Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Turkish Croatia

If this needs to continue it should do so elsewhere. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

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

We've got a problem there. Few users are activly ignoring conclussions from oshwah's page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2019-08#Turkish_Croatia and have destroyed article and rewrote it in pseudohistorical conspiracy theory. Why isn't anything done about that?

Ps. There was my suggestion in that discussion how to solve the situation, but user Santa is promoting his pseudohistory views and is trying to delete the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha (talk • contribs)

If you believe that another editor has 'destroyed the article and rewrote it in pseudohistorical conspiracy theory' you should beware of casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence. If it appears that your point of view is so strong you can't edit Balkan articles neutrally, you may be banned from the topic under discretionary sanctions. It seems there was an attempt at discussion at Talk:Turkish Croatia#Discussion regarding the current content dispute but I don't see you providing any reliable sources. For example, you state (on 19:02, 3 August 2019) that Bihać was the capital of the medieval Croatian kingdom, but I don't see any source for that claim. Our article on the town of Bihać has nothing about that. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Article about Bihać doesn't have historical section.
Name of the town itself comes from the word Bišće, which means royal property, estate.

https://www.greenwaytour2parks.com/en/explore-local/historical-town-of-bihać.html

It was also place of meeting of Croatian parliament. Which makes it capital in medieval terms.
If you need evidences, I am gladly to obey. Do yo have knowledge of Croatian langue? This is an encyclopedic article: http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?ID=62812
If you don't, there is always google translate....
just ask what do you need. You can also read the article. Santas version is talking about what? Austro-hungarian conspiracy against Bosnia and making-up a name?
we are not talking about beliefs, or meta language. I claim the things I wrote, and if there is any problem with that there are sources which stands beyond them...
That should be the main moto of wikipedia. Reliable sources. Santa's version hasn't got them.
@Ceha:, first, you are taking this whole issue (way too) personally, you are even keep forgetting to sign your posts. You should be more careful in compiling, framing and using references: first by studying what are primary, secondary and tertiary sources and how to use them, then, you need to be really careful in choosing appropriate sources, but you should be particularly careful about how you presenting, interpreting them - you need to avoid misinterpreting, cherry-picking and taking out of context what is in source text, but most of all avoid misinterpreting:
- Even this private tourist website, which is neither reliable nor neutral and shouldn't be taken as such, doesn't confirms your claim about Bihać being capital of Croatian kingdom.
- Your usage and reading of the Croatian Encyclopaedia is, again, inappropriate. First it's a tertiary source, and without any footnotes at that ! But, let's consider it, for the argument sake, as not being overly partisan source in this case and let's turn blind eye on the fact that has no footnotes, its entry is still quite clear about the term Turkish Croatia and how is being used: "(T)he term Turkish Croatia as used by domestic/local Croatian (this "domestic" refers to people living outside Ottoman and in Austro-Hungarian proper) and foreign writers, cartographers and scientists from the 17th century until establishment of Austo-Hungarian rule in Bosnia in 1878, was used for keeping a memory on the earlier affiliation of the area partly with the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia and partly with the Kingdom of Slavonia,(...)". Interestingly, but not too surprisingly, the entry found in the Croatian Encyclopaedia does not mention the region's affiliation with the Bosnian Banate and the Bosnian Kingdom from the 12th century onward (to Ottoman conquest and Bosnia Eyalet), which stretched all the way to Bihać. This, basically, means that this Croatian memento conveniently skips at least three to four centuries of Bosnian medieval history in the region (12th-16th c.), to get to those couple of decades of early medieval Croatian Kingdom during 10th c. and its foggy historiography regarding which territories it ruled.
- And maybe the most important thing - Croatian Encyclopaedia says: "In Ottoman documents, this area was usually named as Serhat (Krajina), and from 1878 the name Bosanska Krajina began to prevail (means in general, everywhere) for the same area, (name Bosanska Krajina) first mentioned in 1719 in the title of Mustaj-beg Kapetanović, bearing the title "Commander of the Bosanska Krajina (means among Bosnians under Ottomans and Ottomans themselves)".
Now, tell me, are the Ottoman documents less relevant and of value for reality, history and historiography then Austrian-Venetian maps, and are the Bosnians themselves inferior in that regard and the name they used for the important part of their own country somehow irrelevant in face of that invented by Austrian and Venetian cartographers - the name Turkish Croatia may be prevalent among Austrian and Croatian elite at the time of war and military and political advancement against Ottomans (and Bosnians as Ottoman subjects), but Bosanska Krajina is the name used by Bosnians themselves since at least its first mention in 1719.
References used in article's current version validate position expressed in my post here.--13:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course, sometimes for article titles, even name used locally by the locals can be dropped in favor of name prevalent in English language sources, since this is English language Wikipedia - however, this is not one of those cases.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
If you agree with encyclopedical data, than the simplest solution would be to translate it in english.
Your stand about history of the area is personal research. Donji kraji are just part of the territory, they developed from Parish of Pliva (existed in CK before 12th century), and are home place of noble house of Hrvatinići, which became affiliated with banate in Bosnia in 14 century, expecialy after Croatian bans of Šubić family lost control of it.
Territory is much larger, and for that article it does speak about Bihać as Croatian capital, as meeting place of Croatian parliament. Bihać, Prijedor and similar towns had no connection with medieval banate in Bosnia.
You ask why shouldn't Turkish sources or names be on the equal value as austro-venetian, yet in your version you discribe austo-venetian sources as imperialistic? That's not neutral POV.
Article should be a historical one, and you rewrote it so it's about 20th century politics and austro-hungarian imperial plans? Don't you think you are taking it a bit to emotial? Mentioning other rulers, or states which were in posesion of some territories isn't irredentism, it's history. Why do you have an issue with Bihać beeing capital of Croatian kingdom, seat of it's Parliament? Bratislava was capital of Hungary, Skopje of Serbia, and Ohrid of Bulgaria, Danes had it's capital in southern Sweden...
As for signing, I am on my cell phone, but don't worry I think it's obvious what I wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha (talk • contribs) 10:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there a point for this discussion to go on any further if you don't understand or don't read my post(s) in its entirety ? Which part you didn't read or understand - I translated entire entry from online Croatian Encyclopaedia, and elaborated on its content, most importantly I explained that encyclopaedia in general is tertiary source (WP:TERTIARY, WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:RS), and that online Croatian Encyclopaedia does not have footnotes for validation - I don't know who has an access to that website for writing it, nor am I interested in trying to discover - where and how exactly the writer of that entry found his/her "scientists" who used the term, which scientists, where, most importantly in what context (I remind you on your misinterpretation of Magaš-Žanić book[1]) and Županc-Bjeliš research paper on geography and cartography[2], which I took and re-framed it properly to validate my points in the article.--15:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
By the way, regarding "Turkish sources" vs "Austro-Hungatian imperialism": Bosnian Muslims who lived and still living there were/are not Turks - they were Ottoman subjects, not Turks.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference
  1. ^ Magaš, Branka; Žanić, Ivo (5 September 2013). "Obsession with the divission of Bosnia (Footnote 11 at page 11)". The War in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina 1991-1995. Routledge. p. 11. ISBN 9781136340925. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  2. ^ Županc, Ivan; Fuerst-Bjeliš, Borna (1 September 2007). "Images of the Croatian Borderlands: Selected Examples of Early Modern Cartography" (html, pdf (full text available)). Hrvatski geografski glasnik. 69. (1.). hrcak.srce.hr: 5–19. doi:10.21861/HGG.2007.69.01.01. ISSN 1331-5854. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
And again. You are referencing 15-19th century phenomenon, trough the 20-21st century politics. Your opinion is not encyclopedical. Croatian encyclopedia is online edition of encyclopedia mainteined by Leksikografski zavod Miroslava Krleže

https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-dt-hr-revc&source=android-browser&q=hrvatska+enciklopedia

http://www.lzmk.hr/izdanja/enciklopedije/62-hrvatska-enciklopedija

You are directly denying valid encyclopedial source. I really have trouble guesing your argumentation. Are you denying that the area was part of Croatian kingdom and that Ottoman Turks conquered it? Bihać is good example, town didn't had any connection with Bosnia before Ottoman Turks..
Again, I gave you an encyclopedical source which is talking about the article in its historical sense which you are denying/writing on in exclusevly trough 20-21st century politics. It's not about particular source, it's about my theme of the article. Again, you rewrote historical article, with clear sources into something you yourself are wanting to delete (merge to article about western Bosnia). Encyclopedical article has more value than your personal resourch. As I said earlier, I have no problem in analysis of article line by line. Your version is something which clearly breaks every inch of wikipedia neutral pov.
Sources from Ottoman Turkey are coloquialy called turkish, no matter of writters religion or province. And again, NPOV. Please do note non-existance of bosnian state in that time period.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sadko again...

He just reverted Ivan Gundulić article and again removed sourced content. How long is this person going to be allowed to impose his POV and aggressively edit-war into his way? I am really sick and tired of this, I revert his BS you both warns us...can you not see this guy is contributing absolutely nothing but conflict?! What am I supposed to do here? Can you please at least revert that article because that is the version that was stable long before he appeared and started edit-warring and also locking that article would be preferable, he should be warned to stop...really... Shokatz (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

1) No consensus was reached. 2) It is not a POV. There were 7 sources on the claim, which another user removed. 3) The lead is per NPOV and MOS: Lead, in fact. 4) The article was stable for months before this sort of behaviour happened. 6) The same user was active on TP (years back). There was no consensus even back than. I am just following the rules and not having an agenda - and I plan to do so in the future. Sadko (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
1. No consensus was reached and there was no discussion on talk page about this either. The sourced content which you deleted stood on that page for years until you started edit warring and logging off to manipulate into deleting. 2. Yes it is. 3. No it's not. The previous version was per MOS:CONTEXTBIO. 4. The article was stable for years before your beahviour "happened". 5. Actually majority of users agreed to go with the sources, you should go read the talk page. You are a troll, pov-pusher and sock-puppeteer. Shokatz (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent noticeboard decision

Hi, I was just wondering about your recent decision about edit warring. I only made 2 reverts, and there was a clear consensus on the talk page for the changes based on a discussion I had already started and resolved with another editor. What should I have done differently in this situation? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears to me there was a long-term edit war beginning when mention of harasment incidents was first added on August 15. Your edits of 27 September formed part of that war (for example, this one). No RfC has made a decision, so far as I can tell. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Aside from one edit by Springee, who had agreed about removing the content by the time I reverted Ajñavidya, I can't find any other editor supporting the content except for Ajñavidya. Is an RFC necessary to deal with the objections of one editor? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not state clearly on the talk page the change you want to make, and link to any references you need. Then you can wait and see if people support that on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. I already commented several times on the talk page, and my changes are supported by every other editor who has commented except Ajñavidya. Several other editors have also reverted Ajñavidya's additions to the page. What else am I supposed to have done? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
If you think consensus exists for an edit, tell me which edit. What X would you change to Y? EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This edit has already been made and was supported by Springee, Aquillion, and Volunteer Marek. Both Aquillion and I explained those changes on the talk page, and Springee agreed on the talk page, and Volunteer Marek reverted Ajñavidya's attempt to reinsert the content. This issue seemed already resolved before Ajñavidya made the 3RRN post, with only Ajñavidya arguing for the inclusion of the content. If you look at Ajñavidya's talk page or contributions, you can see that this is the common pattern in their editing, where they tendentiously attempt to reinsert inaccurate or unsourced material. This is why I am confused about your warning to both of us. Is this not a clear case of a bad faith 3RR report by a tendentious editor who also made false claims about sockpuppetry and canvassing? You can also see DanielRigal's comment on the 3RRN report. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I have opened a thread at Talk:Tucker Carlson#Is there a consensus about the politically-motivated harassment?. Please continue there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
My question was about your warning towards me, and not about article content. I was asking for an explanation of what I should have done differently so that I could improve my editing in the future. This seems like a poor response to WP:ADMINACCT. Take care. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
If you can show that your last edit has consensus, then my warning won't apply any more. It is not practical to expect an admin go to through 50 or more edits since August 15 to figure out who may or may not have consensus. I have set up a proper thread on article talk for you to garner support, which you think you have anyway, so it can't be much of an imposition. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought the talk page discussion between Aquillion, Springee, and me was pretty clear. When two editors mention a boomerang for a filing editor, I would have hoped that the closing administrator would have looked through the edits at least a little. If you do not think that Ajñavidya has been at all tendentious, you could have said so in response to my comment on the 3RRN, where I said I could take this to ANI or AE, which would have included more diffs. Instead, you warned me about edit warring for making 2 reverts, which I thought was an odd response. You keep talking about gaining consensus for an already resolved issue, instead of helping me figure out what I could have done differently in the past. I don't see how that is responsive to my question, and it seems to be purposely avoiding explaining your action per WP:ADMINACCT. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted some help, and you seem to be encouraging a disruptive editor. Sorry for my apparent imposition, as this is going nowhere. Once again, take care. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussing sources on relevant talk pages with other editors

Hi EdJohnston. I found reliable sources which I felt bringing to a certain talk page, but someone is removing my talk page topics entirely and discouraging me from doing so again by throwing ARBMAC notifications at me.

I haven't contributed to the article Greta Thunberg at all. But, recently, a Greek newspaper wrote about her campaign, and its title is "The Blob of Greta Thunberg". According to this newspaper, a renowed Swedish journalist investigated about her and the people of her campaign (with a critical tone). So I thought to bring the RS to Talk:Greta Thunberg as it specifically mentions certain people from her circle who, according that journalist, also appear to have connections with her parents and the environmental-polluting industry which she, publicly, campaigns against and are accused by the journalist for being greenwashed by the same person. But an editor in that talk page removed the critical source and delete the whole topic about it on the grounds "it is offtopic" to the article's subject. I didn't find his argument to be reasonable or sufficing, as the source is about a well-respected journalist investigating her campaign, which this article is also about. I asked the editor to restore my deleted topic on Greta's Talk Page repeatedly but they refused and instead said I can do it myself. But before I would restore it, they threw an ARBMAC notification at me.

This is very discouraging. I may be wrong to feel like that, perhaps I am just upset, but I feel as if their actions (deleting my topic, and throwing ARBMAC notifications etc) are meant to discourage me from bringing the critical source to Greta's talk page. Can you look at the case? It will be appreciated! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Also I shall note that if the deleted topic is only a misunderstanding and my fault for not wording it well enough to clarify its relation to the article, as the editor has said in one of their arguments, then I believe this can easily be addressed posting a reply to my topic asking for clarifications instead of deleting the topic completely, giving me the time to edit it and clarify how it relates to the article. I wouldn't mind to edit it to make more clear the source is WP:RELEVANT to the article's subject. But after the latest developments, I am hesitant to even restore the discussion, let alone restore it with different wording. I don't want to be accused for disruption on Greta's talk page. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
This seems to have been discussed at User talk:SilentResident#Moved offtopic post. It links to a prior discussion at Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 1#We Don't Have Time. Thunburg herself wrote a response to some charges at this post at ecowatch.com in February 2019. All this sounds a bit like old news. Does the Pontiki article contain actual new reporting? It is puzzling that some novel aspect of the prior dispute could have emerged, but only in a Greek weekly newspaper and not in any Swedish or English language sources. Personally I would not have removed your post from Talk:Greta Thunberg but I am not yet seeing much substance to the new claim about greenwashing. Whatever new information may be found in Pontiki, since it is negative, would need to meet the usual requirements of BLP which it seems it would not. At first glance one might suspect that this is recycling of old rumors. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
True what you said about the method of Greenwashing, Ed, there is no much substance about it, and this is why I felt the necessity to ask for editorial opinion in Greta's talk page! OK I will do as you advised me and double-check on it to make sure it is not about old/recycled materia in new forms. Thanks alot! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment:Just a update to an otherwise closed case: The editor who has thrown the unecessary ARBMAC warning on my own talk page, appears to have done the same to other editors, and has been reported to the ANI yesterday (but only came to my notice today): [1] Seeing how the incident in my own talk page wasn't an isolated one, and that more editors felt bullied and indimitated by the same user, I joined the discussion at the ANI by bringing my talk page's incident to their attention, just in case: [2] I believe editors need to be more discreet in throwing ARBMAC warnings around, especially when there were no actions to justify them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I did go to the Swedish Wikipedia and check out a blocking thread that is referred to here from time to time. Even given that information, it doesn't appear that there is any way I can usefully contribute to resolving this dispute. An editor gave you an alert under the BLP discretionary sanctions. It seems to me that anyone who edits high-profile articles or their talk pages should be prepared to get alerts from time to time. Arbcom went to some trouble to ensure that they were informational only and not classified as warnings. In my opinion, at least three different editors in the current ANI thread are oversensitive. It seems there is no comment so mild that someone will not take offence. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

