Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 21:01, 19 November 2012 (→Esoglou vio AGAIN: Up to you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Cassandra/Scots language articles

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

I've had a look at IP edits on Scots language and History of the Scots language which fit Cassandra's line of edits and tagged the IPs as being socks of each other (see this cat (the choice of which IP is puppetmaster is by necessity fairly arbitrary)), largely to have one place where these edits can be viewed together more easily. I did start investigating IP edits to other articles this initial group of IPs has also edited but this could be a major task and there is already somewhat of a pattern establishing itself so I thought I'd give you a shout.

I think the earliest edit so far is this one, which informally identifies as "Steve A." rather than Cassandra. There are some other edits identifying as "Steve A." and also as "Yorkshire Tyke". Almost all of the IPs are in the range 92.5.-. Of the ones outside of this range, the one starting 90.- has made more clearly vandalous entries to an article page than fits the pattern with the 92.5.-s but does make a reference to "Tyke" (emboldened to misbehave more when the IP points less clearly to them?). The current main target of the edits seems to have moved to Middle Scots incidentally.

The constant IP-hopping and multiple informal identity names used further points to nefarious intent. Can you advise on any measures which would be appropriate in the light of this? Can one warn an IP range, or could one make a temporary block to an IP range, if that's appropriate or practicable, or would it be so wide as to have a likelihood of blocking blameless users? Any other advice? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The range 92.5.0.0/16 is probably too large to block. You can periodically check the contributions from that range using this rangecontribs link if you wish. If in the future you find that he is trying to actively edit some Scots-related article (making several controversial edits per week) you could let me know or make a new request at WP:RFPP. If the problem is still going on in three weeks I'd suggest you file a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations just to simply the recordkeeping. I can assist with the report if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The link will be very handy to keep track of where he's popping up. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, just to keep you updated, Cassandra has been persisting in their socking, largely with blatant soapboxing across several Scotland related article talk pages, including a transparent attempt to ostensibly suggest one change whilst slipping in another in their suggested wording (the first easily shown to be factually inaccurate, the second fitting the pattern of their soapboxing). The articles he is targetting are increasingly distant from the more central, pertinent ones, Scottish language and History of the Scots language, to the point of even greater redundancy of their posts (lately Scottish national identity and Scotland in the Late Middle Ages?!) presumably in an attempt to evade scrutiny. There is no attempt to focus on improvement to the articles, just a personal reflection based on their own impression. I have posted four warnings for "Using (a) talk page as forum" in just over a day, two each at User talk:92.5.12.6 and User talk:92.5.6.144, with notes at the latter linking the two sets of edits.

If, following any further like activity, I were to formally report this, as the recent edits are split across two IPs would it require a Sockpuppet investigation for action to be taken? The quacking is ear-splitting though. I guess this would only result in sanctions against the IPs in question as he'd pop up elsewhere but it would be a start in building a case. Any thoughts?

Incidentally, I did some further trawling to expand the list of IP edits suspected of being the same editor, per . Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's good that you are keeping on top of this. The category at Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of 92.5.15.139 will serve to document the extent of the problem. I've blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. The rangecontribs is here. Let's see if that does any good. I don't think that leaving any more warnings for this editor is worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Not knowing how IP addresses work and out of interest, is that a slightly different result than the similar range ending in /16 that you mentioned above? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The /19 range contains 8 times fewer addresses. You can see from the rangecontribs that most of the edits seem to fit the known behavior of Cassandra. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it seemed to be a closer fit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Paoli Dam

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

And also I have just noticed he has asked for help in someone's talk page archive here which is not a common practice in Misplaced Pages,I think. I'll notify him. I did not follow contribution of his other IP addresses. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The repeated edit requests from 122.163.*, like the one here, are not vandalism, they are just annoying. I recommend ignoring the requests (or closing them with 'See above') unless you think that semiprotecting the article talk page is justifiable. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Blacklight Power

