User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 53

Hi there

I left a message at User talk:Worm That Turned:

Hi there, I was originally going to message User:EdJohnston in view of my experience of his past admin work. But then I saw you represented the arbcom in the recent Volunteer Marek versus Icewhiz case. I have a concern about a related matter in the WP:ARBEE topic area. It would be helpful if VMvI could be learned from by all users. It would also be helpful if editors could notify admins about places where there are signs of possible future escalation. Is there a noticeboard where I can flag the issue to all relevant administrators on that VMvI case (and/or ARBEE in general) in one go, rather than messaging admins directly? I have no wish to raise formal procedure, I would simply like to flag a volatile area so that things do not to have to get that far. -- Chumchum7 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heard back yet, so please could you let me know your opinion on the appropriate noticeboard or equivalent WP:APL and/or WP:ARBEE related discussion pages? Much obliged, --Chumchum7 (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Since WP:APL is an arbitration decision, you can raise any concerns at WP:AE. Any complaint ought to be very well-focused. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. My thinking was that WP:AE is for conduct concerns about individual editors, and so that a filing would be a form of escalation and drama that I'd rather avert. To be sure, would WP:AE be the right place to raise concerns about general volatility on a couple of pages related to the WP:APL decision? Could a filing there be used to request existing page restrictions be extended to related pages, to prevent overspill of the problem that WP:APL attempted to contain? -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:NeilN placed a sourcing restriction at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland back in 2018. Is that the kind of thing? EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes that's exactly what I'm talking about. And even more importantly the warning notice box at the top of Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland covering 1RR, CONS, CIVILITY and source misrepresentation, etc. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What other pages do you think are in dispute? EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather use the word 'volatile' than 'in dispute', based on Talk page discussions at Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum and Talk:Jedwabne pogrom. Both were worked on by Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek, the two named at WP:APL. But neither article has such rigorous requirements as the warning box at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. I'm thinking especially of the latter two:

*Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users. Edits by IP editors are subject to WP:3RR.

*Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don't make the edit.

*Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

I believe such requirements should prevent an overspill of the APL battleground, or temptation to pick up where the sanctioned editors left off.

Cheers, --Chumchum7 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The recent discussions at Talk:Paradisus Judaeorum look civil enough. Are there any recent edits to the article itself that you regard as troubling? What exactly do you regard as 'volatile' here? EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes the recent discussions are civil, but that has taken place after the word WP:DISENGAGE appears on the page. If we go further back to the top of the current page [1] and word-search "antisemit", we can click through to see the discussion gets febrile. One example: [2][3][4][5] Under ARBEE and APL guidance it shouldn't have got that far. We know from past experience that lack of boundary vigilance encourages boundaries to be crossed. Some editors might not be aware of those expectations, or might not have fully comprehended that Arbcom really mean what they say. Happy Easter, by the way. --Chumchum7 (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I was pinged here, I'll note that I felt rather offended by the above-linked posts by User:Warshy (who I believe should be pinged, as his edits are diffed here), as I find accusations of "intellectually unwarranted and dubious act", "gaslighting", "canvassing outside editors in order to save his undue pet project", "an unacceptable racist bias on the part of the defending editor" quite unbecoming. (Also, Warshy seems to have been confused re who moved the page, and who defends what, as the above accusations, seemingly directed at me, are not only uncivil but are simply untrue, as I did not move the page, I voted against the move, and neither did I defend its current title anywhere - in fact I've been very vocal that the current title is in need of adjustment). After this was pointed out, however, Warshy did not refactor his posts nor apologized. I do not ask for sanctions enforcement, but I would ask that Warshy refactors his posts and apologizes for the rather uncivil accusations which seemed to have been levied at me. As User:Darwinek noted, this area needs more WP:AGF, not less. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You may have seen that amid this discussion the warning box at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom was changed and then I mentioned this discussion there. What would be the procedure for adding the Consensus and Civility lines quoted above to that same box? Am I right to assume an editor should not unilaterally do it? Also, there's a date mistake (1933) in the box discussed by User:Worm That Turned and User:Piotrus [6] but I don't see if it was taken up at WP:ARCA. Perhaps an efficient way of not bugging busy admins individually with this would be for me to raise the correction request there, and further ask for the consensus and civility requirements on the warning notice at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland to be extended across to related articles? It seems self-evident that individual pages concerning antisemitism in Poland and incidents of Polish collaboration will attract over-spill of the problems that were at that article. Such simple precautions on certain articles will cause a lot less drama and time burn than AE filings scrutinizing individual editors; indeed part of the problem may be systemic in that the solution could be seen to have been narrowly applied to just one article rather than many. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus Misinformation

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

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I just made a wikipedia account so I could address this: I'm really concerned that the coronavirus page has inaccurate scientific information that has serious implications. Since my account is new I can't edit the talk page, which is where I would have preferred to put this.

The page currently has the CFR of COVID-19 at 7.1, citing the JHU dashboard. This is a crude estimate of the CFR, and one likely to inflict more panic than appropriate. See the following articles for better information on epidemiologists estimating CFRs (in ways more comparable to SARS and MERS as would be appropriate for your table): . As you'll see, most estimates for the CFR are closer to 1-4%. I propose you remove the inaccurate and unbased 7% figure and replace it with a note that the CFR is an active field of research and the information is not yet available to say certainly what it is. Your table conveys far too much certainty and this is really dangerous.

NoozeEnvy (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Blocked

• List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi EdJohnston, I noticed you block me from editing Beyonceś page due to edit warring, may I request to unblock me? I will add awards with proper links on her page. Thank you Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Last I heard, the importance of the awards was being contested, not that the awards were actually won. So you need to get consensus on the talk page for this inclusion. See the discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé#Proposed restoration. See also WP:Dispute resolution for some options that are available to you. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I already did read the consensus but I remain quiet to not cause any further clash against some user. I just hope I would be able to edit the page of Beyonce since I worked my ass too much for that page and I did not do anything wrong, all awards are with valid secondary references. I hope you reconsider it again. Thanks Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Just read the discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé#Proposed restoration and see if you perceive a consensus for your view. If the verdict is uncertain, you can open a WP:Request for comment, which can bring in people new to the issue and can be formally closed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Question for reference

• Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an IP that was adding Original research to article Jehovah's Witness. I reverted because it was using the bible to explain the belief and not a reliable source explicitly stating this. 2 reverts to the IP. Now 1 revert to the new account. I left warnings and a note. Where do I stand as far as 3RR, I don't think it counts as an exception and thus barring any communication from the user, I should stop? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You should stop, since you and the other party (under their two identities) are both at 3RR. But the article may need semiprotection. I've done that. If the named editor reverts again they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought so but I wanted to check. Was a problematic addition but still didn't think it was worth the edit war :) thanks. Will find other things to do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

184.98.237.95

I noticed you blocked user:184.98.237.95 infinitely, which I know is not supposed to normally be done to IP addresses. Just wanted to let you know. CLCStudent (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You also did it with user:175.223.20.226. CLCStudent (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I need some coffee. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Glina, Croatia

• Glina, Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, in this article Glina, Croatia It seems to me accusations of me breaking some of Wikipedia’s rules are not true. Can you take a look. PortalTwo (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The article has now been fully protected by User:Ad Orientem to stop the edit warring. At first sight it appears you have broken WP:3RR on this article. If you disagree on whether a source is usable, you can ask at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been informed that a discussion is now being opened on the talk page and have lifted the PP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the reverts were about separate matters. And it was three seperate reverst with no real explanation for content removal. I had addressed the source issue as I wasn’t the one removing the source. Then after the source was addressed another user came in saying the President’s quote shouldn’t be added at all.PortalTwo (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

PortalTwo, you are expected to count all your reverts on a single article towards the limit, whether about one matter or several. See the pink box on the WP:3RR page. On the question of sources, disagreement on whether a source ought to be removed doesn't grant you an exception to 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Internet Society redux

• Internet Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Result of the 20 January RfC

Thanks for your interest in this article. There was an edit dispute, which you closed, with the remark "Try to ensure that your additional changes have consensus". Although not an employee of the organization, I admitted a close relationship, posted a COI notice, and have restricted my comments to the talk page. After a period of inactivity I just suggested what appears to be a good WP:RS.diff. This seems to have provoked a response from Ferderline who has edited the article, characterizing opposition to the PIR sale as "significant", adding anti-sale material while ignoring any corresponding responses. And then appended another item (Iran) that is sourced to an ISOC internal mailing list.diff Further, Ferderline has gone to my own user page and edited it to say "This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by Internet Society for his contributions to Wikipedia."diff when I have done nothing of the kind. What say? Might some kind of block be in order? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Any COI disclosure ought to be something added by you. But I thought you had agreed that you were a vendor to the Internet Society? That appears at first glance to give you the same COI as an employee. You appear to be receiving money from the society for work that you do. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not paid to edit Wikipedia. That is scurrilous. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I left a note for Ferdeline. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Thanks. Did you look at Ferdeline's other edits? These, like the earlier ones that were reversed, include deliberate shade casting 1) "ostensibly for financial reasons" on the 2001 change of membership structure, to suggest the organization conspired to disenfranchize its membership (unsourced) 2) the inclusion of the OFAC issue, where a single incident (sourced to an internal email.) of the organization adhering to US laws is used also to bolster the POV that ISOC is not globally representative. And lastly, the re-inclusion of the previously reversed unsourced assertion that the IETF "began to become independent of the Internet Society by forming its own legal entity", where this is flatly contravened by RFC 2031 i.e. "The IETF LLC is a disregarded Limited Liability Company (LLC) of the Internet Society." This again is used to imply (unsourced) that the IETF is seeking to distance itself, where as in fact it was an internal ISOC reorganization. None of this was discussed on the talk page. How does any of this comprise consensual editing as called for after the RFC, or, for that matter, NPOV? Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wwwhatsup (talk), EdJohnston (talk). I apologize for not being involved in this conversation sooner and for my absence from Wikipedia. I am still learning how this website works and how best I can contribute. My edits yesterday were not provoked by any recent changes to the Internet Society article; it was merely a case of me stumbling across another Wikipedia article and then noticing there were unread notifications. I clicked on one and noticed that edits had been made to the Internet Society article. I made some further, factual contributions to the page using neutral language. I do not appreciate it, Wwwhatsup, that you question my motivations so frequently. I also find it scandalous that you would seek to have me blocked from this website. You are paid by the Internet Society to make social media posts, so if anyone has a conflict of interest here, it is very clearly you. Wwwhatsup is correct that one claim is unsourced; I will add a citation now to the article so that this claim is supported by a primary source. The inclusion of the OFAC issue is a legitimate controversy so I do not support removing it. I have never before been told that I must propose a change on a Wikipedia talk page, I was always under the impression one may edit Wikipedia whenever they like and directly on the page itself. As for your allegations that my language was not neutral, I reject these claims. Ferdeline (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, Wwwhatsup (talk) states that I "characteriz[ed] opposition to the PIR sale as "significant"." Yes I did, and I believe this to be a true and fair statement. Opposition to the sale has included three separate petitions with tens of thousands of signatures, opposition by ISOC's own chapters, letters from the California Attorney General, five US Senators including Senator Elizabeth Warren, and letters of opposition from a coalition of organizations including National Geographic, the Red Cross, the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, and the Girl Scouts of America. There are literally only two public supporters of the sale, Vint Cerf and ISOC itself! Ferdeline (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ferdeline, "literally" ? EdJohnston What about [removed a link. -- Ed J ] Acceptable behavior? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

For a supposedly inexperienced editor, Ferdeline is finding lots of creative ways to push the boundaries and create concern about his edits. If he sincerely thinks that all these changes (as well as the tweet) are a good approach to the problem, I am starting to question his judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wwwhatsup: I suggest you go ahead and make proposals at Talk:Internet Society for what should go in the article. If User:Ferdeline has made unsourced changes, and if you believe that there in fact *are* no reliable sources for those items, you can propose that those statements be removed. Since you have some relationship to the Society you might be aware of other documents from their site that could be helpful and can be accessed on the web. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You may not be aware, but Wwwhatsup has made my real-life identity known on Facebook, and I reported this via email to "paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org" on 16 December 2019 and never heard back, so I am not going to be silenced here. Wwwhatsup is inappropriate, has a conflict of interest, and should not be posting on this issue. That the Internet Society would permit his behaviour must be brought to the attention of the public.Ferdeline (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you consider your own real-life identity to be a secret? [ Removed part of my comment ] EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not share the link on Wikipedia to this tweet, this was done in bad faith by Wwwhatsup.Ferdeline (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed some text above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how citing off-platform harassment is bad faith, if it is pertinent to a pattern of harrasment. I do admit, when the RFC first came out, I did post a notice to a topic-related closed facebook group to try to recruit more independent minds, familiar to both of us, to respond. Not with any visible success, sorry to say. This is different to the public outing and harassment I am receiving. This includes the latest suggestion on my talk page that I may not discuss the article.(diff). It is difficult to see how consensus based editing, as suggested, may proceed. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Wwwhatsup, external activism by both of you is not helping, and may run afoul of various Wikipedia rules. It reduces my desire to help sort this out. Each of you could have worked to bring reliable sources to the talk page and suggested usable text to include, but that has not happened. It was worth mentioning the Fredrik Lindeberg book but it doesn't seem specific enough. The Internet Society article will probably remain in a poor state until some regular Wikipedia editor takes an interest, and that could take a long time. I don't see any energy from either of you towards doing the right thing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Hang on a minute. Although I agree with your summary, I have to protest about being tarred with the same brush. My only contributions since the RFC have been to 1) suggest areas of expansion, 2) note unsourced material 3) post a link to what appears to be a good bibliography. Please give me a diff where Ferdeline has engaged in any content-based conversation on the talk page? Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It does appear that the PIR question will be resolved soon, as ICANN have run out of time to procrastinate their approval. What is notable, beyond Internet Society concerns, is that the opposition to the deal, having procured 'significant' interventions by Government officials, may have precipitated an existential threat to the entire independent multistakeholder mode of Internet Governance. See 1 and 2, This may ultimately result in ICANN being removed from US jurisdiction. Who knows? Possibly the PIR sale merits its own article, since it involves several entities. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Hello, EdJohnston. I’m not sure what Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions are? I know I had got into a revert war at one point though not the same reverts. But I walked aways from the article days before this report was made by the other user. I had no interest returning to that article. Why am I being sanctioned? The ANI you linked to was made about the other user, I wasn’t part of that ANI or listed there. This is the first time ever someone had reported me. OyMosby (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The AN3 complaint was here. See WP:ARBEE for the arbitration case which applies. The area of the former Yugoslavia is notorious on Wikipedia for edit wars and nationalist arguments. Anyone can issue alerts for that area. You and the other party exchanged a lot of reverts between April 27 and 29, so I'm glad the dispute doesn't seem to be continuing. It is still better to open a WP:Request for comments about whatever is still unresolved, since that brings in other people. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I see so I was not sanctioned? It was simply an alert so that admins keep an eye out? The ARBEE shows no case brought up. Also the article in question deals with the Balkans as well. Which have articles that have been problematic as of late with conflicts. So perhaps the Balkan discretionary board should be alerted to keep an eye put as well. I have no interest in further conflict on those pages. I simply get attacked or in this case a user used the report page to have their way. I may try as you recommended the WP:Request for comments. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments. The wording is: Pages which relate to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Right so I am warned this time and if I were to be involved again in a problem in the future, I could face restrictions. This was all new to me so sorry for the confusion. When I saw the word “sanction” it freaked me out a bit. Haha. Thank you for clarifying. I will try to avoid the other user in the future just to be safe. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

'Sanction' is a poor choice of word. Even in the dictionary it means two opposite things ('sanctioned' to say that a thing is permitted, and 'sanctioned' meaning punished). Sadly this is the word used on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Although I personally feel the other party was more in the wrong, I understand I broke a rule too. And will be more mindful. Also by ANI I meant your reference to this report on 30 April at ANI , which I was not part of, in your AN3 post. Just wanted to clarify what I meant. Thanks for the closure and explanation. Take care. OyMosby (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats

Regarding your block of User:Dr Parthiv Ravichandiran, I don't know if you noticed, but User:Periyarist has made the same legal threat though with less words. See this diff. -- Whpq (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I see you warned User:Periyiarist already; let's see how it goes. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Fornovo & Italian War of 1494–1498

• Battle of Fornovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Italian War of 1494–1498 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This edit is source misrepresentation and original research. Considering it is an IP that continues to edit war their POV into the article, what can be done? They have been warned twice by Materialscientist.

