursory look would suffice. I pointed out here that he might want to look a bit closer at what he's using, for which he accused me here of objecting to it just because it has the word "Islam" in the URL, but continued to argue it's ok to use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I have left a note at User talk:Dailycare#Mentioned. He is only using this website as a convenience link for a passage from Simha Flapan's book that the hate site claims to be hosting. One might take this to WP:RS/N if needed, but I imagine some admins would take action directly if the problem continues. To avoid the drama he should consider getting a copy of the physical book. If you want to change the accounting for Arab-Israeli history on a major article like United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine it would be wise to do some reading from a variety of historical works to assure you can write a neutral account. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, NMMNG asked for assistance to verify the contents of Flapan's book. I did a quick search and came up with that hit, where the text appears to be in-line with the text NMMNG wants to "verify". I didn't do a search about the nature of Radio Islam and didn't propose that the site be used as a source in the article. There are now three other sources in that discussion thread in addition to the one discussed here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that you have to use a hate site as a source because there is no alternative? Though I won't revert your change, I think you're exposing yourself to cricitism unnecessarily. If you feel that the content of Flapan's book is important to the article you should have other ways of getting access to it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, no I'm not saying that as we have other sources in that discussion as well, two of which I've produced myself. What I an saying is that was the first reference I came across when looking at the issue. I've now over-struck the text from this site on that talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for striking out the material from radioislam.net. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
It's too bad I had to come here for him to strike that out (without acknowledging there's problem with the site, unfortunately). Am I to understand that in the normal process of editing an encyclopedia I'm expected to open links with stuff like "The Jews behind Islamophobia", "What is this Jewish carnage really about?", "The Victories of Revisionism by Robert Faurisson", "The Jewish hand behind the internet", etc, right on the top of the sidebar? It's not like this stuff is hidden. I'd have to question the competence of someone who doesn't realize what this site is, and then when that's pointed out refuses to acknowledge it (he actually said I should thank him for it). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I trust that Dailycare is aware of the risk to his own reputation of using that kind of a site as a source for anything. Still, he took action when requested. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
So basically you're saying this kind of stuff is acceptable, or at least that there's no point in reporting it somewhere? I wasn't going to report this specific incident, as I noted on that talk page, but I would like to know for future reference. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the only person whose opinion counts. You might search through past policy discussions and see if you can find anything. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin

I've requested that the page be reduced to semi-protection at RFPP, which should keep socking in bay.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This has been declined. I suggested at RFPP that you take the request to ANI to gather a consensus if you still think the reduction to semi is wise. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

Ed, I'm not sure that RIR is living up to their end of the bargain. I can't act because I'm WP:INVOLVED, but you might want to take a look at it and do whatever you think is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The agreement was not to keep reverting the 'attack ads' phrasing but to abide by the result of an RfC. That deal seems to be holding. I am not happy to see continued warring on the article but it seems to be about something else. One option to limit this would be a month of full protection. Do you think that would be wise? EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless certain editors are banned from editing the article, full protection will only give the article a respite from the ongoing, almost interminable, disruption. Obviously, though, it's easier to lock the article than it is to implement a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I am happy to quit editing the article until 12:01 p.m. PST, my local time, on December 27, 2012, but I will continue to monitor and make suggestions on the Talk Page as well as the RFC pages. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Archived from User talk:EdJohnston/Anontalk

Many thanks & apologies to others who have commented, I found it impossible to make head or tail of where/who I should ask my question:
Itwould seem there is more than 1 actor called Colin Campbell, my father born in 1937 was indeed in a television program called A Family at War where I noticed the deletion, he is still alive but not too well so finding this was upsetting & incorrect. He also had a role in The Leather Boys if that helps to identify him
Thank you again for your assistance & hope I'm writing to the correct person!! I will also try to contact Kuru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee1957 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. I was unable to edit your other talk. So, I hope you don´t mind.

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

Eka-bismuth (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have read your response there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. As you know I am following your recommendations, so I am giving a rest to Element 115 in popular culture. Well, as you are a neutral part.., then (and I promise don´t bother again) may I ask you please a little favor? Actually I already asked this to another editor very earlier, but .. is kind of unlikely that help; and I don´t wish to bother other editors from that debate. So, there is a horrible article’s sentence in the introduction which needs to be fixed:
Could you (or a friend of yours) replace this sentence:
<Nonetheless persist accounts relating this element to the purported propulsion of UFO’s. Whereas for instance comes in the claim of the disclosure of secret studies such as a sketch showing mathematical equations for the Element 115 which denote its supposed use as driving force for interstellar ships.>
For something like this:
<In spite of this are found popular reports that for instance connect this element with the supposed technology used for propulsion of UFO’s. As well as there are allegations of classified researches about it, and even the supposed disclosure of a sketch showing mathematical equations which denote use of the Element 115 as driving force for interstellar ships.>
Please let me know if you can. All good. Eka-bismuth (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
As a 3RR admin I should not edit this article. But you can propose this on the talk page and someone else could make the change. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I see, thanks for reply anyway. However this replacement is a minor change EdJohnston, it is a single copy-edit. This replacement is intended to give readability to the sentence. There is not change of contents, therefore is not an issue to Talk page. So, would be possible you asking please to specific somebody who has good will? Eka-bismuth (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
As a 3RR admin I should not make even simple copy edits, since nobody may want to revert an admin who is active on the case. Why not wait and see if the problem goes away after more editors arrive and make their contributions? If it's a small matter of writing style it should not be that hard to fix. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, as you can see, it is not hard to fix, and yet that’s the puzzling situation. Besides, just to you know, actually was an editor from that AfD who have first asked me for fixing such sentence. He argued that this was important for that debate (now running). But as I am following your advice, … then… you know the rest. But why an editor would revert a minor edit making it again nearly illegible? Probably he would not have good intentions (right?). All good. Eka-bismuth (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


Edit warring complaint

Ed, I have put in the diffs. I'm afraid that I have literally never done this before, and I don't know to which box you are referring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. This is Edit warring 101, and its all new to me. Facepalm Facepalm 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I reformatted this. I'm sure it still isn't right. But I see you've warned our erstwhile editor. Perhaps he will get the message. If not, I'll be back. -- The Terminator 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Quack check

Hi, EdJohnston ... would you have time to look into this ? User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Reminder_to_self? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking-- I'm fairly confident on this one but understand the evidence is thin-- I'll keep an eye on it, and ping you if any copyvio issues appear (but I don't do images). If copyvio issues aren't occurring, it's not a big deal anyway ... Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra sock resumption

Hi Ed, it's no great surprise to me that the Cassandra IP editor seems to be back in action after their block. There have been a couple of borderline edits on talk pages, not directly regarding Scots language but in the same general sphere, posting for general discussion rather than any apparent improvement to the article (this and this). I tagged the IP's user pages as likely socks but didn't respond to or revert the edits. Perhaps they were dipping the toe in the water as the old pattern, soapboxing their pet grievance about Scots, has re-commenced, here. (Interestingly that edit didn't show up in the rangecontribs you had set, by the way.) They do not seem to have got the message from their block apparently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Now addressed by [27] and [28]. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Cronin, at it again

Hi. Thanks for deleting and WP:SALTing Cronin Economics. I just woke up to discover this. I recall a similar IP address leaving a comment on the talk page, in the form of a contested deletion, that was identical to the comment User:Kcron47 had been going around writing (that "you can still call him vile names" line or whatever it was) - would you mind checking the deleted history to confirm that this is the same IP? I'm holding off on any action against Kcron for now, but it would definitely be useful to know for sure that this is his sock. I'd also welcome any advice on the best way to proceed now - blanking an AfD through a sock could be seen as grounds for blocking, but he's only ever been warned for improper creation. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 11:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this IP was the last user who posted at Talk:Cronin Economics before it was deleted, and his final post was the same 'vile names' quote which the named account posted here. Let's see if there is any more of this, and if so, action can be taken. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you think this (from a different IP) passes the duck test? Only contribution from the IP so far, and two minutes before his quasi-reply to your warning. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Whois shows the second IP is from Plymouth State University in New Hampshire, which would fit with what Kcron24 wrote on his user page. I'm semiprotecting the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

IP edit warring over the map

Hi. We have two IPs, 46.241.171.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 46.241.169.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edit warring over the POV and OR map again. That IP range was previously blocked after this report: [29] The IPs make no attempts at discussion, which they were invited to do here: [30], they just insert the map and edit war to keep it. The article Armenians in Azerbaijan has recently been protected because of the edit war by the IPs, but the IP resumed the edit war there after the protection expired. Grandmaster 18:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Formerly the block was 46.241.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). I just widened it out to 46.241.128.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Let's see if that helps. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for help. Grandmaster 20:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There are more: [31] And this rv without any explanation or an attempt for discussion and building a consensus for inclusion of the map is quite disruptive, in my view. Grandmaster 20:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There's an edit war in progress on Armenians in Azerbaijan and Anti-Armenianism between Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs) and a Turkish IP. I find Proudbolsahye to be more a problematic user, as he picked the edit war from the 46.241.128... range IPs and makes no attempts to explain or discuss his edit warring over the map. He probably thinks that he can get it included by relentless edit warring. Grandmaster 05:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Falklands

Much as I dislike locking pages it is getting a bot OTT, so yes it may need locking.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nizami Ganjavi

Ed, please see here: [32]..user changes wording of the sources. Can you add that article to arbcomm related articles. Or perhaps if the new user violates edit laws again, you can warn him. In order to stop the vandalism I basically hid the whole "ethnicity" section in the title box despite the various strong sources (since it is constant source for vandalism), but if these problem persists than one should make a similar article to the Russian wikipedia [33]. You might to use google translator (for the Russian link) to see why the article is constantly vandalized by nationalist type users. The more I see such vandalism, the more I think an English version of such an article is needed.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I left a warning for Supremo1077 (talk · contribs). Luckily our Nizami Ganjavi article is very well referenced. Even so, the one in Russian does seem to be even longer and more thorough. When you say that an English version is needed, are you advising that we should translate some material from the Russian one? I wonder if you can read Nizami's work in the original. I suggest that you use caution in reverting Supremo1077 yourself since you're already in the ARBAA2 log. Consider reporting any further violations to the correct place and let others handle it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. yes I can read it in the original. Thanks Ed, since my response to your inquiry was long, I have put it here: [34]. Hope you get a chance to read it. But there are two Russian articles, one on how Nezami was used by USSR and now modern nationalist for petty nation building and distortion of history, and a separate article on Nezami. I have not wanted to create the first article (because of my distate for politics in general, specially politicization of history.. and I think for average wikipedia users, if they want information, such sources as the Encyclopaedia of Islam is a succint source and Wikipedia should reflect simply specialized articles on the subject written by authors who have written articles on subject..not some random magazine, website or book not having to do with topic), along with the other sources). The figure has been politicized enough: [35][36]. Again my longer response to your inquiry: [37] explains some more details. Best Wishes. --Khodabandeh14 --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I sent you an email..if you respond back..I can give you a whole list living specialist authors (Western authors who read the Persian language and who have written books or articles on the subject itself and know Persian literature) who will readily dismiss nationalistic distortions on the topic with their e-mails if you have future inquiries. I have corresponded with many of them including Dick Davis, Paolo Orsatti, Christine van Ruyumbeke, Peter Chelkowski, etc. There is a reason why Encyclopaedia of Islam does not mention any nationalistic fringes, because these scholars do not bother with modern nationalism. Best Wishes. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC) On the article being well referenced, basically all the sources are specialized to the topic with of course the newer ones (de Blois, Encycloapedia of Islam..etc.) given more weight. You might to keep today's version in mind incase you see in the future (say 2 years from now) all these references erased due to nationalistic editings/reasons. Thanks.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Again best wishes and thanks for your help.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive issues - Reply

