User talk:EdJohnston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Contents

[edit] Palkey

I am sorry, but I don't know why my page is getting deleted everytime. This is a personal project, and I wish to enlist on wikipedia, because of my university's requirement in this project. I am not advertising. I simply need thay of any user searches for it, he/she may know what is this. Please help me in this regard. I really need to get this done asap. Thanks. Mshabaz —Preceding comment was added at 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia records what the world at large has taken notice of. Student projects are usually undertaken for the benefit of the student, and they seldom gain the general attention from published media that makes them important for Wikipedia readers. If you can add reliable sources, e.g. books and magazines that have commented on the project, then we'll listen. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Respected Administrator, I am going to add reliable sources. Kindly unprotect the article. And I assure that I won't recreate until properly discussed with you. Please help me in this regard. Thank you once again. --Mshabaz (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mshabaz. Have you discovered any reliable sources that comment on the Palkey search engine? We need to know that outside publications have commented on the importance of Palkey. If you can list some of the sources here, I'll consider your request. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston, I am really glad that you are helping me out. Thank you so much. Yes, I have the following resources that are reliable. Palkey on Sourceforge, Listing and description on WikidWeb, and there is a review on Squidoo too. Please now allow me to enlist, this is one my project essential requirements. Please! --Mshabaz (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid these don't count as reliable sources for our purposes. Almost any open source project (that wants to) can be hosted on Sourceforge, so that is not a distinction. The material at WikidWeb looks to be self-published, so it doesn't reflect the views of the outside world about the value of Palkey. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops.. But any open source project cannot be listed on SourceForge. There is a panel of judges who interview why to enlist on sourceforge. And it is a hectic procedure. They investigate, looks at the code, confirm its existence and everything. So, this sourceforge source won't help? Other students' projects has only one link of sourceforge as external, and their projects are here on wikipedia for years. I am stuck again. --Mshabaz (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, it may not be trivial to get into Sourceforge. But I think you'll notice from other articles that being on Sourceforge isn't accepted as deserving a Wikipedia article. Do you have any named users? Have they published anything about their usage of Palkey in recognized publications? EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes they have but all of them are simply online in blogs and other sites. Please add my request, I will be really grateful. If I fail to do so, I will loss my project, and a great deal of effort will go waste. Please add my article w.r.t. the Ranking of Palkey reference.--Mshabaz (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Reply.... :( --121.52.146.78 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the question's been answered already. Wikipedia is diligent against being used by people who have promotional agendas, even those that believe they are serving a good cause. We have our article standards and we choose to follow them. Once your project has obtained general notice, as verified through publications that write about it, it will deserve an article here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi EdJohnston - thank you for helping with the revert warrior at Komotini. I especially appreciate your taking the time to read the talkpage and see what was going on. Single-purpose nationalist editors like this can be very tenacious and difficult to deal with, in my experience. Can you offer me any advice on how to deal with them in the future? Thank you, Kafka Liz (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's always good when you can point to a consistent naming scheme that's applied across a range of articles, and uniformly to all ethnic or language groups. (This happened in your case, and there was also the Gdansk compromise). I've worked on Northern Cyprus and it never really settles down; you just have to keep explaining things all over again when new editors arrive. See WP:RESTRICT for a few examples where nationalist editors were given topic bans. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again - Please accept my overdue thanks for protecting the page. It's been a big help. Thanks also for the advice and links. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Rochelle, New York

For the record, BlueAzure and I both believe that the user who requested full protection for this page earlier today is one of Jvolkblum's newest sockpuppets -- see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th). Much, but not all, of the anonymous-IP editing in that article appears to be by Jvolkblum. Many of the IPs are registered outside the United States and are presumably open proxies (for example, 203.158.221.227, who posted a message on this page in the sockpuppet discussion above, allegedly is in Thailand), and the edit records are similar to portions of the records of past Jvolkblum accounts. Many of the Jvolkblum edits are seemingly minor and productive (some actually are improvements to the articles). There seems to be a concerted effort to create clean-looking records for the new sock accounts. However, many of those minor and seemingly productive edits turn out to be small and unnecessary article rearrangements (making it hard to read the edit history), removal of article-improvement templates from New Rochelle and addition of similar templates to rival towns, and addition of image-size specifications on thumbnail images, all of which have the net effect of being annoying. The most damaging activity recently has been the sneaky addition of bogus references, such as in the recent Revision history of Larchmont, New York (see the edits and reversions by 203.158.221.227 and BlueAzure). Semi-protection on New Rochelle might help reduce the amount of article repair needed, but to be truly effective it would also be necessary to semi-protect related articles such as Wykagyl, New York (a neighborhood of New Rochelle), New Rochelle High School, Larchmont, Southern Westchester, and Wykagyl Golf Club. Additionally, there are a few articles such as New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York that probably should be deleted, but it's gotten hard to maintain a sensible enough perspective to evaluate them. --Orlady (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For your information, 203.158.221.227 is now a confirmed blocked open proxy.[1] -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your most recent comments on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th). I didn't see the 7 World Trade Center edit until after my post there, and I wasn't thinking about user-talk-page warnings at that particular time. I've gone back and left a level 1. --Orlady (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Recently there has been a flurry of "annoyance" edits, from a diverse array of international IPs, that I believe represent Jvolkblum editing from open proxies. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flurry of apparently related anonymous (possible open proxy) edits. (I'm a bit embarrassed for the impact on the people whose hometown articles got festooned with "citation needed" templates as a result of the fact that I had logged edits in those articles.) --Orlady (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for being reasonable during my sockpuppetry trial. I'll work hard to improve Wikipedia. Sgt. bender (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New suspected sock puppet case for Koov

