User talk:EdJohnston

How anonymous editors can leave messages If you want to leave a message for me and you are unable to edit this page, post at User talk:EdJohnston/Anontalk where I will see your comment.

Block evasion

If you have a minute, and are willing to help, would you please mentor/guide Mollskman with regard to the dangers of WP:EVADE? You'll find his comments at the bottom of the Zero Dark Thirty talk page, using this IP. It seems the more he and I discuss it, the deeper he digs the hole, hence someone else might have more luck at helping him out of it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

48 hours to 74.97.18.207 (talk · contribs) for evading the block of Mollskman (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the quick resolution. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have extended Mollskman's block to match that of the IP. It would be somewhat ludicrous to allow the main account to edit whilst the sock is still blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Guidance

I recently nominated two articles for DYK, both IP related. Both were initially passed as satisfactory, one by an uninvolved editor. Despite this, user Maculosae tegmine lyncis has now disapproved both nominations in quick succession. Here, he refers to unidentified POV problems and that "article written in pidgin". In my other nomination, ratified by a neutral editor, he states that "many unreferenced paragraphs", despite every section in the article being well sourced. I consider his comments without any merit and deliberately disruptive. I ask that you inspect these nominations and advise me on how to proceed with this blatant agenda-driven harassment. Ankh.Morpork 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK has its own review process that helps ensure neutrality. Not clear that I can add much to the discussion going on there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

About discretionary sanctions

I'm a little rusty on one detail: do we only warn editors of discretionary sanctions when their behaviour has already been deemed problematic, or can we also issue a "by the way..." type of notice about discretionary sanctions? I ask because of the Esc2003 AE request; basically, trying to understand if it's appropriate to leave him a note about the sanctions without saying whether (s)he's editing against policy now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally would be uncertain about leaving a logged warning if the editor was being completely correct and seemed willing to negotiate. Nobody has yet added any info in the Esc2003 complaint that would normally merit a warning, though I haven't checked out every diff. If there is truly nothing wrong, leaving a generic notice is possible without making an entry in the case log. Formal warnings are sometimes challenged so it is best if you can give a reason. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (TPS) I don't believe good cause is needed to place a user "on notice" of discretionary sanctions (although they must have edited pages within the topic area in question). However, DS warnings are usually used to educate the user, rather than to fulfil an arbitrary prerequisite. Therefore, if a user is not obviously disruptive, we usually wait until misconduct or problematic editing before issuing them with a notice.

The format of the actual notice can vary. Although the template that exists for these notices is the best resort, any typed notice that fulfils the requirements (§4) can be logged as a "notice" on the case decision page. HTH. AGK [•] 13:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave it alone in this case, then. I do have some concerns the user is not communicating especially well, but that's not necessarily sufficient to leave a warning, at least not yet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It was clarified by ARBCOM member that anyone can give warning an as far as I understand the bad conduct is not a prerequisite to receive one [1] [2].--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The wording of {{uw-sanctions}} says "..if you continue to misconduct yourself..". Unless some bad conduct has already occurred, I don't see what 'continue to misconduct yourself' could be referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you point further clarification probably needed from ARBCOM.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The section #4 from WP:AC/DS that AGK linked to above says, "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways.." Notice the word 'misconduct.' Did Arbcom say anything recently that implies that bad conduct is not a prerequisite to receiving a warning? EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone can argue if WP:AE will be brought against them that the warning they received is invalid?For example this warning [3] just used one of templates.Does it valid warning?(I think yes).--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What problem do you see with the ARBPIA warning to Spesh531? It is better if the person giving the warning identifies the problem, but except for that it looks OK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed

Thanks for that note, Ed, but I don't think it would change things. It was by wiki email (Indirectheng <KillAllEuropeans@hmamail.com>) and I only read it accidentally because while I usually just eliminate this stuff on sight as spam, I clicked the wrong section and it came into view, and I copied it before binning. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Indirectheng (talk · contribs) has already been blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Spentloose324. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, User:JarlaxleArtemis. Well done, and thanks to the boys in the back room, who nail where it comes from. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you/please help

