Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:07, 7 January 2016

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

New sock puppets

Hi Ed. Do you remember the user H1N111/ElreydeEspana? He was blocked and created a new account. The new sockpuppets are Arthur Colignón (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Qtwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Check his contributions, are the same. And recently he insulted me in my user talk with an ip. Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe Bbb23 can help you. Check all the sock puppets https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive --Bleckter (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to have picked out these accounts because they are new since fall 2015 and they have made a lot of edits at White Latin Americans. To get a checkuser to investigate you would need to exhibit some edits by the new accounts that are similar to those of H1N111. It would be helpful for you to explain on the talk page why you disagree with the edits of User:Arthur Colignón and User:Qtwe. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Check his contributions, he is the only guatemalan user who edits Irreligion, White/European People, Guatemala, Demographics of Mexico, etc. And the only user who tells you Edjonson-Edjohnson. --Bleckter (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm really impressed with all this, I'm sorry, I did not know that I was editing in dangerous places, although my editions in white Latin American are nothing more two images and small editions, I usually edit in pages such like Belgian international schools and Belgian empire--Arthur Colignón (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

In a desperate act he admits that he is a puppet. I think that's all Ed. --Bleckter (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am a puppet, I'm anonymous, hacker, nothing stops me. And you Ed Johnson, is so stupid to be manipulated by a Mexican , ?, or Bleckter shoves it deep by your ortho. Easy, blecker hope you block me and undo my editon in White Latin American, but acted slowly, and bleckter did it at the end, not the beginning, You only is the hand that bleckter use against me, a piece of his chess, seriously, you are very moron to not to realize. And how strange that Mr. Blecker just edit when He wants to report me or reverse my edition, he also makes edit wars and manipulates you, but I'm not weak or fag to use help of librarians, as bleckter, a Mexican user who wants to reduce percentages of in countries where whites are the majority, and increases when it does not even reach 20%. I hope that after this evidence number 50 000, out of you ignorance Mr. Ed--Qtwe (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bleckter: For the record, I reported it to the SPI case. Dat Guy_Contribs 17:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Is also necessary to create Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bleckter, I knew that this person was a puppet, easy, it is supposed to be new, he know edit and he not received a welcome message with the functions of wikipedia (see his contributions). The puppets of this person are: Luiggi Coria (who he was blocked by personal attacks in the Spanish Misplaced Pages, two days) and Annie o ghorman, contributions are the same (Mexico, White Race, Latin America). --Qtwe (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

ARCA notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 20:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

I am against the title I Love NY (2015 film). Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reason? See Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation for how we usually try to disambiguate topics with similar names. If there was only one film of that name produced in 2015 (for which we have an article) it would be more usual just to call it I Love NY (2015 film). We might use 'Hindi film' if there were more then one 2015 film with that name and the language was the simplest way to tell two similarly-named films apart. If you can express a clear objection, then opening a WP:Requested move could be worthwhile. Then the result will be decided by a 7-day discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Look at the article to find out why I don't want the language and not the year in the title. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

When I look at the article, what should I be looking for? It's both a Hindi film and a 2015 film. Why is 'Hindi' more helpful than '2015' to distinguish this film from others called 'I Love NY'? If you can answer this question, you will have found a rationale for your position. Notice Category:Hindi-language films. They generally don't have 'Hindi film' as part of the title. Many of them have a date in parentheses. For example, Aakrosh (1998 film) and Aakrosh (2010 film). EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Look at the first line in the "Release and Reception" section to see why I want 'Hindi' and not the year for 'I Love NY'. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Still don't follow. The first line is "Originally planned for release in April 2013, it was delayed on numerous occasions. In June 2015, the female lead, Ranaut issued a legal notice to the producers of the film to attempt to stop the film's release as she felt that they were "cashing in on her recent box office success"." Can you give me a complete sentence that states your point? EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So read the line: "Originally planned for release in April 2013, it was delayed on numerous occasions." Neel.arunabh (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Our classification of films goes by the year they were released. The article on I Love NY (2015 film) says that the film was released in July 2015. Do you disagree? EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree for 'I Love NY'. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with a politician BLP

