User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

2001 insurgency in Macedonia edit war (again)

• 2001 insurgency in Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ButtersIO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, wikipedia user :@ButtersIO: seems to have been engaged in an edit war for a little bit over a month. he claims the NLA was supported by al-qaeda however none of his three references state this, instead refer to the N. Macedonian news and sources claiming this with no substantial proof. I only reverted his edits once. however he added it back. then other wikipedians reverted his edits and asked him to go to the talk page. after a 5 day silence he came back and accused me, @Maleschreiber: and @Jingiby: of "trying so hard to hide the facts and change the truth". Durraz0 (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello thanks for mentioning me, User:EdJohnston has already warned me about WP:3RR, I wasn't aware of that rule I am truly sorry and I want to assure you that this won't happen again, again apologies for the 4 time Edits in 24h period from the few days ago. --ButtersIO (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

ButtersIO is using citations which don't support their narrative and they continue to edit war to force their edits into the article--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC).

I have blocked User:ButtersIO 72 hours for continued edit warring on 2001 insurgency in Macedonia after their original four reverts of that article on 26 May, following a new complaint here on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is being targeted by IP reverts. [1] --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Maleschreiber, thanks for your mail. You have described what you consider to be off-wiki canvassing about this article. I've now semiprotected the page for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the much-needed admin oversight Ed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Ed. There's an account which makes the same revert every once in a while at Kosovo War and other articles. They've done it again without responding to other editors or start a discussion at the talkpage but then they had just created an account so I let it slide and they stopped eventually. Now, it's come to a point which requires admin oversight (6 reverts in 24 hours).--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You may be referring to User:Alex Mili. Why not file this at WP:AN3? Alex has previously been alerted under WP:ARBEE and has been blocked once. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Alex Mili reverted again after your warning. I reported them at ANI/I, but since nobody is responding I was thinking of withdrawing the report and filing one at the 3RR noticeboard. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Another revert [2]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU! – EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Protection of B. R. Ambedkar

• B. R. Ambedkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since you understand this request better than usual admins here, I am making the request here. Can you consider putting WP:ECP on B.R. Ambedkar? It has been long affected by the socks related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/संदेश हिवाळे for more than 4 years and still is. Current disruption is being caused by the throw-away obvious socks like this account and frequent page ownership by an SPA.

They lack a collaborative approach with their clear personal attacks[3][4] and their ownership of this article is concerning. If they are blocked, then new ones will pop up. I believe ECP will solve the problem. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The name of B.R. Ambedkar appears frequently on the admin boards and in sockpuppet reports, so I'm going ahead with indefinite WP:ECP under WP:ARBIPA. If you perceive anyone to be an obvious sock you should file them at WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

{{Talkback|Talk:B._R._Ambedkar|Censoring_Hindutva}}

Question

• Danger Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 3RR closure

I know I went with closing as it wasn't needed, but was I in the right in the first two reverts? Or were the sources really not enough to fix the issue? Is it made of Wood (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion it would have been better for you to open a discussion at Talk:Danger Force rather than file at AN3. But the dispute is over now anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Mail

{{You've got mail}} --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Replied by email. If necessary, continue the discussion at Template talk:Ahnentafel. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Added my name to the meta page for the m:UCOC discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Economy of Kolkata protection

I just upgraded Economy of Kolkata to full protection because autoconfirmed users are edit warring. In two weeks, when that expires, one of us should probably re-establish indefinite semi-protection. —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The discussion on your talk page is somewhat informative. I have seen the south Asian GDP warring going on for quite a while (on various articles), but can't make much sense of it. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Eddaido

• Eddaido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Frank Schuster (music patron) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 3RR case from May 2021 about another article

As you've dealt with user:Eddaido before, I'm hoping you can step in and provide some advice on the situation here Talk:Frank Schuster (music patron). He's being very defensive about an unsourced sentence and can't provide a realistic explanation why is it needed when it implies unproven things about that paragraph's main topic. People like him is why my participation in wikipedia is erratic. I just wanted to remove the implication that Elgar was exclusively heterosexual, because that is under scholarly debate. He is insistent on keeping that sentence simply because it has always been there? I have tried to reason with him but feel it is time for another set of eyes. If you are the wrong person to go to, please forward this to the right person. I'm exhausted here and beginning to feel like he is just wearing me down for the fun of it. Wickedjacob (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not yet an edit war. See WP:Dispute resolution for your options, which include WP:DRN and WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Nah, Like I said, I have no more energy for this dispute. I think its a flaw in wikipedia's procedures that one can't simply ask an administrator for help like I did. He then went on to engage with another longtime user in a similar way that same night. Wikipedia is much more your baby than mine, if you don't care to lift a finger why should I? Wickedjacob (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for protecting Xiongnu. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

User NoobMaster01

• NoobMaster01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3RR case from June 2021

Hi, Ed. This user is continuing their disruptive behavior that led to their first block. Amaury • 10:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely returning to the exact same behavior that got them blocked the first time – this editor clearly isn't getting the message. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I have left a note for NoobMaster01. EdJohnston (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I just read all the messages now and I'm not the one who is starting this edit war It's Amaury who is removing an important information from a page which was agreed to be on that page since November 2020. NoobMaster01 (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A substantial mischaracterization of events. As per the Talk page, there are now at least 4 different editors who oppose the inclusion of the section you are trying to add. (That means, at best, there is no consensus in favor of including it, and there may actually be consensus against including it.) Also, at least three different editors have reverted its inclusion since Nov. 2020. And none of that gets to the behavioral aspects that User:NoobMaster01 is clearly edit warring on the subject. At this point, I think I would support a block on NoobMaster01's editing the Spider-Man (2017 TV series) article (specifically, but maybe not the Talk page) as probably the best solution here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Since Noobmaster01 appears to have such poor judgment regarding consensus and edit warring, and since this is a repeat violation within a few weeks, I went ahead with a four-day block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Goths update and question

Hi again. I wonder if you have any ideas about this RFC [5]? Obviously I feel you've had an influence on this use of RFCs, but it is not going well, and I continue to have concerns that the article has been quite deliberately and successfully frozen.

• I started this RFC after a previous RFC made clear that there was consensus to trim the sections relating to "pre" Goths before the 3rd century and handle them better in other articles. Srnec proposed this.[6] Before that RFC even closed, a new RFC was opened and much later closed by Krakkos which accepted this consensus and proposed, over a long period, 3 different draft versions of a new trimmed Origins section. I would say none of them were really in the spirit of the consensus or intended to go ahead, but they ground down everyone, as usual. (Only AFTER all drafts were rejected did Krakkos call for closure on several RFCs, and one of these re-confirmed the consensus that such a trimming was called for.[7])
• My RFC is therefore a new draft trying to achieve the desired result, after waiting to let people regain some energy. However, people are sick of it. The RFC template already expired long ago, and the users who have helped keep Goths moving along occasionally since the blocks last year, most importantly Srnec, have clearly given up on the article now and Srnec refuses to participate (as per discussion on their talk page [8]) despite this being their original proposal which several other editors liked. It is simply not true that RFCs work in situations like this. The original 3R case showed bad will and a desire to freeze the POV. In that situation RFCs can never work well, because anyone who does not want the article to change can simply use this extra hurdle to achieve that freeze in practice.
• In the RFC so far, editors who have taken the original consensus accepted by Krakkos and the closing admin seriously don't seem to have any problem with my draft. Berig and Krakkos are the only votes against my draft. Berig is however also opposed to the previously accepted consensus that there should be such a shortening in the first place. Krakkos is clearly also not really a supporter of the idea, and the three drafts were all against the spirit of it to begin with. (Both those editors have made statements that indicate they believe academia will be proven wrong by DNA testing in the future, and that academia is wrong because of ideology etc [9][10][11][12]. As you know, both editors have also made IMHO very questionable efforts to "make it personal" and try to get you to block me from editing on this topic because of this disagreement with academia.[13][14])
• More recently I have gone ahead and made an article to at least allow expansion of our coverage of this topic which so often overloaded Goths. See Origin of the Goths. As discussed on Srnec's talk page [15] that material can potentially now be merged to another article, but at least it can be worked on now without having to work on Goths which is effectively a frozen article. Since the blocks you put in place (even for technical edits where there is no sign of disagreement, as you said at the time) not even the original bibliographical problems in the article have been fully cleared up or ever explained as a true disagreement. Even the fact that there were 3 different versions(!!!) of the same DNA discussion could never be discussed in a good faith way and was insisted upon until Srnec removed them all.[16] (FWIW Srnec suggested I should ask for the restrictions should be lifted. See the user talk page diff above.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

For me, this issue is receding into the past. Do you feel unable to make progress through discussion with other editors? EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

So an editor with a record of getting admins to block other editors, holds out for months or years defending things as obviously wrong as a tripled section, and you think the stagnation of the article must be the fault of the other editors, because they must be bad at discussing things? How do you justify this type of comment?

I have no problem discussing the article with other editors apart from the article owner who got the article semi-frozen. The problem is to find people willing to look at the article and its talk page over such a long period when every type of proposal is disputed and obfuscated. Since the beginning, you've continually taken the position that if someone's proposal is reasonable, then they should obviously be able to get edits done by other editors. Apparently they will come along, and volunteer to sift through every proposal, while being bombarded by the article owner. In fact we've been lucky to drag along a few editors who've done this for some basic things like that tripled genetics section over more than a year, but it can't go on forever, and it is especially depressing for all involved when we see how easily Krakkos could rewind all that work and force everyone to discuss everything anew, as I explained in previous discussions. This indirect editing method would not work on any WP article needing any substantial level of work, and it certainly can't work in a case like this where one editor wants to freeze the article. (You were asked on 28th February 2020 to intervene to stop changes on the article. Despite that being on 3R, only one edit was cited and the rest of the post was about how I had changed another article in the past.[17] This was clearly not just a simple 3R case.) If this indirect editing method worked, we could work like that on every article. But we can't. No one can. Editors should not be allowed to get their content protected long-term like this, and especially not based on the argument that without admin intervention other editors will change the articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW my main reason for posting was to ask if I should do anything about the currently-running RFC. Did you look at it? The template expired, and generally the situation is messy. A lot of editors do not like this RFCs. Other editors have objected to the number of RFCs so I waited before opening one. In the meantime there were no less than three drafts were proposed within an RFC that was started before the RFC where it was proposed had ended. None of those drafts seemed to be aimed at fitting the bill. They've added to the general impression that this article is going nowhere, and is not an enjoyable article to work on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't force editors to agree with you if they don't want to. Why not propose a formal closure of Talk:Goths#RFC to move ahead on previous Intro and Origins proposals. If you think anyone is violating policy, you should name them and consider ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Where did I ask you to force editors to do anything? I don't understand why you keep making negative caricature remarks that are so disconnected from what I am saying. I can only presume it is meant to be a light sarcastic insult? Anyway, I have simply been cautious of closing it too early because of the complaints from other editors about previous RFCs being opened and closed too quickly.[18][19] It seems everyone has their own idea about how RFCs should work, but also everyone finds them confusing when they need to be used often. OTOH I am also of course concerned about the fact that the template expired. Or is that no problem?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Aren't you here requesting admin action? EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No. I was requesting advice on a currently active RFC, and giving a general update. I suppose the general update is connected to the edit block policy which I feel can't be justified. But that is for the longer run. For now the RFC is what I am trying to work with, and get finished off properly. I don't want the messiness to be turned into a complaint later that might be used to argue against the proposed edit going ahead. Do we need to reactivate the template? How long should the RFC go? Given that the template has expired, would people looking at project pages not be seeing this RFC? etc. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to give editorial advice. Above, you have stated that this is 'not an enjoyable article to work on', but that is not a problem for administrators to solve. You might discuss this with other editors on the talk page. The removal of an RfC template after 30 days does not prevent further discussion if there is still a chance of progress. If you want a formal closure of an RfC, the page at WP:Closure requests is available to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

So now you say I asked you for editorial advice? Please stop reinterpreting me? I am not sure what is going on here, but I am trying to work within the system you've insisted upon in good faith as long as I can, and follow the normal steps until the point where I have to give up. Hopefully you are not trying to accelerate that. It is also not "my mission" (ref your sarcastic edsum). I started working on this article only last year when, as the links above explain, there was already a perception of years of arguments about the exact same issues which the exact same "passionate" editors are now trying to depict as personally coming from me. Please do NOT follow in that personalization. Concerning this RFC, further discussion HAS continued after the template expiration, but I presume the RFC has stopped being shown on project pages? In contrast to your misleading sarcastic remarks above, feedback has been positive about my draft. However, after so many useless RFCs, it would be a shame if someone says there was a fault in my handling of the technical formalities. (The editing block itself was supposedly somehow related, according to your own explanation, to technical edits, although actually the one edit mentioned on 28 Feb 2018 was not a technical edit. So I am being careful! Nothing wrong with that? I honestly find your reasoning very hard to follow.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I can no longer follow. You had better ask someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I am playing safe, based on what has happened in the past. I take it from the above that you see no problems with the approach so far in this RFC.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

IPs are at it again

• Battle of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings and salutations!

• 46.217.31.208 and 46.217.31.163, likely one person from the vicinity of Tetovo, Northern Macedonia. From what I can tell, they have some experience adding citations. He/she/they are using WP: REFBOMB in an effort to give WP: UNDUE weight and notability to a minority view and promote it, while staying away from the talk pages. I would like to bring them to the talk page if I can.

I apologize in advance if I failed to bring sufficient information, I am still quite green at Wikipedia. If you need anything, please contact me.

Thank you.

LjaljaMM18 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The page is now semiprotected indefinitely by another admin under the Arbcom sanctions. I would have done the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Technical request

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

Dear EdJohnston, I am writing to you because of a small technical request. In January 2018, my userpage has been vandalized with a small series of racially-charged edits (containing insults in my native language targeted at the content of my userpage), that are still viewable in the page's history. I want to request these revisions to be made un-openable (or whatever the technical term is for "deleting" those versions). These are the four versions: 1 2 3 4. Number 3 is the one with a highly offensive verbal attack that is my main issue. I realize that this is a minor problem, but let me know if executing this is viable. Regards.--Concus Cretus (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Concus. I have deleted four revisions from your user page (edits made in Jan 2018 by User:Born.in.cssr) per your request. Hope this is what you needed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That's it, thank you! --Concus Cretus (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alluburam

• 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi EdJohnston. I saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alluburam and was in the process of posting something there when it was closed. It's clear that Alluburam and Alluburam 2 are the same editor. I don't believe there's a need for two accounts based upon what's written in WP:MULTIPLE, and the fact that Alluburam 2 is being used to continue the disputes taking place at articles with edits like this and this is disconcerting. The issue, however, goes well beyond the claim of WP:SOCK and involves more editors than Alluburam. There's been edit warring going on at 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election quite sometime now between Alluburam and other editors, and none of those involved seem to be willing to try and sort this out on the article's talk page. Alluburam has posted on the talk page before; he knows it's there, but has decided not to use it in this case. There's also nothing on 2022 talk page (or at Talk:List of current members of the Rajya Sabha as a matter of fact) from Dev Adhi; so, they're not trying to discuss. The IPs that show up might not know about the talk pages or may know and just don't care. Basically, all involved seem to have decided that edit warring is the way to go here and that's going to likely continue until an administrator steps in and takes action. If you look at User talk:Alluburam and Talk:2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election, you'll see that other editors have been expressing concerns about Alluburam's overall editing approach for some time now. You yourself previously blocked Alluburam back in April; so, maybe this now is a case of WP:CIR or WP:IDHT. There are also similar concerns (though not as many) being expressed at User talk:Dev Adhi. A discussion about all of these things could be started at WP:ANI or WP:AN3, but I'm wondering if there's another way to try and resolve things. The articles could probably be page protected to stop the IPs, but that won't really stop the registered accounts. Do you think a "last warning" to all involved from an administrator (you perhaps) will have any effect here, or is this ultimately something that's going to need to be resolved at one of the ANs? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

My account is Alluburam. Alluburam is created by someone else with my name Alluburam (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't lie Alluburam 2 is yours you abused me from your second account Dev Adhi (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The SPI case is ongoing and I've posted something there. If problems continue after that SPI gets closed I think one or more edit warring blocks may be needed. In the meantime, do you see a case for semiprotection of 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election? And, is there a reason to alert User:Alluburam to the sanctions under WP:ARBIPA? The frequent opponent of Alluburam, User:Dev Adhi, has already been notified of those sanctions. I have not yet determined what the dispute on this article is about. Your only post on Talk seems to be about the style of headings, though it looks like you are correct on the style points. If it's actually a long-term fight about page styling I can see how that would be tiresome. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The article has already been WP:GOLD protected by El C per a RPP made by another editor; so, that should take care of edit warring for the time being. My only edits to the article have been related to formatting, non-free content, etc.; so, I'm not really sure what the disagreement is and why the edit warring has been going on. Most of those involved aren't really leaving edit summaries, and when they do they seem to be more about other editors than anything else. I'm assuming that there is some disagreement over the content and how to display such content, but nobody seems willing to clarify what that is; instead, they just seem to be reverting each other back and forth. I don't know much about ARBIPA, but it should apply to all editors equally in principle, shouldn't it? If that means 1RR is in effect, then many of those involved kicked through that door quite awhile ago. Many have also been pushing 3RR as well. It seems that political articles in general often are contentious, but his might even be more the case here because it appears to be an article about a currently ongoing election. Maybe the thing to do here would be to keep the article fully protected until the election is over and give those involved a chance to work through whatever disagreements they have though article talk page discussion. If they feel some edit needs to be made asap, they can use the talk page to propose it and then an admin can make the change if a consensus has been established to do so. There are a couple of empty sections and empty tables in the current version of the article and maybe it would be better to hide these for the time being until they can be sorted out on the article talk page. Perhaps the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Punjab and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics could help sort out whatever disagreements there are between these editors? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that other admins are attending to the SPI report, the content of which I am unfamiliar, but a quick note about 1RR. WP:ARBIND pages are not subject to 1RR by default. That action has to be authorized (and logged) by an admin, with a mainspace Ds/editnotice attached. I'd also point out that the page in question doesn't even have a Ds/talk notice that informs editors of the DS in question. I'll do that momentarily. HTH! El_C 10:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification El C. It looks like the article was directly created in the mainspace back in 2020 by a different editor, who most likely wasn't aware of ARBIND, and most of the main contributers probably also weren't aware as well; perhaps that explains why nobody bothered to ad a DS/edit notice until now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Germanic peoples

• Germanic peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sonnenrage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tristenschaible (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, we've been having trouble with a new edit warring editor and various ips at this article, who insists on imposing their preferred version of the article, regardless of consensus or the lack of it. It appears that editor Sonnenrage may be abusing his account with sockpuppets and proxied ips. He has engaged on the talk page, but there he's making comments such as "You are not honest" and "Once again, you are acting in bad faith."

