User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 42

General Electric

• General Electric (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I noticed PP was placed on GE back in September due to sock puppet vandalism. Since it's been 4 months and things have likely settled down can be lift the protection? I keep a close eye on that page so I can always rpp again if necessary. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've lifted the protection, and trust there will be no return of the edit warring about their headquarters location. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

3RR/EW question

Hi EdJohnston. I've noticed you're active at WP:AN3 in helping to resolve reports and that you are also an administrator willing to make a range block, so I thought you might be able to answer a question I have regarding 3RR/edit warring. I've come accross an IP editor posting on my user talk at User talk:Marchjuly#iraq logo who shows up from a new IP address each time. The IP says they are the same person and the IP address are similar, but they are new each time. The editor is unhappy with the result of some FFD discussions regarding the non-free use of a particular logo. I've tried to encourage the editor in various user talk page posts to discuss things with the closing admins of the relevant FFDs or to seek a new consensus for the logo's non-free use via FFD, but they do not seem interested in such a thing. I've encouraged the IP to register for an account as well since it might help them to better participate in any such discussions, but again they seem uninterested in such a thing. Rather, it appears that the IP would prefer to try and force through their preference through edit warring.

FWIW, I don't really think this IP editor is really a "new" editor per se given the content and tone of the posts, but rather a registered another editor trying to discuss things by proxy: perhaps someone who was previously involved in discussions regarding this particular file's non-free use, is unhappy with the outcome or lack thereof, but does not want to use their registered account. I have considered starting an SPI based upon these concerns, but I am not sure if it is possible to narrow things down when a new IP address is used each time a new post is made. For that same reason, I am also not sure if starting an AN3 report would help resolve things. So, I figured I'd ask someone familiar with that particular process being doing so. Any suggestions you have on how to possibly resolve this kind of thing would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You may think this IP-hopping user is being annoying but I don't see that they have (yet) violated policy. He seems to want to reverse the decision taken at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#Iraq Football Association logos. There may also have been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 103#User deleting national football team logos. It appears he made a new filing at FFD, trying to get that non-free logo into wider use on related articles, but it's not very clear what he is requesting. Of course you can make a response there, but otherwise, you don't really need to continue debating with him. At present I don't see any need for admin action or AN3 filing. If he gets into wars, trying to restore the logo to any articles, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look EdJohnston. I noticed it was another "new" IP who started that FFD discussion. I still do have some concerns that these IPs may be being used by a registered account for some unknown reason. I do understand that there's nothing wrong per se with a registered user editing while logged off as explained in WP:LOGOUT, but this case seems to be an attempt to try and re-hash an old dispute by proxy while not appearing to do so in order to perhaps avoid scrutiny. FWIW, I believe I have found quite a few diffs which (at least in my opinion) establish a behavioral connection between the IPs and another registered account, so I am wondering asking for clarification about this in an SPI or a checkuser request would be considered appropriate. Given the fact that an FFD discussion has now been started, I feel there is a fairly good chance of this registered account participating in it, which would not really be appropriate per WP:ILLEGIT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Iraq national football team due to some late-January IP edit warring that could be the same guy. The IPs are all from the range 2a02:c7f:dc08:7e00::/64. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

For your ongoing work at WP:AN3. You must be the most active administrator working in that area (most complaints I've noticed are handled by you and done so very well) and in my eyes, you've turned the "Edit Warring noticeboard" into "Ed's noticeboard" 😉😉. Anyway, this barnstar is to show that your efforts there are very much appreciated and keep up the good work mate! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ban

Hello EdJohnston. Before the block was imposed I had proposed a self-sanction. I would request you to give this proposal another thought. I would also like to appeal the expansion of the ARPIBA sanction since I have made immensely useful contributions on Afghanistan related pages as well as non-conflict areas of Pakistani/ Kashmiri history, culture and demographics without getting mired into any controversies/edit wars. I request you to reconsider the extent of the sanction expansion. Thank you. Towns Hill

Please see this search for all the times your name has appeared at AE. I advise you to wait six months before asking for any modification of the ban. That means you could appeal after 18 July 2017. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Am I allowed to edit Aurangzeb's biography? Towns Hill

No, since he ruled over the Indian subcontinent. When you sign a comment, please be sure to use four tildes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Kianoush Rostami - new vandalism

• Kianoush Rostami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive326#User:Tehsojiro and User:Parrax reported by User:Ronaz (Result: Both warned)
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 143#Talk:Kianoush Rostami

What is going on with the Kianoush Rostami page? Moderator Ronaz had already established that the section regarding Kianoush Rostami's ethnicity should not be removed and constitutes vandalism by user Parrax. Now he has removed that section again and the page is put under protection so that nobody can edit it - even though the page was protected before, while the information about his Kurdish ethnicity was still there! What is going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehsojiro (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is only semiprotected and you may continue to edit, so long as you don't continue the war about his nationality. (You will need to get talk page consensus first). The discussion on the talk page is thin. If there are reliable sources that have taken note of his Kurdish connection then you might offer them on Talk for consideration. What Rostami wrote on Instagram is hardly decisive. Ronaz is not a moderator, and your word 'vandalism' above is not correct. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

They discussion on the talk page is thin because the other side refuses to discuss it. The discussion is not about his nationality or citizenship as written on his passport but about his ethnicity. Reliable sources? He has said called himself the servant of all Kurds worldwide on his own Instagram! Are you saying the word of the man himself is not reliable? Iran, as you might know, is not a country where it is easy to get many reliable sources of information on but when the guy himself says it I think that should be quite valid. Would it be acceptable if people would deny Jeremy Lin's Chinese ethnicity on his page? Would it be acceptable if Chelsea Manning's page removed all references to his self-identified gender? So why is it acceptable if Persian or Turkish users get to carry out their states' policies of trying to erase the Kurdish ethnicity? Tehsojiro (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We are used to edit warring between competing ethnicities, a thing which is usually of little interest to our readers. If reliable sources (independent of the subject) have decided his ethnicity is worthy of comment, maybe you can find some of them. Or, you can persuade the other editors on the article talk page. Consider Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics if you can't get anyone to respond on article talk. Or you could ask at WP:RSN if they agree that Instagram is a good source for this kind of information. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Blair Copeland, BS MS (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Block

I think this may have been a glitch... I've been seeing more of these 4-decade long blocks. GAB^gab 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a bug in Mediawiki. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Block length malfunction. They say this only affects the display of the block time, not the actual expiry time of the block which will be what was originally intended. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Heads up

I thought you should be made aware of user:Thepigdog's edit here. Such nonsense clearly is not productive nor will it inspire any constructive responses. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Your removal of that speech was appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Message restored

That block editor has the message restored and he's really sorry. He swears to God he'll never do that action again. He doesn't want to be block for 3 months. He really wants to help edit, he doesn't get around to editing much. Please consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B12F:E4E5:C9CF:8237:9E75:91D8 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of yourself. He was starting over and you blocked him completely. You should be the one blocked. And if you ignore this message there will be consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B12F:E4E5:C9CF:8237:9E75:91D8 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Manipulated articles

Are Romania articles being manipulated? Your last block: Origin of the Romanians

We know it's happening for certain. I've been warning for years that the #1 problem WP will face in the long run isn't vandals, or its own internal squabbles among editors, or an administrative crisis (though that is #2), but well-organized, secretly funded, professional editing to programmatically distort the truth to advance socio-political agendas. Editors like Borsoka used their status with increasing impunity, and this will prove disastrous to the whole project if it is not rectified quickly, since it's obviously leading to root-level fractures in the enforceability of core policies like WP:Neutral point of view. Please see who erases and who adds references in blocked pages 79.112.107.44 (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The WP:ARBMAC topic area is troubled by nationalist editing and has problems with socks. You do not make a good beginning, even if you have a valid complaint, to make your post here with a single-use IP. Come here with your real account and we'll talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Range block

Hi, I saw you're down as an admin willing to make range blocks. Could you take a look at 103.239.175.110 (talk · contribs), who has been using multiple IPs to vandalise my talk page, and judge whether a range block is viable? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked 103.239.175.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a week. The range seems to belong to a company, Creative Eye Software Solution. If he starts using more addresses a wider block might be considered. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Respond

Hello how are you?, I added my comment now, I have no problem to remove the Randy Olson, Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello how are you?. Can you as an administrator, please kindly inform User:Xenophrenic that it is inappropriate to refactor my comments (for at least five times) and omit important information from them. This censors my perspective and does not give me opportunity to voice my concerns. I would be grateful for this gesture. And as you can see also a neutral user @Marcocapelle: told him it's an inappropriate action, yet User:Xenophrenic still inappropriate to refactor my comments. Thanks you and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please ping your fellow editors (e.g.; @Marcocapelle:) when discussing them, rather than talk about them behind their backs, Jobas. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. No need to "inform me", as I've opened an ANI report on the matter here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Has Dailey78's topic ban been lifted?

