Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

First Epistle to Timothy

Hello, the article you had protected for 2 months is now possibly going to have SOCK edits as a new IP 24.217.234.150 added similar content to that of IP 66.215.220.110 and User:Eric the fever. The dispute is still being discussed at articles talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for a year. I hope you'll be prepared to open up an WP:RFC or start other forms of WP:DR if it turns out that the authorship dispute is not over. EdJohnston (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't engaged in the discussion since March. I wouldn't know what to say in the RFC, but thanks for protecting the article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
If there has been a revert war over specific material, just start an RfC asking for votes pro or con including that material. Or, ease into the question by proposing on the talk page a specific wording for the RfC and see if others agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Help, please?

How can I leave a message for an IP 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1? He also claims to be WubTheCaptain. He has been messing around with a video clip that has already been reviewed and closed as keep. His behavior has been disruptive with hints of trying to be helpful. That's the kind of behavior I've been confronted with by more than one editor today. Is it cyclical, or is it the weather? 😳 Atsme📞📧 08:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have fully protected the video for one month. Please use the talk page to reach agreement on any further changes. The steps of WP:DR may suffice. There may be arguments for both sides, but consensus should be sought. You have made reference to a deletion debate as a 'review' of the image, but the IP's concerns may not have been addressed there. And, there are surely some admins who know more about the rules for images than I do. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Close my block request please

As my block expired my unblock request on my talk page is useless. I can't close it and don't want to remove it, if you could close it and decline it, then it would be helpful. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Persistent IP spammer

Hi Ed, I'm having trouble with an IP spammer at Brushy Bill Roberts, who has a history of spamming the WP page with a raw link to the Billy the Kid Museum of Hico, TX, website, as well as promoting a book by an author featured prominently on the landing page of that website, with such extravagant praise as "the definitive work on the subject". I suspect that the spammer is an employee of the museum, or perhaps the author himself. COI is suggested by the fact that these changes are single-purpose, and have been historically. Carlstak (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute at Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) involving User:AffeL

If this needs to continue, it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This section was originally opened by Hijiri888 with the title "Would you mind blocking AffeL?".

The above links were not part of my original message, and the title was different. I'm not going to repeat the original title since I have a slight feeling that Ed might have changed it for some reason other than his misunderstanding what I was asking him to do, and there was some problem with my title not being "neutral" or some such. I just don't want my message to be read in light of a title that was not the one I initially gave it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

AffeL (talk · contribs) is at it again, one week after your warning.[1]

A couple of days ago Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) requested that a long section sourced entirely to a single primary source be improved,[2] and then AffeL added a mirror of the primary source that essentially amounted to someone saying that the HBO behind-the-scenes special said X, Y and Z. I reverted and notified CT of the problem. CT blanked the text in question, and in the edit summary specifically told AffeL not to revert, based presumably on the latter's history of doing just that and calling the edits he is reverting "vandalism".[3] Thirty minutes later a mysterious IP showed up and reverted him.[4] CT reverted back, as the IP had reverted without explanation, and by this time the talk page discussion had been open (and ignored) for more than 24 hours.[5] A few hours later another mysterious IP reverted him, and he reverted back, another IP reverted back.[6][7][8][9]

None of these IPs gave any edit summary whatsoever, and none of them explicitly claimed "I am not AffeL", which one would imagine they would do if they were (repeatedly) reverting an edit that AffeL had been told not to revert.

After the page was semi-protected,[10] AffeL finally logged in and reverted himself, with the bogus rationale that his primary source was not a primary source.[11] CT reverted back.[12] Yes, this does put CT over 3RR, but only if one assumes that three IPs (who are all obviously the same person) showing up and reverting a detailed and carefully reasoned edit with no explanation, despite also refusing to respond to the accompanying talk page section, to be neither vandalism nor a warned editor logging out in order to hide their edit warring. (The IPs geolocate all over Europe, but the 2014 block evasion SPIs showed AffeL editing under a bunch of IPs based in Sweden and Croatia at roughly the same time, so it's not beyond reason that he knows some technical mumbo-jumbo about proxies or something.)

AffeL then immediately issued a bogus/hypocritical "warning" to CT.[13] All of AffeL's talk page edits (which came after all the IP reverts) completely miss the point and show that he is either (a) completely unaware of why his edits are inappropriate, or (b) deliberately feigning ignorance to avoid discussion.[14][15][16]

Whether or not the IPs were AffeL logging out to get around 3RR, given that you issued AffeL a final warning about EW only a week ago AffeL should not have reverted without talk page consensus, and should not have issued a "warning" to the one party who is trying to discuss on the talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't notice until just now, but User:Panyd was pinged on the talk page and requested to examine AffeL's behaviour, but CT for whatever reason (politeness? mercy?) avoided mentioning AffeL's history of edit-warring and the recent stern warning he was given. Panyd commented and essentially told everyone to play nice, which kind of missed the point but it wasn't Panyd's fault because they didn't have all the details. I'm not going to strike the above given this fact, since I would like either you or Panyd to take a look into the behavioural issue here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri doesn't seem to have noticed, but AffeL returned to revert me only after Paynd had added the requested page protection to put an end to the IPs. AffeL returned to the page less than two minutes later, and only four minutes after the last IP edit. AffeL edited not once during the swarming in of the IPs. I'll be putting in an SPI in a couple days, but I won't have time today or tomorrow (I've never made one out before and I don't want to rush it and have it fail due to some technicality).
IP 79.76.69.140 (geolocated in the UK) has never edited any other page, and IP 5.140.135.246 (geolocated in Russia) has made only three edits, two to the page in question. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Besides all that, AffeL refused to take part in the discussion on the talk page even though I'd named him when I deleted the section—he simply reverted once he couldn't edit as an IP anymore, knowingly putting me over 3RR (and himself, of course)—though I doubt 3RR could apply as I was reverting IPs who left no rationale for their reverts. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm out of the loop. I notice Curly's edit summary here, where he removes a 2332-byte passage, saying "..AffeL? You CANNOT use "Game of Thrones: Season 7 Episode 1: Inside the Episode (HBO)" as a source. Probably this is what's discussed at Talk:Dragonstone (Game of Thrones)#Acceptable Sources. This is getting to be quite an elevated discussion. Who do you think has the stronger case, assuming that all the participants understand the issue? Is there even a majority of views in any direction? EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't honestly want to get involved in the article content question. I am mostly interested in removing blatant OR like this and keeping the plot summary section within standard parameters.
I don't doubt the factual accuracy or even the verifiability of the material CT removed. I'm not even that familiar with pop culture sourcing, so I don't know if his assertion that an entire section based on primary sources of this type is inappropriate is accurate (the "official HBO source" in question is possibly different in nature from the kind of primary sources I normally work with writing articles on Tang poetry), but I trust his judgement in the matter (he's written a bunch of pop culture and speculative fiction FAs). I do know that AffeL's adding of the IGN "Inside the Episode said X" source in response to CT's request for secondary sources was out of line with WP:PSTS, and so CT's first blanking, which came after that, could easily be justified by the assumption that AffeL went hunting for better sources and couldn't find any.
Best case scenario, the IPs were three separate individuals, none of them were AffeL, and none of their edits could be considered vandalism despite their re-adding dubiously sourced material without explanation, and AffeL's only starting to revert himself after the page was semi-protected was just an unfortunate coincidence. But even in that best-case scenario, AffeL should not have joined in an edit war and issued a bad faith "warning" so soon after you put him on notice for edit-warring and Yunshui warned him about wikilawyering over the "definition" of edit-warring.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
If this goes to ANI, someone is going to tell you that it's a content dispute. To be sure your case gets heard, you should start from a clear talk page consensus. I don't see one yet. How about somebody open an WP:RFC about the diff by Curly Turkey I mentioned above. Calling this 'OR' isn't immediately persuasive, you need a better argument. An RfC can get you there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
How can it be a content dispute when I just said I don't know or care about the content? AffeL was issued a warning about edit-warring last week, and is now not only back to edit-warring, but is lecturing an experienced editor who has been trying to use the talk page in the face of AffeL's edit-warring, and is very probably logging out to get around 3RR. I'm not taking anything to ANI until CT opens the SPI and someone closes it, but I really feel like you are missing the forest for the trees by telling me that this is a content dispute.
Opening an RFC would be counterproductive, since (as far as I'm concerned) the content dispute you are talking about is really minor and peripheral to the bigger issue of user conduct, and regardless of the outcome it would only make AffeL's edit warring worse knowing that he was able to get away with this kind of thing. The only way an RFC might help would be if it established a consensus to semi-protect every article related to the current season of GOT so that AffeL would not be able to edit logged out to get around 3RR for the next six weeks or so, but like I said here I just don't see that happening.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Because everything is a content dispute, Hijiri. That's why it took a year and a half for a certain persistent duo to get themselves sitebanned—every time it came up it was labelled a "content dispute". Nobody wants to deal with disruptive behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
In the last two days I see five reverts by User:Curly Turkey. CT, you need a lot of hand-waving to prove you aren't one of the edit warriors. You could conduct an entire RfC (with contributions from several people) in fewer bytes than I see in this talk thread. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I started a discussion on the page. It was ignored, and AffeL reverted despite my note to him and many previous warnings to take these things to the talk page. Despite his history of this kind of behaviour, he's obviously going to get away with it again. I'll be opeing an SPI soon, though, and hopefully that'll be that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what I have done wrong, I'm not the one who has done five reverts in like a day. I have only reverted once because you deleted the IGN source with out giving any reason why. Plus I have disussed the topic on the talk page. As you can see from looking at the talk page. User Curly Turkey and user Hijiri88 are the only ones having a problem with using Inside the episode video as a source. Why is that when I revert once I get blocked threats, they can revert like five times in day and still get a way with it for some reason. - AffeL (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
AffeL, please stop it with the bad-faith sockpuppetry accusations. Your referring to one of my edits as having been done by "you", in a comment that was clearly addressed at Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) and not me, is wildly inappropriate given that you were recently blocked for making bogus claims that CT and I are the same person. Similarly, I'm not the one who has done five reverts in like a day is clearly got to by adding one of my reverts here or here to CT's revert count -- none of CT's edits made outside of this ten-hour span were reverts, and only four of them were reverts. they can revert like five times in day is nonsense: Yes, I am subject to 1RR (why I find your constant refusal to use the talk page so frustrating), and so CT and I collectively having made five reverts in the space of 25 hours 26 minutes could be a violation on the part of both of us without us both being the same person, but it really feels like you are trying to revive the same attack you were previously blocked for without directly stating as much. The fact that you laughed at the idea that you had been blocked, rather than expressing any remorse for your comments, means it's very difficult to take the above remark as a good-faith miswording.
And you are still wikilawyering over the "definition" of edit warring. If CT made a comment on the talk page that you still haven't replied to, more than a day before he first blanked the content in question, and your few talk page comments on loosely related issues show you either don't understand the problem or are deliberately pretending not to understand the problem. If you refuse to discuss on the talk page, you are edit warring, regardless of your arithmetic "revert count".
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, What I meant was that both of you have reverted a few times(for different stuff). I'm not in any shape or form saying that you two are the same person. Also I'm not on Wikipedia every day or every hour, so I can't reply to everyhing as fast as others. BTW I did join the discussion at the talk page. - AffeL (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I accept that you didn't mean to imply I was socking. But you are still showing a gross misunderstanding of WP:EW. The number of reverts is immaterial, as you have been told a number of times by multiple users. If it was simply "you breach 3RR, you get blocked; you don't breach 3RR, you are innocent", Ed would have blocked CT for making four reverts in twelve hours. The fact is that CT posted on the talk page requesting an improvement be made to the section or he would blank it; you made one edit that apparently showed you had looked for sources and failed to find any, and so he blanked the section; then some IPs that very much look like you logging out to evade scrutiny started reverting without either edit summaries or talk page responses.
Either the IPs were you and so you breached 3RR before CT did, or the IPs were engaged in blatant vandalism/trolling; in either case, CT did commit a blockable offense. And even if the IPs were actually two different people based in the UK and Russia, and you were a third person, CT would technically be in breach of edit warring policy, but you would be too for your complete refusal to use the talk page for several days, and even after you stopped shunning the talk page only posting evasive non sequiturs.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ed, it's your talk page and you can do with this whole thread as you want (at this point, since the SPI has already been opened, I wouldn't mind if you blanked the whole thing), but these edits are pushing the limits of TPO. I came to this page because you issued a warning to AffeL about edit-warring, and AffeL has continued edit-warring nonetheless (ignoring the talk page while reverting, and lecturing the editors he reverted over the definition of edit warring). I did not come here to request your input on the content dispute itself (which I hadn't even examined at the time).
Your first reply above makes it look a little like you clicked on one or two of my diffs and started reading the talk page in an attempt to figure out what my message was, rather than simply reading the message itself. You definitely didn't notice where I said Example text, as you apparently guessed that the separate section four sections down from the one I linked you to was the first time the question was brought to the talk page. To be clear, CT brought it to the talk page more than 22 hours before he first removed the text in question, and more than 43 hours before anyone else responded on the talk page.[17][18][19]
If you have been misinterpreting my message because my message was malformed or intrinsically unclear -- or, heck, even if you were misinterpreting me because CT's section titles on the article talk page were unclear and I didn't clarify them for you -- that's on me, but altering my message in a manner that does not make it clear that the alterations were made by you and not me is not appreciated.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undid change

Done :)--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, though you protected this article, the same promotional account has returned to edit, with much the same intent. I've requested a user block, but am also asking for assistance in reverting their edits again. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This should not be allowed to continue. I left a note for the editor, and am leaving a ping for User:Boing! said Zebedee who did the last unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I unblocked purely because it was a soft block and the editor had been given the option of just creating a new account. If there are ongoing promotional contributions, I'd certainly not object to a new block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism of another Malaysian page by Visnu92

Hey there. Regarding the edit warring case against Visnu92 (see [20]), that user has once again added a Tamil script in yet another Malaysian article, this time at the Eastern & Oriental Hotel. This is in violation of the dispute resolution that the next person who adds or removes Tamil script from the infobox of a Malaysian article may be blocked. What is the next course of action ? Vnonymous 09:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Let a note here. It is incorrect for you to refer to this edit as vandalism; it is a content dispute. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Wrong. I am saving reliable, sourced content. --Sheldonium (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your certainty that you are right doesn't protect you from being blocked for edit warring. It's your choice. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you all mad, what is wrong with you? --Sheldonium (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
these edirs look pretty pointy. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to give User:Sheldonium a way to avoid a block for the 3RR violation. But his new edits at List of English inventions and discoveries seem to be digging the hole deeper. Classic ethnic warring of the kind that several Arbcom decisions try to deal with. He seems to be editing to favor the Croatian side of every dispute. Already in June he could have been blocked for 1RR violation at Croatian language. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute at PKK

Hi Ed,

Can you check out this dispute over at the PKK article? I come to you because I know you're more or less familiar with matter related to Turkey. It appears that a user is adding repetitive information while deleting sources that I've added awhile ago ([21]). There's an ongoing dispute at the TP. Your input there would be invaluable. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider opening up a WP:RFC. If this were taken to a noticeboard the issues would be very confusing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Halimah Yacob article

Would you mind reverting it to before the edit war took place? Thanks. --202.172.56.4 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If you think a revert is needed, consider proposing it on the talk page and find out whether others agree. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Erion Veliaj article

Hello there! I noticed the article of this Albanian politican had repeated unexplained removals by some suspicious new users. Would you mind to take a look and if possible see to have it semi-protected or protected so prevent that in the future? Thank you! Vargmali (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've applied three months of semiprotection. But I notice you have been making edits to keep certain negative information in the article. People might well be raising questions about the quality of sourcing for this information, and be asking if it is WP:UNDUE. This usually needs a wider audience to decide, so at a minimum, you should be explaining your edits on the article's talk page. If Albanian-language sources are not available in English, you could use the talk page to summarize what they say. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast response! I will do some edits to keep it more in line with NPOV and do some explanation in the Talk page. The problem is that shape of the article when I found it was almost promotional [22] so I tried to add some balance. Vargmali (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Significant edit warring and talk page issues involving two editors

It appears nobody wants to say more about this. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Original title was: "Significant edit warring and talk page issues involving two editors, one of whom you have previously blocked for 3RR"

Hi EdJohnston. Having responded to an RfC yesterday, I've observed some troubling behaviours on the involved article. The situation has now escalated to disruption both on the article and the talk page, and since you were the last person to block one of the involved parties (for 3RR, which he has just violated again), I thought you might be in a position to advise; the editors involved were just booted from ANI, so I'm hesitant to take this to AN3. I'll give you a little bit of the backstory to the dispute, though I wasn't there for all of it. I'll try to keep it as brief as I can.