P.S. Hope you and yours are safe and healthy during these crazy times on this planet. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've applied three months of semiprotection to each article. For questions like how to describe the outcome of a battle (victory or defeat) the best idea is surely to quote some historians for their opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

3RR report archived

• Maryam Rajavi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, this report was archived, prematurely it seems. Can someone provide an evaluation of the report? Thank you. MA Javadi (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no new reverts by User:Kazemita1 at Maryam Rajavi since the report was filed. So I am not inclined to do anything. If the dispute restarts you can link to this 3RR report as part of your evidence. Meanwhile, User:Vanamonde93 has put put some page restrictions on the Maryam Rajavi article under the WP:GSIP community sanctions. This should help. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia

I know you do not patrol SPI, but I filed a report on the above user, with whom you have had some familiarity, with commentary here. The alacrity at which they have been following my edits (see below) is quite impressive:

Diffs
Ding Liren (before the last block): me at 16:09, SR at 21:43 COVID-19 misinformation (before the last block): me at 20:45, SR at 22:10) Chinese divisions by population: me at 15:27, IP sock at 20:36 COVID-19 xenophobia: me at 20:57, SR following up with a nonsensical post at 23:10

CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Symphony Regalia. It is funny that this got filed under Architect134. Since A134 is a general-purpose impostor and troublemaker, looking for resemblances there is not going to help us solve this. Essentially you need good evidence that Symphony Regalia and 81.4.100.172 are operated by the same person. (Can't use checkuser for this, have to use behavior). I'm not getting it yet. If you think Symphony Regalia's edits about Covid 19 are disruptive you could ask for a topic ban under WP:GS/COVID but should have very good evidence. (Certainly Symphony Regalia has the potential to be a huge waste of time). But the SPI is weak. A checkuser looked at a Symphony Regalia filing back in March and had this negative comment about the complaint: "Why would you even file this? None of the listed evidence relates in any way to this case..." EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Lobsterthermidor and Walsingham

Hi EdJohnston. Thanks for your comments about Thomas Walsingham (died 1457) on closing the AN3 report on User:Lobsterthermidor, here. You mentioned raising an RfC on its talk page - in the light of what's on that page now, what aspect do you see the RfC covering?  —SMALLJIM  22:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems there has been a long-running dispute where you may not have much patience for the other party. However, just looking at the talk page, there is enough material there to apply regular WP:Dispute resolution. The thread at Talk:Thomas Walsingham (died 1457)#Problems with the original version of this article lists a number of items where editors have disagreed. You could use that as a basis for an RfC. You could come up with specific alternatives, and ask the commenters on the RfC to pick between the choices. As a person of your experience knows, RfCs are advertised and can bring in people new to the issue. If an RfC is formally closed the result is usually binding. People can be blocked for reverting against the result of an RfC. If you are doubtful about a source you can ask at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Yes, he has tried my patience a few times. Seeking community involvement on individual issues sounds like a good way to progress.  —SMALLJIM  23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User:84.70.3.168

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

Sure about that? The way I read it, they were reverting vandalism; in fact vandalism from exactly the LTA the filter was supposed to stop. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I did get that backwards. I've unblocked the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like a new M.O. from the LTA. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Temporarily Blocked

• List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

EdJohnston (talk) I noticed that I am still blocked from editing the page while Cornerstonepicker who initiated the edit warring is still active deleting awards from the page, It´s unfair how he isn´t blocked but I was. I already posted at the Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé#Proposed restoration and WP:Request for comment but still, no one replied and I am still blocked. I hope you reconsider things. Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 02 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion you have received an adequate response at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé#Proposed restoration. Wikipedia resists the inclusion of non-notable awards. If non-notable awards are included for other artists they should probably be removed, but that's a separate issue. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand that and I will respect that, I won´t awards those deleted awards anymore. I just want to be unblocked from editing Beyonce´s page, it looks messy since someone just kept on deleting and adding shits since I was blocked. Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 05 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have a specific change in mind to make the article less messy, you can propose it on the talk page. Just describe what you want done. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you just please unblock me? there are many user who are deleting + adding something on the page without any reason. They are the ones you should blocked.Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I should lift your partial block so you can resume warring with the others? That does not make sense. The right way is for you to negotiate on the talk page and reach agreement there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I already did but still, the blocked was not lifted, you are the one who blocked me per wikipedia. I don´t have the intention to continue the edit warring. Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 09:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"I already did" — i.e. you believe you received consensus for your change on the talk page. Which editors have expressed agreement with you there? EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If you will check it again, I did and nobody is answering my concern. They also discussed why am I being block while the one who initially started was not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Beyonc%C3%A9#Proposed_restoration. I just hope you will removed the blocked you put. Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 19:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It may happen that there is a discussion and nobody will answer you. This is regrettable but it doesn't give you permission to go forward. Certainly it doesn't give you consensus. The page at WP:Dispute resolution lists some other options, such as WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Does any of the awards you wish to add have its own Wikipedia article? EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Some awards have its own Wikipedia article, for those who does not have, I put a valid primary source from reputable publications such as Billboard and Variety but it was still deleted. I don´t have plans of having edit warring again, I just want to have access to edit the page since there are new awards Beyonce won that still doesn´t included there yet Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 19:54, 11 May 2020

You say that some awards have their own Wikipedia articles. Can you give examples? EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A good example is the FiFi Awards, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiFi_Awards), in 2005, Beyonce was credited for the win of True Star for Best New Fragrance Commercial.

There are also awards that don´t have wikipedia page but got sources from reputable sites. For example is the WACO Humanitarian Award https://www.eonline.com/shows/e_news/news/921692/beyonce-was-honored-with-the-humanitarian-award-at-the-2018-wearable-art-gala https://www.essence.com/celebrity/beyonce-humanitarian-award-speech-tina-knowles/

There are more awards from the previous pages deleted. Again, I don´t have intentions on having edit warri ng, I only want access to edit the page again for future use when she won awards. I hope you understand. Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 19:54, 12 May 2020

If you have a source that she won a FiFi Award in 2005, why not consider adding her name to the page at FiFi Awards? Note that the page already has a banner at the top questioning the notability of the award. Still, so long as the page exists, it should be OK to add Beyoncé. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

One of the problem I have with the deletion is the references, most of the references there are retrieved from Wayback Machine. Also, I dont have plans meddling with other pages since I noticed most people reverted the edit. Lastly, will you lift the ban or not? I would love to get an access to the page once again since I exerts too much effort for years just to fixed the page. Regards! Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 19:54, 13 May 2020

If you think that the FiFi Awards are notable, why not post at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé and ask for it to be added. It is possible that others won't act on your request, because frankly the FiFi Awards look marginal. You would also need a reliable source that Beyoncé won the award in 2005: "True Star for Best New Fragrance Commercial". EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I won´t include that award anymore. Again, can you lift the blocked? I am still waiting to finally got the access to edit the page. Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 19:54, 14 May 2020

I decline to lift the partial block, not seeing evidence that you understand the issue. If you want another admin to review the situation you can appeal at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You are being subjective. As one of the pioneer here, you should do your job in accordance to what is right or wrong. You blocked me but unblock the one who started the edit warring? Be fair. Beyhiveboys (Beyhiveboys) 19:54, 15 May 2020

Bosnian medieval policy

• Bosnia (early medieval polity) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why did you protected Santasa edits, his removal of the sourced references?Čeha (razgovor) 13:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to whatever this is about? EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_(early_medieval_polity) this. User Santasa is constant in his deletion of sources. Now I see that you didn't protect the page, just puted sign on it. Could you protect it now? Čeha (razgovor) 03:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no recent discussion on the talk page. But if the angry exchanges continue, admins will probably have to decide whether to use the discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could stop that guy from deleting quotes...Čeha (razgovor) 02:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Honest Yusuf Cricket

has continued the same nonsense not logged in (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Honest_Yusuf_Cricket); their recent disruptive edits are at Peter Pan (1953 film) and Song of the South. Any chance you could do something about it, or should I take it to a noticeboard? (JWB JBW put some protection on Criticism of The Walt Disney Company, I see, but they've just shifted to other articles.) --JBL (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the three IPs you listed and semiprotected two articles: Peter Pan (1953 film) and Song of the South. The geolocation of the IPs to Italy is distinctive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --JBL (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You are thinking of JBW not JWB.

Fixed, thank you, JBW JWB. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@LBJ: I am not at all surprised that the person just shifted to other articles. In fact I very much thought they probably would. It is very difficult to make much impact on editors like this, who are undeterred by blocks because they just shift to another IP address or account, and undeterred by page protection because they just shift to another page. However, at the very least blocking and protecting slows them down, and if it happens often enough sometimes it can lead them to give up and go away, so it's worth trying. JBW (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@LBJ Ha! Apologies for the mix-up. I agree with your analysis. --JBL (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Review question

Hi, Ed! Do you know, or what do you think, if GA reviewer is allowed to seek "second opinion" - nominator is advised to seek second opinion on reviewer's conclusions, perspectives, etc., per GA support pages, but nowhere is explicitly mentioned that reviewer too could seek second opinion if some issue can't be solved easily or simply reviewer find him/herself unsure about something particular in the article. Thanks and take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not post your question at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. I am not a regular reviewer and can't advise about the standards used. I assume this is about Talk:Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War#GA Review. Unclear why GA1 and GA2 review pages seem to be both open at the same time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Talk:Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War#GA Review, that one, but I have no idea why is GA1 still open, actually I was not aware of that at all. It's my first review, anyway, so some technical aspect of the process may escape my attention - that's why it did not occur to me to go to Wikipedia talk:Good articles for this, as you just suggested, in the first place. Also, I suppose it was just reflex to seek advice elsewhere, and since you became my go-to admin - just your bad luck :-) - here I am. Joke aside, I would like to thank you for your quick response and suggestion, I could also divert the nominator's attention onto the GA1 problem.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP-hopping genre vandal on Anathema (band) and Katatonia pages, #2804

Hello, EdJohnston. First off, thank you very much for semi-protecting The Great Cold Distance and Night Is the New Day. I think that is already positively affecting those pages.

With that said, one of the IP genre vandals involved with the ultimate semi-protection of those pages, one in the #2804 range, has committed similar activity for over four years. I have started a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the person/people, and any input you may have would be appreciated. Thank you. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Drmies has blocked Special:Contributions/2804:7f3:4800::/37 for three months. Hope that takes care of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

AttilAkay

• AttilaAkay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Afsharid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Seljuq dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kara-Khanid Khanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hiya. This user [7] whomst you warned earlier doesn't seem to be here to WP:BUILDWP and shows a clearcase of WP:HUH? as well, constantly edit warring and whatnot [8] [9] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Honduras200010

• Honduras200010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston, after this 3rr report you gave a 48-hour edit-warring block to Honduras200010. As soon as it expired, they were back to make the same edit removing large sections of the article without explanation or discussion: [10], [11]. They've also continued to add copyright violations. Maybe you could take a look? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Now blocked for two weeks. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of Perry Mason episodes

Thank you Ed Johnston. I am sorry to have wasted your time on this silliness. Had the vandalism been small, I would have just ignored it completely, but it brings up a question you may be able to answer for me.
If somebody deleted a large amount of dispersed information from an article, and then other people edited the article after that, is there a simple method to re-incorporate the old, deleted, dispersed information into the most recent page? Zeus Maximus (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Beware of using the term 'vandalism' incorrectly, because that is blockable. I don't think there is a clear answer to your question about dispersed information. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sylheti language

Hi Ed, I'd just like to thank you for protecting the Sylheti Nagri page from vandalism. Is it possible to also protect the Sylheti language page as it tends to occasionally have a lot of vandals as well? It has been protected in the past due to a number of incidents which you can see in the talk page. Many thanks. UserNumber (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello UserNumber. Can you point to some bad edits at Sylheti language? I don't know what you were referring to about the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Fourteen Years on Wikipedia!

Hey, EdJohnston. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I demand a recount! But thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A concern

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

This IP has categorically been deleting referenced information from a wide span of article, ranging from Armenian to Turkish to Persian/Iranian. Examples:

• Mimar Sinan, "The given references neither make a definitive statement with evidence ("probably", or "said to have been" are the used qualifications) nor are sources who have done any sort of research on the question of Mimar Sinan's ethnicity. Thus they are speculative hearsay at best and do not constitute expert opinion in any shaoe or form on the question of Mimar Sinan's ethnicity"
• Ottoman Empire, "Fixed overstated assertion" & Ottoman Empire,again,"The two given sources do not claim such a thing. Those two sources are also not authoritative or legitimate enough to comment on the nature of the Ottoman dynasty to begin with. One of them is Encyclopedia Iranica the other one is a survey on use of persian language in Ottoman Historiography. The survey does not say anything relating to such a general description as the Ottoman Dynasty being "Persianized". The other source is not considered authoritative with regards to Ottoman history. Pract..."
• Franco-Ottoman allliance, "Not in reference cited"

Many more not shown. I personally checked the Mimar Sinan and Franco-Ottoman alliance references and they checked out. I believe the IP is simply removing information they do not like. Said IP has 6 warnings on their talk page from 6 different editors(I have not posted any). Would you be interested in addressing this issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I have left a comment. Lets see if they will respond. Not only they are triggering the edit filter, but mw:ORES is flagging some of their edits as questionable. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi. If it's not any trouble, could you please review my notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? The user in question is continuing to disrupt the page. Thanks in advance. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The report is now closed and archived at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive409#User:Moamem reported by User:Jadebenn (Result: Both warned). It was filed due to a revert war at Space Launch System. I see there has been a discussion at Talk:Space Launch System and hope that indicates something positive. If not I suggest an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Advice

I apologize as I was not looking at the posting on the talk page, as my system hadn't refreshed it's self, I reverted it, at the bottom of the talk paged I have placed content for review, by others and feedback. Any other further guidance that you could provide would be wonderful.

Thanks,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwritter251 (talk • contribs)

This barnstar is for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I admit, was pessimist that the new naming dispute that arose at Macedonia Naming Dispute wouldn't be solved as quickly as it did! I am relieved and grateful to both Peacemaker67 for the quick resolution and to you for being a voice of logic in a dispute that had met all the conditions for spiralling out of control. Thank you, EdJohnston! - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Macedonia name

• Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Macedonia naming dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, Ed, your attention is needed at Macedonia and Macedonia Naming Dispute. Certain editors known in the past for their Macedonian POV, are trying to remove any qualifiers (i.e North) that were in place in front of the name Macedonia, a change which is finding me and other editors disagreeing with and was made without seeking WP:CONSENSUS first. I strongly believe these qualifiers have to stay to avoid potential semiological confusion. The disputed changes the editors made are:

Lengthy post. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Macedonia: Consensus was this for 10+ years until the 2019 name change: Macedonia naming dispute between Greece and Republic of Macedonia Since the 2019 name change the new silent consensus is: Macedonia naming dispute between Greece and North Macedonia (resolved in 2019) Now the editors changed it unilaterally (without having consensus) to: Macedonia naming dispute between Greece and Macedonia (resolved in 2019) Macedonia Naming Dispute Consensus was this for 10+ years until the 2019 name change: The use of the name "Macedonia" was disputed between the Southeast European countries of Greece and Republic of Macedonia Since the 2019 name change the new silent consensus is: The use of the name "Macedonia" was disputed between the Southeast European countries of Greece and North Macedonia Now the editors reverted it unilaterally (without having consensus) to: The use of the name "Macedonia" was disputed between the Southeast European countries of Greece and Republic of Macedonia These changes where they remove the "Republic of " or "North" are unacceptable and I have expressed my disagreement with but they are not listening. I tried to restore "North Macedonia" but they reverted me insisting that we stay with just "Macedonia". I even offered them a compromise i.e. "Republic of Macedonia" which is closer to what they want and can solve the disagreement, but again they were unwilling to compromise. They dismissed my concerns for semiological confusion this would cause, ignored my calls to seek consensus, didn't appreciate my compromise offer, accused me of mispercepting the WP:NCMAC (I was participant to its creation) and insist with keeping their disputed changes. Your attention is needed, as the topic of Macedonia is politically very sensitive and these two articles are visited by a very large number of readers, and the consensus was always to add a clarification in Articles where multiple Macedonias are mentioned, i.e. the first instance of the word in the top of the article to use the official or full name of the country i.e. North Macedonia (if referred to Present) or Republic of Macedonia (if referred to Past) which helps distinguish the one Macedonia from other Macedonias mentioned below in the same article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Comment. User:SilentResident is throwing POV stones while living in a glass house. His Greek POV is well documented. "Me and other editors" is false because he is the only one who has been involved with his POV. The name change was to bring this article (Macedonia naming dispute) in line with referencing related to WP:NCMAC, which explicitly states that references to Macedonia's activities prior to 2019 should use the historic name at the time: (Republic of) Macedonia. "North Macedonia" did not exist prior to 2019, so any back reference to this name is anachronistic. That's why NCMAC is clear. SilentResident has been on a quest at this and other articles to push a Greek POV that inserts the word "North" in front of every occurrence of "Macedonia" in reference to the country even though NCMAC cautions against that very thing as repetitive. The current dispute is very clear: "North Macedonia" was not a party to the naming dispute, "Macedonia" was. "North Macedonia" came into existence as a result of the naming dispute. Using the word "semiological" is a humorous attempt to sound like the problem is greater than it is. The problem is simple, SilentResident is pushing a Greek POV as hard as possible to make the use of "Macedonia" without the adjective "North" disappear in English. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "The name change was to bring this article (Macedonia naming dispute) in line with referencing related to WP:NCMAC, which explicitly states that references to Macedonia's activities prior to 2019 should use the historic name at the time: (Republic of) Macedonia." Your changes to the article weren't in line with WP:NCMAC. NCMAC clearly states that only under certain conditions the countries should be called by their prior names: when they are referred in a historical context. The beginning sentence of the lead section however didn't refer to them in a historical tone. Before your changes to it, the sentence was saying: The use of the name "Macedonia" was disputed between the Southeast European countries of Greece and North Macedonia (formerly the Republic of Macedonia, commonly shortened to "Macedonia" in English) and to overcome this obstacle, you purposedly reworded the article in a historical reference so that your changes wouldn't violate WP:NCMAC: The use of the name "Macedonia" was disputed between the Southeast European countries of Greece and Macedonia until 2019, when the latter changed its name to "North Macedonia". You purposedly changed the wording so that the sentence meets the NCMAC conditions for historical reference so that you can use WP:MAC's "historical references" criteria to impose your agenda which is no other than using the ambiguous Macedonia without the necessary qualifiers anywhere as possible. These creative games of yours are dangerously resembling WP:GAMING the system to serve your goals which is no other than replace the name North Macedonia with plain Macedonia even in areas where the NCMAC's conditions wouldnt originally apply. Simple unacceptable! The lead section was just fine for years and none had any problems with it. Was stable, not so ambiguous, and satisfied everyone. Even the Infobox and the Map show the country with its current name, North Macedonia. Apparently this escaped you. You know very well how sensitive topic Macedonia is, and a term that can mean alot of different things to different nations. Yet you didn't care about building consensus before making these changes. And when I reverted you guys, you reverted my reverts! In the Talk page also you dismissed EVERY one of my concerns and accused me just because I didn't agree with your viewpoint! How is that a constructive stance of your part??? I was willing to seek a compromise with you guys: Republic of Macedonia. You know, Republic of Macedonia is permitted by the NCMAC, just as Macedonia is! You didn't even accept it. Strange, since it meets the NCMAC criteria you seek, yet it can be an option everyone can agree with, even I. However, now you are insisting at dropping "Republic of", while in the past +10 years you were fine with it. So why this sudden 180-turn and obsession of yours to drop the qualifier "Republic of" from it??? Dropping any qualifiers at the very beginning of the article keeping only an ambiguous Macedonia in its place is only bound to cause problems and disruption and you know that. The Republic of Macedonia isn't the sole Macedonia in the region. There are also the Greek Province of Macedonia, the Bulgarian Province and the Geographical region of Macedonia which you appear to seem forgetting. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC) This dispute is being adequately discussed at Talk:Macedonia naming dispute#Semiological confusion, and the first use of a past name. I don't intend to comment there. WP:NCMAC should answer most of the questions. If no agreement can be reached, you should consider using an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC) @EdJohnston:: "[...] I'll revert it back to the guideline-conforming wording soon. In the absence of such an argument, there really isn't anything to discuss further here." [12] "But there isn't anybody who disagrees with me here. You don't count." [13] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC) So it seems one more editor is disagreeing with Future Perfect and Taivo's version: [14] Future Perfect you said you are not counting me, but looks like you will have to make a re-count. Sorry to say, but that makes it not "zero" but TWO editors against your plain "Macedonia"... Ed, I will not participate any longer in discussions with that editor, as I am too stressed and need a break. A lock will be appreciated however. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding Gilad Atzmon

• Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jontel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive408#User:Jontel reported by User:Hippeus (Result: Jontel will refrain) (12 May 2020)

I notice that you recently closed a dispute regarding User:Jontel repeatedly removing information critical of Gilad Atzmon which resulted in no sanction due to Jontel promising not to edit the page for a month. However, Jontel has now begun removing well sourced information which is critical of Atzmon from a significant number of pages using, what seems to me, rather weak and non-policy based reasons. I noticed when they twice removed well sourced information from a page I was editing ( Special:Diff/960630625/960691250 & Special:Diff/960787948/960830079 ) with edit summaries that appear to be attempts to explain why the cited source is wrong. They have also removed well sourced information on Atzman from at least 7 other pages (can provide diffs if requested). I know that it is not directly editing Atzmon's page, but it seems to violate the spirit of the promise, and given that they immediately reverted my re-addition of the material even after it was reworded to more closely match the source, and this exact topic has been point of contention in the recent past, I did not want to edit war, or to be seen as hounding them if I re-added the improperly removed material from the other articles (even though I know that "correcting related problems on multiple articles" is expressly not hounding, I know it can appear as such). So, any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

To save a busy administrator time, I will provide some background and correct two errors in the above. Firstly, you will appreciate that the dispute was not regarding me repeatedly removing material critical of Gilad Atzmon but of me breaching the 1RR rule, so AmbivalentUnequivocality's initial premise is incorrect. The issue with references to Atzmon on other pages are similar to those on his own page: that the material seems intended solely to discredit him on as many pages as possible. The policy based reason for my edits is WP:ATTACK and that they seemed of little relevance to the page topics in question. I did leave critical references to Atzmon on a number of other pages where they seemed of relevance to the subject of the page. I do not agree that the material removed from pages were improperly removed. Rather, I am myself correcting related problems on multiple articles. I felt entitled to remove some, though not all, of them despite my agreement not to edit the Atzmon article because I had not edited these articles recently or even at all and they were not subject to any 1RR restriction.

I felt entitled to make two edits of Antisemitic canards in the same area because the initial text - in which Atzmon was asking why Jews were hated in Europe in the 1930s - which I removed, was replaced by AmbivalentUnequivocality by an entirely different point that Atzmon made about the relationship between Nazi and anti-Nazi boycotts. I can see how they are in the same class of Jews being falsely accused of causing antisemitism but they were quite separate in Atzmon's writings, coming from separate documents according to the links in the Goldberg sourced article, and quite separate in scale and timing in reality. So, it may be an understandable mistake on the part of the other editor to think that their edit was just rewording to more closely match the source, which they did say in their edit summary, but they are incorrect - they had replaced one point with an entirely different one, and perhaps I should have pointed that out explicitly in my subsequent edit summary. So, I felt it was justified to address two entirely separate points with two edits. I am perfectly happy to discuss either of their points on the article's talk page or either of our talk pages, which I would have done if I had felt that my edit had been simply reverted. I am also happy to explain/ discuss why I edited any of the other pages over and above the edit summaries I provided. Jontel (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: Another editor has been keen to challenge some of my edits referenced above on the relevant talk pages e.g. James Petras and Socialist Workers Party (UK) or to add text which makes their point while addressing my concerns e.g. The Richie Allen Show, all of which I welcome; AmbivalentUnequivocality is welcome to contribute. Jontel (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Second update. As another editor has reverted my revert on Antisemitic canards, I have raised the issue on its talk page. Just as reassurance, I will limit these updates to significant developments relevant to the concern raised. Jontel (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disturbed. The problem on Atzmon's page was not merely a technical 1RR breach, but edit warring against a wide consensus of multiple editors. Jontel said he would refrain on Atzmon's page, but it is disturbing he is now doing the same in multiple other pages. Is there a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest involved here?--Hippeus (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No, there is not. I did not edit war against a consensus. A consensus for what? I am not doing the same on other pages. I am disturbed that false allegations are being used in an attempt to prevent me from making perfectly reasonable edits. Jontel (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Behaviour

Hello EdJohnston, considering that you were involved on several pages regarding Bosnia in the middle ages which have been targeted by a number of editors who undertook several long POV edit wars, and considering that you are familiar with all editors involved, I must ask, considering that editor Ceha was recently banned, how is it possible that other editors involved in those edit-wars (from the other side) were not sanctioned at all? As somebody who was observer in those cases, it seems to me that only due to eloquence and unkept promises of proper behaviour other parties engaged remained without the ban which was imposed to Čeha. For example, just recently, on this page we had various smaller edit wars and point-scoring [15] (see edits made on the 18th may and 3RR broken [16]). Just recently I was given this sort of diff (on the page which I have edit some time ago, prior to this "encounter") [17]. Please do something about it, as it is getting out of hand, which became apparent after the editor who was engaged in several edit-wars with this editor and a few more, was removed out of their way. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Zukertort

I provided sources for the edit, and user:Quale was fine with the edit after it was modified, check his talk page. I don’t »hop ips«, that’s my provider and it’s beyond my control. I wasn’t edit warring, the other party was. Lots of accusations and unfounded claims on your part that you used for an arbitrary move. Good to see in which direction Wikipedia is headed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a04:4540:641d:4900:4d1f:aa0d:b168:3d47 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This must be about

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive410#User:2A04:4540:641C:4500:3D5E:C88D:1074:EF93 reported by User:MaxBrowne2 (Result: Semi).

Feel free to post on the article talk page and try to persuade others to support your preferred edit. IP-hopping in a dispute is not helpful, and it can easily be avoided. Thousands of people successfully edit with accounts all the time. From a look at User talk:Quale it is unclear if he supports the version you want. You could discuss it further there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for swiftly blocking User:2600:1702:1450:2BE0:5DF7:662A:5535:BAE4. Cheers. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected socking case

I noticed you've blocked me for three months. However, the recent edits that have been traced to me aren't actually mine. I've only been editing UFC event pages and articles pertaining to the ICC Awards lately, so I suspect foul play is involved here. Most of this disruptive editing hasn't really been done by me and I'm hoping you'll unblock me when I next log out. — 29cwcst (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Is your IP in the range Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4141:CE00::/64? If so, is there some reason you can't edit with the account you are using now? If you make large numbers of edits especially on fight-related topics, disputes may occasionally arise, and wide-ranging IPs are nearly impossible to contact via their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Yes it is, judging by the names of articles and pages that have been edited. However, you leave me no other choice but to log in and edit via my account by not removing this block. Is that really necessary, especially for the next three months? — 29cwcst (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Your behavior is not against the WP:Sock policy though it does make it harder for other people to follow what is going on. In this case, there is a vandal editing from a large /35 range and you have the misfortune of having IPs in that range. So you are working at a disadvantage. In my opinion it is not practical to lift the large rangeblock at this time. Unfortunately there is no option to selectively unblock subranges. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Seriously, is being a Wikipedia editor really this thankless? Don't answer that by the way, it was a rhetorical question. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Dispute about Nicholas II of Russia

• Nicholas II of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mattia332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. There is a slow motion edit war dispute occurring on Nicholas II of Russia [18] between several users. It is over whether the term "execution" or a change to the term "murder" (and their variants in the article) is the correct term to use regarding the killing of the Tsar. "Execution" appears in the stable version prior to the dispute [19] and the term used at Execution of the Romanov family.

I have not become involved because I'm not sure how to properly mediate the issue. Since you are involved in the edit war boards, I figured the best course was to ask, watch, and learn. Thank you in advance.   // Timothy :: talk  01:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears that User:Mattia332 keeps changing the article to replace 'execution' with 'murder'. Their first change was probably this one on 10 June. I'll notify them of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, i have to say that im just applying the outcome of basically all discussions on the matter on the talk page of the Nicholas II's page, indeed im sad to beging called in a "slow motion edit "war" " But indeed, the term murmer have been chosen de facto when he was declared innocent by the russian court of Justice, and even if this would have not outcurred the term is becoming day by day obsolete, but, apart this fact, simply the word "Execution" means an systematic thing, the Romanov family murder was not. It happened in a basament, informally, and many of the murders were drunk. I hope you will understand this, cheers - Mattia332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disputes are settled here by consensus. User:Mattia332, can you give the name of even one editor who agrees with you on usage of the word 'murder'? If you revert again, you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I did some checking with the two sources I have. Robert Massie (Nicholas and Alexandra: The Classic Account of the Fall of the Romanov Dynasty) and Robert Service (The Last of the Tsars: Nicholas II and the Russia Revolution) use both terms.

@Mattia332: I apologize if my use of "slow motion edit war" was offensive. I honestly intended no disrespect to anyone and was simply trying to find a way to mediate this. Please forgive any offense as it was unintended. I have also modified my original comment.   // Timothy :: talk  02:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: Thanks, and don't worry, i just wanted to say that it's kinda strange call this a "war". For the sources, here: (Quoting the Court decision; this article for example use the words slaying, murderand kill/killing https://www.france24.com/en/20081001-last-tsar-czar-nicholas-II-russian-revolution-justice . Also, to make this short, it's was a murder since it had no legal means and was plus recognized as such, on 1 October 2008, as the Supreme Court of Russia ruled that Nicholas II and his family were victims of political persecution (sources BBC News. Russia's last Tsar rehabilitated. Retrieved on 1 October 2008, "Last Tsar's family rehabilitated". Russiatoday.com. 1 October 2008. Archived from the original on 24 January 2009. Retrieved 7 September 2009, "Russia's Last Tsar Declared Victim of Repression". TIME. I also sadly suspect that somebody is using VNPs to enforce his term over mine, because the non-create profile of 70.74.206.47 has just one edit, and it's just for Nicholas II in this question, so again sadly this made me suspicious.. (Also i wanted to say that really many talks, since 2014, have made about this matter, and most of them ended with the murder term support, for the several reasons i quoted about) - - Mattia332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Mattia332. In Wikipedia terms this *is* an WP:Edit war. You are advised to wait for talk page consensus before editing the article again. Your own reasoning from your preferred sources doesn't decide the matter; you need to persuade the others. For this kind of dispute, the judgment of mainstream historians would be most relevant. Where can we find the "really many talks since 2014" where "most of them ended with the murder term support?" You should be able to link to some of them. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Users that agree with me trought the Talks held the the discussion page of Nicholas II of Russia, with either the terms i proposed of assassination, murder or killing... : Averell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), FlaviaR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MJFroggie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 122.106.255.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Keltara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jeanne Boleyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sdsures (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Федоров (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 71.114.16.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I hope this will list will be useful. -- Mattia332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mattia442, thanks for trying to summarize. However, some of these opinions are very old (2008), and a couple of the people you listed don't exist (maybe they are misspelled?) The best way get a decision on consensus is to open a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. If you want to do that, I can assist. Please WP:SIGN your name properly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I see, then i thanks you and hereby ask to help me in that of Nicholas II's, neutrally speaking deserve more than outdated word that for for dictionary means a formal and legally recognized thing... Cheers. Mattia332 (talk) 9:49, 18 June 2020 (CET)

Punjab Sports University

On 6 September 2019, you indefinitely semi-move-protected Punjab Sports University due to its history of move-warring by IPs over the name, and as per a rough consensus that Punjab Sports University is the common name. However, it seems that it has a longer name again. It appears that User:Anthony Appleyard has also been trying to clean up the mess that these IPs are making. Are they gaming the semi-move-protection again somehow? Please figure out what is going on, and do whatever needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

They are gaming the move-protection by inserting a redirect at the top of the page. The fix to that would seem to be to semi-protect Punjab Sports University to prevent these side-door moves. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article and kept the semi-move-protection. Hopefully that takes care of it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That is what I thought we needed. It seems that inserting a redirect at the top of a move-protected page is a species of bean that one can stick in one's ears or feed to the duck. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked account

• Michael773623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, not sure why, but it seems you Blocked my IP address Michael773623 (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

What address? If you don't want it publicly known, send me email. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael773623 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That exact address has no edits. But /64 does have edits and it is probably yours. So far, the /64 has only two edits, while you have made 364 edits with your named account, Michael773623 (talk · contribs). You can still edit using your account even though the underlying IP is blocked. (It is only a soft block). Does that pose an inconvenience? The rangeblock I placed is intended to stop a vandal, who is obviously not you. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I tried to add some Citations yesterday, I could enter the data but the Edits didn't appear, so it seemed to me it was a full block - I'll try later today to see if it works :-) Michael773623 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Confirming, EdJohnston I am still not able to Edit Michael773623 (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What article were you attempting to change? Are you trying to change it with your registered account or with your IP? EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I tried to add citations to existing text re Marc Newson, and add new text to The Saturday Paper but the citations won't load there either. I have been Logged In both times Michael773623 (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I see you have been able to make edits at Loreto Mandeville Hall on 19th June . If you got an error message at one of the other articles, what did it say? EdJohnston (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston - I was testing what was possible, I can Add and Delete text but I can't add a Citation. The Citation dialog box appears, I enter the data and press Insert, and I land back on the Edit page but the Citation hasn't loaded. I guess the issue is that if I can't add citations, I can't really Edit. Michael773623 (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You are using one of the programs listed in Help:Citation tools, or the WP:Visual editor? EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe I'm using the Visual Editor, I haven't learnt how to manually add citations Michael773623 (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Consider asking at the WP:Teahouse. There is also a WP:Help desk. Since I don't generally use the Visual Editor I wouldn't be of much help. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, I've worked out how to manually enter Citations - thx, feel free to Delete this chain of msgs Michael773623 (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Overlinking

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1024#Overlinking issue
• WP:ANI#Disruptive_editing by B.Perrine
• User talk:B.Perrine#WP:OVERLINKING

I'm responding (I think) to this issue, that I don't really see as an issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Perrine (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at User talk:B.Perrine#WP:OVERLINKING. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

if a page already exists on this site, and it's simply a matter of spelling thnat the link is "broken", why is correcting it a huge deal?

If you are going around making style corrections to lots of articles, you are expected to follow the rules of the WP:Manual of style. I suspect that a large fraction of your changes don't conform, so, in a sense you are wasting your time here. If you don't understand the style rules, you ought to work on something else. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

McKenzie method

See User talk:JzG#McKenzie method. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Are we copacetic?

The picture in question was agreed to. and I was part of the consensus. is that okay, now? Please remember I created the page and have been a major contributor to it for years, Unlike Tartan, who is just an occassional visitor.!Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Who has supported your image on a talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Good Day, I believe. Was his, and Nojus R made several improvements..until. It's over now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Frankfurt School

• Frankfurt School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Katiedel0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Long time no see. I have recently been confronted by a strange new (likely single purpose) account making accusations about my behaviour (such as that I have 'locked' the article from being edited), in relation to Frankfurt School. You're the fellow that protected the page, it seems, and in any case, my experience with this article is that these sorts of accounts are better not engaged with. Perhaps you can take a look for me? RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am a new user of wikipedia, not entirely familiar with the extensive protocol but I do understand how to interpret bias and recognize the import of offering multiple perspectives to maintain a level of objectivity. The only criticism leveled at the Frankfurt School is the reference to cultural marxism which is described as a far-right, anti-semetic conspiracy theory. I see that other users have made attempts to offer a more well rounded criticism of the Frankfurt school and their edits have been systematically removed from the page, culminating in locking edits altogether. Further to that, the page for cultural marxism redirects to this page which defines it as a conspiracy theory.

If this page was made for a private set of eyes only, so be it but it is a public page that is misleading anyone who reads it.

Regardless of protocol, is objectivity not a concern of yours and wikipedia's more generally? Everything I have witnessed here is tantamount to censorship. Feel free to claim that cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory but allow inclusion of counterarguments, a staple of any well thought argument or article in general. I can only draw the conclusion that there is personal bias motivating this decision.