You imposed it at User talk:Dailey78#Mentioned and he's busy editing articles on the subject again. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Second chance

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

User talk:71.81.58.55 has learned his lesson. He's trying to apologize to you, but he can't because he's blocked. Couldn't you see it in your heart to open up to him and give him another chance. He promised it won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.114 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the user's current block is due to this edit at Jason Bateman, which had the edit summary "Who gives a care about cites? Why doesn't anyone keep up here?", suggesting a lack of interest in Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. If that IP sincerely wants to be unblocked, they should restore all the messages they recently removed from their talk page (so that admins can see the recent events) and use the {{unblock}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

He probably doesn't know how to use cites or he must have forgotten. He was confused and upset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.114 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No reason to continue this. We will wait to see if the user appeals his block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So, if this user wants to be unblocked, all he has to do is use the {{unblock}} template and explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.114 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There, he has the {{unblock}} template and his reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.114 (talk • contribs) 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The user has to appeal the block themselves. Others cannot do it for them. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 18:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This user has appealed the block themselves. He's really really sorry and he promises he won't do it again. Please unblock him and he'll do better next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B12F:E4E5:C9CF:8237:9E75:91D8 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Dailey78 topic ban review

User:Dailey78 has opened an appeal at WP:AE, so I have removed the post below about the same thing. See also my reply to a question on his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved my commentary over there. You should actually review my edits. I added a bunch of citations and made the article better. The articles will be more encyclopedic with my ban lifted.Rod (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Girl develop it

• Sorry: while you were answering, I obeyed the move request. I did not know until I went to delete the obeyed move request and I found that it had gone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've recovered! I had been planning to suggest WP:DRV since the previous Girl Develop It was speedy deleted in January by User:RHaworth. But checking the reference list, it appears that the article now has notability so it would probably survive an AfD. The deleted version had almost no sources. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:71.81.58.55

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

You may wish to disable this person's talk page; he's ranting about being blocked and removing the blocked message. I reverted him but he just puts it back; I'm not willing to battle with him over it. Home Lander (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

He is allowed to remove block notices. Try ignoring him for now. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I just spotted his edits on recent change patrol; I have that function activated that crosses out blocked users so I knew he was altering a talk page after being blocked. Didn't know how far he would go so I figured I'd drop you a note. :) Home Lander (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me but you two aren't being very nice to him. He was simply helping editing and you blocked him for it. You should be ashamed of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.129.220 (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

He's right. This editor, who you blocked, was trying to help. If you don't unblock him, you'll never get any help out of this guy. Think this through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.102 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@147.174.134.102:; "If you don't unblock him, you'll never get any help out of this guy. Think this through." Hmm... that sounds *oddly* reminiscent in style to what 71.81.58.55 said in this edit- "If you don't listen to reason, you will never get any help from my editing. You will be lost without me." Are you at all related? Ubcule (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@70.196.129.220:; I note that your comment above is the *only* (anonymous) edit on record from your IP. You'll excuse me suggesting that it's rather coincidental (and unlikely) that an anonymous editor with *no* visible edits apart from the above comment would be aware of- and choose to contribute to- this discussion in support of another (allegedly completely unrelated) editor! Ubcule (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Third-party opinion

Hello, can you somehow comment this. I deleted information that Armenian and Georgian was the language court, because there isn't such information in source. Yes, source claim that ghulams and wives used their native languages for conversation among themselves, but source do not say that their languages were the court languages. For instance I have sources that official correspondence between Safavids and Ottomans, Uzbeks and even Russians was mostly in Azeri Turkish. But does it mean that Azeri was the language of diplomacy. Certainly, not. So, my opinion:We cannot claim that if somebody talked Armenian/Circassian/Georgian/Persian/Kurdish/Arab, this language was the language of court, otherwise it's original research. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, please, give your opinion. Whose version is more reliable - HistoryofIran's [1] or mine [2]? John Francis Templeson (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not the right person to give you a third opinion, since I'm acting as an administrator on this topic. You should not restore any disputed material at Safavid dynasty until you have obtained a consensus in favor of your version. See WP:Dispute resolution for the steps that are open to you. Since the Safavid dynasty has been the target of nationalist editing in the past, you are advised to be careful. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ignore him, he's changing information supported by reliable sources, which according to him aren't reliable because uhm.... WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Not to mention his name is very suspicious compared to his area of edits. As a new user he also seems to know the ropes (excluding the rules) of Wikipedia very well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion on counter-productive editor

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

Hi there,

I notice you recently left a warning at User talk:50.101.13.34 and thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion on this at the Village Pump.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there is enough reason to issue a block if the user now continues in spite of warnings. It would be helpful if you would create a report about this editor somewhere other than WP:VPM, which is an unlikely venue. For example, make an entry on your user talk, or if you prefer, here on my user talk. Include all the IPs we should be aware of, and if you have the patience for it, summarize how you have tried to inform the user in the past. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is a note for the record. This problem was also reported by User:Ubcule at a noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#Low-level but chronic link degradation from anonymous editor 50.101.13.34. After I saw that the IP user was continuing to modify piped links without ever responding to the complaints, I issued a 31-hour block on 6 February. Since then I haven't heard of any new problems. The VPM discussion can be seen at this permanent link. Three other editors commented there. User:Alsee's proposal of how to escalate this type of problem looks correct to me. No further admin action needed unless there are more illogical changes. In that case a three-month block should be considered, since there is still no communication. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding to your original comment above before. I appreciate you having blocked the user and- as I acknowledged elsewhere- this is a useful basis for further blocks (or for getting the user to pay attention; either is fine).

Prior to that, the fundamental problem was that I'd *already* attempted to deal with this a couple of months back and got nowhere. I'd posted at Village Pump to at least generate some discussion as to what *should*- or indeed could- be done with a case like this that seemed to have been ignored- even after being reported- because it didn't fit into the standard "vandalism/report" template (i.e. low level and sporadic but chronic rather than acute).

I have to be honest and say that if the user hadn't been blocked, I'd have been at the point of burning out and abandoning the whole thing, since I couldn't bring myself to spend any more time doing something similar to what I'd done before with no effect. So, thanks once again. Ubcule (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you got frustrated due to reporting at WP:AIV. The admins who respond there don't usually have much information to go on, and blatant vandalism will always get the strongest response. If it takes more than five minutes of thought to decide what to do, you are probably better off asking at a noticeboard like ANI or leaving a question for a single admin. ANI is known to support action when there is a user who keeps doing something while never communicating. I wouldn't use a Village Pump for that kind of issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I was having a go at anyone (or admins) specifically, just that whatever the cause the lack of progress was frustrating. My post at the Village Pump wasn't expected to be the place it was dealt with, just the means to finding out what the best route *would* be, if it existed. As you said, that's probably ANI here. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-admin closures at AN3

You recently closed a report on WP:AN3 for User:Speedy135 as having been blocked by User:Finlay McWalter for vandalism for 24 hours. I had also seen the same thing, and I had seriously considered closing it in basically the same way as you did: simply stating the outcome and adding the appropriate templates. Would that have been inappropriate for me to have done, as I'm not an administrator on this Wikipedia? J^♯m (talk | contribs) 18:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This sometimes happens at ANI, but it is not common at AN3. Whichever admin does the closing at the 3RR board is going to check both parties and the article itself to see if either more blocks or a protection would be indicated. A non-admin is not in a position to do this. The other catch is that if there is already a block in place, it could be via a post at WP:RFPP where the RFPP closer has not even seen the 3RR data, so they may be unaware of the full scope. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining why that shouldn't really happen. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping Carl. Good result for the project, in the end. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

POV-push at Illyrians

Hi Ed. FYI, please see my report at 3RRN. Account has all the hallmarks of past socks in that area. Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes to mind. Dr. K. 18:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Igaalbania and Iaof2017 redux

Hi Ed. After an editor came to my talkpage to alert me about Iaof2017's edits, I decided to investigate further. Aside from the usual GFDL violations, due to shuffling large amounts of text between Wikipedia articles without attribution (check this large edit, for example, also marked as minor), I came across this blatant copyvio by this user, copied from cclaw.al:

Its oil and gas is represents of the most promising albeit strictly regulated sectors of the Albanian Economy of Albania. Oil and gas reserves still remain property of the Albanian State, which enters into agreements and grants rights with regard to evaluation, exploration, production, processing and transport of the product.

I also noticed that Diannaa revdeled copyvios from Tourism in Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 1 February 2017, soon after Iaof2017 edited the article. If it turns out the revdeled edits belong to Iaof2017, then the copyvio pattern becomes stronger for this account. Additionally, I noticed that the time clocks of Igaalbania and Iaof2017 are remarkably similar. I know, that the CU results at the SPI came up as unlikely, but the similarities between these two accounts are not going away. Imo, if left unchecked, this account is going to render the articles s/he edits into a copyvio/GFDL-violation salad. But, this is only my opinion. Dr. K. 08:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on this. You should feel free to let me know of conspicuous problems. The note at your talk page looked bad at first, but the User:Peter K Burian revised his comment later. If you are hoping for a sock block, then there needs to be a duck case. If ARBMAC, then there needs to be obvious nationalist editing. Mere fluff is hard to prosecute, especially when many of the edits could be viewed as beneficial. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. No, I am not seeking a sock block, not without an SPI, at least. I just wanted mostly to update you. I realise it's a difficult, albeit annoying, case. Dr. K. 23:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor is violating WP policy and copyright law by adding raw Google translations to English Wikipedia.

Hi Ed, I'm having a problem with a user who is adding raw Google translate text, of very poor quality, from Spanish Wikipedia articles to English WP articles. I reverted his addition of such text to the Monastery of San Juan de los Reyes article, but he has reverted my reversion, as you can see from the article's revision history. I am getting tired of cleaning up after this guy, who denies doing what anyone can plainly see he is doing. Carlstak (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I left a note for User:Vvven. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I am now learning English, I will correct all the defects that the page has, as I develop my language skills, I hope you give me a few weeks to fix it--Vvven (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Vvven, if you intend to start your work from a raw machine translation, you should be editing offline. Don't add such material to a live article such as Monastery of San Juan de los Reyes, since you are risking a block for doing so. Don't upload any material to Wikipedia until it is at least as good as a competent human translation. And if you do so, you need proper attribution if it came originally from the Spanish Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Gen X page

• Generation X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed, could you remove the autoconfirmed or confirmed access (indefinite time) from the Gen X page please? There have only been a few editors who are contributing since you put the restriction in place. Or could you at least shorten the time? Its been about two months. Thank you.64.183.42.42 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Generation X is currently semiprotected due to sockpuppetry and unsourced changes by IPs. The semiprotection has been off and on since 2009, so the problem won't go away soon. Consider using the Template:Edit semiprotected on the talk page to propose your change. Or if you wish, you can register an account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hôpital Albert Schweitzer

Hello EdJohnston! There is currently an ongoing discussion on this hospital's talk page that has since been stagnate. Formerly two independent articles, Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Gabon and the current which was solely used for a hospital in Haiti that share the same name (both use French as an official language) has recently had the contents of Gabon's hospital merged with the Haiti article. Prior to the merge I did not even know it was taking place, for whatever reason. Opposing editor and I differ on whether the two hospitals are independent. More of this discussion can be found on its talk page. I would much appreciate a third opinion on the matter. Thank you kindly. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There is at least one British charity, Reverence for Life UK which identifies both the Lambarene hospital and the Haiti hospital as among their 'projects' but I don't see proof that there is any common management of the two hospitals. (See this page which mentions the British charity donating money to both hospitals). If the hospitals are actually one organization you would expect to see that fact explained in their publications. It appears there could be followers of Albert Schweitzer in many countries that refer to one another in their fund-raising materials, without having an actual corporate connection. in my opinion, good sources would be needed to justify merging the articles on the two hospitals. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Need Help

• Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed,Can you please help me clarify this issue to this editor beacause he doesn't understand the situation i really would appreciated if you can help me.Thanks Lists129 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

At first sight it looks like you have reached agreement. If people are uncertain about the usability of @VivaRevolt as a source, you could ask at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and hate propagating by a long-term vandal

Hi EdJohnson, I hope you have enough time to read the report and SPI case below. Because it is a bit complicated, since the editor is a "professional" and knows well how to escape "hard-block".