He has commented most egregiously with this edit on his talk page after receiving a warning from another editor, in which he added the words: "You are criminal, traitor, enemy. You are worthless as a human being. You think you are a defender of culture? But you are ready to destroy everything that doesn't go your way. You are a liar. Deceiver. You are an enemy of freedom and truth. Oppressor. Karma will catch up with you, don't doubt it." Carlstak (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow! I have blocked Sonnenrage 48 hours for the personal attacks and applied a month of semiprotection to Germanic peoples. I will let User:Tristenschaible know they have been discussed here. The sanctions of WP:ARBEE apply to this article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Carlstak (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for reduction in protection level

Hi EdJohnston,

The page named Rajput is under "Extended confirmed protection" for a long time (last time, you increased its semi-protection level). Due to this, a very few users can edit this page and experienced users with 500+ edits have a monopoly over the page. I found that there is some scope for improvement in the article. Therefore, I request you to reduce the level of page protection to semi-protection so that inexperienced users can also make contributions to the page. Dympies (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles about clans castes are often subjected to caste boosterism and promotional editing. The WP:ECP protection is a good way to keep this activity in check, since it ensures that edits are made by people with knowledge of Wikipedia standards. The EC protection is placed under the authority of WP:ARBIPA. If you believe you can offer something to the Rajput article, please make a proposal at Talk:Rajput. If you wish, you can use the {{Edit extended-protected}} template there to get the attention of an experienced editor to make the change for you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election

• Alluburam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AN3 case about Alluburam from last March

Despite your warning, User:Alluburam is reverting our users edits example: 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election , I am so tired of reverting again his several users have been affected by him. Kindly please take necessary actions. regards Nahtrav (talk)

The page has now been fully protected for a week by another admin. If you see continuing problems consider opening up a new report at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

He is continuing his reverting in the 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election page you can see from the page's edit history, the whole article has been transformed into Alluburam's imaginary favourite article. He is just reverting other users edits without any summary or reason. Also Have a glance at his talk page and see several users compaining and opposing him for their content deletion.His actions may led to discouragement of Experienced wikipedia users which is nothing but hunting down of Wikipedia's Policies. Please consider this problem as soon as possible Nahtrav (talk) And also Why I am reporting to you is I already have reported him in edit warring WP:AN3, but because of unknowing the way in filling up the details there, no action has been taken, So I request you to help me in reporting this issue --Nahtrav (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Is meteoclub.gr a reliable source?

/* Original title was: Hello, I have a question about a Wikipedia Rule. */

• Weatherextremes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• https://meteoclub.gr

Hello, I have a question regarding Wikipedia:COI based on Wikipedia:Self promotion.

I found an user who's posting his own blog posts from a website (which is a forum/blog, made by himself) as "reliable sources" in many of the articles he edits. I think this is obviously not reliable but not even valid as a source itself. Is this valid on Wikipedia or there is any kind of procedure to be done? I am asking this first before doing any action, because I don't know exactly how to proceed. I saw you on the Active Administrators list, I hope you can answer me if it's possible. Thanks! --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS a self-created blog would not be reliable unless it was created by person who was an established subject-matter expert. If you can post some examples here I will take a look. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ed, sure, here you go: 1 2 3 just to put three examples. Now compare the source of these edits to this data coming from the same website website this data here, albeit being a blog entry has an official source and it's just re-posting the official data.

On the other hand, the 3 examples from above, are also user-made blog entries coming from non-official Greek weather data (neither HNMS nor even the National Observatory of Athens) but some kind of self made averages containing few years of data (climate standards are at least of 20 years of data) and if you notice under the "source" tag in these entries, there is just some bold text, as compared to this example (which I have mentioned earlier) where the source is clearly reliable and proved in another website.

Also, it's obviously self-made content as there are two proofs, the user editing these articles on the Wiki has a specifical username in that website (notice how the other blog entries are made by other nicknames) and also this same user uploaded to commons some of the pictures he has posted in these blog entries. The website itself may not be a blog, but it has blog/forum self user-made entries and the proof is right above the start of the page where the entries can be written by any member of the site as in Wikipedia.

In fact, the who we are section of that website (use Google Translate) says it clearly: The website was created on March 24, 2007 through a love for the weather and meteorology. The purpose of the website was and is to unite the amateur meteorologists of Greece in a website, where they will share in real time their thoughts, feelings, reports and weather forecasts / estimates. and this user is not in the administrators list, it's just an user who is able to write entries in the forum/blog section of the website, which is clearly stated in their "who we are" section as an "amateur website to share thoughts and feelings" so that's obviously not a source to take data from, as they're user-written entires, unless if they have official/reliable sources as in the example posted above.

Now, what's the problem with that site and Wikipedia? No problem, as most of the data is backed up by proper sources. But some of them aren't. And the things which I have said above are written by the user weatherextremes in Wikipedia, he has been warned before for the data he uses, as well as some of his edits have been reverted, but he keeps adding it back saying "it's a reliable source" when in fact it's a blog/forum entry written by someone (most likely himself) in that meteoclub.gr website. As well as the Commons uploaded files being the same as in some of the articles is another proof that he's the one writing some of the pages in that site to later use it as a "source" on Wikipedia. I don't have any problem with this user and he adds quite a lot of useful data to Wikipedia, but some of his edits include these self-made blog entries which are clearly unreliable and unsourced. Can you warn him on his talk page? As he doesn't seem to care too much about user warnings. You can see it in his talk page history as he's constantly blanking his own talk page, I have warned him for the same reasons in 2019, other users have done it either in his talk page or in the edit summaries when reverting/deleting his edits but he keeps doing the same again. --TechnicianGB (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, first of all meteoclub is not a blog but one of the most respectable websites in Greece in terms of meteorology. Secondly, I have nothing to do with the website nor the website is mine. I do not understand why TechnicianGB suggests that I can not use the website as source. Please contact meteoclub for further information and clarification but I can declare that I do not have ownership of the website. I reference whatever I see relevant for an article and it is an important source for Greek meteorology which helps us add significant knowledge. Weatherextremes (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Weatherextremes: Hello, like I said above I don't have any problem with you and most of your edits are ok, the problem are few of them which use clearly unreliable made-up data from meteoclub. Meteoclub as it says in it's own "who we are" page, as I shown above, is an "Greek amateur meteorologists site where they can share their thoughts, feelings and personal weather reports" written by the own site's administrator. It's not a blog, but the sources you use are blog entries written by an user named "A-F" (I won't write his name but it's easily to prove) in the "sources" paragraph there is just bold text. Meteoclub is not reliable as it's own user-made data which can be written by any user on there. I have shown already an example of a properly sourced meteoclub entry like the Downtown Athens 1991-2020 data which uses an official Greek source, but the ones for example for Kasos or Lindos, amongst others, are simple short time made-up data with no sources to be proven. And a blog entry with numbers is not reliable by any means for Wikipedia. Also I don't know if you're the one posting them, but you have uploaded some pics in Wikipedia Commons claiming "self-work" and the same pics appear in the meteoclub.gr site added by that user named "A-F" as I have shown with links above as well.

In any case, the official Greek HNMS climate data for the entirety of Greece + islands is shown here: http://climatlas.hnms.gr/sdi/?lang=EN which differs enormously from what you post on meteoclub. Please stop using that site with personal blog entries because it's not a reliable source, unless if it's citing a major reliable source such as the "Downtown Athens 1991-2020" data. If you want to post clearly non-reliable things, use your personal sandbox. Thank you. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not post anything on Meteoclub. I am not even a member. I do use though pics, and articles of the website as reference. They are subject matter experts most of the writers over there. Physicists, geologists and so on. In fact one writer is a meteorologist (there are more meteorologists as far as I am aware) who is presenting the weather in a Greek nationwide TV network. So I do not post clearly non-reliable things as you suggest but always reference Meteoclub when I post something. Btw all the Meteoclub articles that I use have proper reference list. I don't know what you are on about honestly Weatherextremes (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Weatherextremes: Please stop, you're at one revert from breaking the three revert rule in the page Kasos and hardiness zone you keep adding the same as well in the page Hardiness Zone again adding that non-official and unreliable data. Even if we would take it as reliable, Hardiness Zones aren't calculated by only 7 years of data. The source is not HNMS and that specific page at the end where it says "sources" it just shows some bold text. Unlike the Downtown Athens page which shows as a source the website "magazine.noa.gr" and it's substantiated. Do you understand the difference now? Both are user-made blog entries, but one has sources to back up the data and the other one has just plain text which proves nothing. The user @Average Portuguese Joe: has pointed out the same before and you also didn't care about his words but just re-added your deleted edits.

Example, Downtown Athens has a provable source: https://www.meteoclub.gr/themata/egkyklopaideia/to-klima-ths-athinas which is " http://magazine.noa.gr/archives/4446 " but Kasos (among others) has only bold text: https://www.meteoclub.gr/themata/egkyklopaideia/perioxes-me-tous-hpioterous-xeimones-stin-ellada this is not reliable and unprovable, moreso when it's added by registered users in that site, no matter if it's you or another person, that's a simple entry that can be written by anyone just as I'm writing this on Wikipedia. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning issued in his own talk page Weatherextremes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he's at one revert from breaking the 3RR in both Hardiness zones and Kasos pages. Instead of trying to reach consensus and to explain his actions here or in the own pages talk page, trying to prove his source is reliable, he justs comes to write the same again without trying to prove his source is reliable.

When as I shown above in the own "meteoclub.gr" site with 2 different articles, one of them has a substantiated source and the other one just has some bold text where it says "sources" and just as said before, in the own TOS of that site it says "it's a meeting place for amateur meteorologists" but he again reverts saying it's official reliable data... I won't revert again as I've done it also twice and I don't want to be breaking the three revert rule. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Weatherextremes would be risking a block if they again revert at Hardiness zone as they did here, restoring material about Kasos and hardiness zone 11b to the article which is sourced only to meteoclub.gr. Such a claim would need a link to a WP:Reliable source that actually puts Kasos in zone 11b. The opinion expressed on a group blog such as meteoclub.gr wouldn't settle a question of fact about a hardiness zone. If User:Weatherextremes believes that meteoclub.gr should be considered a reliable source, consider proposing that at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see what others think. If meteoclub has an article which *links* to some official data, if the link is specific enough to allow others to read the information, editors might add such official links to our article directly without going through meteoclub at all. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston let's take things from the beginning. My reverts in both articles comes from a clear understanding that meteoclub is a reliable source. How exactly is it a personal opinion when the article on Kasos clearly references the HNMS data department and the Gkouvas (2012) equation placing Kasos in zone 11b? I strongly urge you to google translate the entire article and read the relevant bits. Here is an extract in Greek:

η Κάσος εμπίπτει στη ζώνη 11b, σύμφωνα με την εξίσωση του Γκουβά (2012)

The above translates roughly that using the Gkouvas (2012) equation, which is specially created for Greece's hardiness zones, Kasos is placed at zone 11b.

And here is the reference list in Greek from that article

ΠΗΓΕΣ

Ε.Μ.Υ - ΔΝΣΗ ΠΑΡΟΧΗΣ ΥΠΗΡΕΣΙΩN

Κλιματικές ζώνες ανθεκτικότητας φυτών της Ελλάδας (Inforest/ Γκουβάς, 2012)

I have been using meteoclub for long time and like I mentioned earlier it is an excellent source with reliable sources on Greece's data. Now it is annoying (very much so), actually bordering a personal attack that both TechnicianGB (talk · contribs) and Average Portuguese Joe suggest that I am either the owner or the writer of the articles. In my opinion, what is happening here is probably a spillover of an argument with a specific Portuguese user in a plant forum here [20]. Please take the time a read it so you will understand. I am user Manos33 (and I think it's fair for me to guess that one of them is <removed mention of another user to avoid OUTING. -EdJohnston>). As you will notice the only affiliation I have with Meteoclub is that I have nagged them for more than two weeks to look at the data I got from HNMS on Kasos! Occasionally also I had participated in the chat facility of Meteoclub and thats all my affiliation to them. So once the editor of Meteoclub had the HNMS data on Kasos, they decided to research a bit more and produced the article. Now the real question is if the article is a reliable source. An easy way to settle this would be to create a public email account and order the HNMS data for Kasos in order to have the extra verification. The HNMS data on Kasos covers 33 years of data worth. In any case that should be done in case there is consensus Meteoclub and more particularly this article is for some reason not reliable. Like I said many Greek scientists participate in Meteoclub and I understand that both users might not be aware of this as they are not a part of the Greek met community. Finally and just to address TechnicianGB's claims on Commons, I can confirm that I have used pictures from Meteoclub (I took screenshots if I remember correctly) but unfortunately at the time I was not well versed with Commons (well I am still not good at that) and probably claimed wrong authorship, its been so long that I do not remember all the details. Moreover, I take it I am free to blank my talk page in Wikipedia, this is my space on Wikipedia and using the fact that I blank my talk page as an argument of sorts makes no sense. In any case, I will move forward the discussion in the Hardiness Zones article proposing of a public email to verify the HNMS data since both users do not trust me or Meteoclub. Anyway, I am a wikipedia editor 11 years now and I try to be very careful when I use sources and Meteoclub is highly regarded in the Greek met community. Weatherextremes (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TechnicianGB (talk · contribs) here are my arguments as to why:

• The user claims he is not affiliated with the forum, but not only are his edits made right after a post is made, but he also uploads some of the photos of the website to commons as his own, providing notion, once more that this user might be related or even own the website.
• The user also claims the website is full of meteorologists, physicists, geologists, etc... do I need to say more? These claims are worth nothing and are digging him even deeper.
• Climatologically wise, most of the data, even if it's cited from reliable sources, is not even usable. 10 years or less of data for a climate normal (which is ~30 years) is just absurd, there is no info to how this data is measured (e.g. can be measured in someone's backyard, a strong no no in climatology). The clear discrepancies can be observed when compared to modeled data by HNMS [21] (e.g. While Meteoclub states that Lindos has an average temperature of 21.9°C, HNMS says the temperature in that same area is around 18.5°C)
• It's also funny the user suggests contacting Meteoclub while being accused of owning or being related to that same website. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Average Portuguese Joe please see my response above. Also just to comment on the 18.5C mean annual on the same area regarding Lindos. I mean that got me laughing a lot. I understand that you are not aware of Greece's climatology. The HNMS atlas is using the Rhodes city data to plot the same area. We now have the NOA Lindos station data (I suspect we had that exact same conversation in PalmTalk forum) which gives us a clear idea on how hot Lindos is. Virtually beats the warmest areas of the Canary islands. Granted not for 30 years but with an easy edit on the Lindos article we can make it reflect that the statement is true for a specific time period. You know Greece is one of the most complex areas climatologically in the planet for its size. Weatherextremes (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Weatherextremes: Again, that doesn't explain anything I've just said above. You not only seem to deny data from Greece's official meteorological institute but you also throw random statements without a single credible source to prove them. This is not a blog or forum where you can say whatever you want without a source. This is Wikipedia, so until you find a credible source outside of that forum, with around 30 years of data, and a known, official WMO station, you can not make such claims. I think that is pretty plausible to understand. And instead of emailing Meteoclub, why don't you email HNMS and tell them a little island in the Mediterranean is hotter than Houston Texas in the summer and warmer than the Azores in the winter (and 3°C warmer than other nearby islands)? I have never used (or wrote in) a forum, if that's what you want to know. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: Yes, I understand it comes as shock, but that's Greece for you. Lindos is renown in the country for being the warmest area nationally. Up until 15 years ago we had anecdotal references from locals and visitors (myself included) about how hot it can get in Lindos compared to the rest of the island but now we have the biggest research institute in the South Europe, the National Observatory of Athens confirming it. It's truly suffocating in the summer due to constant foehn winds blowing almost 24/7 in the SE Rhodes area. Here is an article from a Rhodes newspaper citing the data of the National Observatory of Athens with a title The warmest location of Greece is Lindos [22]. You can also verify the Meteoclub article very simply by running the Lindos data yourself found here: [23] or by using the NOA bulletins [24]. So instead of trying to discredit both the NOA and Meteoclub try reading first a bit. In any case I will take the conversation to Lindos talk page so we will not highjack EdJohnston's talk page. Weatherextremes (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh and btw here [25] is that article from NOA itself confirming Lindos is the hottest area of the country Weatherextremes (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Weatherextremes, this is fast becoming a conduct problem (on your part) and not a content issue. You may not like our sourcing rules but we do. Admins are allowed to take action in that domain. The next step might be to add meteoclub.gr to the spam blacklist (to prevent its use in articles) but I'll hold off proposing that for the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how is it a conduct issue? All the Meteoclub articles are independently veri:fiable as I have suggested both for Kasos but also for Lindos. In fact I suggested that we should make a public email account to take the HNMS data from HNMS's data department (as cited in Meteoclub article). Whereas for Lindos I have provided already 3 links to verify independently the Lindos article from Meteoclub. I am sorry but I am well aware of sources rules and we need to have consensus that Meteoclub is not a reliable source in order to bury it. So, you had suggested that I ask the community feedback on Meteoclub, so I might do that if you insist that the website is not reliable even though I have provided links and ways that can independently verify its content. Weatherextremes (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