It is also a leap to say that my account was only made to make your life difficult. You may have been the catalyst but intend to get involved now that I'm here :) Katiedel0 (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a more democratic method would be to include various criticisms and then lock the page if you must? Katiedel0 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Katiedel10, what you perceive as valid criticism of the Frankfurt School is seen by other editors as inappropriate article content. See WP:Dispute resolution for your further options. Others may perceive that you are showing up on the scene of past battles and wanting to continue the fight. Take a look at the archive box at Talk:Frankfurt School if you think this will be easy. There are perhaps a million bytes of talk archives. If you merely ask some well-trodden questions for the fifteenth time you may not get much support. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Unhelpful post
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm flattered that you assumed i launched into this without reading the edits. I did go through them which is how I identified said fucknut above who then directed me to a second fucknut (you). Its okay, there are plenty of other sources to gather information written by legitimate academics, I dont need to read the musings of people who can only accomplish monopolizing free public platforms to pursue their own political agenda. I dont need to cipher through asinine protocals designed to protect people like you. I feel much better now having read message board upon message board of people who have been bullied out of the use of this site -- who's catchphrase appears to be "anyone can edit!", i guess they didnt anticipate it being infiltrated by people like yourselves who cannot use a public platform without asserting dominance over it as a form public masturbation. All the best to both of you, I hope you enjoy your tiny, quite places in history as two faceless authoritarian wikipedia page editors (lmao). I think I just broke every last one of your protocol there, this website is clearly a sinking ship xox

Katiedel0 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Mr Johnson, I don't mean to bother you further, but if you'd oblige, I'd appreciate it. As you may be aware, Cultural Marxism was deleted and redirected long ago, after a relatively intense community discussion. Recently, and in the past, people have ported in the deleted (and heavily problematic) content from Wikipedia mirrors and attempted to restart the article. Of course, they are usually reverted, but the continual presence of this content in the edit history, and the nature of the redirect, suggests to me that it should be deleted once again, and at least semi-protected, or even fully-protected. I don't know if this is too much to ask, but I think you'd agree that this article should not be recreated without community consensus. A relatively recent deletion review discussion affirmed the original result, as well. RGloucester — ☎ 14:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of people restoring content to the article that they have retrieved from old revisions in the edit history? Rev-deletion is surrounded by rules and I wouldn't want to take this action unless there was a good argument that it was preventing abuse. Even so it should probably go to WP:AN for review. Sometimes the talk page of a controversial article will include a FAQ in the page header that links to past decisions such as AfDs, RfCs or deletion reviews. This is something to consider for anyone who wants to create one. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This has happened numerous times. Examples exist at Cultural Marxist, Cultural marxism (notice the lowercase). It has happened again today, at Cultural Marxism. Now, you might say that the content is not exactly the same in each case. The people restoring this content always change it slightly, each time this happens. The fundamental nature of the content, and the sources behind it, however, remain the same each time. I will leave it to your discretion as to what is appropriate. However, I really do think, at the bare minimum, Cultural Marxism should be protected (and perhaps an edit notice added), so that editors do not have to repeatedly have to 'watch' this article for new groups of accounts who look to insert the old content (with the aim of attempting to legitimise the conspiracy theory) back in without community consensus. It'd be one thing if consensus changed, but it hasn't. Discussions in the past year came to the same result. RGloucester — ☎ 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The redirect at Cultural Marxism was edited today after no edits at all since 2017. I could see an argument for full protection of the Cultural Marxism redirect, based on the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6. Do you think this would be worthwhile? EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would satisfy my concerns. I also think an edit notice for anyone attempting to edit the page with pointers to the relevant discussions would be useful. RGloucester — ☎ 16:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If the redirect is protected then I don't think any non-admin would get to see an edit notice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've now fully protected Cultural Marxism as a redirect per the consensus documented at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Embarassing mistakes when copy-pasting edit summaries!

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

Hi Ed, I don't know if this is possible but I need your help to edit an Edit Summary. First of all let me explain: a broken edit summary text slipped my attention when I transfered my unpublished edits from the Phone version of Wikipedia to the PC version of it. (I was hoping the Phone application of Wikipedia would let me edit Wikipedia but its different UI was causing me frustration). In this progress, the Edit summary which was meant to write:

• "Adding info and source about a public poll conducted in June 2020 by NDI, which shows that a large majority of the Macedonians of North Macedonia (58%) support the Prespa Agreement."

ended up writing:

• "Adding info about a public poll conducted in June 2020 by NDI, which shows that a large majority of the North Macedonians (58%) support the Prespa Agreement."

FYI, There is no North Macedonian people. Also to make things worse, the edit summary is on an article of a politically-sensitive topic.

I usually double-check the edit summaries before I publish them, and any mistakes in them are usually ignored. But this time? I can't let it like that due to falling on people idendities and this may be perceived as insult. It is driving me nuts. Can please something be done about it?

Edit summary in question is found here: [20]

I will be grateful! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello SilentResident. I don't believe your edit summary qualifies for rev-deletion. At least nothing in WP:CRD seems to apply. Why not make a new edit to the article as a null edit, mark it as a correction, and supply the corrected version of your edit summary? EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah I haven't thought of that. Yes I can do. Thanks alot, Ed! And sorry for my impatience in my initial comment. Have a good day! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Pov pushing, misrepresentation of sources, edit warring and signs of sockpuppetry

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

Hey EdJohnston, Can you take a look at this report (User:Afer Ephraimite). The user started again edit warring in the page Barghawata. Kind Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

See this warning issued on 1 July per WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Tban vio

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

Just informing that this edit violates the topic ban you imposed on Spicybiryani.[21] Siddsg (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I wouldn't bother with this because the change is too trivial, but I do hope the editor understands their ban. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This recent edit looks significant enough. Siddsg (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The user was blocked for violation of their ARBIPA TBAN. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Usage of books by Leonie Frieda and Princess Michael of Kent as sources for Diane de France

(Original title of this thread was: Stalking )

• Robert.Allen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Diane de France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After their snide remark on another article followed by an attempt to make it personal(ie. what I should go do with myself), clearly this individual has now decided to make this personal by stalking my edits.

Clearly Wikipedia has become a place for a chosen few to use what they want to write what they want. When they can not prove a source is reliable, then snide remarks and personalized comments are used. I see no reason to continue editing when harassment is a tool to be used to verify the reliability of a source! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this. It seems to me that both sides may have lost their temper. The two of you appear to be reverting each other at Diane de France. User:Robert.Allen has added a lot of sourced content to articles and seems experienced. You and Robert should be familiar with the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Let me know if there is anything I can do to support that. If there is a question of reliability of a source, we have well-established ways to follow up. The discussion at Talk:Diane de France#Unreliable sources has certainly been going downhill fast. I don't believe that 'Stalking' is a good title for this thread and suggest you might consider something else. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This does not rise to the level of an edit war. I only reverted User:Kansas Bear once for deleting two sources I had added to the article Diane de France. I did not lose my temper. I did bring to his attention that the related article Filippa Duci cites similar sources. I also pointed out at the related article's Talk:Catherine de' Medici#Removal of citations to Frieda's book, that he deleted Leonie Frieda's book and over 70 citations to it in that article, solely on the grounds that she is a former model. I also mentioned finding evidence that her book is cited multiple times in international academic journals. This latter edit he made is far more damaging than the edit he made at Diane de France. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I replaced the original title of this thread with a more specific one. Let me know if I can provide any assistance to either of you in resolving this. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

• Boris Malagurski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there,

I'd like to draw you attention that User:Santasa99 is again engaging in a revert war by re-installing the disputed templates without a consensus. I see he added a RfC on the TP and is using that as an excuse for re-adding the templates, but I would like to kindly ask you to take action against this unilateral act, because myself and other users are tired of the edit war that User:Santasa99 single-handedly caused. Could you please remove the tags or, if you disagree, inform users that it is OK to add tags and then open a discussion on them.

Thanks,

--UrbanVillager (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. He also reverted this edit, it certainly seems User:Santasa99 doesn't want to make the article better, but it looks like he's on some kind of mission I don't care to get into. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is fully protected for a month. I hope that the RfC will reach a conclusion, thus allowing the protection to be lifted. Continue on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but can you remove the templates that were unilaterally added? If you don't, you're sending a message that someone can add something without a consensus and an administrator will protect the article to keep them there. Shouldn't it be the other way around? The article being protected so that nobody can unilaterally add anything without reaching a consensus prior to that? --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Dispute about America's Got Talent

• GUtt01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AN3 complaint closed on 7 July

Hi, could you block me for 24 hours, please? I need to stop myself from doing something I would regret... GUtt01 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This dispute was apparently resolved per a thread on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Konli17 Block

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.

---

• Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tell Abyad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear EdJohnston, I have noticed you have blocked Konli17. But he actually has explained his edit around the disputed Washington Post quote rather good at the talk page, and it makes sense to me. Tell Abyad was surely not detached from the Raqqa Governorate "unilateraly" by the SDF/YPG in 2015. The capital of the Raqqa Governorate was at the time Raqqa, and Raqqa a large territory surrounding it was Governed by the Islamic State well into 2016. Raqqa fell only in October 2017. The rest is explained at the Talk page. Maybe you could have a look at it there, too. I think he should be deblocked.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Konli7 can use the {{unblock}} template if he wants to and then other admins will review the block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ed, sorry for keeping you busy with this, but please follow the this Talk page. User Paradise Chronicle is just taking over the edit-war campaign, although in a more civilized way. Please see the arguments presented and judge for yourself! Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

My block of Konli7 followed a discussion I had with him at User talk:Konli17#June 2020. Even so, Konli17 is not the only one whose edits cause concern. I have alerted User:عمرو بن كلثوم to the community sanctions under WP:GS/ISIL. I hope that the Tell Abyad article will settle down because it is annoying to have to work with those community sanctions, as we did at Rojava. The sanctions, especially the 1RR, make editing more difficult for the participants. It is a good idea for editors to use WP:RFC or WP:DRN for contested issues. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, we have tried to find a solution to the conflict at Tell Abyad, but most, (You, the ANI, the DRN, the Teahouse refused to comment on it, as for now) refused to comment on the content of the dispute so far. Now the complaining editor was reverting me twice without giving me any answer at the talk page, even though I have added several sources to the talk page 6 days ago. I'd like to know what's your call now!. You were the blocking sysop in the first place, maybe you find a good solution.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:RFC on the talk page. If the parties won't negotiate properly, a long period of full protection may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the editor has not followed your advice and has reverted me twice without leaving any argument at the talk page. I in change did leave a reason at the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor still continues his pov edits and ignore the previous ban can you at least look this [[22]]? Shadow4dark (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You informed me about the community sanctions concerning the Syrian Civil war, mentioning you want to inform all the involved in the recent edits at Tell Abyad to be informed about the sanctions. Maybe you want to inform Shadow4dark as well? They were/are active there, too...and they are also involved in the Tell Abyad DRN.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe put a admin lock until dispute resolved? Shadow4dark (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, the dispute resolution is failed. Shadow4dark (talk) 14:28, 8 July 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.

Advice sought on directing concern

• Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jontel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AN3 closure from 13 May about the Gilad Atzmon article

Hi,

Sorry to bother you; you adjudicated on this in May. my closure of the edit warring complaint I am encountering a number of conduct issues on editing and the talk page incorporating what seems to me to be multiple non policy compliance from one editor. I have looked through dispute resolution but think only sanctions would have any effect. Could you suggest my best course of action? Many thanks, Jontel (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Need more specifics. You didn't give the name of the party you are in dispute with. I notice that the Gilad Atzmon article is still under a WP:1RR restriction, and it would be reasonable for admins to enforce that. If anyone wants to exclude a link to the subject's own web site from the article, they probably need a wider consensus. Usually the subject is allowed one link per WP:ELOFFICIAL. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. The behaviours which I feel are obstructing my editing relate to one editor on one article. I am seeking advice as I have not experienced a situation like this. I listed some of them here and did receive the advice that it was not a conduct issue but that the appropriate fora for any conduct issues were WP:AN and WP:ANI. I am using the article's talk page but see the same behaviours continuing. I can see that I can address each content issue after exhausting the article’s talk page by using Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If you wish to advise me on any other appropriate steps I might take in the future, that would be very welcome. Many thanks, Jontel (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I need advice

The article is about Vlachs, I edit information according to the RS. Some information does not exist in the source but I can't delete it although evidence is on that source's page. Explained on talk page: "This information does not exist in RS, the proof is on the page p. 203-204, everything outside the source is OR and personal opinion which is not allowed in the article. We must respect RS." [23] I'm interested what I as an editor can do to keep information consistent with the RS, ie what options do I have not to enter in the edit war. Proof that this information does not exist in the source is claim of one editor "Then also find a source about it and add there so the reader will have clue of deeper historic background of the term". Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

At first glance the theory that Vlachs were given the same status as Muslims could be based on a hasty reading of the Sugar source. Both the Sugar book and the Tamminen article appear to be reliable sources. I invite the two of you to quote the actual sentences that each of you is basing their argument on. The claim that the Vlachs were given the same status as regular Muslims seems to be based on a certain interpretation of this passage of Sugar:

In addition to these Muslim auxiliary forces there were some zimmi who performed regular military duties and had the same rights as the müsellem. They were known under various names — Uskok, Valachs and Martolos among others — and were counted as members of the military class because of their occupation. Their origin is not quite clear. They might have been the descendants of Christians who fought as allies and vassals with Murad I and Bayezid I.

My impression from a quick reading of Sugar (via Google Books) is that a müsellem is a particular kind of military official, not specifically a Muslim. Also, the fact that a few people known to the Ottomans as 'Vlachs' were given a certain military rank and allowed to be a kind of border guard is not the same as giving all Vlachs that status. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is in added information which does not exist in the source, quote from the article "Croats use that term for Serbs, originally due to the Orthodox faith which they shared with the Vlachs" source for this information is Tanner 2004, p. 203-204. The source is publicly available. [24] [25] What can I do as a editor in these cases because two editors think it needs to be explained in more detail, editor claim (talk page) "hence I asked you to use other sources, since generally outside this specific source nothing is OR or personal opinion if another source found about it". Whether we are allowed add our opinion on Wikipedia while there is no source which prove that information? That is, explain some things ourselves, although the source does not state that? Regarding information of Sugar book, my arguments are presented at talk page, see if I'm made a mistake in the edit.[26] Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not understanding you. You seem to be claiming that another person (who?) is engaged in original research. Can you link to an edit which is adding original research? What I get from the Tamminen source is that assumptions about the origins of the Vlachs were made about them by their fellow countrymen in each country where they resided, and these assumptions were all over the place. The one thing that was generally known (and was correct) is that they were of the Orthodox faith. Tamminen says (p. 202) "As for their religion, the Vlachs are Christian Orthodox". EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think a part of the problem he is alluding to is that multiple assertions are being made in a sentence, yet the cite at the end does not directly support it. Qwirkle (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor KIENGIR added information which does not exist in the source [27]originally due to the Orthodox faith which they shared with the Vlachs", here is source from which it is clear that this information does not exist [28] (p. 203-204). Editor Sadko supports him in this edit. Explanation of KIENGIR for this edit is here [29]. As an editor, I am interested in what to do in that case, obviously this information does not exist and two editors are forcing this information without confirmation in RS. When I said OR I meant, for added information which does not exist in the source. This information was simply added without any source, probably a personal opinion of editor KIENGIR, I do not know exactly. Mikola22 (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please continue this, if necessary, at Talk:Vlachs. You have the option of opening an WP:RFC. I have tried to clarify what the dispute was about, but my efforts were not successful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There have been more of such cases so I thought that exist some simpler solution when situation is like this(information which not exist in RS and the same is part of the article). Now I know what to do, thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Tygalgah

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

Thought you might want to be aware of [30] since you appear to have warned this editor. I am busy fixing [31] and have just fixed [32],[33], etc. in that article. This editor has had the "Bridgwater" edit reverted by others (for instance [34], [35]) but seems to persist with this for no apparent reason and no cited refs. The editor must know these are being reverted. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have left a note. As you point out, he has been trying to make this spelling 'fix' since 2016. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Evelynkwapong539

• List of Looney Tunes Cartoons characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Evelynkwapong539 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there, this user who has had issues with edit warring and a rude personality is reverting edits that I personally believe were fine over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters (examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967797426 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967703448, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=960608238, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959726277 , They've had similar issues related to the show before, and though I restored the page to what I think is better, I'll let you make a call on it so as to not edit war, but I do want this user to know this behavior is not welcome here, Thanks! Noelephant (talk) 14:51, 15 July 202 (UTC)

I have left a note for Evelynkwapong539 about the edit-warring problem. Their changes aren't all bad; sometimes I think they use good wording. They did create an entire article at List of Looney Tunes Cartoons characters. But when they are reverting other people all the time it isn't a good look. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Okey Doke, will see what happens, but thanks for leaving a note, I don't understand why they never respond to talk page messages either. (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

They seem to keep edit warring the page without responding to your message, (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967833956 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967881888) along with reasoning that does not make much sense. I feel keeping the page under 2 categories keeps it simple along with other users I saw on the page history. I realize they created the page, but their attitude is really not pleasant. I would leave a message on the talk page but they seem to only talk on their edit summaries. I hope they realize the error of their behavior, but I don't want to edit war with them. Hope something works out with this, Thanks! Noelephant(talk) 22:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC

Rude of me to chip in here, but I have been studying the activity on 64 Zoo Lane and my interpretation is that User:AussieLegend has been making sweeping reverts which leave the article with errors that were corrected by User:Evelynkwapong539. This is done with no explanation on the talk page but an accusation of disruptive editing in the edit summary. This seems a case of "2 sides to every story". No excuses for not engaging with other editors, but there seems to be a shortage of exemplary behaviour for this editor to learn from.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=967899282, saw this, they really need to think about their attitude