There are ongoing problems regarding a disruptive racist editor who was indefinitely blocked last year per WP:NOTHERE. Hassan Rebell, justifiably, was blocked by @JzG: on 14 December. After his "long" messages and apologies on his talk page, user @Beeblebrox: gave him a "chance" and reduced his block on 24 January. However, only a few weeks later, I noticed that he began editing thorugh his "confirmed" ips (see Rebell's talk page) with exactly the same agenda [1 for months 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9 (...) After his "Swiss" ips became "notorious", he abandoned them for a while and since June 2016, he has been editing from Germany 1, 2. As I proved on the SPI with dozens of diffs, those German and Swiss ips belong to the long-term vandal Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell. Plus, the checkuser also agreed that those ips belong to the same editor. However, no action was taken since his sock account was  already "soft-blocked" for impersonating user:Kintetsubuffalo and he has not edited via his other account, Rebell, for a long time, despite he is very active with various ips and proxies. As I mentioned on the SPI case, the sockmaster "intentionally" impersonating other editors in order to escape "hard-block". It seems to me that, impersonating other editors is the "tactic" of this sockmaster: When his disruptive/suspicious accounts are noticed, they are first blocked for impersonating other editors, before blocked for socking or disruptive editing. And thereby, they become "soft-blocked", instead of "hard-blocked" Exactly the same problem has occured in the 09 January 2016 case (Kinetsubuffalo). Plus, he uses this situation as an excuse. Two of his accounts were blocked for impersonating other editors, it is obviously not a "coincidence", but a tactic. 

The same disruptive sockmaster was warned many times by various users for his problematic, "hateful" edits targeting a minority ethnic group: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (...) And finally, he was warned @Doug Weller: for the same reason 1, 2. Despite all these warnings and SPI cases, exactly the same problem continues 1. The last SPI case was closed on 22 February, and he has came with a "new" ip range on 25 February. On the SPI case, I have proved with multiple diffs that the proxy ip "81.253.60.172", German ips and Hassan Rebell are the same editor and thereby the "new" ip "130.180.67.198" from Germany, obviously the same vandal. In other words, he is still active on WP and continues editing as if nothing has happened. If he had used an account, he would have been banned 100 times, but no one can do anything because he is abusing plenty of ip ranges and only "soft-blocked" because of "impersonating" other editors. This is unfair. 

In order to solve this problem I request:

• Re-blocking for Hassan Rebell, since he continues "exactly" (even worse) the same behavior/edits that was led to the block and he is still active though he edits when logged-out. Also, I request hard-block for his impersonator accounts Lrednuas Senoroc and Kinetsubuffalo, since it is not a "coincidence", but a tactic. 
• Semi-protecting certain articles that were often targeted by him. Since he uses "plenty of" ip ranges and proxies, the range block does not work and semi-proctecting is the most effective solution in this case. In fact, he edited numberless articles but it is impossible to protect all of them. But, at least, certain articles that are constantly targeted by him should be semi-protected. Namely: Kurdish women, History of the Kurds, Origin of the Kurds, Kurdish mythology, Kurdish culture, Kurdistan, Persecution of Christians, Christianity in the Middle East and Christianity in Iraq. 

Bests, 46.221.179.199 (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• 88.128.80.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)} and he's back with the same agenda, since admins/checkusers do nothing about him. This "helplessness" of admins simply encouraging him. But as i mentioned above, I suggested simply 2 solutions to stop this vicious cycle. 46.221.179.199 (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this case, and I'm unsure why you came to me for help. Please use WP:SPI. You are posting here from an IP that has made no other edits. If you have interacted with the supposed sock in the past, please tell us what IDs you used then so I know how the problem came to your attention. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Dipendra2007

I should have some say on whether my complaints remain or not.

Dipendra2007 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor Behavior

• List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I originally posted this at another admin's page but was told that Admins don't deal with conduct and I should go to WP:DR. I don't want to open a whole case or make a big deal. I'd appreciate just someone letting Nishidani know that being uncivil or casting aspersions is not good. Hi, I don't necessarily want to open an AE action, but I am getting sick and tired of being treated uncivilly and getting called names by Nishidani. If you look at User:Sir_Joseph/sandbox, I was working on an AE action, but if someone can tell Nishidani that he needs to cool his behavior, I'd be OK with that. There have been many times where he has used the edit summaries to attack, and he has also many times called those he disagreed with names. I know he violated discretionary sanctions but it's the behavior that upsets me more. thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me that you and User:Nishidani have each made one revert at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016. (Unless you can show that his first edit was also a revert). His edit summary was: "Undid revision 767919126 by Sir Joseph (talk)WP:HOUND+false edit summary. Avnery is a RS for the Israeli law on stone throwing without harm, every one knows it is 18 months" which could probably be improved. It is a good time for both of you to be discussing the content issue on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, his post technically violated DS, but the issue is the constant denigration in his edit summaries and talk pages. If I have an opinion different than his, it's only because (in his opinion) of my nationalistic biases. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguous link fix.

I appreciate your thanks, as this was the first assist of an admin with a disambiguation link in their block templates. I didn't know until now that I could help with that. Have a great rest of your day! *Xyaena~* (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Gaasedrft

Aren't these socks usually blocked indefinitely? I've reported a lot of them recently to WP:AIV for disruption and that was always the end result... 172.58.40.87 (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is reasonable. Done. EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. these filter logs make it easy to detect Nsmutte socks... 172.58.40.87 (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

About the protection of Turkey

• Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KazekageTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there mate. I've seen that there's been an attack (again) from a sockpuppet. I thank you about your willingness to protect the page but that protection you gave, also blocks users like me, who merely wants to contribute, from editing.

I would like to replace some images and some text that had been written or placed by that sock. Can you help me with that? kazekagetr 15:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Our article on Turkey is under extended confirmed protection (pp-30-500) due to the socking. But since you yourself have over 500 edits, you are not restricted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks mate i wasn't able to edit but i assume that it was just a bug. kazekagetr 21:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TechnicianGB

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.

---

He is supporting a wrong and aggressive position about net italian wage in " List of European countries by average wage".He posts net earnings published by Eurostat that aren't the average net wages that generally are higher.For some other countries are published correct national net wages published directly by their public statistic agencies.For Italy Istat doesn't publish official data about net wages (that are calculted regionally) but this doesn't mean that people can set not valid references to support creative numbers.It's right writing no data.Or people post for all the european states Eurostat net earnings as references or for states that have no official public agencies data is better writing nothing avoiding to be creative( in the first case the article should be called by net earnings 100% and not wages).I don't know how to stop his long lasting hidden vandalism.ThanksAnioni (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a waste of time for the two of you to keep accusing one another of vandalism. At some point you should have a real discussion of what source of data is the best. You should do so on one of the article talk pages. He made a substantive point here, arguing for the EURES data, but you just removed his message without trying to address the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it's all said. Me vandalising? for using official data?! ... Probably it's the same user as "Sad9721" which was banned from further editions and was editing the same pages, and with the same "arguments". Also because this user has only went auto-confirmed to make such editions. No one has any problem with the official EURES source, and this user "Anioni" comes to put a redundant source which talks about the politicians wages from 2013 (really? what's the relation with that?) and for the net wage a "online net wage calculator".

EURES offers both net and brut wages for any other country, and it has 2015 data, the crisis has hit hard Italy and the wages are obviously somehow lower than some years ago, as it happened in Spain and other countries. He accuses me to be "anti-italian" just because I use the official data? I told him in his own talk page to stop doing such redundant changes in the page which unuseful sources. Now he is probably scared to be blocked from editing and came here to "warn" you. But anyone can see and check the official data and see that his changes just include redundant sources which are not useful at all and talk about other things (politicians wages...). --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And yes, I warned him about his changes and he just deleted my edition on his talk page accusing me of "vandalism" because I warned him... ? Wow --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I checked the past of this guy that changed the name and isn't perfect at all. About crisis I don't know about Spain but italian net wages are grown more than 4% I the last 4 years according to ISTAT (see retribuzioni). The guy can hold the reference for Italy (but who studies statistic knows that net earnings aren't net wages) but now he must add Eurostat data in the map and in the table for all the states for which Eurostat provides data in 2015 because for many of there's no coincidence between data in the article and Eurostat. Or for all the states the same reference and method or for none. Italy is lending money to Spain in great quantity by ESM and can't be compared at any level to it.Anioni (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion he could be serbian (IP means nothing, it means what he writes), M. Abrmovich. I've just opened a space in the Talk page. He wrote without consensus. If he won't use the same method (reference) for all the states renaming also the article his reference of Eurostat about Italy will be deleted.or people use the same method for all or for none. Thanks.Anioni (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anioni: Are you deliberately trolling? I reverted your redundant changes which you made without any consensus deleting the official Eurostat sources and also changing them by some unuseful sources which weren't talking about the wages but about the politician wages and then an online net wage calcullator and you still come here to try to defend the indefensible? After you were the one who deleted the EUROSTAT initial sources on the page? Unbelievable.