You are still obliged to follow Wikipedia's sourcing rules even if you can't understand them or choose not to read them. If you actually read WP:RS you would know why writing to meteoclub would make no sense. We depend upon reliably published sources. We don't depend on writing to someone and asking, 'Excuse me sir, how do you know this information?' A reliable source is like a book you can take down from the shelf and read. Or the equivalent on the web, published by a trustworthy entity or author. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not treat me in a condescending way. I have been an editor 11 years and I understand what a reliable source is. If you actually bothered to read the links I provided for the verification of the Meteoclub article regarding Lindos and the verification proposal for the Kasos article you would see that I strive to uphold the community standards. I will move forward with community wide feedback on Meteoclub since you seem to ignore my answers. Weatherextremes (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Is he allowed to blank his talk page even if it contains so recent warnings as well as an admin's message? Just asking, not sure if it's allowed or not. Ed and Joe, I do agree with all you've said and we can even include that site in the unreliable sources list. But at the moment there is a bigger worrying issue. I'll create a sub-section in this talk page. --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but I consider you biased when it comes to Greece's data, you did not bother to check that the Meteoclub article is actually supported by the links provided by the Rhodes guy and myself (granted you would need to use synthesis to check them but still they are absolutely verifiable). I also consider Average Joe biased if I judge from his edits in Hardiness zones regarding Azores etc. The data from the National Observatory of Athens seem to challenge both of your POV's. I appreciate that an admin does not think Meteoclub is reliable however at a second stage by asking community wide feedback and making my case as clear as possible I hope that they will change their mind. Weatherextremes (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Weatherextremes: I'm copying this from GeneralNotability's talk page. Let's continue it here. Look, it's not just me and Average Portuguese Joe but also another user who has commented in the Hardiness talk page 2 days ago and the other user who reverted the Lindos page yesterday, plus an admin saying the same about that source. As Ed Johnston said, community wide feedback coming from asking that site will not make it a reliable source. The only proper way is to propose meteoclub.gr as a reliable source to a Wikipedia arbitration comitee, but as they will judge from a Neutral Point of View that can also make meteoclub.gr to enter in Wikipedia's spam blacklist, just as EdJohnston warned you two days ago, to prevent to be used in Wikipedia articles. And it's clear that site doesn't meet up Wikipedia:RS as there are many user-made claims done by themselves (like the claims Kasos is warmer than Azores during winters, or that Lindos is the warmest in Europe and many other stuff) as that website has user-made entries and in their own "who we are" page they clearly state they're an amateur site. This is not a crusade against meteoclub.gr but against some of the unsourced data and invented facts they have on some of the user-made entries. They're still user-made entries.

I strongly suggest using your Wikipedia:Sandbox for such data, as well as to the other user "FactDistributor" this is why the Sandbox exists. I put in my own sandbox data from the regional met agency coming from a professional Davis certified station that's also meeting the WMO-standards, as the data is often checked and calibrated by professional meteorologists. But since it's not official data and it's neither offering long term averages, that data can't be on the city's Wikipedia page. And I refrain myself from putting it there. As Average Portuguese Joe said, climate normals are made of 30 years of data, to take it in consideration let's say 20 years at least. But putting few years which have to be calculated month by month by different pages isn't exactly a proper source.

Like I said before, I am not your enemy and I don't have anything against you in particular. We've only "collided" twice, once in 2019 and this week. It's not like I watch or revert your edits. It's just 3 specifical pages. --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Granted, climate normals are used for a 30 year period but in absence of this and especially considering that Lindos has strong meteorological interest since it is the warmest area in geographical Europe as verified by the links provided so far (through some synthesis unfortunately) to back up Meteoclub. Fair enough we could initiate an RfA on the Lindos article if we don't reach consensus. As you will notice in the Lindos talk page I provide an explanation of how Meteoclub works and why it is a reliable source for Lindos. We could wait and hear what the other users now think about Meteoclub and if needed we should consider an RfA on Lindos in case we don't reach a consensus. Let's continue the discussion on Lindos's talk page.Weatherextremes (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

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

Hello @EdJohnston: a brand new user with a very similar writing style made his first Wikipedia edition coming to my talk page to "teach me" in a very familiar style and then he reverted my edits and added again the meteoclub data in the page Lindos. Same actions as the other user did before, which was firstly a message in someone's talk page or the page's talk page and then doing a revert before even waiting for a reply. In this case it's a brand new user called "FactDistributor" and I have a strong reason to suspect that it might be a sockpuppet not only because of that, but also because of the "fact" thing in his nickname which is a word commonly used by Weatherextremes, so this "FactDistributor" fact thing sounds familiar as well. Also because he made two edits trying to put meteoclub again in Lindos Talk:Lindos saying it's the hottest area in Europe and Greece, and the same day this "new user" came to my talk page to say the same and just the following day, which is today, this brand new account came to add that data again in the Lindos page. Not sure at all if it's the same user or someone else from that meteoclub forum or whatever that site is. But this is way too suspicious. The new user came straight to the same point repeating and doing almost the same stuff. --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I need help with this guy (FactDistributor) he's either a sockpuppet of Weatherextremes or someone coming from that meteoclub site. In any case, he's doing the same again and again. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:TechnicianGB, you might consider opening an WP:SPI report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

He has also just broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on the page Lindos as he has manually reverted 3 changes over the past 24 hours. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It takes four reverts to break the 3RR rule. But if nobody else will open the sourcing discussion, why don't you file at WP:RSN to see what others think on whether meteoclub.gr is a reliable source? EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I gave him 2 warnings, since he ignored the 1st one I gave him now a level 3 one, I will undo that data on Lindos again and if he re-reverts (I have tried explaining everything in his talk page but it seems we're talking to the same person with a new account) he will break the rule with the 4th edit, as you can see the writing style, wording, and the "fact and educating" thing is the same as Weatherextremes uses. I don't know exactly how to fill the sourcing discussion and the SPI case is really necessary for just a single user? I could open it though. I have seen he has answered below in your talk page just as his first wiki edit was on my talk page so this doesn't seem too common for a "brand new user" I think. He said he didn't add meteoclub.gr as a source but it was literally the first thing he did and repeated in all of his edits. 1 2 3 Maybe a partial block before filling the SPI case would help? Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to educate the user with the official data for the Lindos weather station. I am not citing meteoclub but the official weather station http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos The official data from the last year is http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/NOAAPRYR.TXT TechnicianGB is adding unreliable sources that contradict the Greek National weather station. There is only one weather station in Lindos which was set up in April of 2014. I am from Rhodes and I know this place(Lindos) and the weather of the island. Please if you want to challenge my sources analyze all the data from the weather station don't add sources that differ 3 degrees from the official measurements!!!FactDistributor (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC) −FactDistributor (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:FactDistributor. In this edit you appeared to restore meteoclub.gr to the Lindos article after it had been removed by others. Are you also a fan of meteoclub? EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:EdJohnston

I only reverted back meteoclub because it was citing the official weather station of Lindos. I am not a fan of meteoclub. I have gone through all the results of the official weather station and they were correct. I had written both in my edits and in his talk page the sources I gave you and he simply ignored them. If the comparison with Teneriffe seems to be the problem I can remove it but as far as the data goes the numbers are good. Lindos is famous for being really hot amongst anyone who visited Rhodes and Lindos. I know to some this might seem far fetched but this is why the weather box describing Lindos's climate contains these sources to the official weather station. I can also remove as a source meteoclub altogether (and leave only http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos) but since I verified their numbers I don't see the reason.FactDistributor (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC) The only

1 2 3 putting another link with 1 year of data doesn't exactly prove the fact you've used meteoclub.gr again as a source after being specifically told that it's not a reliable source. And you did it 3 times. And you didn't wait for any reply to revert.

As a "new user" you came exactly to edit my talk page and a page the other user also disagreed with which gives 2 options, you're the same or you're a member of that meteoclub forum. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anything. It's simply that the page you claim now: http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/ barely shows some 2021 and 2020 data, how does that exactly back up anything from meteoclub.gr (a website you said you didn't use but you used it in your first edit as seen above) while also using the same text from that site. How are you not a fan of meteoclub.gr if your first Wikipedia edit has been on my talk page to later re-add again that meteoclub data to the page Lindos because I deleted it 2 days ago, data which was only added before by the user Weatherextremes, is there some kind of spiritual connection between you two to know where a Wikipedia page gets modified? And then you came to write exactly the same stuff as the other user? If you're not the same (which I clearly think you are and I'm not the only one, most likely) you've come from that meteoclub.gr site because that guy probably contacted other members of the site as he said he will do yesterday. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:TechnicianGB

I don't care about meteoclub really. I can remove it, the main source is http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos. If the problem is the article of meteoclub that is comparing it to Tenerrife then I can edit

the description but even if meteoclub is unreliable, for this particular article it seemed accurate enough at least regarding Lindos ( I went through all the numbers myself). I did the edit because even if meteoclub is bad (?) you added sources that are not for Lindos and are nearly 3 degrees off.

@FactDistributor: Look. As Average Portuguese Joe said above (another user who's an expert in editing climate-related articles) climate normals are made up of 30-years of official data, 20 years at least to be taken into consideration, and that doesn't appear in your website that shows a weather station with the current weather, the last week's weather or 2020-2021 data. Also, that doesn't prove anything from meteoclub.gr and you know it as well. There isn't any problem with mentioning Tenerife or whatever, it's that you're adding the text of meteoclub.gr which is clearly unsourced. The penteli-meteo source is ok but it only shows 2020 data and the first 6 months of 2021 so 1 year and a half of data is again not acceptable. You can use your Wikipedia:Sandbox for such data, but not an article. Also, it's a bit strange how you directly made your account yesterday to come to revert something I've changed 2 days ago where another Greek user was involved. But whatever.

Also as said by the same user cited above, the official greek HNMS page shows a mean temp of around 18.5ºC in southern Rhodes where Lindos is located, maybe an unofficial rooftop station can be warmer than that, but in any case it wouldn't be +3.5ºC warmer than the official data. For this reason there isn't any reliable source backing up the data shown in meteoclub.gr except for meteoclub.gr itself. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

If you really want to fact check http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/ you have to go to historical weather records (http://meteosearch.meteo.gr/) and select Δωδεκάνησα -> Lindos. Then browse each month since April 2014 till now. I know that for you it is hard to believe that the results are true but I am not related at all with meteoclub I am just from Rhodes and know very well the climate here. The other point is that you add data that is clearly wrong and you really have such problem with meteoclub? Why do you insist so much when this data penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/NOAAPRYR.TXT shows clearly how this place is much hotter than other places? Finally this is the map with all the weather stations in Greece https://www.meteo.gr/Gmap.cfm this is where I get all my information

Finally I will say it again. There was not a weather station before 2014 in Lindos .All the readings that you think are reliable are not because they where in a weather station in the west part of the island which is much cooler than the east side because of the wind (there is a steady weather pattern that winds come from the West in the island during the summer). The only official data regarding Lindos is the one I gave. This is not rooftop weather station or some random diy kit to measure temperature it is a normal weather station. FactDistributor (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You've said you're not a "meteoclub fan" but you kinda seem to sustain that and to write exactly the same as Weatherextremes does... Just as you said you don't use that site but you added it back again and not just once but three times.

Also, as EdJohnston said way above, you should check WP:GUIDELINES and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources because saying "I know this because I'm from that area" is not a valid source nor reference. But I think you already know this too well.

I don't have any problem with Meteoclub, in fact, when I've started this talk section two days ago, I've said meteoclub has some reliable pages because these cite official sources, but some other ones like the Kasos or Lindos articles (amongst others) have 0 sources but just bold text, and since that site can be edited by any member is not a reliable source. This has been well talked and you probably know it already because as you can see everyone else who has talked in this section or the hardiness zones page, has said that's not a reliable source. I don't have to add anything else, I think the administrators can see anything as it becomes more obvious in every additional edit. --TechnicianGB (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you are contradicting yourself and if you are mentioning you had the same issues with other people I think the problem is with you. I only cited in this discussion http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/ and in general meteo.gr . What is your problem? Should I just remove the source of meteoclub.gr and leave the article as is (only with a link to the weather station)? The data you provided in your "correction" is not for Lindos in contrast to what I did, the only issue I see is that there is not a direct link to the weather station average, as it only provides it for the last year http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/NOAAPRYR.TXT . However as I said you can browse the database here http://meteosearch.meteo.gr/ select Δωδεκάνησα in the blue box and Λίνδος Ρόδου in the next, then browse all the results by yourself. I am completely transparent in my sources. Can you please provide some reliable source that proves your data is related to Lindos? I did everything I can to show you I am telling the truth. Where is your proof? FactDistributor (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: He has just re-reverted again adding the same meteoclub.gr thing thus breaking the Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule on Lindos 1 2 3 4 as well as he completely blanked his page (PROOF) as Weatherextremes is used to (PROOF) completely ignoring the warnings in both edit summaries and his own talk page to blank their own talk pages from any given warnings. 2 users using the 2 same sources to edit the 2 same pages writing exactly the same, one of them being registered in the past 48h coming straight to the action. Call me crazy but this is more obvious than the definition of the word itself. Anyways, the 3 revert rule has been broken on Lindos. This is way too obvious, can you talk with a Clerk? --TechnicianGB (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

In the last edit he removed meteoclub.gr in the chart's second source so it couldn't appear as a "revert" but he copied&pasted the text and the chart from meteoclub as well as the text is still referencing meteoclub. lol. --TechnicianGB (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I only blanked my page because you blanked it first Proof. Your justification for blanking was rude you said "not even worth explaining"
I am knew to wikipedia and didn't know about the 3 revert rules but it seems to me you are someone who just wants to make the life of people here difficult TechnicianGB. It seems to me you are the worst nightmare for someone who just want to starts in wikipedia... By the way you broke the rule here too. You reverted 3 times first! 3rd 2nd 1st

FactDistributor (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you comparing deliberately ignoring two warnings and completely blanking your talk page to a discussion I moved here because from the 1st time I thought (and now I firmly think) that you're the same person as weatherextremes?

Nice tryout. The three revert rule needs 4 reverts, your 1st link is from 3 days ago when I have edited the page without reverting anyone's edits, lol. Unlike your 4 last edits on Lindos where you stick to revert everything I wrote without even trying to talk or to reach consensus here or there or anywhere, also ignoring the fact you've said right here that you didn't know meteoclub.gr but you've used it in all of your 4 edits, lol everytime you change your arguments. Now you start with personal attacks? Good I guess...

You don't seem too new here when your first Wikipedia edit has been straight coming to action talking exactly with the same words and using exactly the same sources as another user did one day before? Come on. --TechnicianGB (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB Look you can make as many assumptions as you want about everything ,I am not interested. The admins can check that and find out the truth (If I am a second account). I am new here I tried to add some knowledge because I am from Rhodes and had a hobby about weather and had double checked all the sources. You are obsessed with meteoclub.gr I never mentioned them I just told you they take data from the National Observatory of Athens and that was the only reason I left their article there at first (but I added the National Observatory of Athens). I don't know what is your problem you seem more interested in just fooling yourself into thinking you are right by completely ignoring my data. Go through all the data from here http://meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/lindos/2014-05.txt till here http://meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/lindos/2021-04.txt they are linked with Official weather station of Lindos this will be faster than trying to argue about second accounts and fights you had with other users. You said in your first edit before you changed the climate of Lindos, that it is completely false and it is common sense it can't be that different than the city of Rhodes. I am a scientist and I prefer to use numbers and science than "common sense". Please try to do the same...