  • On July 23, a content dispute broke out between User:Therequiembellshire and User:X4n6 at White House Press Secretary, about whether Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the current Press Secretary of the Trump administration (ugh, Trump articles...).
  • The two engaged in a short edit war (both probably violated 3RR at this time, but I'll leave it to your analysis: [23]) and then the dispute moved to the talk page, where the two exchanged a couple dozen heated comments, ending in a string of blatant WP:personal attacks from both sides.
  • X4n6 then opened up an ANI report against Therequiembellshire. Therequiembellishere made counter-accusations, but the thread was closed instantly, because the closer felt that no action was warranted before the parties had made any effort at standard WP:DR processes.
  • Apparently taking the advice on board, Therequiembellishere opened up an RfC on the matter, but botched it horribly by not including a proper question.
  • Yesterday, I arrived via a bot notice for the RfC as the first respondent, and found the two still locking horns. My observations as a third opinion were that A) Both could stand to turn down the heat a notch and B) both were relying on WP:SYNTHESIS arguments to try to force their point. But I also noted that there was a middle ground solution utilizing attribution that would allow them to sidestep their issues.
  • Therequiembellishere seemed to grudgingly accept the analysis, but X4n6 was not happy (to put it mildly) with my "muddying the waters", and we went back and forth a few times about the meaning of WP:Synthesis on this project.
  • Today, a second RfC respondent (User:Coretheapple) arrived and, like me, the subject of his first post was that the RfC is malformed. Because I realized that this was likely to be a theme for respondents, I responded to Core, who suggested a close, and created a new subsection for this separate procedural issue. X4n6 then began a series of reverts of the formatting, removing the subsection header because I was "misrepresenting" Core. (Here's the edit, so you can evaluate that claim: [24]; Core has no objection to it himself: [25]).
  • I explained to x4n6 that WP:TPO allows for new sections to be added into an existing discussion if they improve organization and readability. He continued to revert, hitting WP:3RR almost immediately: [26], [27], [28].
  • I reverted exactly twice: [29], [30], and also tried, in intervening edits, to assuage X4n6 by changing the title of the subsection to explicitly note that I was the one who added it: [31]. No dice: continued reverts.

I'm going to let that last matter rest at two reverts (I should have let it go at one, but I thought quoting him the relevant policy would cause X4n6 to check himself), and I don't want help with the matter, because I want to wash my hands of the affair after this message. But I do think that the article itself desperately needs admin eyes on it. Page protection may be necessary, as edits to the disputed content have continued while the RfC is still going on ([32]). My (admittedly non-admin) opinion is that shortterm page protection may suffice without the need for blocks, since the sourcing should resolve the content dispute shortly. But without protection, or at least warnings, I think these two are likely to continue edit warring in the meantime; neither has shown a willingness to give way and both have multiple blocks for edit warring in their logs.

I know there's always WP:AN3 or WP:RfPP, but these two have already been bounced from ANI once this week, and I don't want to be the one to bring the mess back. Besides, I just don't want to get any deeper involved; I figured the best person to approach before I bowed out of the situation was the last admin who took a firm line with one of the two. Snow let's rap 04:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This story is too long. If you believe there is talk page edit warring at Talk:White House Press Secretary why not file it at WP:AN3 and notify the parties. Though I did block one of these editors previously, it was a very long time ago. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, Ed. I can't fault you for not wanting to dig into it; it is very involved. I'm not taking the matter to AN3 because these two were just removed from ANI; there doesn't seem to be community interest in refereeing/sanctioning either, but I thought page protection might be in order for the article itself, since edit warring persists even as an RfC is active. Either way, I'm not going to be the one to take it to a noticeboard. I've put in my day of work on the issue (and it was more work than I expected when answering an RfC, let me tell you) and I'm not diving in deeper. Thank you for your time. Snow let's rap 05:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I've spent a bit of time reading this over. You arrived at the RfC and were trying to be helpful, but clashed with one of the disputants about the formatting of the RfC. You may be correct that it was a bad RfC, but be aware of WP:REFACTOR: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." If, instead of trying to move comments, you had opened a brand new section at the bottom of the talk page and proposed a change in the RfC then surely few people would have objected. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Ed, that was in fact exactly what I tried to do. I didn't move anyone's post, not really; I created a subsection header above Core's one-line comment. Nor was the close of the RfC my idea (or an objective that I tried to promote with the edit); it was Core's suggestion and my change was nothing more than a trivial housekeeping edit. The difference is literally no more than this: [33] --> [34] (whether or not the subsection appears above Core's message or below, nothing more). And I'm sorry, but in that context, X4n6 repeatedly insisting that I was "misrepresenting" Coretheapple with that edit (when core himself didn't object to the change, and the new section changed the tone of his comments not a wit) is just too much to swallow under WP:AGF.
But look, it's a tertiary issue at best. I didn't come here to seek that that one particular editor be sanctioned for those needless reversions (nor for any of his behaviour, though I do think he is highly WP:BATTLEGROUND on that page). Nor do I want my changes restored; it's a trivial edit and not worth the drama. I only mentioned it in the spirit of full disclosure. I'm just an RfC respondent and I don't have "skin in the game" where it comes to the article's content. But I'm telling you, the article itself really could use page protection. As of today, the edit war continues, with a new editor joining the fray: [35]. It's going to continue until page protection is implemented or at least until an admin warns the editors involved to stop edit warring. That's honestly all I came to tell you, and all the administrative action I think is worthwhile here. I could have gone to WP:AN3 if I just wanted my edits on the talk page restored. I don't care about that, but I do think someone with privileges should be considering page protection for the article itself (where I have never edited and have no interest in editing). Snow let's rap 17:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please come to Galkayo talk page

Some user is claiming false information but he keeps on using outdated sources and proved him wrong multiple times, thank you.(User talk:Mohamed958543) 11:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Be aware that you were previously warned by User:Nihonjoe for edit warring at Galkayo on 22 July. You have made a few comments at Talk:Galkayo but they are not very informative. For instance, the following sentence is almost useless as an explanation: "Few things in the page are not true so I changed as it was supposed to be." This is something that any edit warrior could say because everyone believes their own edits are correct. You should explain what WP:Reliable sources led you to that conclusion. If unexplained edits continue, admins may impose a stronger form of protection that will mean nobody can update Galkayo. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________

Respectable EdJohnston. Please check how the user Mohamed58543. Removed an English UN source and he replaced it with a somali language source that is not verifiable. He removed the English source and he replaced it with non-English source . The english source he removed is from a UN organization. And he replaced it with a somali language website that is not well known. It is biased source. Please check how replaced it. [[36]] . He removed true facts that is supported by UN organization article and he replace with false information that is sourced by unreliable somali language website that is not even English article. 174.21.116.65 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to engage with a hotly-disputed article, I suggest you register an account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I did register now. Please can you verify what he wrote is true? The truth is Puntland controls neighborhoods of Garsoor, Israac, and Horumar.

[1] [2] . The source I used is a reliable and not biased source because it is from a UN organization of ReliefWeb . His claim of Galmudug controlling parts of Garsoor and Horumar is not reliable sourced, he is just using unreliable somali language article that is posted by Galmudug supporting website. Please check the article and see the false information he put there. Thank you Faarax200 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for registering. Admins do not serve as deciders of content questions, so you need to try to reach agreement with others on a talk page, such as Talk:Galkayo. If no progress can be made there, consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Mohamed958543 and 174.21.116.65 have both been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring extensively immediately after the previous page protection expired. I changed your protection to full protection (keeping the same expiration). Once that 31 hours is up, they can discuss things on Talk:Galkayo. I'm getting really sick of this (not you, Ed, you did a good job). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, @Faarax200:, if you were the IP, I suggest not doing anything for 31 hours. This nonsense needs to stop. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://m.reliefweb.int/report/103519/ethiopia/monthly-nutrition-update-for-somalia-jun-2002
  2. ^ http://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/inter-agency-initial-investigation-report-floods-gaalkacyo-gaalkacyo-mudug-region

________________________________________________________

This dispute is about reliable source vs unreliable source. That is it. I thought wikipedia Admins enforce the use of reliable sources Faarax200 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

would be nice if you took your time to help me

Hi you could help me on the page list of turkic dynasty someone is not willing to cooperate user beshogur Have also tried but no solution, Feels so unnecessary to discuss with this person because he does not approve of anythin and this person change ip adress istead of logg in Joohnny braavoo1 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:TheNewSMG

Would you be interested in taking care of this harassing editor?[37] --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've put this article on my watchlist and added some links to top of this thread. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not trying to harass anyone all I did was kindly request a change in an article and User:Kansas Bear responded rudely to me. I am sorry if Kansas Bear feels harrassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNewSMG (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Ed, TheNewSMG's idea of "rudeness" must run one way....
After being told the discussion was finished, TheNewSMG posted:
Then TheNewSMG started edit warring on another editor's talk page:[38][39][40]
All the while TheNewSMG, was sending "thanks"(for a total of five times), clearly as some form of childish harassment, since their attempt to intimidate me had failed miserably.
As stated before this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, after refusing to understand how Wikipedia articles are written, and instead regressed to what undoubtedly they think works in the real world. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Useless IP edits

Hello again. As you may remember, about two months ago, we had a discussion about this on my talk page. Well, they were quite rampant with their useless edits/spamming recently. The IPs they used were: 124.239.251.0, 124.239.251.3, 124.239.251.38... I'm quite sure they used some more IPs as well. As you can see, I'm reverting their nonsensical edits and I plan to continue with that whenever I see them, but some other solution should be found for this issue. --Sundostund (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

After checking 124.239.251.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), I've issued a /24 rangeblock for 4 days. As you may recall, 124.239.251.55 was globally blocked for six months back in June for cross-wiki abuse. Let me know if you see any continuation of this pattern. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your prompt reaction. Of course, I'll notify you if I see that some other IPs are used for this useless edits. --Sundostund (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP hopper

Hi Ed,

An IP hopper who appears to be obsessed with changing the text of certain articles related to East Florida and the Republic of East Florida, as well as articles only peripherally related to the subject, is engaging in disruptive behavior to bring them in line with his particular viewpoint, which is extreme, to say the least. For example, here is an edit made a few days ago to Fernandina Beach, Florida with the nonsensical edit summary, "Fixed racist error", and here is the diff for his latest disruption. He has a penchant for labeling the text he changes as "racist" in edit summaries, which is patently ridiculous. His obsessive editing behavior is remarkably similar to edits made by EastFloridaHistorian. Carlstak (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you list all the IPs you think are involved? If they are not part of a range, these users may have to be dealt with one at a time, for instance by reporting at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Ed. I will try to get to this tonight. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-governmental sources cited at Brandon, Vermont

...this web site is personal rather than governmental. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

reported by User:Khutchins10[1]

Several non-governmental sources are cited at Brandon, Vermont.

http://brandon.org/

http://brandonartistsguild.org/

http://brandonprojects.com/

http://brandonvt.org/

http://www.historicvermont.org/

http://ovuhs.org/

http://quarriesandbeyond.org/

http://www.stephenadouglas.org/


ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bvt-05733&section=2


(Bvt-05733 (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bvt-05733_reported_by_User:Khutchins10_.28Result:_.29

Tolkien family page

An IP is re-adding contetious material from the past to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_family, despite the talk page and concensus in the past. Could the page by semi-protected? Tonyinman (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Brandon, Vermont

Several IPs from Vermont keeps adding the very unreliable source brandonvt.org after Bvt-05733 was blocked for edit warring. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotected two months. I would be surprised if all of these IPs are the same as the editor previously blocked. But we don't need to put up with a steady stream of undiscussed changes. These editors ought to use the talk page. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
we'll be back ;) (70.20.40.142 (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)).
It looks like you are able to use talk pages, so that's the approach I would recommend. I wonder how the disagreement originates -- there must be some civic dispute about the future of Brandon. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Snowsleeping

Hi Ed, would you please take care of this rude editor? Mean comments can be found at User talk:Snowsleeping. Thanks. TheNewSMG (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Ed, could you please do something about User:Snowsleeping? He has made the same unconstructive edit to the article Chandra Nandini (check the history) 3 times and I keep having to revert them. Thanks. TheNewSMG (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:AllahuAkbar321

Hi Ed, there was a user called User talk:AllahuAkbar321 who made ridiculous edits to the article Maharana Pratap (Check the history). He got blocked for persistently making disruptive edits. The next day he made a second account called User talk:ALLAHU321BOOM and repeated the same thing. Due to all of this, I am requesting that you block Maharana Pratap from very new editors due to the vandalism caused by this editor. Thanks. TheNewSMG (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The second account is now indef blocked as well. I hope this is the end of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruption by 96.54.184.11 has restarted

Hi Ed. I hope everything is well. Soon after your 3-month block, 96.54.184.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has started large-scale disruption on the same issue as before, i.e. the numbering system of politicians. Thank you. Dr. K. 21:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked for one year. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
You are very welcome Ed, and thank you very much for putting an end to this disruption. All the best. Dr. K. 00:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting creation for article Umar Khalid

Respected Administrator, this is my request for creating the article Umar Khalid. It is quite important in contemporary Indian politics. You can find many newspaper articles regarding him. Che12PM 18:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che12Guevara (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Khalid (2nd nomination) for why this article was deleted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Alt left

I left a message on the edit warring page for you, but wasnt sure if that was the correct place to address this. In any event user:Mark Miller is pretty much the only user at Alt-Left causing problems (see talk page). While there have been disagreements, everyone else is behaving like adults and making valuable contributions. Is there a reason why the article was locked down as opposed to user:Mark Miller being blocked? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There was a distant rumbling of BLP issues and I didn't think either side was exercising a lot of care. When I block one side of an edit war I like to verify that the non-blocked side is editing much better than the other. It was more of a tie in this case. It is good there is an AfD because that should bring in more people to the discussion. It appears it may be hard to determine the true origin of the phrase 'Alt-Left'. Careful phrasing seems to be needed if the article is to be kept. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say, however if you look at the Talk page for alt-left,you will see there are three separate sections, all from unrelated editors, all complaining about user:Mark Miller's persistent edit warring and disregard for policy. While I understand this is a sensitive subject, there were no major problems with the exception of the aforementioned user. Could I humbly request a reconsideration of the lockdown, or (much more important) a block of user:Mark Miller at least from this article, so when it becomes unprotected he doesn't pull the same stunt again. As it stands, he made the edits he wanted right before the article was locked down. This was not simple 3rr - this was major, major edit warring and battleground behavior since creation of the article. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
The best case for blocking one party would be if they were reverting against a clear talk page consensus. While a discussion has begun at Talk:Alt-left#Disputes to article content, I don't see any consensus being reached yet and you have scarcely participated there at all. Protection can work its magic by persuading reluctant people to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a relevant RFPP entry here, if you wish to take a look Ed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have left a comment at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Any further remarks on the content should go to Talk:Alt-left. At present there is nothing more for me to do, since the protection has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 
to quote : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alt-left
and, since there seem to be not actual self-identifying adherents,

but i found actual self identified alternativeleft
earliest use 2015 https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151119073815/http://altleft.com 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Snowsleeping

Hi Ed, Snowsleeping has recently requested an unblock on his talk page (User talk:Snowsleeping) apologizing for all his mistakes. He even admitted that he is the same operator of Akash Aman akku but claims the IP that I suspected is not related. I think now you should block Akash Aman akku and close the case since there is more than enough evidence that these 2 accounts are operated by the same person. Thanks. TheNewSMG (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not add your comment to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowsleeping, and link to the unblock appeal by User:Snowsleeping. That will allow all the admins who commented to review the situation. Personally I don't favor an unblock of Snowsleeping. The single edit by Akash Aman akku (if that is his other account) is a complete garble and suggests that the editor can't create readable text in English. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Already done by Yamla. TheNewSMG (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. FYI, User:TheNewSMG and User:Snowsleeping are one and the same. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I trust Jpgordon's conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This admin is lying. He blocks ME without any proper evidence on why he suspects me the sockmaster of all of this. Haha very funny, this guy is great at making stupid mind stories. I do not like the way I am being treated right now. 2601:18C:CD81:551C:F544:F37F:87E3:8250 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok if were the sockmaster, why would I play a pointless good guy bad guy game? Any reason and does it make sense? Please think carefully about this Ed. I understand that User:Jpgordon is higher than me and I have been blocked before but please, the admin is not always right. Thank you. 2601:18C:CD81:551C:F544:F37F:87E3:8250 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Urgent - You're attention is needed on a matter