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

The subject of Blacklight Power is a company that claims to produce energy by a mechanism that is not accounted for by standard physics. The USPTO would not issue a patent, according to the article, because: ".. the applicant was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry". That would seem to place Blacklight Power in the same category of articles as Perpetual motion. If you want to read the text of the ARBPS decision, you can find it at WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. One of Arbcom's findings was: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I looked there but couldn't see anything relating to BLP. Is it an archived case? Can you point me to where it is exactly? As for USPTO, you (and the article) appear to be operating on out of date information. But given I can't get "bullshit" quoted from a blog out of the lede, I don't like my chances of making any more substantive changes at this stage!! Here ] is the patent. Presumably this renders it no longer within the realm of perpetual motion in your mind? Are you happy to make the relevant changes to the article (given I can't)? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotection might not be needed if the IPs working on the article would engage with others in a search for a talk page consensus, one to which all parties would defer. Editors who want to work on highly contentious topics are well-advised to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can reasonably characterise my work as not attempting to engage with others. The difficulty has been getting them to engage with me on the salient points. I am attempting to improve the article - and a whitewash or POV account does not make for a good article. Are you saying you wont make the changes, nor remove the protection? Or do you think it appropriate for erroneous information to remain? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If the other editors don't find your arguments convincing, that's not a problem that I'm willing to solve for you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not the problem I'm asking you to solve. I'm asking you to either make the edits yourself, or let me do it. Please note that: i) you have not shown me to be a vandal; ii) have not shown me to be unwilling to engage with other editors; iii) have not accepted that your own justification for the semi-protection is based on outdated information; and iv) that the page is still protected. So you leave me in the position of asking you to make the changes, or remove the protection so that I can. Or are you saying that the only way I can continue to edit the article is to create an account? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Your five reverts starting at 02:21 on 7 November suggest to me that you were edit warring on this article. That takes away any defense of good-faith editing. If you can get consensus at Talk:Blacklight Power for a change to the article, use the {{editsemiprotect}} template to get the change made. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Since when did BRD = Edit warring? Did I violate 3RR? No. Did I try pretty hard to engage other editors? Yes. Was I vandalising the page? No. Was I genuinely trying to make the article more encyclopaedic by removing "Bullshit" quoted from a blog from the lede? Yes. Did anyone ask for the page to be protected? No. Are you effectively privileging registered users over an unregistered user in a valid content dispute in violation of policy? Yes. Have you addressed any of the points that I've raised with you in trying to resolve this matter? No. Have you assumed good faith at any stage? No. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 05:52, 1 November 2012 (edit summary: "toned down dismissals of 2009 and added validation claims from 2012")
2. 07:39, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 520863813 by LeadSongDog (talk) Let's take it to talk")
3. 08:16, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521639561 by Bhny (talk)You inadvertently reverted more than the refs - please take it to talk")
4. 08:25, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521640166 by Bhny (talk)please take it to talk - or edit instead of reverting since you are also reverting valid material - happy to discuss")
5. 11:32, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "reworked lede to accomodate more current WP:RS")
6. 02:21, 7 November 2012 (edit summary: "gentle change to lede to remove emotive language - no other changes pending talk.")
7. 01:45, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521767937 by Bhny (talk) a blog is not a proper source - please discuss on talk")
8. 08:06, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521951547 by History2007 (talk) Please look up the meaning of 'unjustified' then read the Talk page.")
9. 10:02, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521965554 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) Note to History2007, DV's was an unjustified edit. There is a discussion underway on Talk, please engage in it.")
10. 02:01, 9 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521977142 by History2007 (talk) Quality trumps quantity")

That looks to be ten reverts by you at BlackLight Power beginning on 1 November. Can you indicate which of those reverts were supported by the consensus of other editors on the talk page? A version of the article which is supported only by you and not by anyone else is unlikely to survive. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Our policy does not require that we let you revert the article indefinitely. Your best plan is to try to persuade other editors on the talk page. If you find that nobody shares your view on this, you should let it go. EdJohnston (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Our policy does require that unregistered users are not needlessly treated as second-class editors. You are being unreasonable. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A registered user who reverted as much as you (without waiting for support on the talk page) would be in the same amount of trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have triggered a punitive streak  :-) I always figure with WP there are two kinds of pigheadedness - intentional and accidental. I'll assume this is of the second kind and wait patiently for your ban to expire. Thanks anyway. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, "pigheadedness" is stronger than I meant, so I hope you recognise there was an underlying good will in my comment above. Apologies if that wasn't clear. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

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

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

Frustration

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

When you invoke 3rr.php, fill in the form and press 'Generate', you ought to see the following appear in the URL field of your browser:

http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php?article=Australian+Christian+Lobby&user=Zaalbar&revid=&warndiff=&ishtml=1