Hi there ED, AL "here" (old acquaintance under a new name as you know!),

thanks for "butting in" on my talk page, i'll try as you say, keep it up from Portugal - --AL (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Accidental save

Hi, Ed, yes I accidently saved the dispute before finishing my extensive work, but it is now properly formatted and saved.Ackees (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

What is the policy on linking to an article in another language? On the Rumi article an editor has linked his father to a Russian article about his father(I guess?).[38] I do not know what the article in Russian is about or what it says. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the wikilink from Rumi's father's name to the Russian Wikipedia article should be undone. It might be OK to create a footnote in the Rumi article stating a few facts about the father, and include a link to Russian Wikipedia from there. Most likely the editor who added the link is in the best position to do that. He states he has en-3 competence in English, so you should be able to leave a message for him if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

See here how this user poisoned others users ears against me in uncivil manner instead of discussing calmly with me.---zeeyanketu talk to me 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please Zeeyanketu. You broke the 3 RR rule. You are a known distruptor. You engaged in personal attacks against me as evidenced by the Jab Tak Hai Jaan talk page. So stop being so uncivil and rude and learn respect for fellow editors. Ashermadan (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Also Pleasant1623 is mediating our "dispute". It is resolved now I think after other editors weighed in. Ashermadan (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WP tags

You are an administrator here? If I done anything wrong, please tell me what it is? I understand that there are all kinds of people in Wikipedia who rather attack personality of other user instead to challenge arguments on talk page. Please read my arguments on talk page and tell me which of my actions or comments was wrong. Oldhouse2012 (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You should follow whatever consensus is reached at Talk:History of Vojvodina#Move forward. It appears that others don't agree with you there as to which project tags belong on the article. If you continue to change tags without getting support from others, sanctions are possible. In particular, any more edits like those described at ANI are not in your best interest. If you want to keep working on articles in this area, avoid activities that could cause you to be topic banned. You have already been notified under WP:ARBEE. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Imitation is the highest form of flattery

but....hi ed - could you do some wiki-magic and look into this new account, created today, which seems to be (so far) created to just edit a very controversial page. i have a suspicion it is a current editor using a sock account. i could be wrong, but the coincidence is too great. thanks. the new account is http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Friends_of_soosim -- if you care, you can review the history behind it at Amiram Goldblum, his talk page, the editor rastiniak's talk page, etc. Soosim (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think you should rise this issue at AN/I this account should be blocked for trolling and CU.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
good idea. as experienced as i am in wiki world, i really try to avoid these wars and conflicts and methods to take corrective action. thanks. Soosim (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking into this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Elockid was kind enough to respond at User talk:Elockid#User talk:Friends of soosim. Meanwhile the account is blocked indef as a group account by FisherQueen. Clever! That saves me from figuring out whether it qualifies as a disruptive user name. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thanks! Soosim (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No I don't have any rights to the map. I just copied it from the source. It was a long time ago and I didn't really know much about the copyright laws. I guess it should be deleted.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 04:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Response

"Evildoer, please undo the new material which you added to the WP:AE report after it was closed. It will confuse the recordkeeping there. You can make these statements at Talk:List of indigenous peoples. Thank you,"

How do I do that? Also, how do I add a RfC to the indigenous peoples talk page?

Thank you,

Evildoer187 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you view the history of WIkipedia:Arbitration enforcement you should see your last edit at the top of the list. After the entry, you should see '(undo)' or some such. You could click on the undo. Or you can just ask me to do it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your undo. I notice that you've already opened an RFC at Talk:List of indigenous peoples#Include Jews as Indigenous to Western Asia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Damorbel ban

Thanks fo your tip about making a comment. I do not feel inclined to say anything. What I read of the entries in the Physics project page is largely comments about me and proposed actions to inhibit my discussions and editing. I would rather wait until there an actual developement before reacting. I do my best to stick to article contents when contributing and I don't want to change that position.

If you see any thing unsatisfacty in this I would appreciate a note from you. Regards. --Damorbel (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Request about Iğdır

Could you inform user:E4024[39] of the restrictions regarding the area of Armenian, Azerbaijani and Turkish articles. Judging from this edit[40], I found the reasoning to be duplicitous and questionable. Normally, I could care less about the modern era, but that does not justify the removal of a reference under clearly less than sincere reasons. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We are speaking about removal of a reference from the Iğdır article. The link in ref. 17 did not work for me. By searching the armenian.ch site I found (gsa rather than asa): http://www.armenian.ch/gsa/Docs/faae02.pdf:
  • We find on Page 32 of this document:
  • "On the border to Armenia in the vicinity of Iğdır, a 45 meter high, martial monument was dedicated to the alleged Turkish victims of an Armenian genocide on October 5, 1999, along with a similar museum. The monument consists of five crossed swords and, according to a spokesperson of the governor of Iğdır, it is also visible from the Armenian capital city Yerevan: "Whenever the Armenians look towards their holy Mount Ararat, they will see our monument" [92] The official opening took place in the presence of the entire military elite of Turkey, including the chief of staff Hüseyin Kivrikoğlu as well as president Süleyman Demirel. In his address, Minister of State Ramazan Mirzaoğlu claimed that between 1915 and 1929 Armenians killed almost 80,000 people in Iğdır [93]."
  • I agree that this seems relevant to the Iğdır article, assuming that it is going to discuss the monument at all.
  • When E4024 removed this reference from the article, his edit summary was "→‎The Genocide Monument: I removed a source because at a quick reading saw no reference to this monument. It is not an RS either." I will leave a note for E4024 and see if he wants to comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples - Israelites

I was wondering if you would be so good as to explain to me why you have placed full protection from editing on this article. Crock81 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This was decided at WP:Arbitration enforcement#Evildoer187 under the authority of an arbitration case known as ARBPIA. Please read that discussion and come back here if you have any questions. Feel free to give your opinion in the WP:Request for comment which is now open on the article talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Collapse a section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok, I was busy with life and missed this, so thank you.
Now I need to inform you that the 'edit war' was invented by Moxy! Nashidani, who I think has participated in every Israel-Palestine dispute going back to 2007 (as far as I looked past the 2008 ArbCom) is simply partisan!
The claim that I used 'biblical references' was also invented. They were added AFTER the reference to a published (i.e. reliable) source to simply point out where the cultural sources of the three-way division of Yisra'el comes from, the 'biblical reference' also happen to be the core text of the peoples, known as the Torah. One can hardly discuss 'Jews' without mentioning where the name Yisra'el comes from, can one? So the RfC starts with the NOTE: RELIGIOUS/BIBLICAL CITATIONS OF ANY KIND ARE NOT WELCOME HERE. ANY ATTEMPTS TO INCLUDE THEM IN THIS DISCUSSION WILL BE DELETED ON SIGHT. IF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE NOT DEMONSTRABLE ON THE MATERIAL PLANE, THEY DO NOT COUNT.!!! If I were a Maya, and was in a discussion about the Maya indigenousness, I would be precluded from using Maya writings also?!
Now I realise I'm being pedantic, but to me an 'edit war' is where at least two editors disagree on the content being added to the article. So WHERE is the edit war here?! I edited, and was summarily reverted. Evildoer187 did minor and superficial tweaking of my edit. All other users, I'll call an editor actual contributors of text, simply removed or reverted. I had not reverted anyone, but re-edited the entry seeking to clarify, naively thinking I wasn't explicit enough!
Now to the so called discussion on the talk pages (including archived).
I could be idiotic about it, and simply point out that the state of Israel has a population who call themselves Israel (pl., not "Israelis" used in English) or the Ivrit version of "Jews", Yehudim, and that their claim to the land was recognised by the then occupying power, the British Empire, with a wide acceptance of "Jews" as originating from Vilayet Beirut/Sanjak Jerusalem/"Mandate Palestine" geographic area in all of Europe where "Palestine" was used on the Christian maps invariably depicting Roman antiquity. The Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire also accepted the claim to name a few. The Arab leaders at the time ALSO recognised the land claim of the "Jews" they call Bani Isra'il, though I was informed again that "the Qur'an and any other religious scriptures have no place in this discussion"!!!(HaleakalAri) Not bad for eliminating primary sources that the academic disciplines accept, but Wikipedia does not. Is that a suggestion that I won't find an academic (reliable) source that uses the Quranic name, or just an insult of my intelligence?
But no, I play by the rules and provide reliable sources that clearly state the majority of "Jews" do in fact identify themselves as Yisra'el within the culture, and that as such they are indigenous to the eponymous land. LO AND BEHOLD, NO ONE CHALLENGES THE SOURCES! The challenge was in fact framed as follows