Hey,

You recall how you dealt with the Edit Warring report put up against Hillbillyholiday, about four days ago? Well, he's come back to the noticeboard for edit-warring in the same manner with another article. Just thought I let you know. GUtt01 (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads-up - Thanks for handling that report by Chem-is-try7. I did not approve of his behavior, now what I saw him say in a response he made. I mean, I would have been offended if I saw someone regard me as stupid for making a perfectly innocent mistake; if someone claimed it had been a stupid mistake but advised me to be careful, I would consider that person to be respectable and quite nice to know as a fellow editor on Wikipedia. Thanks again. :-) GUtt01 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I have been following the recent reports. It is best if AN3 complaints are handled by a variety of admins. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hello EdJohnston,

The page Destruction of Serbian heritage in Kosovo has repeatedly had disruptive edits made by IP 91.148.97.128 [41] and has also been warned [42] on thier talkpage. All edits made by the IP have been toward this one article [43]. Requesting page protection so only auto confirmed users edit.Resnjari (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Page semiprotected two months. Let me know if the same IP shows up at any related articles. See also User:Ivanvector's note in the block log of Special:Contributions/91.148.78.110. Back in July, he found it necessary to block 91.148.64.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) as a sock of User:VJ-Yugo. For background, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VJ-Yugo/Archive. This SPI mentions another IP from the 91.148.* range. Ivanvector has made notes on similar IPs at User:Ivanvector/Serbian Army vandal. See also an ANI thread in March. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Will do and thank you. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

IP 14.187.117.137

Hi EdJohnston. I think that IP 14.187.117.137 might be back as Special:contributions/14.187.165.51. Same type of edits, including adding non-free images to articles without providing the required rationales. It seems that the warning should should apply to the person and not the account per se, but not sure what to do if they keep using a new IP each time they edit. Any suggestions on what to how to best proceed would be appreaciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi again EdJohnston. I think the IP might have registered for an account as Scor140399. Same type of edit being made with the same <!-- This is official badge --> hidden note being added to the image parameter. Perhaps at least now, it will be easier to try and discuss/explain things without having to jump from one IP's user talk to another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Marchjuly: I would consider a block of 14.187.165.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but you should try to get their attention first on their talk page. If they move on to even more IPs than a range block could be considered. For this last IP, six of their edits haven't been reverted yet. I assume their changes are not correct, but nobody got around to fixing them? EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. The other edits made by the IP appear to be good faith attempts at improvement and the IP has not re-added an non-free content articles since I posted the above. If it starts up again, I will try and engage the IP on their user talk per your suggestion, but probably a wait-and-see approach is best for the time being. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit reverted while topic is still under discussion on talk

Hello Ed, you made me agree not to revert on Moors until consensus in my favor is reached on talk. Pinkbeast seems to have reverted from status ante to their position while the topic is still under discussion on the talk page. I'd like to hear your view on this. Thank you. Tarook97 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Pinkbeast claims to have reverted to the version preferred by everyone but you. I judge that the complaint that you were edit warring was valid, since you broke 3RR. The discussion at Talk:Moors is confusing. It would be helpful if someone would propose one or more versions of the lead and then collect opinions on them. What's going on seems to be a dispute as to the relative importance of Berbers and Arabs as being people defined as Moors at various times in history. The lead ought to be a summary of the article, so perhaps the article itself is not as clear as it could be. If all else fails a formal WP:RFC might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

On the talk page, both Laszlo and Soupforone's arguments have continually been proven to be invalid and nothing but ad hominem and reverts from Pinkbeast. The time period the article is about is explicitly stated in the lead, I do not see how an intro discussing the 'first Moors', as Soupforone has stated, can be accepted. Tarook97 (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

There is already one version of the lead favoured by every other editor. It is not unreasonable to put that in, especially since the talk page discussion consists of nothing but Tarook97 producing spurious arguments (eg references to things the MOS says that don't actually exist) while every other editor says no, actually, they are quite content with the proposed version. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
By "proven" you mean you have asserted it and no-one else thinks you have a valid point. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Tarook97, your arguments may be convincing to you but apparently not to the others. If you open a formal WP:RFC it will be advertised and may bring in people new to the discussion. To an outsider such as myself, these disagreements look to be small matters of wording which could be worked out in five minutes if people were feeling cooperative. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Should RfC be on the same section or a new one? Tarook97 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We've also been through all this before on Al-Andalus - the same bogus citations of policy, the same willingness to revert at all costs, the same abuse of the minor edit policy (in particular, please remind them not to do that), the same attitude that talk pages are to be used at a last resort. Given how widely Tarook97 edits, one might ask how many other editors they are trying to bludgeon under with this same approach. Last time I reported them at ANEW it didn't take me long to find them doing it on Coffee. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Oneshot

Yet another Colorado-based CenturyLink IP has appeared to revert my edits/reinstate SPECIFICO's edits, this time at Louise Mensch. (I've previously documented Oneshot's peculiar obsession with SPECIFICO and I, e.g. here, but feel free to request additional behaviorial evidence if you need a refresher.) An unrelated IP edit warred from the opposite point of view, although I'm not sure if there has been sufficient disruption—yet—to justify autoconfirmed protection. Even if you're not willing to protect the article, could you please block the IP? Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

And another Colorado IP has resumed edit warring at the same page, this time using the same edit summary as SPECIFICO. Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
If this continues, there might be a case for semiprotection of Louise Mensch. The CenturyLink IP you mentioned has only a single edit. There could be some WP:UNDUE issues about the Mensch article, but the BLP noticeboard might be able to address that. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, the other (non-CenturyLink) Colorado IP that recently commented on your talk page has also violated 1RR at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections ([44], [45], [46]) and could be blocked for that alone. In this edit summary, the IP's rhetoric displays a striking similarity to Oneshot's: "Tsk. Now, now. You don't have to run to mommy just because you are apparently too scared to go to ANI/AE over your keeper SPECIFICO. After your last asskicking by her there, I don't blame you for hiding behind me." Compare that to this recent diatrabe by a (CenturyLink) Colorado IP: "Your brazen hypocrisy is childish. Then again, men don't run to mommy every time they don't get their way. That seemed to be the consensus of your latest failed ANI." I apologize for taking up your time, but I just don't think I should have to live with the stress of constant personal attacks and revenge reverts by an unhinged, IP-hopping stalker. Should I file a formal report about the non-CenturyLink Colorado IP's 1RR violation?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I took a closer look at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and have decided to apply six months of semiprotection. Am leaving a ping for User:Mz7 who recently applied six months of pending changes (per WP:RFPP) to see if they object. When an article is under DS and we are trying to enforce things like 1RR it is not obvious what to do about a steady flow of new IPs who don't participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: No objections from me. Given the controversial nature of the subject, I can see how pending changes may have been too lenient. Mz7 (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36

Can you please provide your rationale for not blocking someone who has 18 reverts on two articles? Also, can you explain what the point of guidelines and lines in the sand are if they are not enforced when crossed? All you've done is teach him how to get away with edit warring. While I'm appreciative of your willingness to take it on as it wasn't your standard edit war report, you've also just punted the decision to the next administrator. The user had ample warnings in edit summaries, on the article talk pages, and on his user page, yet he continued. He's also been blocked numerous times in the past for edit warring. He knew exactly what he was doing. He shouldn't have even been given a chance to defend; it was that cut and dry. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Usually AN3 has a narrow window through which to look at behavior; your lists of reverts span much more than 24 hours. Long-term cases need very good evidence. I'd be unlikely to block only one side of a long-running war unless the other side was quite blameless. And Niteshift36's last block was three years ago. If it was last month the discussion would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not buying it. The 5 most recent reverts on the Osteen page were within 25 hours. That alone should have been enough to warrant a 24 hour block. He had 3 reverts in 25 hours on the Church page. Those demonstrated a pattern behavior that should have expanded the block beyond 24 hours. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Please respond. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Decisions at AN3 need to be taken quickly and we depend on how well the report is written. It did not appear that WP:3RR was violated, which needs four reverts within 24 hours. I would suggest you appeal this at WP:ANI if you are not satisfied but the concept of appealing a lack of block doesn't really exist. Normally I accept a promise to stay away from the article in lieu of a block, if I am confident that they have made an enforceable agreement. He said he would stay away for seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It was pretty obvious that it was violated. I mean, you still fail to see that information that was clearly laid out (I included the times and dates for a reason). I have no intention of appealing as it would be a waste of time by the time a decision would be made (it took 30 hours just to get a decision on the original report). Nevertheless, I find the accountability to be severely lacking in this situation. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
If you had laid out a single edit war on one article with diffs numbered 1, 2 3 and 4 (all happening within 24 hours) it might have been sufficient. When you include more than one article, and a whole lot of edits across a ten-day period, I assume it's being proposed as a long-term warring case, which needs better quality evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Better quality evidence? Such as what? I provided every revert he made and that he was warring across two different articles about the same sentence. I even brought attention to the three times prior that he had been blocked. I'm not sure what more I could have provided. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You are not arguing from the actual words of the WP:Edit warring policy, so it doesn't seem useful to try to continue this. Neither of us is likely to convince the other. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Straight from the policy: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. and The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Please expand on why you think I am not. Expanding on that: Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks. Emphasis mine. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If an admin is convinced that warring is going on, they do have some discretion. But I still haven't heard you say there was an actual 3RR violation in any particular 24 hour period. This is a simple technical question you should be able to answer. Which doesn't depend on old blocks from three years ago. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Am I required to say the magic words or is it too much to expect administrators to fully analyze a situation? I did mention the 5 reverts in 25 hours above as well. Here are four reverts on a single page within 24 hours:
  1. 12:43, September 5, 2017
  2. 13:15, September 5, 2017
  3. 11:55, September 6, 2017
  4. 12:06, September 6, 2017
However, your insistence that you would only do anything if they explicitly had 4 reverts in a 24 hour period is extremely out of spirits with the policy you signed up to enforce. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

South Park (season 21)

It's continued! Can you unlock the page? 31.223.133.218 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You must be talking about the List of South Park episodes. If so, the admin who did the last semiprotection was User:Samsara. Why not ask Samsara to reconsider. Or use edit requests to get changes made. Anything involving future episodes risks being disputed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The page is currently protected so that only administrators can edit it. You have protected the page in June. Please, can you unlock now beacuse you are an administrator? I wanna to make a article. Djole 555 (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What the user is requesting is for you to reduce the page protection of South Park (season 21). You were the admin who fully protected that article on May 31, when there was limited information of the season. Because the season premieres in two days, it is appropriate to create the season article now. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:South Park season 21#Requested move 11 September 2017, where a move discussion is taking place. If consensus is reached there to have a separate article, the page title South Park (season 21) can be unprotected. Previously at the end of May, there was a wider discussion at Talk:South Park (season 21)#Edit War - Article Creation where several people argued against having a separate article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

Could you please explain why you chose to protect the article and why the alternative was to "block both parties"? I clearly demonstrated that GeoJoe1000 was edit warring and actively avoided doing it myself. Furthermore, his attitude is appalling. Six weeks ago, he was reported to the admins for uncivil behaviour and aggressive editing and avoided a block by claiming responsibility for his actions. Now here he is refusing to even acknowledge any wrongdoing and trying to distract admins with claims that he is the victim of a personal attack. Frankly, I don't understand your reasoning here—he clearly did the wrong thing and then tried to get out of it. He deserves a block if only because he clearly hasn't learned how to behave in a civil manner. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It was easy to see a 3RR violation by GeoJoe1000 but I also saw six edits by you within 24 hours, starting at 19:58 on 9 September, a lot of which must have been reverts. Nothing prevents all the parties from trying to come to agreement on the talk page. If all of you can't make progress, WP:Dispute resolution is available. If the other party is truly behaving badly long-term it will become evident once editing resumes, and admins can take appropriate action. My impression on reading the 3RR was there was a lot of personal antipathy and the actual content issues were nowhere to be seen in the report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Those edits were related, but largely separate. The first was to remove Sainz from Renault, as the source provided failed WP:RS. The second was to restore markup that had been inadvertently removed by other editors. The third added a hidden note to the table to remind editors about not adding unsourced content. The fourth removed another hidden note that was misplaced within the table. It is only the fifth and sixth edits where I undid GeoJoe1000's edits.
I have no antipathy towards him, despite what he claimed in the ANI. My only reason for reporting him was because he broke 3RR, and some of his comments made it pretty clear that he had no intention of respecting the rules. I warned him in an edit summary that he was about to break 3RR, and he responded by immediately reverting the edits and including the summary "your threat is noted". He has since repeatedly demanded that editors work with him, but not once has he offered to work with others.
If I may speak plainly, I am now concerned that he will think he can talk his way out of trouble. Looking back over his edit history, he has had similar disagreements with other editors and has been very aggressive in his editing practice. Six weeks ago, he was applauded for taking responsibility for his actions, but now he is refusing to even acknowledge any wrongdoing here. At the risk of saying too much, I now question the sincerity of his apologies then; he clearly thought that he could apologise his way out of trouble yesterday. I know that saying this may only reinforce your impressions of personal antipathy, but everything I did yesterday was in good faith—I saw a disruptive editor violating 3RR and reported it to the admins. I didn't even recognise the editor's name until much later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Consider WP:RFC for issues that are in dispute. it is easy to block people who violate a talk page consensus, but it would be hard to perceive any consensus at the moment, when the discussion at Talk:2018 FIA Formula One World Championship has been wandering all over the place. It gets worse when there are conflicting predictions about future events. If there are any WikiProject standards they might help in making the decision. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The WikiProject standard has existed since at least 2009 and requires a person who is named and quoted directly. There are certain individuals who the Project consider to have the authority to comment—for example, Cyril Abiteboul runs Renault so if he said "Carlos Sainz will race for us in 2018", the Project would consider it a valid source. The Sky Sports article GeoJoe1000 removed contains such a quote from an authority; the motorsport.com source he used to justify it does not. In this case, Carlos Sainz Jr, Carlos Sainz Sr, Christian Horner, Helmut Marko, Franz Tost, Cyril Abiteboul, Eric Boullier or possibly Yusuke Hasegawa would all be considered to have the authority that WP:F1 would be looking for. Furthermore, given the complexities of how Sainz is reported to be moving (it's part of a wider deal), it would receive extensive coverage in a wide variety of third-party sources and would be accompanied by additional stories covering related announcements. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Project standards are good, but do the other editors on the talk page agree that this settles the matter? EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Tvx1 definitely does. I've worked with him long enough to know that. It wouldn't surprise me if he wrote that standard. GeoJoe1000 seems to agree with it, but is trying to claim Horner is invalid as an authority. I can't speak for the other editor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ed,

Thought you ought to see this. Overnight @Spintendo posted this message to my talk page, which was critical of @GeoJoe1000 and his behaviour. GeoJoe1000 promptly deleted that message (which I have since restored) before following up with an unprovoked sweary rant on Spintendo's talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: AN3 close

Posting here to avoid inflaming anybody at the mentioned board. I suggest you change move an article → move a page in your close message. The page in question is not in article space. Might be pedantic on my part, but I feel like it would cause less ambiguity and/or fuel for potential disagreement. AlexEng(TALK) 06:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I happened across this regarding another closure. Personally, I'm clear on the applicability of the caution. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: That other AN3 close

I get that there was a 3RR violation, but that's only because of the tag teaming by the other two. I mean, this continuation of an edit war on another page was done 14 minutes after TakuyaMurata was blocked (as I'm writing this, I see the same editor has done another revert on that page). Generally, that AN3 complaint was a symptom of the larger dispute that is windowed at [47], and I don't think your terse closure captured that even if the resulting admin action was correct. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

If you believe that others are also warring, you can submit a new report. From a quick look, I can see some justification for putting full protection on Wikipedia:Drafts and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. But I wouldn't take action unless there was another noticeboard filing which included diffs of the edits you consider to be warlike. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User block

Hi there. I see you are an admin with blocking rights. This user needs a timeout ASAP. They are continuing to be disruptive despite talk page warnings and final warning – any many reverts! Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for vandalism, for example this edit. You can also report vandalism to WP:AIV. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Ed, re: David 223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please see the edit filter log. This editor had been reported at AIV and was pending action (presumably indef) there. General Ization Talk 04:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Changed to indef. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive user returns

You were one of three admins who have previously blocked Neve-selbert. He was unblocked the last time in 2016 with a promise to undergo mentorship for his edits. I thought it would be helpful to notice you that that mentorship has apparently failed and he's back to massive, tool-assisted disruptive editing on a number of high-traffic political articles.