You maded your own changes without any consensus with unuseful sources (I remember you that the 1st one was using Wikipedia as a source, was using the same source you edited! lol! wikipedia can't be a reference inside Wikipedia!!!) I edit that page much before you were an user here. Looking at your editions you only rage when someone deletes your redundant editions, looking at your editions on the page of Italy you put some extra euros on the official IMF numbers just because you wanted, because the own source doesn't say that. I warned you in your talk page, you deleted the warning and then came here scared fastly to protect your account from a possible temporary block because of your vandalism and now try to change the things? Unbelievable. Both countries use the official EUROSTAT sources, what are you still saying? Are you trolling us or what are you doing? For my part this discussion is done, even EdJohnston noticed you that you didn't want to talk further in your own talk page and you directly deleted the warn... incredible. Look at your contributions, the few ones you did are in the same mood, with tricky sources and with data which can't be proven. And on the same topics. Wow, strange, isn't it? Guess not. And what is your problem that I had another nickname in the past and I changed it? Unbelievable! Why do you still change the topic so fast when you done something wrong and anyone can see it?

Here [[3]] in the 28th of February more exactly, you started deleting the consensus changes of the page with the official EUROSTAT data in order to add the redundant sources mentioned before. And you accuse me to "edit without consensus" ? Who do you try to trick? All your changes are recorded in the page, lol you changed the data & sources because you wanted!

And I don't know which kind of distorted perception you have but actually Italy is among the worst performing economically countries in the Eurozone while Spain is amongst the first 5 in GDP growth. WIth 3.2% in 2016 places it doubling the European Union average and recovering 80% of the GDP lost by the crisis. Italy hasn't even recovered 50% and in 2016 just grow a 1%. Do you want the source of this or you can search it by yourself? Well, here you got it.

Actually the most powerful countries from the EU gave credit by the ESM lending them years ago to both Italy and Spain. Did you forget that? Italy needs massive reformations to be able to lend to anyone else rather than to improve themselves (as Spain needs also to improve more). Spain doesn't need it since 2013. Italy since the same year, but still heavy improvements have to been done in Italy to reduce the massive corruption or the political ineficiency. And lol, both countries are practically the same, because the north of Italy is much richer than the south, in Spain happens the same but the south is not as poor as the south of Italy and the north not as rich as the north of Italy. You can Google for the European GDP by regions. Actually both countries have the same HDI or GDP (PPP) per capita). Spain surpassed Italy with only 1 place in those 2 measurements and Italy surpasses Spain in the nominal GDP per capita. Both countries have almost the same quality of living, efficiency, economy ratings or life expectancy. Just Spain is now improving somehow faster from the crisis because of the measures taken. lol, i'm studying economics, don't try to joke on Wikipedia or to make redundant edits because you fastly will see them corrected. Au revoir --TechnicianGB (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

btw @Anioni: For both countries is reported the data of net earnings and gross earnings, because it's what EUROSTAT offers... an official source. But if you're happier with your recent editions I will not delete them as you are still using the EUROSTAT data. --TechnicianGB (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2017 (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.

But by the way, the actual data you modified looks ok to me, even if it's slightly higher than what the source says i'm ok. So conversation closed, ok? Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Armenia article

Hey EdJohnston,

Can you take a quick glance at the Armenians article? An IP address has been adding some bold claims to the infobox using unreliable sources over and over again. This has been happening for quite some time now. I think it needs to be semi-protected for a little awhile. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Article semiprotected. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Epiousios

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

What was the basis for your partial-protecting this article? A single edit-reversion is edit-warring to your way of thinking? --107.77.217.55 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The protection was due to edit warring. The way forward is to make arguments on talk and work for agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Flagged for future reviewers. There was a single edit reversion -- a restoration of a factual statement -- which went unchallenged by the one who was reverted. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Gen X page

• Generation X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed, this is an archived discussion (below) with a new question for you. Could you please take a look at the Gen X talk page because I'm not sure what you mean below about using this template as a way to request changes: Template:Edit semiprotected Thank you. 64.183.42.42 (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Hi Ed, could you remove the autoconfirmed or confirmed access (indefinite time) from the Gen X page please? There have only been a few editors who are contributing since you put the restriction in place. Or could you at least shorten the time? Its been about two months. Thank you.64.183.42.42 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Generation X is currently semiprotected due to sockpuppetry and unsourced changes by IPs. The semiprotection has been off and on since 2009, so the problem won't go away soon. Consider using the Template:Edit semiprotected on the talk page to propose your change. Or if you wish, you can register an account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.42 (talk)

Per Talk:Generation X#Recent changes It appears that you succeeded in getting a change made using the template. If you want it to work in the normal way, you should use the curly brackets, as in {{edit semi-protected}}. Do not use square brackets, a colon, or the word 'template'. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Action needed

• Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ed, please, action is needed, this is out of control now.

• Changed for years stable article name into Albanian language, no talk activity
• Incredible POV, just look the first sentence, changing the article base subject
• Removal of Serbian name in Serbian minority town, as "Serbian is not important"
• again, same article where he was blocked, massive removal of sources, no talk page activity by him despite agreement against this removal
• Again, removal of sources, strong POV, no talk page activity
• ignoring the sources he does not like, reverts per IDONTLIKEIT, no talk page activity for months
• Removal of sentence he does not like, POV pushing, no talk page activity, etc, etc...

These edits are from just ONE DAY. He is ignoring everything, not talking, not waiting for any agreement, not following sources, not anything. This user is NOTHERE in ARBMAC area. So many users already reacted, he was warned by numerous users numerous times, he is currently under still opened SPI, he was already blocked for edit warring. This must be stopped! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added a userlinks template above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And nothing changed, except more removal of sources with false edit summary, reordering Albanian first everywhere, and revert again with 0 % wish to compromise with edit summery maybe a change of order of sentences as a sign of good will but stuff will stay in article. I can revert this, and he will revert back each time. I can start talk discusion, but he will say we have an agreement or just dont reply (as he still didnt for almost all reverts), and that i "dont understand". As a neutral source on history subject he added a publication by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the disputed non UN member Republic of Kosovo. He told you to "send him barnstar for fighting vandalism" Once again, this user is NOTHERE, but he is only using Wikipedia as political and propaganda tool, in clear violation of ARBMAC. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Although I did not plan to intervene here can Anastan cite examples where they have initiated a discussion and I did not reply "as I still didnt for almost all reverts"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Everywhere. You know that you are obliged to explain your edits when reverted, but you ignored that, and you disbanded any other discussion that already started before, mostly by someone else. And your non-communication is just a fraction of massive vast problems here. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed, that will be more then enough for me. I will start other dispute resolution systems, thank you, but that will, i am afraid, not be enough for other side. Thank you --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Problems at Anatolia

Hi Ed,

Can you check out what's happening at the Anatolia article? Either the page needs to be protected or the users edit-warring highly controversial wording into the article need to be restricted somehow. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

An IP is warring about the Armenian Genocide while not participating on Talk, so I have semiprotected the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Range block

Hi, I have another request to see if a range block is possible, for 82.132.23. The IPs have a history of adding unsourced/poorly/partially sourced content and violating WP:MOS, which must have been going on for at least a couple of years now. See this article's history as an example of the content they add and the IPs they use. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And they could actually be puppets of 10alatham, a prolific sockmaster, judging by this. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You should probably reopen the SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/10alatham. The range 82.132.232.0/20 is very busy and the bad edits aren't quickly recognizable as such. (See this rangecontribs). Naturally there won't be a checkuser run but gathering examples of bad IP edits would help fine tune a blockable range, if there is one. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Turkish

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.

---

• Iznik pottery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

03:51, 15 March 2017‎ EdJohnston (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (27,863 bytes) (0)‎ . . (EdJohnston moved page Talk:İznik pottery to Talk:Iznik pottery: Requested by Born2cycle at WP:RM/TR: RM discussion (at Talk:İznik pottery#Requested move 21 February 2017)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 01:12, 15 March 2017‎ Born2cycle (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,863 bytes) (+1,268)‎ . . (→‎Requested move 21 February 2017: Moved) (undo | thank)