68.129.15.71

Hi Ed. Sorry to bring up an User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_45#68.129.15.71 ancient discussion from the dead] but I've found User:68.129.15.71 continuously adding information without sources here, or here note the addition of a copy and pasted source from someother wikipage with the archive info just typed in, making it meaningless. This user has been editing wikipedia for years now and endlessly adding information without a source, poorly adding content without full citations, and does not respond to suggestions or questions regarding how they can improve being an editor. I believe we discussed in the past to see how the editing has improved, and while its not just adding information without a source, its not at quality one would expect form an experienced editor who has to be continiously reminded what is and what isn't a valid source and even how to add citation. What should be my next step to trying to reason or discuss with this user? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I left a note. Let's see how it goes from here. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The IP user is now blocked six months for unsourced editing. More explanation is at User talk:68.129.15.71. I don't see this as vandalism since the person is not trying to damage the encyclopedia. It is really an inability to follow sourcing standards that has now gone on for three years. Since the user makes so many edits (more than 200 a month) we can't let this continue. On their talk page, the first complaint they got about lack of sources was in December, 2016. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Yeah, its mostly this person inability to follow the standard rules that really inks them over. They want to edit and work on relatively obscure work, but do not bother to learn the general rules which they have had nearly 10 years to learn. The IP has pretty much given up with me talking with them on their talk page, so it just get harder each time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Ivan Gundulić article

I requested the full protection and was rejected on the basis that it was "content dispute", now you come in and lock with the same rationale...wth?! Also you locked the article with the version one particular user is pushing without any proper discussion AT ALL. A version which stood on that article for years and which is based on English NPOV written sources. What will happen now is: the user who was pushing the removal of this sourced information will not discuss it at all and will think of this as a sign that "he won". I would highly suggest and plead you at least revert to the version with the sourced lead which refers to him as a Croatian writer (as this is what English sources say) which will force the user(s) in question who are contesting this to discuss the matter on the talk page which was NOT DONE so far. You basically endorsed the edit-warring idiocy pushed by one user. Shokatz (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:WRONG. If you believe that consensus supports another version of the lead, it should be easy to find other people to support you in a {{Edit fully protected}} on the talk page. In my opinion there was a choice between full protection and banning two users from the article under WP:ARBEE. The other party is a longtime editor who has added content and created some articles. You could improve your credibility in future Balkan issues if you would behave well on the talk page now and lead a search for agreement. Britannica doesn't carry much weight as a source; recent scholarly work would be better. If possible, the scholarly work should be in English so as to be more likely to be mainstream opinion and not influenced by ethnic loyalties of author or publisher. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
How about Yale and Columbia university, how about literally any English language source which refers to that person as Croatian? Wth are you talking about?!? You are supporting a known edit-warrior who pushes nationalistic POV. He deleted sourced information, he is trying to change the article, he is the one with the burden of proof, he is the one who should've started a discussion on talk page and there is none, why do you even involve yourself into matters you know nothing about? Banning both users? Ban me why? For reverting POV-pushing and deleting sourced content without discussion??? you are disgrace for a moderator...what has Wikipedia turned itself into when you are a moderator... Shokatz (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

He is right, we should return to Shokatz source. Gundulic is a Croatian poet. Not only the British source was placed (Britannica), two other sources were also added, but the user Sadko deleted it. Source from Yale University and Columbia Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivan_Gunduli%C4%87&diff=919127229&oldid=919116342 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.251.158.212 (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not my source (actually it's sources), it was in the article since at least 2014 until that troll idiot came by and pushing WP:FRINGE view. Shokatz (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the article understands that it is a Croatian poet, because it writes information only about Croatia and not about another country. The Troll Sadko wants to insert his own country and some Serb-Catholic movement that lasted for 20 years in the 19th century in order to create a Greater Serbia. He was 3 centuries after Gundulic's birth and has nothing to do with that era when Ivan Gundulic lived and to show Gundulic here that he was a Serb, which is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.251.158.212 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully someone will change to write correctly, Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.251.158.212 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

All this eloquence should be expended at Talk:Ivan Gundulić, not here. So far nobody has denied the existence of an edit war about nationality on this article. So the rationale for the protection is still in place, which is what concerns me as an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The rationale is there but how you applied is wrong, totally wrong. Given the edit history of the user whose version you decided to effectively impose by protecting the article with his POV in place is indeed concerning and seems like you have taken his side. The article whenever it is locked should be reverted to the status-quo version before the edit war started and no, it didn't start with me...it started way before I even appeared there and it was started by the same user whose version is now up. A disgrace... Shokatz (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Besides the edit war, I have noticed what seem to be personal attacks. The one I noticed earlier today was your edit summary here: "Shokatz (talk) 22:48 1 October 2019 Rvv, restored original lead.
'Rvv' means 'revert vandalism' So you are claiming that User:Sadko committed vandalism in his previous edit? In other words, he was deliberately trying to damage Wikipedia? --EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I don't have to go that far back to see the problem. Just above, at 19:29 on 2 October, you called him a 'troll idiot'. Do you stand by that language? EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Request a long extending block to User:Bankster

Bankster has been indeffed by User:Swarm. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello EdJohnston, this is an urgent message. User:Bankster was already unblocked and continously edit war at Freeform (TV channel) without an explanation. I know you previously blocked User:Bankster a couple of days ago at the edit war noticeboard it was reported by User:ViperSnake151. So for my request could you extend the block to User:Bankster because User:Bankster already continously edit war without an explanation you write a message at User:Bankster's talk page to block the user for a few days from the edit war noticeboard. I already revert to my good version and this is to avoid edit wars by other editors myself. I know one user was already blocked the user name is User:Goliathmob did revert to Bankster's version and User:Goliathmob did belong to User:Bankster. So please block User:Bankster again for a little longer due to Bankster's edit warring without an explanation and this is for my request. I will be happy to help you. Thanks for the urgent message and reply me back as soon as possible. Thanks. 2001:569:7C07:2600:C12:8928:449B:6FF (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Now at WP:ANI#User:Bankster edit wars over terminology. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article with several reverts

Hi EdJohnston. This article has seen several reverts since yesterday. The dispute seems to be over a trivial detail. I am bringing this to your attention as you might want to place a short protection on the article if reverts continue. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:Contributions/2a02:1811:3420:bf00::/64 as an IP-hopping edit warrior for 48 hours. Let me know if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I will tell you if I see problems again. Hopefully there will not be any more reverts. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry

Hi Ed. Thanks again for stepping in with User:68.129.15.71. However, I believe this account is using sock puppets to avoid the block. User:69.114.123.212 has just re-added material in a similar sourcing form as 68.129.15.71 used to do and follows the same habit of long ref's without formatting and creating see also pages that don't link to anything. I'm fairly confident the account User:EuroHorrorGuy is also related, but that could take more time and clarification. What do you think? Is there anything further I should do with this potential sockpuppetry? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be better to have a smoking gun. Have you noticed the two of them ever editing the same article? I see that both of them have entries in the edit filter log. The first IP was well-known for adding unsourced material. Do you notice the second one having the same problem? EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Socking

Accounts
Pages

Hi EdJohnston, how have you been? Stevanpesic was blocked back in August because of the disruption regarding Kosovo's legal status they were involved in. StevanM.Pešić, obviously linked with that account, is editing the same topic with apparently the same way of viewing things. Another meaningful detail is that the latter was created a day after the former. Can you block StevanM.Pešic for patent socking? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Both of them have used several times as edit summary the article's content and links to other Wikipedia articles or news sites. DavideSpielberg was created the same day as StevanM.Pešic and has edited the same topic with the same way of writing edit summaries. I think a SPI with a CU request might be warranted now that there are more than 2 accounts concerned but I will open one only if the unblocked accounts continue editing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Ktrimi991: why are you not filing this at WP:SPI? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Ivanvector:, I originally considered the case to be an easy one that did not need a SPI. I posted here because EdJohnston is a very experienced admin in Balkan matters and has blocked many socks in the past. Now that I noticed that StevanM.Pešić might not be the only sock, I think that a CU can help to clarify whether these accounts are socks or friends editing together. I will try to find the time to prepare a SPI report and file it in the few coming hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
All the accounts listed above are now blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevanpesic/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Revoke?

Could you revoke talk page access for the IP 190.238.29.214? Vandalizing his talk page. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 16:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. People are allowed to remove block notices. The guy is just supplying more evidence that he shouldn't return to editing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ban evasion of recently blocked user

Hi, I'm not that familiar with the English banning policies, but I noticed that User:JeBonSer created a new account to keep editing Electronic harassment during the ban: Version history. User:VQuakr reported the user originally. --mfb (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New account blocked. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
And another one, blocked by User:ST47 this time. --mfb (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Acroterion has now put semiprotection on Electronic harassment which ought to help. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@VQuakr, Mfb, ST47, and Acroterion: Before believing and accusing my account, those new user accounts are just repeating what I contribute in order to dupe the other editors that the owner of the account is the same. I'm a Targeted Individual (TI). You can easily spot that the first new created account (Basilvera (talk · contribs)) repeats what I previously contribute and he/she even paraphrased my edit summary. And the second new created account (Peleswift (talk · contribs)) is doing the same and my account was accused of sock puppetry for this account. How can I sacrifice my account to be stained if I knew the sock puppetry rules. I'm a long time editor. Only 3RR was my mistake because I didn't notice that I exceed four reversion because at that time, many editors editing on the Electronic harassment page and I can't easily noticed that my contributions had exceeded four reverts. The question here is that am I that so stupid? You can easily spot that these new user accounts are created by the groups who persecutes me. They made tactics to stain my account and to be easily suspected by the users, administrators and checkusers. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 20:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

See the comment at User talk:ST47#User:JeBonSer complains of being impersonated, where User:ST47 provides his own analysis of the situation. My original 3RR block of JeBonSer was per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive397#User:JeBonSer reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked). From his comments above, JeBonSer appears to believe he is a Targeted individual, i.e, that he is personally being subjected to electronic harassment. Our article on Electronic harassment defines it as a conspiracy theory involving government agents. If JeBonSer sincerely believes that government agents are targeting him with electromagnetic radiation, I hope that won't affect the neutrality of his editing here, whether or not the original sockpuppet charges are correct. JeBonSer's claim 'You can easily spot that these new user accounts are created by the groups who perpetrate me' does not sound very convincing. Be aware of the rules about WP:ASPERSIONS. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Religion numbers vandal

Hi, it looks like an IP editor from Greece is continuing to vandalize statistics numbers in articles about religious and LGBT topics. I March, I made this ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Persistent false information/changes to religion demographics by dynamic IP editor. You blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5500::/44 and said to let you know if I saw anything else. In May, the block was extended and Special:Contributions/94.69.63.0/24 was also blocked, see: User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46#Religious statistics IP vandal has returned.

Recently there have been more edits from 2A02:587:5500::/44 that look like the same person, and from Special:Contributions/94.68.254.127/24 as well as Special:Contributions/2A02:587:6003:7F00:389B:4349:A9CC:6D0B/64. They've been repeating the same edits in LGBT rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, since May - I checked the sources and their numbers are false.

Earlier there was also Special:Contributions/94.68.190.0/24, Special:Contributions/94.69.72.230, Special:Contributions/94.69.229.1, and a few others, but I guess those are old now. Maybe you have time to take a look? Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I had previously blocked Special:Contributions/2a02:587:5500::/44. That block was for one month; later, User:Ponyo issued a 3-month block of the same range. They are free to edit now. Recent edits (since September 2019) are not obvious vandalism though sourcing is not 100% clear.
Thanks... I had also mentioned Special:Contributions/94.68.254.127 above being active vandalizing in the past few weeks, latest the 18th, did you see that? There had also been Special:Contributions/94.68.254.182 back in January/February, but nothing in between. There haven't been any other edits in the range Special:Contributions/94.68.254.0/24 since 2015. So a block of the IP or range could be ok, unless it's too late already.
You're right that the latest edits from Special:Contributions/2a02:587:5500::/44 after the block aren't obviously vandalism, though the articles/topics seem suspiciously the same - probably it's just a matter of time, I'll try to keep an eye on it.
I cleaned up Sarakatsani, but it doesn't strike me as the same person (and not necessarily vandalism). Maybe Special:Contributions/2A02:587:6003:7F00::/64 would be enough instead of Special:Contributions/2a02:587:6000::/44?
Special:Contributions/94.69.229.0/24 mostly looks like a different person I think, who does a large number of sports article edits. The most recent religion vandalism is in August, some earlier ones include .46, .27, .252, .228, .58, .159, .231, .125, .93, and .12, but even within those there is some crossover, e.g. in .27 it's only the one edit in July, the rest in March are sports, similarly with .12 in December. Doesn't seem like anything can be done here in terms of blocking.
I started looking through the whole Special:Contributions/2A02:587::/32 for the past couple of months, but it would take me a bit longer to make sense of it... --IamNotU (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the new data. I undid the /44 block of the 6000 range as you suggested and have replaced it with a block of Special:Contributions/2A02:587:6003:7F00::/64. The Sept 15 edit from the 6003 range at Religion in Lebanon is the trademark action of the person we call the 'religion numbers vandal'. The '5500' range at 2a02:587:5500::/44 is not behaving badly at the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
As I suspected, it didn't take long for Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5500::/44 to start behaving badly, in this edit: [3] they've changed the number to 30%, but I checked the source and it does say 70%. There haven't been any more edits in Special:Contributions/94.68.254.0/24 since Friday, so I guess I can just keep checking back in case there are. --IamNotU (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Based on your new finding, the IP range at Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5500::/44 is being operated by the same editor to do the same vandalism, so I've applied a six-month block, which is twice the previous length. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks for taking care of it! I'll let you know if I see anything else... --IamNotU (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Gas van

Taking into account that there are already long (I would say, redundantly long) discussions on the talk page, RSN and NPOVN, your proposal to discuss it does not seem wise: a discussion has already made several full rounds, mostly due to a resistance of one of the participants of that edit war. This article is covered by WP:ARBEE, so you have a right to impose some DS upon it. I suggest you to do this. If only good scholarly sources are allowed in this article, that solves 90% of all problems. There will be no reason in article's protection. Think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Paul is making a significant effort to discredit WP:RS-compliant sources he does not like on this page, from arguing to use a blog [4] (which has nothing to do with improving the sourcing), to this suggestion. Also note that at least a part of Gas van page is arguably covered by his topic ban [5], just as his RSNB posting [6] because they are both related to/about gas vans that were used by Nazi at the occupied Soviet territory. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Per Sandstein's explanations, 1937 events, as well as Holocaust denial (in general), are definitely not covered by a EF related topic ban. The whole edit war (I was not a part thereof, by the way) was caused by extensive usage of primary and questionable sources related to 1937 events in Moscow, which definitely do not belong to Eastern Front. Application of restrictions on source usage (we have several good quality English sources that cover this subject) will eliminate the very roots of the conflict, and it will cease quickly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Such sanctions will only force admins to rule on the content and decide to infinity who misrepresented the sources and if certain sources were "academic". For example, these guys will argue that if a historian published several books, but did not receive a PhD degree specifically in history and does not work in a University, then his publications would not "qualify", etc. Such arguments have nothing to do with enforcing the WP:RS, just as the posting about the blog.
The limiting types of sources can work just fine with subjects that are widely known and widely covered in the scientific literature. In other cases, such as news, politics, or cases when there are simply not enough data (because KGB did not open its archives and destroyed the evidence, for example), limiting the types of sources defeats the purpose of the WP and WP:NPOV by effectively censuring information, even such that was published in WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Only high-quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.

The sources are either peer-reviewed or they are not. I've participated in some of the debates at Collaboration...; things calmed down after the restriction was introduced, without further involvement from admins. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, it will not lead to disruption. I only said it will lead to censoring/excluding important information about Stalinist crimes from the page and would be contrary to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and the purpose of WP. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
So, what I am saying is this. Such sourcing restriction might be fine for the Holocaust in Poland because it is covered in a huge number of scholarly sources. But it would be detrimental for a lot more obscure subjects from the Soviet history, such as that one. Some of them are covered only by a small number of RS, most of them in Russian. Making such restriction would in fact prevent their coverage per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: My full protection of the Gas van article has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

EOKA

Hi EdJohnston. The EOKA article has had several reverts recently. I am leaving this note here as you might want to put a short protection on the article, if the reverts continue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  Boo!

Happy Halloween!