Hi. In case it's of any interest, I've opened Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Koov_(3rd). Ha! (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kjngjkn reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Not that it really means much now but the duplicate entry that you removed[2] wasn't a duplicate. They were two separate reports of 3RR breaches by that user, one at Mac OS X and the other at List of sexual slurs. Sadly, I expect there will be more breaches as the puppetmaster keeps creating edit-warring socks. So far there have been 3 in the past few hours. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being over-hasty. Since he is now blocked I guess I won't bother to undo my mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SSP

Okay, I made a SSP case page for Sumerophile per your advice. I also see (s)he is back as TwinkelTwinkleLittleStar, edit warring the same old tired reverts once again. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block ofBtC

Ed, please review the block at [3]. First check the talk page for the article -- you seem to have blocked one side of the dispute only. I suggest you shorten it to time served. DGG (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with Jpgordon's unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for your message - apologies for the delay in replying. There are a number of reasons (I think) although I'm not completely clear with all the ramifications. Firstly, the autoblock is automatically disabled for some dynamic IP ranges - this is done by the software even if the blocking admin checks the "autoblock any IPs used" box when blocking. That would mean another registered account could take up the attack from the same IP, or the IP would be open to register a new account. The other possibility is that open proxies are being used - the IP gets blocked, but the user simply logs out of the proxy, gets a new one, and comes straight back in. Hope that helps answer your question. The public face of GBT/C 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User edits - help!

Good day. I saw your name associated with discussions about New Rochelle, Wykagyl, Westchester and I believe you are an impartial observer to the issues surrounding those articles. II feel it is important to recognize the apparent vandalism and policy violations being made by several users. Bluazur, Orlady, and to some extent HMishkoff work diligently to create a seemigly endless compilation of wiki-abusers and alleged violations, tracking every edit to specified articles and every user that makes one. The user intentions are deemed negative and the users are blocked. This structure enables the 3specificied users to 'justify' blindly reverting edits which, upon closer investigation, are acceptable, accurate and applicable. Such edits do not have issues of conflict with wiki-policies but rather, issues with the above named users themselves. There are multiple examples to support my statements to you, they merely require an objective mind to review all the facts at hand. Most recently Bluazur can be seen going targeting as many asscoiated & linked articles as possible (related to the above mentioned topics) editing info in ways he apparently favors; and working further to disect and break apart as much of these articles as he possibly can. Orlady can be seen monitoring and extraneously editing the same articles, as well as many additional articles found within the same categories. Her history shows a focus on editing articles abt towns within Westchester, for example, which she had shown no prior interest in, but which all show recent contributions from other users immediately before her first edits. Hmishkoff has a limited history but focused scope of interest against specific articles and topics, to which his edits are often to 'correct' user edits that appear to alter the information he favors. The three users show the most limited desire to contribuite to the specified articles.-210.2.128.106 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Insertformulahere

[edit] Re. COI report on Naked short selling about Patrick Byrne

No, I'm quite happy for the report to be closed, at least until this comes up again. Thanks for checking up on things. John Nevard (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My ANI nomination

Sorry but I have to dispute my ANI nomination. I have already addressed my points on the article's talk page on why the article fails WP:ORG, and noted the article probation of Falun Gong articles at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong regarding SPAs involved. I did not blanked the article Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong as claimed, but incorporated into the article Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China and redirected it there. The nominator Ave Caesar has a history of changing his identities (Nonexistant User) and I suspect is a bad faith nomination.--PCPP (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that one of the FLG SPAs redirected Sujiatun_Hospital[4] to Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, so I find it quite hypocritical for them to accuse me of anything.--PCPP (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You've got mail

Just fyi. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets?

Hi, I think there might be two socks of a single user at User:Rajat nda and User:RajTheGladiator. What do you think? I'm not even 75 % sure, but I strongly suspect ... both are essentially SPA's who have edited UST Global. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Even peculiar users sometimes agree with one another. It is possible they are company employees just trying to be helpful. I would look for nastier behavior, a little deception, at least some reverts, before leaving a {{socksuspectnotice}}. I agree that 'Raj' is suggestive, though in India it might be the equivalent of 'Bill.' EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10RR report

When a SINGLE user has made about 10 reverts (he made another one since the last report), it is quite obvious who is destabilizing the article. I don't see anything that would merit ANI or anything but a few days for him to cool down (he has had 5 blocks this year, this should also tell you something, as well as that he only intensified his revert warring after we granted him unblock after the last 3RR report for this page...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR counting automation?

Hi - in response to your comments on my talk page Since so often people dispute whether they have really made XX many reverts, it might be valuable (partly for self-defence of the admins who close those issues) to have a mechanical revert-counter. I think it could be done, though it's not trivial. If we can't do that, maybe a set of examples could be created so people are aware that reverts of unrelated material during the same 24 hours are still reverts. Yes However I find that if the diffs are properly set out one can quickly see with popups the effect of the edit, check the edit history to confirm and there shouldn't be any issues. The issues come when it isn't 4 identical reverts in < 24 hours. Counting automation won't help with edit warring against the spirit of the rule.