See this discussion.

Thank you. 73.61.20.122 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears that a reasonable discussion is taking place at Talk:Colin Powell#politician or statesman. I trust that User:Neve-selbert will accept any consensus reached. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I am indeed prepared to accept any consensus (per WP:DTS). That being said, the IP's revert here was utterly uncivil.--Nevé–selbert 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
If there is dispute on whether to refer to certain well-known figures as 'statesmen' rather than 'politicians' that change is subject to consensus. Anybody who engages in mass changes (in either direction) needs to get support for it. The IP's edit summary, "rv to version with no tag. There is no meaningful dispute. One random user does not get to plaster his bullshit to thousands of pages without prior discussion with projects" looks like it is tempting fate. As yet I don't see anyone doing this for 'thousands of pages'. There is a good discussion (opened by Neve-selbert) at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Should we refer to living former politicians as statesmen?. Looks to be a spinoff of Talk:Colin Powell#politician or statesman. It appears that the IP who opened this thread, 73.61.20.122 (talk · contribs), is one who favors 'statesman' for these political figures. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is not about you but there is a IP address user that is vandalizing the Prashant Raj and Ive warned them twice and they still are doing it and I have no idea on how to block the person and since you are the most recent person that has blocked I thought I would give you the heads up on it. And maybe a heads up to me on the process after the warning part would be nice. Dw122339 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article on Prashant Raj for two months. If you think a problem like this one might occur again in the future and you want to know the usual process, you should ask at WP:Requests for page protection. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk)

Consensus??

hello, I'm new here. What does it mean to get consensus on wikipedia?? I know that consensus means we all have to agree. But I don't see a place to vote, how is it registered in the system? And how do we even know who is all agreeing because we're all just supposed to edit. I'm not sure how it works. Can you please explain it to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalding321 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) @Spalding321: Hi. The answers you are looking for can be found at WP:CONSENSUS. However, the gist of it is this: consensus does not need to be unanimous; it just needs to be a general agreement among participants. The consensus-building process typically takes place as a discussion on the talk page of the article you're looking at. For example, consensus for a change to the page Test would take place at Talk:Test. Someone would start a discussion on that page, and then other people would chime in to voice their agreement or disagreement and propose new ideas. It's not extremely formal. Consensus can also be requested from a broad audience using the process found in WP:RFC. If you have a specific issue for which you need help establishing consensus, I'd be happy to help. AlexEng(TALK) 20:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to User:AlexEng for the response. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

polices and peoples' backgrounds

Extended discussion. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You know, I've been thinking about various policies involving admin and user interactions in terms of sanctions and authority. I think about how I've always felt about Americans, given the reasons why I've always had feelings of mistrust or what not towards them. However a policy requires me to listen to the authority of administrators on Wikipedia, including Americans. i won't go overly into details about why I have such feelings towards Americans, but i will say that Americans are the reason why I never grew up in the beautiful city I was born in (Ankara). I grew up in Aberdeen with two kind foster parents, but Americans did something to my family because of their deep opposition to president George H W Bush SR. I don't know all the details myself, and I won't tell you what exactly happened, but Americans basically are what took my life with my original family away from me by force. Hence why I have a deep mistrust of any authority figure that was born and raised in the United States. Now of course I follow the law when I visit the US, and I have American friends in D.C. and Virginia (amazing people and good friends to have). However my hatred of authority imposed by Americans still stands. however, I always have and always will do my best to prevent myself from losing it with American administrators on Wikipedia.

However, I bring this up because I really think there should be something in the policy that allows for someone to ask for a different administrator handle their case. Now this doesn't mean that "i want so and so because they are nice", but more like "i'm not comfortable with Americans pushing authority over me, can you please get a non-american admin to handle my case".

The policies don't take into account people that may not be comfortable with let's say Americans imposing authority over them because of something in their background. how I think it should go is that if I am getting contacted by an Administrator, and let's say I check their page, see they are from the US, and I say, "i'd like a non-american administrator to handle my case please." I shouldn't get, "well i'm handling it, and you will do as I tell you!" Basically the policy should allow users (both IP and registered) to interact with authority figures on the site that they are more comfortable working with. i.e., I'm most comfortable with a Turkish or a UK based administrator, and I'm least comfortable with an American administrator. Why? because administrators are there to help and resolve problems. It's really hard to work with someone with authority over you when you don't feel comfortable with their authority. Now this doesn't mean that I can avoid sanctions, it just means that I'd be having someone dealing with me that I'm more comfortable with their authority. It will allow problems to be solved with much less conflict, than if it was just 'you deal with me, I call the shots, regardless if I'm American or Turkish.". It's important that users do feel welcome, anf when in conflict, the moderator be someone they can work with, rather than just a police officer that punishes them.


Who would I talk to to get this maybe put in or some how workedin? Given my backstory it's heavily important to me. pluss not to mentino ot every user grew up like your average family, where they lived wit htheir birth parents all their life and didn't end up in a circumstance where a certain group caused them to be forced to leave the city where they were born in. policies should make a little bit of wiggle room for peoples' backgrounds, especially if they apply accross international boundaries. Wikipedia is world wide, not just US remember.

what do you think ed? if I ask to nto have an American admin work on my case with me, why should i be forced to work with the American or face punishment?

Andrew Nichols 199.101.62.55 (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum. If you are not here to improve articles, your musings on the nationalities of admins that you may trust or not trust are unnecessary and not helpful. You can publish these thoughts on your own website if you desire. If you will only work with other editors of whose nationalities you approve, you are coming near one of our criteria for blocking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that i have to work with an admin that's American despite what i said above? and no I'm not treatig this as a forum. I'm saying that policies shouldn't assume things about people.

Andrew Nichols 199.101.62.55 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC) I'm also trying to help make problem resolutions easer here on Wikipedia, this way more constructive edits can be made. and a big problem is admins or users forcing themselves on people when they've asked the admin or use rto leave them alone. if an admin issue comes up then I get handing it off to another admin. this is an issue regarding Wikipedia policies that will lead for a better experience in terms of helping editors improve articles without putting them in situations that will escalate things to where blocks are needed. I'm sure you don't like blocking people at all, nobody likes punishing people. I'm putting forward a suggestion to help resolve possible conflicts. Not everybody is comfortable with Americans you know. Andrew Nichols 199.101.62.55 (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm

The question seems to be answered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adamstom.97 and AnonWikiEditor: is there a wiki tool that shows how much these two have interacted? I find it damned odd that a.w.e. never maked any appearance in a noticeboard in almost 4 years and then magically pops in to defend Adam from a block. Maybe its nothing, but it seems pretty damned coincidental, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

An AN3 case involving two stubborn people was just closed. That's an everyday occurrence and doesn't ring any alarm bells. Still, if you perceive abuse you should file at WP:SPI. AWE was active on the article talk page as early as July, so he had every right to be there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The article is one of the pages on my watchlist. Also, Jack, your contribution history is public. Anyone can see where you post or go to complain about other editors. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are implying, anon. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't implying anything. Merely stating that all edit histories are easily viewable public record so it doesn't take some conspiracy theory to explain how I was able to notice you reported another editor in a rather public dispute on an article I follow. The same way I noticed that when you couldn't get your block, you came directly here to the admin's talk page to whine about it. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible Sockpuppet

Multiple accounts?

Pages under discussion:

SPI case:

Hey EdJohnston, I wanted to know whether or not Bbb23 had returned or not, since he has been blocking sockpuppets of User Tiseptiko the past 3 months. And I believe user Tiseptiko has just created a new account who has violated WP:3RR and many other violations. Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Please supply details. Was there ever an SPI case? Sadly, I don't believe User:Bbb23 is recently active. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey EdJohnston thanks for responding to me so quickly. Unfortunately, I don't think an SPI case was ever open. What we used to do is I would provide him the name of the user and the evidence or reason on why I believe he is a sock puppet. An either my evidence or him doing a check user would usually be enough to block him. Here's an example of what I am talking about [48]. The same user does everything that I explained two months ago and I also found it bit suspicious that this "new" user as soon as he creates this "new" account goes directly to the articles which I took out all factually incorrect information and puts everything back that the other user put 2 months ago. This is the user that I am talking about, the account was created one month ago the time that Bbb23 left [49]Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
You are asking about an account which is new since the last time you spoke to Bbb23? If so, please provide the user name of the new account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I have provided it to you. It was the last thing before I signed my post, I do apologize if I wasn't clear enough. Here is the link of his contributions [50] and his user name is Sentropeahlelele. Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I left a note for Sentropeahlele so that they can respond if they wish. But you have stated that they already broke 3RR. Where did this happen? Also, where are the examples of them restoring 'factually incorrect information'? EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind that you left a note, but if your expecting him to come out and say he is an actual sockpuppet of Tiseptiko, I don't think that will be happening anytime soon. Also he has many more sockpuppets, if your gathering them up, I believe that there is one more in the Yemeni Civil War article that was also blocked by @Bbb23: around early June. An another one that was actually blocked editing this article see here [51]. I think a check user is needed to be done for this matter. Furthermore, since this user is a repeat offender and continually opens up accounts I think an IP Block needs to be put in place. Now about the WP:3RR violation if you look at the time frame of August 14 - August 28 he edits the Abyan Article 43 TIMES and never once gives a description. See here two pages worth of edits [52] [53]. Now the factually inaccurate information that I am talking about is them continuing to reference the same twitter users which, include some that have less than 1500 followers to push their point of view. For all we know they could be those same twitter user they are referencing as actual information, that has happened. For some examples of what I am talking about, see the conversation that I had with Bbb23. Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
There was already an SPI case on User:Tiseptiko. In fact, User:KrakatoaKatie is currently active and she had previously run a check under this case. I have not yet reached my own conclusion on whether this is a probable sock on behavioral grounds. Will probably need to return to it later. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, but all I am saying is if you do a checkuser it will most likely show that he is a sock puppet of Tispetiko. An I don't understand if he is using the same IP address, why not just do an IP Block and be done with this matter. Furthermore, he is editing the same topics as his predecessors, using the same sources to add almost identical information, and his very first edits were to put back his predecessors edits that I had taken off because the sourcing and information at the very best were not credible. At the very least, this should be considered suspicious and receive a temporary block therefore minimizing anymore damage he can do to future articles and have him prove that he is innocent or while you can make your judgment. Even though Bbb23 thought this information was enough for him to receive a block. Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, sentropeahlele editing the same pages and adding the same sources gives someone probable cause to believe that you are a sock puppet on behavioral grounds. Furthermore, I am asking for the opinions of @GeneralizationsAreBad:@DoRD: since they have been monitoring sock puppets of Tiseptiko with Bbb23. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Response from Sentropeahlele:
Do a checkuser to confirm that i am not a sock. Adding same sources and editing same pages does not mean that i am a sock. I ediding those articles, because it seems that not too much people edit and create articles about one of the recent humanitarian catastrophes of our times, yemeni civil war. Thank you for your time reading my message. User:Sentropeahlelele (talk) 5:24, 12 September 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentropeahlelele (talk • contribs)
The SPI complaint is now closed, and the result was that User:Sentropeahlelele and an IP editor were blocked as socks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Lucid dream

Lucid dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) As all the involved editors are, I believe autoconfirmed, I don't think semi would have any effect. No discussion seems forthcoming. I filed a 3RRN Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

See my warning to User:Mr. bobby. The semi was intended to deal with some unrelated vandalism, and was not in response to the reported war. Let me know if there are any more reverts. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Ed, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Only blocking one user for 3RR?

You blocked User:NightShadow23 but not User:ViperSnake151 for violating WP:3RR on Discovery Family, even though both clearly did so. I do not understand how this can possibly be justified, particularly considering the latter user is a habitual edit warrior and regularly files reports like this to win disputes.

From Wikipedia:Edit warring#Administrator guidance: Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues. Having been on the receiving end of such treatment myself before, I do not want others to go through the same thing. Modernponderer (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It seemed to me that NightShadow23 was changing the long-standing founding date of the channel, while literally nobody agreed with them. In one of his edit summaries he cited Facebook as a source, obviously not ideal. You are right that the ViperSnake151 did not behave optimally either, though he had no previous blocks. To some extent it will always be a judgment call as to who is behaving worse. In the early days of Wikipedia, somebody wanted 3RR blocks to be compulsory (admins would have no discretion). That's not likely to be a better system. EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Given the blatantly false information against consensus, I was treating it as vandalism (which is exempted from 3RR). Children's channels always seem to attract these kind of disputes and wars. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Willard84's conduct

You had warned him 2 months ago[54] after he had broken WP:3RR rule on a different article, that if he edit warred again he will risk a topic ban. It seems that the warning had no long lasting effect because @Willard84: has continued not only edit warring, but also bludgeoning, use of talk page as forum and general disruptive editing. Very recent examples:

1)he removed mention of Devanagari[55], despite on-going discussion he removed it again[56] On other edits he removes information that the Devanagari script came into vogue in India in the 1970s along with the reference, he reverted this again[57] after being reverted, he reverted the editor. On the talk page, Willard describes that he took the lengths of trying to contact Ethnologue to question their article about the Balti language.. He continues to call a highly reliable publisher Walter de Gruyter an unreliable source.[58]
2) he went to bludgeon a page move request that was already closed 3 weeks ago[59], adding nearly 2,000 bytes to a closed discussion, Kautilya3 happened to make reply of his one comment, alleging him of "cherry picked information to suit your POV,"[60] which is Willard84's modus operandi.
3) he has been wikihounding my edits, he reverted my edits on Template:History of Pakistan,[61] without edit summary, restoring version of an editor blocked for WP:NOTHERE and he soon he reverted[62] other editor by telling him Don't make changes before discussing in talk section, while himself reverting without gaining consensus. After that he turned the talk page into WP:FORUM, by initiating discussion about Shina[63][64], a completely irrelevant article where his edits have been accepted and I was the one to initiate them.[65] But now he believes that because his edits were accepted on Shina, they should be accepted anywhere, and further asking me irrelevant questions,[66] in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. He claims that Pakistan was never a part of Pala Empire, which is contrary to the article of Pala Empire, after I showed him the source,[67] he asks "elaborate on how this empire has played a significant role in the history of Pakistan before making grandiose statements."[68] Despite I never made a grandiose statement. Such battleground and didn't hear attitude has already wasted a lot of time.

His violation of talk page guidelines doesn't stops here. He changes his comments even after they have been already replied[69][70] and you can look at the talk page only 10 of the last 50 edits are made by other editors,[71] while 40 of them are from Willard84. It seems he doesn't think before replying. Capitals00 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

4) In one instance, he introduced a POV by making superficial edit summary. Edit Was soon reverted[72], and by looking at the discussion concerning these edits[73] you can tell it gets hard to make him understand something. Capitals00 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) I've seen (and participated in) the talk page discussions for Shina language and Balti language, that largely went back and forth between Capitals00 and Willard84. Fwiw, I haven't noticed any behavioural problems on either side of the debate. On the contrary, the discussions have been of a higher standard of civility and openness than I'm used to seeing on India-Pakistan topics. – Uanfala 16:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think any action is necessary since the conflicts are resolving themselves slowly. I would suggest to capitals00 though that their behavior has been less than perfect in all this. Particularly in the bringing up of past blocks/warnings etc. (cf. Template_talk:History_of_Pakistan#break when in a content dispute. --regentspark (comment) 16:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree and I was seeing the template talk turning into WP:FORUM and I decided to better return when there is some significant progress. There is WP:NODEADLINE. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Hi Ed, I was going to say that these are all content disputes that don't belong on an admin talk page, but thought I would wait until Willard84 responded. Now that he did, I see that it has gotten even more out of hand. The only thing you would want to see is whether Willard84 is sticking by the guidance given to him about edit warring. The rest of it is being handled on article talk pages. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Response

While I see that users have decided no action be taken yet, I think its important to address Capitals00 accusations, because my explanations might demonstrate that it is in fact him that has been making inappropriate accusations, while transgressing the bounds of civility. Capitals00 accusations should henceforth be taken with a grain of salt, and I intend to below show why this is the case. Its also worth noting that he failed in a previous attempt to have me banned as a sock-puppet - and this new complaint could very well be part of an attempt to have me banned or disciplined for any reason he can find - including the ones he misportrayed below. He recklessly throws around accusations such as that sockpuppeting one, but also complaints of "bludgeoning" etc.