Hello EdJohnston:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – DBigXrayᗙ 15:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Opinions

Kindly keep your opinions to yourself. They're not wanted, they're not needed. They just put you in a bad light. Thanks. CassiantoTalk 07:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Is your comment in the right place? I have no opinion on the Alec Guinness article, I was closing out a report at WP:AN3 by giving warnings to both editors. As usual, the parties can appeal if they think my action was wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sock block 2

Hello EdJohnston, this user (User:Shyobyus) has been placing lies on articles for the last two days, I have reverted them and immediately he has been reverting my editions in a lot of pages claiming that my editions are irrelevant when it is not, we are only in a war of editions like in 5 pages, and more pages because he gets into all the articles I edit and dont let me work. I had the same problem with this blocked account User:Generic515 and three more puppets of this account (User:GrandLucky, User:JkMastru, User:Voche537), since he appears every 3 weeks with a new account, I say it because he always attacks the same related pages (about Mexico, mainly Mexico City) and also to my person, ever.

interesting here how all the aforementioned blocked accounts is editing on the same Template:Political Divisions of Mexico including the user in question, the template is not edited by anyone else.--BrugesFR (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC) And look, this recent edition of this user is a clear threat towards me Revision as of 00:17, 16 November 2019 (edit) (undo) (thank) Shyobyus "the last time that you touch the Colonial Mexico articles". I develop the articles of the wikipedia every day extensively, but he is blocking me now with that threat. Thank you--BrugesFR (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You already posted this in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Generic515. It's better to wait until that report is acted on. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Neptune's Trident

It was about 10 minutes ago you posted at ANEW but still no block?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Now done. Sitting in a Wikimedia conference with only an iPad. --EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Dunno whether it's the negative effect of being at a Wikimedia conference (Boston?) or Apple's influence (smiling as to both), but it's not done.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
NOW done. Just a mental lapse, not the fault of Boston. But how can a person work with no tilde key? --EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Based on my knowledge of Boston, it probably is the fault of its citizens, who have not known what they were doing for many, many years.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Citizens of Boston must have displeased you at some point. Maybe in some past life here? EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Considering that there are no doubt many Bostonian Wikipedians who might take offense at having their city tarnished, I do not think a frank reply is appropriate. I will say, though, that Boston is a beautiful city with many things to recommend it as a place to visit. I hope you're enjoying yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Badr

Protection is now in its fourth year. Can you unprotect? 80.195.228.113 (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: As Ed is having connectivity problems, could you do the unprotect here? 80.195.228.113 (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Consider making an {{edit semi-protected}} request on the talk page, specifying the change you want to make. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sock block

Hi EdJohnston, 141.8.119.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is active again today, and over the past few weeks, after your six-month block expired. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder/Archive#29 March 2019. It looks to be the same person, doing the same disruptive edits in "irreligion" articles. Maybe you could renew the block? Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked again for two years. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Etymology edit wars

Hi Ed. I'd be happy to help make an RfC happen, though taking the lead would be difficult with how little time I have at the moment. Whether for you or me or anyone else reading, I'll give just my initial thoughts. I'll be honest I'm actually even less optimistic that consensus can be achieved after reading the thread you linked. What I saw there was essentially a couple of people speaking up for policy and everyone else trying to decide what degree of original research and editorializing is acceptable in the interest of completeness. A huge part of the difficulty I think in both that discussion and getting people interested in the topic generally is that it has proved incredibly tedious to explain exactly how a lot of these etymologies constitute original research.

I agree with Wimpus' assessment that some people who have gotten involved lack the foreign language comprehension meaningfully discuss the details. That is, I think a lot of people are recognizing that they lack the expertise to contribute, but a handful think they have it when they don't. As a result, they don't even realize when they're conducting original research. I was going to say it's like writing content while citing a source in a language you can't read, but then I realized that is precisely what is happening. But then I step back and realize that this sort of thing would never fly in other subject areas - we would say "no original research, hard stop", and call it a day.

And perhaps that's a framing that would prevent non-experts from avoiding the subject. Start with a simple up or down, "should an etymology be provided that is not literally given in the cited source?" Just getting a consensus on that would be a huge help, and if the answer is no, it would at least focus subsequent discussion. In either case there would still be the lingering question of what to do when the person who named a plant mangled his Greek and said something false, although that is not a unique issue to this one part of Wikipedia. It's the same issue that's faced when a notable person in a significant work says something that's literally factually incorrect but no reliable sources have pointed out the mistake.

By the way, I'm sorry if at this point I'm less responding to your simple question and more vomiting my stream of consciousness onto your talk page, but at the very least I think writing this has made me realize that everyone involved in this dispute probably needs to step back and stop discussing Greek and start discussing very basic policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Someguy1221, thank you for response and suggestions. Do you invite us to respond to "should an etymology be provided that is not literally given in the cited source?"? Wimpus (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: & EdJohnson, I was getting ready to start on a proposal this morning, when I saw y'all were talking about it. I was going to ask @Peter coxhead: and @MWAK: for help in drafting it. If neither you or EdJohnson object, and if Peter or MWAK is willing to help draft it, I'd be willing to take point. I admit Wimpus and I have already had disagreements involving etymology (see Talk:Dasymalla_chorisepala and Talk:Dendrochytridium, and if either of you think that makes me too involved to take lead, I can accept that decision. Or, if I'm too inexperienced, which is possible, I can accept that too. TelosCricket (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello TelosCricket. Please go ahead. If you drafting an RfC then you shouldn't be concerned about your prior involvement. From my scan of the prior discussion, it seemed to me that User:Peter coxhead was one of the people who understood the linguistic issues, though there may have been others. If editors follow policy carefully, my guess is that some people will be disappointed, because some of the published etymologies *are* less than ideal from a linguistic viewpoint, but our rules about WP:OR don't really permit Wikipedia editors to improve upon them. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
My own view is that this is too complex an issue to be handled effectively by an RfC. I can only repeat that I think that what is needed is a guidance page on writing etymologies in articles about taxa, probably kept under WP:TOL. Issues involved include (but are very much not limited too):
  • What exactly is the purpose of etymologies in taxon articles.
  • What to do when the original author includes an etymology which contains linguistic errors.
  • How to use other sources when the original author does not include an etymology.
  • Whether we should use sources which give etymologies for commonly used specific names/epithets, but not explicitly for the species in question.
  • How much original language (Greek, Latin, whatever) should be given in an etymology.
  • Whether it's permissible to combine sources to explain the origin and meaning of a scientific name.
  • When such a guidance page exists, then widespread comment on it can be invited and will (hopefully) lead to a consensus – i.e. the RfC should be on whether to accept a draft guidance page. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
courtsey ping @Peter coxhead: Would you be willing to take part in drafting such guidelines? TelosCricket (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
In principle, yes, but right now I'm occupied with some non-trivial changes to the automated taxobox system (as per the long thread at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 3#Quoted genus names). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Peter coxhead addresses important issues. Thanks! I might want to add the following questions:
  1. What to do when a secondary source provides an etymology which contains linguistic errors.
  2. What to do when a number of secondary sources provide contradictory etymologies.
  3. What are reliable sources for etymology?
  4. How to interpret certain sources.
To illustrate my fourth question: Peter coxhead seems to interpret the word-forming elements in the glossary of Stearn's Botanical Latin as "Greek-derived", while others seem to interpret these word-forming elements as real (ancient) Greek. Wimpus (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Those are good questions/points. TelosCricket (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I copied the above conversation to here (the talk page of where I will drafting things) so that the part involving what needs to be part of the guidelines/proposal can continue there. If anyone objects (especially the admins) feel free to undo it. TelosCricket (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Opinions invited

Hi Ed, It has been almost a year and a half since I was granted the page mover bit after which I started helping at WP:RMT. I have learnt a lot in the past months. I wanted to get some feedback on my workdone at RMT, and asking you since you are one of the recently active admin over there. Is my work good/satisfactory/poor etc ? Is there something that I can improve, so that I can contribute in a better way ? I will be very thankful to you for this kind gesture. Please ping me when you reply. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I did a quick scan of your move log and didn't notice any problems. Though this is not a comment about you, whenever I have noticed moves at RMTR that I disagreed with, the most common reason was somebody going ahead with a technical move where a full discussion would have been a better choice. (For example, a move that superficially sounds good but is actually against a widespread practice). I was glad to see that with Tharparkar district you did a talk page consultation before going ahead with the move. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I try to tread carefully in such cases, and often request the nominator to produce evidence/justification. So far this has worked well for me. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 A glass of Thandai for you
Here is a glass of Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of almonds, fennel seeds, watermelon kernels, rose petals, pepper, vetiver seeds, cardamom, saffron, milk and sugar.
I really appreciate, you taking out the time to look into my request for feedback. Coming from an experienced admin, this means a lot to me. Looking forward to future collaborations. Cheers
Thank you.

DBigXrayᗙ 17:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Well, you are already familiarized to some extent

That's why I am asking you, Ed, if you are willing to take this issue into your hands once more, you know some aspect of this problem, and to be frank it isn't a joke anymore (if it ever was), I can't even edit anymore on those couple of articles (Turkish and Donji) without being reverted completely, regardless of amount of prose, information and sources that I put in, and that Ceha (or it's just a matter of time for Silverije to appear) won't remove with their usual "vandalism" edit-summary. I actually started suspecting that this is now personal for these editors, especially since they are well aware that I took part in Rfc (meta) regarding problems with Wikipedia in Croatian language. Maybe I am complicating my reports too much or admins simply don't want to engage with obscure topics, whatever, but no one can claim lack of effort to resolve and reasonably explain issues on my part surrounding these problematic articles.--౪ Santa ౪99° 04:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Turkish Croatia is a. An obscure topic, b. An unclear dispute, c. Has few Englieh language sources, d. Is hard for admins to figure out. It is somewhat easier to deal with a dispute like the one at Ivan Gundulić. In that case, it is easier to imagine that those wanting him to be Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Ragusan might have some ethnic motivation. In the case of Turkish Croatia I suppose that, if there really was a Turkish Croatia at some point, it strengthens a possible claim that Croatia is the true owner of some territory that is now in Bosnia. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: you are clear as a clear day, sir, and I couldn't have said it any better, or more clearer, or add anything else. It is all that you explained and on top of it, it never existed except as a trope - but how could one explain that to someone who is not acquainted, to some degree, with regional history, with or without some evidence, especially if such evidence do not exists for something that never existed. It's a famous Bertrand Russell's "teapot in space" conundrum, and the burden of proof should fall on those who claim it existed. If they can prove that Turkish Croatia existed, then it would be easy to include that in article, and article existence as a standalone would be validated. Problem is that those who think they have a proof actually have some military maps made by one side in the conflict (Austria-Venetian Rep.), drawn based on one side border-commission report, and they have some 19th c. popular magazines with published excerpts from front-line officers diaries, and at one of the link, I believe, they have excerpts from the border-commission report itself. This commission went out to the newly established frontlines to demarcate new borders, established with peace treaties. So, basically, it wasn't geographical term, it wasn't political, nobody ever used it in any communication, Bosnians certainly never used it, and its theirs country, and so on. Some early medieval history of the region is murky and undocumented, so what happened in the region in the 8th and 9th century, almost a millennia before, when various Croatian states in various political and territorial form existed, is irrelevant. Not to mention that if validate such questions and claims of true ownership over lands in this context in Bosnia, than such validation would be applicable all over Europe, which would make our continent, and indeed entire world, truly horrendous place to live in. So would editing wikipedia. I don't wish to annoy you any further, but if you are interested in some additional information or reasoning, ping me, I would actually be happy to add few more lines :-)--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If Turkish Croatia is just a nationalist trope, then it should be documentable like other tropes, such as Italia irredenta, Megali idea or Northern Epirus. That would require documenting 'who' believed 'what' at which time in history, which would take spectacularly good sourcing. It seems unlikely that anyone would have the patience to find the needed sources, even if they exist. Maybe there are works of diplomatic history that have looked into this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
After this article caught my attention, I spent a lot of time researching to find something in academic sources on the subject, but all I could find was what I included in the article at this point: 3 papers are academic research, and two references are daily press articles (both outlets are highly credible Croatian political magazines, and articles are interview and short essay, if I recall correctly). This shortage in sources is the main reason why I insisted that the article be merged with the article concerning that region (Bosanska Krajina), where a subsection would be made (say, Name or Etymology or some such usual subtitle), so that what can be confirmed by reliable sources is then outlined there. I was able to find those five, and they are reliable researches from credible scholars with good credentials (and for what is worth, they are all Croatian scholars, so are people in those two magazine articles), and maybe something else can be found for additional confirmation, but with all the pressure and constant disruption, I saw no reason to look any further.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If you think it should be merged, then the mention of Turkish Croatia in the merge target would presumably be quite brief. Possibly one paragraph. If you agree, then you might consider what kind of a paragraph could be written based on the sources that you consider reliable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course, I could do that. I could take key line, those most informative, which can be directly confirmed with existing sources. I would most certainly prefer someone neutral, possibly with some idea about the subject, helping me in deciding on the amount of prose, but that's doesn't seem viable at this moment. In any case, if you think that I should rewrite some prose with these existing references, than I could try to find best parts and give you input on it tomorrow same time, so that you can check how it looks, and decide on it?--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could put that together. I can't say whether the others will accept it. But if a merge is proposed, it may be easier to get support if it appears that somebody has a plan for how to condense Turkish Croatia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, I will, than, try to do that. And then new proposal for merger is needed, since that old one expired (not to mention everything else that happened during merger discussion). There is another point - when you mentioned articles examples on (Greek and Italian) irredentism, I wanted to note that my intention was to try to salvage "Turkish Croatia" ("TC") as an article on one aspect of Croatian irredentism, but what didn't occurred to me is that there is an article on Greater Croatia - just like Serbian expressed through Greater Serbia - and that that article may have some contextual sources which deal with trope "Turkish Croatia". This also means that some, or to a degree different, version of condensed "TC" could be included into both articles, Greater Croatia as well as into Bosanska Krajina, which is related to "TC" trope as its geographical allocation. What could this mean for eventual redirection (I know little about technical aspect of merger, redirect, etc.)? My plan include investigation on what is written in Greater Croatia, does this piece mention Turkish Croatia, and if so how, to check refs there to see if any contextual could be used, and try to find a way to include portions of prose into both, Bosanska Krajina and Greater Croatia. I will keep you in the loop, though, and try to finish this until tomorrow same time. If you have time, and if you are interested, you can check Greater Croatia, and offer your thoughts on whole idea?--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, please note that my timetable, which I set above, may actually needs some adjustment (extension) - I am stuck in hell, and I need to work parallelly on more than one problem at the time, but I reviewed both Bosanska Krajina and Greater Croatia articles to gain some insight in what parts of Turkish Croatia should be proposed for merger with which target article. I will work something out, and create at least two shortened version in my sandbox (which can be viewed here). As soon as I have something, I'll ping you and ask for additional directions (about renewal of merger process and if goes through, redirection).--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Crnojević noble family

Crnojević noble family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi EdJohnston. The article has seen many reverts lately. One of the editors involved, Sadko, has been warned twice by you for edit warring [7][8]. I am leaving this note here as you might want to keep an eye on the article and protect it if reverts continue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice you gave to one of the editors. Although I am not involved or particularly interested in the content dispute, I invited the involved editors to discuss on the talk page, and gave some suggestions how they might proceed [9]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone watching this page, the advice you mentioned was at this link. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Protection of page of Steve Chen

Thank you for protecting this page. The reverting user has refused/neglected every opportunity given to engage on the Talk page despite my requests. My question is, since the user's additions have been included in the protected version of the page, what is the appropriate next step for me? I have tried to engage on the Talk page regarding the specific additions the user wanted to make but the user has refused. I don't believe that the additions are appropriate given Wikipedia regulations for biographies and have provided my reasons why on the Talk page. If I edit it once again after the protection is removed, I will be engaging in edit-warring which I definitely do not wish to do, and I strongly feel the user will just continue to edit-war and refuse to engage in discussion on the Talk page. What is the appropriate thing for me to do? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned that the IP's last edit adds a citation to the Daily Mirror, and adds a claim that Taiwan holds nuclear weapons. While this edit is very peculiar, I wasn't sure if I could revert it under admin authority, but have no objection if somebody else does it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If I revert it, would I be engaging in edit-warring? Would it be appropriate? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it would be edit warring. If you do revert the edit, you can open up a thread on the talk page explaining why you made the change. Anyone who disagrees can then give their reasons. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Another editor has now undone the change. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, yes I saw Apoorva Iyer (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Market Raja MBBS

Why have your protected the page from false cast. The lead actress is nikesha patel. And you have written kavya thapar. And removed nikesha Patel's name. Please add her name to the lead cast and add her name in the cast section also. Regards. Tamilcinemachannel (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears this is already dealt with. See Talk:Market Raja MBBS. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well EJ. MarnetteD|Talk 21:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

cheers

Merry Christmas, EdJohnston!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Enforcement