I think some of the issue is that editors like Kossack4Truth (thanks for responding to him while I was off-line) can be legalistic to a fault. Gaming the system whether intentionally or not or Wikilawyering. That has certainly been my experience as I have ventured into the world of 3RR enforcement over the last few days. They don't get that, while obviously it is very easy when there are 4 reverts, at least one having followed a warning, of exactly the same material within 24 hours it is too easy but if it is still disruptive and against the spirit of our policy on edit warring they may still be blocked. I can't think Kossack4Truth could hold his hand over his heart and say he wasn't. In my note accompanying the block I stated while you may not have technically violated the rule with more than 3 reversions within 24 hours, you have been edit warring against the spirit of wikipedia's 3 revert rule, ignoring the consensus on the talk page - what more does he want - an apology when I had already explained my rationale? Kossack4Truth isn't the only editor trying to be legalistic as I am sure you have found too. I also was less than totally impressed with User:Black Kite who stated (even after Jayron had reviewed my block) I disagree with this, and was about to unblock but got edit-conflicted. My take; Edit 11 was re-adding a ref tag. Edit 10 was removing a non-free image that failed policy (WP:NFCC). Edit 8 re-added the ref tag. (Revert 1). Edit 5 re-added the ref tag (Revert 2) but also removed the violating image. Edit 2 added fact tags and is irrelevant to the others. One could argue that a slight edit-war was occurring on the ref tag, but even then Wednesday Next only made 2 actual reverts as far as I can see, and was also editing in line with policy at the same time by removing the image. This despite two other users, one of whom was sympathetic with the editors stance, thought the editor concerned was edit warring.

The issue to me then is are we going to have a strictly legalistic interpretation of the 3RR always or are we going to have (as well as the lovely black and white version) Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. which I had already quoted to Wednesday Next before Black Kite went in and unblocked him. Regards --Matilda talk 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SSP case (and a RFCU) needs attention..

Due to my usual goto admin being personally involved with a suspected sockpuppet I've decided upon a raffle system to pick another admin to handle week old issues. You were drawn, sorry. The cases in question are for Greg Jungwirth, prolific if only in being incredibly annoying, generally abusive to me and another editor because we did something about him so is a bit bitter over it. Anyway, enough banter, the SSP is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Greg Jungwirth (2nd) and a RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Greg Jungwirth. The IPs for the RFCU are probably stale by now but that's what a lack of active admins do to things like this. treelo talk 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you filled in the SSP and the CU reports properly. Now we should just wait for checkuser, unless there is some current harassment that needs immediate attention. I don't see what could go stale here; you should be able to get an answer from checkuser if they agree to take the case. Your evidence that Gregory E. Miller should be included in the case looks a bit weak. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There was some attacks from the vandal on a new IP address shortly after you posting that, most likely as a result of them stalking me. The IP has since been added to both reports and blocked for 48 hours. I'm worried about staleness for the older IP addresses as this goes back to early this year for this round of reports at least. Anyway, I know the evidence for Gregory E. Miller is weak hence why he's on the RFCU, want to try and exclude them as he seems OK and don't want be screaming about him being a vandal before knowing it. Any good CU I could try and get the attention of? treelo talk 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand checkuser that well, but I don't see how an IP address can go stale. Registered accounts go stale because they don't keep the logs forever. I notice that Thatcher just checked some of the accounts on your RFCU. If you have more questions, User:Rlevse can answer them better than I. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it's me who doesn't understand checkuser that well, you're spot on with what it means for an account to go stale. I'll ask Rlvese if I get any more inklings seeing as he's no longer directly involved. As an aside, do you think if we're not going to block User:Miller killa (which completely follows Greg's MO of making sleeper accounts for attacking previous sockpuppets usually with a direct indicator to his target) can the account have ACB so at least if it does turn out to be a GJ sleeper account we can block that one and prevent any more? treelo talk 09:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:IP sock block template question

If the IP is not exactly CU confirmed than the variations of {{IPsock}} should work\...none of them let you add a time value though. Somehow my brain is functionally coherently enough at the moment to remember the other possible templates, sorry :P. Glad Thatcher was able to flush some possible ones out though.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally a tasteful Thankspam! Good luck in your new role. Let me know if I can suggest any tedious but useful tasks for you to perform. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't do fancy thankspam because a)I'm not that design-oriented and b)image overload used to kill my old laptop. I have a new one now but I still feel for those who don't. I'm happy for suggestions on things I can do to help. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess you should follow your interests, and try a number of things. WP:AIV is good for offering questions that improve your admin judgment. WP:3RR, where I often participate, is thought to be straightforward but offers many subtle issues. Closing simple AfDs is easy and is almost a clerical task. Closing hard AfDs requires some subtlety. I haven't gone there yet. WP:SSP is often backlogged, but that takes a fair amount of patience with technical stuff. WP:CSD is good practice but I don't see it backlogged very often. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Missed this before I went on holiday, thanks for the suggestions. I poked a bit at the low hanging fruit at WP:CSD but haven't been too brave outside new admin school yet. I've 'read' 3RR and COIN for some time, plan to continue doing so and learn how to help there. Thanks again TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Brian Boru is awesome 2