I have and will continue to remove all material that attempts to insert a thesis that has no basis on the RS literature on indigenous peoples. The several attempts to do this with 'Israelites' (ancient tribe) to make modern Jews 'indigenous' to Palestine is a blatant case of non-sourceable wp.editorializing or theorizing or wp.synth. It's a thesis with no support. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a case of "I ignore whatever you say because I choose to"! So ignore' the RS literature on the history of the Jews. The article is fallacious in saying that "The full extent of the cultural, linguistic, religious or other differences among the Israelites in antiquity is unknown." because it is certainly known to anyone who has read the "biblical texts"....which are not allowed as reliable references in Wikipedia! In other words, according to this article in the Wikipedia, nothing is known about the origins of the Israelites until "the defeat of the Kingdom of Israel in the 720s BCE" (neither referenced!) because the article Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) has a banner that reads This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view. (October 2011)
Of course the Wikipedia reader will then go and say to his "Jewish" acquaintance in say the workplace, "You have no past because Wikipedia says so!"
But, aside from being primary sources, the TaNaKh and the Talmud are also core sources of cultural knowledge! Don't bother looking for it in Wikppedia. In the very confused article on Culture, "Instead of defining culture as a kind of knowledge, McGrew suggests that we view culture as a process. He lists six steps in the process...", but of course the TaNaKh and the Talmud are also cultural heritage and cultural property! These Wikipedia can not deny! UNESCO says so, with international and national laws that exist which consider such denial racist and theft respectively regardless of the culture.
So...
  • "Israelites" is not an 'ancient people', but a word used in English to say Yisra'el; I think for the next edit after the page protection is lifted, I will use the later to conform with consensus on usage in the article. The same word has been in use in the Yisra'el communities in the land of Yisra'el and its diaspora everywhere as far as I can tell because ritual demands it, and has continuity from before 720BCE!
  • It is not a tribe, but a common name for a people of 12 tribes. At least one of the tribes, Levi, is different from the rest of the Yisra'el because it has no claim to actual tribal lands, living among the other tribes!
  • I provided two reliable sources that say the Israelites are indigenous, but I'm happy to provide more...if only someone reads them! Exactly how many sources are required to say the same thing before its acceptable as a fact?
  • Of course modern Jews are not indigenous to Palestine! Modern Palestine was invented in 1918. However, I wouldn't even claim them being indigenous to Syria Palæstina since that was invented following a Bar Kokhba revolt by the..."Jews"/Israelites! Torah in fact describes, and other "Jewish" texts date the exact time of their creation as a people, down to the birth time and place of their forefather outside even that area claimed for the five cities of the ancient Philitines! Because Aza (Gaza) was never conquered by the Israelites, and therefore not consecrated as land belonging to Yisra'el, Modern Yisra'el withdrew from that land.
It seems to me that Nishidani is so steeped in the political conflict that any mention of "Jews" anywhere must be contextualised by the Palestinians, and are combated by Wikipedia policies, as indeed his claims of WP:OR under which "banner" his 'assault' on my editing began. But, there is no precedence in valuing indigenousness of one peoples in terms of another!
Note the manner of this assault: the demand for citation to virtually every word, the crossing out of about half of it before producing the "bad writing" verdict (its a list entry!), followed by "essay constructed" claim, repeat use of "Jews", and never doubting the "definition" of the indigenousness although no single one exists. This isn't just "bad faith" or disruption, but out and out combativeness.
All these are technical mechanisms that in no way contribute to the article, or an attempt to edit.
The problem is undoubtedly, not ion the List, or my edits, but in the definition of indigenousness, and I had also attempted to edit the Indigenous peoples where even now definition is hard to evince.
When I started, none of the 'authoritative' definitions were quoted verbatim, and still aren't because I simply haven't had the time to do so. Moreover, no legal definition was provided, and for a national definition only that from the Philippines was used. I was in the process of compiling a list of 50 largest (land) states as representative of the global indigenous populations to produce some sort of summary/synthesis based on their definitions and those of the international orgs when the list was removed. Oh well. I was hoping for a collaborative effort on a large job that I wouldn't get in a sandbox.
The more specific issue to my edits in the List article is that, again, I can't see how and why the indigenousness of any one peoples can only be established by inclusion of another! Partisan or not, the "Jews" have a claim to a place of origin, and the Filistin/Palestinians do not. I created two sections for discussion, using the same objective and sourced criteria for inclusion, though I have already arrived at the exclusion of Palestinians (please read) as being a sub-group of the Arabs. I'm happy to discuss this though. However, the discussion ought not to be based on technicalities of Wikipedia policy, but actual knowledge of the subject, which is after all the purpose behind Wikipedia. I can't claim expertise in the discipline, but I didn't see anyone else claiming that either.
I had posted a message in the relevant project talk page.
Frankly I prefer talk page discussion to RfCs or AEs by the looks of them, but this one has descended into a structure-less subjective mess Crock81 (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
PS - Please also explain why this article falls within the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} criteria Crock81 (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Admins do not make decisions on content, so it is unnecessary for you to copy your content arguments here. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians appear to be seeking an advantage in discussions at the UN by obtaining the status of indigenous peoples. Which group is most ancient in Palestine, and which is a later arrival, carries some weight for them. Debates on including these two groups in List of indigenous peoples fall under WP:ARBPIA, in my opinion. The debate has attracted several editors who often participate on other I-P articles. A WP:1RR rule is used to limit edit warring on the other I-P articles so it should apply to this one as well. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Discussions at the UN? Firstly, these wasn't cited. Secondly, its irrelevant as the UN chose not to (p.4) have a definition of indigenousness.
How is the policy of WP:RS dependent on what the UN says on any given subject? Is Wikipedia apolitical or not?
Even if the "working definition" is derived from the UN, it is at best incomplete, and at worst de-contextualised! The encyclopaedic entry ought to be written based on evidence, not considerations of controversy at the UN, or do I have this wrong?
However, admins are supposed to look at editing behaviour. Your imposition of protection, prevents editing because some users simply don't like to see the entry for "Jews" under any name despite reliable sources. Either a population is indigenous, or it is not. That simple. Wikipedia is not a political organisation like the UN. It ought to be able to arrive at an objective definition of indigenousness, and apply it without bias to all entires on that list. I note that almost no other list entry has a reference, reliable or otherwise. This includes the most recent additions after my edits none of which have reliable sources.
For example, by the current "working definition" used in the list, in the Maritime Southeast Asia Malays are indigenous to Singapore.(Levinson, Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Group, 1998, p.278), but are excluded from the list. This has escaped anyone's attention while "Jews" have received inordinate attention because of political considerations. However, where is the Wikipedian objectivity?
For Kurds there is no citing of the page number where the Kurds are pronounced indigenous, so the criteria on which it is based can be compared and contrasted to the definition the same editor insists on using in the article as the basis for inclusion. In allowing this, you are in effect taking sides. Is this appropriate admin participation?
Assyrian cited reference comes from a short letter by the Sen. John J. Nimrod, Secretary General of the Assyrian Universal Alliance, which is hardly objective. It simply says that "In light of these historical facts and the overwhelming proofs that the Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriac of Iraq and surrounding territories are beyond any doubts (!) the indigenous people of Iraq.", citing similar archaeological evidence that can be cited for Yisra'el, i.e. "...One only has to take a shovel and dig it into the ground". Is that the proposed "definition of indigenousness" to be used in the article? Note the use of three different names of the people, of which one is from the 'Bible' and the other is used for the name of the font in which the Torah is written! So Chaldean Assytians are indigenous, but the Israelite Yisra'el are not? So much for not allowing 'biblical references' which seems to apply to my editing but not to others.
While you are at it, you may want to become aware of the Kurd vs Assyrian conflict such as outlined here and here and its historical context in the Assyrians, Kurds, and Ottomans: Intercommunal Relations on the Periphery of the Ottoman Empire, by Hirmis Aboona (particularly pp.102-103). WP:ARBKAA anyone?
The cited reference to the Marsh Dwellers (Ma'dan) – Arabic-speaking group in the Tigris-Euphrates marshlands of southern Iraq/Iranian border was in fact copy/pasted by the editor from the PREVIOUS version of the article without so much as reading the item! The relevant citation is on p.420, not p.425 which deals with Bedouin (since removed).
In any case, have you read the this document? Probably not, or you would have seen on page 86 the criticism of the US policy on indigenousness which

By limiting the definition of “American Indian” to existing societies, the U.S. government has actually denied the fact that people in North America prior to 1492 are culturally related to contemporary groups, and has excluded pre-Columbian peoples from being indigenous.

In the case of Nishidani, the same argument is used, but shifted to the 7th century CE.
Nor are you aware of the larger Islam vs everyone-else issue that had led to the only (prior to my editing) national definition of indigenousness in the Indigenous peoples article to be from the Philippines; nothing to do with the WP:ARBPIA. This is because the very same document mis-cited for the Ma'dan, says on page 319

The other issue is how indigenous peoples in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao will fare in the negotiations taking place between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Mindanao Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), in which the MILF is insisting that the definition of indigenous territory should be in accordance with Islamic interpretation, even though the indigenous peoples assert that they were there before Islam arrived in that area.

Just substitute the Government of Israel for Republic of the Philippines, and the Palestinian Authority for the Mindanao Islamic Liberation Front, because the nature of the negotiations is identical.
And what is that Islamic definition of indigenousness? In Malaysia,

...bumiputera identity...emerged first as a set of informal social institutions that identified a bumi according to religion, custom, and to a lesser extent language. As Shamsul (2004) notes, the bumiputera identity was only formalized in public policy following the riots of May 1969, a watershed incident...What is critical is that there existed a powerful set of cultural identifiers that differentiated Malays from non-Malays long before the Malaysian government chose to formalize such distinctions. Significantly, bumi status was determined by one's faith as a Muslim and adherence to adat, a type of customary law overseeing a whole range of social and economic activities. As will be noted in Chapter 5, however, this definition of indigenousness, and difficulties translating it into constitutional terms, have continued to bedevil efforts at nation-building in Malaysia. (Shoup, Conflict and cooperation in multi-ethnic states: institutional incentives, myths, and counter-balancing, p.51)

Whether we use the label indigenous, bumiputera, or taukci to describe this higher level of political belonging, the message is essentially the same: I am a member of a privileged community that you, as an ethnic outsider, are unable to achieve.(Shoup, Conflict and cooperation in multi-ethnic states: institutional incentives, myths, and counter-balancing, p.18)

This isn't a triviality because in Shari'a law trading is governed by the Mudaraba, Qirad and Muqarada (a Commenda), and if the trader is not a Muslim, there are religious restrictions that can be imposed on business activity until he/she either finds a Muslim partner, or converts to Islam. (Ahmed A. Fattah El-Ashker, The Islamic Business Enterprise, pp.75-77), so the Islamic definition of indigenousness is vital to basic lifestyle of non-Muslims in Islamic states where they are termed dhimmi. While the Malaysian constitution guarantees freedom of religion though making Islam the state religion, all ethnic Malays are considered Muslim by law of the Constitution, and Muslims are obliged to follow the decisions of Syariah courts in matters concerning their religion. The Civil Courts. despite being the supreme courts of the land, do not hear matters related to Islamic practices...such as business contracting in trade! The matter of defining indigenousness in some states has the same force as that of economic disenfranchisement! The UN failure to define indigenousness in fact promotes global economic disenfranchisement of the non-Muslims in all Islamic states with similar priority given to Islam in society and law. Wikipedia adherence to this serves the same purpose.
In allowing unreferenced, mis-refrenced and badly referenced material, but disallowing referenced material, you are being biased against my edits where reliable sources were provided, but ignored. In effect you are promoting Indigenism by other means, i.e. promoting editorial conflicts (see list there, including Assyrian nationalism and the yet to be added Kurdish nationalism), and I think this warrants review by yourself of your action and participation in that article protection, and if not than by ArbCom for encouraging breach of WP:RS policy. Crock81 (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't follow your objection. How can I break the WP:Reliable source policy by protecting the article? If you disagree with what is currently in the article, I assume you want to make this point on the article talk page and try to persuade the others that you are correct. If they accept your view, then an admin will change the article per the {{editprotect}} process. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Crock81, it's my impression that the following people are all you, based on behavior:
If you intend to participate on contentious articles you should limit yourself to a single account to avoid getting into problems with WP:SOCK. It may interest you to know that List of indigenous peoples has been tagged with the ARBPIA banner since April 16, 2011. The article was placed under full protection on seven different occasions in 2011. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, NOW I get it....you 'protected' the page without actually looking at the case in point! Or perhaps you are just biased as the rest? Let me make it very simple. I added Israelites as indigenous, while providing references that they do in fact consider themselves Israelites, and references that they are indigenous; the cited author literally said so. I also changed Bedouin to Arabians since very little convincing is required that Arabians are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula, and the Bedouin article says they are nomadic Arabs. My edits were then summarily deleted with extreme prejudice! I attempted discussion, but meanwhile Evildoer187 was screwing around with my entry, performing cosmetic surgery, and getting into a revert war with some other editors who a) invented use of 'biblical references' as a pretext for my edit removal, and then b) invented an 'edit war' when Evildoer187 restored my edit Then they claimed the inclusion of "Jews" (I had not included "Jews"), is only possible if Palestinians are included!!! (Its like the parent argument "You can have ice cream but only if you give some to your sister!" Then, while I couldn't edit for various reason over the weekend, someone else replaced my entry with several entries that are either mis-referenced, unreferenced or unreliably referenced. Then you step in and 'protect' the article, so the article has had my text which is reliably referenced and unjustifiably removed, replaced with questionable and equally dispute-filled entries, and you helped to do it. In effect you are helping to reduce the quality of the article and doing so through your admin privileges. But, its worse than that, since you as an admin are apparently (I have done a bit of reading) supposed to propose MEDIATION before slapping a two monthly protection on article editing, in effect a two-month article block on me, but you didn't. In my eyes this makes you biased and complicit in the WP:ARBPIA by clearly taking sides and being disruptive to boot, never mind abuse of blocking privileges without any possibility of me stating my case! Less in fact than even a transgressing editor would get in terms of editing rights. Meanwhile I'm supposed to 'convince' the utterly partisan users in the talk pages that:

  • a) although I have provided reliable sources that Israelites not just 'ancient history', and are indigenous to West Asia, AND
  • b) that I have reliable sources provided as references that make statements factual, AND
  • c) that no contrary evidence or reliable sources had been cited in the opposition to my edit

that I can actually E D I T!!!!! It seems this article requires me to jump more hurdles than in an Olympic steeplechase! And, this despite the idiotic definition that serves for the criteria of inclusion in the list. Had you noticed that the first part of the second sentence says "Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank"...BUT, the definition after the i.e. (second part) does not quote ANY of these organisations?! Instead it quotes Douglas E. Sanders, “Indigenous Peoples: Issues of Definition” (1999) 8:1 Int’l J Cult Prop!!!!!!!! Douglas Sanders was a Canadian law professor who worked for George Manuel, and he helped to draft the first legal proposal for indigenous self-determination in 1981. This paper was perhaps his last published work given he was born in 1938. Not only that, but though I don't have access to this paper, someone who does says that in the last paragraph, the one where the paper is usually summarised, Sanders makes the point "it is important to note that the principle of self-identification is an accepted practice and standard in the international sphere for determining the identity of indigenous peoples."(Tashi Phuntsok, Indigenous Peoples under International Law: An Asian Perspective, University of Western Ontario, 2012) This means that Sanders essentially agrees with the Cobo working definition and that of his successor Daes, that form the backbone of the 46 articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So, why is it that you suppose the mob which had attacked my editing are refusing to use the FAR MORE OFT CITED definitions by the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, as criteria for inclusion of peoples in the article, and prefer to use the obscure paper of a Canadian law professor in a Journal most Wikipedians can't access all that easily? (I will make the effort if I have to to find out what Sanders really said). I am now editing the Indigenous peoples article, and it didn't have these organisations' definitions. I have now added the Cobo working definition in full, the basic points derived from the second Special Reporteur Daes, and the pointing to the 46 Articles of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the all-important Article 33 that served as basis for many national definitions. In fact all three organisations agree more or less in their definitions, but ALL were excluded from the List introduction despite being cited as authoritative!!! So, I guess you need to make a choice. You can start behaving like someone who cares about every Wikipedia article content and objectively contributes to it, or at least let me return to editing, or you can keep your 'protection' and show just how subjective and biased you are in applying your administration privileges. Harsh words, but that is my perspective of your participation in this 'edit war'. Given I have an administrator to contend with in attempting to edit, and based on your reply, I may choose to invite you to an ArbCom 'discussion' to see if you can explain how it is that reliably referenced material was replaced with far lesser quality edits on your watch. It seems that one of the conditions of being granted administratorship is not to misuse the privileges to the detriment of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, and you are in breach as I see it. I hope you can prove me wrong Crock81 (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC) PS: The issue with accounts was technical, and as you can see I identified myself in talk as Crock8 where logged in as an IP, and have since subsumed that account for the Crock81, the user page having been deleted, so nothing sock there. And why was the Indigenous peoples article subjected to the ARBPIA banner? I hadn't edited ANY material remotely related to the issues there! Crock81 (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, I saw that and had read the nonsensical 'discussions' in the archive. I was rather hoping that each edit is considered on its own merit, and not prior article history, particularly since I did not participate in those editing discussions. Crock81 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PROTECT for the policy on article protection. If you disagree with my decision, you can appeal it, but if you do so you will need to give a reason which actually makes sense under the policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see a reason that makes sense under which you slapped protection on the article because no one followed the Wikipedia:Disputed_statement#Disputed_statement process! You don't see any sense in the above?
So before I embark on the request to lift the protection, I want to ask the following -
  • "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." - but I didn't edit-war with anyone, and Nishidani refused to talk! Consensus was impossible because my actual edits were not being discussed, so there isn't technically a "content dispute"! So what now?
  • "administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies" - but what policy did my editing violate? Yet you didn't protect my version, with proper reliable sources, but the later version with unreliable sources that do violate WP:RS. Why?
  • "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war", but the 'edit war' was not justified since a) I didn't participate and b) the version prior to mine was reached without rhyme or reason or reliable sources? So what version will you revert to after unprotecting?
  • WP:RS requires that "...all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Am I correct that this is not a requirement where lists are concerned?
  • Discussion in the talk page should concern itself with the edit in question, and the contributing editor, and not any-and-all possible tangents or those making minor tweaks?
  • WP:CON says "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." - what are proper concerns? For example Nishidani's first deletion of my edit was summarises as "20:14, 6 December 2012‎ Nishidani (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,091 bytes) (-3,784)‎ . . (There is no source listing Israelites as indigenous under the lead def. and the world org sources. As per talk) But of course the lead definition is contradictory to the World orgs that are not cited in the Indigenous peoples article. This, aside from ignoring that my cited sources said just that.
See the FAQ on the Indigenous peoples talk page which informs that
Q: Why does this article only include "minority" ethnic groups?
A: Because we apply the definition of "indigenous peoples" used by international legislation by UN, UNESCO, ILO and WTO, which applies to those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a part of. - we, the Wikipedians, because no such formulation is available from any of the four listed organisations. It rather assumes blanket indigenous helplessness in the face of colonial Europeans snapshot-in-time, which is rewriting history. The Tuareg were not subdued until 1917, but re-started seeking independence in Western Sahara in 1960! The Gurkha were never conquered by the British Empire. The Thai retained complete independence even under the partial occupation of the Japanese Empire during the Second World War. Therefore the definition used by we, the Wikipedians is at best misleading. The very fact of the post-colonial movements of independence and creation of new post-colonial states suggests that the indigenous people are not always the helpless and marginalised populations Wikipedia makes them out to be. Consider the Han who are now the majority in PRC, having overthrown the Manchu minority which had ruled Imperial China during European colonial period. Where are the Manchus on the list as a minority, and the Han as a past colonised indigenous majority?! Where are the Koreans that were the indigenous colonial minority of their peninsula under the Japanese Empire? The entire Indigenous subject area in Wikipedia is just rendered unencyclopaedic by such we statements.
  • The next question is therefore - how can I reach consensus if the very basis of arguments on which the opposition to my edits is founded is a complete and utter invention, i.e. improper concerns raised?
Where and how do I appeal the protection (doesn't say on WP:PROTECT)?
I want to take this article back to restoring my edits, and if anyone wants 'consensus', they need to address THAT, based on the merits of the cited sources, and not their opinions.
Can you help me with this? Crock81 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Please take this to some other administrator, or file an appeal at WP:AE. Your continuation of a content dispute on my talk page makes no sense. My proposal in WP:AE#Evildoer187 of full protection of the article received no objections in the discussion there. Another administrator, User:John Carter, supported this idea. Admins can't please everybody. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I will do that since you don't get it. I wasn't continuing content dispute, but reminding you that you, as an administrator, are not supposed to 'please' anyone, but a) evaluate the dispute, b) propose mediation, and failing that c) take action to support Wikipedia policies and procedures. Instead you chose to take sides, and support those that do not follow Wikipedia policies and procedures.
In any case, at least procedurally you failed since though I was obviously involved, I was not notified of either the RfC or the AE, and had no opportunity to participate. Your protection was therefore based on 0 analysis of the issue at hand that cause the Nishidani vs Eveldoer187 revert war Crock81 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Forcing editing through threats

Hi, I would like to ask you to take a look on recent developments which I consider a serious violation of Wikipedia guidelines. User Ubikwit posted some king of warning/threat on my channel page [49] in order to influence my opinion regarding the subject in his favor, through threats. Similar warring he posted to user Eveldoer187 talk page. Also, in a way of WP:CANVASS he posted a message on user Yuvn86: [50] asking for support to enforce pressure on other editors. The same pattern was used previously [51] he is labeling editors as liars, despite being warred [52] Please check this issues, because this is not the way of conduct that is acceptable by our guidelines.--Tritomex (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Ubikwit suggests he is going to file a WP:RFC/U on both you and Evildoer187. Let him proceed with that if he wants to. Such a request needs a second person to certify it. We can only speculate it if he can find anyone else to support his view. He's an example of a rather new editor who arrives on Wikipedia with strong views but may not have enough command of English to explain his position well to others. I hope that some of the people working on Talk:List of indigenous peoples will try asking for help from experienced editors. Both User:Moxy and User:Maunus are very-long-time editors who have been active on the page. I have not checked where they may stand on the current dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This has gone on for too long

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Either_include_both_Jews_and_Palestinians.2C_or_neither

I would appreciate your input on this matter. I feel this is the only way to resolve this dispute once and for all. Including one group and not the other will just continue to make people upset. It is absolutely imperative that we remain neutral and not take sides here, especially when it relates to what is perhaps the longest, ugliest, and nastiest conflict in modern human history.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider opening a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. That project has not been very active lately but in the past they have done good work. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I opened a thread there yesterday, but they don't seem particularly receptive to it. I am primarily concerned because we don't seem to be reaching any kind of agreement, and it's just been an endless bicker-fest between myself and several others. Obviously, this is a hotly contested and sensitive topic that has been the center of never-ending controversy for several years now (from what I hear, this has been ongoing since 2006). I have expressed my desire to end the arguing once and for all and work towards building consensus for something I know that the majority of us can agree upon, since a large portion of us had earlier agreed that we should leave both Jews and Palestinians/Arabs out. However, partisans on both sides are determined to keep the argument going in hopes that it will eventually net them a victory. I am especially worried about Ubikwit, whose posting habits towards myself and several others have taken on an increasingly aggressive tone. A good number of his posts also contain conspiracy theories that are highly reminiscent of classic antisemitism, and this has become a concern.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

AE case

Hi EdJohnston, Please could you take a look at this AE request filed against me [53]. User:Grandmaster is trying to misrepresent my comments about his manipulations in a discussion as personal attacks. Thanks! Sprutt (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification on WP:ARBSL

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment for clarification on the scope of the topic ban placed upon Brews ohare in the Speed of light case. As you have recently participated in an arbitration enforcement request regarding this case and precipitating the clarification request, your comments would be welcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples

I've just noticed that one of the comments I'd attributed to Tritomex was a case of mistaken identity, so I sent an apology.

With regard to Evildoer187 however, I can see that he has even contacted you here, and every other editor contributing to the Talk on this article. Aside from his flooding the Talk page with information, he has failed to follow the editing rule of placing new text after old text, making it extremely difficult to follow the discussion, and he has refused to correct that practice, which is against the policy stated at the top of the page, even though I and Moxy have warned him about it.

P.S. Do not break up my edits here in a manner that obscures who write them and when.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Can we get you to go back and fix your most recent additions - because your inserting replies in the middle of peoples post - thus we as readers have no clue who said what. pls reply after a post not throughout the post.Moxy (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not the only person to have editing problems with Evildoer187, as the recent AE shows, as well as the discussions between Yuvn86 and Evildoer187 on both of their respective Talk pages, also in relation to related issues. It is not clear whether Yuvn86 would certify a request for comment on user against Evildoer187, but there would appear to be a possibility of such certification based on the forgoing. I'm not trying to cause trouble here, just rectify editing practices and behavior. I was under the impression that it was required to issue a warning on a user's Talk page before initiating an administrative action.