Hello, who should request enforcement on everything what happened in the last two months, and is now happening on [[10]] and will certainly continue to happen on article after article on medieval history of Bosnia.--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You are still free to open an AE if you want. But you could see if you can find an administrator or long-experienced editor who believes that an AE filing is justified. From a review of Talk:Bosnia (early medieval polity), I notice that User:Bradv was trying to mediate some kind of solution. I am unsure if he is still able to give advice since he was just elected to Arbcom, but he is the type of person whose advice would be useful if you think a filing should be considered. There are also a few admins who specialize in Balkan topics. Personally I think that the criticism by some editors of the work of John V. A. Fine might be the starting point of a valid complaint, but it's quite a long story to tell. (People opposed to using him as a source appear to believe he is not sympathetic enough to the Croatian side). So here's a guy with great scholarly qualities that one of the nationalities dislikes because he doubts some of their claims. This is the kind of thing that might be filed at WP:RSN if you had the patience. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
EdJohnston, if you don't mind me chipping in, as I am one of the involved parties. I believe if Santa wasn't present, they would wreak havoc across articles on the medieval history of Bosnia. Particular editor Čeha is trying to push a unique narrative about it, which he has already done on Croatian Wikipedia while using almost no references. I have tried to document some highlights of the nature of these changes. Believe me its a very unique narrative that has no support in mainstream Croatian historiography even. It is unbelievable, but maybe not so much, as that Wikipedia is controversial from 2013 onwards. English Wikipedia was always thought of as a safe harbor from all nationalistic jibberish all 3 Wikipedias (bs, sr, hr). It seems they are on the offensive, but sadly some of the core authors that created all those articles in the first place are not responding, but my hope that it will change. Mhare (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ed, you are really kind and patient with me, and this whole mess, thank you. I had, as you could maybe notice, patience in abundance, and I have some in reserve still, but the problem is that, even though I learned most of the rules, everything I did in practical sense in the last couple of months was first time for me, I had to discover how things work in practice. I edited wikipedia for ten years, and only for the last year or so I felt, maybe, I am ready to plunge myself into some of the more controversial topics, where editors involve themselves emotionally rather than intellectually - and I have made a grave error in judgment, because this is one hell of a web of rules and practical operations, while the tenaciousness of emotional involvement is nearly unendurable. Thanks for good advice, I will see what I can do. And allow me to apologize in advance for any eventual inconvenience which I may cause in the near future, if or when I need to ask some question(s).--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I was working on trying to mediate an edit war, but this has turned into a pretty exhaustive dispute and it needs some fresh eyes, preferably from someone with a little more knowledge of the subject matter. Please feel free to get involved, or take it to AE as necessary. – bradv🍁 21:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

2 more sleeps - Ho, Ho, Ho!!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme Talk 📧 18:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Move protection

Hello, I noticed you responded to the request for page protection and move protected Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Livi Zheng. I would like to know how. I tried to do that, but I've never applied move protection before and it's greyed out for me on my protection menu. However, from what I can tell administrators are supposed to be able to do that, and I don't see that you have any rights that I don't, so I'm confused. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

On the (admin-only) protection menu, there is a box you can check 'Unlock further protection options'. Then the move protection will no longer be greyed out. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I missed that box. Why is it there? That makes no sense. At any rate, thanks for solving my confusion! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It helps with a common case, when there has been move warring but there is no reason to protect the article itself against editing. In that case you are able to put No protection on the article, and Full protection against moving. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Take a look?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nevillean_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#The_need_to_undo_all_of_the_recent_edits Tom Reedy (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@edjohnston Hi Ed, I'd be grateful to better understand the implications of this sanction. An editor Alexbrn has completely rewritten the page (without any prior consultation on the Talk page (let alone with me as first author). He has limited the arguments for Neville to outdated material (latest 2007 - many books have been published since then). The outcome is not a balanced discussion of the Neville theory (as it was previously) - rather, it is a polemic dismissal of this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphWinwood (talk • contribs) 01:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on pages related to Shakespeare authorship is bound to be noticed by administrators. If those involved are careful to follow Wikipedia policy, including the policies of WP:Reliable sources and WP:CONSENSUS, they should not have any trouble. If you are trying to work in this domain, you should be willing to embrace the available scholarship, which in many cases may have a mainstream tilt. Wikipedia is unlikely to sign on to a new theory that is not yet accepted by the majority of scholars. So, if you can find a way to persuade the scholars you will persuade us. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no desire at all to get into an edit war (esp not at Christmas!). I want to preserve the status quo in the short term so that changes can be considered one by one. The page has been stable since it was subject to a proposition to delete in 2016 (by Tom Reedy above) which failed. I support Kfein's suggestion to reverse all changes over the last few days and incorporate enhancements in a consultative way. Is this possible?RalphWinwood (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A WP:Request for comment is a good way to colect opinions on a specific question. If you want, you can have an RfC that asks multiple questions. Any formal RfC is centrally advertised and can bring in people new to the discussion. If you are willing to consider this, ask any experienced person for assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Alexbr has made so many changes - it's a complete rewrite. Right now the article serves only to debunk the theory - based on observations that are 12 years old. I presume because the more recent evidence can't be debunked. Is it not possible for an administrator to revert to an earlier stable version so that editors can consider what is to be added and what he has removed, one edit at a time? RalphWinwood (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to engage with another editor on specific questions - but what's been done to this article is not collegial and doesn't respect the scrutiny and efforts that have gone into its evolution to this point.RalphWinwood (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


Just FYI I was not the one to bring the article up for deletion, and I didn't even vote for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sir_Henry_Neville_theory_of_Shakespeare_Authorship. And both RalphWinwood and Kfein need to read and digest WP:PA. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
No one has attacked you personally. I have only documented your pattern of harassment of me on [REDACTED - Oshwah] on two separate occasions. Kfein (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Usually, behavior outside Wikipedia is not something we consider here. If you think someone has mistreated you on Facebook, complain to Facebook. Making statements that link people to off-Wikipedia activity, unless they have admitted it here, may be considered WP:OUTING. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: you may want to have a look at Talk:Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship as some stuff's been written there which may need redacting.

As to the other complaints about the article, before my edits it was full of fringey original research based on primary sources: it is at least now firmly sourced with top-tier academic secondary sources. So far as I can see the mainstream scholarly view of this theory (that it is cranky nonsense) was settled shortly after it was first mooted in 2005, and there are no reputable sources that have deviated from that view. Further discussion of content should take place at the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello EdJohnston: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Edits by Spanish user sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’

Click to view.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Ed,

VandalUser/Sockpuppet should be BLOCKED, unique intention of malicious reverts and posts on the Moorish/Jewish genetic component of the Portuguese people. This is a very strange and obsessive conduct as the user/IP address which I reported, onl6 does just that. Same user with several (possibly more) aliases IP 46.222.138.139, IP 84.78.247.214 and now signing as user:NormanGear.

This sockpuppet was created only last week with the sole purpose of malicious editing against this page: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people

and conversely, try and rid the equivalent Spanish people/Spaniards of exactly the same contents which are totally relevant to Spain, more than to Portugal. Now that I made it clear I will not allow such abusive and vandal conduct, they’ve just proven my point all along. Any materials which touch/evidence the SAME topic in the Spaniards page, is reverted... bit like “wanting the cake and eating it”. So basically we go back to my repeated requests to make the Portuguese people page permanently semi-protected (the Spanish equivalent already is) so that this kind of Vandalism from invariably Spaniards/Brazilians against the Portuguese people stops once and for all.

See recent history where it shows their activity:

version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

curprev 16:22, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,256 bytes +1‎ Disambiguation undo curprev 16:21, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,255 bytes -655‎ Removed sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’s malicious edit once again. Their sole contribution is Mooris/Jewish genetics attempt to Portuguese people only. Going to add ALL sources to Spanish people as Iberia is mainly Spain and the Spanish page desperately tries to hide the Moors and Jews. undo curprev 09:31, 27 December 2019‎ Rodw talk contribs‎ m 88,910 bytes +8‎ Disambiguating links to Berber (link changed to Berbers) using DisamAssist. undothank curprev 18:11, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,902 bytes -1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:10, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,903 bytes +35‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:08, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,868 bytes +1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:07, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,867 bytes +25‎ Deleted phrase not supported by the source. Added literal phrase from the source itself. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 07:44, 23 December 2019‎ PohranicniStraze talk contribs‎ m 88,842 bytes 0‎ sp undothank curprev 13:40, 22 December 2019‎ DumbBOT talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -15‎ removing a protection template from a non-protected page (info) undo curprev 16:27, 21 December 2019‎ EncMstr talk contribs‎ 88,857 bytes +15‎ + undothank curprev 16:24, 21 December 2019‎ EncMstr talk contribs‎ m 88,842 bytes 0‎ Protected "Portuguese people": Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 04:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 04:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC))) undothank curprev 16:10, 21 December 2019‎ KylieTastic talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -244‎ Reverted 5 edits by Melroross: Not valid - the correct place would be Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but its not valdalism it looks more like a difference of opinion (TW) undothank Tag: Undo curprev 15:59, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,086 bytes -8‎ Protection undo curprev 15:58, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,094 bytes +8‎ Protection undo curprev 15:58, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,086 bytes -8‎ undo curprev 15:57, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,094 bytes -30‎ undo curprev 15:56, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,124 bytes +282‎ Semi-protecting undo curprev 15:56, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes +1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:55, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,841 bytes -75‎ I reverse the issue until I discuss the problem. I have started a thread in Talk. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:35, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,916 bytes +74‎ Undid revision 931835326 by NormanGear (talk) Requested permanent Block for all IP addresses used so far. Several profiles signed and unsigned by one same individual with the sole purpose of Vandalism undo Tag: Undo curprev 15:34, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -74‎ Undid revision 931835326 by NormanGear (talk) Requested permanent Block for all IP addresses used so far. Several profiles signed and unsigned by one same individual with the sole purpose of Vandalism undo Tag: Undo curprev 15:29, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,916 bytes +74‎ The fact there are other articles where this information is specified does not give the right to delete it in this article. And the previous sentence is not supported by the source attached. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:20, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -74‎ Undid revision 931834084 by NormanGear (talk) this is already in the Genetics of the Iberian Peninsula. What is the obsession with Jews and Moors? undo Tag: Undo curprev 15:17, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,916 bytes +74‎ Extracted faithful fragments from the source: "Admixture analysis based on binary and Y-STR haplotypes indicates a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%) and Sephardic Jewish (19.8%) sources." "The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low" undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit curprev 14:21, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes 0‎ Undid revision 931827447 by 84.78.247.214 (talk) same Vandalism edits undo Tag: Undo curprev 14:20, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -968‎ Undid revision 931827335 by 84.78.247.214 (talk) Undid repeated MALICIOUS edits form unidentified Hispanic IP address based in Alarcon undo Tag: Undo curprev 14:08, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes 0‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 14:07, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes +968‎ Recovered, the sources are scientific studies, not opinions. The source itself used in this article and the two new ones added by me state that Jewish and North African genetics are quite significant. And that is concentrated in the western half of the Peninsula. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 13:39, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -968‎ Undid biased, unsigned edit. Al Andalus genetic mark already has a sub section on this page undo curprev 09:32, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes -1‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:27, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,811 bytes +1‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:26, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes -16‎ Third source: "The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low" undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:11, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,826 bytes -24‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:07, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,850 bytes -2‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:06, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,852 bytes +1,010‎ The source used states that there is 19.8% of Jewish admixture and 10% North Africa. That is not limited or little. I have added more sources. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 08:48, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 88,842 bytes 0‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 08:14, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 88,842 bytes -8‎ Not lead. Voyages of Christopher Columbus was the major event in the Age of Discovery undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 21:04, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,850 bytes +163‎ More cited sources undo curprev 20:57, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,687 bytes +190‎ Sourced quote, previously deleted by unsigned Spanish IP address undo curprev 20:51, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,497 bytes +246‎ Undid revision 931670991 by 46.222.138.139 (talk) undo Tag: Undo curprev 17:05, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,251 bytes +121‎ Religious affiliation data source undo curprev 16:55, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,130 bytes 0‎ Comma undo curprev 16:54, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,130 bytes +159‎ Hasdingi sourced content undo curprev 16:45, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,971 bytes +98‎ More on Suebians undo curprev 16:40, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,873 bytes +87‎ Sourced content undo curprev 16:32, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,786 bytes +193‎ Pre Celt sourced undo curprev 16:23, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,593 bytes +85‎ Goths sourced quote undo curprev 16:23, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,508 bytes +70‎ Goths sourced quote undo curprev 16:01, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,438 bytes +236‎ Sourced content added undo curprev 15:28, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,908 bytes +76‎ Sourced content undo curprev 15:18, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,832 bytes +53‎ Sourced content added undo curprev 15:13, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,779 bytes +316‎ Added sourced quotes undo curprev 15:10, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,463 bytes +62‎ Sourced content undo curprev 15:08, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,401 bytes -62‎ Sourced quote undo curprev 15:08, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,463 bytes +62‎ Sourced undo curprev 15:04, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,401 bytes -62‎ Sourced quote after malicious reversal by anonymous Spanish user IP address 46.222.138.139 undo curprev 15:04, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,463 bytes +62‎ Sourced quote after malicious reversal by anonymous Spanish user IP address 46.222.138.139 undo curprev 14:50, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,401 bytes +558‎ Undid revision 931670638 by 46.222.138.139 (talk) undo Tag: Undo curprev 12:01, 20 December 2019‎ 46.222.138.139 talk‎ 85,843 bytes -246‎ There were other powers that lead the Age of Discovery. Removed parts without contrast undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 11:57, 20 December 2019‎ 46.222.138.139 talk‎ 86,089 bytes -558‎ Unsourced undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 12:22, 17 December 2019‎ Trappist the monk talk contribs‎ m 86,647 bytes +135‎ →‎Pre-Roman groups: cite repair; undothank curprev 12:16, 17 December 2019‎ Trappist the monk talk contribs‎ m 86,512 bytes +5‎ →‎Portuguese ancestry in the Brazilian population: cite repair; undothank curprev 04:16, 17 December 2019‎ Boghog talk contribs‎ 86,507 bytes -1,226‎ consistent citation formatting undothank curprev 04:14, 17 December 2019‎ Boghog talk contribs‎ 87,733 bytes +649‎ Alter: title, pmc, url, template type. Add: isbn, bibcode, title. Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier. Converted bare reference to cite template. Removed parameters. | You can use this tool yourself. Report bugs here. | via #UCB_Gadget undothank

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

Now see what they did in the Spanish people/Spaniards page, he deleted all my edits which are absolutely valid, historical, academic and duly cited from reputed sources. Basically, since I noticed this malicious vandalism, they’ve subsequently opted for the ‘softy soft’ approach and try to make me out as the one who is bias. Here are their latest edits where they deleted my contributions on the Spanish page... basically trying to ‘dump’ racially motivated content in the Portuguese people page and get rid of anything remotely similar in the Spanish equivalent... why you would do that is beyond my comprehension. And this is what they did in their page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards


curprev 16:47, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 66,350 bytes +432‎ Sourced content added undo curprev 16:28, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 65,918 bytes +20‎ Undid revision 932543802 by NormanGear (talk) This sockpuppet user is adding Moors/Jews to Portuguese people page and trying to delete it from the Spanish page. Reported isser for permanent block. Malicious vandalism. undo Tag: Undo curprev 18:17, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 65,898 bytes -20‎ Reverted to the previous edition. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 16:09, 23 December 2019‎ Carlstak talk contribs‎ 65,918 bytes -13‎ ce undothank curprev 10:11, 23 December 2019‎ Frem3 talk contribs‎ 65,931 bytes +1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit curprev 16:28, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 65,930 bytes -10‎ Biased language trying to minimise over 800 years of Islamic presence in Spain undo curprev 03:41, 19 December 2019‎ BrugesFR talk contribs‎ 65,940 bytes +8‎ →‎See also undothank curprev 17:15, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 65,932 bytes -9‎ undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 17:13, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 65,941 bytes -8‎ undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 17:09, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 65,949 bytes -1,560‎ WP:SYNTHESIS undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 17:02, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 67,509 bytes -10‎ removed misrepresentation of sources by the blocked socks of JamesOredan undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 19:21, 16 December 2019‎ Pelirojopajaro talk contribs‎ 67,519 bytes 0‎ US number was duplicated undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

So it’s basically like ‘Wanting to have the cake and eat it’. Absolutely unacceptable.