Issues about the editing at Anne Block are now moot since the article was deleted and two editors were blocked for socking. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you. This is in reference to the message you left on my talk page. I apologize if the formatting is off. I am not the same person as the user you specified, but we live together. I was attempting to provide a neutral re-write of the article as specified by the editor who deleted the first article. The process is somewhat frustrating because we have both gone through the effort of locating over 25 secondary and primary sources and have attempted inline citations for every point. The most relied upon sources in the article come from the secondary sources with the best reputations. For instance, a Seattle Times investigative report about the subject is referenced multiple times because the Times is the leading daily in the region and because the Times investigative reporters have won multiple Pulitzers in the last decade for their work. The Times article summarizes many of the primary sources in a 1200 word front page story that went out to over 1.5 million readers. The Times sourcing is supported by citations from virtually every other media outlet in the Seattle area. I would love to work with the subject or the community to achieve a fair, neutral, balanced article but instead of a collaborative project, the subject simply whitewashed the material and then wikipedia deleted it. We have attempted to follow the wikipedia guidlines, while the subject whitewashed the previous versions, removing all sourcing and writing in the first person. this is a matter of regional import, and the subject has introduced herself into the limelight. I believe the individual meets and exceeds all of the notability requirements. The subject has been covered by all major media outlets and has actively participated in the political process, thrusting herself into the public view via multiple recall attempts of elected officials, each of which requires some 40,000 signatures to obtain. The subjects of Block's lawsuits and recalls have wikipedia pages, as do the municipalities and individuals she has waged battles against. . What can I do to either complete the neutral re-write or request the original article to be reposted? Thank you Deception passer (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (Removed a repost of material from User talk:Deception passer#Your message/Anne Block) Hello Deception passer. Notice the suggestion of User:JohnCD at Wikipedia:REFUND#Anne K. Block. He proposes that you review our policies and then consider if you want to open a WP:Deletion review. I would not be optimistic about your chances there. Though you attempted to follow Wikipedia policies, the result of your work was below the standard we expect. It would be safer for you to start out on Wikipedia by working in a less controversial area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Gates of Vienna

Hello there. IP editor blanking Gates of Vienna. Possibly the same user who has done it several times in a row now entering as IP. Could you have a look there please? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I put on a week of semiprotection, which should at least cover the period of the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Now will you rangeblock?

‎218.103.166.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radiopathy •talk• 03:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• 218.103.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is now anon-blocked two weeks per the pattern of MOS-related disruption of music articles. See User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 27#MoS vandal IPs for the past behavior. Here are the latest range contributions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• On second thought, a smaller rangeblock will work: 218.103.160.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Here are the contribs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 04:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

(WhiteWriter has responded at User talk:WhiteWriter#Mentioned you as a possible resource. -EdJ). —WhiteWriter^speaks 11:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked User:WhiteWriter for help. I am ready to cooperate. Thanks, all best. --Sokac121 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to WhiteWriter and Sokac121 for your responses. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

MAS

Matthew Anthony Smith (talk · contribs) is continuing to edit war [4][5], this time over whether a link to his personal website should be included in an article. Given the prior history of edit warring, this should in my opinion be sanctioned with a block, but I'm too involved to do so myself. Would you be willing to look into this? Cheers, —Ruud 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left notes for MAS and User:Swarm to see if they want to respond here. Let's wait for comments before anyone makes a decision. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how 1 revert from me counts as edit warring, I didn't revert them back after he reverted the second time, I know hes an admin or a higher then average editor level w/e that may be.. so I just left it alone, but I did put in the edit box perfectly a legible reason why for those 2 specific articles should have those links Matthew Smith (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You can avoid sanctions if you will agree to wait for consensus from others that your links belong in those articles. You believe in the importance of your own website; this is not a surprise. Convincing *others* of its importance is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Talk:Yitzhak_Kaduri.
Message added 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zad68 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

User Talknic has been indef blocked from I-P articles broadly construed in July 2012 (he was previously indef blocked from I-P articles in 2011 as well).

He was also recently blocked for 72 hours for violating this topic ban. He was also warned after violating his topic ban again.

He has now violated his topic ban again by making this edit on the article, the talk page, and a bit later on the talk page again.

I think that this persistent dismissal of the topic ban represents a mindset and failure to follow Wikipedia guidelines and stay within the topic ban. The editor himself doesn't seem to be interested in editing other articles outside of the topic ban on Wikipedia either. Can you have a look into this and perform any necessary action? Thanks. --Activism1234 03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Appears to me that that he is right on the edge of I/P conflict issues, but he may not have gone over. If you think action should be taken, ask User:The Blade of the Northern Lights or open a thread at WP:AE. I don't like that he is testing the edges of his ban. It is certainly within their discretion for the admins to make his ban even more definite if he has difficulty perceiving the edge. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK I'll talk to Blade, forgot for a moment! Thanks. --Activism1234 04:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already received clarification of the extent of the TBan from The Blade of the Northern Lights in respect to the article [6]. It would seem I am within my rights sans any mention of I/P issues. Activism1234 was involved in that discussion. ... talknic 07:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you will be able to explain your addition of a POV tag to the article while avoiding all mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article is called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Other editors have successfully worked on completely-non-conflict-related improvements to articles about Israeli cities (for example) during the term of their ban. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The POV tag is in relation to yet another obvious breach of NPOV, being the lack of Israeli representations towards Ahmadjinedad/Iran. It could include the Iranian nuclear issue, Iranian civil rights, the Jewish population in Iran etc etc, without mention of Palestine. My TBan meanwhile has been confirmed as specific to the I/P issue only 03:15, 14 August 2012 The Blade of the Northern Lights. The last NPOV issue I pointed out took over 16 months to resolve [7] despite No More Mr Nice Guy's tendentious attempts to maintain the breach over numerous discussions [8] - [9] - [10] - [11] - [12] - [13] - [14] - [15] ... talknic (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