Hello Jc37. FYI, I have blocked this editor one week for removing cut-and-paste move warnings from other editors' Talk pages. I mention this because you have him on some kind of 60-day probation regarding moves, so this information could possibly be of interest. The details are under the block notice on his Talk page. Removal of the messages on others' Talk was also noted at the time of his previous 3RR block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. In looking things over, I'm also concerned about the possibilities of socking here. Please feel free to continue to keep me informed. Thanks again : ) - jc37 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GNU Unifont

I've responded to your entry on the GNU Unifont discussion page. --Ph9000 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kinda busy

Well, I'm planning to try to keep up with the voluminous discussion at Chiropractic for the next few weeks, besides spending less time on Wikipedia and more on RL (at least in theory), so I may not have much time for 3RR. We'll see. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks....

for your support on my RFA. I appreciated all the votes of confidence and hope not too goof up toooo quickly! --Slp1 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Karmaisking - thanks for the note on the request for checkuser

I can't figure out how to fix my mistake either...--Gregalton (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - this appears to be fixed now, your help is much appreciated.--Gregalton (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] note

[edit] Deletion review for Cristina Cruz Mínguez‎

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cristina Cruz Mínguez‎. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit protected on Sahaja Yoga page

Hi Ed, you recently assisted us on the International Sahaja Public School page and I was wondering if you could turn your attention a related article, the Sahaja Yoga page. This article has been frozen for quite some time and I have made three edit protected requests which I feel should have been addressed by now. Cheers Freelion (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Rodriguez article at 3RR

Hello Stifle. I believe there is strong evidence that Wtcsurvivor is a sock of Jrandi, enough to justify an indef block. Can I add this result to your closure of the 3RR issue, or would you prefer for me to enter it elsewhere, e.g. at SSP? EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template protection

I'm not sure what the normal course is, but I've definitely seen the little locks on a fair number of templates. Actually, not that many templates are protected--only on templates used on tons and tons of articles, or on templates where there has been a lot of vandalism. Mangostar (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marksell: 3RR

Hello. You declined to act on the 3RR I reported here: [5]. (I left a comment there.) Since then, Marksell has reverted 2 more times. [6] [7] He's now reverted this one-sentence addition of mine 6 times in 48 hours, each time with no discussion. I gave my reasons for the edit in Talk here [8]. If you don't want to block him, can you at least warn him? He belittled my 3RR warning on the grounds that I'm "not an admin." [9] Maybe an admin reminding him of the need to work with others would help. (He did give a brief explanation after I filed a 3RR, but that's not what working with an editor means. I can't file a 3RR every time we need to discuss the article.) Thank you. Life.temp (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Protecting was probably best. I can work in sandbox, without the heat. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some new eyes would be helpful here

After noting your action in Anti-Americanism, I was wondering if some perspective might be helpful in Anti-Iranian sentiment. I am not suggesting protection, as the edit-warring and exchanges appear to be less vitriolic than at the article you protected, but the discussion appears to indicate the presence of folk with something of a grudge (or at the very least, speaking from a personal experience of the subject matter) are editing from the gut and not necessarily with an eye on keeping in line with policy and guidelines. This isn't a request for an admn; this is a request for some neutral eyes.
Otherwise, I hope you are having a splendid day, Ed. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

An update - I am encountering a bit of resistance from one of the contributors to the article; the fellow has his own agenda, and isn't really keen to discuss it with the rest of us in discussion. Maybe you could take a gander at the edit history and give me your take on how to proceed? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
All these culture-war articles have enough in common to warrant documenting some general guidelines, maybe even policies. An example of a sound policy would be: An anti-[national sentiment] label should follow the guideline for naming (identity) and self-indentification}. See also, words that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. Some sort of clear guideline would a small start toward a solution beyond admins playing edit war whack-a-mole.Life.temp (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, something like that would be helpful indeed, were it not for how some of the folk contributing to these articles would react to being categorized thusly. Is there a discussion occurring in regards to this topic? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no gift whatsoever for resolving ethnic disputes on articles. But take a look at WP:WGR if you have not seen this before. At Talk:Gdansk/Vote you will find an agreement on how to name certain places in Eastern Europe. Since Arcayne was talking about self-identification above, which is a naming issue, you might see some commonality. Here are a few examples of individual ethnic disputes where people have created WikiProjects to make solutions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's any specific discussion of anti-[national sentiment] terminology. I tried to start something at the Village Pump [10], but it didn't go anywhere. If you are interested, I hope you initiate something. Maybe more attention will produce results. There is a general discussion of culture wars on Wikipedia, but nothing so specific as a guideline for how to use certain terms. Life.temp (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for GKOS_keyboard

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GKOS_keyboard. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tiptyper (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3

I'd be grateful to have your support on this MfD.PJHaseldine (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that five days have elapsed since my userspace User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 was MfD nominated, please close the discussion here.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I have now added my opinion to the MfD, some other admin will have to do it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have commented below your opinion on the MfD page as follows: "What I added to the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher#1983–1987 and Margaret Thatcher#South African controversy was the actual image of my letter published in The Guardian on 7 December 1988. I accept that my adding references to the Thatcher articles could be seen as a COI activity (these were removed by John Nevard) but fail to see how inserting the image which illustrates the existing text of the article can be construed in this way. I should be obliged if you would reconsider your vote."
I think you may have been led astray by the preceding comment by Socrates2008 who never seems to portray me in a good light.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aw shucks

Thanks Ed, a vote of confidence for adminship is better than a dozen barnstars. I appreciate the endorsement of my conduct on wikipedia and it means very much coming from someone I respect as much as you. Gracias!