Noelephant(talk) 00:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: I'm afraid your interpretation is wrong. If you read the edit summaries more closely you'd see that Evelynkwapong539 has been reverting the article to a version from August 2017,[36][37] reverting 140 edits in one case and 153 in the other AND introducing multiple errors in the process. In fact that was how I discovered the article, because it appeared in an error tracking category. Evelynkwapong539's reasons in both cases were "American casting is pointless" and "You just can’t display info on the American version of the show!" in the other. There is absolutely no justification for 3 years of mostly valid edits. She made far more errors than any corrections that she might have made. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I note and accept User:AussieLegend's comments. However: (1) there were obvious points in 64 Zoo Lane (e.g. the nationality of the creator) that are relatively easy to get right. I have fixed that, but Evelynkwapong539 seems to be the originator of that correction and this was swept away with the reversion in question (2) if Wikipedia is going to be anything other than an "argument shop" it might help with engaging a "difficult" editor if the corrections that they were complaining about are addressed by the other editors. So, the removal of the British version of the show's voice actor names (noting that the show is still available on the BBC and the creator lives and works in Britain) would seem inflammatory to someone who has not connected with Wikipedia practices. To an encyclopedia user, just having the USA cast is simply wrong (3) On digging deeper, I see that the editor in question may be a lost cause - but I still have concerns about the authoritative/threatening warnings that seem to be standard practice in Wikipedia. There were attempts from other editors to engage - but they probably only do the job for someone who already understands how Wikipedia works. There is presumably a psychology doctorate or 2 out there for understanding this stuff! Sorry, to EdJohnston for cluttering up his talk page with my thoughts.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

When somebody reverts 3 years worth of edits it's not possible to know what "corrections" they made. Instead, it seems that the editor is being either disruptive or a vandal, especially when they do it a second time after being warned. Compounding that, Evelynkwapong539's edit summaries made no mention of the creator's nationality and were entirely focussed on America. Removal of the nationality was made by Geraldo Perez on 10 February 2018 in this edit and the fact that the change hadn't been opposed for 2.5 years seems to indicate it was a valid change. Your restoration stated "seems clear that An Vrombaut was Belgian born" which is not the case. I don't know who she is and she apparently is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Nor was the change a "correction". The article said she was British while your change said she was born in Belgium. These are two different things. You can be born in Belgium but have British nationality. I don't know what is the case with her as I'd never heard of her until today. As for the cast, I have no idea. My intent was merely to fix errors that resulted in the article being placed in an error category. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems the core problem is the lack of sources and the quality of those used. I did not cite [38] because it is self-published. [39] might have been better. I agree that "born in" and nationality is not necessarily identical, but if the few biographical details available say that's where she was born, surely the article should go with that. Certainly not enough to say she is English (if she was, surely nationality would be stated as "British"?). Cast is always easy to check through IMBd, thought they are not enormously precise on this show. Youtube gives free access to many shows - you don't have to watch the whole thing, just go to the end to get the credits (though youtube might know your location and give a different version to people in other countries). A lot of anguish over this article could have been saved if focus had turned to sources to support the content. Incidentally, I have asked a contact in childrens' publishing to point me to any potential information sources that would be difficult to discover outside the industry - but it's a very close community (they all know each other) so might not have any published directories or whatever.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=968004485, they are clearly not listening.... Noelephant(talk) 17:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Evelynkwapong539 for 48 hours since they continued to revert after a final warning. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Arglebargle79

• Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed. You said that you were blocking this editor, but they seem to have evaded it somehow: [40]. They're commenting on talk pages but do not seem at all interested in having a constructive discussion on the matter: [41]. It's disruptive and it seems likely they'll try to continue their edit warring subtlety. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably this issue needs to be refiled at WP:AN3 with details of the recent warring. I excused Arglebargle79 last time around since they seemed to be agreeing to wait for consensus, but the agreement had a loophole which was hard to close. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough for another AN3 case. They only explicitly violated the agreement once. Since then, they've been angrily expressing their distaste for the photo on talk pages. They're refusing to let the issue go, but I'm not sure that qualifies as edit warring. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Times Radio

• Times Radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Funky Snack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GDBarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive412#User:GDBarry reported by User:Funky Snack (Result: Both warned)

Hello. This relates to your adjudication on 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC) on the "edit warring" page:

"Result: User:GDBarry and User:Funky Snack are both warned against edit warring. Whoever reverts the article next is risking a block, unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Speaking of 'a definitive pronouncement': an admin board like this one won't make a content decision for you. The question of including Luke Jones or other presenters needs editor consensus. See WP:DR for some options."

I am afraid that no consensus has been reached. Another user (Andysmith248) started an RfC on the issue, but no one else has joined the discussion. A proposal has been made which I do not agree to, but I'm afraid that I cannot continue the discussion because I find Funky Snack's tone to be excessively aggressive. He does not appear to be interested in any sort of compromise or trying to understand other people's point of view. So I have withdrawn from the discussion and let things stand as they are for the time being.

Funky Snack is now telling me not to make any further edits to the Times Radio page. Does he have any authority to do this? As far as I know, as long as I don't revert any previous edits on the presenter list, I am free to add whatever content I like elsewhere on the page. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. GDBarry (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Whooaaaah. Firstly, you need to get your facts right. We were told to make no further edits/reverts on the page otherwise a block would be possible. A consensus at the moment is two against one. People with no notability should not be added to radio presenter lists, which you seem not to understand. This is the issue. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What are you doing here? Are you just chasing me round Wikipedia? There is no consensus on the issue, because I have not agreed to the proposal. I withdrew from the discussion on the talk page because I objected to your tone, now you've just come here to continue the argument. I think this is outrageous. GDBarry (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm simply defending my opinion as to why I believe you are being disruptive to Wikipedia articles. This is an open website of which anybody is welcome to comment on anything if they wish, especially if they feel it is beneficial to certain articles. May I suggest if you don't want people to comment, you agree with a consensus and don't get upset when you don't get your own way. I will be reporting you again today unless your attitude changes. I suggest you wait to see what EdJohnsonston has to say. - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

How am I being disruptive to Wikipedia articles? I haven't edited any article since the 16th. And I'm not going to be bullied or otherwise manipulated into agreeing with you or anyone else. By definition, that's not a consensus. Look up the meaning of "consensus" - "a generally accepted opinion among a group of people". That doesn't mean an opinion imposed by one person on another.

I don't know what you plan to report me for, because I haven't broken any rules as far as I know. As for "I suggest you wait to see what EdJohnston has to say", I was waiting for his response until you rudely butted in on this talk page. The page is supposed to be for conversations between him and other people, not for conversations that don't involve him. If you continue to harass me in this fashion, I intend to apply for an interaction ban (WP:IBAN) as it's clearly the only way I'm going to get any respite from your constant unwelcome intrusions. GDBarry (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel free. I have just reported for your rude and abusive behaviour and the fact you have previously vandalised articles by disagreeing and replacing what "you" think is right. So, let's see what happens. You're getting upset because your suggestion for the list on Talk Radio wasn't accepted. Now, please do yourself a favour and wait for another consensus to be reached. At the moment, myself and [[User:Andysmith248|Andysmith248) make two against one. That is a consensus over time. The result was to leave the list as it is and not include those who don't have articles. Perhaps we're all wasting our. For now, leave editing on Talk Radio as instructed in earlier posts. @EdJohnston: your view on this wold be appreciated. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Please take a look here. The user continues to be aggressive and make accusations. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It appear that my AN3 closure is holding, thanks to neither of you reverting the article again since 16 July. You've opened another thread at WP:ANI#Times Radio and I think this issue doesn't need to be presented to admins in two different places. Your RfC doesn't seem very well organized. If there is a 2:1 vote then any closer of such a thread would probably think it's too few people to establish a consensus for the majority side (speaking loosely because consensus is not a vote). I closed the AN3 but I don't need to be further involved unless there is a literal violation of my closure. So far neither side has reverted again. The above statement by User:GDBarry 'there is no consensus on the issue because I have not agreed to the proposal' is incorrect. Consensus does not require the losing side to agree. Please try to stay polite on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

{ping:EdJohnston} Please May I ask for your assistance here? WP:ANI#Accused of harassment by user who is constantly rude over result of list on article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funky Snack (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Please follow the advice of User:El C who has already commented in that thread. He is an admin and is well qualified to help. I don't need to be further involved. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Cartoons

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.

---

• Looney Tunes Cartoons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Evelynkwapong539 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey, I saw that Looney Tunes Cartoons' 1st season has been categorized as 1A by User:Evelynkwapong539, and reverted since there was not a source, and though they did provide a source (https://pressroom.warnermediagroup.com/us/media-release/hbo-max/hbo-max-highlights-august-2020), It does not provide evidence that the season is categorized as 1A, and they have continued to revert after I explained my reasoning without explanation. I think they are trying to be better considering past behavior, but I do not wish to edit war, but I did want to bring this to light. Noelephant(talk) 17:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a revert war about the background color of one table cell? Can you explain the issue? So far there is nothing on the talk page about this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The tile was trying to keep consistent with these pages List of Looney Tunes Cartoons shorts, Looney Tunes Cartoons (season 1), they were categorizing the season as 1A with a source that doesn't state as such, I was simply trying to keep the articles consistent with the info, but they reverted after I explained myself in the summary. Noelephant(talk) 18:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Tig n’ Seek and The Fungies have Seasons split in letters, so Looney Tunes Cartoons is probably arranged like that as well! Evelynkwapong539 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The link you provided to categorize as 1A does not mention the show at all, Please make sure you have a valid source before re naming the season. Looney Tunes Cartoons is its own show, comparing it to other shows is ine, but the next wave of episodes might be considered Season 2, so just categorizing the seasons as just numbers should be fine. Noelephant(talk) 18:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3A60:A750:6568:A1AF:B6D3:FB97 (talk)

Whoops, don't know how I was logged out Noelephant(talk) 18:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=970234524, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=970247049, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_shorts&diff=prev&oldid=970246796, They seem to not be listening to my reasoning, my defense for the cast list on the main page is that there are characters confirmed and sourced properly, I'd rather not engage anymore until there is a civil solution. Noelephant(talk) 4:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=970318987, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_shorts&diff=prev&oldid=970313659, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=970313549 Noelephant(talk) 16:49, 30 July 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.

Submitting an appeal to my Topic Ban in the ARBPIA area

This notice comes to inform you that I have submitted an appeal to my Topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

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

I was placing some welcome templates on newbies' talk pages, and I noticed that. Is it allowed to write on your Youtube channel that way on Wiki? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You could try tagging their user page with {{db-spam}}. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. I will. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

AN3 report derailment into personal attacks

Hi, you seem to be closing most AN3 reports. Sadko, who has been logged in April at AE for misusing a report he launched against Mikola22, now joined a report about Ktrimi991 (after Mikola22 did) and then launched a series of personal accusations about several editors (including Mikola22). He even went so far as to say that Ktrimi991 in RL would instantly get fired for Mobbing. If someone wrote that in my talkpage, I would even go as far as to ask for it to be deleted as a personal attack, but to make such comments in an admin noticeboard of all places requires admin oversight in that discussion because it has been derailing to a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's obvious that Sadko knew exactly what he was writing and that it is a personal attack against Ktrimi991 because in that same comment he also said that I expect that some of the mentioned editors will report me because of my comment and explain how I am “the bad one”, no problem with that. [42] I'll post the same notification on El C's talkpage who is the admin who logged the warning about the Sadko-Mikola22 case at AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've closed the AN3 report with no action, since it appeared to be going downhill fast. It was no longer just an opportunity for opposing groups of editors to vent. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

University of Toronto

Hello, Ed! Please look at Special:Contributions/International_Racialized_Student_in_Canada and the recent edits at List of universities in Canada, which I redid. Per W (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Israeli Rabbi/Archive. It is adding a complaint against the University of Toronto by a person named Gregory Kogan, said to be an Israeli Ph.D. student. The issue is cited only to a legal filing and not to any reliable sources. This edit triggered 1007 set up for 'refspam detection'. EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Liverpool

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

Afternoon Ed, I previously reported a user for edit warring with no action taken. They are still attempting to make the same unsupported changes while also leaving misleading edit summaries about prior discussions. The outcomes of the last discussion clearly supported existing language to which they barely contributed and he has been asked, along with another user, to support their claim with sourced information. I feel like this is such a silly thing, but it is utterly disruptive editing even if it is in good faith, and I don't want to get into an edit war over this crap again. What is the best solution? A full RFC? Do we leave the incorrect data up in the interim or is it okay to revert for the purpose of an RFC? Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The previous AN3 (never closed) was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive400#User:Correctus2kX reported by User:Koncorde (Result: ). Looking over the current dispute, I don't think anything can be done without a new talk thread at Talk:Liverpool. The previous thread at Talk:Liverpool/Archive 5#Liverpool vs "Liverpool Authority" area, from December 2019, is worthy of reference but I'm unsure whether it reached any conclusion. Do you think it did? Consider making a specific proposal on Talk and try to get opinions. Not necessarily a full RfC unless you want to create one. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Two experienced users outlined our agreement with the reliable sources. We have asked for reliable sources to support their assertion because if they can demonstrate why they are right nobody is going to dispute it. However they don't take part / or ignore talk page and have provided no sources to support their edits. Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to convince *me* that you're right, you need to convince the other editors on the talk page. That usually requires some kind of a !vote. WP:DR lists some further options for attracting more people. Also, in the Liverpool case, it seems there could be a need for some wordsmithing to tell the reader what was in the various statistical areas that could be regarded as Liverpool. From a quick look, I couldn't tell what the actual dispute was about. If you need outsiders to weigh in and reach a verdict you need to explain it to them somehow. If you are one of the people who has a stake in the outcome, it could be worth your time to create a well-explained talk thread to state the issues. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dispute is the attempt to differentiate between Liverpool the "city" and the "borough", which are one and the same thing by any measure of the ONS. There has been disruptive editing over the last 5 years with various people trying to gerrymander the numbers to suit their POV for any number of criteria. Whenever it gets back on an even keel, someone returns to restart the issue. Koncorde (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that no further discussion is needed? EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying it's disruptive editing and always has been. They first tried to parse the "local authority" population as being something different to the "metropolitan borough" as something different to the "City". Except there is no measure of the city that is distinguishable from the borough (hence why it is called a "city and borough", and not a city in a borough, or the county seat or similar). If they wanted to say in the intro "the population of the city and borough was 498,000" then that would be correct. Stating only the "borough" has that population suggests that the City is either smaller, or larger. We have asked repeatedly for a source for that suggestion, as the only sources provided are official UK Government sources (Office for National Statistics, and the NOMIS) per List of English districts by population which is updated in the infobox "City" field by an automated script. This is why I am asking you for suggestions, because this edit summary "please desist from making these repeated edits - see talk page for prior discussion on this" does not reflect what was discussed and you previously attempted to get them to engage in some fashion. Koncorde (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have pinged you on a discussion over at the talk page. I have tried to include those that have contributed on the talk page at length or are involved in the reversion process. Koncorde (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So, we're back where we started. User stops contributing at the talk page when asked to support their changes. Then when reverted per the discussion at the talk page, they return to continue the edit war. Koncorde (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Racist slur

User:Cuffthots now blocked per the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
'majoosi' Didn't know where else to take this and how serious this matter is. One could argue that I shouldn't have commented on it in my edit summary, but one could also argue we're living in 2020, and frankly slurs like this deserve to be condemned to show that they have absolutely no place in this day and age. It's basically a very discriminating term used against Iranians and Shia Muslims. EDIT: Looks like said user made a new account Majoosicorrector. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC) I take it that majoosis are fire-worshippers. Or possibly, magicians. I have blocked User:Majoosicorrector indefinitely for naming an account with an anti-Iranian ethnic slur, 'majoosi'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC) It kinda means infidel/inferior in present-day, used specifically against Shia Muslims and Iranians, but mostly the latter. Tbh I would assume that Majoosicorrector is a sock of Cuffthots - they did the same type of edit in the same area at the right same time and both use the slur 'majoosi', can't be a pure coincidence? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) I have opened the SPI. Dr. K. 11:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Judah P. Benjamin

• Judah P. Benjamin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2601:140:8380:DB0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, Thanks for the protection on the Judah P. Benjamin page. The IP has joined talk, accused three of us of socking and is now leaving comments such as “Hope you enjoy having autism”. I’ve removed the comment but he’s put it back in. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If he doesn't lose interest soon the talk page can be semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ll leave it a while before removing the PA again, but I suspect he’ll be back. Is there nothing that can be done about removing that comment? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 for 48 hours. A brief respite, anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s great, thanks. Some kind soul has removed the sentence too. Cheers for your help. - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Closing of AN appeal

EdJohnston, may I please ask you (or another administrator) to kindly close the AN appeal here, before the appeal is inadvertently archived. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Watchlist first, and now Preview not working!