This is a long list of complaints, so here we go:

1)"On other edits he removes information that the Devanagari script came into vogue in India in the 1970s along with the reference,"

What Capitals00 fails to mention is that the source he provided made no mention that the script was even "in vogue." The source he offered on ethnologue made no mention whatsoever about the script use being en vogue. This was original research, and Capitols00 failed to provide any source stating that Devanagari script was ever deemed en vogue - which he was informed means "fashionable" or "popular." That he re-inserted OR reflects poorly on him, not me. It was further decided on the talk page that the source he keeps citing, Ethnologue, is not to be deemed reliable enough for inclusion of devanagari on the page since Ethnologue itself is doesnt offer any citations. It bears repeating that the claim that the script came into vogue was WP:OR and not even supported by the citation he provided. Yet he's now complaining that I removed this false claim, even though it was he who introduced the OR in the first place.

Capitals00 is also complaining that I contacted Ethnologue. I'm not sure when this became forbidden?

If youll note, Capitals00 complained that I called William De Gruyter an unreliable source. Capitals00 just misconstrued what I said in an attempt to paint me in a bad light. What I had in fact originally wrote response, I mentioned on 05:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC):

Even the book you provided mentions an ancient script. And did you notice the citation that the book [Lesser-Known Languages of South Asia: Status and Policies, Case Studies and Applications of Information Technology] provided? The Husanabadi 1990 reference? You can see here it was "privately published" which means that it is Self Published. Remember, self-published articles are not reliable. So the book cites an unreliable source, which then compromises the reliability of the book itself! So even this book isnt reliable. "

Capitols00 ignored this questionable citation with a "didnt hear attitude," by responding on 06:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC):

In addition, the text "Lesser-Known Languages of South Asia: Status and Policies, Case Studies and Applications of Information Technology" IS NOT a self-published source. Rather, it is published by an academic press, Walter de Gruyter, and the source says that Balti was written in a "Devanagari based script" as evidenced in "ancient records"'

I had to again clarify on to him on 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC): And you've completed ignored what was addressed about the book you cited. I didnt say the book you yourself pointed to was self-published - I said the source THEY USED in the book is self-published. I clearly explained this above.

As User:Uanfala later responded:

Ditto for Tariq Rahman's aricle in Lesser-Known Languages of South Asia: there Balti is an entry in an enormous table almost entirely based on ethnologue. As this seems to be an object of controversy here, I should note that the paper itself is a reliable source, but any specific bit of information in this particular table isn't

Yet here we are again, having to explain to him that I said the source used in the book is unreliable for being self-published, not that William de Gruyter's book is self-published, or entirely unreliable as a book. I was referencing a very specific citation within that book. I clarified this twice for him on the Talk:Balti language, but Capitals00 disregarded this clear distinction I made, yet he's again mentioning it here. I don't know if he doesn't understand what I wrote, or whether this is just an obnoxious tactic? Either way you can perhaps see why its so hard to convince him of anything since he doesn't even read or care about what is written in response to him.

This is in fact a common theme when trying to discuss anything with Capitals00 - he completely ignores what you actually say, and then counter-accuses you based on logic that is based on him disregarding what was actually said. Capitals00 continues to imply that since this is a published book, then all citations in it must be deemed reliable. This is simply not the case, and Capitals00 didn't even bother to address the reliability of the book's citation in question. He even further declared on 06:26, 23 September 2017:

-the fact that Devanagari (or a script related to it) was used in antiquity, and Devanagari is still used in India to write the language is all the more reason why it belongs in the lead

He extrapolated, likely by OR, that his citation that mentioned an ancient script was support for his assertion that the script was still in use. The source didnt claim that, but he did.


2) What does the Iron Age debate even have to do with anything? Capitals00 pointing to this as evidence of misdeed is a bit confusing since its the result of an honest mistake as I didnt realize the debate had been shut. I see it now clearly listed, but even this mistake isn't evidence of misdeed as he wrongly insinuates. What Capitals00 also fails to mention is that the same User:Kautilya3 had to explain to Capitols00 [not once], but [but twice] that Capitals00 sources were not reliable. Capitals00 thinks that pointing to a specific comment is indicative of Kautilya3's overall opinion of me. Is that not the definition of cherry-picking? I think so. Kautilya3 and I actually maintain a cordial relationship on here, despite our disagreements.


3) Capitals00 makes false accusations of wikihounding. I monitor several Pakistan related pages, and when Capitols00 unilaterally removed 5500 bytes of information, it became quickly apparent that a large change had been made because the template on several pages had completely changed. Thats not harassment.

I wrote to him: Stop undoing the edits made by others. The collapsed version, as suggested by User:Kautilya3 above (and then commended by User:LouisArago is far cleaner and easier to read, and this new page is ruining page formats by re-introducing an unnecessarily long infobox.


He then complained that Palas were not included in the page. Regarding inclusion of the Pala Empire, I showed Capitsls00 the text of the Pala Empire page that mentions debate whether the Palas really even ruled any part of modern Pakistan. The identity of the Kamboja prince is also uncertain. While an ancient country with the name Kamboja was located in what is now Afghanistan, there is no evidence that Devapala's empire extended that far. Kamboja, in this inscription, could refer to the Kamboja tribe that had entered North India. Capitals00 again just ignored this, and gave a citation that totally ignored this in his attempt to force his POV into the talk page of the template. The question of whether Palas controlled modern Pakistani territory is even reflected in the map provided on the Pala page, which doesn't include Pakistani territory.

Regarding citation 19 I dont even know how he drew the conclusion that I'm insisting I'm right no matter what. I asked him to point out WHY Pala Empire is relevant enough to be noted in the history of pakistan template when its even debatable whether they ruled anywhere in Pakistan (again, note the geography of the map of the Pala empire that at most imcludes a small sliver of land. The page on the empire doesnt even mention Pakistan. The only mention of modern Pakistani territory is an uncited mention in the infobox).


Regarding his mention of what I wrote on the Shina page about me always "being right": ( But now he believes that because his edits were accepted on Shina, they should be accepted anywhere), what I wrote was actually in response to his allegation that I ignored facts:

"And it's really quite hilarious for you to accuse me about rejecting facts when you wasted days rejecting the fact that Devanagari isn't used for Shina" -Willard84

How does this imply what he accused me of? I didn't say I was right because of the Shina discussion. I brought it up to point out his behavior, as he is doing here.


You can read in his citation 17 that I very clearly responded to his accusations that I'm throwing mud around in hopes of whatever will stick (see below). All I did was point out the irony of Capitals00 accusations.


Regarding the accusations of grandiose statements, you can see here that Capitols00 made the assertion: Stop this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, especially when you have been blocked 3 times for edit warring and socking this year alone'. You are doing is that you are throwing enough mud at the wall, and hoping some of it will stick, since Pala empire "extended across most of northern South Asia as far as Kamboja/Gandhara"[74] it plays significant role in Pakistan history.

He didn't address the confusion noted on the Pala Empire page whether Kamboja even referred to the kingdom near gandhara in northern pakistan/afghanitan. He just pointed out a citation, and presumed that it simply settled the debate. And you can see he did make the claim that "since Pala empire "extended across most of northern South Asia as far as Kamboja/Gandhara" it plays significant role in Pakistan history." The fact that an empire at one time included any land within modern Pakistan is not evidence that it played a significant role in Pakistani history. Capitals00 seems to fail to understand this distinction, yet he did make a bombastic claim..


You can see on the Talk: Shina language page that he even somewhat arrogantly (and grandiosely) declared on 02:57, 8 September 2017 (even after it was made clear by Uanfala that the devanagari script was a mere proposal) that:

"There are a a number of claims in your comment that invalidate your overall argument. One such claim is that the Shina are a Muslim ethnic group living in Pakistan but there are a significant amount of the Shina that are living in India and are not Muslim. Those speaking the Brokskat dialect of Shina, for example, are mostly Buddhist as also shown by the Ethnologue source. The Omniglot encyclopedia is published by linguist Simon Ager, clearly a reliable source."

How does pointing to them invalidate my argument that Shina don't use Devanagari? I mentioned that it would be highly unusual for a Muslim group in Pakistan to use devanagari, but he declared my point to be entirely invalidated because literally 2 villages of buddhist speak a very divergent dialect that may in fact be another language. Pointing to this minority didn't invalidate my overall argument that Shina dont use Devanagari, as it was later decided by consensus that his original assertions were wrong. Also worth noting, he used the plural to demonstrate that a "number of claims" in my original question were invalidated in order to flluff up his argument, though he only could point to one part of my overall argument that could be wrong (Brokstat might be another language, or a very divergent variety of Shina with a heavy amount of Tibetan loan words.).

He also insisted that his Omniglot citation was "clearly a reliable source," even though that was later demonstrated to be untrue. He kept pointing to a Rajapurohit proposal for a devanagari script, and then offered a citation on page 947 that also quote the exact same Rajapurohit proposal. His initial citation claimed support from page 947 of that book, but we demonstrated that the pages he cited have NOTHING to do with Shina, and is instead dealt with syntactic constructions within the Kashmiri language. In fact, the ONLY mention of Shina orthography was on page 823-824, which clearly mentions a Devanagri proposal. So he not only failed to appreciate that proposals dont indicate use, he thought he could just repackage the exact same proposal he found in another book to support his assertions. That is, he offers

In fact, it would be a good idea for you to read the whole discussion on the Shina page, because you can see how it required several editors to explain to him ad nauseam that his sources did not support the assertions that he kept making. You'd note there that he feigned an image of consensus by stating on 05:36, 21 September 2017:

Given the previous long standing version and at least 2 editors, me and Satpal Dandiwal have opposed your views, you should not be removing Devanagari. It is not even a controversial information nor there is any dispute over it.

This is in direct opposition to the obvious fact that a debate was indeed ongoing. He attempted to shut down the conversation by unambiguously declaring that there was no controversy at all - implying that the problem lie in me, not in his assertions which were ultimately deemed unable to be backed by any reliable sources.

On 05:02, 23 September 2017 He again tried to shut down the conversation by making the false assertion that I was "beating a dead horse" even though the I had responded to the discussion only a day after the last editor:

Sorry to see you still want more discussion about this. Your views have been replied, read what has been already said above and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - Capitals00

This is a rather obnoxious tactic - to attempt to shut down the conversation in his favor.



4) Regarding my changes to text noted here in citation 23, its worth noting that editors sometimes edit their reponses. The second version of what I wrote was 2 minutes after the first, and though I dont remember the exact circumstance, it was likely that I got an "edit conflict" message and just hit save again. And nothing that I wrote impacted the message that Mar4d wrote (the intervening response), which Capitals00 neglects to mention was in regards to HIM, not me:

* This discussion is simply running in a loop, and leading to nothing new. Capitals00, I have yet to see you provide reliable sources to support your position. The ones you cited have been deemed insufficient. Parroting the same WP:OR back and forth and claiming (non-existent) WP:CONSENSUS will not cut it unfortunately. I suggest you please go through what Willard84, Kautilya3, Anupam and Uanfala have suggested above. At the moment, you have not addressed any of those concerns. Failing this, we can opt for a third option mechanism. Pinging RegentsPark. Btw, Nastaliq remains the primary script used in Gilgit and surrounding areas. There are exceptions like Balti which until very recently used Tibetan characters. Mar4d (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

citation 22 was likely under similar circumstances, because I had decided to include his insistence on the inclusion of the Pala Empire to highlight the illogic of his argument that the Swat state not be included as part of modern Pakistan's subsection on the Pakistan topic page.


Capitals00 then complains "and you can look at the talk page only 10 of the last 50 edits are made by other editors,[24] while 40 of them are from Willard84. It seems he doesn't think before replying."

I'm not aware of ANY regulation limiting the number of edits a user can make. And you can see for yourself by Capitals00 own words that his behavior transgresses the limits of civility, accusing me of not thinking before replying.


The Aksai Chin argument is especially revealing of Capitals00 intent to find anything at all to criticize me about. The Aksai Chin edit I made was in order to follow the same logic applied to other disputed territories like Arunachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, which despite their disputed status, are described unambiguously as Indian or Indian/Pakistani first, and then their disputed status after. The debate regarding why I was accused of POV demonstrates that I actually take time to understand why I might be wrong. It's really quite inappropriate to point to this as evidence that " you can tell it gets hard to make him understand something." This is a disrespectful statement which neglects the fact that he had to be told numerous times on the Talk:Shina language page that proposed scripts do not indicate actual usage. It took three editors had to make this clear to him.


I genuinely find Capitals00 behavior to be a hindrance to collaboration. I have had disputes with other editors, including Kautilya3, yet he has never once been so disrespectful as Capitals00. Capitals00 accused me of several things: 1) bludgeoning, 20 use of talk page as forum, 3) general disruptive editing, 4) cherry picking, 5) wikihounding 6) and a battleground and "didn't hear" attitude. I find this to be pretty unwarranted, and I hope you can see that the accusation in 4 and 6 actually apply to him.Pinging @RegentsPark: Willard84 (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Starting with your first sentence, there is clear evidence of deception. How many users "have decided no action be taken"? From here alone, we see your wall of texts that takes you nowhere. They only tell how boring and troublesome you try to be. You try to make your texts far lengthier than they deserve and by copy pasting comments of other users with their signatures you just show it off like there's some kind of groundswell of grassroots support. Apart from that it has been highlighted on this complaint that you start discussions on several namespaces or talk pages about the subject that is meant to be discussed only on the specific talk page, that is something you had also done last time[75][76][77] when you edit warred on 1988 Gilgit Massacre, and frequently claimed that Osama Bin Laden was probably uninvolved in massacres. As for Capitals00, I can just say that he has been be easily convinced, and haven't edit warred however your approach of remaining unconvinced, forcing others to reply 100s of times, even when you are repeating same argument does nothing but forces other editors to simply give up editing the subject, or treat you as someone who don't want to hear at all. Excelse (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
No action be taken against me. Read regentspark's response, and EdJohnston's reply that theres nothing for him to do at this time. I was showing why I Capitals00 is deserving of disciplinary action. And the assertion that OBL was involved in Gilgit Massacre wasn't supported by any sources other than a B Raman source you kept providing repackaged in several different citations. Its rather odd that you'd bring that up here. In fact, it's odd that you adopt similar tactics to Capitals00, and have found your way here. Wikihounding?
I make no apology for lengthy replies to demonstrate flaws in provided sources. Especially since the ones you cited stemmed from a single author Anyway, dont bring that up here. Willard84 (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • But there was no need to doubt the credibility of the source, since the publisher is WP:RS. Although you had presented a few self-published sources to counter they don't mention Osama, despite the actual counter would be if you had provided the source that reject Osama's involvement. You just call anything unreliable if it doesn't suit your POV but consider unreliable source as reliable if they support your point of view. FWIW, consensus was that the information dated before Raman's edition and also that Raman is a reliable source. That would indicate that your contributions, edit warring, canvassing and wall of texts were completely uncalled for. And even after blocks, topic ban warning, you are carrying the same problematic conduct. It seems that you are making edits every minute on this talk page and it became impossible for me to click "save". Can you at least decide what you actually want to write? Or you actually want people to reply you after you have completely signed off? The talk page has been on my watchlist since 2015[78] and you accuse me of Wikihounding? Well you have again revealed your battleground approach. Excelse (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This isn't the place for that discussion. Its extremely suspicious that you'd randomly find your way to this board to offer unbridled support of Capitals00, considering that you and I haven't interacted since July 2017. This could be an example of sockpuppetry.Willard84 (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:ALLSOCKS? I thought you had enough when you were treating me as a sock of Faizan (Towns Hill)[79] and reported me as a vandal.[80] Excelse (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
No, you were indeed blocked as a sockpuppet in November 2015.Willard84 (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppet or sockmaster? You were block for sockpuppetry as well. I am talking about your false accusations of continued socking that you are making, and reminding me of years old block as evidence while you have yourself one for the same and very recent makes no sense but only shows your incompetence. Excelse (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Consensus building doesn't work when you have an editor who smears reliable sources as unreliable, edit wars, posts wall of texts, calls editors a sock, engages in discussing same subject across multiple venues, makes false accusations and more. Topic ban was warranted right after he disrupted 1988 Gilgit Massacre and related articles just 4 days after serving a block. FWIW, he is in violation of the final warning and that's why topic ban is the only solution. Excelse (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually if you take a look at the Shina and Balti talk pages, Willard84's contentions about the sources were apparently true. Please refer to the comments by Uanfala in particular, who is well-versed with that topic area. As far as 1988 Gilgit Massacre goes, that article still contains bits and pieces of WP:OR and is far from being perfect. I believe I was the first one to note factual inaccuracies there. B. Raman obviously isn't an impartial or reliable source, so WP:ATTRIBUTION is definitely necessary there. That is another discussion altogether. Mar4d (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Sources on Balti Language, that were questioned by Willard84 as unreliable are not agreed as unreliable. That's how he was wrong there. As for Shina language he believes that only perso-arabic are the script while there are none other, he was in opposition to mention existence of any other,[81] but after consensus they appear on lead now. How about Willard84's conduct on several other articles like Taxila, Godhra train burning, Aksai Chin? Where he was not only totally incorrect but also got blocked for edit warring,(first 2, no block for Aksai Chin). I wasn't engaged in any misconduct on any of these articles though. Capitals00 (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Capitals00 Also 1988 Gilgit Massacre and Osama Bin Laden, where Willard84 had been totally problematic. @Mar4d the information has been found in multiple reliable sources dating before Raman's edition, and Raman's edition was peer-reviewed as well that's why it was agreed that attribution is not needed. Excelse (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Folks, Ed Johnston's talk page is not the place for content discussion so you should all just move away from here. Some takeaway points: Willard84, no one not heavily invested in the issue is going to read the massive creed you've posted above. Others, there are perfectly adequate forums for resolving content conflicts that you all must be aware of. WP:RSN for sourcing issues. WP:NPOVN for neutrality issues. WP:DR for other dispute resolution. Use them. --regentspark (comment) 12:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Psychonot