Incidentally, perhaps I might cave in one day. Or perhaps I'm just seeking a semi-regular infusion of flattery on my talk page. We may never know... WLU (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jackpot

Anna polly might have hit a 46-sock jackpot, but that's nothing compared with this other jackpot that Anna just couldn't resist to join in. :-) Regards, Húsönd 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why User:Anna polly was such a new account. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Allstarecho

This user you blocked is currently requesting unblocking, and there's been some back-and-forth on their talk page; any comment or insight from you regarding the discussion would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Luna. The specific change that bothered me was this one. I can't see that the word insinuated is justified under our policies, since there is no third party making that interpretation. The editor who was cited for 3RR wants Wikipedia to make that claim, based solely on one of the organization's own documents. The actual words of the AFA should speak for themselves, in a situation like that. We shouldn't be the ones to say what they are insinuating. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing adjudication board

Replied on my talkpage. Avruch T 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

As an editor of orthomolecular psychiatry, you might have a useful perspective on this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for pointing me to the ArbCom discussion of sources, which resulted in my subsequent discovery of he reliable sources noticeboard which may be a solution for most of my problems. Somehow missed it before--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dory Manor

Ed, in counting up the votes for deleting Dory Manor, I think you missed something important: The Keeps were citing Hebrew-language web pages, the Deletes seemed to focus on the absence of English-language reference. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Yudel (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This case was puzzling, because the guy sounds like he *might* be notable. He could be more important than we can tell from the very limited sources provided in the article. I will userfy the article for you if you think you can do something with it. Hebrew-language sources might be convincing if we had editors with language skill standing by to explain them for us in considerable detail. We'd probably need a sentence or two translated into English from each one, and include that in each citation. Sources must not merely exist, they should assert the importance of the person who is the subject. When there is a language barrier, weighing up the sources is not so easy. Would you be able to assist with this? EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Close call

I don't know if referencing allegations of bias falls under libelous or contentious material, if anything it's a close call either way. I don't think that experienced editors should be allowed to edit war over a 2+ day span, most especially when the margins are this close and there are plenty of other options for redress. I respect your decision but I really don't think it's the right one. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is right for an editor that has never made a single edit or comment to file a 3RR violation when it is clear that the motivation is because of previous history with me. Seriously Blaxthos I have lost any respect for you that I had regained over the past few weeks. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Few people would object to having a criticism section in that article if it were well-sourced. I don't perceive that whoever put the criticism section together was doing much research. It sounded initially like WP:WEASEL, and then it gradually got better. As a bad example, consider this version, which has two references in the criticism section, neither of which mentions Carlson at all. It seems that Arzel has now taken a hand himself and has rewritten the criticism section to be more clear. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review

Hi Ed, I was wondering if you could do me a favor? I recently created Cross-Cultural Dance Resources. I'm not a member of the organization, but I am related to the organization's vice-president, so there's a potential for COI. I'm pretty sure I have it properly sourced, but I'd like if someone else could review it and "signoff" that it's okay. If you have a moment, could you please take a look, and maybe leave a note on the talkpage? And of course, if you see anything inappropriate, feel free to make changes as needed. Thanks, Elonka 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and yes, I can definitely provide more sources. Also, did you notice that the CCDR is already listed in the Thomson Gale Associations directory? --Elonka 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed - Elonka also asked me to look at the article. I've added a reference from the Dance Research Journal announcing the CCDR's establishment and describing its resources. I'm not sure merging the article with Gertrude Kurath would be appropriate, since the collection also includes the papers of other major researchers in this (admittedly small) field. Joann W. Kealiinohomoku, in particular, seems to have written numerous articles and books; she's a pretty big name in dance ethnology, from what I've read. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have further expanded the article, and also fleshed out some of the other related articles (such as for Eleanor King and Joann Kealiinohomoku (man will I be glad when I don't have to type that one anymore!) Could you please take another look at your convenience? Thanks, Elonka 07:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

I have no objection if you take further action, I just did what I believed would be the most preventative to further disruption. If you believe further steps are needed as well, please take them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