FactDistributor (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Now he started with the personal attacks. In EdJohnston's talk page and in GeneralNotability's talk page. I've reported him to GeneralNotability too, which is a SPI Clerk (Talk page), and he said too that it seems very suspicious but that they're 2 different users. Anyways he also warned "FactDistributor" for his edits (also the nickname doesn't give an indicator that he's here here to build an encyclopedia) and separately, he got blocked 48 hours for his edit warring at Lindos, could someone revert his last edit as it contains the disruptive data and it's again based on meteoclub.gr? I can't because I would be violating the rule as well. He did already 2 edits including personal attacks against me, is there any template to warn him? --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: now TechnicianGB suggests that this new account is my sockpuppet. Please take action against these kinds of ad hominem attacks. The fact that an editor from Rhodes showed up has NOTHING to do with the UNFOUNDED accusations this user is throwing. He is in violation of a myriad of rules suggesting I am a sockpuppet. How dare he? Weatherextremes (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Mhm a simple suggestion violates which Wikipedia:Rules? From my POV evidences were there so that's why I've asked an admin and a SPI:Clerk before opening any SPI case and I didn't open it because 2 admins told me you seem different people. And I've also retracted from that thus not making any SPI investigation. But excuse me, someone who claimed to be new and then made such edits (as well as adding back meteoclub.gr) coincidentally within 24/48 hours from this discussion was quite a bit suspicious.

If what you want is me "retracting" from my words "accusing" that you were the new account then I retract from my words. But you have to take it calmly, because I didn't insult you nor made any personal attack against you.

If Ed wants, he can archive this "sockpuppet" sub-paragraph of the Meteoclub thing, as I've contacted a clerk and he said it's suspicious too but he also said you seem different. So this suggestion seems solved. --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyrighted images uploaded at Commons claiming wrong authorship and no sources as well

Related with the user Weatherextremes as well. Since the user is claiming he's not the one writing the blog entries in that website (albeit after the website gets updated, in barely few hours he comes to Wikipedia to put that data, but let's use the "trustful" card) there are some images uploaded by the same user in Commons claiming it's his own work (pics taken off meteoclub.gr) when just above he has said he only uses data from that site as he "is not even a member there" so all of these added images to Wikipedia Commons don't have the proper Author and Source then, as in all pages he claims he's the author and the source for all of these images. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Weatherextremes&ilshowall=1 so then all of these images should be removed because he doesn't hold the authorship for them. Am I wrong? Also that "Greece Köppen climate map" is the standard map coming from the Köppen climate classification guide which has real copyright. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello TechnicianGB. inn one of his posts above, User:Weatherextremes says:

Finally and just to address TechnicianGB's claims on Commons, I can confirm that I have used pictures from Meteoclub (I took screenshots if I remember correctly) but unfortunately at the time I was not well versed with Commons (well I am still not good at that) and probably claimed wrong authorship, its been so long that I do not remember all the details.

This admission indicates that Weatherextremes' Commons images ought to be deleted. Screenshots taken from meteoclub.gr web site, when User:Weatherextremes does not remember the actual authorship, would not meet the requirements for attribution on Commons. User:TechnicianGB, you might consider proposing these images for deletion over at Commons. I had previously looked at the images that were claimed as 'own work'. I had noticed the lack of camera information. There was also a shot of palm trees that appeared to be an aerial view, unlikely to be created by the average Wikipedia editor unless they own an airplane. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:EveStardust

EveStardust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been adding/changing/removing information, without any explanation, throughout French nobility articles.

• On Philip III of Navarre they were reverted by Surtsicna only to revert back. I posted a warning on their talk page and reverted them. They reverted again. I reverted them again, telling them to use the article talk page per BRD. EveStardust gave no response.

• On John II of France, they changed "John" to "John II" in both sentences concerning his marriages. What EveStardust missed is that John was not King of France on either occasion of his marriages! I posted a warning on EveStardust's talk page explaining in detail how such a change is disruptive editing.

• On Marie of France, Duchess of Bar, EveStardust added information to a referenced sentence. Said reference does not support what they added.

• On Charles II of Naples over the course of 3 edits,removed referenced information stating Charles' father and mother,[26],added information with sources that do not exist in this article.

Some of EveStardust's edits are of copy-edit type, whereas other edits clearly fall into the category of someone writing whatever they want. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have left a note. Keep me posted. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed multiple edits from this editor that range from seemingly arbitrary to unhelpful, and a pattern that's difficult to follow, e.g. multiple consecutive edits without edit summaries. As of this writing, the user has made 256 edits since account creation one week ago, 3 with edit summaries. Eric ^talk 12:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear and User:Eric, please make your objections on article talk pages and then give the user a link on their own talk to let them know. If EveStardust continues to revert those particular articles without responding, a block might then be justified. I am also struck by a six-year-old SPI case where both of you guys were in a dispute with a person named User:Mary Eleanor de Normandy. The user cited in that case edited John II of France and Marie of France, Duchess of Bar, two of the articles you listed above. It's a small world. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Nice work, EdJohnston! Will do as you have asked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. I'd forgotten about good ol' Mary Eleanor... Eric ^talk 20:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

New User

How do i respond to posts on my Talk Page??? EveStardust (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)EveStardustEveStardust (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If you managed to create a new section and post here, you should be able to post on your own page as well. Eric ^talk 16:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Article splits by User:Chatterjee95

Hi Ed. Chatterjee95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to split articles and remains unresponsive. Do you wish to block? Sam Sailor 22:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have left a final warning for User:Chatterjee95 about his removal of filmography sections from articles. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Piquito veloz

• Piquito veloz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tarl N. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

About a week ago, you closed an item on WP:ANI about Piquito Veloz. My interaction with this editor was unpleasant, and I think I need some help from someone outside who will tell him how to behave. I'm hoping for your help in this matter.

Among other things, I formally closed a discussion on my talk page by collapsing the section, and moved it to his page where the discussion had started. He immediately undid] the collapse, removing the collapse markers and added a comment, followed by a whole bunch of other comments, one by one.

At that point, I walked away, resolved to not interact with him until I was no longer angry. Today, I felt capable of re-closing the discussion and telling Veloz to stay off my talk page. I re-collapsed the section and formally told him to stay off my talk page. His response was to remove my explicit statement that he was not welcome and should not post again, and insert a claim that I was inciting hatred. See here.

I'd earlier pointed him at a variety of policies, which he completely disregarded. Could you, as a third party with some authority he's likely to recognize, please inform him that he must obey the demand to stay off my talk page? Thank you. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not quite following this. But I've asked Piquito veloz if they want to respond here. If this is actually a continuation of the dispute reported at AN3, see WP:DR for your options. Any of those choices would be more productive than someone reverting the other person's user talk. Certainly, if either of you believes this is a copyright question there are options for settling that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

User violated WP:EQ: @Tarl N.: dedicated me in his edit summary and talk page the next messages: "Clean up, and formally tell Veloz that he's not welcome" and "you are no longer welcome on this talk page". I´ve requested him to stop his attitude but he has responded with the next message: --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Once we got to the stage where he was modifying text I placed on my own talk page, I was no longer willing to deal with him. I had a bunch of objections to the stuff he put on Proxima B, which I put in the discussion with him before that point. Once it got to the point where I became angry, I walked away. His behaviour on my talk page where he has been deleting text I placed there, is completely unacceptable. I am unwilling to deal with him, my tolerance for wikidrama has evaporated. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

First, Tarl N. acting like the owner of his talk page but user pages and talk pages not are his property. Second, because he feels that his talk page is his property, he believes that he has the right to commit violations of etiquette. I have never told him to leave my talk page and always I have answered objectively why i think that the images of Celestia can be allowed without any kind of insults. --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Piquito veloz, you should not be modifying another editor's posts on his own talk page. That is his domain. And anyone can ask another editor to stay off their talk page. Such a request is valid and is not considered a personal attack or a violation of etiquette. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

SPI

Sorry to bother you about this SPI again, but I see it has been closed. The sockpuppeteer has not been tagged or blocked; did you make a determination that the "Likely" CU finding meant only the sock should be blocked? Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Thekim2.0 was blocked on 17 July by User:NinjaRobotPirate for persistent addition of unsourced content. If this behavior continues another block is likely. I don't believe that sock tags are normally placed on an account unless it is blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It didn't take long! Grandpallama (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. 187.58.190.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a block evasion IP of [27] 177.205.214.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'll send you an e-mail with further details.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked 187.58.190.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a month. This is a Brazilian user who edits Serbian topics and constantly switches IPs. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely response.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The Kosovo Liberation Army article

• Kosovo Liberation Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pixius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. The article has had a considerable number of reverts today. The dispute started when Pixius added without consensus a strong POV claim to the lead that the KLA is an terrorist organization. There is no consensus currently to make such edits. I tend to believe that Pixius might continue the edit war, since they have made aggressive edit summaries calling other editors' reverts "vandalism or test edit" and "vandalism". Ktrimi991

Hi there. There is no edit war. All changes I have made are from reliable sources, out of which 2 are from respected security bodies - that is not POV, that is a fact

1. Please check the first revert done by user Maleschreiber it was market straight as vandalism with a bogus annotation to fit WP:GAME.
2. Consensus for UN Security council's resoulution 1160 and for Homeland Security - since when we have to have concensus for WP:BLUE Pixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

On the tp they made the extraordinary fringe claim that "In Serbia, KLA - the terrorist organisation is kidnaping people and killing officials and civilians from ambush or by direct confrontation". One can very easily verify that the KLA does not exist anymore, and there is no report of any such activity going on in Serbia. Ktrimi991

It is not a fringe claim it is a fact. The error in "is\was" is not a red flag. The KLA has done those things from 1996 until early 2000s. I can list NATO sources as well if needed. Pixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Pixius even placed a vandalism template on the talk page of one of the editors who reverted [28]. Ktrimi991

Revert edits with comments to game the system is an act of vandalism. Further more - there are articles on English wiki with a statement that KLA is a terrorist organisation. Why is it not removed from those articles, but from the one explaining what KLA is/wasPixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Pixius made similar disruptive edits on another editor's tp a month or so ago [29].

Please read complete section and behaviour of the user Joy editing with logged out account to cover the tracks (ip addresses publicly available). Further more Joy and Ivan Stambuk were sanctioned banned on croatian wiki for the same reason. Their activity, and activity of others (Kubura, Ivi104...) led to Croatian Wiki chauvinist fiasco https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/2013_issues_on_Croatian_Wikipedia. I admit that i had harsher tone in some sections, but behaviour of the user is well documented. User is not contributing in good faith Pixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Two months ago Pixius posted on the talk page of an editor, who has been editing for some 15 years, a "Welcome to Wikipedia message", adding a definition of vandalism and that " Upon reviewing your edits and talk page it seams that your strong chauvinistic view on Bulgarian supremacy inhibits your perception of what Wikipedia is". Ktrimi991

I am on wikipedia since the winter 2003. I do not see the reason for someone being long time wikipedian not to be reminded what vandalism is and how to "use the button". Btw, he has left the same message on mine tp (see in history). Please review the whole version history TP of Jingiby, his "views" and tell me what was wrong there? Unfortunately, I am not able to find his content removal this late? Then again, more users complaining about his "views" (some examples given below). And it is constant and same type of accusations. For example Okrados on yourUser_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_50 same type of complaint

examples from tp: Source required,Municipality and town of Delchevo, Nationalistic and dogmatic editing sprees on Macedonian history on Wikipedia...

I am wondering how such disruptive behaviour and can fly in front of the radar Pixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

For clarification, I have never been involved in a dispute with Pixius. Ktrimi991

I confirm that I have never been in dispute with [nil Ktrimi991]] nor EdJohnston Pixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The first time I noticed them was when they called an academic book, widely cited on Wiki articles and other academic works, a "nice copy of the fantasy book". I was going to warn Pixius for edit warring, but now I am not sure how many and what warnings should I give to them. Can you suggest sth? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Ktrimi991

The book of Anna Di Lellio is not an academic book (she is not historian, nor researched anything in/for academia ) It is, to put it lightly contradictory with all other actual historic and reliable sources. I am wondering how this is accepted as a source at all. The title itself is "The Battle of Kosovo 1389- An Albanian Epic" - an Epic ( does it ring the Lord Of the Rings | pun intended ) - it is a fantasy book. It is a book scrambled from stories of, i can say Serbian narrative or myth, collected throughout Albania - Fact: Slavs (Serbs/Montenegrins/Macedonians) still live in northern and south east Albania. That battle happened in the realm of Serbia (scientific fact). These stories are simply transferred from Slavic to Albanian language - also a fact. So it is a fantasy - yes it is. Second to that - If something is widely cited it does not mean it is true nor that its value has any merit to be used as a source. Additionally, the content of that heading on TP is a copy paste from http://books.elsie.de/2009-2005/b056_battle-of-kosovo.htm. Now if you two can answer me whay she hasnt questioned the fact that there is not a single artefact of any Albanian activity/presence in Kosovo before the 15th century. Can I take the legend of Pocahontas and turn it into the French legend? To write a book in 21. century from the narrative of local French villagers - is this a source WP:RS? Pixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the things above, earlier today, on another article's tp Pixius said to two editors that "Second to that, both of you are Albanians, which questions your objectivity in topics discussed here".

Please quote the complete answer - this is pulled out of the comment and does not reflect what is being written there. Then look at the interaction of these 2 together trough the articles - one suggests something, second confirms immediately (are they using the separate channel to discuss the topics ) Both reverts were noted with wrong attributes as the only reason is WP:IDONOTLIKEIT. As I have written above - do you really consider the Security Council resolution as a POV source, the US department of Homeland Security a POV source ? Pixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll notify User:Pixius that they were mentioned here. The were already alerted to WP:ARBMAC last February. EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will try to keep an eye on this, though it is not guaranteed as I am busy until August 5. Hopefully your advice will make them reflect on their issues. At least they can not accuse you of being a biased Bulgarian or Albanian :P Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not have problem with anyone being whatever he/she is. You Ktrimi991 are also Albanian, but you are doing your "moderator" job decent. On the other hand, your tend to get into the flaming discussion with other users from time to time in topics related to, again, Kosovo/Serbia. Overall, then i see that someone reverts edits with some moo explanation, then I do the research about the user. Most of the time my assumptions that he/she defends the "national pride and history" are true. Both users are Albanians, and they, to push the "innocence" of terrorist organisation do not accept any change. I do not agree that consensus is needed for 2 sources listed there which define the KLA as terrorist organisation. For example UNSC resolution 1160:

1. Condemning the use of excessive force by Serbian police forces against civilians and peaceful demonstrators in Kosovo, as well as all acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training,
2. Calls also upon the Kosovar Albanian leadership to condemn all terrorist action, and emphasizes that all elements in the Kosovar Albanian community should pursue their goals by peaceful means only;
3. Underlines that the way to defeat violence and terrorism in Kosovo is for the authorities in Belgrade to offer the Kosovar Albanian community a genuine political process;
4. Decides that all States shall, for the purposes of fostering peace and stability in Kosovo, prevent the sale or supply to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels and aircraft, of arms and related matériel of all types, such as weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment and spare parts for the aforementioned, and shall prevent arming and training for terrorist activities there

If this is not enough to designate that the KLA is indeed the terrorist organisation (especially the part terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army ), then I do not see the point of explaining WP:BLUE maintaining the wiki at all. At the end what i want to say is do what you think you have to do. I stand behind my doings as they are standing on wide foundation of scientific facts and proper research methods. Thank you. Pixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

As a side note, I would like to add another user Durazz0 as a destructive editor. Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo_Liberation_Army&oldid=prev&diff=1034972451&diffmode=source. First I strongly believe that he has not read the sources at all ( excerpt UNSC 1160 resolution provided above ), then he marked the edit as a vandalism, again not reading the document. It is the same behavioural pattern like Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912 - WP:IDONTLIKEIT then marked as WP:vandalism Pixius talk 08:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not mark your edit was vandalism, UNSC 1160 does not call the KLA a terrorist organization. none of your sources had any official terrorist designation for the KLA, I encouraged you to come to the talk page so we could reach a consensus. Durraz0 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You are right, sorry. I caught with the corner of my eye above the red insignia vandalism. I appologise.