Melroross (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a regular content dispute in which one party (Melroross) is making lots of personal attacks. I support admin action against Melroross unless he immediately withdraws the attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You might want to drop a word to the wise

Read all the way down to the end. This guy either just doesn't get it, or gets it and doesn't care. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


George Bellows, North River (1908), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. 		Best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2020.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.
BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

New message from DBigXray

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 17:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am not sure but my ping may have failed, hence the talkback. Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bigg Boss (Hindi season 13)

Sir Can I revert less than 3 times under 24 Hours on mentioned page or not ?? Kaustubh42 (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You've been warned per the result of the complaint. This means you can't make *any* more reverts unless you first propose the change on the talk page and get consensus there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I know how much you wish you'd never heard of this topic, but ....

. . . would you please take a look? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I have fully protected Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship for one week. Let's hope that the editors will have the patience to open one or more RfCs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Well done to protect this. There has been appalling conduct here by intolerant editors unwilling to compromise. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC).
I have attempted to create an RfC, on your advice, but immediately received a personal attack on the RfC. I mean this quite seriously. If personal attacks like that are OK on Wikipedia, please let me know, so I understand what to expect going forward. Kfein (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverts on multiple articles

Hi EdJohnston. Immediately after a block for edit warring expired, Sadko started to revert some editors on several articles again. If you see his editing history [11], he has been reverting certain editors in multiple articles. I am leaving this note here as, given the apparently warlike nature of some of the disputes and Sadko's editing history, you might want to protect some of the articles if reverting continues beyond acceptable limits. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive and unsourced edits should be reverted, don't you agree? Instead of stalking me and looking for any reason to out me and paint a bad picture, you should take the time to look more carefully at those reverts and see if they make sense. It seems like Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read and strong personal bias (not the first time), as you are not commenting on the edits but going per ad hominem. If you were actually here to collaborate and discuss like an adult, you would write on my own talk page first. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ktrimi991. You have not provided any diffs, so it's unclear what I am supposed to be looking at. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I have been busy lately and have not been able to follow all what happens around on Wiki. However, Sadko's (and other Balkan editors' behaviour) is being discussed at ANI. Hopefully Sadko and the rest will reflect, and be more careful in the future. Here is a link to the thread [12]. One or two editors seem to be proposing topic bans. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Dipshot

Hi EdJohnston! I noticed that you only blocked Dipshot for 31 hours. Since you evidently believe that they are potentially constructive (they kind of look to me like a VOA), would you consider indefinitely soft-blocking them so they change their username? Right now it appears to be a violation of the username policy. aboideautalk 23:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, they are blocked indef. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Cool, thank you. aboideautalk 19:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Checkuser

While I am pretty upset at the socking accusation (1), I realize that taking it to ANI isn't going to fix the situation. Can I please ask for a checkuser to be run to clear me of not being in any way related to the anonIP? I have come too far to have my effort to be a better editor to have it sidetracked by some (Personal attack removed) playing junior detective. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

See my additional comment in the report. The socking charge makes no sense. However, the conflict between you and Sebastian James may become tiring. Your suggestion that Sebastian "..does not have the necessary mental equipment to review their behavior" does sound like a personal attack. This is now the second AN3 report about Dracula (2020 TV series) in which the clash between you and James has been front and center. (Previously at this link). Now in case you were not digging the hole deep enough, you follow up with 'unapologetic jerkoff playing junior detective' (though this time you are perhaps targeting Esuka?). If admins were enforcing the policy against personal attacks, both of you and Sebastian James would have been blocked by now. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate both your additional comment there as well as here. In both instances, I was not at all an imvolved party in the edit-warring. In the first instance, I reported someone who was edit-warring in an article I was not editing in. In the second instance, SJ was bold enough to suggest I was socking. It didn't help that Esuka was throwing out the accusation expecting (maybe) a "slap on the wrist". Did I get upset at this behavior? Heck yeah. But did I accuse either of them of socking? I think not. That said, you comments on staying cool are on point. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
First of all, my only reply to the report was to show that another user reported me for the same issue (even though their claims were actually wrong, I had a warning). The user is still exaggerating and outraged. Lastly, this user is continuing to make "childish ass clown" statements again, if they continue to do so, they will be the permanently banned one here. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 08:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for making my point far better than I could, Sebastian James. Sun Tzu's comment about waiting by the river seems the best approach here. I suspect I won't have to wait long. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Stay focused on your actions and be persistent. Any situation is not here to stay forever, including your incivility. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 17:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No project for guidelines

I want to underline that I tried to get a prior consensus for 2020 in sports edits. I tried (also here) to bring to other users attention – the ones involved in that project – the fact that the project itself needed new guidelines, but I didn't get any answer: so, saying that the page size is an issue seems just a way to pretend the problem is being faced. I wasn't the only one underlining this, of course. But I actually did something: better safe than sorry. Given that a user like Taqueishon didn't either get a warning (also considering the not–so–great job he did), it seems that something isn't working properly. Just this. --151.50.190.184 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

From the discussion at User talk:Rockies77#Sports in 2019 it seems that at least some people working in this area are quite cooperative. I hope you can work something out. Administrators aren't going to make content decisions about these pages; you need to persuade the other editors. The job of AN3 is to stop edit wars, not to fix articles. Though we hate it when articles get worse. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for fixing my typos, spell check is not working on Wikipedia on my iPad, I have to click on the word to see if it is spelled wrong. So its a big help, Thanks! (sorry if this comes across as passive agressive. That is not my intention, I really am glad for your help)LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I know it can be annoying when others correct your posts. I just didn't want the typos to affect the credibility of your argument. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding wrong statements in admin noticeboard

Hey man, I just wanted to point out a few (Personal attack removed) made against me in the admin noticeboard. I agree we were edit warring btw (Personal attack removed) #1: Not 3rr. look at the times of the reverts. (Personal attack removed) #2. Nemov: "I have requested over and over for the user to go to talk to build consensus before making further edits to the section. Those requests have been ignored" No they have not look at the talk page. Thanks for reading. Idan (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed some personal attacks from the above post and changed the header accordingly. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

In case you didn't get a ping

Please see this thread on my talk page: User_talk:Koavf#Why_the_hell_did_you_revert_my_edits_on_Eminem's_Kamikaze_AND_Revival?. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I hope you understand which person is being unreasonable here. That's definitely not me. This person is trying not to show certain things because they do not please them, while I am trying to provide non-misleading information. Nbro (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Nbro has been reblocked per User talk:Nbro#Block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Appeal for roll-backing ban

EdJohnston, i like to appeal my ban on Assamese language and related articles. My point by point objection on your observations are:

  • Nobody is allowed to keep reverting indefinitely on the same topic. The person should obtain consensus for changes that are known to be controversial; if they don't get consensus they should let it go. My view: I agree there is a edit warring on both sides, and i reported it in edit-warring noticeboard. I earlier mentioned that there is general consensus among parties to include the said references, so there is no policy violation on my end.
  • You can see from the recent edits of Bhaskar on Early Assamese that this is a continuation of the dispute that was said to be successfully resolved in the DRN. My view: That is completely unrelated to the said DRN, Early Assamese is newly created by content forking of existing Assamese language articles, which was marked for speedy deletion, but author himself remove it number of times till now.
  • I am in Wikipedia for long time and i am aware of its policies very well. I also has a clean record in Wikipedia. In addition i have single handily created and maintained Kamarupi/Kamrupi articles.
Try to consider roll-backing the ban and guide through other way (copy of this appeal is placed in edit warring noticeboard for reference and elsewhere as required by Wikipedia policy).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The ban is justified by the reasoning I gave at the edit warring noticeboard. This dispute has been running for a long time (said to be eight years) and it seems to be a one-against-many situation where your side lacks support from others. As was stated by User:Aeusoes1 in the 2019 ANI report, "Opposition to this has been near-universal (the only other editor to agree with him has been permanently banned).." And, "This issue has been going on sporadically for the better part of a decade and Bhaskarbhagawati is not listening". I am declining to lift the ban now. See WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications for your further appeal options. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, i may appeal further in some future time with your help, in meantime try to take some action against reported edit warrior, who is repeated offender for some time. Aeusoes1 is one of opposite parties, it is natural to make such statements in their defense, which are set aside by administrator. As you are already aware issue get its binding decision since 2019, i restrained myself from editing relevant articles further to cool down, as suggested by administrator. I agree that there are more people on other party, but except one none engaged in said article development ever, rather i believe they act in some revenge against me. Even fewer people on my side, i am not involved in any policy violation till date.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Your comment seems to admit that there are more people on the other side. We don't just need you to 'cool down', we need you to admit that the content decision has been taken and you must not continue to revert againsts it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for reply, as said earlier, my reverts are not against consensus.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the comment on the Sideshow Bob's user pager. I'm still new to WP:DRN volunteering and I'm a little timid still (I fail WP:Be Bold) But I am working on it! Nightenbelle (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

DRN is one of our better resources, so I'm glad you are helping out there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752

User:EdJohnston, yes, I am aware, I've flagged Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 for vandalisation and Monitoring and asked User:VQuakr to monitor the page.

IP 92.29.184.218 (talk · contribs) also needs warnings given and a possible ban! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamumar.thegeek (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned

Done. I would like to ask you take a look of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donji_Kraji
You promised that you will take a look on the sources, and I would like to have somebody compare the versions. There was a voting, this (mine) version got majority of the votes, however there is a tendency that other version (which was also reedited) be the main version of the article. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This may be in response to Talk:Bosnia (early medieval polity)#Canvassing and rants about alleged Bosnian mythomania. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

AN post removal

Howdy, EdJ. Perhaps Flo was correct in removing my AN report. He's an administrator & (I assume) knows the rules better then I. However, I didn't appreciate the tone of his edit summary attached to that deletion. Thus my annoyance with Flo, at the moment. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit war/ Diff in Portuguese people

As discussed, issues/diffs going on in the Portuguese people page (from Jul 2019 only):

[[13]]
[[14]]
[[15]]
[[16]]
[[17]]
[[18]]
[[19]]
[[20]]
[[21]]
[[22]]
[[23]]
[[24]]

Protection given after my request:

[[25]]

Reverts resumed

[[26]]

I am not a Wikipedia expert, (am a linguist) but the constant adds/reverts on this page don’t seem normal. From experience, I’ve not seen this level of acrimonious dispute anywhere else. I know for a fact that the Spaniards page is semi-protected and think the Portuguese people should too. Best, Melroross (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

These IP edits go back over a 6-month period. There are no bad faith IP edits so far in 2020. So I don't see a case for semiprotection at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Some of those edits seem to be by autoconfirmed editors so semi protection isn't going to stop that anyway. Okay Special:Contributions/1990vaz would not be autoconfirmed if not for edits to the article, but they may have posted to the talk page and ended up auto confirmed that way. (Special:Contributions/Human_Taxonomist got blocked when their editing attracting attention elsewhere in loosely related areas but they were autoconfirmed long before this article I think.) Anyway, I agree that there is no reason for semi-protection at this time. I wouldn't really trust Melroross's judgement in this area, they IMO have too much of a tendency to assume bad faith in what seems to be content disputes e.g. [27]. Worse is as sort of shown in that edit summary but more here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#Edits by Spanish user sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’), is what seems to be a tendency to assume that edits from certain IPs must be harmful simply due to the country they come from. (You may already know this, it was only when revisiting that discussion I realised you'd been involved before.) IMO, the current situation, with both of those editors partially blocked is probably enough for now. Hopefully it will finally force them to somehow achieve consensus on the talk page and using dispute resolution. If other editors do take advantage of the situation, the fact that it's both of them means I'm sure we'll hear about it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston (talk), Nil Einne (talk): I find it quite suspicious that a user named Yup12 whose registration date is only 16 days ago has specifically reverted in the Portuguese People article ([28]) the content that generated the partial blocking of Melroross, thus establishing and coinciding with the edition of Melroross.[29],[30],[31]
In addition, this Yup12 user has only contributed to topics and articles that are being edited by Melroross recently.[32]. My suspicion is that Melroross is using a friend or family support account so he can avoid his Partial Block on the Portuguese People page. It may also be a traditional case of Sockpuppet.
Both cases are prohibited on Wikipedia, especially if it is done in order to avoid the purpose of a blockade, and this seems to be the case and the intentionality. I wish you could take a look, thanks. NormanGear (talk 11:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Yup12 has made only a single edit at Portuguese people. Hardly enough to get excited about. Beware of casting WP:ASPERSIONS against Melroross with weak evidence. If you truly desire to improve the Portuguese people article, consider opening one or more RfCs on Talk:Portuguese people. It seems you think there is too much material now about genetics. So, make a concrete proposal in a sentence or two and open it for discussion pro and con. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, please see this page [[33]], which I linked to Spaniards recently. This refers to Iberia and Spain makes 85% of it. Portugal makes up only 15% of the same geography. Strangely enough, this page was only linked to Portuguese people for years. Up to now, you will notice very little action on the reverts. However, and this leads me to User:NormanGear, there are these reverts since the user was banned from touching either of the pages above:
[[34]]
[[35]]
The latest unsigned location coincides with previous used by the same profile, the obvious obsessive reverts and language, point to this user also. I am not sure whether this user (a number of geolocations within a 50 miles radius) has to do with an older profile signing Jotamar - potentially the same individual or a friend. This is purely because NormanGear, supposedly a new, Single-Purpose profile, appears to know more about Wikipedia rules than would be expected from a new user. Their conduct points therefore to an Alias of an experienced Wikipedia user.
I reiterate my belief that this user 79.153.124.175 is NormanGear and should also be banned. Melroross (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I have semiprotected Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula for 3 months. Though socking is possible there is not enough evidence yet for any stronger action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks EdJohnston, Melroross (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston: I am not that user nor have I made those edits, and he literally has not shown any minimum proof that I am that user. I guess you should also notify him (as you did with me) of WP:ASPERSIONS consequences. Melroross: If you have doubts or proofs that I am that user I encourage you to present them and report me in their corresponding place. (Sockpuppet investigation). I have nothing to hide. A greeting. NormanGear (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
User:NormanGear, thanks for your reply. I am looking around for any appropriate talk page interactions between the two of you, and it is disappointing to see that Talk:Portuguese people#Systematic content reversions is all I found. That thread contains promises of reporting to admins, but not much substantive about the content issues themselves. The clearest reference to content was: "..partial and unfair effort to exaggerate the Moorish legacy in Portuguese people and minimise this same aspect in the Spanish people page" (Melroross). The two of you must both know that a question like this can be addressed by appropriate citations to reliable sources. Each side ought to name their sources, and if necessary, open an WP:RFC on the talk page which can be joined by others. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Literally the current lead of the Portuguese People article is a recent version where trusted sources have been removed. Paradoxically, the accusation that Melroross has made in the phrase that you have shown me is just what he did. This discussion thread may interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Portuguese_people#Edit_war NormanGear (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Note: In that thread, there are some deleted Melroross comments where he simply accused and did not contribute to the dialogue. NormanGear (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The two of you are constantly asking for admin action but seem unwilling to have a proper discussion. Norman, I can't even understand your latest. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Have you read what I sent you? Anyway, I plan to open a thread, and discuss the issue with Melroross. And if necessary, I will request a response from a third party.
Returning to the other issue, Melroross has just accused Jotamar and me of Sockpuppet without proofs. You have not warned him of the consequences of that behavior as you did with me. NormanGear (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston hello again, I would be grateful if Administrators actioned an Arbitration on this WP:DBF with NormanGear. Despite the temporary block, this user continues with their WP:WIN rants. Their single-purpose has been, and aims to be "..partial and unfair effort to exaggerate the Moorish legacy in Portuguese people and minimise this same aspect in the Spanish people page".