Hi Ed, I'm afraid that the user had no right to supervote the article contrary to en.wp practice for all Turkish articles. I hope it's not first move in a new diacritics war. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there grounds for believing that B2C cast a supervote? As I read through the discussion, the wide use of the conventional spelling seemed hard to rebut. The argument that people's technical means were restricted is one that it's hard to get evidence for. As opposed to some previous debates about sportsmen where we know that the central office had a policy of removing the diacritics from the players' names. Obviously if we were only talking about the city we would be preserving the diacritic, but people appear to be saying that 'Iznik pottery' is a thing with its own spelling. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well 2 supports and 2 opposes isn't an uncontroversial non-admin close, if that non-admin already has a view on diacritics. Yes it was claimed that "'Iznik pottery' is a thing with its own spelling", but it clearly isn't as was shown with İznik + tiles, ceramics, potteries, potters and anything else connected with İznik - which is a town of 50,000 people pronounced "EEznik", not "Uzznik". We now have one article in the Turkish article corpus titled with a long i written as a ı sound ( /ɯ/ in IPA) but still written correctly throughout the article body. But in any case, this was not a non-controversial close suitable for a non-admin. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was clearly, using sources, shown that "Iznik pottery" / "Iznik wear" / "Iznik style" / etc., is a think on its own - it is an international art term, widely used and of considerable standing, that is used to describe a style of ceramic objects. Your failure to understand that is inexplicable, as is your failure to accept WP:COMMONNAME that was established by looking at the way that this term is spelt in RS sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In assessing WP:CONSENSUS in that discussion I did not count !votes but instead went by strength of arguments with respect to basis in policy. That said, counting now, the count was 3 (Tiptoethrutheminefield, Johnbod, Pelarmian ) to 2 (IIO, Laurdecl) in favor of the move. As I read through the discussion I too found that "the wide use of the conventional spelling seemed hard to rebut". My interpretation of consensus in that discussion was to refer to the city with a diacritic, and the pottery without, and after the move I updated the article content accordingly [4]. Tiptoethrutheminefield later found a few I missed [5] [6]. Much appreciated. --В²C ☎ 16:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In those edits I considered "Iznik fritware" to be an art term like "Iznik tiles" so I removed the dotted I. For retaining the dotted i spelling for İznik when on its own, I think it is visually jarring in the article and there are common name arguments that it too should be Iznik because Iznik is a fairly well-known and historically important place mentioned and spelt as Iznik in many EL sources over a very long time period (similarly, we do not have Istanbul spelt İstanbul). But that is a separate issue from the spelling of the art term, and would be best decided on the article about the town. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody cited WP:DIACRITICS explicitly in the discussion, but its guidance was implied by you and others who recognized we should be following usage in reliable sources, which is what it says. The specific standard it gives is this: "In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive." Again, this was alluded to by the Supporters of the move: "All the sources (even the one by the Turkish author Necipoglu) that are listed in the sources and further reading sections of the article spell it 'Iznik pottery', none of them spell it 'İznik pottery'" and "You have not cited a SINGLE SOURCE that uses 'İznik pottery'.". Also, this point was effectively conceded by the opposition: "And no one is disputing that most English websites, or books, that mention Turkish ceramics - or indeed Turkish any other subject - do not represent the full Turkish alphabet". Further, those in opposition relied on a standard for which there is no basis in policy or guidelines, so far as I know. They certainly did not cite any basis when they asserted it: "provide a fully typologically enabled source which uses capital dotted İ for the town and then does not use it for ceramics from the town then that would be a convincing evidence." This is why I found Support arguments to be based in policy/guidelines much better than those who were opposed. --В²C ☎ 17:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ed, does the above flurry of posts indicate to you that the non-admin closer has no history in the area of diacritics and was an appropriate editor to close and move rather than simply relist or vote? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that User:Born2Cycle should not close move discussions involving diacritics? EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll add my – probably unwanted – 2 cents in here. Firstly, I do not think the close was appropriate, though I'm grateful to B2C for trying to reduce the backlog. IMO the correct choice was either a relist or close as no consensus, but neither of these should be a NAC (WP:BADNAC specifically states that non-admins should avoid controversial closes). Going through the discussion I see only one serious support, by Tiptoethrutheminefield. Johnbod's support was basically an echo and Pelarmian's support could not be less policy-based. The real argument here was whether WP:CONSISTENCY and use of the "proper name" outweighs WP:COMMONNAME (if we assume the undotted "I" to be common). Personally, I don't see a clear preference in reliable (blogs, etc. don't really hold weight here) sources that makes this the common name, and even if I did, I'm not sure it is more important than consistency. In ictu oculi, you might want to go to move review. Thanks. Laurdecl ^talk 05:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Beyond the initial evidence-based presentation arguing for the title change, no additional in-depth analysis was actually required by anyone - the renaming was the clearest of clear-cut cases of WP:COMMONNAME. There is no controversy. Not a single source was presented to support the old title. Dozens were presented using the new title. None of the arguments for keeping the old title were policy-based, they were full of of-topic material and some were outright bizarre. Laurdecl is launching bizarre v2.0 if he is alleging any of the sources cited were "blogs, ect.". Does he consider websites of museums and art galleries of international stature to be "blogs", perhaps? Or are they to be included amongst the obviously even more dreadful "ects". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no need for so much hyperbole. You say yourself "As does H. Stierlin, 'Turkey', in Taschen's World Architecture", replying to another editor who presented a source using a dotted I. I'm not sure why my reasons are "bizarre"; the lack of dotted I can be explained quite rationally by the use of standard Latin keyboards, and by people who don't think it makes a difference not including the dot (we know better). I'm not sure why you called me a "pov-warrior" in the RM either. Laurdecl ^talk 01:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ed, yes I'm suggesting that beyond normal WP:BADNAC which this was if any non-admin had closed with a move from stable title. Additionally any non-admin with a history of opposing en.wp practice on for example French names, shouldn't be the non-admin closing. I don't think Move review is called for, I think undo and relist is called for. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it was a BADNAC, under any of the listed criteria. However, if EdJohnston or anyone uninvolved in the discussion thinks it was, I'd be willing to revert. --В²C ☎ 20:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If you actually are somehow against diacritics as IIO implies (I'm not saying you are), then it falls under #1, "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality". It falls under 2, "... likely to be controversial", because we are here. Laurdecl ^talk 01:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Charles Martinet

Fyi, the sock doing this is notorious for attacks on other sites. I have been a target of theirs on WikiCommons, WikiVoyage and even on the TARDIS Wikia. You might want to check those and any Wikia sites you may have accounts on when you get a chance. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 19:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if there is an SPI or an LTA report. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigshowandkane64. As you will see, they've been at this for a loooong time.  :( --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 20:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No surprise here. Oh well, I still don't even care Ebyabe. I haven't even bothered you "ONCE" since that time when it happened, I even said I'm not going to bothering you anymore, not once, or twice, never. Not even this year, I haven't even bugged you once this year. 2600:1000:B02E:87E6:A140:1433:3A68:3019 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Some words to the wise that you might wish to consider. Cheers and happy editting. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 03:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Violation and continued tendentious editing

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.

---

Hi EdJohnston, You recently gave EtienneDolet his final warning following an AE case, while shortly after he got de facto banned from AE in general as well, for a lengthy period. However, despite this, he's still continuing with his tendentious, disruptive, and battleground-loaded editorial pattern ever since;

• On 6 March 2017, he edited the Battle of Avarayr article, using a clear bad faith-loaded edit summary directed towards me.[7] Literally out of nothing. He didn't even ask me a thing about it, nope, he just went ahead to post that edit summary.
• On 6 March 2017, when I adressed the huge issues related to his edit on the Avarayr page (it included a massive WP:RS violation), he simply removed all the text from his talk page. When Kansas Bear then re-addressed the same issue on the talk page of the article in question, he went ahead to call Kansas Bear's concerns WP:JDL and still refused/refuses to acknowledge that his edit was a massive wrongdoing and was thus rightfully removed in its entirety.[8]
• On 28 Feb 2017, he added the Armenian name to the lede of a city in Turkey,[9] even though the Armenian name was already visible in the body of the article,[10] and no further reasoning/explanation was included to give it such additional prominence.
• Idem on 28 February, regarding another city in Turkey.[11] Notice how the article doesn't remotely back up the claim to justify the inclusion of an Armenian transliteration to the lede, and neither does the edit summary of ED.
• Edit-warring in Feb 2017 in order to delete POV-tags on Armenia-related articles, even though ostensibly the issue hadn't been settled yet at the time (see the talk page).[12][13][14][15]
• Removing information in Feb 2017, backed up by RS-sources, that mentions anti-semitism in Armenia.[16]
• Re-adding unrelated/anachronistic/redundant transliterations for historic figures that did not speak Armenian (Feb 2017), nor did the script in question exist at the time. Even though verifiability is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, he basically orders another editor with WP:BURDEN to explain "why it doesn't exist".[17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
• Employing ridiculous self-formulated analogies in order to remove unwished information about Armenian figures, even if its reliably sourced. He's even edit-warring over it with another person ("Abbatai") [24][25][26][27] See the relevant discussion here. (Jan 2017)

You'd expect someone who's hanging by a thin rope to tread with more caution, but alas, its clearly not the case as you can see. These examples are clear violations of the warnings given to him. Its basically the exact opposite of neutral editing, in the very sense of the word. And this is just the tip of the iceberg as we know. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This request is replete with half-truths, misleading accusations, and outright falsehoods that mostly concern issues that have already been dealt with some time ago. What's more interesting is that none of these accusations deal with LouisAragon. As far as I can see, only one diff relates to my interaction with LA. Yet, what we have here are diffs going back to January 2017 that deal with articles LA has never edited and that don't deal with him whatsoever. This can either mean that LA has been hounding me for the past 3-4 months to find an opportunity to have me blocked for some reason, or that he is holding a grudge due to that one diff and has now rummaged through my all my contributions since January 2017 to find diffs that will hopefully stick with some admin he shops to. Either way, this appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So even though I really don't see why I must rehash these dead issues here, it might be worthy to squeeze in some pretty obvious rebuttals:

• I don't see this as a bad faith remark. It's actually quite true. Why did LA unhesitatingly remove sourced information with this edit, while the "Heavy" casualties bit for the Armenian belligerents was kept even though it wasn't sourced at all? This is WP:IMPARTIAL. Now if LouisAragon's edit was merely to revert a block user, then I would have the good faith and say that that's okay. But his revert was a modified edit, and a pretty questionable one. I also feel that my edit was an improvement. I've added additional sources to the article and provided a more neutral account of the battle (i.e. both sides suffered heavy losses).
• If I conducted "massive RS violations", why not express your grievances at the ongoing discussion at the talk page or better yet, perhaps send those sources to the RSN? Plus, users don't conduct "massive RS violations" on purpose. At times, users insert sources that may or may not be reliable based on what the Wikipedia community concludes. Here, I can't help but think that LA is making it seem that I had some malicious intent by adding those sources to demonstrate that my intent was to violate Wikipedia bylaws. And for crying out loud, I've only made ONE edit to that article. Just ONE. And your response is to rush to EdJohnston's TP? As for the sources themselves, I still think they're RS. Two sources are authored by specialists in Armenian history and the other, Bauer, is a university-level textbook, published by a respected publishing house, and it's a work cited in numerous peer-reviewed articles, all of which fall in line with basic WP:VERIFIABILITY suggestions. As for other remarks here, Kansas Bear's revert wasn't a revert of my edit in its entirety, as LA falsely claims. Almost all my fixes were intact. And Kansas Bear's involvement here is quite obscure as well. I can't help but notice that LA pinged Kansas Bear on my TP and KB immediately jumped to his side and rehashed LA's arguments on the TP of the article. Nothing against KB, I think he's a solid asset to the topic area. I just think that was a bit of WP:CANVASSING on LA's end.
• As for this: I don't get your point here. Adana played a highly significant role for the history of the Armenians up until 1915. If you feel I'm in the wrong, then let me know at the talk page.
• And for this: same as above. Again, why's this such a problem? If you see it as a problem, why don't you do something about it on the talk page instead of using this as ammunition to getting me blocked at an admin's TP?
• Yes, that POV tag was placed on that article for bogus reasons. Apparently, most of the sources on that article were by Armenians and that just because only Armenians wrote about the battle means that such an event never happened. A) That's not even true. There are non-Armenian sources in the article. B) Even if it was, then why should that be a (POV) problem?
• My revert here was made because user Zuormak was blocked for making really nasty remarks in the edit summary of the edit I eventually reverted.
• Regarding the Armenian names for Urartian kings, that's pretty relevant to Armenians today. I don't see a problem with this. Urartu and its kings continue to play an intricate role in Armenian history and culture up until today. Again, share your grievances on the talk page, or get involved or something. I'm always willing to discuss.
• The Matild Manukyan stuff has been dealt with. Unsourced allegations of a woman working underage prostitutes should be removed. Abbatai provided a source on the TP, I backed off, and that's that. Don't see why this should be rehashed here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering this I was not sure to comment here as I told I wouldn't engage any confrontation with ED. @Drmies: If It is inappropriate I would delete my comment voluntarily. As my name appeared here I will just tell a few words related to only my edits.

• I wont add anything more to what I wrote on the talk page of Matild Manukyan. It was violation of WP:ARBAA2.
• The POV tag was necessary for the article Battle of Holy Apostles Monastery as I explained on the talk page. However without reaching consensus ED repeatedly removed it and added this editorialized sentence to the lead of article. This is violation of Wikipedia rules as well.
• Lastly removing well sourced information added to page after a consensus at talk page is another violation of WP:ARBAA2. The "nasty" edit summary of another user does not justify removing sourced information.

Again sorry if I am being inconvenient here after what I told on my talk page. And feel free to remove my comment, I am enough of Wikidrama with ED. ThanksAbbatai 15:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm. LouisAragon seems to be using their annoyance over the content dispute at Battle of Avarayr to go trawling through ED's recent editing in order to dig up some dirt. I think it would have been better to put this effort into just resolving the Avarayr battle issue, which is down to sources (I happen to agree with LouisAragon about the unsuitability of the "The Magical Pine Ring" source ED is using). The issue of alternative names in leads would ideally be decided by referring to a clearly-worded and unambiguous Wikipedia-wide policy - but that does not exist, and at the moment it seems to be done article-by-article, often based on just what can be gotten away with. Is "relevant to Armenians today" a valid argument? Is it an argument that an article should contain content based on the ethnicity or the expectations of its potential readership in addition to what sources contain? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why can't the issues at Battle of Avarayr be worked out on its talk page? And, aren't there standard histories that cover this period? What about the Cambridge History of Iran? If you read the page of Susan Bauer's book that talks about the Battle of Avarayr you may not be impressed with the depth of her analysis. For place names, see WP:NCPLACE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

But they are just guidelines. It needs to be more than that imo, since edit warring and strength of numbers supporting a particular pov can always usurp those guidelines. For example, every name listed here [28] goes against those guidelines. There are not widely-accepted English names for them (the settlements are too obscure), so, according to the guidelines, their modern official names should be used, or their modern local names. Yet that is not the case for any of the placenames listed there. This is an invitation for Étienne Dolet to stop placing Armenian names, or Armenian spelling, in probably inappropriate articles and start addressing this instead, which I think is a more important issue. Creating articles for the numerous settlements in NK that do not have Wikipedia articles is also a task for the future. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Nader El-Bizri

Dear EdJohnston, what has happened over the past couple of days has been a misunderstanding that may have resulted from haste in editing that has been carried through with tags, and this seems to be harmful to the reputation of the actual person being covered by the entry "Nader El-Bizri". Please more care needs to be directed to this from you as professional editors and from your Wikipedia colleagues. I fully understood now that as a casual editor that I should not interfere with tags, but all along I wanted to bring the latest edits to the attention of your administrators just in case there was a case of vandalism or unfair editorial handling throughout, and for this purpose I used the noticeboards and miscellaneous queries pages on Wikipedia as a means of contacting the professional Wikipedia editors without knowing that this is not your protocol. There was a suggestion even made by one of the editors of deleting the whole "Nader El-Bizri" even though it is a page that has been on Wikipedia for several years and has multiple links within Wikipedia and to external references etc. Please look into it under your editorial care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:E5B3:EBD7:4E2F:D5 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to have a good outcome you should create an account. Editing from a variety of IPs is likely to annoy most of the admins you ask for assistance. Also, the current content of Nader El-Bizri appears to be mostly a copyright violation so it is likely to be drastically trimmed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Accidental edits

• Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tawassul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Islam and secularism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi EdJohnston. I logged in after a long time and had forgotten about my topic ban. I accidentally made a few edits on BD pages but then I remembered I was topic banned. So I have undone my edits. Is it still an issue? Towns_Hill 23:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting yourself on the articles that were covered by WP:ARBIPA, which is part of your topic ban. But while I'm here, I have to notice you have been edit warring at Tawassul and at Islam and secularism. If you show that you are unable to wait for consensus on these articles, an admin may feel it necessary to issue a long-term block. You have never participated on the talk page of either article. You have had many warnings, including a serious warning from User:Bishonen in January. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Undid it. (Tawassul page was just fixing a reference).Towns_Hill 01:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Resources

This is the persons Resource https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/22/white-house-director-legislative-affairs-announces-legislative-affairs It's on 73.132.212.103 Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby232332 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comment must be in reference to this link. This information needs to be added at Talk:White House Office. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Pekin

EditSafe's archiving methods on Talk:American Pekin and Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1... What to do about it? --George Ho (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Huon for deleting Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1, which seems to be an example of premature archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Largest capital cities of the European Union

OK, fair enough - it wasn't clear from the RFPP request that this was a case of someone targeting multiple pages using a dynamic IP. Hut 8.5 16:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

COI Requests

Hi EdJohnston. If you have a few minutes, I was hoping you might be willing to take a look at a few places where I have made COI requests/questions, but nobody has responded:

• Broken links question[29]
• BLP issuesdiscussion
• A second draft after incorporating some feedbackdraft A couple editors have commented previously and may or may not also jump in.

Of course, you may be pre-occupied on Wikipedia elsewhere, but thanks in advance if you do spend the time to review. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 14:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edit-warring IP-hopper

I'm contacting you directly since the IP removed my notice on his talk page which pinged you.

206.45.42.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

has received 24 warnings for edit-warring, socking, nuisance editing, and vandalism since 3 December 2016. His typical response (either under the warning or in an edit summary removing the warning) is either "Understood" or "Sorry" or "I promise I will not do it again!", yet he keeps repeating the exact same behaviours (often along with edit summaries which read "DO NOT REVERT!!!")

He also socks under this IP:

206.45.11.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),

and has received 7 warnings for the same behaviors on that talkpage since 1 February 2017.

Since you are familiar with the editor (having blocked both accounts a month ago), and wrote "The pattern of your edits suggest you are acting as a general nuisance. (See all the notices on your talk page, above). While your edits are not vandalism, they are usually unnecessary and they often get reverted by others. There is not much reason for an admin to trust your promises of good behavior when there is so little upside for the rest of us." [30], could you somehow put a more longterm halt to the problem, if you are able? If so, thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Even

142.161.54.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.42.137 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that 206.45.42.137 (talk · contribs) is blocked two weeks by User:Coffee for vandalism. During that time, any edit from the other two IPs would represent block evasion. That would be enough reason for an admin to take further action. It appears that the three IPs all geolocate to Winnipeg. Let me know if there are further developments. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"During that time, any edit from the other two IPs would represent block evasion." Both of the other IPs have been editing since the 26 March block; .108 has been editing non-stop. Pinging User:Coffee as well. BTW, this is starting to feel like a LTA block evader, but I don't know who. Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been handled by User:Coffee. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

At Armenian language

Can you check out what's happening at Armenian language? Especially in regards to this edit: [31]. This is getting disruptive already. What action should be taken here? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like sources have been added that assert that the eastern and western dialects ARE mutually intelligible. Perhaps that settles it. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The general 1RR restriction in ARBPIA

User:EdJohnston, it has been pointed out to me the New Guidelines (in the section "Motion: ARBPIA" near the bottom of the page). The key part is the sentence underlined in black. Question: Is this to imply that all new edits made since 26 December 2016 in Palestine-Israel articles can be deleted by editors, and they can challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, without the first editors restoring their edits until a new consensus has been reached? If so, you open the door for "abusive editing," that is to say, the new guidelines allow editors to freely delete areas in articles based on their sole judgment and conviction and which edits had earlier been agreed upon by consensus, and that such changes will remain in force until such a time that a new consensus can be reached. As you see, this can be problematic. Second Question: Do the new guidelines also apply to reverts made in articles where a consensus had already been reached before 26 December 2016, or do they only apply to reverts made after 26 December 2016? To avoid future problems arising from this new edict, can I make this one suggestion, namely, that the new guidelines in Palestine-Israel articles be amended to read with this addition: "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense, or where abuses arise over reverts made in an article where a consensus had already been reached before or after the edict of 26 December 2016 took effect, such editors make themselves liable to disciplinary actions, including blocking."Davidbena (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I find the new rule hard to understand, and I would not step forward to explain it or justify it. The 3RR is (most of the time) possible to understand, and the same for the 1RR, but if you want a rule that admins can routinely enforce without a lot of puzzlement, then adding 'consensus required' takes away that possibility. But in practice, if you are editing an ARBPIA article and think you are being stonewalled by a group of editors who won't negotiate, then opening an RfC is always possible. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Your reply was helpful.Davidbena (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruption and insults by User:Judist continues