Arcayne has previously contacted you asking for assistance in content disputes with me [11]. I don't think it's appropriate for you to make an admin judgment on Arcayne's obvious breaking of 3RR when the user in question has a such a cosy relationship with you. also, the issue is not about where her parents where originally from, but rather where they moved from prior to combining to Tehran, here is a source [12] : "Googoosh's father is an Azerbaijani from Sarab, South Azerbaijan [in Iran], a town located between Tabriz and Ardabil". So based on your prior history with Arcayne, please recuse yourself, and allow other admins to review the report. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your time would have been better spent in actually discussing this matter in the article discussion page, instead of seeking to silence dissent to your viewpoint. I will await your addition of this citation to the article discussion page, and we will determine the reliability of an Azerbaijani news source claiming an ethnic connection to the most popular Iranian singer in modern history, which directly contradicts her own website. It seems inadvisable to argue an article point on a page that isn't the article discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Kurdo777, if you are trying to locate admins who will not enforce WP:BLP, please continue your search. If you have further comments to make, please make them at WP:AN3 or on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If the concern here is truly about BLP, how come you didn't noticed that in the same reverts Arcyane was also restoring unsourced information claiming Googoosh is married to Kimiaei? what is worse, saying she is married to someone, she may not be married to, with certainty, or saying where she is from? Saying she is from Iranian Azerbaijan is not against BLP anyways< when there are sources supporting it. Fact remains that you have a relationship with Arcayne, and your intervention in this case was probably canvassed and therefore unethical considering your prior history with Arcayne. I may take this issue all the way to the ArbCom --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You were asked to bring your discussion to the article discussion page. Please continue this discussion (which is frankly more than you have ever offered in two articles) in the article discussion. That would be the best place to raise your concerns, wouldn't you agree? I'd also point out that if yiuhad taken the time to discuss this in the article discussion, I could have advised you on where to find info about Googoosh' marriage to Masud Kimlai. Per your charge here, I have added it. Why you couldn't have done that is beyond me. Discussion helps. It really does.
As well, i should point out that Ed and I are not pals. With the exception of one very specific situation, I've never really dealt with him before.
...That is, if you ignore the fact that we are part of the same covert alien invasion force. Fnord :) . - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You specifically asked ED for help in another dispute you had with me only a few days ago. I find it hard to believe that this is just a coincidence. --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)You mean, another dispute where you refused to discuss your edits and were edit-warring? Take your time in responding; removing one's foot from one's mouth can be a tricky affair. Now, head on over to the article discussion and make your points, okey-doke? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Your source is from 2000, there is no evidence that she's still married to Kimiaei who has never left Iran during the last 8 years. You're still violating WP:BLP by speculating about the current martial status of a living person by an outdated source. Lets see what EdJohnston has to say about this. --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, apparently you weren't paying attention when Ed suggested that this needs to be discussed in article discussion. As for the dating on the citation, it is actually reinforced by Googoosh's own website, which I presume is updated rather regularly, considering the addition of concert dates and whatnot. If you have information that she is divorced from the feller, you should feel free to present a citable reference that says such. Otherwise, I am perplexed as to why you are reticent to discuss these issues in the articles pertinent to the subject. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this conversation could be moved to Talk:Googoosh, since this is the sort of discussion that belongs there. Either way, I am not utilizing Ed's page anymore for article discussion, and more personally, I apologize that to Ed that his neutrality was unfairly questioned by my requesting a neutral view from an admin. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thought I would bring you up to speed: CIreland (talk · contribs) went through and did a major purge of the article, scrubbing it clean of all the wacky nonsense that I had only addressed in part. Whilst Kurdo might still hate me, its a hate I think I can live with. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Full Protection

I don't see where on WP:RFPP there is a request for unprotection, but if you feel the protection no longer serves a purpose, feel free to unprotect. But right now I don't see where the request is. Thanks for giving me notice though! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, yes I didn't look down there. And no problem, thanks for letting me know about it. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 3RR message

Hi Ed, thanks your message. I didn't know about BLP being more important until now actually. But it's pretty subjective to decide what's bad and what isn't. For starters on that 3RR report they were bringing the dispute to the noticeboard which is a no-no. Someone should've moved it or at least ended the discussion right away. I think Gio. did "bait" the other guy (My memory fails me on username's), but he should've known better. I know nothing of the oversight business. I guess this highlights the problems that the Wiki is facing. I think we should write a 3RR Noticeboard guide for admins if there isn't one already; How to deal with reports, what's stale and what isn't (like that discussion we had before, did consensus come out of that?), BLP taking precendence like you said etc. etc. I think it could really be advantageous if we had something like that, would you agree? Thanks again for your message. Take care, Pat. ScarianCall me Pat! 12:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go. Take a look and tell me what you think! ScarianCall me Pat! 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks good! May I suggest a link somewhere to WP:3RR#Exceptions. It is interesting that the Gdansk vote is one of them. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for looking at it. Should it be moved to WP space? And where should it be linked on 3RRN? ScarianCall me Pat! 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You should probably offer it for review at or at least at WT:3RR and WT:AN3, and perhaps at WP:VPP also. Before you make your final decision, check to be sure you haven't created too many 'entitlements.' Like for the wikilawyers who obviously know about 3RR but claim that they weren't notified wih an official message in exactly the right place. Such people may read the administrator's guide and use it to argue from. So I might take out 'in exceptional circumstances' from your point #2 in 'How to deal with reports.' EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block of UtherSRG