Please restore my report of Psychonot at requests for administrator attention. He removed it before you protected the page and is continuing his vandalism at Bret Hart. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:7CB2:42C9:31DE:8DD2 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The editing behavior is not vandalism so you should not find it necessary to use AIV. Instead, why don't you post the evidence that supports your Bret Hart change at Talk:Bret Hart#Bret in Starrcade (1997) main event?. I am concerned about a possible edit war by User:Psychonot but from his last comment on the talk page, he may be stopping. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Of greater concern to you should be that Psychonot is a glaring sockpuppet of LTA user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. Pro wrestling, New York educational establishments and Middle Eastern topics are classic hallmarks of Mangoeater, as clearly outlined at his LTA page.[82]. Psychonot's recent edits meet WP:DUCK with bells. As for Bret Hart specifically (the site of today's ruckus), a Mango sock was blocked recently after targeting the article.[83] 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:7CB2:42C9:31DE:8DD2 (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually missed this edit, which makes a Checkuser unnecessary: confirmed Mangoeater sock, Eliken, made the exact same edit[84] to Bret Hart that Psychonot did yesterday![85] 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:453A:283A:2175:CB39 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If I reopen the Mangoeater SPI are you willing to post your recommendations there? EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I edit sporadically by IP. Ideally, the more respected User:*Treker would make the argument, or you yourself could simply execute a block citing WP:DUCK and WP:COMMON. Psychonot is absolutely, unequivocally Mangoeater: exact same interests, exact same agendas, eaxct same edit, for crying out loud. Cheers. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:453A:283A:2175:CB39 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
When working in sock enforcement, we often need to ask who we should trust. Working as you do from a fluctuating IP, it is hard to know if you are to be trusted. The most negative apprehension would be that you are a previously blocked or sanctioned person. If you have a track record of any kind (e.g. with an account, or as a long-running IP) it makes it easier to trust you. Asking you to post at the SPI is like asking you to go on the record, which if you are truly an OK person, you won't mind. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The anti-IP editor sentiment pervading this site is so strong, that you're politely siding with a glaring sockmaster because he has an account. This is precisely why I refuse to register, and will continue to do good, constructive work in the hope that IPs aren't continually reverted and ostracised. I have nothing more to say about Psychonot (User:Mangoeater1000). 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:453A:283A:2175:CB39 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
How is asking you to post at the SPI using your current IP an anti-IP gesture? EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm 100% positive that yet unblocked User Zostz and the IPs [86], [87], [88], [89], and the blocked The_amazing_Wikipolicy_adiber, Robert_J._Mercer, Julio_Gonzales1, Stipihunk, Livetwice are all sockpuppets of LTA abuser Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll who all very recently vandalised the Bret Hart article. See their contributions.--Psychonot (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Psychonot. SInce you're here, can you explain why you made 97 edits to your own sandbox? We associate that kind of behavior with socks, as a gimmick to become extended confirmed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I was extended confirmed before I made those about 40 dummy edits while experimenting with Pageviews Analysis. I extensively used my Sandbox before and after making the dummy edits, and made a total of 97 edits to it. See my Sandbox edit history. Thank you and best--Psychonot (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, this IP editor who has been edit warring with me on another subject comes and does the exact same edit with the exact same bogus summary.★Trekker (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
And now this, not only are they seemingly coming out of nowhere but they also all seem incapable of researching something easily proven.★Trekker (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Psychonot has now been blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. The IP who reported him here is most likely WP:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

MTA Fleet Page

I understand that in recent times that there have been as series of edit wars stone of which i can say i was a part of, however, is the best fix to that problem preventing everybody from editing the page for two weeks? With this happening, information could become inaccurate and testers could be mislead. Maybe a more effective way of tracking the Edit war problem with be to enforce the 3rr rule.I also can agree to stop edit warring with others while i am on the topic. Olsen24 (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

If a real discussion develops at Talk:MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet, where you participate and pay attention to the other's arguments and try to reach a compromise I would be ready to lift the protection. It is annoying to see repeated 3RR complaints where neither party is willing to use the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by single-purpose account with abominable username

Hi, Ed. Thanks for all the work you do. Surely this user should be blocked for the username alone, not to mention persistent vandalism of the Austrians article. Carlstak (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The editor is now blocked for username. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
he appears to have friends, socks, or associates: Kaye01chan and an IP. Anmccaff (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, thanks. Is this tag-team approach by trolls becoming more common these days? They pretty much pulled the "Duck Season"" routine. Anmccaff (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The best plan may be WP:RBI. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, so I should cook or plant these beans, rather than continue putting them up my nose? Anmccaff (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Rapid Transit

I rest my case, not willing to cite properly, is willing to cut and paste a paraphrased comment on talk page. Can I revert? Is it vandalism? Is the edit summary POINTY enough combined with the contributions? Koncorde (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Try opening a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. Since RfCs are advertised, that may help bring in people who are new to the discussion. It will also force each side to clearly state what version they favor and to give their reasoning. In answer to your question: the user's changes are NOT vandalism. You can't revert (with impunity) unless you are sure your change falls under WP:3RRNO, which it probably does not. But in the mean time, I've semiprotected Rapid transit because edit warring with a fluctuating IP violates WP:SOCK. The IP can still make their arguments on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Really Ed? There is no RFC to be had, there is no contribution being made? They have suggested no version, nor contributed any discussion at the talk page. They have cut and paste my comments from the talk page into the article uncited or referenced and removed content separate to the comments they introduced to exploit the "3RR" rule. My comments that are a response directly to the users statement not a contribution to the article. Edit summary and subsequent comment talk page indicate blatant intent. Koncorde (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for fixing that, Ed. Something looked wrong when I submitted it, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Reporting a changing IP

Hi,

Where do I report an IP user that keeps changing his IP addresses? At Lithuania's page there is an IP user that is edit warring and his IPs are almost the same with the exception of last number (94.119.64.5, 94.119.64.1, 94.119.64.10, 94.119.64.18, 94.119.64.6). I thought about taking this matter to either WP:AN3 or WP:LTA, but I am not sure anymore. 4 out of 5 IP have been blocked for such behavior in the past and 1 IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. In addition, all IPs keep ignoring warning messages at their talk pages. What can you advise? – Sabbatino (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocks mention Mikemikev. The problematic range is at 94.119.64.0/27. This has been going on for awhile, so perhaps a longer block is needed. Nihlus 07:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
If the evidence is good I'd be prepared to do a rangeblock. Recently there was an edit summary by User:Doug Weller where he stated that the 94.119.64.3 was a sock of the banned editor Mikemikev. A rangeblock of 94.119.64.0/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) could be considered. I haven't checked yet for collateral damage, but it's a small range. When time permits somebody could review WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
If there isn't too much collateral damage, go for it. Mikemikev alone is still a problem, and that would block one range he uses. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This edit from August shows the IP updating a comment by User:David Mendlesohn, an identified sock of Mikemikev. Still considering a one-month block of the /27. There have been no edits that are distinctive of Mikemikev since October 1 in that range. Still hesitating due to collateral since Mikemikev appears to change IPs frequently. These IPs are hosted by The Cloud Networks, which appears to run WiFi hotspots in addition to whatever else they do. Will go ahead with semiprotection for Lithuania, in response to User:Sabbatino's concern. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

1939 Coventry bombing

Hi Ed. You (semi-) protected this article just now, but actually the issue has been resolved now. The IP has not been back since 08:40 yesterday (UTC), and there's no reason to expect him back either. Protection isn't needed any more. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have my eye on a different IP who has recently edited there. It does not seem too drastic to semiprotect a WP:TROUBLES article for a period of two months. when there have been recent problems from IPs. (These are IPs for which we might be discussing topic bans if they were registered editors doing the same thing). EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Scolaire (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your

intervention. Just by way of comment: I do not think there is an active dispute between us (EkoGraf and me) in Wagner article. But I also would like to draw your attention to this one Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. There have been persistent unsourced edits by anonymous editors in that article. I believe it needs semiprotection. (Frankly, no time for formal request). Thanks a lot.Axxxion (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It was time to renew the semiprotection at Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Thanks for your note, EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by Sky One

Sorry about that, seems we had a move conflict, I hope this is a coincidence and not bad luck – it happened on my last page move too, albeit the other way round –72 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to do this quickly before the channel changed its name again!
You know, there is a thing in computer science about deadlocks.. If we could just get people to close moves with the same order of steps .. Or a button at RMTR that does the move and removes the list entry in one atomic operation :-) EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, they've had a quick update on Wikipedia, not sure it'll be as simple on twitter for instance. An automatic process would definitely be helpful, yes (though an atomic operation would be interesting too!), I guess a script would take someone more clever than I to devise. I had also noticed that the RMTR regulars tend to move multiple pages consecutively before removing the requests too, assumedly opening all requests in new tabs before taking action. –72 (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Third party opinion

EdJohnston, I know you to be a fair and neutral administrator/editor. So could you please look (and let me know your opinion) at what editor Axxxion (who I reported for the 3RR violation) has been saying at the talk page here [90]. The problem is, despite a large volume of sources confirming the existence of the Wagner Group, he thinks they do not exist based on opinions expressed in a few obscure outlets (which I already said should be included) and is dismissing any and all of the other more reliable sources (such as the WSJ, The Telegraph, etc) as not credible. In his personal POV the Wall Street Journal is an anti-Russian American media outlet that should not be considered as a source. I pointed out several times the WSJ is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia but have been ignored. He has also engaged into his personal unsourced POV speculation on the subject of the article which is within the realm of WP:SYNTHESIS, but he doesn't seem to care and has removed the text being cited by the WSJ. He also calls any sources confirming the existence of the subject of the article anecdotal evidence, again his own opinion, and he has translated this into the text in the article. He has also called at least one of the sources (a non-governmental Russian investigative researcher) a, quote, kgb stooge who is just pretending to be an anti-government military analyst so to distract. He also considers official Ukrainian intelligence (SBU) reports on Wagner to be the product of Russian infiltrators within the SBU. I mean, I don't think any reasonable responses can be given to this. Basically, in his opinion, any sources confirming the existence of Wagner are ether not reliable because they are anti-Russian or they are infiltrated by the KGB to create the myth of Wagner for the sake of distraction. He also avoids to give a straight concrete answer for his massive reverts of most of my other edits, no matter how many times I ask. What is to be done in this case when the editor is making edits in an unsourced OR and POV manner and engaging in edit warring for the sake of it in violation of WP policy? EkoGraf (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Both you and User:Axxxion appear to have some knowledge, but for an administrator to sort out interpersonal disputes takes a lot of time. (Neither of you is a vandal; one of you could possibly be pushing a POV but it takes time to judge that). It is easier for us if you will do a good review of the content issues on the talk page, and open an WP:RFC if necessary. It is simple enough for admins to block someone who is reverting against a clear talk page consensus, but regular editors have to create the consensus (or at least attempt to get one). Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EdJohnston warn me to block me. —SpacemanSpiff 17:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ho people

I’m not sure protecting it will help. Reinstating mayterial with year old fact tags, adding more unsourced, and possibly s competence issue doesn’t make me think there will be a useful discussion or that things will be different in five days. I’ll put it on my watch list. I’d probably have reverted the current version if I’d seen it. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

One party could be heading for a block, but if the more experienced person is not using the talk page I don't see the closer as having much discretion. It would be helpful for someone to list the good and bad sources on the talk page -- blocking for repeated addition of unsourced material is certainly a thing. If you know anything at all about this topic your input on Talk would be useful. I'll suggest to the other party that they make an edit request. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
This thread is now moot because User:Biswajeet34 has been indef blocked per ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism in Jadwiga of Poland

I think you judging me badly. As you can see Borsoka [91] and Surtsicna [92] removed important information from this article. First one, Wdowiszewski's book from bibliography (in footnotes is mentioned only as Wdowiszewski 2005). Second one, the information about studium generale with academic source. This is clearly vandalism and I am highly suprised that you warrn me, who try to upgrate the article instead of vandals who removing important information, moreover without no discusion on talk page. Swetoniusz (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There has been a discussion at Talk:Jadwiga of Poland#Elżbieta Bonifacja. It still appears that nobody agrees with you there. If you revert the article again, without first getting a consensus for your version on the talk page, you may be blocked per the original case. Your use of the term 'vandalism' is incorrect. If you persist in using that term to refer to others who are not vandals you are risking a block for personal attacks. If you seriously believe that a wider audience might agree with you about the Elżbieta name, you could open a WP:Request for comment. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The discusion is about Elżbieta Bonifacja, not about Wdowiszewski's book and studium generale. Nobody talked about Wdowiszewski and studium generale, so how can you say that nobody agree with me? I hope that you will try to help to increase quality of article, I do not have time for fighting with users who destroyed my work. Swetoniusz (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Noted. I don't perceive any request here that I can act on, so we'll have to leave it be. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Biswajeet34

User blocked per ANI, nothing more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I notice that you handled the edit warring report regarding this user. Can you please take a look at their recent edits? I have no idea what they're trying to do, with the template and forky-article creation. A block may be in order. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I notice they recreated Template:Culture of Ho tribe, a badly malformed page, after it had already been speedy deleted as a G2. I left a note at their talk page. You may be thinking there is a case for a WP:CIR block. Nobody minds a new person who can write adequately, starts slowly and asks for advice, but here we have the opposite. Doug Weller also commented below. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I've either speedied or AFD'ed the rest of their creations. Mage Porob is borderline nonsense to me, Jomnama Parob is just a list of references, Festival of Ho tribe is a fork, Diyeng is possibly made up. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Mage Parob was a copyright violation. I expect to find more when I have tome. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion . I am going with Wikipedia editing policies.so, i know very well about wikipedia editng policies ,better you should research properly with these articles. I have many resources with proper historic evidences,accurate reliable sources and anthropology scholars as well with scholar of law and governances. If You have some douts then you can ask me any question regarding any articles , i can give you proper history about that article with reliable wikipedia sources which is the actual motto of Wikipedia

There's a pattern here.[93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] - sorry if I've duplicated anything, but these all remove the word Hindi or Hindu from the article. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Assistances requested

Sorry to be so much trouble, I usually work with researching historical people and events, not dealing with contentious current politics, and as an elderly person (my computer teaching in college had learned programing on punch cards), I do not go great job in this new web-world, but I do love the history and am thrilled finding new records to fill in the stories. Thus over the years I have worked mostly on minor pieces from The Longoria Affair to Lewis Charlton (slave).