Greetings, I am writing in regards to this page: Austin Petersen, which is currently like a battleground. It came to my attention while I was patrolling for possible vandalism, and I have tried to find a solution, but without success. Yesterday I reported one of the editors who is in the middle of the discussions since he had reverted my own edits more than three times, and had done the same the day before. But today I learned that this is not the problem of a single editor, but various who are taking information out and putting it in, most of the time without explanations (against my pleas). Look in the article's Talk Page. No admins has responded to the report of Edit Warring or to my most recent request for adivce. Please, let me know if I am doing something wrong. I have not steak here, and would like an admins to take care of it. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! Caballero/Historiador (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:165.112.97.73

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

You protected Under Siege after I repeated the above IP at 3RN. They are now edit-warring on Jaws (film) as well (even after starting a conversation at the Talk page). I have an outstanding report at AIV. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. DonIago (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Appreciate the prompt response! DonIago (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Dalit Buddhist Movement

As I promised earlier that I will try to solve the dispute through talk pages so I am following my own words. That user accused me for misrepresenting the source. Anyhow I am giving you some reliable sources where Dalits have converted to Buddhism in large numbers.

• One source The Hindu says that more than 1 Lakh Dalits embraced Buddhism.

See One lakh people convert to Buddhism

• Another source namely Times of India says that 30 lakh Dalits convert to Buddhism.

See 30 lakh Dalits convert to Buddhism

If you think that my sources are non-notable then then I must tell you that I took these sources from 2 leading newspapers in India (i.e The Hindu and Times of India). Misplaced Pages describes The Hindu newspaper as

• "It is the second most circulated English-language newspaper in India, with average qualifying sales of 1.39 million copies (as of December 2013). According to the Indian Readership Survey in 2012, it was the third most widely read English newspaper in India (after the Times of India and Hindustan Times), with a readership of 2.2 million people."
• Its official website can be seen here Times of India

Misplaced Pages also describe Times of India newspaper as

• "According to the Indian Readership Survey (IRS) 2012, the Times of India is the most widely read English newspaper in India with a readership of 7.643 million. This ranks the Times of India as the top English daily in India by readership."
• Its official website can be seen here The Hindu

Do you still think that I am misrepresenting the sources my dear friend? Terabar (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not up to me to decide what sources are to be used. You need to find support on the article talk page. One source you may have given me earlier was a book by Humans Charan Sadangi:

Page 105 of “Dalit:The downtrodden of India”:

"...A Buddhist source claimed that “300,000 Dalit are estimated” to have converted to Buddhism as par of 50th year celebrations of Ambedkar’s deeksha in 2006. Non-Partisan sources put the number of attendees (not converts) at 30,000."

It sounds like Sadangi didn't want to accept the statements of the Buddhist authorities at face value. He refers to 'non-Partisan sources' for backup data. It is a matter for editor judgment as to which figures are to be trusted. Sometimes when sources disagree, several will be quoted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Misplaced Pages editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen Let's discuss it 03:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year EdJohnston!

EdJohnston,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Poepkop (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

.

Not Responding to Questions

He is doing it again.

MachoMan is inserting the same image twice into articles. Undoing him is useless at this point so I will stop. Just see the L, 4, and B articles. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

how are they the same images? are you blind or something? learn how to look and see things right — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManchoMan (talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

edjohnson see kew gardens talk page for more information and details — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManchoMan (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EdJohnston!

EdJohnston,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. –Davey2010 16:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

i was not going by my own impression that i was working hard for your information, this is what i hate about you son, and you blocked for all little words like stubborn. what next are you going to block me for saying bubble or map? also stop mimicking everything i said, i don't like that crap from you TheManchoMan (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EdJohnston!

EdJohnston,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Liz 21:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

TheManchoMan

I blocked the user for two weeks. Not just for what they said here (see above in between well wishers), but similar comments at User:Kew Gardens 613. My only question is whether I should have made it indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The blocking of Ephemerance

I see you have blocked Ephemerance (talk · contribs) for edit warring. Although this editor did not technically violate WP:3RR, I respect your view that his/her actions were a violation of the spirit of 3RR; nevertheless, I feel obliged to plead his/her case for having the block removed. Ephemerance seems to be relatively new to Misplaced Pages, yet his/her contributions seem to be of a relatively high quality. The cause of the dispute stems from a debate about the use of "who" or "whom" in this discussion. The editor presented seemingly irrefutable evidence that "whom" was correct, but rapidly faced disagreement from all other editors. I believe his or her inexperience in dealing with this type of dispute and the fact that this editor continued to engage in meaningful and productive talk page discussions are mitigating factors. I stumbled into the conversation just before Ephemerance was blocked, and while I am not expert on the matter I believe the editor's logic in the "who" or "whom" debate is sound.