Is that what you get? To double check, you should be able to click on the above URL and it will show you the expected list of diffs. Possibly you are putting in 'User:Foo' instead of just 'Foo'. Don't use any square brackets when filling in the form. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the URL I get is only http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php?article=Australian+Christian+Lobby+%E2%80%8E+&user=Zaalbar&revid=&warndiff=. Thanks for your suggestions, but no, I didn't make any of those mistakes. Perhaps the tool is temporarily on the fritz, or perhaps it doesn't like my browser (SeaMonkey for Mac). I suppose I'll try Firefox and Opera.. groan. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

• Firefox worked! Sorry to have bothered you.. though why the tool has to fuck with a normally completely trouble-free browser like SeaMonkey.. grumble, grumble. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

Your version of the URL (as printed above) has extra characters at the end of 'Australian Christian Lobby': %E2%80%8E. Remove those and it should work, perhaps even in SeaMonkey. There is complaint on the web about an Opera bug that does this, but there's no obvious reason for you to be running into that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Aha. It's a little weird, because it's been several weeks since I last upgraded SeaMonkey, and it hasn't messed with any other URLs in the meantime. Oh well, the Opera guy did say it didn't happen to him all the time either. Anyway, now I know what to look for. Thank you for taking the trouble to check it out. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

A request for clarification has been filed

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

Edit Warring

Hi mate!

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

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

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

Admins are unlikely to be sympathetic to hairsplitting as to who was or was not a Bulgarian or a Macedonian during the period when IMRO was active. That article explains why the nationality issue was so complex. Use the talk page to get consensus before making any charge regarding nationality. If admins become convinced that you can't edit neutrally in this area, you might be placed under a topic ban. As you know you've already been warned under WP:ARBMAC. If you make any further undiscussed changes at Independent Macedonia (1944) you are risking a sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, can you please tell me what happened with this user Edward321 he is reversing all my contributions... Can you check his account or at least tell me how to report him. Thank you.Proudbulgarian (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You have not made any effort to resolve this at Talk:Karposh's Rebellion. Why not start a thread there? You could notify him at User talk:Edward321 that you wish to have a discussion. Should the article assert, as you prefer, that Karposh's rebellion was a Bulgarian uprising? Previously the article only stated that it was a 'Christian anti-Ottoman uprising'. Given your interests and point of view, it may not be easy for you to reason neutrally about this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

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

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

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

Ok, thanks. I just setup an RFC. Corporate 02:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ununpentium

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

Answered at User talk:Double sharp#3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit warring

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

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

Talkback

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

Motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and related cases

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

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

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

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

Discuss this

Jab Tak Hai Jaan

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

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

Esoglou vio AGAIN

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

Please take this to some other admin or to WP:ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I need to know what other Administrator you would suggest since you have been the one responsible for the agreement and enforcement in the past. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use your own judgment. The previous restrictions are in WP:RESTRICT and any admin can enforce them. It seems to me that a misunderstanding about the table of contents would not be that hard to rectify. Why don't you ask Esoglou if the problem still exists, and if so, can he recommend a solution. It should not be unreasonable to expect the two of you to work out differences of this magnitude. If you ask Esoglou and he is completely uncooperative, then you might consider other steps. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for guidance

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

Please take this to some other admin or to WP:ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the time and attention you have given. I regret that your patience has understandably been worn out by LoveMonkey and me. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

This sounds like a content dispute and not a case of vandalism. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. You may find it advantageous to create an account. When you negotiate with others, it is a disadvantage to have a fluctuating IP address. Your post above shows that you have a red-linked talk page. Not having a fixed talk page means there is no practical way for others to leave you messages. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I am one of those who beg to differ with editor 87.64.53.178, so I put on relevant talkpage a Request of Comment, in order to receive other editors input.2.40.81.135 (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

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

The agreement was not to keep reverting the 'attack ads' phrasing but to abide by the result of an RfC. That deal seems to be holding. I am not happy to see continued warring on the article but it seems to be about something else. One option to limit this would be a month of full protection. Do you think that would be wise? EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless certain editors are banned from editing the article, full protection will only give the article a respite from the ongoing, almost interminable, disruption. Obviously, though, it's easier to lock the article than it is to implement a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)