Dear EdJohnston, I need your attention urgently. User:Judist (User talk:Judist) not only does not heel to the warnings for his disruptions on ARBMAC-protected articles, but continues with his personal attacks and insults. He insulted me [32] and when I asked him to retract his insults, he responded by deleting my message(!), calling it "nonsense" [33]. Furthermore, he reverted my reverts of his POV edits [34] on Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, which I had to defend for the second time [35], and in response to this, he went in my Talk page and gave me a formal ARBMAC Warning(!) [36] when clearly I have done nothing that could justify such a warning on my Talk! Such formal ARBMAC warnings can only be imposed by uninvolved administrators on individual editors who have repeatedly violated policy, but, Judist clearly is gaming the system by using the ARBMAC warnings to harass me for defending topic articles against his disruptions. Please, your intervention is very much needed. --SILENTRESIDENT 07:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that User:Judist has not made any further disruptions in past 24 hours and especially after I left you this message. I hope this is an indicator that he heeled to the warnings and the situation has calmed and that no further disruptions will made in the future. Given this, my plea for your intervention no longer holds. Thanks anyways and wish you happy Easter vacations. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Kevin O'Leary

• Kevin O'Leary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sorry, not sure how else to get ahold of someone who can do something about an issue.

Kevin O'Leary does not have military service, he did attend a military college which is meant to help transfer cadets from high school to university but it does not count as military service. The person who continues to add it has no sources to back their claim of military service and Kevin O'Leary himself while admitting to being a cadet has never said he served the military.

From the wikipedia page of the school in question "It is the arm of the Canadian Military College system that primarily ensures the smooth transition of selected Cadets from Quebec high schools to university education by providing pre-university (Quebec's separate college-level) programs." Royal Military College Saint-Jean

From the official Canada Cadets page "Cadets are not members of the Canadian Armed Forces, nor are they expected to join the military." http://www.cadets.ca/en/about-cadets.page

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.55.236 (talk • contribs)

You should post your evidence for this at Talk:Kevin O'Leary. I recommend that you not try to change the article on this topic until you have got agreement on the talk page. Two editors were just blocked for warring on the page per WP:AN3, and article protection has been considered. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Saw your edit summary. It's done. CU blocks on the named editors. Meters (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Need help to avoid edit war at Carpenter (surname)

Hello Ed,

It has been a long time since I last contacted you. Recently an entire section (noted as Y-DNA Project) of the article Carpenter (surname) was removed because an editor feels the reference source for that section is improper. Instead of questioning and citing the source the editor simply deletes it. Over and over. I tried to indicate this and ask for Wiki editor input. Please see: Talk:Carpenter (surname)#Y-DNA section. I have known for some time that this editor really dislikes genealogy and DNA testing citing such as trivia. For the most part over the years I have ignored it or rewritten as needed.
I really do not what to start the formal process of arbitration nor a edit war. I think the editor is wrong blanketing sections of articles without prior notice or indicating something is wrong (in their opinion) regarding a source.
Would you be so kind to review the situation and make an appropriate suggestion or input?

FYI - The citation which the editor objects to and removes an entire article section is...
xx ref name=CC>Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project, accessed August 2, 2009. /ref> xx
And the following may be TMI ...
The core of this reference is the Carpenter Cousins Project at carpentercousins.com. It reads in part, "The Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project, the Carpenters' Encyclopedia of Carpenters, and Carpenter Sketches by Gene Zubrinsky are part of the Carpenter Cousins Project."
The Carpenters' Encyclopedia of Carpenters has been published in various formats since 2002 and it is cited dozens of times on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the web.
Carpenter Sketches by Gene Zubrinsky [FASG]] and related articles have been professionally published, cited and such as in the New England Historic Genealogical Society publications. And he cites the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project as part of the Carpenter Cousins Project.
The Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project has also been cited elsewhere, as I noted on the talk page of the Wiki article I cited above.

As always, I appreciate your input and help. Regardless of how you decide or help resolve such issues. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Agricolae is probably speaking for mainstream opinion on Wikipedia. The sources are not in scientific journals. This is the kind of thing you might ask about at WP:RSN, to see if the sources are good enough for Wikipedia use. When a disagreement occurs, both of you should follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and not keep reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Turkish War of Independence

Hi EdJohnston. As you may have seen, there has been some conflict on this page. I hope we can all come to an agreement on the talk page to provide a well-supported edit to this problem. But to be on the safe side, would it be possible if the article page stays on the neutral long-standing version until the page protection ends. The current one is a result of the arbitrary edits currently under discussion? Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

You can put in an edit request if you think the talk page shows consensus for your version. Since I don't see any BLP issues or vandalism there isn't an immediate reason to remove this material during the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's still a version resulting from unsupported arbitrary edits and possibly biased compared to the original. Thus I think it's fair to keep the neutral version until consensus is reached. How do I make the edit request? (N0n3up (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

See WP:Edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Return of an edit-warring SPA that you blocked last January

EdJohnston, in January you were kind enough to block Special:Contributions/Mojo3232 (talk), in response to a report which can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive335#User:Mojo3232 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked).

He/she has returned and made exactly the same edit as last time.[37] Please can you help.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have asked Mojo3232 to respond to the complaint. If they do not, some admin action is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Let me know if I can answer any questions. Thank you,"

My most recent talk-page comments were factual in every detail and pertinent to the page's purpose. Yet, they were deleted. One doesn't need a crystal ball to see that they raised points for which the dominant view being imposed here on this site with respect to this topic has no respectable answer. That being the case, such points are, as mine were, being suppressed.

You then disingenuously propose that I Let [you] know if [you] can answer any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Ed, here's a question: What precisely was wrong in the talk-page additions of mine which were removed?

Suppose that I came along and removed your comments like that whenever the whim struck me--how'd you like it?

Why are you posing as a polite and considerate fellow when in fact you're trying to intimidate me and suppress my points of view?

There: Three questions for you.

Please stop trying to intimidate me when I've done nothing wrong. Please stop deleting my talk-page comments when I've done nothing wrong.

P1

HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, from your own Talk-page, IS someone else pointing out the SAME sort of THING:

---

Need help to avoid edit war at Carpenter (surname)

Hello Ed,

It has been a long time since I last contacted you. Recently an entire section (noted as Y-DNA Project) of the article Carpenter (surname) was removed because an editor feels the reference source for that section is improper. Instead of questioning and citing the source the editor simply deletes it. Over and over. I tried to indicate this and ask for Wiki editor input. Please see: Talk:Carpenter (surname)#Y-DNA section. I have known for some time that this editor really dislikes genealogy and DNA testing citing such as trivia. For the most part over the years I have ignored it or rewritten as needed. I really do not what to start the formal process of arbitration nor a edit war. I think the editor is wrong blanketing sections of articles without prior notice or indicating something is wrong (in their opinion) regarding a source. Would you be so kind to review the situation and make an appropriate suggestion or input?

---

I don't think "it's just me" and I really don't appreciate being treated like I'm some sort of social "problem" being discussed by superior members of the "("helping") élite". i.e., you and your exchanges w/Reedy.

Proximity1 (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This must be a reply to the admin warning which I left. You are entitled to your opinions, but if you make any more personal attacks at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Take a look?

Can you take a look? Nothing I've said seems to have gotten through. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Left a note. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Kianoush Rostami - Edit war and cultural whitewashing

I have left discussion notices on the Wiki page for the Summer Olympics and nobody has replied. I have again and again tried to engage in discussions with editors and moderators about Kianoush Rostami's Kurdish identity being mentioned on his page and nobody wants to reply. Kianoush Rostami's ethnicity has to be acknowledged. It is a travesty that Iranian cultural whitewashing is allowed to continue on wikipedia. None of the Iranian editors want to discuss the issue with me - so why is it that their edits get protected, when originally it was the edits that kept his Kurdish ethnicity, to which he explicitly dedicated his victories on his Instagram page? Why are you allowing his ethnicity to remain hidden? Tehsojiro (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You must be familiar with the Wikipedia page about WP:Reliable sources. If you think Instagram is reliable for this point you could ask a question at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but my guess is that you won't get support there. If his Kurdish identity is an important matter, wouldn't it have been covered somewhere in the regular press? You should be careful about making personal attacks, such as this comment about 'the racist viewpoint of the Iranian users'. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User Dfroberg

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

Hi, EdJohnston. We've just had an account opened by Dfroberg (talk · contribs) who claims to be the Chief Technical Officer of al-Madsar. I'd prefer not to start the process of communicating with the user, establishing the legitimacy of his claim, or informing him of COI issues (mainly due to my own IRL time constraints). At this stage, he's feeding editors information about the organisation that can't be used. It would be nice to nip this in the bud before overenthusiastic editors start trying to develop the Al-Masdar News article and other Syria-related articles based on the new account's say-so. I suspect that I started the ball rolling by persistently querying the issue of who the Board of Directors for the e-news site/zine actually are. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Since User:Dfroberg announces his affiliation here I don't yet see a cause for concern. He has not tried to edit any of the articles that may be in dispute. He *has* commented at Talk:Al-Masdar News. If he is the person responsible for adding the members of the Board of Directors to al-Masdar's own web site that is a good thing. I understand that we may have concerns about using this publication as a source of facts for articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I only just noticed that the entire page on a-M has been changed, and a number of new redirects have been created (as evidenced by the last archived capture of the page, plus my last look at the page yesterday evening). If he isn't who he claims to be, he is certainly a member of the team working on their behalf. I have no problems with his disclosure, but I will be keeping my eye out the ensure that he doesn't try to influence whether the site is a reliable source, or use Wikipedia and the article and RSN talk pages as an additional blog-like outlet. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I actually did submit an edit to the AMN *egg on face*, the edits on the website is a direct result of the many questions people brought up in aM-talk and WP:RS. Dfroberg (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Archiving an edit-warring issue without a result