I would urge you to offer to release the block on Ephemerance in exchange for a promise not to edit the article itself for the 24-hour period, but allow them to continue to engage in the talk page discussion. I would suggest a violation of that promise could lead to a block of greater severity. Normally I wouldn't waste my time with this sort of thing, since it is only a 24-hour block, but I have a hunch this editor has only good intentions and is genuinely interested in contributing value to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There seemed to be a good faith disagreement on whether 'who' or 'whom' was correct. Admins may give special consideration to reverts that take out obviously wrong information, but that didn't seem to apply here. If you can persuade the editor to wait for talk page consensus before any future edits at Atheism I'd review the block. (They made five reverts over three days and seemed to think that was fine). The editor can still use the {{unblock}} template if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will post a note to that effect on the editor's talk page. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Front National (France)

• Front National (France) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• National Front (France) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am requesting another semi protected status on the Front National article, as several different IP users have removed a part of the text that is flagged as dubious/discuss, without making comment on it first, and I'm getting a bit fed up with reverting their changes e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Front_National_(France)&oldid=697809654. Would you please investigate? I am quite new to Misplaced Pages so don't know what other options are out there to encourage consensus/discussion rather than just edit wars. Phatwa (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the protection log of the old name this article has been reported at AN3 in the past. It has had both full protection and semiprotection at various times. I'm imposing six months of semiprotection, for now. I notice at Talk:Front National (France)#Far-right descriptor: evidence of usage that there's been a lot of discussion of the right/far right terminology on the talk page. If we see wars resuming again about that terminology, the editors involved should be referred to the prior discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Scope of Banex

Hi. You recently closed a case filed against me with a recommendation that in future, I should seek advice regarding the scope of BANEX. I am respectfully seeking that advice from you. ArbCom recently imposed a 2-way interaction ban on me and another user. I believe the other user has violated this ban. What is the appropriate way to request clarification of whether it has been violated - is it the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment page? Am I allowed to name the other user there under BANEX? Thanks in advance for your advice.DrChrissy 17:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BANEX should allow you to point out any edits that you think are a violation by the other party. You can use my talk page. If you make a complaint, you will inevitably be naming them, so that is allowed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I thought that because the ban was imposed by ArbCom, it was their pages which should be used for clarification. Is this not the case?DrChrissy 18:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The interaction ban is a restriction imposed as a case remedy. These bans are supposed to be enforceable by individual admins or by a request at WP:AE. The same method as if it were a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks again for the advice.DrChrissy 18:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethnocracy

Hi, seeing as User:When Other Legends Are Forgotten was warned not to remove posts by others from talk pages which he agreed not to do, shouldn't my edits now be restored on Ethnocracy? An SPI was already in progress and he's since been blocked, so should his edits on that talk page as well as others be blocked out too? 81.132.249.228 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The result of that SPI does simplify matters. But I am uncertain if your edits on the topic of Ethnocracy as an IP are likely to be beneficial. You made at least one edit on Category:Haganah that might have led to action against you at AE if you were a registered account. You seem to have been warring against other editors with two different IPs at Ethnocracy which violates WP:SOCK. As you know, IPs are restricted from certain edits on Palestine-Israel-related articles. You really don't want to go to the trouble of registering an account? EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well surely the fact that a banned sockpuppet was editing on that talk page and I was simply pointing that out then my edits were relevent. When you say other editors (plural), who are you referring to? On the contrary I can only see When Other Legends Are Forgotten editwarring with everyone else on Ethnocracy. Where is your evidence that I've been using two different IPs? If you take a look at the edit history you can clearly see When Other Legends Are Forgotten edit warring with other editors but no action was taken against him. No I am happy using an IP like many other editors on Misplaced Pages. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've not had a reply yet. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I gave you my rationale, I think I am finished here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring report