Hey Ed. I am sorry to ask you this but I do not know where else to ask. My Wikipedic life has been increasingly become more difficult not only with the Watchlist not working (since 2018) resulting in delayed response to disruption (the only way to overcome is to create dozens of bookmarks to articles and visit them manually), but also the Preview Mode is having problems (button is unresponsive to mouse clicks). This leaves me no other options but use my own talk page [43] just to test templates such as 3RR before using them in official capacity [44], or even use Microsoft Word to "preview" it before posting it. I assume these issues are better to be discussed by the technical support of Wikipedia, but I am not sure if there is an way for Editors to contact them? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Try posting at WP:Village pump/technical. Someone there may be able to assist. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of summary interpretation

• Illyrians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Maleschreiber#Don't mock users in edit summaries

Hey, I wanted to ask you about what would be a reasonable interpretation of WP:SUMMARYNO in the context of me writing the following summary: Appian (1st century AD) and Apollodorus are historians who present mythological constructions as many authors of their era do. Their works are not part of the corpus of "Greek mythology" which is a well-defined corpus of material of which Khirurg is probably not aware of in terms of definitions used in classical studies which I wrote in the context of an edit I made as a synthesis between previously held positions in a miniscule "dispute". Khirurg claims that it was a mocking of him and came to my talkpage User_talk:Maleschreiber#Don't_mock_users_in_edit_summaries to "promise" that he would report me to AE if "did that again". I explained to him that I was definitely not mocking him. Nonetheless, he kept going that I'll have to defend myself in AE if I do it again and that I "shouldn't play dumb" about it. I again explained to him that in general there's no mocking in highlighting things that someone may not be aware of (the exact phrase I used) - when it's done in the context of information sharing. I'm not that fussed about the incident of him "promising" to report me, because as you remember from AN3 this sort of overblown behavior regularly happens the Balkans topic area, but for future reference I wanted to ask someone whose function in wikipedia is to interprete policies and guidelines if in the context of WP:SUMMARYNO my summary could be construed as a personal attack. Thanks.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This does not seem to be an issue worth taking to AE. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

As incivility goes, this appears minor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Isn't it clearly against the spirit of WP:SUMMARYNO? He is mocking and belittling in an edit summary, which cannot be redacted. He also has a pattern of such behavior [45]. I find these edit summaries inflammatory, passive aggressive, and uncalled for. The Balkans are already tense enough, and this behavior only inflames things, instead of calming things down. It is not hard to come up with such edit summaries, anyone can do it. If everyone did it, the atmosphere in the Balkans would be even worse. At a minimum a warning is due. Khirurg (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC) What pattern are you referring to? This is *one* summary in which I (someone whose field involves translation and interpretation of defters in his real life) am explaining to another editor what a defter is. As I've done with countless other editors in the Balkans who all believe the same misconception. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not insulting to clarify misconceptions people might believe in. You've filed one seriously overblown report a few days ago, so maybe you should calm down and not venture into yet another round of accusing other editors over literally nothing in this case.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC) I wasn't addressing myself to you. I am interested in what Ed thinks, not you. Why so defensive btw? Khirurg (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC) No. You were not explaining to another editor what a defter is. You wrote about Sadko: Editor Sadko probably hasn't read a defter... which is a PA. You don't get to assume what other people have done and then advertise it as a probable fact. You are not a medium or magician, and even if you were, you cannot speculate about other people in edit-summaries. That's abuse of edit-summaries because people cannot reply to your inflammatory personal speculation when you do it in an edit-summary. It's an underhanded editing practice. That's guaranteed to upset other editors. Talking about speculating about other editors, you have speculated about my origins and location based on the pictures I have on my user page, an act that led to an admonishment to you by El C. Since then, I've been trying to avoid interacting with you as much as possible, but I can't let this type of behaviour pass without comment. Also read WP:CALMDOWN: Telling editors to "calm down" or "keep calm" gets them worked up, and is also rude and condescending.. It is part of the same type of passive-aggressive, presumptuous behaviour on your part that you are continuing to engage in. Dr. K. 23:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC) There's no need to be "defensive" over a non-incident but you (Khirurg) also can't just go around in admins' talkpages and ask around for "at least a warning" without expecting to get a reply to the extreme accusations you're putting forward about one edit summary in which I addressed a detail about classification in classical studies.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry? You're the one that's been defensive, and posted at this talkpage. And it's not one edit summary, you did the same in the talkpage. So how about you agree to abide by WP:SUMMARYNO and strike the mockery in your talkpage comment as a sign of good faith? Khirurg (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Yeah, that was a rather weird and toxic diff, one out of several, which has gone under the radar so far. It even gets worse when you read the justification for such a behaviour. I was calm about it, as I do not like to be dragged into the mud. and it's not insulting to clarify misconceptions people might believe in is just teenage passive-aggressive arrogant bully style of conduct (in my mind) and needs to be properly adressed. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC) (ec) For someone who's done "nothing wrong", you're sure being defensive. And it's not "one edit summary", you did the same thing in the talkpage and in the past. It's a pattern of behavior that needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Also, Khirurg/Dr.K./Sadko you're making the same sort of accusations that you were making a few days ago about another editor in AN3 in the talkpage of the closing admin of that report. At some point, attempts to turn every single thing into an issue over which warnings, sanctions etc are asked must really stop. Sadko, you have already been logged to AE and warned not to turn reports into a tool against other editors. It's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and it drains the energy of editors who are actively engaged in content creating if they have to reply to accusations about the most miniscule of things.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC) That decision/opinion was not shared by all admins and editors. Do not spin. You can start with saying "sorry" rather than lawyering up. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC) @Maleschreiber: What really needs to stop is your nasty habit of mocking users in edit summaries and on talkpages. That is what is WP:BATTLE. And if you find defending yourself "draining", then don't engage in this behavior. I was content to let the matter rest, but you came running here to get vindicated. Because it's not enough to let the matter rest, you have to win, don't you? Khirurg (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Comment The process of editing Balkan topics has become virtually pointless and unproductive, as most of the time is spent on talk page conflicts. There is an ogoing effort to accuse other editors of real of unreal issues. For that matter, Dr.K., Khirurg and Sadko too have recently been accused by other editors of inappropriate comments etc. It has become a cycle of accusations and opposition, and all of this involves a very large number of editors. I am staying away from editing controversial articles of the Balkans for some time as the area has become so tense and toxic that even responding to another editor might be a total loss of time and energy. I am focused on writing new articles these days and I am preparing some, and I suggest that other editors too do that. An editor is supposed to write and maintain content, not to spend so much time with clarifications, disputes and accusations. It is pointless. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Agreed Ktrimi991, it doesn't help the editing environment, nor is it particularly productive for editors themselves when they use an admin's talkpage as a WP:FORUM for launching WP:ASPERSIONs. I'm off to continue writing the articles, which I've been improving today. Have a good evening.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC) What "doesn't help the editing environment" is you mocking other editors in your edit summaries. So how about you agree to abide by WP:SUMMARYNO and desist from commenting on other editors in your edit summaries? That would actually help the editing environment. Khirurg (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC) @Maleschreiber, I just got the "autopatrolled" right, and I very much hope you will get that within your first year on Wiki. Focus on writing new content as much as you can. After all, it is the very meaningful impact one can make on this place. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Complaint about User:Haider khan10

• Haider khan10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Azmarai76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Swati (Pashtun tribe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please help me with Haider Khan 10 he is bent on making his tribe fake Afghans or Pashtuns while they aren't such. He says he needs no reference. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Please take care to spell this editor's name correctly. I see there is a confusing discussion at User talk:Haider khan10. Are you talking about Swati (Pashtun tribe)?. While you are here, I see you removed other editors' comments from an article talk page. This is not good. I put those comments back. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did I have this new edit war. And this guy is bent on making this Swatis Pashtuns for the reason I don't know. Look even the book he mentioned to fight his case has termed this tribe non Pashtun and non Afghan. I simply don't understand why does he want to lie of his race. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

He claimed Hazara Gazetteer recorded them as Pashtuns here is the online link https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31463

This is how these immature destroy Wikipedia. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Swatis are respectable people but of non Pashtun or non Afghan origin. Some of them keep lieing about their race by calling themselves as Yusufzais, Bettanis, Bani Israel meaning Jews which everyone now knows isnot correct as all Jews even in Israel are Askenazis. Their mention in these books:-

1. HISTORY OF AFGHANS BY DORN B. 2. HAZARA GAZETTEER 3. THE KINGDOM OF CAUBAL BY ALPHINSTONE 4. MILITARY PAPERS OF THE BRITISH RAJ 5. OTHER GGOs

has been categorical as "non Afghan or non Pashtun race". However, they are always seen claiming over internet and even now through self written books since 60s as Afghans or Pashtuns.

The tribe was recorded however by all as Pasteurized race due to affinities with Afghans after their fall in Swat at hands of Yusufzai Afghans.

Why do they do it ??? I would call it self-hate or being shameful of their origins. Only half of their population speaks Pashto as a first language but the other half speaks Hindko language. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• was recorded as Pashtunized Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to comment on the talkpage of the said article but so many discussions are just recently opened there, don't know where to comment. I have a background over this tribe's ethnic origin. This is a longstanding debate that whether Swatis are ethnically Pashtuns or Tajiks. It is widely believed among the tribe itself and elsewhere that they are Pashtuns and it's of no surprise since history of Pashtuns itself is a very much disputed as to their origin and many myths and theories circulates among the people which are not true but they have backing of some random author because whoever aligned himself with some theory have written about that. So is the story of Swati tribe. Although they are widely considered Pashtuns previously but now they are being written as Tajiks who were Pashtunized over the years living with Pashtuns. This is what can be taken as most near theory since Swatis wherever migrated, adopted the language and culture of that region. From last century their majority population is living in Hazara division and have adopted the language and culture of the said region and are considered Hazarywals. So as to their ethnicity I'll go with that of Tajiks. I'm willing to work over this dispute with availability of information. USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the view point above they are Pashtunized tajiks or Dehqan race, while this user is bent on making them Bettanis. Ask him which Bettanis clan are they from and he thinks Swatis are pure Bettanis. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I had written the exactly the same Pashtunized dehqan race to which his comments went even more derogatory as no need to mention Pashtunized as they are Bettanis. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If you could just ask him to back his assertion with Swatis being Bettanis from which subtribe of Bettanis even that would be a help as this guy isn't only on this page but falsify Bettanis page, Pashtun page and other Afghan pages also. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Help me with this guy

I understand you won't have that kind of time but he is making disruptive edits to different pages without a reason. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Who? EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Haider Khan10 he has been falsifying origins of different tribes since ages especially making Swati tribe page. Look at his attitude and answers. Why am I confronting him because he has been doing it since many years he needs to be stopped. Look at his response to you that he has been doing it since 10 years over Wikipedia and can't be blocked. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As you know, I'm proposing to block both of you for 3RR violation. Maybe you could apologize for edit warring and agree to make no more edits at Swati (Pashtun tribe) until a consensus is found on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well yes why not if he stops from editing and misqouting the sources. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

My sources aren't books that people keep writing to their benefits as If they are fighting a case from the scratch to categorize this tribe a Pashtuns. These are as following and verifiable online:-

1. Hazara Gazetteer 1883 and 1907 2. Imperial Gazetteer of India (1 and 2 both official documents) 3. Tribes of Hindukush (John Biddulph 1880) 4. Notes on Afghanistan (Maj. Raverty) 5. History of Afghans by Dorn B. 6. The Pathans by Olaf Caroe. 1950...1952 7. Kindgom of Cauble Elphistone. 8. Hayat e Afghan by Hayat Khan. 9. Khursheed e Jahan by Sher Muhammad Gandapur. 10. An inquiry into Ethnography of Afghanistan.

These are all printed by "publishers" and not by "printers" like the other Haider Khan 10 is presenting to build up his case of the tribe being Pashtun or Afghan.

Late in 1960s some of these communities did try to generate content to prove they are Afghans or Pashtuns all printed by "printers" and poorly sourced. Same is the case with this tribe.

The editors Haider Khan 10 couldn't even answer my simple question if this tribe is:-

1. Sarbarni 2. Karlanri 3. Ghorghusts 4. Bettanis ( he did try to make an edit to call Swatis as Bettani tribe without any idea which Bettanis subsection they are from????

He doesn't believe in fables as he always keep saying but trying to descend from these fables himself. (Strange isn't it)???.

Swatis are Pashtunized Tajiks of an old race once known "Dehqans" that's they name they have been joining the British Army with and that Military paper is still valid for official purposes to date. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ebola vaccine

May I write articles about Russian Ebola and MERS vaccines?--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you do so without making any edits to the Gam-COVID-Vac article? EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it will be new pages. I'm asking because you said that I'm prohibited to edit anything on the "Russian vaccine". I think that you meant excatly Gam-COVID-Vac and not any other Russian vaccine, so I decided to clarify this. --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do the Ebola and MERS vaccines already have articles on the Russian Wikipedia? EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No, since my request to the Russian Arbitration Commitee has not yet been resolved for a year [46] and I was not able to write an article in Russian first.--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You can create articles on the Russian Ebola and MERS vaccines if you want, since they weren't covered by the deal, which holds until 15:10 UTC on 19 August. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring by rival factions of the Gabrieleño/Gabrielino/Tongva

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

Hi Ed, I hope all is well with you. Once again, apparently, rival factions of the Gabrieleño/Gabrielino/Tongva people are edit-warring with the content of the Tongva page to conform it to their decidedly non-neutral point of views—one side adding biased text with misformatted and often non-reliably-sourced refs, while the other wholesale blanks entire sections of the article. Carlstak (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am putting temporary semiprotection on the article. Please consider explaining at Talk:Tongva what the issues are. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. This edit-warring has been going on intermittently for years now, apparently, and the involved parties have never shown an inclination to come to a mutual understanding, if that is even possible. There has been much discussion of the issues on the talk page, with no resolution; things seem to have settled down, at least for the time being, so I hesitate to reignite the dispute there. If they should start the edit-warring again, I will do as you suggest. Thanks again for your ever steady hand in such matters. Carlstak (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Block/Unblock

• Crazydude1912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Battle of Paštrik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, hope you're well. Could you take a look at User talk:Crazydude1912#August 2020. He was blocked for 24-hours for edit-warring at Battle of Paštrik. His block expires in a few hours, so my request here is not an unblock review. What I would want is an outside opinion about the conditions of his original block. As I've explained there, this guy didn't made even 3 reverts that would get him a warning. He made 2 reverts inside the 24-hour cycle of content that has been readded by IPs/new accounts for weeks there day in, day out. The IPs/new accounts never respond and always add OR content or try to introduce some dubious sites. Also, another editor made also 2 reverts (with almost the same content as Crazydude1912) but he wasn't blocked. If someone reported CD1912 to AN3 for those 2 reverts, I don't think that he would get blocked for them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, could you semi-protect the article? Battle of Paštrik has seen the same persistent activity new accounts and IPs for more than two months. El C semi-protected on July 18 until August 1, but that didn't solve much as it seems. A permanent semi-protection would probably the safest option IMO. It definitely wouldn't drain other editors who have to restore the article to its original state every day.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears that other admins have already been looking at this. Not clear why I should jump in now. In particular, User:El C knows something about these issues, because he issued a two-week block partial block of Peervalaa (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that block.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets which has an option you can turn on, 'Strike out usernames that have been blocked'. This will allow you to look over the recent history of an article and see which of those editors are currently blocked. Though it excludes partial blocks. Incidentally User:El C has now applied two months of semiprotection to Battle of Paštrik for reasons of sockpuppetry which seems like it should help. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit regarding 'markblocked': Per MediaWiki talk:Gadget-markblocked.js#Anything different for Partial Blocks, the gadget now shows partially blocked users with a dotted underline. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I was thinking about the sock situation and I will file it at SPI. I tried to do it yesterday, but the template wouldn't load correctly.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks from a frequent edit-warring user

Hi Ed, can you look at the personal attacks from this user here and here. This user has a history of personal attack and edit-warring, and needs to be stopped. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Anonymously imposed sitewide block on me

• Kartik0230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Special:Contributions/2405:204:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

Hi Ed, I'm this user and I came to know that you've imposed a sitewide block on me of 3 months. I want to know what was the reason to block me with proper evidence. I've never edited anything on any page however sometimes I've accidentally pressed the edit button but I return without doing any modifications. You've stated that I am guilty for long term abuse, abuse? What kind of abuse? Looks like you've randomly blocked me. If yes,then I'll complain about you to Wikipedia and ask them to take necessary action on you for misusing your administrative powers. Looking forward to hearing from you. Kartik0230 (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The last time I checked the edits from the /32 range, they appeared to be about 10% vandalism. For example, in this disruptive edit of 26 July on Talk:Rajput, which removed about 10,000 bytes of discussion by other editors. On the whole, Wikipedia is better off without the edits from this range. I you think that IP editors from the /32 range have made some good edits in the past, can you link to some of them? It is possible that you could be an innocent victim of a block that was intended to stop other abusers, but if that is the case, why can you not go ahead and edit with your registered account, User:Kartik0230? EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked user continuing to rage on their Talk page

Hi. On 20 Aug, you blocked an IP editor at [47]. Thanks for that. The IP editor is ranting at length at User talk:197.89.19.112, including numerous personal attacks on other editors. I'm not familiar with the precise criteria for the decision, but I wondered if it would be appropriate to block their Talk page editing as well? Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I disabled talk page editing for Special:Contributions/197.89.19.0/24 for the remainder of their two-week block, due to continued speech-making on their talk without creating a good-faith unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Swati (Pashtun tribe) talk page topics deleted by Haider khan10

• Swati (Pashtun tribe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• USaamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Haider khan10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Azmarai76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor removed all topics from the talk page of the article. This is what they always do.... Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I fail to understand what has he done may be this what he wanted.... anyway he made edits to the article without reaching a consensus. I didn't undo it but I guess it's enough to prove he destroys these articles. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've put four months of full protection on the article. Protection can be lifted as soon as agreement is reached on the talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for steps you can take. I don't see evidence that either of you is 'destroying' the article, but I see continuous edit warring between the two of you and (in my opinion) a lot of bad sources. In your post you claim that 'the editor removed all topics from the talk page of the article' but I don't see where they did that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see much of the topics rather I only see re reading reply this as heading. Azmarai76 (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

He actually meant that the other editor is replying by opening new sections on talk and giving that a heading which actually they both are doing. This felt like shouting in reply and was like spamming the talk, making it unreadable and inaccessible. I to some extent fixed this by creating subsections but they both are seem unaware of talkpage guidelines and discussing it aggressively making it to difficult to reach a consensus. USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks for your help by sending in USaamo ,however, the user in question wants to change the racial identity of this tribe due his own alignment. USaamo and I both tried and rather USaamo gave him two very neutral ledes but the guy seems to be bent on making Swatis cis Indus tribe living Khyber Pukhtunkhawa as pure Pashtuns. The reality is this tribe is Pashtunized race of Tajiks called Dehqans (not ordinary farmer in local language).

You can ask USaamo further about it. I am really looking forward to help from you, please.

Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As they say you can teach a person but knows everything already and still ignores nothing can be done... same is the case here... I expect if USaamo also reports to you on what efforts we have done to make him understand not to distort facts. Azmarai76 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston USaamo and I will both need your intervention as USaamo has seen Haider khan10 isn't doing anything else but to make articles vague and what suits his purpose. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Azmarai76. At the head of Swati (Pashtun tribe), there is a citation to a Reference 2. It is given as "Tazkara by Khan Roshan Khan". Do you have any idea what this is? If it is a book, have you seen it? Can you provide any book details? If you know how to make Wikipedia references, can you propose the wording to use on the talk page? That way we can add a properly-formatted reference. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the book online but it simply made everyone Pukhtun written by one Roshan Khan who was a known Pashtun Nationalist however I can tell you this much about every tribe is a Pashtun to grab more votes. His paragraph on Swatis was since these people have village named Buttal in their district they are Bhittanis". Just four lines about Swatis nothing more it was printed in 70s in Urdu, Pashto and Persian also. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It had no references to ty his effect but made alot forget their origins USaamo can shed more light on it. Azmarai76 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That book is not a scholarly source, written by some wannabe Pashtun nationalist relied heavily on rhetoric. Even some of British Raj sources mentioning Swatis as Pashtuns are mainly those of land records and were made because Swatis back then spoke Pashto and followed Pashtunwali living with Pashtuns for years which can safely be called Pashtunization of the tribe.

• Dear Edjohnston as I said you previously that I have a background over the dispute so I intervened in their discussion and first gave my take with some references I had for my point by opening a new section for consensus building. It started a never ending argument where I didn't take much part and it was mainly between Azmarai76 and Haider khan10, except for I coming in for support of my argument. I see that the very problem was the origin of the tribe which Azmarai76 was claiming to be Dehqan/Tajik/Persian while Haider khan10 was of opinion that it's Pashtun. Anyhow in the argument Haider khan10 accepted it but drawn comparison with another tribe whose origin was Turkic and are considered Pashtuns and reiterated his stance that they should also be written as Pashtun. My stance in all this was that origin of the tribe is important so it should be mentioned as it is which I believe is Dehqan. Seeing no flexibility in their stances I suggested them a neutral lede which has mention of both the origins. Azmarai76 accepted it but Haider khan10 continued to hold his point and they continued their argumentation which I believe was aggressive and to some extent uncivil from both sides and even had personal attacks(for which they themselves clarify where and why because I'm not speaking for them here though I warned them that it's against policies here). So, I went on to propose another lede and made it further neutral and like previous proposal I said them that whatever else they both have we'll mention it in the body as per sources. Azmarai76 somehow accepted but Haider khan10 was still insistent that it should clearly mention them as Pashtun tribe and then both the origins. So after which I felt it can't be resolved this way and suggested Azmarai76 to pursue his options.

I believe it's more than just a content dispute and is a behavioral problem especially from Haider khan10's side. He took this argument so personal and has continuously said that you are doing this against my tribe with which somehow I'm also associated but it's not at all the way an editor should edit because personal affiliations doesn't really matter while we are here to build an encyclopedia. He's hell bent on this and showing no signs of any flexibility in his stance that he will not allow any other thing for it which I believe is the battleground mentality and is stonewalling. I have told them both about the policies they are going against with my comments in discussion which they didn't seem to be much aware of before. So that's all what I saw and what I felt. Thanks and regards! USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

USaamo I am grateful but if I hadn't spent this much time here noone would believe the guy has been distorting facts since long here..... he exposed himself and you saw it yourself else for me it's a Wikipedia page while such people sneak in and make changes wherever they can and many don't even know what they have done. I kept myself to as much I could to the Wikipedia standards but at times unless you have to dig as to why exactly anyone would do such things, I have learnt it was just nationalist politics and pushing a few books unauthentic books with the same mindset. Regards you have been a great help I am grateful. Azmarai76 (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked on request by user Aviartm

Hello, apparently I was blocked by you on request of Aviartm - he had reverted my edits for more than 3 times in a 24 hours period himself. Please also take action against his user account. Thank you. Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hounding

• Abbasquadir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yazid I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shaki Khanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:BLPN#Potentially defamatory content at Jiah Khan

Hi there. I started to revert some of this users edits [48] (on articles that are on my watchlist), such as Yazid I which ignored WP:RS and MOS:LEAD ([49]). Instead of taking my advice and reading the rules, he started hounding me, reverting two of my edits which I did a few days ago ( [50] and [51]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Hey Ed, I saw your talk page notification here. I had a run-in with Abbasquadir at Jiah Khan and Talk:Jiah Khan and Sooraj Pancholi and Talk:Sooraj Pancholi.
  1. The initial interaction involved them violating copyrights by posting Jiah Khan's full suicide note at both of these talk pages. I redacted the content and provided a clear explanation about why I redacted it (copyright violation), but Abba restored it on one of the talk pages, somehow thinking he knew better about how you could only violate copyrights if the content was in the article.
  2. After that, I had to remove potentially defamatory content at the Jiah Khan article, because (assuming the best of faith, and not just lousy English skills) Abbasquadir was trying to summarise a summary of a POOR source that misquoted the contents of Jiah Khan's suicide note. I don't know if it was a language barrier issue, but the fact that Abbasquadir couldn't figure out that the content was problematic was, in itself, problematic. The result of that, was that potentially defamatory content about Sooraj Pancholi was introduced into the article. You can see it here:[52][53][54] It starts with a totally inappropriate section heading, and then just blossoms from there.
  3. I reverted that first introduction at roughly 21:11 19 August 2020 UTC. I then left a talk page comment at roughly 21:24 19 August 2020. The user didn't respond, and then restored the content. I warned them not to do that here, and explained again why the content was problematic, but the editor restored it again here, at which point I went to BLPN, only because BLPs aren't exactly my specialty. I probably would have pulled his editing card at that point, otherwise.
  4. Once at BLPN, which you can see in this version of the page, the user misrepresented the details of this conflict alleging that I didn't provide an explanation, which is obviously untrue, since I provided two.
  5. So summarising: Abbasquadir seems to edit per their whims, they don't seem to care about community standards, they think they know more about copyrights than others, and they don't seem to have compunctions about misrepresenting details. Also, they have been warned about ArbCom sanctions in the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan area here, and for more perspective about their participation style, note how quickly their talk page comments get archived, manually or otherwise, and even note their attempts to erase warnings from their archive. I think you see where I'm going here.

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Cyphoidbomb, I read your report at WP:BLPN#Potentially defamatory content at Jiah Khan. Your argument is that that Abbasquadir added material to Jiah Khan's article that is defamatory to Sooraj Pancholi and then made some reverts to keep the suicide note in the article. I hope that User:Abbasquadir will respond to the concerns expressed. Fortunately Abbasquadir has not continued to revert at Jiah Khan since 21 August. But the edit wars at Shaki Khanate and Yazid I seem like they could be ongoing, since there were some reverts by Abbasquadir with a date of August 30. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say it above, but I'm not seeking sanctions for this stuff. I'm providing you with supplementary info about the user in case it shapes an opinion about their editing behaviour as part of a community. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Paid advocacy accusations

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.

---

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

Hey, Ed. Hope you're safe and well. So, there have been several move discussions in Kosovo-related articles. The better known in terms of daily readership are: Talk:Vučitrn#Requested move 20 August 2020 and Talk:Peć#Requested move 18 August 2020. There have been raised several concerns about canvassing attempts which affect the result. In fact, a similar editing pattern was observed at an AfD I filed a few weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia. As a result, they have been relisted. Today, an editor (Anastan) who opposed all moves about a week ago, made a series of similar comments across three different discussions[55][56][57] in which he accused Most of the Support users, including the one who opened this request and the one who attacked me just now, opened their account within days and one month to each other, at the end of 2019, during the Wiki Academy Kosovo event. The dates of duration of event lined with our "new neutral users" appearances on Wikipedia. It is obvious that Republic of Kosovo is using new editors again, as we have witnessed several times in the past years they already did, as their national agenda pov pushers and fighters. We already know that they educate new users to use English Wikipedia as pro-Albanian propaganda advocacy tool, and that is strictly forbidden by WP:ARBMAC. and that Admins should be well aware that those requests are very much disputable, and therefor, consensus reached is actually not consensus, but organised and paid political advocacy. It's obvious that Mikola22 who opened the discussion about the title of Vučitrn is not a paid advocacy account. Neither am I, nor is any of the ca. 25-30 editors across all articles - many of wildly different backgrounds - who have supported the moves paid by any government entity. Paid advocacy accusations which concern relations to government agencies are egregious and undermine the integrity of the project.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we all have a common goal and that is to improve Wikipedia articles. If editor Anastan have a problem with that it is not in good faith to go around and accuse editors without evidence. It would be good that such behavior is sanctioned. All of us who have a different opinion about some techniques are probably prepared from "the Albanian secret service"? Such promotion of conspiracy theories only bring nervousness to the editing of Wikipedia articles which is probable the main goal of these false accusations. I expect a clear and concrete move from the Wikipedia authorities that such accusations do not happen again. Mikola22 (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Leaving a ping for User:Anastan in case they want to respond. This is not the first time that Wikipedia has had to deal with difficult Balkan-related move discussions. Experienced closers should be able to detect and appropriately respond to any genuine canvassing. The advice in WP:PLACE is still good. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also certain about that - so far all of these discussions have been relisted. The larger problem is not the "canvassing" accusation, because any admin can discern the extent at which this has actually happened or if someone just raised an irrelevant grievance. The problem is that now we have accusations of paid advocacy and relations to a government agency. Honestly, I would prefer these edits to be deleted. Editors can't put forward something that serious without any accountability. I thought that Template:User link pinged editors in the same way as !ping.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• It is so sad to see that move discussions keep being redirected to accusations and conspiracies. I do not want to get involved in such a pointless mess, however, I would like to bring some history to your attention. In 2018 Anastan got blocked for a week for off-Wiki coordination. In a separate case in 2013, some accounts (Psladja1402, Sermonija, Srbin100%, Stublinac) were created the same day, and a few days later Anastan created their userpages(!); one could go on and follow Anastan's example, and say that there was again off-Wiki stuff involved. I agree with EdJohnston that such Balkan issues are messy, and if this round of accusations persists, AE would be the right place. Another admin, @Peacemaker67: has recently made good use of AE to deal with Balkan disruption. Others might find that path useful. However, the hope is that good faith will prevail here, and unproven accusations will stop. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem is that Anastan's false accusations remain on the page where important things are discussed. It’s actually throwing dust in the eyes of other editors who would like to give their opinion in this and other case. First I was a Croatian Nazi, now I am Albanian mercenary. Where have I come? I'm just waiting to become a Russian spy. Sorry EdJohnston for reply on this page, I know you have a smarter job to do than dealing with us "spies".Mikola22 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONs against Mikola22 are getting worse at Talk:Vučitrn so I understand their frustration. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that some comments by User:Anastan should be struck out of move discussions, can you provide a list of diffs here? EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

[58][59][60].--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is paid, that’s insane to me. Editors sometimes approach too emotionally. I have tried several times to point out the polarized and very tense atmosphere on Balkan topics. It was wrong to launch several similar RfCs and RMs at the same time, until at least one situation is resolved and tensions calm down. Quality and productive discussion cannot be conducted in these conditions. Bias and canvasing on both sides were obvious. Personally, I am already used to being declared both a “Serbian traitor” and a “Serbian ultranationalist” because I try to balance and add parts that criticize all nationalisms and authoritarian regimes. Admins persistently ignore a lot of my reports for serious offenses that could even endanger me. Only editors who were characterized as pro-Serbian were sanctioned, although much more serious policies violations from the “opposite side” were ignored, including threats, long term abuse, publication of private information, etc. @Maleschreiber: Please stop dragging me into this story. I didn't accuse anyone of anything.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You put forward some heavy stuff about Mikola22 - regardless of the paid advocacy which I never linked you to - and I notified you that if you have evidence/diffs against Mikola22, you can always report them and both you and they will be scrutinized at AE. But WP:ASPERSIONs are not acceptable in a cooperative environment.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

That is not true either. I mentioned Mikola22 in just one sentence. It was more a question than claim or accusation. The rest of the message quoted by you was general, it did not refer to any specific editor. You know that very well.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there is paid editing happening or not, the fact that Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912 registered and started editing minutes apart is unsettling to say the least, and should be swiftly investigated. [61] [62] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You "investigated" it with a SPI report, and the conclusion of the admins there was that there is no connection between Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The conclusion was that Crazydude1912 wasn't a sock of Maleschreiber (and vice versa). That doesn't rule out meatpuppetry and off-site coordination. For the record, I don't think there's any paid editing happening, but the WikiAcademy Kosovo connection is certainly interesting and I'm grateful to Anastan for bringing it up. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

SPIs do not work that way. They do not deal with "pure" socking only, but with meatpuppetry and off-Wiki coordination too. Anastan was reported for socking a few years ago, and they got blocked for off-Wiki coordination. In another case, two accounts concerned with Skanderbeg were reported for socking, and got blocked for off-Wiki coordination. Hence, the result of the SPI report you filed was that Mal and CD1912 are unrelated. If you still do not understand it, you might ask the closing admin for further clarification. In any case, do not say again that Mal and CD1912 have off-Wiki connections without evidence at a SPI, as it all could go to AE for aspersions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 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.

Guba mass grave

• Guba mass grave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 89MsHm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ninetoyadome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Recent AN3 case (closed 4th Sept, with protection)

Sorry to bother you with such a mundane issue, but could you please take a look at the edits made by user 89MsHm regarding the article Guba Mass Grave? They keep removing sourced information, just because they dont agree with it. We were having a discussion in the Talk:Guba_mass_grave#Hayk_Demoyan_reaction, but they went and removed more sentences without discussion. Their whole argument is Azerbaijan archives prove it happened, so the Armenian reaction doesnt belong on the page. Same can be said about the Armenian Genocide or the pogroms that took place against Armenians by Azerbaijan, but those articles have a section depicting the Azerbaijani/Turkish side of events. Also, they have broken the 3 revert rule numerous times. Thank you for your time. Ninetoyadome (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Demoyan says that the Azerbaijani government hasn't presented any documents, however the government has presented them. This is not about reaction, this is about correctness of a claim. If there's another Armenian reaction which is also correct, you can replace it with Demoyan's. Thanks. 89MsHm (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Paid advocacy accusations 2

Hello Ed. Just wanted to say hello. Regarding the section above, I do have several problematic evidences about the traveling circus that tried to remove my comments, most of them gathered above, links about off wiki collaborations and few other troubling links, but i will not post those on wiki, as that way they will be able to hide their traces again, as they did before few times already (i have evidences for that too)... I would love to ask is there any place i can raise this question any other way but onwiki for all to see? It is also question of my personal safety, as you remember, some of them tried to find my real life identity, but luckily failed. Its real question here. I am so sorry to bother you with this pitiful troubles. This all takes us away from great joy of creation of new articles... But Wikipedia should not be used as propaganda tool and for political struggle. Thank you very much. P.S. Expecting comments right away here :) :) --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If you believe you are the subject of improper on-wiki collusion the only practical way to pursue that is with public evidence. If you think that a group of people are organizing themselves off-wiki and are violating policy then you can write to Arbcom. By this time, some admins including myself are familiar with Kosovo-related issues. I doubt you will get a lot of mileage on a charge that Kosovans or Albanians are ganging up on you on the wiki. But if you are being privately harassed or doxxed that's another matter. I have trouble searching for your name in my talk archives because of the unusual characters you use in your signature. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, i will send one short mail to you for a small consultation and will follow your advice further. Thank you. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You have not sent me any off-wiki evidence, but I understand you may be resorting to Arbcom for the issues you perceive. That is your prerogative, but nothing gives you a license to violate WP:ASPERSIONS in the meanwhile. I advise you to strike out any statements you have made on my talk page or in recent AfDs that lack public evidence, such as your belief that you are a victim of paid advocacy. As you know, you yourself were once named in an SPI and were blocked one week for apparent meatpuppetry. Ironically, that SPI involved another user that worked with you in the same Wikipedia workshop. Your charge about new editors who worked together at Wiki Academy Kosovo has some common elements with that. Since I myself have closed at least one contested RM discussion, the one about Mitrovica, Kosovo, I am familiar with some of the difficulties but do not see any immense challenge in sorting out nationalist POV-pushing when it occurs. Your worries seem overblown and the aspersions can quickly lead to a downward spiral. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Baltimore dispute

• Original title: Another person just removed my source reference in the dispute Battle of Baltimore article, but with similiar argument. I suspect it's puppetry.