Regarding the UNSC - have you not seen the bolded excerpt terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army'terrorist activity'terrorist action? Which part is not clear there? Pixius talk 19:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

UNSC 1060 does not refer to the KLA as a terrorist organization rather it wants an official condemnation from Kosovo Albanian leadership of all terrorism supposedly committed by the KLA or ethnic Albanian radicals. Durraz0 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It appears that User:Pixius has now reverted one of their own changes at Kosovo Liberation Army. I hope that those who are following this thread will let me know if there continues to be a problem. Certainly Pixius's incorrect vandalism charges are likely to test the patience of administrators. I hope that a proper negotiation will take place before Pixius tries to add further terrorism allegations to the KLA article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:: I have already explained that it was oversight and apologised. Can you please read the excerpt of UNSC 1160 and tell me do you see this part "... as well as all acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training ..." , or Durraz0 has its own "interpretation of English language" Pixius talk 20:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

if we ignore WP:TERRORIST, we would need the UN to explicitly call the KLA a terrorist organization. What you have provided is a sentence where the UN wants Kosovo Albanian leadership to condemn all terrorism in Kosovo. According to the other sources you used, the KLA never claimed responsibility for any terrorist attacks. Please stop with your personal attacks against me. Durraz0 (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I am answering to you with concrete text to read and you do not want it to. This is not personal attack. You have your own interpretation of the WP rules and what a valid source is and how to bend the rules... You cannot be objective as this topic directly fights with your believes and you definitely cannot deal with the facts. What I have provided is the first sentence where the UN condemns the terrorist attacks of Kosovo liberation Army. Then in second bullet they want the politicians to condemn the terrorism done by KLA. With these 2 bullets the UN already recognised the KLA as terrorist organisation. It does not have to be explicit as you would like. You simply do not want to see the first bullet point. The KLA does not have to take responsibility for anything - there are clear sources, pictures and video material and physical evidence with "prominent" terrorists wearing uniforms and insignia of UCK. You still want to avoid the facts which are in this case the WP:BLUEPixius talk 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Pixius, I do not have time to read your sources. However, one view is that the KLA made terrorist attacks. The other view is that it did not make terrorist attacks. You should not add a controversial view to the very first sentence of the lead. Read WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Please continue this content dispute discussion on the article' tp with Durraz0. IMO, Ed is receiving too many tp notifications from comments here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I am glad that you have mentioned WP:LEAD as according to it this part "due to the presence of a vast ethnic majority of Albanians in the region,[b] stressing Albanian culture, ethnicity and nation." should not be there I will not continue on his tp, but on the TP of the article. Dispute is apparently with Albanian editors here Maleschreiber, Ktrimi991, Durazz0, Crazydude1912. I have not addressed you to read something but EdJohnston. As you are heavily biased I do not have any expectation from you to read anything. It is not controversial Pixius talk 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Can you please transfer parts of the the conversation referring to the KLA to the KLA article page? I would like to be visible to other users. Also I propose to put on the vote if UCK is terrorist organisation based on UN Security council resolution and A Department of Homeland Security Emeritus Center of Excellence headquartered at the University of MarylandNational_Consortium_for_the_Study_of_Terrorism_and_Responses_to_Terrorism MIPT_Terrorism_Knowledge_Base and another input from global terrorist database maintained by Homeland Security (Homeland Security Global Terrorism Database) which designates the KLA as a terrorist organisation. Thank you EdJohnston in advance. Pixius talk 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Pixius. It is seldom necessary to copy text between talk pages, just use links. If you start a new thread at Talk:Kosovo Liberation Army you can mention that the issue was previously discussed at User talk:EdJohnston#The Kosovo Liberation Army article. If you want to open an WP:RFC, try to develop a one-sentence description of what is in dispute so it is easy for others to support or oppose. Any experienced editor should be able to help you with the mechanics of WP:RfC if you choose to go that way. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. What would you suggest beside WP:RFC? Pixius talk 18:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The 'terrorist organization' label is what is causing trouble. I'm not optimistic that you can build a consensus for this. The first paragraph currently has the line "It was considered a terrorist group until the breakup of Yugoslavia" which might be the best you can get support for. Certainly a lot of the misdeeds of the KLA are frankly recounted in the present article, so it does not read like a whitewash. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Prince1917

• Prince1917 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muhammad al-Bukhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor has removed reference(s) and referenced information in three different edits.[30][31][32] And with this edit, removed Persian form of the article name. It would appear this editor is determined to remove the word Persian from this article. They have taken their anti-Persian editing to the Bukhara article.[33] Would you be interested in addressing this issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I left a note for Prince1917 to inform them of your complaint. At first sight this doesn't look good. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

-Review request-

Good day User:EdJohnston,

Do you have time to review the recent edits/reverts by User:Pipsally?

He seems to be POV-Pushing without proper explainations. I tried to cooperate and clarify the problem, but he is unwilling to do so.

I would be thankful, if you could try to help us out here as a neutral party and Adminstrator.

Thanks in advance.

--InNeed95 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Use the article talk page. Further advice is at WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:EdJohnston,

Did you even look it up? I did user the Articles Talk Page. He isnt willing to cooperate tho and insist on that he is right.

As such, I was looking forward for a third party and adminstrator view.

--InNeed95 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:EdJohnston

Sorry, I did not mean to be disrespectful by claiming "Did you even look it up?" But I felt like that you did not follow my efforts of trying to cooperate with the distruptive Editior.

Adding that after the VANDALIZER reported me with pathetic reasons, you directly acted in favor of him. While ignoring me at the same time.

I read your comment about claiming that the whole "Revert" thing is about the "Procentage". This is not correct. Please regard the edits on Kosovo Serbs. (The Vandalizer did not think about cooperating, which you seem to disregard).

Vandalising should be stopped by someone like you (Admin) instead of supporting it.

This is not supposed to be offending. If you felt like it did offend you, than I am sorry. But everybody has to be able to handle criticism.

--InNeed95 (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• InNeed95, the other side of the dispute was not vandalizing. Calling good faith edits "vandalism" is a patent breach of WP:Civility. Read WP:Vandalism too. By protecting an article, an admin does not support the protected version, or oppose the other versions. The protection is just to stop reverts, until a solution is found on the talk page regarding the content dispute. Instead of writing here, you should explain on the article's talk page why your version is better than the other one. Be aware that you might be blocked, if you continue to make comments that do not explain why the version you support is better. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• User:InNeed95, If you would go to the trouble of explaining your thinking on the article talk page, admins (and others) might find it easier to tell what this is about. I saw you had made a revert changing the percentage of Serbs in Kosovo from 4% to 7%. You did participate at Talk:Kosovo Serbs#Recent Reverts on the Article, but that thread is quite unhelpful, since it doesn't mention any of the content issues (such as percentage of Serbs) even once. Do not restore your own comments on someone else's user talk if they have been removed. Your own edits since June 1st suggest you are here on Wikipedia to promote the cause of one of the Balkan nations. You've already been notified of WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:

I called it "Vandalism" because of him editing the article several times without explainations.

You seem to misunderstand the problem and by that, you re falsely accusing me to be the one to be in the wrong.

Please review the the problem again.

--InNeed95 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

On Kosovo Serbs, contrary to their claims, both InNeed95 and User:Pipsally were making changes without consensus. The coronavirus stuff in North Kosovo has been there for a long time (InNeed95 removed it), and the consensus figure was 7%, not the 4% to which Pipsally reverted to. I made a change in another article [34] to solve a dispute between the two editors. I suggest both of you continue your discussion on the article's talk page. InNeed95, can you focus on discussing your reasons on the article talk page instead of accusing people here? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

My block

Aha, I did fall into a 3RR edit warring trap in a page infested with socks [35]. I was unblocked when I pointed this out. Nevertheless, I am really sorry I did violate 3RR. Still can't get over the shame. Chaipau (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's me

HammerFilmFan (not logged in)

Is it too much trouble to log in? :-). EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my recent RFA

I appreciate your support and trust in my recent run for admin. I've had an interesting first few weeks and am learning a lot by being able to better watch (through tools) what admins do. Please call on me if you see making an error, or if you just need help. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Progress on AN3

Hi Ed,

After some time I revisited an old 3RR being

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#User:Kingsif_reported_by_User:Erikdr_(Result:_)

And I still see no result. Kingsif's latest accusations are in the link above, and my response is at the bottom of my own talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erikdr

As next month I'll be visiting my friends in the island again and might have lots more plans for Wiki edits, it's important to get a final conclusion to the April 3RR. If for any next contribution I have to face IMHO disruptive and destructive behaviour of this fellow editor, then I simply cannot make these next contributions. "if you cannot understand why such edits are wrong, you should probably not be making any edits at all. There is no discussion to be had, no compromise to reach on bad edits." is sooo strongly against netiquette that it blows my mind.

If however (s)he finally learns to get into constructive/cooperative mode, we're talking... Hope to get a status update from you soon!

Erikdr (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Erikdr. Your 3RR report from April, 2021 contains no diffs. It is not up to the admins to investigate the issue for you, you should have prepared the complaint fully. I see there is a disagreement between you and User:Kingsif at

• Talk:2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings/Archive 2#Domestic radicalisation,

a thread which opened on 26 March. There is even a mention of a DRN. I see an abortive DRN in which you did not follow up after April 6. It is now August 8 and it seems the dispute is still open. Although you might consider finishing the job by opening a proper DRN, doing an WP:RFC is potentially more fruitful. That would require you to state precisely (for example in one sentence) what change should be made to the article, and then collecting opinions pro and con. If you have never opened an RfC, you can ask any experienced editor for assistance. Keep in mind that this type of discussion will probably be stressful for all parties even if it is done correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I changed the title of this thread from 'Progress on ANI' to 'Progress on AN3' because your prior complaint to admins was at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Spaniards article

• Spaniards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are currently open threads in Talk about different points of dispute (some already resolved). Could you take a look at those threads and the article?

Mainly, in case you want to leave some points to fix the new content to the Wikipedia rules. Even if they give me an indefinite block, I think it would be nice if at least the extra content of the article is well adjusted.

I am not writing to you to avoid a blockade, but to let you know that before they block me (if they do) and can't write.

A greeting. BaylanSP (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

As an administrator I don't have an opinion on these questions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Tabbouleh again

• Tabbouleh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, you locked Tabbouleh 1 year ago, but the same problems has now returned after. Can you lock it from IPs permanently? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotected again. The typical revert is back and forth between Syria and Lebanon for the place of origin of this food. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection For Hindu mythological wars article

• Hindu mythological wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I noticed that you placed the Hindu mythological wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article under Extended Confirmed Protection mid-July, citing repeated disruptive editing.

I think reducing the protection level to Semiprotection would be better, as the disruptive editing was mostly done by IPs.

The article really needs a lot of work done - it needs major reformatting and sourcing of information and it's lacking a lot of information about several Puranic wars. Placing it under such a high protection level when the article has so much space for improvement is really restrictive. So, could the protection level please be reduced to Semiprotection?

Aathish S | talk | contribs 15:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This article has been protected many times in the past due to ongoing problems. In my opinion the EC protection is justified. You are already familiar with the process for requesting changes, as I can see at your last edit request, which was accepted. You also have the option of creating a draft in your sandbox. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the sandbox bit? Once I've polished up the article as a draft in my sandbox, what then? Aathish S | talk | contribs

After you have finished drafting, you can post on Talk:Hindu mythological wars and link to your sandbox as an example of the changes you propose to make. Hopefully you can get others on Talk to respond and give their opinion on whether you should make these changes. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

National Union (Portugal)

• National Union (Portugal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JPratas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there, I've seen you protected the National Union article for 2 years, I just would to tell how the dispute began.

It all began in 2019, the Estado Novo regime for years was considered a fascist regime on Wikipedia, but JPratas decided to remove it without seeking consensus for it:

April 6, 2019

There was a big edit war over it, then I reported him for it, he originally was blocked for 2 weeks, but since that was his first block, it got reduced for 3 days, another user involved was blocked for 1 day:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=893229948

We then decided to hold and RfC over whether the regime should be considered fascist or not, we failed to gain consensus one way or the other, so we decided to maintain the status quo, namely which it was a fascist regime:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fascism_in_Europe#Should_the_Estado_Novo_regime_in_Portugal_be_considered_a_Fascist_regime?

But despite this JPratas insisted to go against what was decided, as seen recently on the National Union article, at one point in the discussion he even claimed that I and another user of being the same person, then he at some point he said another user was "recruited" by me, etc.

As you can see, JPratas is guilty of disruptive editing, I was going to send you this back when you saw his IP list, but I got lazy and didn't, I apologize for it, doing so might have prevented lots of disruption that happened since.

I'm not asking you to unprotect, to intervene, or anything like that, just wanted to give you some context to what was happening, I'm not going to try to impose the status quo again, this has caused too much disrupton, has been going on for 2 years, and frankly I'm tired of it and have a lot more things to do.

That's all I wanted to say. -- 2804:248:fb62:6e00:4c4c:1035:1f59:8fba (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You are not requesting any action by me, but consider using the article talk page so that others become aware. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

As you pointed out above, there was an RfC in mid-2019 at Talk:Fascism in Europe/Archive 1#Should the Estado Novo regime in Portugal be considered a Fascist regime?, which was closed as No Consensus. This still appears to be the latest word on the subject. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Block of LayinItOnTheLine

Hi Ed, were you aware of these two personal attacks (#1 and #2) moments before you blocked the user? I would have blocked indefinitely when you add them to the edit-warring violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection if you want to lengthen the block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

With a relatively new user with their history, there are two possibilities for a first block: a block like yours or an indefinite block. I don't see anything in between making much sense. At this point, I don't think I should block indefinitely. It'd be better to see how the user reacts. If their reaction is consistent with their recent style, then I (or you) can increase the block to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Not surprisingly we didn't have to wait long for the predictable reaction. However, I didn't get the honors of blocking, although I did turn off TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Shia edits

Hi EdJohnston, long time no see. I don't know if this is the correct place, but there has recently been a surge of anti-Shia edits by several IPs [36] [37] [38][39] [40] They mainly engage in reducing the numbers of Shias in various regions, or outright delete information about them, whilst exaggerating the numbers of Sunni Muslims. All of them are from the exact same area in Uttar Pradesh, possibly the same person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:Contributions/2409:4063:231B:6E37:0:0:0:0/64 one week for anti-Shia edit warring on multiple articles. Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hiya again. This IP's edits [41] are way too similiar to the ones above, especially his edit summaries (such as using the term 'rafida', which he uses as an insult [42] [43].) He is not from the same region, but pretty close. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The behavior does indeed look similar. I blocked Special:Contributions/117.239.19.42 one month for anti-Shia editing. This not their first block. EdJohnston (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

User:HernánCortés1518

• HernánCortés1518 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Battle of Mohi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Battle of Fleurus (1794) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am unsure what the issue is with this editor. They have multiple warnings on their talk page.

My first interaction with HernánCortés was after their removal of referenced information at the Battle of Mohi.

After their 2nd edit on the Battle of Mohi, which removed referenced information, I posted a suggestion.

HernánCortés then removes the referenced information on Battle of Fleurus, stating "change according to sources". This is not correct. Per the The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon, Gunther E. Rothenberg, page 247, which indicates 5,000 k+w for both victor and defeated.

I will leave it to you to decide. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I have left a note for HernánCortes1518 here and invited them to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is with this user who likes to complain. Does he like to draw attention to himself? Or does he have something personal towards me? He was concerned by the unreasonable "warnings" on my page, which I did not immediately delete as I should have? Okay, I cleared them out of the page :) My changes about Battle of Mohi have long been already discussed with him on his page and on mine. Everything was civilized and there were no problems, but now he decides to use it "against me". In the first case, when I deleted a bad secondary source (McLynn did not write about the "few hundreds losses" of the Mongol army in this battle), this user did not tolerate my rational explanations, but simply suggested that I go to Wikipedia: Reliable sources/Noticeboard to "disscuss" this source there (irony that KansasBear himself doesn't considered this source as good accroding to his comments on Talk Page of article bruh). As for his fears about my second editing of Battle of Mohi: I have already explained to him that information to which there are no references to sources "above it" can be perceived as original research and mistakenly deleted (while all other statements in that article infobox had links to sources "above the text"). I admitted the error of my deletion of the text in the second case, in the case of the Battle of Flerus (1794), I apparently just did not have time to add the source, in any case I took it information from their French wiki and seeked variant of sources in English. In general, I always try to act according to the rules and recommendations of Wikipedia and expect this from other users, so I really do not like when I am accused based on own ideas, and not on the guide described in the rules.HernánCortés1518 (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• "McLynn did not write about the "few hundreds losses" of the Mongol army in this battle"

I would suggest reading the source for a change. "It is true that Batu found a few hundred fatalities at Mohi too many, but he had only his own blundering to blame." --Frank McLynn, Genghis Khan: His Conquests, His Empire, His Legacy, page 473. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggested you to engage on the study field of the social and military structure, values of the Turkic-Mongolian nomadic tribes of the 13th century AD. Maybe also synthesize this KNOWLEGE into UNDERSTANDING (to understand that each clan has its own "people" and army: Batu's concern about losses has only to do with his own part of the losses, he don't give a damn about losses of other clans that partipated in battles with him on "Mongolian" side - which is actualy stated by McLynn in second sentence of the quote). I would recommend this all if you asked for advice. You didn't ask. And i didn't ask for some "advices" for me here too.HernánCortés1518 (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

HernánCortés1518, are you familiar with WP:BATTLEGROUND? It seems like you're picking fights with everyone. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Another removal of referenced information by HernánCortés1518.[44] And, an unexplained change to referenced information(the source states 306,000;HernánCortés1518 changed it to 1,400,000), no edit summary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll ignore the third-person projections above, but i answer to the Kansas Bear: Do you have nothing else to do in your life but write about my actions? ;) My friend, from now on you don’t have to worry, there will be no more editing like this, only RS and consensus in Talk Page. Please don't consider my messages from a negative point of view, this is our straightforward and crazy Russian culture, perhaps for Western people this is kinda rude or even offensive (i hope not). No offense. Also at the civilized request of Ed I canceled all non-constructive edits in which I was mistaken. All the best yall and good luck in editing! HernánCortés1518 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati

/* Original title of this section was: Third opinion */

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

I will like you to take a look at recent edits of "User:Bhaskarbhagawati" which exhibit (1) removal of reliable sources, (2) addition of non-contextual POV content which is either sourced to poor sources or not sourced at all, and (3) edit-warring with multiple editors. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This was also at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#User:Bhaskarbhagawati - Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing any resolution and I have seen some rule about archived threads being closed to public comments. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

At present there are two choices. Find an admin who is prepared to do a topic ban from the domain of WP:ARBIPA based on the current evidence, or pursue WP:Dispute resolution and have enough patience to follow up if B. does not seem to be reading the sources properly. Opening an WP:RfC would require somebody to state one of the issues very clearly so that others could support or oppose. Perhaps you would be willing to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The current edits by B. [45] started soon after the ANI thread was archived [46]. The same cat and mouse game as before. Cocking a snook? The last time we went the ANI->DR->RfC route, it took months to resolve the issue and I am yet to recover from that process. I encourage others to please take this up :-) Chaipau (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I will be interested in any such process that is launched. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Replying soon, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 00:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Prior to discourse, i intrigued to know correlation betwixt TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Homogenie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and eventually to Sairg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Qwertywander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 13:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

What? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but to me it looks like an addition of some smoke and mirrors to a cat and mouse game. Chaipau (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If B. resumes editing without offering a solution to the problem with their edits reported at ANI I will proceed with my plans. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Shia edits (part 2)

/* The original title was: IP from Uttar Pradesh is back */

• 2409:4063:231B:6E37::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2409:4063:4C14:A60C::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 117.239.19.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston. Unfortunately the IP still hasn't refrained from adding Sunni everywhere and attempting to remove Shia related stuff.