Hi, I'm a new editor and I reported two user who have edit-warred between them since a long time. I don't know if my report is in the right form, so please help me if there is sth wtong with it.Lostrigot (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Standard report filed. Thank you.Lostrigot (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lostrigot and Ed. Happy New Year! There was indeed edit-warring at the List of wars by death toll and List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll articles, but that ended (I hope) a couple days ago. We seem to have worked through Vellusammy's concerns. I didn't break the 3RR rule (not sure if Vellusammy did or not), but there was a frustrating amount of reverting going on. I've left warnings on his Talk page twice, and I almost reported him, but he self-reverted, so I refrained. He was not content to follow WP:BRD and hold off on editing while we worked through his concerns. And when I held off from editing, Vellusammy would stop communicating on the Talk page, content to let his latest problematic edits stand. The daily reverts were mostly being used as a prod to restart stalled discussions, during the many edit variations we slogged through. Not optimal, of course, but the two 'List' articles are low traffic and other editors weren't exactly joining in to assist — which leaves the edit history looking like one long back and forth tussle between two editors. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see a second report has been filed. Out of curiosity, User:Lostrigot, what outcome would you like to see from your report? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

When an editor refuses to get the point

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

At which point into a "discussion" does Misplaced Pages:IDHT start to become a relevant issue? User:Javaddeniro, who you blocked for edit warring, continues to misrepresent sources that clearly state "Turko-Persian" is a culture, instead insisting these sources mean "Turko-Persian" is an ethnicity.

Meanwhile, Javaddeniro continues to make false statements;

• "Kansas bear has made an original research that is forbidden in wikipedia.he says ethnicity is different from the language and the culture , but as we clearly know etnicity is based on the culture and the language.."
• "while the user kansas Bear is trying to make an edit war and is not answering the questions in the talk page and is asking wikipedia adminastration to block me that is obviouslly meaningless"
• " If you search kansas bear messages , firstly he sent a warning message for me later I just copied and pasted that warning in his talk page because of continuing changing my edits and giving meaningless answers in the talk page"

Oddly, according to Canfield, Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, page 12, "This composite culture was the beginning of the Turko-Persian variant of Islamicate culture. It was Persianate in that it was centered on the lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkish in so far as it was for many generations patronized by rulers of Turkic ancestry..."

I believe my assuming good faith with this editor is over. Anyway, if you wish to peruse the sources I have posted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

After your entreaty to user:Javaddeniro, said editor's response was to first, canvass user:Zerershk by leaving a link to editing the Seljuk dynasty article and then posting another accusation on my talk page. This clearly shows Javaddeniro's unwillingness to accept academic sources, their continued attempt to incite some type of personal response from me and their POV pushing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Egregious use of Admin privileges, and your involved commentary pretensed as "Uninvolved input"

EdJohnston, I do not know the basis of your confounded state of negative opinion of my editorship, but I certainly recognize it. This is the 2nd time your have interjected in editors complaints on an AE created by AlbinoFerret regarding Electronic cigarettes. You are seeming taking up his repeated attempts to remove editors from the pages he predominately edits. I need you to not attempt to act as an uninvolved Admin, because you clearly have a dog in the hunt. More importantly actions are aggressively attempting to swing the decisions of other admins which may be Uninvolved. Here's why?

• 1. Before the first AE, you were an editor on the TALK pages of Electronic Cigarettes, not acting as admin. (while you may at other times, when I saw you were not).
• 2. You put out in front of everyone on the talk pages a proposition that I was either a sockpuppet or other negative aspects of WP editorship. You instigated a request that I had to follow up on withing the TALK pages to present myself as not a sockpuppet. I created a section, I explained myself, and you responded and ultimately collapsed the section. This was our history before any AE.
• 3. AlbinoFerret took your charges and his own and created an AE on myself, asserting my behavior on TALK pages, and sock-puppetry. The behavior on the talk page, was related to your remarks, as an Involved participant, and also regarding my request to the AE board to put in a Discretionary Sanction on the page, by moving it to Full Protection. You have now cited that request as rational for banning me. How does asking for Full Protection translate into your asking for me to permanently banned, as the very first enforcement action against me?
• 4. In the first AE you suggested to editors who are uninvolved, that Discretionary Sanctions be put on me....above and well beyond what the ARB called for. This is overkill, it is a very real bias. And you are asking other admins to act upon your suggestions.
• 5. Now you are suggesting a permanent ban? On a specific edit which has more editors in support than it does against.
• @EdJohnston: can you explain your rationale, and more specifically can you remove your involved commentary out of the uninvolved Admin section. Beyond the other inappropriate suggestions you are putting out, you should really not be portending yourself as uninvolved. You have been, and continue to be.