Editor you blocked for edit warring has requested an unblock on his talk page - I'd be inclined to go for it (and would happily keep a very close eye on his contribs with regards the condition provided). Would appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, Alex Muller 16:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to unblock UtherSRG, please unblock User:Cazique as well. I assume you'll take care that the edit war doesn't continue. There is a very active Talk thread about how to resolve the matter properly but people were reverting anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do both of them now. And if either of them go near 3RR or that article for a little while, the block button might get a click or two. Thanks, Alex Muller 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you please keep an eye on Uther though, because to me it doesn't even sound like he is willing to stop with the edit warring. He said this "It's a damned redirect we're fighting over. I'm going to get blocked for this? Ridiculous". And then he said this in his unblock request "I'll refrain from editting that redirect for the duration of the block. Please allow me to resume other edits", because the redirect is the way he wants and he does not need to edit it. I have just wanted him to discuss the issues raise but he seems more interested in keeping articles his way. You can also see this in his edits to the page Marsupial Lion where he reverted my improvement to the article without even taking the time to read my edit summary or see my edit. He just did it because I made the edits and then when I had to repeat myself he left it alone. I don't think editors in general should behave this way let alone admins. Cazique (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And now you can see he has violated the condition to his unblocking and has reverted the page back to his version. Why was he made an admin? Cazique (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since admin Alex.muller did the unblock, he now owns the issue :-). Consider writing to him. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astroturfing

I'm glad people are starting to take notice that there is a huge problem with the Falun Gong family of articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it would be interesting where relevant to explore this side of Falun Gong practitioners' public relations strategy, on wikipedia. I have a few sources on this, I think it would be a good section for the overseas page--all the websites and orgs practitioners have set up, and how different ones have different targets and are 'marketed' differently, i.e. the appeals to support of authority figures, the demonstrations of grassroots support, etc.. I think these are just strategies for arousing attention and getting the message out, and they themselves should be part of these articles. I am not sure this is an endemic problem on the wikipedia articles associated with the subject is it?--Asdfg12345 13:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I mean that the wikipedia articles should critically evaluate how Falun Gong practitioners have engaged in these strategies, rather than be a vehicle for them. It is a simple principle. Has the latter happened somewhere?--Asdfg12345 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HES

Hi Ed, I had placed an refimprove tag on the article - not an NPOV tag. The IP removed it then i explained what the refimprove tag was for since the IP requested that I tag each claim needing citation with a cn tag. The IP then updated the article references and removed the refimprove tag which I didn't revert because I was satisfied with the references s/he added. The discussion occurred on our talk pages rather than the article talk page itself but has long since been resolved. Thanks for paying attention to the article! --Ave Caesar (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, it wasn't an IP, it was Bbriggs1 (talk · contribs). --Ave Caesar (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Glad you've been able to come to an agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what is the point of reporting?

[edit] Request

in [[14]] Please add International Turkish Language Olympics. --Kosova2008 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They each have boxes and I don't know how to do that. But I'll try later. --Kosova2008 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CENT conclusions

I've stumbled upon Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions, and my first thought was to make it {{historical}}. But, I've noticed you are a single person still updating it, so I would like to ask: why? Conclusions will be always looked upon on the original talk pages anyway, nobody will search in a such well-hidden place. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the page is there more with the intention of having a link to the old pages that have been taken off {{cent}}. It doesn't particularly need to include conclusions, but if someone wants to make a new centralized discussion topic and can see that a previous discussion of the same topic failed, they might be able to save their time. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea the Conclusions page existed. It seems like a good idea! EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems obvious that when anyone adds anything to WP:CENT they first should check the Talk page and archives, it is unlikely that they look at Conclusions page because (a) hard to find (b) the conclusions can be safely assumed as outdated, because no synchronization is kept with the primary source. If you insist on keeping it for archival reasons, I would suggest naming it Archive instead of Conclusions. This would be the obvious name. --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just my personal observation, but the postings on CENT often appear to be well-intentioned but a waste of time, since these discussions are often long and inconclusive. Having a 'scoresheet' that shows that some of them have a good outcome might be a positive thing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I can agree with that, Ed. Kubanczyk, feel free to move the page or nominate it for MFD. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birth names

Please consider making a comment here. Thanks David in DC (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liz Wilde dup AfD

Sorry about that, when the template didn't show up the first time I tried to AfD it, I assumed it had failed entirely due to the protection on the page, and did it again after you removed the protection. Looks as though I may have misunderstood the notability threshold though from the first 2 'keeps'. I know it isn't temporary, but I'm not convinced it was ever there, but I know I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia as flubbing this AfD shows. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of AfD templates! I don't think you misunderstand the notability threshold. The question is still open, in my view. Radio people need a serious discussion to see if they are notable; it's not enough just to have a show. I wish I had the patience to trawl through radio-related AfDs to look for more precedents. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd AFD

I figured as much, but didn't want to act before giving someone associated with the original AFD a chance to comment. Dppowell (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request AWB permission for Hindi wiki.