[47] [48] --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

There was a previous complaint about the same IP-hopping editor at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 51#Anti-Shia edits. I have gone ahead with new two-month blocks of the ranges listed above for anti-Shia editing. The single IP is still blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj RfC

Hello EdJohnston, I have a question. I opened this request for comment on July 31. When could it be closed? it has only received a new response during the last week. regards Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal is essentially to remove 'Queen of Rap' from the lead? When I compared your July 30 proposal to the current article I get this diff. Except for the added references, it doesn't appear to be a lot different. Does this imply that a lot of people agree with you? EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That, but also; as other editors pointed out in the Rfc, to trim the lead section and remove unnecessary detail. "it cherry picks accomplishments" "Leaner is meaner" "the biggest problem here is a lack of summarisation" "Even the proposed alternative is far too long in my opinion". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker:. Not all RfCs need to be formally closed. Several people gave ideas during the RfC. Why not draft up your own proposed lead and add it in a new section of the talk page below the RfC. (Try to incorporate the suggestions you received). Then ask the others to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just did it, although I don't think most will comment again, besides the user with wp:own issues. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but I realized the proposed-lead subsection has turned again in the same RfC, where the majority had already agreed to remove "queen of rap" from the lead. Shouldn't the first part be closed? so we can focus on actually trim it. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears you are getting pushback about the 'Queen of Rap'. As many as five editors want to keep that. Maybe you could concede that point and see if you can reach agreement with others on a trimmed-down version of the lead. User:Binksternet is one of those you might try to convince. Find a way to re-insert 'Queen of Rap' into your version of the lead (e.g. per this idea by User:PraiseVivec), and see if you can get support. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

But Binksternet supports the removal; a total of 6 people including me supports it. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There does not appear to be anything more for me to do on this. Please take further discussion elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

ISP Blocked

• Special:Contributions/2001:8004:2781:aa77:b7be:e016:b62f:2cc6

Hi for some reason my ISP address was blocked and I don't understand why. The reason given was vandalism and page disruption which I have never done.

My ISP 2001:8004:2781:aa77:b7be:e016:b62f:2cc6. I didn't mean to vandalise or be disruptive it wasn't intended I just don't understand how to edit pages correctly.And if you do remove the block I will be more careful in future. Aussie2021 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Aussie2021. This /33 range has been blocked three months due to a persistent vandal who is probably not you. The rationale for the block is at User talk:Bishonen#2001:8004::/34. You've already been given some advice over at User talk:Bishonen#IP address being blocked. As a registered user you are not affected by this block so you should be good to go. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Gedik Ahmed Pasha (edit-warring)

• Gedik Ahmed Pasha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:AN3#User:Haldir Marchwarden reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Both warned)

Hello EdJohnston. I haven't checked my watchlist since the morning; only replying because i received an alert of you pinging me. I agree with engaging in the talk page until consensus is reached, and in fact that's what i proposed if you see my first comment in the report. There is an issue though. Shouldn't the article return back to a version that was stable? What happens if i disagree with certain changes in the article, and i don't find consensus with the other user? His changes remain? Right now i don't have time to engage, but tomorrow i will leave a message listing my issues, which points i am willing to compromise on, etc. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are advised. Any more reverts by either of you could lead to a bad outcome. With such a thinly-edited article, it is not easy to make arguments about a stable version. Disputes about someone's nationality in the Balkans can quickly lead to arbitration sanctions, so I urge patience. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand the warning, and i will abide by it. But still, i don't think it is fair to keep a version that was added with no consensus in the first place, and is the result of edit-warring. Its preservation gives no incentive to the other editor to engage in the talk page, thinking that this whole dispute is over (as you can see in this diff of his yesterday in response to you). As aforementioned, i just posted a comment (section) in the respective talk page, addressing my issues and the points i am willing to compromise on. If you can spare some time, i would appreciate taking a look at it and giving your views as a third opinion. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So long as I'm acting as an admin on that article I can't give a third opinion. But you can post at WP:3O yourself, open a WP:DRN request or open an WP:RFC. Surely one option is to leave his ethnicity unspecified since the available information is so scanty. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I did reinstate the stable version, since another editor agreed with it that there was no consensus for any of these changes. We will discuss and reach consensus for what should be included and how. Hopefully, this doesn't appear as a violation of the warning. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Demetrios1993, please undo your change to the article since it appears to violate my warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I did, but i don't understand. Another user should instead reinstate the stable version? Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That would not be advisable. Why not describe what your change was, and present it for discussion on the talk page? If you can make a *short* argument, that could attract support, since not everyone on the talk page has been able to be brief. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I did leave a small comment on the 27th (diff), to which Haldir Marchwarden said we can work on the article as we (me and editor Maleschreiber) wish (diff1, diff2). Can i reinstate the stable version, and begin working on it with Maleschreiber per what we discussed (you can read the last comments in the talk page)? Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If User:Haldir Marchwarden is withdrawing his objections it sounds like you can go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Albion, Victoria edit warring

• AlbionMike76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Albion, Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 3RR complaint

Editor AlbionMike76 has not contributed to Talk page so far even though I have asked him to multiple times via the edit summary (only way to communicate to him). I have been accused by him of bullying and belittling which I reject, though I have been rather direct in my opinion of the excessive detail he had added to this page on a tiny locality (1 sq mile in area, ~4,700 inhabitants) which is really only a mini-suburb of Sunshine, Victoria and only has been considered a separate suburb as it has a train station called “Albion” in it. (I have a print street directory from 1995 which still calls the area “Sunshine”.) Not sure how this can progress if he continues to not use Talk page. 122.150.83.215 (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You might try to reach agreement with User talk:JPxG on the article talk page as to how much material to keep. If AlbionMike76 continues to revert after protection expires, while never discussing, you can report again. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Will try.122.150.83.215 (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Haldir Marchwarden

• Haldir Marchwarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muhammad Ali of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Previous 3RR complaint which led to a warning

Note about an editor you warned last week for edit warring. They made 4 reverts within a few hours today on Muhammad Ali of Egypt. You might find this of importance if someone reports that editor in the future for edit warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Your complaint seems to be about User:Haldir Marchwarden, so I have retitled this section and have added the relevant links to the top of your post. Someone would have to go through the history (of the Muhammad Ali of Egypt article), but it does appear that Halldir might have violated WP:3RR on 2 September. Since 1 September five of Haldir's edits of that article have been reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, sorry for not being clearer above. I did not have much time to elaborate more. I urge you to do sth, as the editor just made the 5th revert within 24 hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the editor is now topic banned from the Balkans. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for Pending changes reviewer

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

I would like to request the reviewer right. I have around 1,400+ edits and the rollback right. I meet the criteria and would also like to help out in the pending changes log. Am familiar with vandalism and relevant guidelines. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you have a good record so I've given you the pending change reviewer right. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Much obliged. --Sreeram Dilak (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I've created more than 25 articles on Wikipedia. Let me know whether I am eligible for autopatrolled right? Sreeram Dilak (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled requires you have good judgment of what is a keepable article. Based on your current AfDstats I suggest that you wait a while. Anyway it looks like you have had a request pending at WP:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled since 6 September, which you ought to have mentioned here, since it makes this one a duplicate request. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Please block 220.240.136.84

• Special:Contributions/220.240.136.84

Hello, you protected the pages Solo, Ddu-Du Ddu-Du and Kill This Love back in March because of a stubborn IP-hopper who keeps re-adding the same stupid edits over and over and over again and they keep doing the same thing despite being reverted every single time. This person just doesn't want to stop and ignores all warnings given to them. They have plenty more edits on different pages that keep on getting reverted that will be too long to list them all right here. All of their IPs geolocate to Melbourne, AU and some of them can be found here. Note that not all of their IPs are listed there because it's too tiring to keep track of them all. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I've put six months of semiprotection on the three articles you mentioned due to the sockpuppetry. Hope that helps. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Also blocked the IP for one month. For background, see the complaint from last March at

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive430#User:59.102.9.103 reported by User:Nkon21 (Result: Semiprotection)

EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit war at Albion, Victoria

• Albion, Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On September 5, you warned AlbionMike76 about continued edit warring on Albion, Victoria. They have continued. [49] [50] It appears the IP attempted to use the article talk page but AlbionMike76 just reverts with abrasive edit summaries about fighting trolls. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

User now blocked for continuing the war. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A concern

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

Sorry, but I did not notice this until now. I understand this happened 6 September 2021, however I find this completely unacceptable and am further shocked said IP was not indefinitely blocked! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

IP is now blocked one month for vandalism. We don't block them indefinitely. Let me know if the problem continues on another IP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I will strive to keep a more vigilant eye on talk pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It is too early to protect the Bengali Brahmin article

• Bengali Brahmins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A discussion was going on on the talk page regarding improvement of the article. Was it not too early to protect the page? Thank you. Dear Debasish (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Caste-related pages are often protected due to obvious abuse. Not clear what you mean by 'too early'. Anyone who is WP:Extended confirmed can edit the page. Use the talk page to get agreement for any changes you want to make. You can use the Template:Edit extended-protected on the talk page. Someone who has the ability to make the change can then act on your request, if it has consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please add the traditional accounts of Bengali Brahmins and then protect the page. Wikipedia should be a place where people can refer to it. Thanking you.Mikemarssss (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

199.82.243.*

• Special:Contributions/199.82.243.0/25
• Rezanaul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Noorullah21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears that you blocked 199.82.243.102 for thirty days about six days ago for disruptive editing. However, there are now edits from 199.82.243.108 and 199.82.243.88 and 199.82.243.83 at Talk:Second Anglo-Afghan War. I haven't done a whois on the IP address, but I know that IP addresses shift within what used to be called Class C blocks and are now called /24 blocks or something like that. I have a request at DRN for moderated discussion from a registered user concerning Second Anglo-Afghan War. If this appears to be the same person, then maybe the block should be expanded to at least the /26 block, in which case I can dismiss the DRN request. I haven't reviewed the history in enough detail to know what exactly was the disruption. I see that the user is stubborn and is at least borderline uncivil, but I haven't been looking at the past history, and I know that there might be disruption that I don't see. So do you think it is the same user, and do you think that the block should be expanded? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have now blocked the /25 range as a CU block. In my opinion the DRN can be closed if nobody else wants to pursue the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: and @EdJohnston:. I connected and saw that my IP was blocked by Ed. Wanted to discuss on his talk and saw this discussion. Ed - My IP is wrongfully being blocked. Robert - If you go through the Talk page, you can see that there were many times I told Noorullah21 to stop and let others provide their opinion but he continued to be borderline uncivil. Even towards the end, not only he ignored 3rd opinion's decision but he also gave me harsh comments and I responded with "No comment. Thank you." Constantly, in order to pursue his agenda, he accuses me for being sockpuppet in trying to block my opinion on Talk page. And who is this RaoulDuke47? He just made a sudden appearance on the Second Anglo Afghan war talk page stating exactly same words and comments as Noorullah21. Regardless, I have not committed any vandalism on any article and I have been involved in discussion on Second Anglo Afghan Talk page and any noticeboard in relation to it. That's all. I don't think that is vandalism or any reason to block IP. 192.189.187.106 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Also looks like RaoulDuke47 shares same interest as Noorullah21 on Second Anglo Afghan War article. [51] 192.189.187.106 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. The IPs were almost certainly HaughtonBrit evading his block. Unfortunately at the same time the IPs were blocked, a new account, Rezanaul, edited the same article using the same sources as the IPs and falsely claiming consensus: [52] - [53] ; [54]. This account was also used to edit the same articles where HaughtonBrit was active: [55], [56]. Is it possible to block this account as well? --RD47 (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Why am I being dragged into this conversation? The changes I made was due to WP:3 decision and I copied and pasted the sources provided on the talk page as [[WP:3] considered strong reference. After seeing this message, I did little check on Raoulduke47 and Noorullah21 and not only can you see that they share similar opinion on the Second Anglo Afghan War but also are possibly from same town and country. Noorullah21 used this IP 2A01:CB15:300:3000:CCD8:437F:F3AD:1B66 to make a change on page Afghan Independence Day which he also admitted to. This IP is in Assamese France. On the other hand Raoulduke47 provided a reference on the Second Anglo Afghan talk page which pointed him to location France as well because the reference showed this: https://www.google.fr/books/edition/A_Traditionalist_History_of_the_Great_Wa/cJUYEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=afghanistan+british+protected+state&pg=PA372&printsec=frontcover. Why and how,, Raoulduke47 became part of the discussion? Coincidence? Definitely not. These two individuals are something to be looked into. Rezanaul (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• HaughtonBrit accused others of socking, including Noorullah21. Rezanaul does not act like an account that is only a week old.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: how am I suppose to act for an account that is week old? I wasn't even part of discussion till Raoulduke47 dragged me here. Maybe you should look into him as so far I have seen Noorullah21 blaming others of socking. Please keep me out. Rezanaul (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel bound to answer these wild accusations which are as baseless as they are silly. Anyone can check my edits and those of Noorullah21 and see that we are not the same person. I'll just point out that to get such a reaction I surely must have hit pretty close to the mark... Also Rezanaul seems to know all there is to know about the current dispute at Second Anglo-Afghan War, which is rather telling for a week-old account, as Bbb23 pointed out. Please let me know if you can block this account outright, or I'll take the evidence to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. Cheers. --RD47 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

reaction? You pinged me on this page. Please do take the evidence to the investigation page of whoever and let me know. Rezanaul (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on behavior Rezanaul (talk · contribs) looks like the same person as HaughtonBrit (talk · contribs). Who else would have such an intense interest in whether Afghanistan was a protectorate? Making bogus sock charges against Noorulah21 and Raoulduke47 (RD47) makes things look worse for Rezanaul. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I make the change and that is aggression when I just did what was required on behalf of WP:3. Any decision would have been by WP:3, changes would have been what the consensus was You do not see the aggression coming from the other two users Noorulah21 and Raoulduke47 with same aggression on talk page and the bogus sock charges? And the aggression here started by Raoulduke47? Enough of me explaining. Rezanaul (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with an indef block of Rezanaul (talk · contribs) due to the behavioral similarity to HaughtonBrit, as described in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. For example, the strong interest in having Afghanistan described as a 'protectorate' in the article Second Anglo-Afghan war. The same type of edits were made by IPs from Special:Contributions/199.82.243.0/25. One IP even opened a WP:DRN case in the effort to win this argument. If these IPs are not operated by HaughtonBrit, it's an amazing coincidence on a little-trafficked article. The IP range is now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Harry Holmes testimony correction

I have been suspicious that Oswald would tell Holmes he working on an upper floor when the shooting occurred, then went downstairs. On page 306, it is clear what Holmes meant:

Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule. Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule? Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part. Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor? Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember? Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.

Based on this, I think the paragraph regarding Holmes on the “Police interrogation” section on the Lee Harvey Oswald article should say “Holmes (who attended the interrogation at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz) said that Oswald replied that he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman.” 213.107.66.169 (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

IP editor has apparently switched to multiple unregistered accounts

• Thejenkins44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blackkeyboard080400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. An editor that apparently uses multiple IP addresses, and now seems to have switched to various unregistered accounts, is making similar edits and additions of "information" that contradict the existing sources about the rulers of the Miskito people of Central America who were part black. This editor sometimes adds a ridiculous fringe source that claims the aboriginal peoples of Central and South America were actually black. Here are the diffs where I've reverted these changes by his latest incarnation:

George Augustus Frederic II

William Henry Clarence

Robert Henry Clarence

Jonathan Charles Frederick

Carlstak (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Has this been reported before? Is this the return of someone we know about? EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that one account has been blocked with the summary "Disruptive editing, major unsourced additions, page hijacking", certainly looks like continued sock puppetry going on. Carlstak (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's the latest account making the same edits. Carlstak (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You have identified Blackkeyboard080400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This appears to be the same person as Thejenkins44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked indef by User:GeneralNotability on 8 September.