I came across Patriot Prayer page quite by accident and made one small changed based local reporting, I added 'Pro-Trump' group. This was quickly deleted, and I thought mistakenly so I reinstalled it. It was deleted again, then I added a few local sources and was told it was 'sloppy and lazy journalism' before it was deleted again. So I lined up over twenty different local sources all saying the same thing, but by now I was reported for 3RRN violations by Darkness Shines. The rest, I am afraid, is what you have been dealing with since with more reporting of me for 3RRN (now on 7th or 8th) and once for singularly focused. I have learned about bringing any change to the Talk page and abide by the majority, but it seems like anything suggested by me to dismissed out of hand without referencing any sources for the editing. This is my latest attempt: [100]

Is there perhaps anyone that might be able to work as an intermediary between us. I have the local solid sourcing of information but no way to get it onto the page without conflict with Darkness. My last change of organising rallies into region areas was suggested by Darkness, but as I did it, it too turned into an edit war. Is there someone that Darkness respects that I might work with to improve the page, without getting into an edit war? Thank you for your consideration of this matter.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This request is now moot due to your topic ban from the Patriot Prayer article that was enacted at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi EdJohnston. A question: Are the Albania-related articles property of Greek editors? Yes or no? This is not about criticizing any admin in particular, but none of them so far has found it a little strange that the (Personal attack removed)/wp:outing are always present and active inside Albanian topics, and if ever have the patience to read articles such as Saranda or Korce you can see what their contribute aims for. No wonder users like Resnjari end up in edit wars, its's three of them against one. Always in unison. We don't like something ? - Then it's disruptive.
Just an illustration from Dr's talkpage:

Thank you for reverting recent disruption in Delvina etc.. It's sad that a specific editor struggles to convince our community that good articles should satisfy vandals & all this kind of disruptive SPAs.Alexikoua (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC) You are very welcome Alexi. It was the least I could do. These Illyria vandals are hard-wired to erase any mention of Ancient Greece and replace it with Illyria and/or Albania. Heck, they even made Korkyra Illyrian in a vandalism that remained since last January until I caught it earlier today. Thank you also for your great work in that toxic area, dealing with all types of disruption. Dr. K. 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And before starting with the endless set of WPs, (Personal attack removed)?
Best regards--Mondiad (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I think this account should be blocked for PAs and attempts at outing. Thanks and sorry for the intrusion. Dr. K. 02:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Mondiad, an oversighter has warned you for personal attacks and has suppressed some of your edits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

IP 125.107.182.107

Hi EdJohnston. I believe that IP 125.107.182.107 is the same person you blocked per WP:AN3#User:125.107.175.62 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Blocked). Since this person does not seem to understand the message you left at User talk:125.107.175.62#Edit warring, removal of references and copyright problems on Olympics articles, it seem probable that they will simply keep using a new IP each time one is blocked. I'm not sure how this kind of IP hopper is typically dealt with, but maybe WP:SEMI for the article would prevent them from continuing to inappropriately add those non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The IP user is now blocked through 8 November. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Renewed attacks

Hello, It is said here that it is better to let the discussion of XIII's talk page be, but XIII asked me not to write on that page. Yet, not only he is not withdrawing his attacks, but he is adding new ones (conspiracy of legal actions, copyright infringement). What should I do? --Launebee (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Andrewa is an admin who has been following this and he appears to think the ANI should be closed. There is a risk that people will grow weary of both of you even if XIII is causing more of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, so I guess there is nothing to do even if XIII is attacking me on his talk page. (I wrote to you because on the ANI talk page, they are saying that two admins are handling that on XIII talk page, and I think you are the second one.) --Launebee (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Launebee, I would appreciate being given the diffs of these attacks, and suggest my talk page is the place for these at this time. So yes, there is something to be done. Wikipedia should be a safe place for you. Give the actual diff and say why you believe it to be a personal attack. Thanks in advance. Andrewa (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Rice Lofts

Ed Johnston:

I had been considering a request for WP:RM of the Rice Lofts article. You made this move about same time I began as a Wikipedia editor, or just before. In any case, I have no recollection of any details of a discussion, and I am not sure I would have understood such discussions at that time, being a noobie. If you remember what happened or would like to be a part of the discussion regarding my proposed move, please visit Talk: Rice Lofts#Rename to Rice Hotel?. Thanks. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

That's an idea, but the building seems to call itself The Rice now. Since there are two or three plausible options for what to call it, it may be best to open a move discussion at Talk:Rice Lofts using the {{Requested move}} template. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hey, Ed - I created a project a while back and was pursuing funding for it, but the project did not advance. I actually got busy doing other things, and the project remained inactive. It went to MfD, I asked for it to be userfied, and you can see what happened. Now I've read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Dealing_with_inactive_WikiProjects and Wikipedia:Project_namespace#Deletion_of_project_pages and don't see any reason why I have to have consensus to reactivate a project I actually created and asked to userfy. Am I overlooking a policy somewhere? Atsme📞📧 00:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The closure of the MfD says to only move the project back to mainspace with consensus. If you disagree with this verdict, you could ask the closer to reconsider or take the matter to WP:DRV. The policy is in a grey area, but realistically, without one or two people besides yourself who agree with the idea it is unlikely to proceed. Though it is not required, you could file at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and see if you can get a reaction there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
👍 Like--The ideas are too far-reaching and I doubt whether (unlike the various topic-based projects), the community would allow it to do it's proposed job(s), without a site-wide consensus unless the ideas etc. are themselves wholly altered.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

81.230.149.213

I have problems with the editor 81.230.149.213 (formerly BjörnBergman). Apparently, you already know him as I saw your name in his talk page. He ignores consensus in the List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production article (I didn't participate, but I agree with the RfC and the general discussion there). In general, most of its edits are biased and its original combinations are arbitrary, like combining two things that shouldn't according to the source used, OICA: SAIC-GM-Wuling and General Motors. He seems to have a problem with the fact the South Korean Hyundai was listed as number 3. He also makes the same original (and absolutely wrong) synthesis in the automotive industry article. My question is: How do I proceed from here? The fact he edits from an IP gives him the upper-hand, and his edits, while highly disruptive, can't be considered vandalism. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

194.218.16.122

BjörnBergman/81.230.149.213 is again edit warring, and using the alternative IP account 194.218.16.122 to do so. I have no doubts they are all one person (same unusual interest in supercentenarians and "oldest people" rankings, same obsession with listing Mazda and Ford together in certain years, the same problem with a South Korean carmaker being number three on a list). --Urbanoc (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've now blocked the two IPs and indeffed User:BjörnBergman. If he comes back to any of these articles with a new Swedish IP it will be time to consider semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious

"I have been known to try mediating disputes"

Thank you for talking to users, often saying "Welcome, and ...", for admin service and moving articles, for "have been known to try mediating disputes" and finding solutions, in more than ten years of service, - Ed, repeating (11 May 2009}: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

YadavaYadavs are Kshatriya

Sir, this page needs correction or should be deleted.as Yadavs were traditionally elite Kshatriya Class and have ruled over many parts of India & Nepal.So it's really about the community as You've mentioned this community as Shudra. During Mahabharat also Yadavs were Kshatriya and Most respected God of Hinduism Lord Krishna took birth in this clan. Manoj Ranjan Yadav (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Manoj, I don't believe we have met. If your comment belongs anywhere it should be at Talk:Yadav. It is not up to me to rule on whether Yadavs are Kshatriya. If you want to edit about the Yadavs you will be expected to bring WP:Reliable sources that are acceptable to Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


I started a section in talk page. Now I cannot post anything even in the talk page? Why. Is Wikipedia only for a selected few. Or is this bias because we are women. We do not have freedom even in talk page. Meenapandit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meenapandit (talk • contribs) 04:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Rfc consensus on Galkayo Talk page

Respectable Edjohnston,

There is a new consensus on Galkayo talk page [[102]] about changes to the Galkayo Article. Can you do these changes to the article page. Thank you, Faarax200 (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The RfC has agreed with your position, but we still need to see your proposed text. Either post it here, or use {{Edit fully protected}} on the article talk apge and any admin can make the change. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is my proposed text: Geographically Galkayo town is divided into four main neighborhoods. Puntland state controls neighborhoods of Garsoor, Horumar and Israac while Galmudug state controls Wadajir neighborhood.[1][2] Thank you, Faarax200 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Faarax200, I have edited through protection to add the text you requested, per the closure of the RfC. Please check and see if it caused any problems with references. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/somalia-livelihood-baseline-profile-galkayo-urban
  2. ^ https://m.reliefweb.int/report/103519/ethiopia/monthly-nutrition-update-for-somalia-jun-2002
The references have no problems. I think it is better to change the word "districts" into "neighborhoods" because it is more appropriate for consistence. I am talking about the first paragraph of the article which says "northern districts governed by the Puntland State and southern districts governed by Galmudug state." I am saying this because the article Galkayo District already exists. Thank you, Faarax200 (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Why not propose this on the article talk page so that others will have an opportunity to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay I will post the suggestion on the article talk page. Thanks Faarax200 (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Kiranmayi pal

User has been indef blocked by User:SpacemanSpiff. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, do you have time to review even, say, the last 24 hours of activity at Talk:Yadav? I think you can probably take it as read that other admins - SpacemanSpiff and Johnuniq, for example - covered the big issues prior to that. I note that, even after my attempt to explain a highly unusual clean-up of that talk page, Kiranmayi pal (talk · contribs), with whom you have had past dealings, has come back with pretty much the same tendentious stuff they've been referring to for months, on and off.

The article has been the focus of a fair amount of socking over a prolonged period and that particular user has been told of the sanctions regime that exists on more than one occasion. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I remember advising once too (his or my talk history) but can’t do anything now as I only have a small screen phone with patchy internet next few days.--—SpacemanSpiff 12:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
That editor appears to be using multiple accounts. I've dropped a warning on their talk page. --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
SPI then? - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It could be worthwhile. Whoever submits at SPI should be prepared to supply some high-quality diffs, to establish the pattern. Another idea is to create a FAQ that might be linked from the top of Talk:Yadav. People who continue to orate on the talk page while ignoring the previous Yadav discussions might be subject to blocks for tendentious editing. I'm not ready to take action myself because I prefer blocks to be self-explanatory if other admins review them, and this case is still confusing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, an SPI will be useful. Shouldn't be too hard to get some evidence linking the accounts (the Ph.D. dissertation for example). cf. this and [103] --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks both. I'm taking a break but will have a go at filing at SPI later. I'm generally pretty poor at presenting cases there but this one seems relatively straightforward. I think CU can only go back three months, so I guess it will have to be behavioural in large part. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There's also this from a user blocked by bish. All recent, so CU should be useful. --regentspark (comment) 17:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston please check the three sources mentioned by me. I have consolidated based on Yadav talk discussions. Please go through the talk page. Sitush has also removed some good discussions. Feedback appreciated.. Kiranmayi pal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston I am eagerly waiting for your feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranmayi pal (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Kiranmayi pal, to make a change in the article content, you need to persuade the regular editors, not the admins. The place to do that is the article talk page, Talk:Yadav. For background on why caste articles are contentious, see WP:GS/CASTE. Please WP:SIGN your comments on talk pages. There is no need for you to restore blocks of comments by others to the talk page as you did here. If you want to refer to previous comments, you should find them in the archive and link to them. Since User:Mahensingha is an experienced editor and has worked on this article, you might consider posting on his user talk for advice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've trawled through the lot and they're not socks: far too many differences in style etc. OTOH, while compiling diffs I did produce the following before giving up due to those obvious behavioural differences.

From the outset in 2015, Kiranmayi pal has been insisting on changes to the Yadav article. They have repeatedly proposed specific pages of specific sources to bolster their position, eg:

If this isn't a textbook definition of tendentiousness, I don't know what is. They've spent two years with intermittent edits getting precisely nowhere because they cannot overturn the consensus. They've been countered by me, Mahensingha, Fowler&fowler and lord knows who else, all of us experienced in dealing with a wide range of caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Kirkuk

can you please protect Kirkuk? due to the current crisis (see Kirkuk crisis) the page have been vandalising (mainly by ips) 74.75.241.204 (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A concern

User:Nicoddemu has been busy adding unsourced information, using unreliable sources, and intentionally misrepresenting sources. I posted a concern on their talk page, which, judging by their recent activities, was ignored.[104]

Source Misrepresentation:


Addition of incorrect/unsourced information:

  • [111], easily disproven and "Emma" is already mentioned later in article as illegitimate.
  • [112]
  • [113]
  • [114]
  • [115], example of an entire article based on no sources. Note the poor English
  • [116]

Usage of unreliable source(s):

  • [117], Medlands unreliable source.
  • [118], genea.net unreliable source.

Illegible sentences, quite possibly non-English user.

In some cases, the articles in question are unreliably sourced or completely unsourced and user:Nicoddemu is simply adding more unsourced, unverified information to said articles.

I have posted 2 concerns to their talk page, with no response to either. Judging from the page moves done by Nicoddemu, this is not a "new user" and should not be treated as one. I do not expect any action to be taken at this time, but I seriously doubt this editor will stop their form of "editing" any time soon. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Left a note for Nicoddemu about the possible unsourced information. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
KB, the user has not edited since my note on their talk. If you want an admin action, perhaps you can find an example of where they added actual wrong information. The best example would be something that we can verify online to be false. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd imagine this particular editor has other "names" they go by. I'm a patient man, I will wait until the disruptive editing starts again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The user also has an account on the French Wikipedia, where they have made similar edits. Their home wiki might be Korean, and it's possible they aren't confident enough about their English to use talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Has been editing, and restored false source(the source contains no mention of Odo, Eudes, Furneaux) to Odo I of Furneaux. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
He is citing a book by Regine Le Jan which is found in Worldcat and has a preview on Google Books. I see that the word 'Eudes' is in this book. Can you be more specific about the wrong information that you see? EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you see Furneaux? On either page referenced? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I left a further note, saying this might be viewed as reference falsification. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The addition of Odo I of Furneaux as a child of Otto, Count of Vermandois was made by IP209.105.157.79. So far I have found no references to this person and even Leo van de Pas' site only lists one child for Otto, Herbert IV. More than likely this is a case of a fictitious person created for someone's personal genealogy. See here.[122] This is what I meant by article(s) of fictitious people created with zero or unreliable sources used to create more fictitious nonsense(ie. like Odo of Furneaux's "children"). --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ronnie O'Sullivan page

Hi can you tell me who requested the protection and lock on the above page please ?. What was the reason ?. 178.167.144.103 (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent use of fansites at snooker player articles. If you want to make a change to that article but are prevented due to not having an account, try posting at Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan wants it all her own way and won't listen to other people's views she always does it on here. What gives her the right ?. Cuetracker.net is used for century breaks and other statistics so why not prize money ?. What gives her the right to decide what goes on Wikipedia because she doesn't like it. She never listens to reason. Wikipedia is for the people she does not own it !. Regards 92.251.160.136 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The WP:Reliable source requirements take precedence over the wishes of individual editors. If you want to know whether a particular fansite qualifies as a reliable source, you can ask at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ryszard Kapuściński

I am coming to you as I recall many years ago your judicious handling of London Victory Celebrations of 1946, a controversial page that I was involved with and afair you eventually protected. There had been a troll there, who afair was eventually banned from Wikipedia. I'm now taking a look at the article Ryszard Kapuściński, a celebrated and yet sometimes controversial Polish journalist, a national hero who has also been doubted by some professional peers. I have tried to add some balance to the article but have been accused of vandalism. Looking through the article history there has been a record of editors wanting to add critical opinion coming in for personal attack. I'd very much appreciate your input as an admin with experience in the Poland-related subject area; perhaps you could also consider semi-protecting the page to maintain basic stability. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The page has been fully protected for a week. See Talk:Ryszard Kapuściński#Full protection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ip block request

Ip on @Ponyo:'s talk page is sock of a long-term abuser. Same country, same region, same ISP. And the user he mentioned was making similar edits to him on various articles. All these make plain that the ip is sock of the banned long-term abuser. 85.172.179.229 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been informed that this case is already handled, so I won't be responding further. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

re edit warring

Sorry quick question on edit warring, if that is OK. If I feel that there is still additional information, can I still comment after a Result is posted? Or is that a real faux pas? Spiny Norman (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Your further comments are not helping. This exchange doesn't testify to your knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Although you've been here since 2006, you argue like a person who is not familiar with how disputes work on Wikipedia. A WP:Request for comment about 'international success' could make this whole issue go away without the need to use admin boards to charge others with bad behavior. There is also a hint that you may not understand our WP:Reliable source rules when it comes to proving 'international success'. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not often have disputes here; surely that is a good thing. It wasn't about refusal to offer proof. I have in the further comments stated (verifiably) how it started, namely with the other user on both pages deleting stuff that was actually clearly referenced one click away or on the same page, and after that never doing anything to fix (lack of citations being an excuse rather than a reason). I find it odd that those points are not spoken of at all - as if the blame were completely mine. This leaves me with the feeling the matter was given just a cursory glance. This was my first ever complaint, I made that clear, and asked for advice. So to be honest I had expected better. Or in any case, to put it less accusingly in question form, what else should I do in cases like this? Spiny Norman (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with new-ish editor

Editor YoungDylan is becoming a problem at tennis articles and I thought maybe you could help without sending it to a formal AN/I. He's really only been editing since September but has an attitude we are having trouble dealing with at Tennis Project. He was brought to my attention with this post at the Tennis Project talk page. I went to his talk page to try and correct his reverts against consensus and have had limited success. There are two sections on his talk page that I started , Here and Here. Multiple problems have occurred from changing tennis legend charts and removing entire tournaments from charts, and removing the country from our infoboxes. Now it's removing the term "professional" from all our articles.