Hi EdJohnston, I am a regular user /editor also of Hindi Wikipedia. Regarding the same I came to know about the use of AWB (Auto Wiki Browser). Then I requested the permission for its use, but I do not have enough of my contributions (seems) to have a permission. Regarding the Hindi AWB permission, Rodhullandemu has referred me to talk & request you. I hereby request the permission for the use of AWB for hi.wikipedia.org. You can very well see my contributions at hi:सदस्य:आशीष भटनागर ऽ सदस्य योगदान --Ashish Bhatnagar (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You are already authorized to use AWB on the English Wikipedia. Have you tried it out yet? If so, why not just start trying to use it on the Hindi Wikipedia. It's possible they don't have any approval process. Since I can't read the Hindi page names I can't check. Admins on en.wiki have no power on other wikis. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC

Thanks Ed, I just found your comment on NYC in my sub-page. I may ask you to delete the page after I'm done to hide my shame of loopholing policies :) WLU (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not have any loopholes. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re "expectations of privacy regarding contacting Wikipedians by email"

Funky title, eh? Seeing as much of WP policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive, do you wish to commence a debate on what the current understanding in respect of the above is - with a view to producing a guideline/policy? I'm all for it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello LH. It sounds like you are winning the argument in that particular thread (regarding your own practices), so maybe you should just declare victory! The past debates on message privacy did not lead to a consensus. But since you took the initiative to tell people about your caveat, perhaps you have a desire for a new WP policy. If I were to create a new caveat of my own, I'd probably say 'By writing to me you're giving permission for me to share your message with any other Wikipedia administrators who I think should know about this.' Then we could allow everybody to have their own policy on how they handle email, which could make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I commented there that I think it's well established that an admin should have email enabled in order that users may communicate him if blocked, etc. The purpose of this is totally defeated if they must sign away their rights when they do this. LHVU further says "this may exclude me from certain aspects of the administrative remit" -- but blocking is one thing he does not abstain from. (that's a compliment, BTW). I suggest that making special rules of this private sort is destructive of confidence. We admins seem tp get little enough trust from users as it is. DGG (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why LessHeard developed his email caveat, but I do have my own puzzlement. I see a paradox in the confidentiality of email. If the guy says 'Please unblock me,' and the admin who gets the message wants to discuss that on the wiki, how can he do so? Is he supposed to keep it secret that the guy wants to be unblocked? Or, does confidentiality prevent him from forwarding that mail to another admin to get a second opinion?
I suppose there is no perfect way to fix this without a written policy, and that would be instruction creep. Individual admins could create their own caveats. I hope they don't pick the version chosen by LessHeard because we should be able to be more sympathetic than that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I would point out that my caveat does not say, "I'm going to publish what you wrote, so don't write me" but rather, "do not expect me not to publish on the grounds of "privacy" if you inform me of something that I feel needs to be brought to the communities attention" - i.e. admissions of serious breaches of policy. My caveat is to stop anyone declaring I breached confidentiality if I make public such information. If, to take the example above, someone contacts me requesting unblock, and I feel I cannot review the matter and decide on my own then I would write back and ask if polling other admins is okay - I would still request permission, not just do it. I still act, I hope, with due regard to privacy and confidentiality; I just have a get out clause when I feel I have a duty to disclose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR (contd.)

User:The_C_of_E is at it again. -The Gnome (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He edited Carefree (chant) just once on June 5. That was four days ago. If the pattern resumes, then admin action should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Luigi 28 SSP case

Hi Ed, I've seen your note at AN regarding the SSP case. Your suggestion is a good idea. I'm off to work now, but I'll post a brief summary of the evidence this evening when I get home. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I have entered a brief and hopefully user-friendly summary of the evidence at the bottom of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd). Many thanks -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, that was fast

The keyboard hadn't even cooled off from filing the 3RR. You are on fire tonight! :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IfD Image:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg

Following the blanking of Richard Norton-Taylor's article from the image (which Arthur Rubin stipulated), are you minded to change your vote from "delete" to "keep"?PJHaseldine (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 3RRN languages

Hej hej! I wrote in Svenska originally, and then Spartaz wrote in Danska on min (my) wall. So, ja, if du (you) wrote in German too on the board we could have an ecclectic mix of Europe! ScarianCall me Pat! 12:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (2nd)

Oops, I misread the block log. You are absolutely right.

I closed the case since both master and sock are blocked. Thank you for pointing out my error. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama ANI

Would appreciate it if you could look through this again and give your thoughts once more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I don't mind either proposal - so I've given Scarian's proposal my support. Right now, we just need prompt preventative action that's effective for some time at least. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • As this is a special BLP article (along with all other related pages), I'm more inclined towards it being against everyone so that we don't encounter the same problems with a new bunch of editors. I've restated our updated suggestions separately in a new header for input by all those who are not involved (in any way) on that set of pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution at Sheylanli

EdJohnston, I have started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard in order to resolve the dispute over reliable sources at the article Sheylanli. I have placed a tag at this article in order to attract the reader to this discussion and get a broader input. I believe the tag is important. In the past, user:Gulmammad has reverted all tags in this article no matter how reasonable they were. I ask that you use your admin judgement in terms of this tag and prevent a good faith attempt of dispute resolution from failing due to the reverting of this tag. Let me know if you need anything from me. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave explanation for all of your recent actions here. Regarding tags that you claims removed by Gulmammad, here is the warning for your edits

[15], [16], [17], and [18] where the last one shows that you added mentioned tags. As I told before, please do some useful edits instead of wasting your time on attacking articles. I observe that attacking articles (that you personally don't like) in different ways apparently has become your hobby in recent days as immediate one could be this to mention, which has been declined by 12 and supported only by one editor. Gülməmməd Talk 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad, it looks somewhat like you are following me around (some might say stalking) when you follow every edit that I make including an obscure AFD for an obscure article that is about a subject that you don't edit. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)