Because of their conduct, the user should be blocked indefinitely. I feel this doesn’t award further discussion and wish to have no further direct contact or interaction with NormanGear. Many thanks and apologies for the extensive string of messages on this matter. Melroross (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@ :EdJohnston, am happy to see that my suspicions were correct from the beginning regarding this profile User:NormanGear. I’ve learned a few things, the hard way, along the way. Thank you for your intervention. Wikipedia needs ethical and fair decision-makers. Best, Melroross (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Back for more

Hello EdJohnston, you may want to know that as soon as BR1997 came out of the block for edit warring, went right back to it (see diff). Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Now blocked again for a longer time. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of unsolved deaths

Hello, I don't see why you accuse me of edit warring when Daniel Case is the user that started deleting entries without using the talk page first. I reverted with good reasons, he just goes there again and deletes again a short time later. He should be the one that's given a warning.Was ist schon ein Name? (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Your complaint of edit warring was declined. New accounts with jokey names that quickly get into revert wars are often found to be socks. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced additions to Corn & Peg

User:Havigjorah has been edit warring for weeks, adding unsourced content to Corn & Peg, has been blocked once and returned to continue adding unsourced material, ignoring further final warnings. Theroadislong (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Now blocked by another admin for two weeks. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Two things

1) I just wanted to bring this editing to your attention - [36] [37] [38] [39] & diffs in Rusian ("foreign propaganda")[40] and other spicy diffs [41]. Another admin warned the editor, which was ignored [42] 2) What's the conclusion here? [43] ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Since the editor Sadkσ wants to hear your opinion, I'm interested whay for Marko Polo is this written in the article "was an Italian merchant, explorer," but he is part of Republic of Venice" who was a sovereign state and maritime republic..it lasted from 697 AD until 1797 AD". Nikola Tesla is Austrian born in Croatia, Roger Joseph Boscovich is from Dubrovnik(Croatia) according to editor Sadko Ragusan, etc. So I'm curious how that is possible, they are not Croatian persons and Marko Polo is Italian. If you could answer, thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
24- The removed version was a cover of the original. There is no reason to include a cover in the article. This can be seen in the lyrics where they didn't even bother to switch out names of Croatian lands (they only put Montenegro).
25- Mikola22 said enough
26- Person in question is an ethnic Croat. This isn't disputed by any sources. He also never held Serbian nationality. There is no basis to include him on the list.
27- The other person in question is also an ethnic Croat. His brother held serbian natonality so he is included in the list ( even though he is an ethnic Croat too). Niko Pucić didn't so he doesn't meet any requirements to be listed.
28- Idk what you're even trying to go at here
29- As seen by previous points Sadko likes to Pov push.
30- I was warned because i clapped back at even worse accusations from my friend sadko (who called me a nazi, and if i recall correctly Mikola22 reported him because he was also a victim of similar harrasment from sadko). I since then stopped responding to his antics and only respond when he slanders my name like this. Peace SerVasi (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Tag team, Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia#Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia + playing the victim (without proof), as seen on [44][45] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor you blocked

Hi Ed. I noticed you blocked IP85.140.1.148 here for the exact same thing this IP is doing now. I can't seem to find the archived discussion at ANI to refer to but could see here that a thread was created that I assume you responded to. They keep adding completely false info as can be seen here, here & here. Could you take a look or point me in the right direction please. Robvanvee 13:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The original ANI thread was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#Russian vandal adding Saibogu Drakon to credits. This was the guy adding 'Saibogu/Drakon' to articles. I've blocked the single IP for a month. If you see more like this, we might have to widen the block to a /64. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. If I see more I'll be in touch. Robvanvee 14:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Look at Special:Contributions/2a00:1fa1:826d:af92:7cdb:3187:1b41:efb2 also. Adding 'Saibogu'. Unfortunately not in the same /64. Would be included in Special:Contributions/2A00:1FA1:826D:0:0:0:0:0/48 but no other IPs yet in that range, so a single block is enough. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks Ed. Robvanvee 16:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Robvanvee: Also this edit of 10 February by Special:Contributions/2a00:1fa1:8408:8b8:787f:8d6a:613e:7d81. It would be included in Special:Contributions/2A00:1FA1:8000::/37. This is a large range, but nearly its whole activity is adding music genres. Somebody who knows this topic might be able to tell if all of these edits are vandalism. A one-month rangeblock could be imposed if so. The /48 rangeblock mentioned above would not cover all these genre changes, or even the new Saibogu edit of 10 February. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey Ed, the ranges would be more your area of expertise than mine but so far as the genre's go, while not vandalism, as long as they keep breaking the V policy they will be warned and eventually blocked once I report them to ANI or AIV. This is the bulk of what my editing consists of (though I must admit I love it) and I'm not taking enough notice necessarily of the IP ranges while this is all happening. I really appreciate your help with this and am wondering if there is anything more I can do to help from my side? Robvanvee 17:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Just looking at this now and the range and unsourced edits are extensive! Do you suspect this is all the same person? Most likely. A range block may help but this will probably continue somewhere along the line. Robvanvee 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Internet Society

Since your reversion earlier in Jan, there has been one edit. If I were free to intercede I'd roll it back as a) not necessarily true, b) unreffed, and c) insignificant in that what matters is the result not the process. Would you deal with it? Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have access to any sources which discuss this period? Feel free to contact other editors who participated in the RfC to see if they want to do more editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The only discussion I have seen of this is on mailing lists. I've never seen it said that Afilias were the prime mover of ISOC's bid for .org, but it could be true. My point is, and it does not need an expert to discern this, is that this item of info, in the context of this article, is not notable, as well as being unreffed. The only thing that really matters is that the bid was successful. As to rousing other editors. I wish! It's a pain being hamstrung. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Consider making an WP:edit request on the talk page. For example, if you consider the most recent edit to Internet Society to be unsourced you can ask for it to be undone. Luckily, The Register publishes about the Internet Society from time to time, and in spite of their quirkiness they are considered a reliable source for tech issues. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing EdJohnston a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Bobherry Talk Edits 00:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia

Sir, would you be kind to check this edit by editor on Turkish Croatia article - you are well-acquainted with the history of dispute there, and this +1,711 bytes of nothing but "in-line message templates", inserted more-less behind every other word, in what is appear as sheer disruption of its readability, and in spite of obvious fact that article was and still is already appropriately tagged with "multiple template massages". As soon as you lifted protection of that piece, same editing practice continued.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions on administration block

Thank you for informing me. I still am grasping how to use Wikipedia. I guess one of my questions regards terminology; also how does one go about proposing a topic for review? thanks for any and all help Zarcademan123456 (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

If you have questions or complaints about article content you can ask on the talk page of the article. If you have general questions about Wikipedia, consider the WP:Help desk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The IP range sockpuppetry Invasion on Syrian Turkmen page

Hi, i was about to edit Syrian Turkmen page but noticed it's been locked and protected by you and the reason acc to page history is sockpuppetry by certain IP range that keep invading pages .

I then went to the talk page and surprisingly found that the same sock IP range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:8405:FA00:D48A:A270:9DED:B191

are deleting discussions and archiving them even though there's a bot for that mission. The sock range whom are causing disturbance invading pages aren't blocked and can freely make the same issues to other pages, yet the page is locked. 46.19.138.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The whole /64 range at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:8405:FA00::/64 is not currently blocked. Should it be? Can you point to some bad edits? The talk page archiving was a bit early but is not crazy. Why not post on the talk page and ask for the archiving to be undone.
I did the six-month semiprotection of the article itself back in December due to my belief this was the same person reported in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar400r/Archive, after an AN3 report. The details were in: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive400#User:2a00:23c5:8405:fa00:b807:7259:2e2f:125a reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Semi).
If you want to edit the Syrian Turkmen page yourself but are prevented by the semiprotection, you can either register an account or post an {{edit request}} on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Maanvi Gagroo

Hi, Maanvi Gagroo has been salted for repeated creations however after checking the improvements at AFC and per WP:ENT, I am inclined to accept it. Can you please provide your valuable feedback? Regards, KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It is best if you wait for the official WP:AFC process to render its verdict, though I admit it is slow in this case. The last AfC reviewer (from November) was User:MurielMary and it might not hurt to ask her for a second look, since changes have been made since that review. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hounding, continued bullying and severe personal attacks by Andrew Lancaster

Background information (conclusive evidence of edit warring and hounding)
  • 17.01.20-20.01.20 Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos are warned twice for edit warring.[46][47]
  • 12.12.19 Krakkos nominates the article Goths for WP:GA.[48]
  • 03.02.20 Jens Lallensack begins the GA review at Goths, stating that it's "great to see this important article in such a good shape."[49] A notification of the review is posted on my talk page.[50]
  • 04.02.20 Andrew Lancaster starts to complain about the quality of Goths.[51]
  • 15.02.20-17.02.20 Andrew Lancaster begins drastic edits to Goths.[52][53] He had never edited Goths prior to this.[54]
  • 21.02.20 Category:Romance-speaking countries and territories, created by Krakkos, is nominated for deletion, and a notification of the discussion is added at the talk page of Krakkos.[55]
  • 21.02.20 Andrew Lancaster votes in support of deleting Category:Romance-speaking countries and territories.[56] Like at Goths, he had never edited anything of relevance to that category before.
  • 21.02.20 Andrew Lancaster complains at Talk:Early Germanic culture that the article is "problematic",[57] and makes an initial edit stating that he will "fix the rest of the article also".[58] That article is also largely written by Krakkos, and Andrew Lancaster has never edited it before.[59] A pattern of WP:HOUNDING is clear.
  • 24.02.20 Krakkos begins improving Goths in accordance with the recommendations of Jens Lallensack.[60]
  • 24.02.20-26.02.20 Andrew Lancaster begins rewriting and reverting Krakkos' improvements at Goths. His edits generally consist of rewriting content in the lead regardless of what the sources say.[61][62]
  • 26.02.20 Krakkos files a complaint at WP:AN3.[63]
  • 27.02.20 At WP:AN3, EdJohnston warns Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos against attacking one another and further edit warring.[64]
  • 27.02.20 The GA reviewer Jens Lallensack presents a compromise solution for Krakkos and Andrew Lancaster, whereby Andrew Lancaster will refrain from further edit warring while the GA reviewer promises to take his concerns into account.[65]
  • 27.02.20 Krakkos expresses willingness to comply with Jens Lallensack's solution.[66]
  • 28.02.20 Andrew Lancaster ignores Jens Lallensack's suggestion, and proceeds with edit warring as soon as his 3RR limitation has expired.[67]
  • 28.02.20 EdJohnston closes the 3RR complaint, and threatens both Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos with a block if any of them edits Goths without consensus.[68]

Hi, EdJohnston. As you're already aware of, Andrew Lancaster has been making personal attacks against me. He has accused me of being "shamelessly misleading",[69] of "hypocritical abuse",[70] called me a "sycophantic bully boy" who "listens to no one",[71] accused me of "deliberate distortion", being "deliberately fraudulent", "ignoring and working against the community", called me a "nonsensical" "bully", and said that i "need to accept that a lot of the work you are doing will not last (on ANY article)".[72] For this you have already warned him several times.[73][74]

In the aftermath of your resolution at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: Both warned), Andrew Lancaster posted another threatening and defamatory message at my talk page.[75] I believe this message is a clear violation of WP:BULLYING, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. Considering Andrew Lancaster's long experience as a Wikipedian, the repeated warnings against personal attacks he has received, and the complete lack of evidence accompanied by his accusations, i believe this message is concerning. It is quoted in full below (with my emphasis):

"Krakkos, as I was allowing you to edit at will when you pulled this off (and don't worry, the shameless dishonesty of what you've done will eventually become clear) I really wonder what you think happens next. On Germanic peoples you did the same thing, and it created a situation where you felt there was no point even trying to edit any more. It seems you can only work alone and this is going to lead to your exit from Wikipedia and the removal of all your edits eventually? To be clear:

  • I can now start making drafts of how the article should look. When the block stops, work starts again, and I will of course take note of the history of how you lie and screw others. Of course I'd be happy to work with you if you DON't do that, but I will, in any case, work. I will call in the community quicker also whenever you so much as post a single lie about a word in a footnote, and believe me I was avoiding doing that until now, and could have been MUCH harder. I see myself as a rare case of someone who has worked with you, but still wants to give you a chance. But...
  • The talk page is still no problem and I can keep posting problems and proposals there, in order to keep a clear record of a path for work when the block stops. My concern is not you, but the article, and this block is therefore no real problem to me. You can contribute, but you won't/can't I guess, except in the sense of trying to disrupt and make things less clear, but this will be easy to ignore now, because drafting can happen elsewhere. It looks like Germanic peoples again.
  • Obviously my good faith acceptance of the idea of keeping off the main page now looks very naive. As usual, you do not seem to care a bit how you look to the people you should be trying to work with. Working within WP policies is the opposite of your aim. I predict that is not going to last long now you've taken things to this level.

In summary, you seem unable to work honestly and with others, but I would still like that to change. It is surreal sometimes. For a couple of short moments I really hoped/thought you were not going to do a repeat, and you were really going to try to make a real article according to WP policy, where you would actually compromise and work with other editors, and learn from them about how we work. I would still like you to learn how to do that, but it seems that was not possible? Now is the time to decide?

My question to you: do you have a non-BS proposal about how to work together now? Please understand I'd be very happy to see any kind of honest proposal from you, but I do have a very sensitive BS detector and really I am calm person but I hate lies and dishonesty. (It is a good combination on Wikipedia.) If you include one more lie or twisted reference in your reply to this, then I know where to file it. Perhaps take some time before answering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As Andrew Lancaster admits above, your sanction is "no real problem" for him. It is a major problem for me however, as it is now impossible for me to work with Jens Lallensack on completing the GA review. Meanwhile, Andrew Lancaster has now made a draft with the idea of rewriting Goths, while I'm not permitted to edit the article at all. I'm basically the only person being punished for a situation which i am certainly not the person most responsible.

The behavior described above has already successfully driven productive editors from the subject area.[76] Additional editors who have been driven away have contacted me privately, but won't do it openly, because they fear they will become the next target. Even the GA reviewer who was once very enthusiastic at building Goths has now abandoned the idea, because of Andrew Lancaster's continued personal attacks and the failure of the community to deal with it.[77][78]

As long as Wikipedia fails to respond decisively to this, the problem will become even worse. If sanctions are still off the table, I believe some sort of WP:IBAN could be helpful. Given the fact that I have not been carrying out such hounding or personal attacks, a one-way IBAN would be fair in my opinion. I’m still willing to accept a two-way ban however. This relentless hounding and bullying is extremely frustrating and is making it very hard for me to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You probably have a case under WP:ASPERSIONS but my energy for resolving this has been used up. But I would suggest you consider filing at ANI. In the meantime, do you have an idea of a proposal you could make for updating the Goths article, via WP:RFC? I tried to interest User:Andrew Lancaster in making an RfC about the issue of dating sources, but he didn't take it up. (See discussion above). I would make the same proposal to you. If you are not familiar with RfC, I can give you the steps for opening one. So far there have been no RfCs at all at Talk:Goths. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:, unfortunately that is an inaccurate description of our conversation. Only a few hours ago I wrote to you that [79]: "No you are reading me wrongly there again I think. Concerning the publication year subject, I mentioned an article RfC as an option I was considering already. Not going to rush today though. Thanks for the advice so far." (That was not the first time I had to correct you about this specific point.)
I think one thing you can't accuse me of is trying hard to get things working on Goths. Indeed, I have already made it clear (before this post by Krakkos above) to Krakkos that I aim to get community feedback and I want to make sure of his position statements before posting RFCs.
I should point out that if you follow the links of Krakkos posted above, most do not at all match the description given to them. Should Krakkos be warned about constantly doing that? Krakkos wants to use admins to achieve specific content aims, and appeals to Doug Weller have not worked in the past. You already know that I am honestly concerned that the recent "win" at the edit warring noticeboard is going to make Krakkos a worse editor, at least for a while. I register the warning on my talk page, which is apparently linked to your suggestion to Krakkos that he should go to ANI, so that is another "win". Krakkos will file that as a diff to post in future attacks on me, but not want their own history looked at in detail. That is just my honest judgement.
Obviously you have picked the stronger words out of the context, but it is true such words might be picked out and used against me. So your message is reasonable. If people are willing to take things out of context to attack me then we already know there is not much anyone can do about it. Still, probably I should have not posted that one message in that form.
Really though, my aim was to get a message across to Krakkos. It is asking Krakkos how to work now, and my actions show that is NOT sarcastic. It is trying to say that the "win" is not a real win. It is pointing out that I was trying to help Krakkos, and I am still open to ways forward, despite the attack on me. I want Krakkos to realize I could quit Wikipedia totally, and the problems Krakkos creates for their own editing would continue. What I keep saying to Krakkos about how the POV content can't last on WP is meant to be honest advice. Without my efforts the removal of such material will just take longer.
The "tough" parts of the message say that I have to be far stricter and less trusting of Krakkos. But this has to be seen in the context that when this successful personal attack on me was done (using you, in effect), I was ironically basically leaving almost all editing to Krakkos. Krakkos successfully used this against me by saying I was editing warring just by editing at all. I want Krakkos to see that trying to use admins is going to cause more problems for Krakkos than anyone else. It mentions that it is still my preference that Krakkos really does find a way to work with others better, and edit in a more policy-consistent way, but that it will now be more difficult for me to support that. Quite honestly I have been trying to support Krakkos on Goths, because the article does need work, and Krakkos should have been able to do it.
Sorry for the long post, but sometimes a long post is appropriate IMHO. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I look forward to someone opening an actual WP:RfC at Talk:Goths. So far there are none. If either you or User:Krakkos have further requests for admin help I'd appreciate if you take the requests elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Ed's suggestion about an RfC. @Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos: it's either that or ANI I think. As I've said, it's not an area I am familiar with and frankly I don't have time to look into it. But an RfC should draw interested editors, and, well, ANI might do anything. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I doubt it will help. Nobody does have "time to look into it" and Krakkos will fill it with thick smokescreens of verbiage in his normal style, to which AL will respond. I doubt there are many editors interested in the Goths; an Rfc would bring a bunch of editors who like having opinions, and will find it difficult to work out which opinion to have. ANI might be better, while they are in the mood to exile long-term problem editors with a relatively brisk process. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Thanks and my apologies. And for now my idea is that this will take a couple of RfCs and a couple of RSN discussions to start with, possibly starting today. I am never a fan of "surprise" rushed RfCs like Krakkos does, so I have (already before Krakkos posted here above) asked for final comments from Krakkos on the questions which are already clear enough. Response or none, I am going to do my best to write neutral short questions. I honestly just want non-POV-pushing reasonable articles.
@Doug Weller: I appreciate your responses and understand. Your talk page got used a bit for some reason. Possibly because Krakkos knows you from some other types of areas, and several people who watch your page were interested? I hope that has not been too annoying.
@Johnbod: We can only do our best can't we? If lots of people suddenly arrive that don't normally edit in that area then I think/hope this will be relatively obvious on this type of article.
@Krakkos: Concerning ANI (and even admin noticeboards) generally I have always made it a motto not to be an initiator of wikidrama if I can avoid it. Life is too short, and this is not why I do Wikipedia. I would be so much more happy to just work with you. But my approach has been used against me in the recent cases where you edit-warred alone, and then acted outraged. I feel a bit naive, and since then your efforts to misrepresent facts have not stopped. I will at least be making efforts (as I remarked) to more quickly get ALL misrepresentations you make, on ANY talk page or edsum, seen to quickly in ways which seem appropriate. Your past misrepresentations are also still there on record to be looked as needed. The idea of getting the patterns in your real editing history looked at by the community in a thorough way has its appeals, but I prefer to work on Wikipedia content. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Dougweller: My experience tells me that RfC's are unhelpful in solving this particular dispute. Andrew Lancaster has previously accused me of being "disruptive",[80] "pointless",[81] and of not being "appropriate"[82] for making RfC's. He has even been reverting me when i try to make RfC's.[83] One RfC at one point went through, and the consensus was clear,[84] but Andrew Lancaster nevertheless proceeded to rewrite the article in question entirely, despite the outcome of that RfC.[85]
Despite repeated warnings,[86][87][88][89] his personal attacks have still not ceased. He's still baselessly accusing me of "trying to work against WP policy",[90] not being "a normal editor",[91] and of having "a systematic tendency to try to make false claims"[92]. He's also threatening future WP:BATTLEGROUND concerns, stating that he will "have to be far stricter and less trusting of Krakkos", that this "is going to make Krakkos a worse editor", and that "the "win" is not a real win".[93] As repeated appeals to admins and complaints at administrator's noticeboards has so far been unable to stop the attacks, I have filed a request for an WP:IBAN or some other remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, as this seems to be the only way to make an end to this. Krakkos (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems you blocked me or not.