At any rate, I have posted an RfC based on two official UN sources that afford Palestinians recognition by an official indigenous peoples' organization, a criteria according to Moxy which would qualify inclusion of the Palestinians on the list.

As per all the other RfC on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indigenous body - so no change from the norm.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Evildoer187, I don't have time to make a career out of editing this page, so after a period of due consideration for comments to be received under the RfC, I intend to edit the article page in a manner such as to include Palestinians on the list on the basis of the official UN sources, and open a dispute resolution case if some reverts the edit. Would there be anything in such editing that would not be in accord with "great correctness"?

Perhaps you could offer further advise as to how to proceed in the correct manner in such a case.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It turns out that I misidentified the quote from Tritomex that I had in mind in notifying him to cease and desist his attacks against me after being asked to comment on my edits by Evildoer187. One main problem with the following edit is that it is indicative that reliable sources that have been cited on the Talk page are not being taken into consideration by these editors in the course of the conversation. I will continue the explanation after quoting the edit by Tritomex.

Ubikwit Wikipedia can not be used as political battle ground and for taking sides in certain political conflicts in this way. If you belive that "Israelis colonize Palestine in the colonial enterprise involving Christina missionaries" you should avoid editing Wikipedia because this kind of unbalanced ideological POVs,personal political attitudes are not allowed in Wikipedia. To claim that "Zionists were colonists," and similar unbalanced POVs which are insults against an entire nations, is something that you can do in political organizations (if you live in democracy) bit not in unbalanced objective sites like Wikipedia is. Btw I would say the same if someone would deny the right of Palestinians to exist, or call them as a nation -colonizers.--Tritomex (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)</blackquote>

There are a number of sources cited on the Talk page that address the problem in similar terms (colonialism, Zionist colonization, Jewish settlers, etc.) one such title is found under the section“Revised Section for the Inclusion of Palestinians”:

<blackquote>Forman, Geremy; Kedar, Alexandre (2003), "Colonialism, Colonization and Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The Zor al-Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya Land Disputes in Historical Perspective", Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 4 (2): 491–539 DieWeisseRose (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 April 2011</blackquote>

Another reliable source published by an academic press, which is cited at least twice on the Talk page, contains numerous references to Zionist colonization.

Amal Jamal (17 March 2011). Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel. Taylor & Francis. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-136-82412-8. (See pp. 47-49, in particular.) One sentence states, "Palestinians in Israel had lived in Palestine thousands of years before the Zionist colonization of their homeland", and another, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants".

The book by Jamal also contains numerous references to the Palestinians as "indigenous" from multiple scholars. Though I've yet to read the book, perusing it on the Internet would seem to indicate that it is an important study that supports the inclusion of the Palestinians on the list with respect to international law.

Search results for "indigenous" in Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel See the section starting on p. 47, "Indigeneity and the right of self-government", in particular.

With respect to Christianity, aside from Truman one could point to the 19th century movement Restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land.
Accordingly, the comment by Tritomex would seem to indicate that he, like Evildoer, are choosing to selectively ignore sources that do not fit the goals of their agenda. I don't see any good faith in edits such as the above which appears to be based on the editors emotional proclivity with respect to his religion. The characterization of "Zionist colonization" is widely found in reliable sources that have already been cited on the page and are capable of being perused on the Internet. I have provided a number of other relevant references from my library, well-known history books on the topic that I first read years ago. And with respect to Christianity, there are many sources, such as Restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land]].
I do have a question for you, if it is not misdirected insofar as it is being asked from your Talk page.
In light of the full-protection status of the page, what do I have to do in order to edit the article to include Palestinians on the list? What is necessary for consensus? In the case that I am not able to build consensus and carry out the edit, what recourse is there simply to filing a dispute to have the matter reviewed. According to the comment of yesterday by Moxy, the sources I've placed in the RfC would seem to afford Palestinians the requisite status of recognition by an official indigenous peoples' organization--the preeminent such organization. --Ubikwit (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
I still suggest to everyone working on the indigenous question to consult experienced Wikipedia editors, and try to persuade them. I've mentioned above that User:Maunus and User:Moxy have been around a long time. I see that User:Dougweller has commented in one of the discussions; he is also an administrator. Check page histories to see who else who has been active recently. You seem to hold a strong POV yourself, as Tritomex has already observed. Articles usually achieve good content in the I-P space only after a lot of bargaining. In this process, strong POVs tend to get toned down. Have you persuaded anyone on the talk page to support your views yet?

Unlike Evildoer187, I don't have time to make a career out of editing this page, so after a period of due consideration for comments to be received under the RfC, I intend to edit the article page in a manner such as to include Palestinians on the list on the basis of the official UN sources, and open a dispute resolution case if some reverts the edit.

Are you stating your intention to violate the WP:Edit warring policy? If you hold an RfC, after a reasonable time you can request an uninvolved administrator to close it and state the result. That result will become the documented consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to gather some input, but maybe since it is the weekend the response to the RfC has been slow.
I did not mean to express an intention to violate the edit warring policy, just to inquire as to how to proceed, in the event of a lack of a clear consensus, with respect to the protection status of the page.
A number of people seem content with the current status quo, but I think it is clear from the official UN publications that there may be simply a lack of will to include the Palestinians on the list. If they are recognized by the preeminent official indigenous peoples organization, I should think that would not only merit, but require their inclusion on the list, so I was inquiring how to submit that point for administrative review.
I do have a strong POV, but I feel that I have provided adequate sources supporting it. It is based on history and the socio-political situation, which is what appears to be prioritized in most definitions and documentation from authoritative organizations. I did ask Tritomex to explain his rationale for prioritizing genetics, but he refused to provide an explanation.
At any rate, in light of the above-quoted edit from Moxy, there is a chance that a couple of editors will agree that the sources cited are tantamount to recognition by an official indigenous peoples organization, producing consensus, after which I would of course follow the normal procedure of closing the RfC, as per your suggestion, and using the "editprotected" template, etc.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Expect an RfC to take as long as thirty days. There is a bot which will remove RfC templates after that amount of time. In practice many RfCs reach a result sooner. The fact that nobody agrees with you yet might be a hint that you need to seek support from people of a more mainstream nature. Consider asking Moxy what it would take to persuade him. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Ed, there has been some discussion on the RfC, some of which has been informative. There is some question as to the solidity of the correlated sources I provided, primarily with respect to synthesis, and Doug has mentioned that tacit, which was my description of the degree of recognition in the RfC, is not equivocal with "reliable".
That much was instructive, as the UN work on this topic has really only gotten underway in some respects. There have been other meetings since the one for which the 2009 report was generated, so maybe there will be other documentation forthcoming to shed some light on the current state of the discourse and status of the two respective groups.
Note, however, that Moxy, while seeming to be reasonable and making an effort to improving the page, occasionally even countering a misappropriation of his editing content by Evildoer187, has demonstrated a fawning appreciation of Tritomex because he has a "higher degree". It still seems to me that they are a group of editors preoccupied with a POV related to ethnicity that falls outside the purview for granting official recognition of a people as indigenous by the UN PFII, but I will simply wait and see what future official publications by the UNPFII show. --Ubikwit (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit



Ubikwit, your complaints against me are rather hypocritical. Not only have you flooded the talk page with WP:synthesis, original research, POV, crackpot conspiracy theories, and threats (whereas I have not done any of this, to my knowledge), you are also guilty of posting new text after old text (right after you criticized me for it, might I add). Not only that, you are breaking WP guidelines in lobbying people who are known to have had disputes with me as a means to apply pressure against me. It is for this reason that I have deleted your request for help on his (Yuvn86) talk page.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to address everything else, as I'd just be repeating myself for the umpteenth time. All I will say is that I am no longer going to tolerate your accusations of lying and acting in bad faith (also violations of WP: guidelines).Evildoer187 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

IP Protection

Ed, I would usually go to the other normal message board but this lies within AA2. See here [[54]]. The user is adding nationalist and non-authoriative sources from his own country which contradict Western scholarly sources. Suhrawardi is considered Persian/Kurdish (Iranian speaking) by mainstream sources but the user is trying to make him Turkish (i.e. Azerbaijani). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi for one month due to edit warring by IPs. All the sources that claim him to be Azeri were published in Baku. None are in English. This is just too much of a coincidence, especially for a person who is heavily covered by English-language sources. You might consider expanding your comment on Talk. If this article needs further intervention after the month expires it should probably be reviewed at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed.. I will add Encyclopaedia of Islam which states: "AL-SUHRAWARDI, &IIHAB AL-DIN YAHYA b. Habash b. Amfrak, Abu '1-Futuh, well known Persian innovative philosopher-scientist, and founder of an independent, non-Aristotelian philosophical school named "the Philosophy of Illumination" (Hikmat al-Ishrak". About falsification though this is reaching a stupid stage. This is happening with lots of such articles and that is why I highly recommend that non peer-reviewed books from the region should be excluded (specially those contradicting Western scholarly sources). See the embassy here: [[55]] "The ancient states of Azerbaijan, which maintained political, economic and cultural ties with Sumer and Akkad and formed part of the wider civilization of Mesopotamia, were governed by dynasties of Turkic descent. The Turkophone peoples that have inhabited the area of Azerbaijan since ancient times were fire-worshippers and adherents of one of the world's oldest religions". Unfortunately these type of users should know not to use local sources when writing in Wikipedia as they are mostly tainted with bias. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity

Here is a dif you may assess per your principle "If a person is truly editing neutrally, you should not be able to tell from a review of their contributions what side they favor." All the best. --E4024 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also please see Turkish-Armenian War. Do we have a concept of "acceptable sources" within the RS? Those sources who do not agree with genocide claims are "not acceptable"? The single-purpose user around there does not deserve any warning? All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Please link to the discussion you are referring to. I do not follow that article. When nations are accusing one another of misdeeds, outsider opinion is usually the best. When scholars from Country A declare that Country A is innocent, you can't always believe it. You can refer any source questions to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Stanford J. Shaw was not a Turk, was simply a man who had the courage to speak out... --E4024 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
It would help if I knew what Stanford J. Shaw had to do with this discussion. Feel free to provide Diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Only after less than one day I see that the user I was complaining about (user:GevorgA) has been blocked today for being a sockpuppet of user:TheShadowCrow, another user (I mean another "user name") with whom I previously had a conflict at "Ararat" and related articles. This puppet yesterday made controversial edits at the Turkish-Armenian War. I request you kindly to revert them all, as an admin, considering that you have not been involved in that article below. If you accept that using socks is a dishonest way to edit WP (imposing one's POV no matter what) help me actively. Remember, you just warned me on Armenian-Azeri whatsoever articles when I did not do anything wrong; except not accepting to engage with certain users. (I had told you in my TP that you could revert my edits whenever you wanted to help me but somehow you did not hear me then.) Now I am requesting another help, here in your space... Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
A review of Special:Contributions/GevorgA indicates that all of his changes have already been reverted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Forget it. --E4024 (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ed, would you please take a look at the editing on the Indigenous peoples page by Crock81 and the corresponding discussion on the Talk page under his "Cleanup-up notice". He has created that as a means to push POV emphasizing indigeneity of "non-discriminated peoples", or something to that effect. Under the United Nations Subsection of the Definitions section of the page he has insisted on including a POV paragraph that is unsourced and seems to blatantly fall under WP:OR, and he has reverted my edits even of formatting. I have tried to reason with him to no avail, and I'm sending you and Dougweller this request in accordance with the dispute resolution guidelines, hoping to avoid having to file a request for mediation/arbitration. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ubikwit, you should link to whatever edit causes you concern. See Help:Diff for how to point out a specific edit. Since December 10, editors have made 68 changes at Indigenous peoples. I can't go through all of them trying to guess which one you are referring to. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I see, he is making this difficult, too.
Here is the link to what amounts to the conflicted portion
actual Diff
though the edit I carried out prior to that was partly motivated by the poor quality and apparently deliberate omissions of more recent UNPFII publications in his still further preceding edit.
base Diff
When I made that edit, I didn't notice that the trailing paragraph was WP:OR that might have a POV angle to it and was unsourced, so I went back and edited that and added bulleting to the list in the blockquote.
After discussing the issue on the Talk page, I then added the heading from the source containing the bulleted list, and he subsequently reverted that edit, which consisted solely of re-formatting of the list (bulleting) and adding the heading from the source.
last Diff
Since that he has made 13 additional edits, many very minor, but I haven't looked at them.
I think that the discussion on the Talk page may be helpful in providing a frame of reference for the gist of what is is aiming to accomplish.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
It is not obvious to me that Indigenous peoples falls under WP:ARBPIA. Hence you should probably follow the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution. This is different from List of indigenous peoples which has been tagged under ARBPIA since 2011. Consider an RfC if you can clarify the issue at Indigenous peoples which concerns you. Also, consider reading the prior RfC at Talk:Indigenous peoples/Archive 3#RfC: Scope of this article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I will do that when I get the chance before proceeding to edit.
I would appreciate it if you could give me an opinion on the paragraph he is claiming is a "transition" paragraph. First, it transitions to nothing, and is not directly connected to the preceding text of the section in a readily apparent manner, and secondly, it is not sourced, so it is impossible to evaluate whether it is a paraphrase or not. In light of his statements on the Talk page, however, it is clear that he just made it up based on his claims of common knowledge, etc., which is WP:OR, correct?--Ubikwit (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
This is surely something that can be worked out by editor consensus at Talk:Indigenous peoples. Consider opening up a new section on the talk page and presenting the text of that paragraph for discussion. In fact, it appears to have some grammatical problems ("including due to the need"). Possibly some people new to the dispute may see fit to comment on it. The paragraph is the following:

Because most of the United Nations organisations' concern with international law and finding solutions to social issues such as human rights and self-determination, their attempts at a definition were necessarily narrow, including due to the need to find consensus through compromise made by demands of the UN membership as a whole, and concerned with the state of the indigenous peoples within these contexts as they are found since the creation of the UN, and during the turbulent years of the Cold War.

– EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think several of the editors working on these pages are native speakers of English. The current state of the paragraph is after he has modified it a couple of times in an attempt to correct if after I told him it wasn't even grammatical.
However, that is almost besides the point. I don't have time to be policing these people, and I'm not their teacher. So the only alternative is to have them redressed by administrative action, because I don't even know if they can understand what I am telling them on the Talk pages.
I think it best to make him source have sources prepared in advance to support his edits, as that will also contribute to solving the language proficiency issues. The paragraph has too much random content running in multiple directions, and it is in fact representative of the mess that needs to be cleaned up on that page.
I'm going to edit it again and restore the formatting, and file a request for mediation.
Incidentally, Dailycare has found some viable official UN sources on the corresponding List page, one dating back to 1981, no less. Those sources may help that RfC generate quantifiable consensus yet!--Ubikwit (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Mediation has to be voluntary. Good luck with that. Perhaps you can ask someone who thinks they understands the paragraph to summarize what it is trying to say. Administrators will not fix this; you need to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I see. I wasn't aware of that until I saw that two signature spaces were included. At any rate, I just filed the request: here
If that doesn't work, I'll try arbitration, and if that doesn't work, an RfC.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
The edit count for Crock81 on this article sine 15 December is up to 33. He is not only reverting my edits, but also one by Maunus to the opening sentence, one with which I expressed agreement implying consensus before restoring that sentence, deleting a paragraph that Maunus seems to have agreed should not be there on the Talk page, and restoring formatting. Then Crock81 again reverted my edit, claiming that the text from Maunus' sentence was redundant because it was to be found elswhere in the article, which was a false claim, not to mention running against the consensus to have that text in the opening sentence of the lead. Since Maunus has been participating in Talk page discussions, I was under the impression that some progress toward achieving consensus and normalcy in editing this article was being made. For example, Crock81 has insisted on a chronological ordering of international organizations without sourcing the reasoning for reversing the apparently long standing order in a counterintuitive manner, but since Maunus didn't have a problem with that I left it alone and simply asked him for his source. With respect to other points of contention however, Crock81 appears to be ignoring the gist of the discussions on the Talk page.
Is his editing practice in accord with all relevant WP?--Ubikwit (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I have a concern

It appears that the UNISPAL document relating to Palestinian indigeneity is an official UN document, whereas the other one clearly pertains to Bedouin Arabs. However, I am still wary of including them in the list of indigenous peoples without also including Jews, as they too meet all of the same criteria in the definition at the top of the articles talk page, and face very real threats regarding preservation of their culture, identity, and way of life in their historic homeland (which is Palestine, as consensus would have it), even if the UN doesn't currently recognize it officially for reasons we cannot ascertain for ourselves. The ramifications of implementing these edits runs the risk of violating Wikipedia's "maintain a neutral POV" provisions by implying that Jews are purely a foreign, colonial presence with no real roots in the region, which is demonstrably false and flies directly in the face of neutrality and facts, and is something that we on Wikipedia are compelled to avoid. This is especially relevant when one considers that there has been, and still is, a Jewish minority in what is now recognized as the Palestinian state before the initial wave of Jewish returnees to Palestine, as the UN document in question has recognized. Moreover, from what I can gather based on what is written at the top of the articles talk page, we are only using the definition of indigenous peoples posited by the UN as a blueprint for deciding for ourselves who to include. In that sense, it would appear that some editors (namely Ubikwit) are trying to shift the goalpost from "meeting the criteria for the international definition of indigenous" to "being officially recognized by the UN as indigenous", which is problematic in its own right. From the intro to the article itself....

"Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, i.e. "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of"."

As you can see, there is some criteria that they, along with Jews, do not meet (not being a national entity, for one). I feel that if the sole determining factor for deciding who to include on this list is "recognition as such by an official UN body" (which is obviously not what it says at the top of the articles talk page, nor did we use it as a basis when including any other group), that we should make that clear in the intro paragraph to the article, and adjust the rest of the article accordingly. At least this way, we can help to curtail further controversy and biased interpretations. Do I have a strong POV? Yes. However, I can assure you that I am acting in good faith and I'm only trying to find a reasonable solution and to make sure that any edit we do implement is clear, concise, balanced, and maintains a purely neutral point of view.

Thank you,

Evildoer187 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking to revisit a definition of the article scope that may have been agreed to in Talk:Indigenous peoples/Archive 3#RfC: Scope of this article. Several people there said 'Keep the narrow internationally recognized definition.' If you want this criterion revised, you need to get started on the talk page. At first glance it does not appear that either Jews or Palestinians would count as indigenous by the definition adopted in March. Certainly neither group were mentioned in the Indigenous peoples article then. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you might have misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to get the definition revised. I agree that the current one should stay, and that Jews and Palestinians should not be included in the list. In fact, I already posted an RfC on the talk page requesting that we exclude both (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Either_include_both_Jews_and_Palestinians.2C_or_neither). What I meant was that there are some editors, including a few who appear to have strong pro-Palestinian sympathies, on the talk page (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#RfC:_Should_the_Palestinians_be_included_on_the_list_on_the_basis_of_tacit_UN_recognition_since_at_least_2009.3F) who are attempting, without prior consensus, to change the criteria for inclusion from "falling under one of the internationally recognized definitions of indigenous peoples" to "recognized as indigenous by a UN body". Obviously, this is a problem, and I was asking for your help (as you are an administrator) in reminding people there that we are building this article off the basis of the UN definition of indigenous peoples, and nothing more. In addition, there are several problems with using the document cited (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/548E6E5758E89588852575A0004F1054) to implement Palestinians on the list, such as the fact that it is from 1981, predating the formation of United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues by more than a decade, and is thus likely to be outdated. As far as I know, there is no other official UN document that recognizes the indigenous status of the Palestinian people.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it, I haven't been following the discussion. If this is what's happening, you might remind people of the March 2012 consensus and ask them if they favor changing it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I've already reminded them of the definition we are using for the article. In fact, I did so before posting this on your talk page. I came here because I figured they would take you more seriously, as there's a segment of pro-Palestinian editors there who are accusing me of duplicity and POV pushing.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Ed, not that I suggest you do this exercise, but the story of the Indigenous peoples article is a long and seemingly troubled one. I had gone back a long way, and essentially found that there was a prolonged period of editing by several editors who had an agenda, not necessarily a disruptive one, but certainly not one that sought to produce a balanced article.
Fact - the consensus to Keep the narrow, internationally recognized definition the article scope] that may have been agreed to in Talk:Indigenous peoples/Archive 3#RfC: Scope of this article is in error as no such definition exists outside of Wikipedia! The Martínez-Cobo led Working Group definition was not adopted by any UN member-organisation.
Indigenous peoples is not an article solely contextualised by the political or legal aspects of human rights. The particular problem is the repeated paraphrase that indigens "remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state", which is of course true from the human rights perspective, but ONLY that perspective. It sets up all indigenous peoples editing as being derived of the conflict between indigens and 'dominants' and therefore can only lead to conflict in editing regardless the subject.
The article is intended to cover a greater scope that both indigenous and peoples suggest. However, the insertion of a paraphrased 1986 guidance (the earlier quote) as if a definition when such a thing was still being sought by the UN, was adopted by Wikipedia ipso facto in effect causing Wikipedia to supplant the deliberations and decision not to produce a definition by the United Nations organisations up until now!
This same paraphrase was used to force a narrow politico-legal criteria of inclusion in the List of indigenous peoples as if such a 'definition' was a fact. In effect it disenfranchised 6.6 billion global citizens, or at least those that through some mechanism, for example cultural, claim identity with indigens of a given territory.
I have sourced the paragraph in full, and reproduced it as the first quote under the UN sub-section in the Indigenous peoples, International law section where it belongs. It is adequate within this term of reference of discrimination in international law as applied to claimants of indigenousness sui generis, but it is not an appropriate definition to use for the entirety of the article which ought to include perspective views from other disciplines, with the preferred Wikipedia approach to general articles being multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and crossdisciplinarity. Presenting a predominantly politico-judicial view is contrary to WP:NPOV, the neutrality here being biased towards the intl' law.
The thinking that a 1986 'definition' NOT ADOPTED by the UN was a definitive one for the inclusion criteria of the List of indigenous peoples was the dispute cause there.
Moreover, the focus on the Israel-Palestinian issue was in effect hijacking the article as a single-issue soap box! The issue is not unique to the Israeli-Palestine conflict! Consider Volga Germans, of whom between 1992 and 2007, a total of 1,797,084 from the former USSR emigrated to Germany, and there are an estimated 600,000 still in Russia. However, for reasons of religion many chose to relocate to Steinbach, Manitoba despite the [[Right_of_return#Germany}right of return]] laws. This aside from the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) 9 million of whom became war refugees, ending the existence of Prussia.
Moreover, the Israeli Law of Return enacted in 1950, several years AFTER the creation of the Palestinian refugee camps, is 160 years late to the claim of first such legal act. Wikipedia informs that "What might be historically the first law recognising a Right of Return was enacted in France in 1790, as part of the French Revolution putting a decisive end to the centuries-long persecution and discrimination of Huguenots." Wikipedia suggest 35 countries have such laws, and the Liberian constitution (currently defunct and being rewritten) allows only people "of Negro descent" (regardless of ethno-national affiliation) to become citizens.
In other words, the claim of Diaspora Jews not being indigenous to the state of Israel is, in legal terms, neither unprecedented, nor valid in the international law context. Any recognised state can create its own laws through the political and judicial processes as to whom it grants right of entry and privilege of citizenship based on a given subjective criteria. Where indigenousness is concerned, the "issue" is a non-issue! Indigenousness is in a far more academic realm than that, and it is there that the sources for inclusion will be found for any and all entries on the list.
You slapping a WP:ARBPIA-based protection on the article simply reinforces the already deeply erroneous premises on which the article is based until now. The Pigeonholing process essentially politicises the entire article, and the dispute on the Jew vs Palestinian was simply one of several possible such disputes if the current article inclusion criteria remains.Crock81 (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Coates is arguing for a revisionist definition, not giving one that is widely accepted. His view could be noted in the article but should not determine its scope. The Unesco definition, the ILO and WTO definitions all give primacy to contemporary political relations, as do NGOs and as does the majority of the literature on the topic. There are no works to my knowledge that define the topic in as broad terms as Crock81 is attempting to do, since that leaves the concept vacuous and meaningless as all groups have "historical connections to a territory". The consensus from 10 months ago remains in vigor until such a time as you succeed in forming a new consensus, regardless of whether you think it was "racist" or ill-informed. Crock81 is clearly trying to make the topic wide enough for him to shoehorn in Israelis as a part of it in spite of the fact that this is completely unheard of in the literature. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Mentioned you here NE Ent 15:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey

I think I did something wrong, but I can't figure out what the problem is. Could you help me out here, please? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ubikwit

Thank you,

Evildoer187 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Case in point, this is his most recent reply to me.

":You obviously have too much time on your hands. Why don't you look for a job, instead of trying to impede progress of the universal consciousness raising exercise in which we're engaged here?

There is no established relevance for the date of establishment of the UNPFII in 1993, for starters.
Moving right along, the Israeli NGO you have introduced into this conversation would appear to be a nationalistic organization recognized by the nation state of Israel and so far removed from having any semblance of a status that would granting tacit recognition to "Israelis" as indigenous that it doesn't merit the electrons expended to display this text.
Furthermore, you have not demonstrated a relevant connection between the OFICL and "Jews" with respect to the question of (the recognition of) indigeneity, so you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous disimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it, just like those NGO directors, right?!
The administrators can determine during arbitration what relevance the definition you have littered this RfC with has or has not.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"

It appears that he is now resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks. This is becoming a real problem.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Evildoer187, I think your request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ubikwit is OK so far, but you need to fill in some more information. You need to supply diffs of how you have previously tried to resolve the dispute, and add your own name as a certifier. You have about 48 hours to find a second certifier. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All#User conduct for examples of other RFC/Us. In my opinion you should be going to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard before trying an RFC/U, because you will get a much quicker response there. Also, something that's really a two-person dispute will probably go nowhere with an RFCU. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but what's a diff?

As for the rest, I will get on that as soon as I can. In addition, I know that this isn't a two person dispute, as others such as Tritomex and yourself have warned him about his antagonistic behavior.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Evildoer187 and Ubikwit. Anyone who wants to edit in the I/P area needs to develop a thick skin. New editors who arrive with a single goal in mind, especially in I/P, should expect resistance. Be aware that the community may wind up losing patience with both of you, if you are constantly in dispute, constantly appealing to admins and not actually improving articles. As to the questions of Evildoer187. If you want to link to a past discussion thread, see Help:Link. To identify a specific comment by one editor, see Help:Diff. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit has not posted in this section. Rather, that was me copying his latest response on the List of indigenous peoples talk page and pasting it here. Some of us have grown weary of his abusive conduct, relentless (seemingly personal/political) determination, and POV pushing and find it to be highly obstructive to the goal of resolving this dispute peacefully and in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards of maintaining a balanced and neutral POV. This is why I'm trying to the best of my ability to keep things in order. This has proven to be an endless and frustrating task, and it is clear that he does not trust me (as evidenced by his outburst above) or anyone who disagrees with him, which is why I felt no other choice but to appeal to you for advice. I am indeed a new user, and so I'm still trying to get the hang of this site, as you can see.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this, providing pertinent references to past RfCs and the like, but I hope that--thanks to the more active participation of Maunaus--it is apparent that from where I stand this would seem to be a situation in which I am trying to defend against a two-pronged assault on the Indigenous peoples and the corresponding List article.
Today I discovered evidence online that clearly demonstrates that a source Evildoer187 has been pushing on the Talk page is a false source, as per this new section Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Unreliable_source Indigenous peoples List, Unreliable source.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The complaints filed against you are all related to your aggressive attitude, insults, threats, accusations of lying, conspiracy theories (some of them highly reminiscent of Protocols-style antisemitism), POV pushing, original research, synthesis, and your overall irrational and intransigent behavior for which you have repeatedly been warned. This is an encyclopedia, and we are compelled to remain balanced and neutral at all times. If you are not capable of this, then perhaps you should find a different outlet. As for Maunus, last I checked he supports the removal of Palestinians and Jews from the list, primarily for the same reasons I do.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As for that source, check my response to you on the talk page. I am human, and just as capable of errors in judgment as anyone else.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Whats a move and why did it involve deleting the thundercats page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon5162 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You must be referring to this technical move. I was asked to make ThunderCats be the DAB page, since it was not appropriate to keep that page as solely the description of the 1985 TV series. Since that time, another editor has created a page at ThunderCats which is intended as an overview of the franchise. He also restored the page ThunderCats (disambiguation). See a discussion about this at User talk:BD2412#ThunderCats (1985 TV series). Any further questions should be directed to User:BD2412 since he knows the most about this issue, and he is also an admin. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Why is Harry's Place (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Harry%27s_Place) blocked on Wikipedia? When I tried to edit the article, including a reference/link to the website itself, it wouldn't go through because the site is apparently blacklisted. I subsequently looked into the matter and discovered this...

"The reason I found was "used by long-term serial vandal". I can whitelist a specific page on the blog (is there an "about" or "info" page?) if you like. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess /about would work. I am really curious about this though as I wasn't aware that Wikipedia had a black list until now. Doesn't this mean that someone with a grudge can get a site blacklisted by spamming it maliciously? Is there a way to find out more about this particular case? The reason I am suspicious is the page has been repeatedly vandalised for some time." http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/04#Harry.27s_Place

Harry's Place has had a long history of being hijacked by political opponents, so I figured that this explanation might not be too far off the mark. Is this possible? If so, is there a way I can get this site off the blacklist?

Thank you,

Evildoer187 (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The link hurryupharry.org is currently on the spam blacklist. In November there was a proposal by Alexbrn to remove it from the blacklist. I don't see that any action was taken. You might ask User:Alexbrn if he knows the status of this. If he is not around, try asking User:Amatulic. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I saw both your implementation of the revert request on Solomon Adeni and also your subsequent note to Anthony. I thought that was extremely well handled, and I was interested in Anthony's response. This confirms my recent impression that WP:RM/TR is a more transparent and accountable mechanism than db-G6. Thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I would like to submit myself to Project User Rehab, if that's possible. It seems that I have gotten into a lot of disputes with other editors lately. Some of them are well respected around here, which served as a sort of wake up call. I seek a mentor who can help me get back on the right path. I have a lot to contribute here, even though my approach is somewhat overly literal/unorthodox, and I don't want to lose my editing privileges. I do have an assortment of learning disabilities, if that helps to clear things up.

Thank you,

Evildoer187 (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Evildoer187. If you want to find a mentor, consider Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. If you need advice on a particular issue, WP:Teahouse is friendly to newcomers. To get more used to article editing, you could find a topic you know something about which is not hotly disputed. The area of indigenous peoples would try anyone's patience. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I will look into it when I get the chance. In the meantime, I've been trying to stay away from the indigenous peoples article, but it's by no means an easy task when the neutrality of such a controversial article is being threatened by obviously malicious people. Up until now, I was the only one to persistently challenge Ubikwit on the talk page. Who knows what could have happened if I didn't? But I digress.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionable edits

I recently restored references and referenced information in the article Ali Riza Efendi removed by an IP.[56] I was quickly reverted by user:Cihangir21[57] who gave no reasoning in his/her edit summary. After a cursory examination of Cihangir21's edits, I noticed a pattern consisting of the removal of references and referenced information with no explanation or discussion(for example[58],[59],[60]. Since this editor has been around since 2007, I believe a notification of AA2 would be more than appropriate, given this editor's clearly POV editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples

The discussion in here (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples) is leading us nowhere. I think at this point we should just keep the article on permanent lock down. Editors such as myself, Moxy and several others have already walked away from the table. I have asked other editors to help us settle it, but they refuse to get involved. Can't say I blame them.

At present, Ubikwit has taken a UN document that describes Bedouin residents of the West Bank as "Bedouin Palestinians" and used it to argue for the inclusion of Palestinians as a whole. This violates the WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH guidelines, because there is no consensus, from the UN or anywhere else, that Palestinians and Bedouin are the same group. Moreover, we have no idea whether or not the comments within the document from a Bedouin resident that they consider themselves "part of Palestinian society" were simply grounded in consideration of themselves as citizens of Palestine. I have tried to explain this to him, but he doesn't seem willing to listen. He just keeps repeating the same arguments over and over again. I don't know what to do at this point.

Bedouins were included in the list before, so I think we should just put them back in and leave Palestinians out.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that editors will be able to agree. The article List of indigenous peoples is already fully protected, so there is not much more for admins to do. If you think you can get consensus for a change, you can make an {{editrequest}}. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd also like to mention that according to the currently agreed upon definition of indigenous peoples, official recognition by a UN body is not a prerequisite, or a decisive factor, for inclusion. Neither Jews or Palestinians are officially recognized in this way, whereas the Bedouin are.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Asking help with the behavior at the BP article's talk page

Hi, EdJohnston. I would like to ask you as administrator and more experienced editor on these issues to look at the BP's talk page. The issue is that a number of talk page postings are focused to the editors and not to the edits. In particular, I am concerned about comments against user:Arturo at BP. This user has made a public statement about his COI [61], his user name corresponds to WP:ORGNAME and he never edited the article but made all proposals at the talk page. Notwithstanding this, there has been comments at the talk page accusing him in violation of COI and editing on behalf of the company's interests. By my understanding, comments like these [62], [63], [64], [65] are not acceptable. These comments one-by-one may not violate any policies but all together, particularly taking account the fact that this editor have only add his comments on the talk page and made no edits to the article, they seems to be improper. It has been asked several times at the talk page to stop that kind of edits ([66], [67], and [68]) but these requests have been ignored. Therefore, I appreciate if you could assist to find a way how to handle this situation and to ensure constructive discussion without personal comments as it seems that there is no mean to post just another request at the talk page. As there is a content dispute (and I am involved in this), I do not want to do anything to escalate the conflict and therefore your advice is needed. Beagel (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I see there is a discussion in progress at Talk:BP#Request for comment. During the time I've had this article on my watchlist I've seen some rhetorical excess on both sides. Sometimes, I've noticed a blanket condemnation that did not appear well-sourced, and sometimes I've seen benign window-dressing about BP's good intentions for the environment. The RfC might be more successful if it could be worded more crisply. There is a danger that it will ramble and not go anywhere. But it's obviously the right idea to have an RfC. Regarding User:Arturo at BP it is hard to take alarm about the COI of someone who has clearly declared his COI and agreed to confine his editing to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree that the content issue should be resolved by discussion. This is not the reason for my posting and I mentioned it just for a disclosure of being involved in the dispute. I also fully agree with what you said about User:Arturo at BP. Therefore it seems unacceptable that some editors continues to comment him instead of his proposals. However, thank you for your advice and maybe you or some other admin will re-add this article into the watchlist to keep the situation calm and civil. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Balkan user