With another editor complaining about him at Tennis Project and another removal, I thought it best to bring it to an administrator's attention. I've tried my best and you seem to handle a lot of edit-war issues. Can you talk to this guy to get him to stop removing things? Maybe some sort of a formal warning and counseling? We always need new tennis editors but we need good ones who can work as a team. If this isn't your forte please let another administrator know. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any problems since the user was warned. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Project CARS 2

Wanna fill me in on what the hell went wrong? The way I see it, Neverrainy thinks he owns the article, and threatens anybody who tries to change it. He's been blindly reverting every constructive edit for a month, and has never discussed it, or even made an edit summary. The way it is now, the whole reception section is missing many of thew world's most respected reviewers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.36 (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Try getting consensus for your position at Talk:Project CARS 2. Another admin, User:Ferret, may be more familiar with these issues and he has left comments on Talk. I applied semiprotection to stop the edit war after a request at WP:RFPP. It looks like you and User:Neverrainy have been interacting on more than one article. User:Ymblanter has semiprotected Gran Turismo Sport due to a similar disagreement between the two of you. Any general issues about how to structure video game articles can be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. If the warring continues, admins will have to decide if any blocks are appropriate. This is unlikely if people show they will wait for consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I added some userlinks to the top of this thread, and am notifying User:Neverrainy in case they want to say anything. So far the IP is better at leaving edit summaries for their changes. Neverrainy will at least occasionally leave a post on an article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

IP 37.157.222.199

Hi, I would like to know if you can block this IP address forever. The IP only adds to the articles the name of an actor that does not exist. However this is not something new, it is something that happened previously. see here.--Philip J Fry talk 22:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I left a note for the IP. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Brief apology

Just a note to apologise for missing your input on Highland Clearances, which I have answered [[124]]. Not sure if I have broken protocol by answering on an archived page.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello ThoughtIdRetired. Please undo your change to the archive. You can post your comment here if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Cut and paste from archive page:
I gave a concise argument in the edit summary [[125]]. The answer is in the subsequent reversion edit summary [[126]], and I challenge you to make sense of that in the context of Wikipedia objectives. Very hard to see where to go now, bearing in mind wild accusations of me ignoring consensus, when I have sought and obtained consensus on text that is repeatedly being deleted.
Archive page edit has been reverted. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore block

You wrote:

Blocked – 48 hours. Technically this is four reverts, even though the material varies. Gilmore has two previous edit warring blocks and a recent topic ban. Gilmore should not be editing about Patriot Prayer anywhere on Wikipedia, even in their own sandbox, and risks a sanction if they continue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Just an observation, if you had read the Comments you would have noted that I saved some conversations from the banned article's talkpage, that I planned to reference for my appeal on my sandbox page and that I stated I was not editing the banned article; likewise you would have noted that the ban was "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" and I do not intend to violate this by even going near the topic or even mention the article by name; but again, you would have noted this in reading the Comments. Administrators making judgements and accusations without reviewing all the evidence in detail is something I have now experienced three times and I am noting a less than civil trend in the decision making process that is less than the standards stated from what I can see.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Per the wording of WP:TBAN, a standard topic ban excludes the editor from that topic on all pages of Wikipedia, even in their own user space. While it might appear convenient for you to save text for a future appeal somewhere on Wikipedia, there is no exception which allows that. You should keep that text at home on your own computer. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
strange that your interpretation doesn't mach the wording by Drmies. So was Drmies inaccurate, or are you interpreting to broadly? Either way, no editing was occurring as you implied. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Why not ask User:Drmies to clarify the scope of the ban? EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
"You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" This seems quite clear, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Does the current sandbox meet with your approval or will you be making further unfounded accusations? [127] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I will take your lack of a response as an affirmative and I hope this will end accusations that I was editing a banned page in my sandbox. Thank you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Highland Clearances - expansion of issues

Please see the thoughts of another editor here. I agree with this even more after reading the recent talk page input from WyndingHeadland.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This has now moved on as a new ANI raised by User:Mutt Lunker with the article Scots Gaels involved.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Imminent lift of block on Highland Clearances

If I understand correctly, the block that you put on Highland Clearances expires at 13:37 tomorrow, 4 Nov 2017.
I am not sure what happens now.

There have been comments about WyndingHeadland on :
1. The ANI that brought in Scots Gael to the discussion about this user. This is where you will find:
(a) the apparent admission by WyndingHeadland (10:02, 3 November 2017) that they previously edited as Baglessingazump,
(b) the comment by User:Camerojo at 06:32, 3 November 2017 confirming the grief we all went through with the disruptive behaviour of this prior account of this user.
2. Talk:Scots Gaels contains a concise illustration of WyndingHeadland/Baglessingazump's behaviour. Note that User:Catrìona has supported User:Mutt Lunker on the content issues. If you look at the edit history of both these users, you will see evidence that they understand the subject of the article.
3. (a)Talk:Highland Clearances#Return under another name has further examples of the difficulties in dealing with WyndingHeadland/Baglessingazump, as does the rest of the talk page, particularly:
(b) Talk:Highland Clearances#"Change" from farming to sheep raising. - if you only look at one link, I suggest this is the best illustration of this user's style.

You will note that I have not delved into the problems under the old username Baglessingazump - but the material is there in archive if you need it. I just offer [128] to show that problems existed then.

Is there more that users involved in this matter should do, or is this now in the hands of administrators? My unfamiliarity with these processes is a source of concern - both that I may act not in accordance with protocols and also that the problem user may soon be free to engage in a spree of disruptive editing. Thanks for any help or guidance that you may be able to provide in this matter.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

With enough patience this can be treated as a content dispute, and handled on the talk page without needing help from admins. If you insist that it be viewed as a conduct problem, the future is uncertain. Even if WyndingHeadland is the same person as Baglessingazump, it may not make much difference because the latter has not been active since 2016. If you have never tried a WP:Request for comment, this might be a good time for you to read the instructions for that process. An RfC would require somebody to list out the issues to be decided in some concise way. The future of the article ought to be decided by consensus. A successful RfC can show where the consensus lies, and the result of the RfC can be enforced by admins if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I have looked at the Request for Comment page and find this. We have all tried to reason with this user on appropriate talk pages, both now and in 2015/2016. I appreciate that a quick look at the talk pages makes this appear to be a content dispute - but the impossibility of having a rational discussion with them is there to be seen. I am not going to speculate about what they are trying to achieve - but the clear result is that their behaviour is paralysing editing on the articles in which they become interested (both with and without a block).
I fully agree with your "The future of the article ought to be decided by consensus". This is something that has happened well with Highland Clearances when WyndingHeadland is not involved. I don't know if they don't understand the concept or they don't care, but they have total disregard for it and imagine that there is a consensus that agrees with their point of view (which is not the case). I appreciate that their claims on this are so boldly bizarre that it would take an outsider to the article some effort to realise what is going on.
I must ask you to trust the opinions of the other editors who have come into contact with this user - we have all tried to reason with WyndingHeadland on talk pages, but ultimately you get false accusations and tauntingly rude behaviour in return. I would highlight User:Mutt Lunker User:Catrìona User:Camerojo as having made recent attempts at talk page discussion with WyndingHeadland. You will find a bigger list in 2015/16 with their prior username.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree that it has long been evident that the fundamental issue is not content. Although this might be the initial trigger for WH running up against other users, it's their complete inability or unwillingness, over the course of years now (in their two guises) to debate rationally or coherently, to take on board any viewpoint that differs to their own or to recognise when consensus does or does not exist, in pretty much any exchange they have engaged in, on any matter. I can't recall them ever accepting the merest point made by the numerous other users they have encountered. This may be a blunt tactic by them to stall or to try to force their view on articles but their arguments, such as they are, are so transparently meritless that I don't think they can be capable of recognising this about them. I think it is more of a WP:COMPETENCE issue, of the social variant. Their posts are somewhat idiosyncratically expressed, often to a bizarre and impenetrable extent and, although this may again be a tactic, I think they may think they are making sense.
I'll note that I'm not really across the issues being discussed recently and currently at Highland Clearances but can see that WyndingHeadland is consistently employing the same highly dysfunctional mode of engagement that Baglessingazump did, back when I was more involved in the article. So, I have no investment in the content issues there but am concerned about the considerable waste of time and effort that they are sapping from the other editors engaged there. I'll also note that the interaction I have had with ThoughtIdRetired in that article in the past had us strongly opposed on matters of content, so it's not as if it's a bunch of cosily uncritical pals ganging up on WH through holding the same opposing view on content. I hope my perspective is helpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
"With enough patience this can be treated as a content dispute, and handled on the talk page without needing help from admins.". I am sorry but you have clearly not looked into this properly. Camerojo (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it like that as it requires wading through vast quantities of rambling and convoluted posts, the nature of which may not be immediately apparent to a busy admin asked to take an assessment. We've been watching this unfold over a long time and are used to WH's campaign, so are more tuned in to their obfuscation, intransigence and inability to cooperate. I would agree though that the issue does not centre on content. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree. You put it more diplomatically than I, but it is clear that this is not about content or a content dispute. It is a case of a sophisticated form of vandalism, as a thorough investigation into the matter based on the archives soon reveals. The motivation of user in question is to cause disruption. I am sure that he is enjoying this whole process. Camerojo (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Could not agree more. During my time at Wikipedia, over 3,000 edits in different languages, I have seen some content disputes but nothing approaching this level of vandalism and deliberate disruption. This is NOT a content dispute--as ThoughtIdRetired knows, I have not always been in agreement with them over the content— this is vandalism pure and simple and I am just hoping the editor can be prevented from editing these pages so that the community can continue to improve the articles. Catrìona (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Just checking

With the block you have installed today on WyndingHeadland, I am just checking that I was OK to revert one of their edits[[129]] on Highland Clearances. I simply don't want to get wrapped up in this edit warring stuff. I am absolutely 100% sure that my revert is OK from a content point of view, and even if there was a problem, I hope one of the (few remaining) other editors on the article would point it out. Sorry if this is basic stuff - this whole saga kind of distorts logical thinking.... ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you are unsure if your change has consensus, why not propose it on the talk page before making it? EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I have little doubt about consensus - the text is now what existed for some time, especially when there was a bigger pool of editors (I think some were driven away by the problem user, in both their usernames). I've just been reading some of the old talk page discussions and much of this stuff was usefully discussed in detail. If there was a problem with it, we would have talked about it. (The sentences either side of the one in question have both been subjects of discussion.)
It was more a matter of reverting the edits of someone with a block - this is alien territory for me. Strange how unsettling this whole thing has been (and I realise there is the possibility of further episodes). However, with a few hours passed since my initial concern, I am a lot more relaxed about my actions and I have not elicited a "you shouldn't have done that" from you (which was really the key concern). So, based on that, unless I have completely misunderstood things, I am OK and just need to say thanks for you input.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Sebastian.777

Hello, I would like to know what we can do about the user @Sebastian.777:?. Because apparently talking to him is impossible and more to make him understand things and only generates dispute. Now it has returned generating conflicts in the article of Me declaro culpable.--Philip J Fry talk 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User was blocked for a week for continued warring at Me declaro culpable. If there is still a problem, consider following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

your help please

Please can you look at the constant harassment and threats this user is making against me, even reverting my talk page and threatening time and again that he has the powers to instant block me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simply-the-truth&diff=810841170&oldid=810841081Simply-the-truth (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Like anyone else, you are allowed to remove messages from your own talk, and I pointed this out to Goodreg3. You and GR3 both seem to have a thing for controversies, and I wish each of you could find something quieter to work on. Given your user name, I need to point out a passage from WP:TRUTH: "truth is not always something as clear and unquestionable as we may desire." EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving
A little early, but still...

Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness.

If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Vnonymous signature issues

Hi EdJohnston. I stumbled across Vnonymous why doing some image checking. When I come across such a user, I usually do a quick scan of their user talk to see if they've been previously informed about image issues to try and assess whether this might be a first time error or someone who keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over. I noticed in User talk:Vnonymous#Edit warring about Tamil script in infobox; signature does not link that you informed this editor about the issues with their signature. I also noticed it they were warned about the same thing in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive968#Vnonymous by Berean Hunter, but they still seem to be having problems. I'm not sure if English ability is a problem or whether they simply do not understand how to fix their signature. FWIW, they seem to have figured out the signature on their Commons user talk, so not sure what the issue is with Wikipedia. It could be something as simple as accidentally checking the "Treat the above as wiki markup" on the preferences page. The editor doesn't seem to really be responding to any messages left on their user talk. Do you have any suggestions on what to try instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. They appear to have sorted out their signature. The minor edit stuff will be resolved one way or another, but hopefully they read the links I added and will figure that one out as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for unprotect

Hi, you applied indefinite semi at Elizabeth Warren in July 2016 due to disruption. The article is now relatively quiet and I don't think continued protection is warranted. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

False actor

Hello, I would like to know if there is any way to include the name Julián Moreno, to the list of spam, since it has been almost a year since an ip persists in adding this name to the list of cast of several telenovelas. Generally the ip can vary, because it changes constantly. As you can see here, this comes from 2015. Recently it happened again here and here. In fact, I had previously told you about this.--Philip J Fry :  Talk  14:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Philip J Fry: There is no obvious way to block the addition of an actor name, all across Wikipedia. But I notice that this false name is usually added by IPs. If you have a list of articles where this often happens, you could give me the list and I would see whether blocks or semiprotection might be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
This frequent addition of that name is not daily, but it is something that returns. Although I notice more than this unknown user persists in adding that name to these articles: Las vías del amor, Los miserables, Soñadoras, and Cañaveral de Pasiones. Although two years ago he also persisted in adding this name to La Patrona.--Philip J Fry / talk 17:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked Special:Contributions/ 37.157.222.0/24 for two months due to the repeated additions of an actor called Julián Moreno to shows in which nobody by that name had a role. This pattern goes as far back as 15 October. Back in 2015 there was also a registered account: Jose Julian Moreno (talk · contribs) doing the same thing. That account is still under an indef block by User:Mkdw. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Nuztas revisited

Hi Ed, re this at Nuztas1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): please see LA144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same content, same articles. I already have reverted the remaining edits. The blocking is for you .Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Already taken care of by user Bishonen. - DVdm (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_43&oldid=1154425416"