It seems that I was blocked by you? Maybe a fake account, using your name?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr.User200#Blocked
Mr.User200 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the impersonating account EdJohnsto (talk · contribs) and removed the notice from your page. Hope this was OK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but he have returned with a new account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HarimauFury
he keeps saying Iam blocked here
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&diff=prev&oldid=943900405. Mr.User200 (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaving the computer now but you should ask another admin for any needed block. It looks like you've been bothered by a series of IPs posting on your talk page who are now blocked. Possibly it's the same person. One of those IPs was blocked by User:TonyBallioni for block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential issue...

It seems as if a user is constantly reverting my edits. What should I do? I apologize IDK how to make these links below hyperlinks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marj_Al-Ghazal&action=history

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An-Nuway%27imah&action=history

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fasayil&action=history

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jit,_Qalqilya&action=history

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/944289685 Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User “Huldra” Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Any further discussion of this dispute should take place at WP:AE#Zarcademan123456. I recomment you stop all editing of WP:ARBPIA articles until the AE reaches a conclusion. You give the impression of being a bull in a china shop, not because of any malice, but because you seem unaware of the subtleties and of the intense arguments that have occurred previously on many of these articles. If you are not very familiar with Wikipedia, articles that are part of the Arab-Israeli conflict are not a good area to get started in. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel a need to say...

I am looking through your remarks and a couple of things really seem to need saying:

  • Your remarks are clearly intended to be patronizing to me especially, by mentioning my previous explanations and making a point of NOT taking them seriously. (The theme is "well then, if that is true, then you should have no problem with...")
  • Honestly, knowing the case, having looked at the new diffs, and how long you took, I think that despite feeling you should be patronizing, you probably did NOT look at the details at all. That is in a sense understandable.
  • I do understand. We have all been there: you find it annoying and you want to say "both of you are the same to me", and make your point. The posts of Krakkos can't be that dishonest right?
  • I think you still do a lot of article work? But in any case all of us can end up having a difficult situation to resolve, and asking others for advice. Concerning my request for advice you did not respond at all. That seems wrong too.

Honestly, you should have answered my question. And you should have forced yourself to look at the diffs and at least cross check a bit. I say this to you because it is what I would say to myself. Of course your situation is also understandable, and I appreciate that. Probably a bad idea to express these thoughts, but anyway...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Being on a roll, I might as well add some chronology notes, There were no edits by me on the article to trigger events. Here is how it went, after Krakkos asked me to stop working on the TALK page (! not the article !)...
  • Andrew to Krakkos on talk page in 1 discussion section [94] 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC):
You should have learned by now NOT to continually twist the words of others, including other Wikipedians, sources, policies etc. This might feel like it is working when you are laying low and working on unknown articles and categories, but this is not something you should keep taking for granted now. I have indeed been trying to mainly post my concerns on this talk page, rather than editing, giving you a chance to show good faith. Having made that major concession your edits and talk page posts show absolutely no concern at all for such concerns. I have limited myself to commenting a small % of the mass of POV edits you are making, and you are seeing that as a signal to do even more. This is highly problematic because it is very difficult to come back later and retrace all the source distortions for example. So your bad faith behavior is where the problem is. If you just accepted to fix some of the obvious problems I point to instead of throwing up surreal smoke screens and parent-shopping all the time, imagine what that would be like...--Andrew Lancaster (talk)
  • Andrew to Krakkos on talk page in another discussion section, [95] 15:18, 28 February 2020:
Krakkos so do I take it you are adamantly refusing to make any sorts of edits to correct the obvious problems shown above? I am still hoping YOU will CHOOSE to fix them, but let me know if this is a foolish hope.
  • Krakkos does to noticeboard with long post (20 minute minimum writeup?) 14:31, 28 February 2020[96]
  • EdJohnston responds 15:23, 28 February 2020
Please do consider though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
A 3RR closure is intended to put a stop to an edit war in progress, by any method that seems likely to work. A closure should not specifically inconvenience others through a long protection when it appears that one or two people are at the center of the war. The closure may not have the effect of doing justice between the participants if one person is usually a better editor, but it expects diplomacy for sure. When two people both seem equally angry and neither of them will step forward with a plan for resolving the dispute, the closing admin doesn't have much leeway. Also I preferred not to block either of you, since you both appeared to be content creators and neither of you was blocked before. If you are accusing Krakkos of being dishonest you should watch out for casting WP:ASPERSIONS which is blockable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)"
You really don't want to go through any of the diffs for me, as requested it seems. Doesn't that way of handling this type of case expose the noticeboard to a danger of being manipulated?
In this case there is an editor who has gone through the same pattern of actions to block editing on several occasions, involving different articles, and on at least some occasions in the past, being told that their claims have no grounds: first posting to admin @Doug Weller:, and then trying to claim an edit war at the noticeboard.
As I have mentioned on the noticeboard, the diffs posted by that editor mainly show minor edits such as word changes. The diffs given to show discussions and warnings about edit warring were filled in with diffs involving events from a month earlier on another article! A striking number of the diffs within the comments also lead to things which don't match their description. But no one wants to check that or comment. When I mention it, I am told to be careful of casting aspersions.
Not only was there no formal warning. Strikingly, the talk pages were busy with disagreements about lots of things, but not anything to do with edit warring. This however seems not to be seen as concerning? The edit war claim was a surprise to me.
In that editor's own postings on the noticeboard, you only have to click on the diffs, or just read the explanations, to see that the editor was mainly concerned about other things, not my article editing as such. Most important, is clearly the talk pages. That is where the activity was also. In particular:
  • The trigger for the opening of the claim was when I started a talk page section noting that there seemed to be a pattern of fake publication years. Even now, this section has not been answered and those dates remain, and the way I see it the noticeboard was the tool used to achieve this.
  • The trigger for the renewal of the claim (Andrew Lancaster is back at it with his reverting) was even more clearly not even presented as based on article editing. I had started a detailed analysis of source distortion in a small number of paragraphs. The whole discussion, even on the noticeboard is about "hounding" on the TALK page. Also on the talk page, immediately before that posting, this editor demanded I should stop all activity related to that article because they have been editing it longer. [97][98]. This aim of being able to work alone is not really a hidden motive but "hiding in plain sight" and completely consistent with everything posted on the noticeboard also.
It is obvious that Wikipedians should care about the possibility of editors being able to use the noticeboard like an automatic no-questions-asked way to block other editors. There should be some concern about making sure the diffs match the descriptions and so on?
In such a case, I think that my repeated question to you, asking whether the diffs really do show an edit war, seems very fair?
The tone of your warning on my talk page were a shock to me. It makes it more important to me, that the facts of the case do actually get discussed. As you made those posts, I feel you should also have some sense of concern to respond to me in good faith? If I made the wrong types of edits I could make them again and I do not want to! Please help me avoid that??
Concerning "aspersions", such problems, or the impression that there are such problems, can I think result from exactly this type of situation I feel your refusal to comment on the details is creating. My accusations or concerns are clear, but then there is no discussion of the evidence - although I want that discussion, and the diffs are sitting in front of us. Of course I see that looks bad! That is why I am now concerned, given your way of describing the case in public, which makes my accusations look unfounded. If my accusations were unfounded, then please help me see it, so that I do not get things wrong now??
I am asking for discussion about whether there was an edit war and saying, clearly, that I can not see it, but I can't get that discussion going for some reason. This makes me look bad, and given the past pattern of events, this will surely encourage future repeats, so even in terms of cold calculation about what is best for WP in the future, the way of describing the case in public so far seems to me like it should have been done better.
To be clear: I may very well be making mistakes. I would be happy to learn that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is not clear to you, so I will point it out separately: The aim (not hidden) of Krakkos is that I should not edit the article at all, or even the talk page. Just read the comments on the noticeboard, or the talk page comments linked to above. The precedent now set by you in effect (not deliberately) is that if I edit the article at all, Krakkos can get me sanctioned (e.g. edit war warnings, with no edit war required). That precedent is what now worries me, not anger or whatever. The wording of the successful claim, when compared to diffs, was already successfully and openly using the reasoning that any editing by me is a problem. In effect, that reasoning was accepted. In any case, this is clearly the aim, and as strange as that may seem it is how it will be understood if left as it is presented now. You can also compare to how Krakkos choose to interpret previous cases as precedents. A key turning point (it seems to me) is the methodology of accepting that evidence of me having edited at all is enough to justify treating both editors equally, without checking the details.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe I have looked into the matter as thoroughly as policy requires. You are eager to be judged as having the better position, but you won't take the WP:Dispute resolution steps that I suggested. You need to make your content arguments to regular editors, not the closing admin. At a point where it is evident that there is a talk page consensus for your view and the other party appears to be reverting against it, admins are more free to resolve matters in your favor. But if you continue to make thousand-word arguments you may not get much sympathy. EdJohnston (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the length, but indeed the whole point is that a quick summary and quick decision is not always the best option. Your decision "obey's" Krakkos, but Krakkos says "Andrew Lancaster is back at it with his reverting". Problem: there was no revert, and he links to no revert, and when I point this out.... I am casting aspersions?
My practical concern is that Krakkos wanted a precedent that could be cited, which "accepts" his post's way of writing. That post insinuates I should never have been editing at all. Why accept (as it will be portrayed) that Krakkos writes as if I was not allowed to edit at all? So yes, a more questioning and careful approach would have been better for the future of the articles etc.
I also saw no remark about the other aspersions, and indeed the private mail scans (apparently) that were posted.
Also: I have refused no dispute resolution steps? Why do you write that? Please remind me what you are referring to. RFCs? I only said I had no obvious RFC to make at the time. Basically: every edit or talk page proposal I make is opposed, but...
Of course if we can gel any into clear questions they can be brought to a bigger group, and I already mentioned that I think WP:RSN will be one of the first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
In the above you state you have refused no dispute resolution steps. Yet in the 3RR closure I said I would particularly like to see an RfC on the issue of source dating, since changes of source publication date were made in three of the diffs cited above (#2, 4 and 7). Why won't you consider an RfC on source dating, since you appear to think the evidence strongly favors your view? EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I know you proposed using RfCs but my response was not a refusal?? Anyway, you raise a good point about the publication year issue which is already a bit thematic. (Honestly I had simply thought this problem would have disappeared quietly by now. It is stunning that it has not.) I have thought about whether an article RfC would be appropriate given that this is such a basic thing. (We would not want one little-known WP article suddenly declaring a weird policy of its own saying google books summary pages are the ultimate arbiter of publication information, trumping publisher websites, title page info etc? 2ndly, the article clearly has few experienced and currently active editors, or else we would not have all these problems. I 3rdly don't want to be blamed for starting 20 RFCs for every little problem.) I had recently already been searching for a more specialized forum. Any ideas?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I made my suggestion for an RfC, you don't want to take it, so let's both move on to something else. You are unlikely to be criticized for opening too many RfCs at Talk:Goths. (There are no RfCs at all on the page, by anyone). EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
No you are reading me wrongly there again I think. Concerning the publication year subject, I mentioned an article RfC as an option I was considering already. Not going to rush today though. Thanks for the advice so far.
The "3rdly" point, OTOH, was considering the fact that there are a lot more topics to cover, and frankly, the talk page is getting used, and Krakkos is (in case you did not notice) using that as one of the main reasons for declaring there was an edit war. The fact is that Krakkos clearly thinks that worked well this time, and that almost any activity at all can now be a reason to complain about an "edit war". See this talk page post today, which hints at more such rhetoric to come: [99]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Please continue your efforts at Talk:Goths especially if you have any proposals or RfCs you want to post there. I think I am done now. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you have to please look at this situation and explain how your decision concerning Goths is supposed to work. Krakkos is showing the limits of the approach. If a lot of article changing is being done by Krakkos, then how can you ever define whether someone had a clear consensus? Who is supposed to check that, or is it your belief that Wikipedians should spend all their effort in formal procedures instead of editing? I don't know what you envisioned, but I guess it is not what is happening. Krakkos is posting edit proposals presented as compromises to me, and then takes positive responses, as signals to do many vaguely similar things in giant edits that go far beyond the talk page discussions. This means for Krakkos the talk page is now an elbowing contest, in order for Krakkos to get responses, and then edit, and make sure no one answers me on anything. (I have just been asking other people to edit.) What is the benefit of this situation compared to any other option including nothing? What was your longer run vision? Is Krakkos working as you envisioned? Am I? It makes no sense to me. How should I work correctly now? To be honest it feels a bit like you just wanted to make things unpleasant, but that isn't going to make better articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: is Krakkos working according to your ruling? As far as I see it, Krakkos is editing without consensus. I think there have been two clear cases of large multi-section edits which I had objected to, and only one other editor had given vague positive remarks about. I don't see any way that anyone could have predicted the edits which then occurred? I understand the case is awkward, but I would like guidelines on how I may edit please. I am concerned that your approach demands that editors must wikilawyer and parent-shop like Krakkos in order to work on content, and how does this end? (To be complete also I must remind: the whole situation is inappropriate; there never was an edit war, only a demand for article ownership posted with diffs that showed no warnings or talk page discussion, and no edit war. It never should have been posted on AN3. I had nothing to answer for, and you have refused to discuss that. With no admin intervention the article would be far better by now, and the editing environment far less toxic. In context, this ruling always has been effectively AN3 taking a side in a content disagreement.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Please consider, just to try to avoid any misunderstanding: IMHO, this all starts with Krakkos reporting me to AN3 for normal copyedits, claiming in an extra explanation that I should not be editing on that article. I asked you to show me otherwise. You refused. Right now, what Krakkos is doing as edits are, to say the least, far more controversial than those of mine which you accepted to be an "edit war". If we are back to normal editing, that is great, but I need to be careful: The history is clearly telling me that if I do so much as change a comma, based on that history, anything might happen, and your response is absolutely unpredictable to me. That is the honest truth. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi EdJohnston, can you protect the Berry Events Center page? Thanks-KH-1 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Kupal123 and McGill University