Hello Ed, I am having trouble with a particularly disruptive returning user who keeps removing huge chunks of sourced material on spurious grounds [69], then edit-warring over it [70] [71] (and incidentally re-adding large chunks of unsourced material as a by-product of a careless blanket revert) and then coming to my talkpage and oh-so-politely threatening me [72] and telling me to keep off Albania articles. This is never a good sign. Thanks in advance. Athenean (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

He will be over 3RR soon if he continues at Albania. I see that you've already warned him. There is a sock tag on his user page but no SPI report. Someone who wanted to research the sock issue might look at Special:WhatLinksHere/User:IllusionFinal. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ed, I am that "disruptive" user. The problem is that while the official census was released for Albania, Athenean keeps pasting different sources that only test SAMPLES and not exact such as Pew Research (in this case biased towards muslim population) and world christian encyclopedia (biased towards christian population). In Albania, there have been many different samples and they are all extremely disorienting, so I think its only fair that the census, which counts EVERY person be left there. The census is a head to head count, but Athenean seems to think it's a "biased" census, based on what, I honestly cant tell.

Look all Im saying is in every other article for other countries, Canada, Czech republic, etc.. They only have the census results. Other sources are only when talking about how religious those populations are. I only wish the same standard to be applied here. I explained (quite angrily, Im sorry for this) in the Albania talk page why each "bad" source was deleted, backed by sources and everything.

I honestly dont feel comfortable that Athenean being Greek and all is editing an Albanian article. It is the equivalent of a Palestinian editing an article on Israel. No matter how "objective" one might be, I just dont feel its fair. I know Athenean is a long time user, and valuable member of Wikipedia, but I think he's in the wrong in this case. All Im asking is that like every other country, only the census be published, and not other samples which time and time again, have proven to be extremely disorienting. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllusionFinal (talk • contribs) 05:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Illusion, your feelings are of no relevance here, and their only function is to strengthen the suspicion that you are not a neutral editor. Athenean, time to start that SPI. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Illusion, it's up to editor consensus whether the sample surveys deserve inclusion as well as the census. It's not your privilege to edit war to remove the surveys. There is no restriction making the nationals of certain countries unable to edit neighboring countries. Neutrality is expected of all editors. Anyone whose neutrality on Balkan topics can be reasonably questioned may have their editing restricted under WP:ARBMAC. Edit warring on a major article such as Albania doesn't put you in a good light. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • [ec--still adding for the sake of redundancy and chiming in.] Ed, I see you've handled Balkan-related sanctions before. Does Illusion need a reminder? Drmies (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ed all Im saying is that the census is an official count of the people, while the others are samples. What can a user learn if one source states 80% one religion and another 30%? Its extremely disorienting. All im saying is to only put the official census, as it is the only source that counts every single person. All the other ones are samples.

  • Drmies, I left IllusionFinal a notice of the ARBMAC discretionary sanctions earlier today. See his talk page. If there is brand-new-editor socking at Albania, I guess it's time to apply semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I see I probably wont get a response so let me reiterate my point again. If there was 6-7 different studies that estimated the U.S. population, all sourced, one saying 250 million, another 370 million, and so on. Why are those sources published when the official census is out? In this case the values of the samples fluctuate almost 50%. A fluctuation so great, that the article loses its intellectual value. Why put all those different sources, when there's already an exact number published by the government census? The disorientation of numbers frankly completely ruins the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllusionFinal (talk • contribs) 05:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

NLP

Ed, some advise please. Just before you froze the article user User:Reconsolidation made a series of changes which have also been attempted by two of his previous identities. Those are listed below. The link between each of those listed is evidence based. Reconsolidation starts as an IP from the Sydney area where all the four listed below came from, makes the same statements that they have edited before but refuse to say with which IDs and then follow a pattern of asking everyone to be reasonable, raising abstract questions on the talk page not related to edits etc. etc. Whenever this particular editor appears we also get new editors, both named and IPs who are more extreme and allow Comaze (to go back to the original name) to claim a higher moral position. We have at least one clear case of meat puppetry, and also links between the editor and WP:COI promotion of New Code NLP, advertising sessions with John Grinder (Inspiritive site linked to Action Potential/Comaze)

Previous IDs

  1. User:Comaze, subject to Arbcom injunction on NLP article
  2. User:Action potential (user page linked to Scott Coleman of comaze.com who also runs a web site promoting New Code)
  3. User:122.108.140.210
  4. User:122.x.x.x

Now the pattern has been that the minute it looks like the community is going to investigate the subject ANI or wherever gets saturated with comments that make it look like a simple content dispute rather than a long term pattern of disruptive behaviour. As that becomes clear all attempts to edit the article stop, and nothing happens for six months or so, then the whole pattern starts again. There is a lot of other stuff which I have notes of here.

Aside from the fact that I think the article should be restored to its stable state given the long term protection (which makes a lot of sense by the way so thanks for that), my real difficulty is to know how or where to raise the issue. A person who changes their name but does not edit in parallel is not a sock puppet, there is real evidence of one meat puppet but its fairly old, recent is more circumstantial. But the behaviour is clearly disruptive, is planned and executed over long periods and has material off wiki (web sites advising people how to edit to get NLP's version across, accusations of sock puppetry always taken up by at least one of the new editors to muddy the waters etc.)

My own view is that it really needs an experienced admin to investigate and then raise it at ANI or similar. However while I have been around a fair time and wasted far too much of it on this article, I'm not sure if that is the correct procedure. Your advise as I say would be appreciated. ----Snowded TALK 06:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is only semiprotected. If you think you see an organized campaign of editing to push a POV, that is something that could be filed at WP:SPI. It would be a fair amount of work, because you'd need to supply diffs. You would be relying on behavior to show the connection and probably couldn't expect any checkuser findings. If you can find something that looks convincing, you may be able to get action, either from admins at SPI, or through WP:Arbitration enforcement. The original Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming#Probation provides for article bans at the discretion of the enforcing administrator. I'm thinking that you could refile Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enemesis with some new content and asking for specific sanctions. Now that semiprotection is in place, part of the problem will presumably go away. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
My general experience is that SPI admins don't like meat puppetry but Arbitration enforcement makes sense. As you say it will be a fair amount of work, but it will be a nice little forensic task for Christmas. Thanks for the prompt response. ----Snowded TALK 06:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed, a request for help on how to get this article encyclopedic again, like all other Wiki articles. The first paragraph of the lead begins with "largely discredited", which seems to be Weasel Words. (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Weasel_words) "Largely" is an adverb giving opinion, like "hugely". The word "discredited" is also misleading. An example I saw here on Wikipedia guides used Bill Clinton being "discredited". One could be hyperbolic and suggest that Bill Clinton was "discredited". That's a vague term trying to blanket the entire person. Instead, if we spoke specifically about his statements to congress about not having sex with Lewinski, we could the cite impeachment directly related to those comments, because impeachment is a legal process of Congress (not a collection of articles on the internet). Citing many articles of people challenging NLP should be used in a "Controversy and criticism" section, not imply an argument in the first paragraph about the entire topic. The last paragraph should contain the challenge to the topic, as I see in most every Wikipedia article. The first paragraphs should do their best to describe what the topic is. Instead, the lead reads now more like a political bias, not an encyclopedia article.

Though there are a substantial count of articles added recently, cited to suggest criticism of NLP, many are not in the public domain and cannot be reviewed for the actual statements cited, to verify the article actually states what is characterized in the article. In just one article by Witkowski, which is public, the major premise of the author is false: a) each of us uses a primary representational system (pg 59 p1) b) those can be accessed by eye movments thus c) "All other hypotheses of the NLP system related to the arising of mental disorders, the type of therapy and communication, etc. stem from these basic assertions." That is like saying "all of hypnosis stem from how the patient's head nods." Though the article appears to come from a Polish Psychological journal, the author knows little about NLP and so psychologists, also knowing very little, must simply assume his major premise is accurate, and thus the whole study is accurate. This is the challenge of any article written. Worse yet, what would a peer review reveal, if there was one? And, this is just one of the examples of why citing many articles to prove a POV does not therefore make the POV correct, just because there are many articles. Most importantly for an encyclopedia, that list of articles does not color the lead sentence and suggest to the reader what they should think. A great example of the failure of "scientific papers" is the study suggesting depression was genetic. For many years doctors were telling patients of these findings, which could never be duplicated.

I'm asking you Ed because as one editor suggested on the Talk page, the NLP article has become a "hornet's nest", thus the semi-protection, I imagine. There is a clear POV that NLP is "pseudo-science" (wording that has been challenged) and it seems the article is meant to steer people away from the subject matter rather than describe what it is. The page immediately suggests to the reader that they should stop reading, with POV words like "largely discredited", "claimed", "says", "unsupported". If we saw similar words used on the Buddhism, hypnosis, chiropractic pages, it would clearly be POV attack. Please advise on how to civilly return the page to a Wiki encyclopedia article as it had been 2004-on, until this year.

I cannot find a single article on Wikipedia that immediately attempts to "discredit" a topic. I suggest the entire lead needs to be rewritten in the encyclopedic form of any other Wiki article. Also, more can be added that further describes the workings of the topic, so we can know what it is before we know what is being challenged. How can that be done? Eturk001 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider making these arguments at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Note that there are 21 talk archives and some of these issues have been discussed many times. If you are hoping to make a major change you should consider opening a WP:Request for comment. The article is now in the Category:Pseudoscience and this judgment appears to be based on citable mainstream opinion, together with Wikipedia policy on fringe topics. Whether published papers are openly available on the web is not a factor on whether they can be cited in our articles, per WP:V. Your own personal attempt to refute Witkowski's arguments would be considered WP:Original research. You would need to find a notable expert who has published his criticism of Witkowski. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ed!

What's confusing is that "largely discredited" has been pointed out many times, but there is the one person arguing that several articles justify "largely discredited". It's just banter and opinion at this point, from what I see in talk. How do we get to a decision if there's one opinion that their language is perfect? Who makes the change? Do I just remove that section with my argument post? With no one in charge, it's just who is most forceful. Steps please. Thanks! Want to do this and build a better article. Again, I've not seen one article in Wikipedia where the first leap paragraph discounts the topic, then it is hardly described. Eturk001 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You have not yet posted anything at all on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming, so it's early in the day to declare you should go ahead and change the lead. Your comments about 'who is most forceful' suggest you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Changes should be supported by consensus. This is especially important on a highly contentious article like this one. Admins will intervene if they believe that edit warring, POV-pushing, or misuse of sources is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, we now have 14 new SPAs created editing the talk page. List here. I'm getting the case on Comaze together but this is pretty obvious meat puppetry ----Snowded TALK 21:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_28&oldid=1207661627"