I would appreciate an earnest response here. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

One of my posts at Talk:Electronic cigarette was on December 5. At that time I wrote, in reply to you: "You write vaguely with lots of charges about other editors, and at great length. This kind of behavior brings you closer to enforcement of the discretionary sanctions." That remains my opinion now. Since I was acting as an admin there, and I expressed no opinions on electronic cigarettes, this does not breach WP:INVOLVED. I was on that page in response to complaints about editor conduct. Asking for input as to whether full protection was needed to stop an edit war. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• EdJohnston your interaction in the Electronic cigarettes article is clearly a conflict of interest. That conflict was recognized, it was told to you, and it was explained to you. Your involvement was in part the cause of a creation of an AE on myself. In that AE I stated clearly you were an involved Admin. Your first remarks were that I should be banned for 6 months. And you know that goes outside of the bounds of the ARB decision. You have a dog in the hunt, and you are in the hunt.
• Your comment here, https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_27#Concerns_of_User:Mystery_Wolff caused me to explain myself. This was all before any AE regarding myself. You label my actions as asking for help as odd, but asking for full protection, which was something YOU yourself was first to introduce, is not a something to which now you are suggesting a permanent ban of topic on should be. Can you explain why I needed to be asked to present myself to every other editor in TALK. Were you requested to do this?

Here is part of your bias and how you effected the rest of the editors in the talk page. And all of this is done outside of your role as an admin. Was there any request of you as Admin? You said in Talk:

"if you want to have a level playing field it might help if you would give us a hint of why you created your account on 19 November with apparently no prior Misplaced Pages edits but much knowledge of the arb case, just to edit regarding electronic cigarettes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I asked you here to explain your rationale, which you did not do in the AE. Instead you just give your CONCLUSION. Honestly I believe your bias is manifest. Can you explain the rationale of banning an editor for a editing that did not develop into an edit war? Look at the AE that is current....is it not just a normal dispute on editing.
• EdJohnston when you as involved (or if you want to think as uninvolved) are posting on TALK and that an editor can get banned, and asking them to explain themselves it goes well beyond being a uninvolved. In this case it caused other editors to change their behavior. Somehow you think that daily interactions on the TALK page are part of WP Dispute processes? Which processes are these.
• Your opinions are fixed and firm. You make that clear. You make it clear you don't want to listen to my side. And you don't think that is a conflict of interest? You said them again here. You said them in relationship to things not even raised in the AE. And you are floating out punishments and actions that are dramatically outside of what even the ARB suggested. Admin privileges are not predicated on pushing power over editors whom they interact on. You are indeed involved. I request you remove your remarks from that section in this AE. That you listen to the feedback that was already given to you in the first AE. If you don't want to spend the time to reasonably respond, or if listening to me is simply TLDR for you, and with such abject and obvious bias and conflicts of interest, I ask you to disengage and leave it to other editors, and for you to not lobby also.

Thank you, I would appreciate it. Mystery Wolff (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like EdJohnston is acting as an uninvolved administrator in this dispute, rather than an involved content advocate. Expressing strong administrative opinions about editor conduct earlier (not content opinions) does not make the administrator involved later when the problematic editor behavior continues. That is my relatively uninvolved evaluation of the matter, though I think that I have previously commented on the behavior of at least one e-cigarette contributor. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Cullen I appreciate your remarks. However when an Admin goes onto a TALK page and discusses with the dialgoe between editor, it is not an admin function. The same jargon that EdJohnston is using on me in the AE, is what he said about a previous editor, with which I was asserted to be a sockpuppet of. The investigation failed on the merits. EdJohnston told me in TALK that if I want to have a level playing field I would need to respond. Which I did. When he did that outside of any ARB or AE or anything else he became very involved.

EdJohnston perhaps interacts with many items, but he is clearly misrepresenting his involvement with me in what he has said in the AE. For example, the first Admin to suggest I be topic banned for 6 months, for my very first anything with Admins or Dispute Resolution....was EdJohnston. He is attributing that now to Spartaz. Found here .