I am blocking Blackkeyboard080400 for evasion and semiprotecting the four articles you listed as well as Mosquito Coast. If more action is needed, it is better to open an SPI because it appears this guy is likely to continue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I fear you may be right that he is likely to continue. I will follow through as you suggest if necessary. Carlstak (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Thejenkins was reported to me as a probable sock, but I'm blanking on who it was - and I was sufficiently uncertain that I opted for the DE block instead of an SPI block. I'll see if I can find where this was reported to me... GeneralNotability (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Found it! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Themaker1. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It is possible that the two editors listed at top of this thread could be added to Themaker1's sock case. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And he's back as IP 190.124.39.234. Carlstak (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP two months for evasion. We should keep an eye on Special:Contributions/190.143.247.0/24 to see if he branches out to new IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Carlstak (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Due to continued editing of these articles from IPs in the /24 range, I have now blocked Special:Contributions/190.143.247.0/24 for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested for Pending Change Reviwers Rights for Trial

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

Hi, Ed Johnston I've Requested to you Please give me Pending Change Userright for Trial. I've also Requested on WP:PERM But any Admin doesn't Attention on My Comment. Please see [[57] and [58] I'm also Read WP:RPC and WP:PC. Best Regards. Jiggyziz ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 06:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Forgive my bluntness, but given your obvious incompetence in English (I really wouldn't boast of how many articles you've created), I would not grant you any special rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jiggyziz. You don't seem to be ready for this permission yet, but consider making useful edits generally. This might increase the chance that your application would be granted in the future. When I peruse your talk page, I notice that there are many posts about your recent work. See all the messages that people have left you about 'moved to draftspace'. You should be reflecting on this feedback to see if you can improve your success rate in creating articles. Consider working together with another editor who is interested in the same area as yourself and has more Wikipedia experience. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Thanks for these Suggestion I'm try to making Useful edit.Best Regards Jiggyziz ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} Jiggyziz ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 07:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Why Remove My Page Request?

• BalPakna2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"SobuJ Ahmed" BalPakna2021 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You've been blocked for removing the AfD template from the SobuJ Ahmed article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for Rollbackers Rights

@EdJohnston: Hi , Please give rollbackers right because i am remove vandalism on articles and userpage and talkpage i am already request on WP:PERM.Plase check me my contribution and gave me this right.Best Regards.Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 14:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Lazy Maniik. Thanks for repairing the recent vandalism to my talk page. You have requested rollback and you seem to be on the right track. I would only hesitate with rollback because, when you work with other users, you should be leaving them messages in correct English. For example, here your English was not quite right. ("No indication of Notability, No Meets WP:NOLP". It should be "does not meet WP:NOLP"). If you are leaving instructions for new users you don't want them to be confused. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston Sir i don't know much english and only i can talk to anyone in english but i have a urge to understand english i only know simple english speaking i am indian i am proud of that yes i am wrong But I have given the link of the page correctly, doesn't any person make mistakes in your whole life? But I assure you that in future I will not make such mistake again. If I removed so much vandalism on Hindi wikipedia then I don't have to suffer so much, why am I asking you rollbacker because I edit on wikipedia from mobile, and twinkle and redwarn can be used only by destop site.Best Regards. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 10:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Edits

Hello. I believe I'm under a Zionist ban. Can I ask for this to be lifted for editing on Elazar Shach? Chesdovi (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi, please link to where this ban was imposed. Also, if there have been any complaints about editing of Elazar Shach on the admin boards, or AE, can you link to those discussions? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

here. I am not aware of Elazar Shach at AE. I also ask for the Western Wall ban to be lifted. Chesdovi (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Spartaz is the admin who imposed your 2016 topic ban from Zionism, which appears to still be in effect. Why not consult him? I don't have the authority to undo his action. Also, per this comment from a 2016 ARCA it seems you are still under an indefinite ban from WP:ARBPIA. There is material in the Elazar Shach article about the Arab-Israeli conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You appear to have made only 277 edits after returning from a 6m block for tban violations that expired in March. With respect you need to show that you can edit appropriately in less contentious areas before asking to amend any of your 3 topic bans. Indeed, I can't see how your existing edits to this article, which appears to be about a renowned antizionist is not already either a tban vio in some way but I'm happy to leave that with a reminder that you need to be cautious about your bans. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Spartaz: My 6m block was implemented by an Admin who did not (as far as I can recall) have the courtesy to first discuss the issue with me. I was blocked for violating WP:ARBPIA for (among other innocuous edits) adding that David Ben Gurion ate pork. When I queried it, I was told to stop wikilawyering. So I left it. When I returned, I explained to the Admin how the original ban, as I was led to understand, did not preclude me from adding that DBG ate pork. He then justified the block saying DBG would have gotten the pork rashers from Christian Arabs.... (?!?) and eventually told me to find another Admin as my appeals were (again) becoming too "taxing" for him. So please take my edits from April 2020 onwards into account, as I believe the last block was unfairly implemented. Chesdovi (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not impose either of your bans and this page is not AE, so this discussion ought to be somewhere else. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Hello, EdJohnston I never meant to revert your edit nor did I notice that I reverted your edit. I have just seen it when you restored it. I think I probably clicked it accidentally when I searched my watchlist, my deepest apologies for the mistake.— TheWikiholic (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern about edits by User:Yusiffuctd

• Yusiffuctd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Third Crusade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bajaur Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eighth Crusade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am sure you are tired of me posting these, but user:Yusiffuctd has, since 8 October, been edit warring(about every 2-3 days) the term(s) "Political Muslim Victory as Muslims remain in control of Jerusalem" into the infobox of the Third Crusade. Yusiffuctd has been reverted 9 times by 4 different editors.

On the Bajaur Campaign, Yusiffuctd has been reverted, since 4 October, 3 times by 2 different editors.

On the Eighth Crusade, Yusiffuctd has been revert, since 9 October, 5 times by 2 different editors.

I am unsure what the issue is concerning Yusiffuctd, but the slow edit warring on Third Crusade is becoming somewhat disruptive.

Thank you for your patience in this matter. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have left a note for Yusiffuctd. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I am guessing Yusiffuctd's recent editing[59][60][61] is their answer? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The editor is now blocked for continuing the war. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

0"cleopatra"0

• 0"cleopatra"0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ed, I was about to block the user as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xavier 500.30.10. Any objections?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Please go ahead. And it would be helpful if you could reopen the sock case so I can add some findings (if I can get them figured out). EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually I can do that myself once I'm ready. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I'm a bit confused. Are you going to do it all?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I found enough so I can do it all. It seems this guy has been very busy. Any behavioral evidence (of prior socks) would be welcome. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand your first two sentences, but then it sounds like you do want me to do something. In case you've forgotten, I'm a very literal fellow. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you're still here, this guy might have had a prior account, User:MohammedShanooj03, which was CU-blocked back in July but without a sock case. So it's unclear if that leads to anything worth following up. That account may have done some personal self-promotion but the new guy looks more like an industry. Especially interesting that on his user page he takes credit for some articles created by User:Xavier 500.30.10, such as Ganeshamangalam. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's obvious that everyone is the same person regardless of the "expansion" by the new socks, which in my view is not uncommon at all. To make it easier on you, I suggest you file your findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xavier 500.30.10 and ask a clerk to move it to MohammedShanooj03--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I've now updated the case and done an SPI block of 0"cleopatra"0. Leaving out a mention of the prior account due to a possibly-unnecessary privacy concern. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding the privacy concern, but I can't see what you can.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The prior name is possibly the editor's real name, based on some off-wiki research. And for whatever reason, the prior account's sandbox has been deleted, which included some personal details. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If he wants to disclose personal details about himself, that's his business. You do know that cleopatra recreated Draft:Mohammed Shanooj, originally created by UnknownEditor1234567890, who looks like the same person and judging by the block log comment broadens this still further?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

In fact User:UnknownEditor1234567890 is  Confirmed to User:Xavier 500.30.10. And, now that you noticed the recent creation of Draft:Mohammed Shanooj I would support the renaming of the case to User:MohammedShanooj03. Is it too late to unclose the case and make that request? In User:MER-C's block notice for User:UnknownEditor1234567890, I also see mentions of User:AlamanKlm, User:Al aman kollam and User:Muhammed fairoos. They are all blocked, but are not stale and it might be worth tagging them. With some more work I might be able to confirm them to Xavier 500.30.10. Will be taking a break for a few hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, see Special:Undelete/Al aman Kollam. MER-C 19:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I added a note to the case, just an observation, looking at previous contributors to some of the same articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reopening the case.

If it helps, here are some results from Commons I found:

• UnknownEditor1234567890 was confirmed to MohammedShanooj03.
• Rekutsen22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was checkuserblocked and tagged as a suspected sock of MohammedShanooj03.
• Zwackgaming (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was also checkuserblocked and tagged as a suspected sock of MohammedShanooj03.

Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Of all the accounts mentioned, Al aman kollam is the oldest (March 18, 2018). They are also not stale. AlamanKlm and Muhammed fairoos are also not stale. Zwackgaming is globally locked; although registered at en.wiki in September, they have made no edits. Although probably not something I should do, I'm going to put the case on hold until this is sorted out; I think that's better than open.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! Sorry if you thought I was too pushy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• User:Bbb23, thanks for your help sorting out the case! EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

IP edit-warring at Luiseño

• Luiseño (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. We're having trouble with an IP edit-warring to add somewhat incendiary content without citing the actual sources for the information at Luiseño. Carlstak (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Luiseño is now semiprotected. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Carlstak (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for permission

I've applied for the New page reviewer permission here. Could you please grand me the right? Thank you. --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the user as a suspected sock of Phoenix man.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring report redux

• Igec133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Next Slovak parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed. You closed this discussion with a warning that Igec was not to revert at Next Slovak parliamentary election again. Unfortuantely they have done so today, restoring the infobox that they were edit warring to reinstate (this repeats this edit) and deleting a table of all the parties with seats. Cheers, Number 57 13:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The user was given a chance to respond to your observation but did not, so I've blocked them 48 hours for continuing the October 8 edit war on Next Slovak parliamentary election. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Creativerobot12345

• Creativerobot12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Further to your warning here (which they've blanked, so obviously seen), they've decided to turn up a year later and carry on the same way. FDW777 (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User now blocked 48 hours for edit warring and re-alerted about WP:TROUBLES. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Draw broader attention to a move request

Hello Ed, may I ask for your advice? Is there any way to draw more third party attention to a Move Request I have initiated, and which appears to be far more controversial than I have imagined. A third-party input from the broader Wikipedia community will very much be needed here to make sure that the Move Request doesn't reflect strictly the usual local Balkan topic area consensus but a broader consensus. Any ideas where can I ask for such third-party attention? A particular noticeboard? And how to notify them? Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You are speaking about Talk:Imia/Kardak#Requested move 17 October 2021. I am unsure if that issue is crying out for more publicity. (The talk page has been viewed 819 times in the past week). The tone of the move discussion is unfortunately reminiscent of the bad old days of WP:BALKANS. I hope that the parties will stay away from any possibility of canvassing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I had 2 options; either move the article myself, or, if I believe it is controversial, to initiate a move request. I chose the 2nd option for obvious reasons and seek WP:CONSENSUS. I was hopeful that the editors would follow the guidelines and support re-titling the only article in the Disputed Islands/Territories topic area with a double name into a single name, just like every other of the 200+ articles in the Disputed Territories already do. But like you said, it is just the bad old days of WP:BALKANS all over again and needlessly more controversial than I expected, and the reason I would REALLY appreciate some more independent third party opinions. A broader consensus is welcome and may help. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You were wise to open an RM instead of trying to move the article yourself. If there were a genuine wide-scale issue about WP:SLASH affecting several articles then I could see trying to get MOS regulars involved. Or, if there was offsite forum activity causing new people to show up then we could alert the admins generally. But as it is, Imia/Kardak is a small issue visible only to a few, that won't make a huge amount of difference whichever way it comes out. Having a redirect from Imia to Imia/Kardak or vice versa seems to be the most that could be at stake. (If it were totally up to me I would pick Imia, even though the slash rule is only a guideline). After the move has been open for the usual time, you could request an admin closer rather than a regular move closer. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

OK noted. Thanks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(Just a note in case someone may be looking for these guidelines: I found them now, they are WP:RM#CM (at bottom) and WP:APPNOTE). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, your attention is needed please. An editor user:Buidhe with whom we were were in opposite sides of bitter disputes on other Balkan articles (one of them isn't resolved yet!), came and closed the MR in a very biased way, by ignoring completely the move request, counted only the votes without evaluating the strength of the arguments in these votes, and ignored what the naming guidelines do say on the matter. I asked that editor to revert the move [62] and I would prefer that an admin closes it instead. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ed, the MR's closure was reverted. I can't help but am really upset with all this however. I would appreciate if you or any other uninvolved admin closes it instead. Someone who is willing to read the arguments first, not close by counting just the votes. I want to believe that the project's guidelines that it is "not about votes, but about arguments" are still meaning something and that an impartial Admin can enforce them. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Move review is the place to dispute move closures. Unilateral reversion of a closure you don't agree with is not allowed. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Last December Buidhe had a content dispute with Khirurg, and the latter reported Buidhe for edit warring and tried to get them blocked. I intervened there to support Buidhe's defense [63]. A month later, Buidhe closed an RfC where I was in dispute with Khirurg and SR, giving them right [64]. So Buidhe has a history of being neutral regardless of disputes with certain editors. Anyways, interested editors are free to make a move review request. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Ktrimi, Buidhe wasn't involved in any disputes with us back then, while they were involved these days not just in one, but two, at Killing of Zak Kostopoulos and Pushbacks in Greece which both occured right before I had initiated the MR! Impartiality isn't solely about not being involved in the MR, impartiality is about the person I have been in dispute, to not come and close my own RM, probably in retaliation to our disagreements in those other disputes. A very dishonest and classic WP:BALKAN way of doing things in Wikipedia, and one of the reasons I am considering abandoning the Wiki Project. The fact that you are commenting here about Buidhe's past contributions while turning a blind eye to the fact that Buidhe nowadays is involved in disputes with me and other editors from the RM, shows that you are just trying to WP:LAWYERING. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: The closer has been reverted for not following Wikipedia's rules about impartiality in spirit. An uninvolved third party Admin closure has been requested at: Wikipedia:Closure Requests. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

RM Closure

• Talk:Imia/Kardak#Requested move 17 October 2021

Hey EdJohnston, your advises to me are always appreciated but I see that even though I have submitted RM closure requests (per your recommendations above), I am realizing that the RM has not closed and was relisted for a third week. I had the impression there is a consensus regarding the guidelines but, according to both reviewers, it seems there isn't. The RM is being open for more than 14 days and was relisted probably for 7 more days and I am not sure what else (and if) can be done there. I have worked tirelessly to put opposite arguments to test, but the new reviewer has suggested against my further participation to it. I could appreciate any feedback on the matter. Thanks and good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that when you respond to everyone else's comment that is a little over-the-top. ('Working tirelessly' to address every other argument can be seen as tiring by the other participants. When you advocate so strongly for one view, others might be wondering if you have nationalist motives). The guidelines are not decisive in any case; whether to follow them is up to editor consensus. (Guidelines are not policy). RM discussions can be closed after seven days if it seems that more discussion is unlikely to change the result. Just give it a little time. There were posts by some new people on October 30. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. Frankly I thought that the person who initiates the RM has the "duty" to put their own arguments to test, as well as test the arguments of the other participants and denote why a RM had to be initiated and on what policy-compliant grounds. It is a relief to know now that I am not "obliged" to do such a (stressful if I may say) thing! Wish I knew this sooner before the stress got to this point: [65]. Well, better late than never. Good day and thanks for the feedback! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

This redirect was protected in 2009 by you if I'm reading the logs correctly. I think unprotection can be removed, since the main target is also semi'd and I doubt most vandals would target it. Will you consider unprotection? Thanks in advance, Sennecaster (Chat) 03:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI report - The Crown

Could I just say, I thought that was pretty shabby moderating you did back there? The warning for warring, fair enough, no problem. But you specifically asked the other editor to undo the 4thRR; she called your bluff and carried on editing other pages. You know what the correct response under policy is! To pretend my first edit was a revert, when it introduced brand new wording into the article and wasn’t reverting anything, just to duck out of having to follow through on your earlier request was poor IMHO. MapReader (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Another option I considered was to block both parties (one for 3RR, and the other for edit warring). For you to go right up to the limit of 3RR and then report the other person, when it's a two person edit war, seems like not quite in good faith. It does take two people to edit war and either one has the power to end it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Then you should have said that from the outset. The implications of breaching 3RR are supposed to be clear. It isn’t reasonable that an admin should falsely accuse someone of reverting simply because he didn’t feel able to respond to another editor - who has a very long track-record of warring - when his bluff has been called. MapReader (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