False. Blade blocked you for 72 hours for making an edit on the exact same article as you just edited. You should've known better. Mahmoud Ahmdainejad and Israel is directly related to I/P - and certainly falls under broadly construed. --Activism1234 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Activism - False yourself. The 72 hr block was specifically because the particular UNSC resolution dealt with the I/P issue 13:31, 13 August 2012. We have dealt with this issue before ... talknic (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your message +

Thanks for your kind message on 3rr. I replied to it on my TP. On the other hand, I would like to request your kind help -also- against the disruptive editions of user:George Spurlin who has begun a campaign of removing the relavant categories from the articles considering the assassination, of a series of Turkish diplomats, by Armenian terrorist organisations; like in this case and other similars which are recognised as terrorism by everybody (except Mr Spurlin, maybe). All the best and thank you again. --E4024 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My logic is simple, category does not fit the article. Assassination does not equal to terrorism. This whole thing started after Ramil Safarov's pardon. Azerbaijani and Turkish users remembered the evil Armenians and started applying the terrorist label to every article they could find. I'm just trying to keep things neutral. George Spurlin (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr Spurlin, when we speak of Armenians I only remember our very good Armenian neighbours in Istanbul that used to bring me painted eggs in Easter, when I was a child. This is more related to ASALA terrorists and that is another thing... --E4024 (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If George is mass-removing the category about 'Armenian terror' Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Armenian militant groups I hope he will seek consensus before he continues. The WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard is one place he could take this. If he doesn't wait to get support from others, arbitration enforcement under WP:ARBAA2 might be the next step. There is a related discussion from 2007 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15#Category:Armenian terrorism. However George's recent claim that an assassination should not be considered a terrorist attack looks unconventional. He appears to have used that argument to justify this category removal. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm open for discussion, but I was just being WP:BOLD. I believe the category doesn't apply to some articles and there are alternatives that could be added, like Category:Assassinated Turkish diplomats. Another thing I noticed is that the victims and their attacks have two different fork articles, for example Taha Carim and Assassination of Taha Carim. Doesn't it make sense to combine the two? George Spurlin (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. There is more here, please also look at the edit summary, really not very conventional... --E4024 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that such edits by George are completely unwarranted. If he really wants to write about Armenians who were falsely accused of terrorism, he should pay attention on people like Stepan Zatikyan. But unfortunately this is all a general trend which I would call "false neutrality". My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand any of this. If I am supposed to do something, I hope that an explanation will be forthcoming. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Yitzhak Kaduri discussion section opened

Hi Ed, I am going to WP:AGF one more time and attempt to get Botsystem to discuss here, although based on his past behavior I'm not holding out much hope. If we don't get engagement from him in a day or two I'll take it to WP:DRN as you suggested. Zad68 12:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good luck, I hope you get a response from User:Botsystem. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No response yet... You might be interested to find out that Botsystem has been doing the exact same sort of slow edit-warring in of unsourced content at Moors (here's a recent example and the same sort of thing from two years ago), and attempts to discuss it with him didn't appear to be productive. Zad68 13:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ed, there's now policy-based consensus between me and the other editor (Cpsoper) that the sentence should be removed. I've sent Botsystem invitations to participate in the discussion but he hasn't been editing. Because WP:DRN describes itself as "an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled," I can't see how WP:DRN can help in a case where the editor doesn't engage at all--according to this, Botsystem has never edited the talk page of any article. The PP expires tomorrow night. As a hypothetical question, let's say the sentence is removed, and Botsystem reverts without engaging in the discussion. Would that one edit be considered edit-warring? What would be the appropriate action? Still recommending WP:DRN? Zad68 13:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If User:Botsystem has truly stopped editing, then he is unlikely to oppose your change. In any case, an agreement by only two editors is not exactly a sweeping consensus. Besides discussing on Talk:Yitzhak Kaduri which you have already done, running the dispute through WP:DRN would allow you to get people new to the problem to assess the issues. Assuming you find support there, this would strengthen your case if there are future disagreements. Sometimes people are blocked for 'edit warring against consensus' but usually this is when consensus is very clear, which I don't see yet. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't you take off your admin hat and put on your editor hat for a second? You honestly don't see obvious problems with WP:V and WP:SYNTH with the edit under discussion? (If you're trying not to get WP:INVOLVED with the content, then I totally understand.) Zad68 14:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice please