He raises that previous interaction in the current AE, and claims that ban was lifted. It was rescinded. Clearly not in line with his wishes, but he is now representing that action as if it was not, rescinded. There is a difference between a mistake, and a reduced sentence.

EdJohnston is saying his first interaction with me was because of the Admin Boards. He knows that is not true.

If others agree with User:Mystery Wolff that there are too many changes and not enough discussion the logical response might be a month of full protection. That would at least force discussion but still allow changes via "Edit protected". A statement above by S Marshall indicates he plans to go on making changes without waiting for consensus. If time is going to be wasted by reverting the same thing in and out multiple times then holding WP:RFCs might be worthwhile. (RfCs take time, but so do revert wars). An alternative to protection could be a voluntary agreement by several people to do more talking for each edit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC) 

I took that suggestion, and made the request for the AE to do just that. Now EdJohnston is suggesting that was mistake or in some way odd. EdJohnston in the AE says:

He edits aggressively, but lacks experience. People who are still coming up the learning curve on Misplaced Pages should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite

That is an incredible statement by EdJohnston. Ban any editor who comes to a contentious area, regardless of the merits of their edits. The edit in question has more support than lack of support in the TALK page. Maybe indefinite bans are a convince of Admins who do not want to take their roles on, or just tired of the process. But is not fair. And in this case they are the actions of an Admin who has a very obvious prediliction to wanting me removed from editing. Regardless if anyone determines the bias, the appearance of bias is obvious. EdJohnston knows that the ARB he is wishing to take these actions on, did not prescribe such a solution either. It's all his. Next I suppose he will say that I am objecting to getting topic banned, so I should be topic banned as a result. Admins should follow process. Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ed is one of the most respected and experienced admins generally and at AE in particular. I don't think diatribes and invective against him are either necessary or effective. I suggest toning your statements down. Dr. K. 08:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. I am not talking about EdJohnston in anything other than his interactions with me. In the previous AE which was rescinded he was the first to suggest was the Admin who said I should be topic banned. If he has history in Admining the certain sections where the his answer is to just use the banhammer as first resort, then those topics, perhaps, he should not continue to admin on. I feel caught up in previous history, and that feeling was confirmed when I am being accused of being a sockpuppet. Here I have asked him to respond for the rationale for his suggesting I be permanently banned as the first enforcement of anything on me. I believe that is a reasonable question. What about my edits are problematic? If there was a simple way to handle the prospects of an involved admin who is bent on banning someone for objecting to a permanent ban, without explanation to the premise....I would like to know it. But I felt that asking him, and explaining my perspective may be better, than not. Best I got. Alternatives? Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, your reply to me is much more reasonable that what we started with, starting with the rather long and somehow accusatory section title. If you continue along the present lines I am sure that a resolution can be achieved in a much better manner than if the same tone had continued. Ed is a very reasonable and professional admin. I am certain he can respond fairly to reasonable enquiries. Best regards. Dr. K. 11:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. well I am certainly flinching at a topic ban, so I don't know. If you are curious to the ongoing discussion on the TALK page. Here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol_and_e-liquid#Removal_of_MEDRS_sourced_claim thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mystery Wolff for the link. I'll check it out as soon as I have some time. Meanwhile try to approach this issue by continuing on the path you are now. From my experience, there is little to be gained by increasing the volume of the discussion in such situations. Personally, I think Ed is a very good and experienced admin and I don't think he has any motive to be anything else but fair toward you. Dr. K. 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. I don't think he has a motive either, its simply that I interacted with him, I took some of what I thought was guidance, which those direction are now cited, then his first recommendation was 6 month ban, and I had never been to the principles offices before. If I thought Ed was uncaring, I would not have bothered to write a post here. Because of the stream of AE requests on E-Cigs he could be compassion-fatigued though. I think I summarized it as best I can here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=698579713&oldid=698569296 This AE is a week old now and the pages are still operating without edit waring. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Some words of advice on a move request

Hi EdJohnston

Recently, a user who initiated a move request on the article Turco-Albanians was found to be a sock. The issues outlined and the concerns of multiple other edtiros regarding the article for move request remain. Will the move request no longer be valid? Can a another editor such as my self take over and place my name and reason for the move request (and if so how). I was looking through Misplaced Pages policies and could not find something as to what to do in this instance. I would really appreciate any advice on the matter. Kind regards.Resnjari (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)