My proposal

What do you think of WT:EW#3RR blocks for first offense? Regardless of the merits, should I go about it differently, meaning should I start an RFC, make the same proposal at WP:VPP, advertise it at WP:AN? As I said at the Talk page, I've never done this before. Thanks for your thoughts.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:VPP is logical as a place to get review, but I wonder if it is necessary to change the policy wording at all. There is a risk that a discussion in a large forum might produce more change than you expected. Do you recall any specific complaints about blocks for more than 24 hours? In practice I often try to engage in discussions with editors who are newly brought up at AN3 and may not understand the rules. In some cases they can be persuaded to back away from the dispute. A warning is sometimes enough. When a case looks more like pure disruption than good-faith disagreement I might skip the discussion and issue a block directly. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

How quickly we forget: :-) Also, why was I blocked for 48 hours then and not 24 as WP:3RR states is typically given for this? (see here). There have been others before this most recent one. I think they were my blocks, which, btw, are often more than 24 hours, but I'd have to dredge them up. I do agree, though, that a discussion might achieve a "worse" result. In general, I don't like having admin discretion limited as to when to block, how long to block, etc. It's similar to those admins who feel that partial blocks for edit-warring are the only way to go. Nonetheless, I'll probably let it go as I don't think I have the stomach for the extended discussion that is likely to ensue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Good catch! I could have paid more attention to that complaint. But I was frustrated, trying not to tell that editor that, before revising the definition of 'Mercantilism' unilaterally they should get a consensus of the world's historians. Speaking of partial blocks -- some people think they are a great idea but I'm not one of them. When I review other admins' blocks at AN3 they usually appear sensible to me. Though sometimes I think a block should have been longer in the light of the background. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Early Christmas greeting

You are one of four editors who greatly encouraged me in my early months here and provided heart-warming support both before and during my RfA, which I looked at today for the first time in several years. I don't know if you realize how important that was and is to me. I am very glad, both on my own account and for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole, that you are still around. – Athaenara ✉ 20:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

IP block exemption

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

Hi EdJohnston, I've been editing Wikipedia through a VPN server, that I host on one of my VPS servers, due to privacy concerns. Recently I switched my VPS provider to another one and found that their ASN's IP prefix range has been blocked by another administrator (‪ST47‬), which prevented me from editing the Wiki through my registered account. Since you're one of the checkusers, I'm seeking an IP block exemption for this account. I could fill you in with the specifics such as IP ranges and such if required through email. Thanks, WikiLinuz (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: I had emailed [email protected] before making the request here; I just wanna mention that, although I didn't receive a reply from them yet; edited WikiLinuz (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello WikiLinuz. Since you are encountering one of User:ST47's rangeblocks it would save time if you could ask him directly. I would want to consult him in any case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I made the suggested request here. Thanks, WikiLinuz (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I wouldn't recommend it. See cu-l. ST47 (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. Is it possible to semi-protect Anastasius I Dicorus for a few months? IPs regularly target it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi three months due to an apparent long term edit war about the emperor's ethnicity. Consider posting something on the talk page to explain. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

IP following on from blocked editor

Hi, just a heads up after you blocked User:Josemontoya558 [66] for vandalising music articles by changing the recording dates, an IP [67] continued with the same behaviour on other AC/DC-related articles. He seems to have stopped, but I guess he might come back. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Hhl95's actions on the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol article

• Hhl95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive419#User:Hhl95 reported by User:LeoFrank (Result: Both editors warned)

User:Hhl95 has already been warned to reach consensus on the talk page before reverting other user's contributions, yet looking from the contribution history he didn't took the warning seriously. Now he's at it again, reverting the changes I made according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Exhibit one, two (the second time without an explicit revert). Perhaps further action is needed? Exlevan (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've left a note for User:Hhl95. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit wars occur when an editor reverts an edit 3 times in 24 hours. This is not the case. Furthermore, I always use talk pages when needed, but other editors don't seem interested to reach a consensus, given the fact that they do not use talk pages. Furthermore, you seem to have created your account with the sole purpose of changing Kiev to Kyiv, with no regards to alphabetical order, thereby disrupting hundreds of Wikipedia pages. So you may want to reflect on your own edit history before accusing others. Hhl95 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no sign of an edit war and you may want to look into Exlevan's edit history instead. You are asked to stop this witch hunt and remove this section from your talk page now. It's unacceptable to damage other editors on your talk page with false accusations. Hhl95 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Hhl95 is implying that his war against the WP:KYIV discussion will continue. So I've gone ahead with a 31 hour block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This is plain nonsense. I have not implied anything about the future. I have only reflected on what has happened in the past. You're making things up and you're totally uninterested in a fair process and a fair hearing. Again, stop your witch hunt. Hhl95 (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

BRD violation

• Last Night in Soho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:AN3#User:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 reported by User:AbsolutelyFiring (Result: No violation)

You have closed my complain but this is wrong. The editor reverted me multiple times despite being told to stick to WP:BRD on Last Night in Soho. Even when he did start discussion he has stone-walled any attempt at compromise. This will encourage further BRD violations as editors will take advantage to freely revert. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Also it's still considered 3RR violation if a user intends to revert more than three times. I am ready to be punished if you think I'm equally guilty but this should not be ignored. He couldn't revert the fourth time because I didn't (although I didn't even realize I had reverted three times initially). AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an 'explanatory supplement' and is not a policy that is enforceable by admins. WP:EW is the policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

BRD is still one of the few methods of resolution. And you're encouraging people to do whatever they want by ignoring it as "not policy". Btw per EW he is still in violation, due to him never stopping reverting not showing any intention to without realizing he would get blocked (I didn't need any such realization). And he's stone-walled the discussion after imposing his edit, instead just trying to get consensus in his favor which is actually going nowhere. Retire BRD and EW if people can just edit-war and use it to add their edits. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You're pretty aggressive for an account that was created less than a month ago. Perhaps you've had others before this one?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nuh but I didn't like how the situation turned out. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Robepang

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

Hi EdJohnston, despite my report on WP:AN3, Robepang seems to have refused to WP:DROPTHESTICK despite your advice for caution and had returned on Milo dinosaur to reintroduce their edits once more, with a pretty deceiving edit summary of "‎Rv to pre vandalised version". I've checked the edits of the IP, and they definitely weren't vandalising, in fact, they made the article much more neutral and less of the gastronationalistic edit warring Robepang was having with others. In fact, Robepang's edit only serves to restart such potential future edit wars again, presumably on purpose to shoehorn their version. Canzeelia (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

User now blocked 24 hours for continuing to edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think Canzeelia's account may be compromised. See their latest edits, such as [68]. This seems out of character based on their past contributions. clpo13_(talk) 04:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your block of Canzeelia. I'm also going through my mental list of possible sockmasters. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Clpo13: It was not compromised, it is just the character of that particular sockmaster. eg, although don't feel a need to read it. CMD (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ಠ_ಠ clpo13_(talk) 02:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Nazran225

• Nazran225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous block of Nazran225 regarding Malaysian language per WP:AN3

Following coming off your block here, Nazran225 has gone back to exactly the same edits they were edit warring over before [69][70], including edits which remove information and introduce inaccuracies and using misleading edit summaries. There's no 'new edit war' so to speak, so I don't know if it fits on AN/EW, but it's a disruptive continuation of the past one. CMD (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Left a further warning. It appears he does not get the message. I assume there is a discrepancy between the 'political' definition of the Malaysian language and what the scholars employ. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Nazran225 has made no further edits since my warning on October 24. Let me know if they continue to revert about the language. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This earlier complaint about Nazran225 was posted on my talk on 24 October by User:Chipmunkdavis. I have brought it back from the archive. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Continuing language edits

Per your note here, Nazran has continued in this campaign, including trying a copy paste move. I didn't see your comment before it was archived last time. My understanding is that use is mixed in both political and technical fields, so there could be a few reasons for opinions on the matter. CMD (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Nazran225 is now blocked indef due to complete lack of response, no usage of talk pages. This doesn't rule out an unblock if they will promise to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Imia/Kardak closure

• WP:Move review/Log/2021 November#Imia/Kardak

Hi EdJohnston, how have you been? Sorry to bother you again. Just informing you that the RM at Imia which we talked about, was dead for 2 weeks before a completely uninvolved and impartial volunteer came to close it. However now someone wants to reopen it even though the discussion has concluded. [71]. Just notifying you. Have a good weekend. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the update. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Rogue IP is back at it

• Thejenkins44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wethepeople45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Special:Contributions/190.143.247.0/24
• User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 51#IP editor has apparently switched to multiple unregistered accounts

Hi Ed, you asked us on 25 September to keep an eye on Special:Contributions/190.143.247.0/24 to see if he branches out to new IPs. He's back to his shenanigans again using IP 190.143.246.189 and as Wethepeople45 on multiple articles to do with the Miskito people. Carlstak (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

1. This is the Miskito coast guy. What would you think of a new block of Special:Contributions/190.143.246.0/23? Does that range cover all the bad IP edits you've recently noticed?
2. There is no account called User:Wethepeople45. Are you sure you spelled the name right? EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Ed. I emphatically favor a new block, anything that might help impede this insistent miscreant; it's a pain undoing all his unexplained, mostly unsupported changes. He hasn't created a user or talk page for his latest sockpuppet, Wethepeople45. You can see those changes here. Carlstak (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

These all look to be the same person. User:Wethepeople45 is now blocked indef as a sock. I've placed a two-month block on Special:Contributions/190.143.246.0/23. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed, as always. Carlstak (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Slovak politics

• Igec133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.105.213.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.143.113.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Direction – Slovak Social Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, it seems like Igec133 whom you warned twice (1 2) is continuing to engage in an edit-war (here) after not participating in discussions even though he was pinged and warned an excessive amount of times. The page Direction – Slovak Social Democracy (among some others) seems to be a matter of dispute, and I plan on cleaning it up in a near future due to the recent addition of mess and disputes. Also 95.105.213.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 178.143.113.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have made changes on the page recently but I'm not sure if this is Igec editing while logged out. IMO the page should be returned to the status quo before the disputes and admin-protected until the editors come to a consensus on the talk page. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Status quo is version with left-wing nationalism at head which lasted for several months before the dispute. Igec133 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There is already a talk discussion at Talk:Direction_–_Slovak_Social_Democracy#Social_democracy?, opened by User:Igec133. Igec133 has only edited the article twice in the month of November. If you find it impossible to work out a compromise on the wording using the existing discussion, consider WP:DRN or an WP:RFC. It appears to be a conflict as to whether the party's own description of its position ought to be used in the lead, as opposed to third-party opinions on what it actually stands for. I've semiprotected the article for a short time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple failed attempts to log in to my account

Hi, sorry to bother you but a weird thing is going on that might require some help, including CU. (And even if no CU matter, I'd appreciate your advice.) In the past two days, there have been no less than 65 attempts to hack my account (as WP informs when I log in). This is not random; two other users (@DeCausa: and @Impru20:) are also targeted. None of us ever had any attempts to hack our accounts previously, but in the last two days all three of us are subject to regular attempts at our accounts. That seems unlikely to be a coincident. The only thing we have in common is having reverted the same user in one article (the matter is explained here). Any advice you might offer would be appreciated. Jeppiz (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Jeppiz, you say that someone is trying to hack your account. What is the message you see when you log in? EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe we all get a message saying “There have been multiple failed attempts to login to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password” with the number of hours ago it happened. (I also get an email with the exact time of the notification). Impru20 and myself have been getting them at the same time - Jeppiz doesn’t seem to be able to see when they happened. I raised here the same question with HghinBC as Jeppiz raised with you as they had posted in that ANI thread and knew the background. They said they received the same notification of failed attempts right after I posted to their talk page. It’s all circumstantial of course but seems too much of a coincidence for it not to be the user in question, although it would be plain weird behaviour. The connection between the three of us isn’t just reversion of their edit we’ve also tried to engage with him most on the article talk page. I believe he’s described us as “Impru and Co” in the ANi thread that Jeppiz linked to so I think it’s clear he sees us a a “group” that opposes him. HighinBC wasn’t sure there is enough certainty to be actionable. Wikimedia presumably has access to the IP address used in these attempts. Can a checkuser compare this with user accounts? DeCausa (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as DeCausa said, there is a notification saying "There have been 63 failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device since the last time you logged in. If it wasn't you, please make sure your account has a strong password." I never had this before, all these 63 attempts are in the last two days. I believe it is the same for DeCausa and Impru20. Jeppiz (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same for me. I don't get the exact number of attempts, just several "There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device" messages. Impru20^talk 10:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Impru20, DeCausa, EdJohnston, and Jeppiz: I got the exact same problem. Some time after receiving off-wiki death threats against my life for my participation in a difficult RfC here at Wikipedia, I begun receiving this message “There have been multiple failed attempts to login to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password” indicating that someone has really targeted both my life and my Wiki account. Because of this, I hasted to the Teahouse and asked from admins to ban my alternate account here in Wikipedia due to already losing the login credentials for it and the fear that they may try to hack it too. The admins banned my alternative account upon my request, but, although the AE committee was unable to track down the sender of the death threats, the Project offers the option to activate the 2-Step Verification for our Wiki accounts and I am making use of it as an extra layer of security since it asks you to verify yourself via authentication apps, something the hackers can't break. By default, the 2-step authentication is not accessible to everyone, one has to file a request at the: Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions first, to gain permission to use it. But firstly, please make sure to read Help:Two-factor authentication before making the request. Besides having a strong password, having a 2-step verification helps putting my mind at peace. For me, Wikipedia is very stressful without a necessary layer of security. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa@Impru20@Jeppiz@SilentResident I don’t know if this will put your minds at rest, but I’ve just reported at WP:AN the identical notifications of over 50 failed login attempts to my own user account from an unknown device. Like you, I changed and enhanced my password immediately. But I’ve not had any contact with the users you’ve had issue with, so it may not be as editor-specific as you suspected it was. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Consensus at ANI where this came up seems to be an LTA known for this is responsible. DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

For a really strong password, the use of random letters, and symbols and numbers is highly recommended. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I believe I’ve now actioned the correct process to investigate this by flagging a quick checkuser check at ANI here. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It sounds as though checkusers might be able to do this, though I don't know how myself. I can see entries in the CU log that show failed login attempts but I don't know how to search for failed logins to a specific user name. It seems as though you suspect a particular editor, but I don't know if there is enough on-wiki evidence for a regular sock check. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Some discussion of the same issue is at User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#How to find unsuccessful login attempts by user (using the CU tool). EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

DeeHistorian carrying on the same way

Since your block on DeeHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has expired, they've made no edits except continuing the same edit war as before. FDW777 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DeeHistorian reported by User:DuncanHill (Result: ) DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:DeeHistorian has been blocked indef by another admin for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Nationalist edit warring

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

Hi EdJohnston, could you look into Robepang's behavior? I checked his talk page and realized you were the administrator that briefly blocked him for nationalist edit warring. Seems like he's not learnt anything from it and has continued upon it, this time with other articles/dishes, by removing mentions of other countries and trying to rewrite their origins. See Mee siam and Laksa (a dish variants available in multiple countries being moved within Malaysia instead). 119.192.71.192 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You've not discussed anything on a talk page. The user WP:LTA/INTSF is known for his interest in Singapore-related food items and for editing with IP socks. Instead of looking further into User:Robepang I am considering some semiprotections. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

AN3 decision

Ed, forgive me for being blunt but in what universe does the 'evidence' presented here constitute edit warring? By warning me you've sent the message to this editor that it's OK for him to try and brute-force changes through without first gaining consensus, because anyone who tries to revert back to the stable version is going to hauled before AN3.

I have not once reverted back to anything other than the existing, stable version of articles which in many cases have been that way for years. What's going on here? Are we supposed to let editors get away with this sort of behaviour – repeatedly deleting bits of articles, even after they have been reverted – because we might be punished for acting against it?

Some clarity would be appreciated. I know I'm not a neutral observer, but I cannot see how my editing is construed as edit warning and the filer's isn't. Frankly, I was expecting a block for the other party. Am I putting too much stock in the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The situation on both articles is not ideal. Note that WP:BRD is not a policy, and the phrase 'stable version' does not occur in the real WP:Edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if one person is reverting back to a long-standing version of an article pending discussion, and another is edit warring to remove sourced content, wouldn't you, as an admin, say one is more in the wrong than the other? This sets a harmful precedent, IMO. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

From a quick look, the text the other party was trying to remove looked like over-the-top praise. I didn't take the time to see how it was sourced, but it would have been good to lay that information out on the talk page. (Whether it really was a 'fan POV' was debatable and the other party's edits were less than ideal). Arguments from the status quo aren't satisfying unless it's something that is obvious to all. 'Restoring sourced content' is not listed as exemption to WP:3RR. If we include your prior account, you have been here a while. By this time you ought to have a sixth sense as to when further reverting is unlikely to be productive. The closers at AN3 are glad when people take an interest in alternatives to reverting such as WP:DRN and WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)