Please see here. I have been instructed to revert and have been threatened with AE sanctions by an editor. Currently, I do not understand why this is necessary. Could you advise me on whether his request is justified? Ankh.Morpork 20:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A dramatic change in the status of Jerusalem will attract unfavorable attention quickly. You may be technically correct that the same information occurs later in the lead, but it is less visible there. If you reflect on the type of dispute that usually ends up at AE, this would be near the top of the list. I recommend that you revert your change. You should save up your credibility for some issue where you need it more, and where you have more chance of persuading others. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted following your advice. It irks me though that a bold good-faith edit is enough generate AE threats ringing around one's ears. Not being aware of any prior discussion pertaining to my edit, I shall monitor the thread I initiated to gauge the level of support. Ankh.Morpork 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I am wrapping up my A/E report and it will be live shortly. -asad (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, the phrase 'bold good-faith edit' is too optimistic. Should admins (or someone else) publish a list of the articles where any tremor can lead to an earthquake? Surely you have some instinct for this. I hope you'll think twice before making 'bold good-faith edits' to Golan Heights or Gaza war, as well as Jerusalem. I hope you'll think with extra care before changing the *lead* of a sensitive article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It is true that any tremor can lead to an earthquake but tremoring is still a preferable state of affairs then permanently remaining motionless, too afraid to move. The sensitivity of a topic should not preclude bold amendments and the process of BRD is for that very scenario and it is unfortunate that it has mutated into Bold, AE, Drama. I was not aware of any opposition to my edit which I considered to be reasonable and well-explained. Despite your exhortation to "think twice", I foresee that at the end of my cogitations, the same conclusion will be reached. Ankh.Morpork 21:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

When an article doesn't change, it is sometimes because there is no support for a change. If editors play around too much with the leads of sensitive articles, there could be a case for the community to impose tighter restrictions that force discussion to take place in advance. Did you personally search the talk archives of Jerusalem before making your bold change? EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, though before the inevitable "aha", I did check if there were active discussions and seeing none, I made my edit. I did not expect that it would be necessary to peruse the archives for a previous consensus, and were it to exist, permanently abide by it and avoid any subsequent bold edits. I have no problem in being reverted and then engaging in a lengthy discourse and assessing the support for an edit. What I object to is being prevented from making that effort of improvement in the first place. I didn't intend to drag you into a protracted discussion and I understand that I could have handled this more delicately, however I do not feel my actions merited that particular response. Ankh.Morpork 22:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would you support sanctions at AE for a single legitimate edit? The material does appear twice in the lead. While there might not be consensus to remove it, there was no edit warring, the sourced information would still be in the lead, and there's no ongoing discussion on this particular piece of text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would not have brought AnkhMorport to AE myself for a single edit. He came here to request an opinion, which was given. The lack of any 'ongoing discussion' presumably omits the duty of the editor to reflect on the state of reality, which would suggest he is voluntarily deciding to step over a cliff. Admins have an innate bias to reduce drama, which kicks in whenever editors seem to ignore the drama possibility of their edits. Do they really not perceive the situation? You can make a bold edit to the article of some town in Israel where no real-world dispute is raging and nobody will ever complain. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I understand why the edit was not a good idea. I follow that page quite closely. I was just wondering if you thought that edit was infracting on something to such an extent that you'd support sanctions for it. I gather the answer is "no". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally would not support sanctions for a single edit like that. It can't be ruled out that in a later AE, somebody would cite that as an example of lack of judgment. Since he asked for feedback and then he self-reverted, I think the slate is wiped clean. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Apropos, what do you think about this edit? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Too bad Dailycare didn't come here to ask for my opinion :-). At least he's been participating on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ed, do you regard your opinions as that from an experienced Wikipedia editor, or an Admin? Since Ankh is claiming redundancy in the lead, he could have easily removed "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", as that is also mentioned in the exact same paragraph he is citing as grounds for removal of "though not internationally recognized as such." It is not a lack of judgement, it is a blatant attempt to push a POV into the first sentence of one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia using false justification and without seeing discussion. For me, I would rather not waste my time engaging in the charade of feigning ignorance to that fact. I find my time here is better spent here ensuring that, when someone searches "Jerusalem" in Google, that the typical first result displays, truthful, accurate and proportionately balanced information. (BTW, I really do think you are great admin and I have never felt you have acted unfairly under any circumstances.) -asad (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you review

[16] and [17]. I think this may merit a rollback and an ip block? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked one month for ethnic abuse. Let me know if this editor reappears using another IP. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)