• Battle of Baltimore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• XXzoonamiXX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 185.69.144.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AllSaintsNext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous report at AN3 about Battle of Baltimore
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive415#User:AllSaintsNext reported by User:XXzoonamiXX (Result: Both warned)

Another person two days ago just removed my source reference in the dispute Battle of Baltimore article as shown, but with similiar argument with the the IP days earlier. I came to you because I don't want to devolve into something that gets me nowhere and would lead to another edit war in the article. I just want to let you know because I don't want to get banned again unintentionally that would lead me back right to where it belongs. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Consider opening a thread at Talk:Battle of Baltimore. So far there seems to be a bona fide content dispute. The other guy clashed with you before on a different article, Invasion of Quebec (1775). Neither of you opened a talk discussion there, either. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Potential edit warring concerns and request

• Ytpks896 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xeed.rice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pakistan Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pakistan Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pakistan Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Afghanistan–Pakistan barrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

I am writing a request that the account "Ytpks896" be subjected to an appropriate penalty for his actions on various Wikipedia articles. In May 2020, I had reported this user (when I was cleaning up and restructuring the article for the Pakistan Air Force) for constantly reverting my edits and not bothering to conduct a discussion with me on the talk page (despite me starting one for the express purpose of resolving the conflict). This user received a warning (for edit warring) from you and backed down for a little while before coming back and reverting every single edit (including those that weren't made by me) in the article to go back to a version before I had started restructuring it (following which they promptly went onto other articles that were edited by me and reverted every single one of my edits without explanation as well). Eventually, they were warned again about a month later for the same offence. Following Ytpks896's talk page history and edits, you can see that they have a history of edit warring with other users and persistently reverting changes (which were valid or constructive more often than not). My purpose of writing here is to bring attention to this issue yet again due to the fact that Ytpks896 has come onto a page I recently worked on, Afghanistan–Pakistan barrier and reverted all my edits with no explanation whatsoever. I fear this is a very similar situation to what occurred in May 2020 over the Pakistan Air Force article and humbly request you to look into this issue and take appropriately strict action so that these problems do not continue. Thanks, Xeed.rice (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I have left a note for the user. It seems that my prior warning was here on 19 May and it was about a dispute at Pakistan Air Force. That's the one that was reported at AN3 here. I do not perceive a 3RR violation. The main issue back on 18 May was that the user was reverting without participating in discussions. Also they were making incorrect charges of vandalism. I found the word 'vandalism' in one of their edit summaries here. They also claimed vandalism in this post on your talk page on 18 May. I am glad to see you made two posts on the article talk page, starting with this one on 18 May. Unfortunately User:Ytpks896 did not respond. The content issues are not clear to me. Except for my reading the complaints from the two of you, I know nothing about whatever matters you disagree about. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I would also like to point out that the fact that, following the user's edit war with me on Pakistan Air Force, they promptly reverted all my edits on other pages, such as Pakistan Navy and Pakistan Army (this was back in May, and the user's accusation of vandalism towards me for all three pages can be found in an earlier revision of my talk page. I was scouring through the edit history on the page Pakistan Army and took notice of a user (User:Pk18916) with a username eerily similar to User:Ytpks896 and it is noteworthy that the banned user Pk18916 has the exact same behaviour in the nature of their edits and style of communication when you compare them side-by-side to edits made by Ytpks896. Ytpks896 started editing shortly after the user Pk18916 was indefinitely banned (for the offence of WP:Sockpuppetry). This discovery has strongly aroused my suspicion and I feel that this should be investigated. UPDATE: I have reported the user and presented evidence. Xeed.rice (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston Please review Xeed.rice recent edits at Afghanistan–Pakistan barrier, He change Afghan opposition section into Afghan opposition and border dispute and totally turned whole section on there based information not according to the reference in his edits he saying there is consensus in Afghanistan to non−recognition of border with Pakistan and have historic claims on Pakistani provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & Balochistan without any source or reference. Ytpks896 (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please also review Xeed.rice talk page this user has repeatedly reverting and undoing other editors contributions and received edit warrings. in the name of cleaning and restructuring article this user removed reliable & neutral information and start adding there based information. Ytpks896 (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

At Pakistan Air Force Xeed.rice posts on the article talk page, starting on 18 May. But he not properly mentioned or invite me for consensus I'm not received any notification and Xeed.rice also have been unactive from 24 May 2020 to 4 July 2020. Ytpks896 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Ytpks896. Feel free to respond now to the messages previously left for you at Talk:Pakistan Air Force. It looks like you were pinged in one of those messages. In any event, each of you now knows there is a disagreement and you ought to be following through with a proper discussion. From what is written so far, I can't actually tell what this is about. All I can see is that you are reverting each other. Feel free to explain your thoughts more clearly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think someone needs a timeout

• 2020 24 Hours of Le Mans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Edit warring report

Hi Ed, as I said on my page I ain't looking for a war, but come on this comment is stupid "Why do the race results source need to show nationality? This is not WP:OR." Then goes and adds a link when he reads the policy to something else, and still some of the information is still OR in that table. I'm going to wait until he has stopped owning the page, cause it was literally a min before he reverted me before I edit again. Also he seems to have this issue every year of warring with people. Games of the world (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Appeal from User:Khuntmohit444

Please remove my block for editing... Khuntmohit444 (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Why my account is ban.... Khuntmohit444 (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Since you are posting here, you are not blocked. Are you talking about some other account or IP? EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

AN appeal notification

Hi EdJohnston, there is an appeal at WP:AN for a topic ban issued by you (search for "ToBeFree") ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have commented there on Bhaskarbhagawati's appeal of their topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked IP 68.129.15.71 seems to be back as user EuroHorrorGuy

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.

---

• EuroHorrorGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.129.15.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.114.123.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 47#Suspected sockpuppetry

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive353#User:68.129.15.71 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Blocked) (from October, 2017)
• ANI from October, 2017 "IP continuously adding unsourced"
• Book being promoted: "Tome of Terror: Horror Films of the Silent Era"

Hi,

I have not been on Wikipedia for many years, but someone I knew in the film research field brought this to my attention. She and some other professionals in her field were originally concerned that the user User talk:EuroHorrorGuy seemed to be adding a *huge* number of links to a specific book known not to be very authoritative on multiple articles. Upon looking into it, it seemed to be a major COI / advocacy.

I then posted about it on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EuroHorrorGuy&diff=977113309&oldid=977048448 The full section, with other people posting to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EuroHorrorGuy&diff=977894795&oldid=977825296 When he deleted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EuroHorrorGuy&diff=next&oldid=977932191

Since then, one of these other people mentioned to me that the edits look extremely similar to those made by User:68.129.15.71, who was supposedly banned for a year back in July of this year. It also appears that the user's account was only created last year right after he was warned that he could be blocked as the IP for six months. The entire user seems to have been created as block avoidance technique.

The major source that both accounts added as a citation to articles is a book promoting a specific author. I myself have not looked into enough to know the full story, but they are convinced it is scheme to make himself seem authoritative so he gets hired to do more commentary tracks on rereleases of old videos and to hawk books. What is not in dispute is that there are whole articles that have become nothing but a long string of references to one or two books over and over, far outsized to the book's standing in that particular field. They say they are especially upset at so many incorrect statements added with this book as a citation when many other books say just the opposite. Reportedly some of the things look to be things that were posted and flagged by others as needing sources and then miraculously a book came out later on a very small press/vanity press and the user used that to cite these same things. If true, it seems like a way to manufacture citations that at least superficially appear to meet reliable sources guidelines to try to justify inclusion of original research.

Also, I tried to find a link to some disciplinary page I could report this, but I saw you handles the blocks for the presumed related IP account, so I thought it best to give you a heads up so you could look into it.

(For transparency, I used to edit under User:DreamGuy. I think perusal of my edits would show I was not regularly involved in controversies about articles related to old films, so I have no dog in this fight. Some acquaintances were asking what should be done about this situation and if I knew anything about how Wikipedia works.) 2601:840:8402:690:E8D5:7C3C:D8A5:BAAF (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You might have an argument here. I dug up a few links and added them at the top of this thread. I will also ping User:Andrzejbanas who opened a prior complaint, and leave a note for User:EuroHorrorGuy. If you do take this to a noticeboard it might have to be more focussed. You should have a list of diffs of where he cites this particular book. And if you are still able to use the DreamGuy account to post it would be good to use it when taking this further. If you have already discussed this issue on user talk pages, it would help to know where. (Or perhaps the conversations you mentioned were with friends off-Wikipedia). Is this you on a different IP? If you are here to suggest socking by EuroHorrorGuy it doesn't look good for you to be jumping around yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey hey. I still stand that's its hopping around IPs to avoid a ban. 69.114.123.212 has used an account to edit the 1910s in film articles that EuroHorrorGuy likes to edit as well (here: [63] and here. I've asked the user about the question a few times only to get "i don't understand" kind of responses. here). Similar content here here). My main issues would be going back that the edits on all these filmography articles aren't formatted like lists and are formatted like how the Old IP's have edited old filmography articles. Check this list here as well as here. Without and specific diff edits, i don't have a lot of comparisons outside behaviours like deleting all talk page messages and dealing with obscure horror films (specifically European, Silent and 1930s ones). Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The way this is headed, it appears that User:EuroHorrorGuy will continue to dodge the question of his IP use, and we could respond by blocking both IPs. This would leave us the simpler question of whether EuroHorrorGuy is engaged in disruptive editing. For this analysis it would help to focus on 1-3 articles where you think he has been making bad edits and declining to respond to concerns. At least, if Tome of Terror disagrees with other sources, you (Andrzejbanas or DreamGuy) could give some examples. DreamGuy said (above) that the book was "known not to be authoritative". Can that be documented somehow? EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not that the book disagrees with sources, its that its not clear whether or not the content in the book matches what is being added (which we can't really sell without a copy of the book). For example, there is this discussion (that was deleted by the user here) where the user seems to dodge the question whether or not the book actually specifically claims the films are described as belonging to the horror genre and only cites promotional blurbs from the back cover. I can't speak for DreamGuy, but I'm more for edits like these: here. Other suggestions noting this user's connection with the previous editor is including information that is important for "collectors". here and numerous times on this talk page: here. The user also has added information that does not match its URL counterparts. For example here we see edits that note some information about Universal Horror films about a creature in a monster movie being the only creature made by the company outside The Wolfman. But, there is nothing of that on this page or the book. The user also added citing a book that an actress returned for a sequel (she did not) in that same edit and cited a book I happen to own ("Universal Horrors" 2nd Edition). The editor does not cite a page from the book, but I've used it myself to expand the article on Jungle Woman, which clearly shows the actress leaving the role. Its edits like these that make me feel like this the same user who does not really read too much into rules of Wikipedia, their own source material, and that they are likely the same editor who is avoiding articles that have caused them to get banned in the past. I have since asked them on validity of sources they have used on on SilentEra.com and have only met with responses of "it's one of the most reputable sites on silent film online" which as you and I know, is not a fully detailed response. Similar actions are made by adding material to the List of Film Serials article here without a source. When I called them on it, the response was just deleted. Not sure what more I can add, but if more incidents like this are needed to show as an example, I'd gladly dig some more up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Tangent

Not sure if its great to add this to the conversation now, but User:Akmadomad also appear to be a an extra account for this user who is back to his old habit of editing Japanese and Italian obscure genre films. Sometimes re-adding information the previous IPs have added that were removed. First note that both users have pretty much the same user page and User:FrankensteinsDad. Anyways, their edits are vague, such as sourcing a DVD here (there is no DVD release of this film). the user also removes any warning/notification on their talk page here, adds unsourced info here, and likes to add alternative titles with no context here, etc. I feel as if this user is making great lengths not to be removed from Wikipedia by dancing between accounts to edit certain articles, but that's just my opinion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It is worth considering whether the edits of User:Akmadomad and User:FrankensteinsDad ought to be added to the analysis. Since Akmadodad, FrnakensteinsDad and EuroHorrorGuy are all live, that gives a possibility for a checkuser to compare them. However, at SPI you might be asked for good behavioral evidence, so they might ask about editing the same article to add the same material, or similar turns of phrase, etc. It's my guess that if EuroHorrorGuy or Akmadodad are asked to explain or justify their edits they won't respond. So we could be headed toward blocking for lack of communication. Needs more evidence anyway, I think. And I can imagine this being put up for review at ANI eventually, after all the ducks are in a row. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

But, if you want to take a stand based on quality of sourcing or lack of communication you probably want a clear discussion somewhere where you lay out the evidence and ask for a reply. Possibly on the user's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope its not me. Just wanted to clear that up.Akmadomad (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues

There appears to be multiple issues regarding this editor and they are all being conflated to the extent it is very difficult for an impartial editor to follow what is going on. I will take them one at a time and offer my thoughts.

1. EuroHorrorGuy is a sock of a blocked editor, that has edited as 68.129.15.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 69.114.123.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I encountered 68.129.15.71 on one article and it was a long time ago, so I am not all that familiar with the editor's MO. However, editor intersecting contributions analysis makes a compelling argument that they are connected in some way. That said it is entirely circumstantial because all the articles are more or less within the same topic area. I think there are sufficient grounds to take this to WP:SPI and request a checkuser. This is surely the next step?
2. Tome of Terror. There is an accusation that EuroHorrorGuy is spamming articles with Tome of Terror, and may in fact be one of the authors, Troy Howarth. The accusation states that Troy Howarth resides in Pennsylvania. However both the IP numbers geolocate to Long Island, New York. It is therefore unlikely EuroHorrorGuy is both Troy Howarth and the blocked IP editor. I would suggest setting aside the COI issue which leaves two questions: i) is Tome of Terror a reliable source and ii) are articles being spanned with it? I would suggest WP:RS/N is the proper place to address the former and WP:ANI is the place to raise concerns over the latter. This only really needs to progress if EuroHorrorGuy survives SPI.
3. The sources EuroHorrorGuy is adding don't corroborate the claims being added to Wikipedia. Even worse, the editor could be using legitimate sources to mask vandalism. Without access to the sources it is impossible to say. This is the most difficult part of the problem to resolve. I have sometimes been in situations were I have suspected editors of adding sources that do not corroborate their claims, but you cannot simply accuse someone of doing this without some evidential basis because it is a violation of AGF. If uncorroborated claims amount to a clear pattern of adding false facts to the encyclopedia then we can act on this, but it would take a substantial amount of work to construct a case of this nature.

Personally I would address the socking issue first. If you get a positive there (which is odds on IMO) then the other issue become a moot point. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The socking is the main point I would be going at (I don't think the user is Troy Howarth). I had no idea of this tool, so a big thank you to @Betty Logan: for pointing it out. Using it also suggests other connections, such as with FrankensteinsDad account here, and Akmadomad here also connects these users to these very very obscure films. Not that's its a larger connecter either but along with the original IP and these editors, none of them seem to know how to properly cite a website and will often resort to bare-URLs (i.e: ) as a random example. I believe on many of their talk pages (including the IPs) i've suggested how to do it several times with the original IP simply stating "I can't figure it out". It seems to have continued on to these accounts. I'd personally be in favour of suggesting a socking issue here of a banned IP account. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

Sloow edit-warring

• Vasojevići (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 88.72.81.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cobalton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. So, there's a slooow edit-war on Vasojevići. An IP editor reverted the status quo of an old dispute which Mikola22 highlighted a few months ago. When the IP editor reached 3 reverts, an account created on September 11 appeared and made the same reverts. Now, there was a discussion on the talkpage about the use of WP:PRIMARY sources or their republication in outdated sources, but the account reverts Mikola22 every time they restore the stable version. Because it's one of those very slow edit-wars, I don't really know if they can even be reported on ANI/3R and I'm not sure what form of admin oversight is applicable here.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

First information which was in the article was OR (claim of some historian which does not exist in the source ie that Vasojevići are Serb tribe). When this information could not be used some editor tray to enter historical letter as information which is WP:PRIMARY. For now consensus for this information the not exist and one editor ignores this. Mikola22 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I've notified the IP editor of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Maleschreiber but you are wrong, first off Mikola22 is the one who deleted disputed content on August 2. without any consensus as you can see here [[64]] ignoring a long lasting discussion on TP that goes on for more than 2 months maybe longer, so there is no question about stable version, his main argument was that the included part in article is WP:OR and what bothered him the most was the mention of the word "tribe" in the letter which I removed and fixed, after that main issue was that the first letter doesn't have anything to do with the article which is absurd since it gives context why did Radonjic even send those 2 letters to Russian Queen and yet again I've changed it fixed it and post it with text from second letter [[65]] after that Maleschreiber deletes the content again and claims that it's WP:PRIMARY which it is not since the source that mentions the letter comes from here from 1900 and the letters were written in 1788. and 1789.

So from my part what I did was that I restored the source, opened a discussion on TP, even posted a question on RsN about reliability, fixed what was main objection so that it doesn't goes under WP:OR and in return only thing what I got was continuous deletion from both editors and even a threat to be reported from Maleschreiber who didn't even bother to check is the source WP:SECONDARY. And because of what? 2 letters that mentions Vasojevici to Queen Catherine 2 , I don't understand aggression or controversy , my belief that the source should be in article since information are scarce and the letter has it's significance explaining political situation. If your main argumentation is that you should report me because of 3R rule I am not the only one who broke it as it can been seen here [[66]].User:Cobalton (talk) 27.September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Maleschereiber but you are wrong, first off Mikola22 is the one who deleted disputed content on August 2. without any consensus as you can see here. My job here is edit Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. My edit summary (Source not speak that these tribes are "as Serb tribes", see source, this is OR, the second source added is WP:AGE MATTERS , see talk page), to this day no one has returned this information because it is what I am talking about, OR. Consensus cannot return information to the article which is not written in the source. Unfortunately I am alone and with one revert as option, but I try as hard as I can. Mikola22 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

And as you can see now in the article there is no mention of "Serb tribe" it is removed, it mentions "Vasojevici" and what is written in the letter. So if that's the problem it was fixed. User:Cobalton (talk) 27.September 2020 (UTC)

So why then you say that I am "the first who deleted disputed content"? That's what you supposed to do because it is OR. No, other editors returned this information into the article. For current information or presentation of some letter you the not have consensus on talk page and it is WP:PRIMARY. That's all I want to say. Mikola22 (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is the letter from 1788. and 1789. the source is WP:SECONDARY from 1900. As far as I can see you deleted a lot of material not just the letter [[67]] and you had a dispute with other editors, maybe they should be involved in discussion too to see their comment on the subject. User:Cobalton (talk) 27.September 2020 (UTC)

What is your job here? We need to work to make Wikipedia as accurate and better as possible. I deleted informations which has no confirmation in the sources, ie the sources do not talk about this informations(WP:OR). That's what you need to do, not me. Always read mine edit summary becouse everything is explained in it. Mikola22 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

And I did exactly what you asked as it can be seen here [[68]] and here [[69]] I was cleaning the source, rephrased it, opened a discussion all you did was deleted it under different excuses, anyways this discussion is going in circles. No point repeating myself. Everything can been seen [[70]] and on TP [[71]]. User:Cobalton (talk) 27.September 2020 (UTC)

References