Hi EdJohnston, I am asking if you, as an administrator, could please look over the edit history for McGill University and the situation that is ongoing regarding the Lead. I am currently preparing to leave the UK to return to Canada due to coronavirus and do not have time to be fully involved in this matter, however I do not want to sit back and let the article for McGill sit in the state it is currently in after Kupal123's ridiculous edit to the Lead. I fear that if I undo his edit again (a third time) it will constitute an edit war on my part and I do not want to suffer any negative repercussions because of it. Respected user, Magnolia677 agrees that the edit of Kupal123 is disruptive and unconstructive (see talk). Please have a look for yourself, the edit is quite ridiculous and does not belong in the Lead for an article with GA status... Please let me know if you disagree. Thank you. Jonahrapp (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please open a discussion at Talk:McGill University on what should be in the lead. If consensus can be found on talk, and someone else reverts against the consensus, admins can take some action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I have since opened a discussion on the article's talk page and outlined my proposal for the lead there. Can you have a look, please? I would certainly appreciate it. It is approaching 5AM where I am.Jonahrapp (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for opening the issue at Talk:McGill University#Please fix the lead.. Let's hope that others are willing to comment. The page at WP:Dispute resolution has a number of suggestions of what to do if it appears that a discussion is not getting enough participation. One idea is an WP:RFC. But it is a good idea to wait a couple of days before getting worried. EdJohnston (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

BillyBob Joe 22290990

Did you mean to block this account indefinitely as a vandalism-only account? I saw that you applied only a 48-hour block, and I just wanted to let you know in case this wasn't intended... As always, it's a pleasure to talk to you once again, and I hope you have a great day. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston - I went ahead and updated this block to be indefinite. There's a near-zero chance that a temporary block will result in correcting this user's behavior, and is much more likely to result in more disruption being caused when it expires. If you object to my modification of the block, you have my permission to modify it and change the expiration back to the original duration that you set - you do not need my approval or my input in advance to do so. Just let me know that you did so, and why (ping me so that I'm notified), so that I understand - it's possible that I may have missed something. :-) Knowing you as well as I do, I doubt that you'll mind - I'm just giving you the due courtesy of letting you know just in case. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
No problem. I don't mind if you lengthen any of my blocks, especially at AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

Does this, violate Wikipedia:No legal threats?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Warned the user. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
User is now blocked, due to the disappointing response. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Dispute about autism articles

(Original title of this thread was: 'Please revert')

You protected two pages where a COI exists. Thomas A. McKean and Jonathan Shestack. User Ylevental is lying. He has a COI with both of them and the template needs to be restored. He has confessed to knowing Jill Escher and Escher has had a relationship with Shestack since she met him and his wife Portia Iverson at an IACC meeting in 2013 (see here for proof of attendance for Escher and Iverson). The matter is being discussed at COI/N. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Be careful about casting WP:ASPERSIONS with this 'lying' charge. I am unclear how proof of attendance at a meeting, if that's what this is, creates a WP:COI. (So far nobody agrees with you that Ylevental has a COI that prevents him editing these articles. See the comments by User:Johnuniq at COIN. Ylevental has disclosed his real name on his user page and states he is 'heavily involved in autism advocacy'). Feel free to reveal your own connection to these matters, since you appear to have strong opinions on the topic. Most likely you are the same person as the IP who was disagreeing with Ylevental in 2016. If this dispute continues with the same ferocity and you continue to avoid WP:SCRUTINY with a fluctuating IP, this may become the subject of a sock investigation. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Having a strong opinion on a topic is not a COI. This is about proven relationships with people. I have zero relationship with any of these people, including the user I am reporting. It is true that Ylevental has a history of NPOV issues and plenty agree with that. This is an escalation of that same issue I am carrying out, due to the existing COI admissions (Escher, the NCSA and Jonathan Mitchell) and the history noted with not just article creations but attempted article deletions as well on the COI/N. The article protections were wrong and the tags need to be put back. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:9028:D1DF:E722:E56C (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Is he serious? I didn't even know about the meeting until now. If I had a COI with everyone that had communicated with people that I actually know, then I would have a COI with at least 90% of the population. Maybe he is the one with COIs that need to be disclosed. Ylevental (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You didn't need to. You have a connection to Shestack through Escher, and you have admitted to a COI with the latter. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:9028:D1DF:E722:E56C (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what to do here

Hi EdJohnston, I know you suggested "consider opening an WP:RFC" on the David Clarke (sheriff) article, but User:Jauerback is continuing to undo my edits despite the fact that it's a BLP. I don't know how to proceed at this point. Thank you for any advice you can offer. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I was apparently typing up my intent to do just that as you were doing this. Anyway, I've begun an RFC, so we'll go from there. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Ed, thanks for your help in this. Sincerely. I haven't dealt with anything like this before, and I appreciate you seeing that I'm not trying to edit war, I just don't understand why Jauerback insists on having something misleading in the infobox.
I just read WP:RFCBRIEF - "Statement should be neutral and brief". Jauerback wrote the RFC and it isn't even close to meeting those requirements. It's not brief (most of the RFCs I looked at are 1 sentence). It's not neutral - He states in it that "There are multiple reliable sources that state that he ran as a Democrat for Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin four times and won and currently a single source that states he a registered Democrat." And lastly, it's not even accurate: the first line says "a dispute on what political party should be listed for David Clarke", when the dispute is actually whether it should say Democrat or be left blank. I know that's a small point but it definitely was designed by Jauerback to get the outcome he wants. Am I allowed to edit the wording of the RFC? JimKaatFan (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I recommend that User:Jauerback replace the wording of the RfC with a simpler version: "What political affiliation should be listed in David Clarke's infobox? Should it be "Democrat" or just left blank?" If Jauerback doesn't want to do this, I'll open a thread on Talk:David Clarke (sheriff) to get some input. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I completely disagree with the neutrality aspect. However, I agree it could be shorter, but it's definitely in lines with other RFCs. Regardless of my opinion, I'm totally willing to change it to what EdJohnston suggested. However... I admittedly don't know the correct way to go about changing the text of an RFC now that others have commented. Simply replacing the text of the RFC at this point doesn't seem correct. Perhaps a strikeout of the other text? Or something else? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Why not simply remove the beginning words from the RfC, and leave only the last sentence. You could then put a comment at the bottom of the RfC comment section to explain what you did, and leave a link to the original version. It would be up to the RfC closer to navigate the issue, but shouldn't be too hard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Western Approaches Tactical Unit

Hello
I’m puzzling over what to do about this page. It was substantially expanded by User:Kurzon, who (when I checked), was under an indefinite ban for socking a while ago. Is that still current? Or has he/she made their peace with the project now? Either way the additions need editing (which I’m planning to do when I can get to the library), as they are a little wide of the mark. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Though Kurzon has a colorful history, they were unblocked in April, 2018 and are not currently restricted. If you have ideas for improving the WATU article please go ahead. If you encounter any disagreement you can use the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Persija Jakarta

so conclusion is all of you unable to copy logo from indonesian wiki are amateur users with useless edits 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.146.253 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You've been blocked for personal attacks at User talk:Flix11. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Ed, this vandal above [100], same person, is a long-standing vandal. He terrorizes regularly on hr.wiki since late June 2019 on daily basis. At first it looked like ordinary vandalisms, and later he turned very rude and personal towards Croatian wikiusers, posting threatning content on the talkpages, with posting very personal informations. He also likes to hound, so he also vandalizes mainspace and other pages that targeted user edited. Targeted users are the users that removed his vandalisms in real time. He also has a pick on few hr.wiki users so he sends them very rude messages, containing threats with raping, slaughter and he also likes to use pictorial symbols in the messages. Kubura (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
As You see, he also periodically vandalizes my talkpage on en.wiki.[101]. Important: that "pictorial" vandal is not the same as this one whose sockpuppets are globally cross-wiki banned [102], that other one edits as registered and non-registered and he's focused on two topics (Tito, Desanka Maksimović) and posting some URL's in summaries and in edits. Kubura (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you think User:Antandrus might be able to help? He has blocked another IP hosted on Hrvatski Telecom and he may have some knowledge. He also removed IP vandalism from your talk page by somebody named GRP, who he said was WMF-banned. That IP seems to be subject to a global block placed by User:Bsadowski1 which is said to be a proxy block. The global block is on Special:Contributions/93.142.13.156 which is in the same /16 as the guy who began this thread, 93.142.146.253. But if we blocked Special:Contributions/93.142.0.0/16 that would be large, but it is not all of Hrvatski Telecom which appear to have more ranges including 93.137.0.0/16. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this looks like two different vandals/trolls using the same provider, Hrvatski Telecom -- although I suspect the first may actually be in Croatia, and the other, the WMF-banned "George Reeves Person", is in Chicago and uses an open proxy finder, one that allows you to choose the country from which the IP address originates. Happens to be the same IP range as the other. Stylistically they are different. (Does that help?) Antandrus (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear reported

Hello Sir - I submitted complaint in WP:AN3 and the reason is for other Admins to get better understanding about where me and other users like me are coming from whose changes were being reverted continuously on Afghan Sikh Wars page by Kansas Bear. I have been editor since 2018 and have never had any issue or complains till page of "Afghan Sikh Wars". Please do read my complaint in WP:AN3. Also I agree with your decision to protect page but why is Kansas Bear still able to continue to make changes?

  1. [103] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.187.120 (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
As an IP-hopper your edits don't have much credibility. If you want to participate on disputed articles, it is better to register an account. "I have been editor since 2018". How can anyone tell? See WP:SCRUTINY. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

IP Block Evasion

An IP you blocked seems to be jumping ranges, as a ip has begun to re-institute their edit to Greek cruiser Georgios Averof. It is also coming from the same location. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Greek cruiser Georgios Averof for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Beyhiveboys

The fanboi's block expired and he immediately did this. Fancy enacting a partial block? Guy (help!) 11:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Done, per this notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
It is unfair I got blocked again because of reverting my editing. (help!) claimed I am using facebook as reference for the awards which is not true and very malicious. There is no evidence that I did cause I never did such ([[User talk:Beyhiveboys|talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé

I hope it clarifies my concern. This awards exists but since they don't have a page here, they are not valid? THEY ARE VALID AND NOTABLE. It hurts me to see those person deleting those awards with proper links, I can understand them deleting it if that doesn't have proper citations but all of those have. I hope you get my point. Thanks Beyhiveboys (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether the receipt of an award is important enough to mention in an article is a matter for WP:CONSENSUS. If readers are unlikely to have heard of an award, it may save space in the article to simply omit it. It is not enough for an award to exist, it must also be important enough to be included. Wikipedia also performs a service by leaving things out. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
If I create a page for those awards, they won't be deleted anymore? Thank you. Beyhiveboys (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
If you create a page for an award, it has to meet the usual standards of WP:NOTABILITY. Otherwise the page will be deleted. Consider using the WP:Articles for creation process to ensure that you follow the steps correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

3RR question

User has been blocked indef due to another issue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello EdJohnston. Before I filed a 1RR report, I was in an editing dispute with Scribatorian at John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford. I made a large edit on each article by removing a decent amount of images because I felt there were too many of them. They initially reverted both of my edits without explanations. After I reverted their reverts, they made numerous edits to both articles by restoring the images individually (though I retract my revert explanations in the sense that I should get a consensus on which images to remove). WP:AN/EW states: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Based on that statement and the revision histories for JFK and Ford, do their edits count as 3RR violations? --Wow (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Wow: An uninterrupted series of edits to gradually undo an edit is generally counted as "one"-(ish) revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Several images that User:Scribatorian added at John F. Kennedy have now been removed by an admin as a copyright violation. Regarding Ford: consider opening a thread at Talk:Gerald Ford on whether there are too many pictures. So far I don't see any 3RR violations by either side. But there is a certain chutzpah when Scribatorian adds images that others may object to with the imbedded comment 'DO NOT REMOVE the picture without prior consensus'. It appears to be a one-sided obligation -- he doesn't need consensus to add, but others need consensus to remove. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Scribatorian has now been indef blocked by another admin due to his further adventures. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple attempts by someone else to log in as me.

I’m curious if there is any way for someone to discover where my doppelganger is logging in from; I’d find that useful to determine whether this is just random, some form of spearphishing, or some piece of equipment gone haywire. Who would you recommend I ask?

Note that I am not looking for particulars, unless they happen to line up with areas that I have actually logged in from. Qwirkle (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There have been discussions among developers about displaying the IP address in notifications of a failed attempt to log in or reset a password, for example phab:T174388. I don't know the current situation, however, if the message you received does not mention the IP address there is no way to find it. The WMF is very privacy conscious and, for example, any of us could put a typo in our user name when logging in, and maybe the typo creates a valid user name, and then our IP address would be sent to the other user. The question has also come up at WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. There appear to be only 3 of us with usernames similar enough to create this problem, in this case, though. Qwirkle (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it's hitting others, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Failed login attempts. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Dan Price page

Hello @EdJohnston:, It was suggested that I ping you here about the page you locked a few years back. I have made a draft here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Price) and a request for redirect here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_2#Dan_Price). Since Price has stayed in the public eye it is worth revisiting. The only reason I even learned about his existence is from some recent article about how he is handling covid-19 at his company. I was surprised he didn't have a wikipedia page. I didn't realize he previously had a page until I already created a draft. My draft has reputable sources for every statement and no COI issues. Let me know what you think. Or if there are any ways I can improve the draft. Thanks for your time RayScript (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears you are taking the Draft:Dan Price through the WP:AFC process, which is a good idea. I recommend you continue. See if you can provide material that will satisfy the reviewers' objections. At the same time, I notice that you've added quite a bit of negative material. If this comes from reliable sources, it is kosher in principle, but we don't like to see marginally-notable figures covered in articles that are mostly negative. (In such cases, it is better not to have the article at all). Also, the withdrawal of the TEDx talk by the university might suggest they are worried that the charges are unproved and may not be true. The article in entrepreneur.com says that they searched for a police report of the domestic abuse but couldn't find one. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

My apologies

I'm sincerely sorry that you faced these slurs [104]. My editing was mentioned, but I am sure that if it wasn't for me, some other editor would be mentioned. Note that the same editor is ignoring several other editors (which he has done as well in the past) and he's having a personal crusade all over the page, which is taking some 5 years now. Once again - I'm sorry Ed. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Giving thanks where it's due

Reviewing your comments, I want to thank you for making things clear on my talkpage. I've recently been noticing people get reported on wp:AIV without being warned on their talkpage and even then the editor that blocks hardly ever bothers to check whether the person was warned before taking action. While I'm not too happy about getting warred over disagreement whether a youtube link to valid, I always know it's better to discuss things first before deciding any further action. 108.30.105.141 (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Awards of Destiny's Child

I noticed that Cornerstonepicker deleted tons of awards from Destiny's Child. He recently deleted tons from Beyonce's and now from Destiny's Child. All awards there are with valid link but are deleted. THe warring dispute he started with Beyonce's awards didn't stop yet, he did it again with Destiny's Child.

I hope you could help with regards to the activity of this user. I didn't undo his deleted awards with valid link yet because I want you to meddle. Thank you Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 04 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you raised your concern yet at Talk:Destiny's Child? Cornerstonepicker may have been intending to move some of these into the separate article on List of awards and nominations received by Destiny's Child. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I did not but i post my concern on his talk page. Hope you can do something — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyhiveboys (talk • contribs)
If you are unhappy with the edits of User:Cornerstonepicker, you should follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Candidates Tournament 2020

Because you had closed my previous thread due to semi-protection...The Ukrainian IP who was aggressively edit warring on 25 March (4 reverts in under an hour: [105] [106] [107] [108]) is back. Note the false edit summary citing Chess.com as the 94.* IP did back then. Thanks much, CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Page semiprotected one month. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Vienna pp

Hi EdJohnston, I saw that you page-protected Vienna for a year due to disruptive editing. It looks to me like it was just one user, who has just been range blocked for a month, see this ANI report. The page has a lot of watchers, and I'll also be keeping an eye on the IPs. Maybe the page protection isn't really necessary at this point, what do you think? --IamNotU (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That's an idea. But did you notice *any* beneficial IP edits at Vienna in the period since 1 January this year? EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in the page before. At a glance, other than the one Belgian IP user (213.119.176.78, 109.129.103.46, and 2a02:1811:8415:ca00::/64), I see about ten IP edits in 2020. It looks like almost all have been useful, or at least have remained in the article. I see now that 199.66.155.6 is blocked for some reason, though their edits were kept. Over the past year I don't really see a lot of other disruption, no more so than in Berlin for example. But whatever you think is best... --IamNotU (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The page is now unprotected. We'll see how it goes from here. EdJohnston (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_47&oldid=998766435"