• Bret Stephens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Lowercase sigmabot III with this edit has dumped this issue into Archive341 -- although there has been no result yet. Do you know whether this is normal behaviour, or a bot error? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes reports do expire from the board without a closure. The reverts from May 1 that were listed in the report are now stale. Looking at the substance of the dispute, I notice that User:Aldaron favored 'climate change denial' while others wanted to describe Stephens as a climate change skeptic. The article now describes him as holding 'contrarian views on climate change' which (to my eye) fits the sources better. If this problem restarts, you might want to consider an WP:RFC, but for the moment it appears settled. The topic of climate change is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the expiry possibility; okay. Re your hint that the change to 'contrarian' could work, I've accepted that and am saying on the article's talk page, as far as I am concerned, let this be over. Thanks for clarifying and hinting;I doubt I will try WP:3RR again soon. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It is better still to avoid WP:3RR, by setting up RFCs or making other attempts to gather opinion on well-defined questions, so that people can figure out where consensus lies. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hargeisa in Somaliland or not

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

User:EdJohnston why did you allow him to do it look this , he violated protected page [[38]], this guy is famous for WP:PROMOTION and WP:POV his intention of allowing material which twists the facts . this is un acceptable to edits without discussing consensus, please do something about it and revert it as you protected the page.Somajeeste (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I have just returned the page to its pre edit-war state. It is you who refuses to engage in discussion Talk:Hargeisa#Edit war. You continue to editwar despite warning User talk:Somajeeste#3RR warning, an admin already told you that ordinarily you would have been blocked for your behaviour and violation of 3RR. Please cease the disruptive editing. You clearly have a biased editing history against Somaliland [39]. Engage in the talkpage before you make edits. You are still editwarring on Adal Sultanate without presenting any proof Adal extended beyond Somaliland Talk:Adal Sultanate#Somalia. Kzl55 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Somajeeste, since you don't yet have 500 edits you won't be able to edit the article for a while. You should use the talk page to try to persuade the others. Opening a WP:Request for comment is one of the options you could try. For example, you could ask for opinions on the question: Should Hargeisa be described as being (a) in Somalia, (b) in Somaliland, (c) in the Horn of Africa, or (d) in some other way. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Population for the Hargeisa Article is wrong but the page is extended Protected

Consistent websites and consensuses on the population of Somalia has stated the population of Hargeisa being in the 6 - 500,000 region, this is a huge discrepancy between the population that is identified in the article. In fact in the article itself states "Hargeisa has estimated population of around 760,000 as of 2015", its 2017 now so how can the population jump from 760,000 in 2015 to 1.5 Million in 2017?

There are a lot of reliable websites out there on population censuses on Hargeisa that have not been referenced

Hargeisa's real Population:

[40]

"477,876" according to this census in 2017

[41]

"477 000 people" according to this website

[42]

"477,876" exactly the same according to this website

[43]

"477,876" and exactly the same here as well

[44]

""477,876" same figure yet again.

Surely it's not a coincidence that all these websites have quoted a figure in the same region

Please fix the population of Hargeisa, it is not 1.5Million its far from it, but the page is protect so i can't edit it. Thanks Bytro4k (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you may have a point. You have posted this at Talk:Hargeisa#Population is wrong. This should get the attention of the regular editors. If your proposal gets consensus then someone with more edits will make the change. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Joohnny braavoo1

• Joohnny braavoo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a brief "discussion" with this editor, it has become painfully clear this person has a poor grasp of English, is writing original research[45] and synthesis[46] into articles simply to push a Turkic POV. Their response, to my concerns, blantantly shows a lack of maturity to understand and comprehend their actions. I believe they lack the competency in language, POV, and maturity to edit this encyclopedia properly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Earlier, Joohnny braavoo attempted to call the Sarbadars a Turkic dynasty, simply because one of their chiefs was a Turk.[47] What can clearly be understood from the source[48] is that the Sarbadars were a group of brigands of different ethnicities and were not a dynasty.[49] And yet, Joohnny braavoo decided this information made them Turkic, even to the point of edit warring over it.[50][51]

Joohnny braavoo has even POV pushed Huns and Xiongnu into the article.[52] A clearly indication of undue weight and POV pushing. Please note, Joohnny braavoo made a similar mention on my talk page about the Xiongnu, You get disturbed because they may are a xiongnu tribe?. Which has nothing to do with my concerns of original research or synthesis.

Current said editor appears to have a problem with editors of differing views:

• "you must be a butthurt i think"
• "many butthurts in wikipedia i see

Battleground comments:

• "i see that many iranian have problems whit turks?--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• "every page has reference so be quiet japanian --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I left a note for Joohnny braavoo1. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Has been editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet for blocked User:CindyRoleder

Hi EdJohnston,

Hope you are doing well. Sorry to bother you, but I see that a sockpuppet for blocked User:CindyRoleder has emerged in the same article where 2 editors were previously edit warring, Irreligion. You blocked User:CindyRoleder after warning her. Just as a reminder, this editor does not leave edit summaries and does not discuss disputes on talk pages. The new account for the sockpuppet created is User:FlyingKicks. Here is an edit from User:CindyRoleder [53] and here is an edit by User:FlyingKicks [54]. The edits are identical and the behavior of not leaving edit summaries and not discussing in the talk page when there is disagreement is the same. Can you check it out?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for checking it out EdJohnston. I appreciate your patience with this.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Naupactus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naupactus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naupactus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kostas20142 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I've given my opinion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naupactus. Thanks for the notice, EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Response: Edit warring at Ethereum

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

There is a discussion at Talk:Ethereum#Contentious editing where several editors disagree with your proposal to remove the fork issue from the lead. If you continue to revert, you are risking a block for WP:Edit warring. During the period from from May 7 through May 10 you reverted five times. It would be sensible for you to revert your last change until such time as you can persuade the others. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston - Please note that I've reverted the offending edit a total 5 times since May 7th: 2 of these edits were against user 92.237.175.241 and 3 were against user David Gerard. I don't think it's sensible for me to retract my last change as I've argued my case extensively without receiving a sensible response. I've sought consensus in good faith. My reversions are rationally justified according to Wikipedia content guidelines. It would be inappropriate and against the integrity of the article for me to cede ground on this issue. I think the page should be left devoid of the offending edit until cooler heads prevail. As such, I've taken this issue to the dispute resolution board to resolve this further or potentially await an intervention (please see my summary of the current situation). Aliensyntax (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert C. Irwin requested move

• Talk:Robert Irwin (born 2003)#Requested move

You didn't get that requested move correct. There was consensus developing in favor of Robert Irwin (television personality) as the most preferred, with nobody preferring Robert Irwin (born 2003) as their top choice. Could you please take another look at that? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There wasn't an overwhelming verdict, but I think it would not have helped to close this one as 'No consensus.' Feel free to open a new RM where 'born 2003' and 'television personality' are the only choices. That qualifier is not very distinctive, since he is not the only one in the Irwin family who is or was a television personality. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no need for another RM when this one was conclusively in favor of Robert Irwin (television personality) as the top choice. Your closure was a blatant WP:SUPERVOTE. You can either a) back out of your closure and let someone else close it, b) revise your closure in favor of Robert Irwin (television personality), or c) I can take this to WP:MR. What would you like to do? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have undone my close. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

John Francis Templeson

Please see here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you think a topic ban under WP:ARBAA2 is deserved? How would you word it? We are used to putting the Safavids under ARBAA2 due to 'broadly construed', since some people tend to push the Turkish connection beyond the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Templeson has been, by my count, blocked on Russian Wikipedia five times. During these blocks Templeson has been on English Wikipedia(logged in and out) removing references, removing referenced information, making battleground comments, accusing other editors of WP:CIV(almost every time they post), ignoring source(s) they don't like, commenting how they will notify an Admin when their interpretation of facts is proven wrong by other editors. Is there any question? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link to his block log on the Russian Wikipedia? Can you read Russian? EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Their block notifications are quite clear. And google does a nice job of translating, besides I happen to know someone who does read Russian. JFT Russian Wikipedia. Block log page Russian Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation via google:

• 07:47, April 13, 2017 Victoria (discussion | contribution) blocked John Francis Templeson (discussion | contribution) for a period of 1 week (forbidden registration of accounts) (violation of the regime of one rollback in articles of the Armenian-Azerbaijani subject: VP: DESEST)
• 10:47, March 6, 2017 Victoria (discussion | contribution) blocked John Francis Templeson (discussion | contribution) for a period of 1 day (forbidden registration of accounts) (destructive behavior)
• 09:17, January 9, 2017 Victoria (discussion | contribution) has blocked John Francis Templeson for a period of 3 days (the registration of accounts is prohibited) (violation of the regime of one rollback in articles of the Armenian-Azerbaijani subject)
• 07:22, December 2, 2016 Vladimir Solovjev (discussion | contribution) blocked John Francis Templeson (discussion | contribution) for a period of 3 days (forbidden registration of accounts) (unethical behavior)
• 09:15, November 21, 2016 Victoria (discussion | contribution) blocked John Francis Templeson (discussion | contribution) for a period of 1 day (forbidden registration of accounts) (violation of the regime of one rollback in articles of the Armenian-Azerbaijani subjects)
• 11:41, November 16, 2016 Victoria (discussion | contribution) blocked John Francis Templeson (discussion | contribution) for a period of 1 day (forbidden registration of accounts) (unethical behavior)
  

My bad, Templeson has been blocked six times on Russian Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears that User:Victoria is also ru:User:Victoria, the admin who did all of these blocks on ru.wiki. These blocks are not very long, though the last was for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Clearly Templeson has issues editing in the area of Armenian-Azerbaijan topics(3 blocks on Russian Wikipedia) and has brought those same issues here. What do you think? Has Templeson been given enough rope? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, why you haven't notified me. Great, admin and user discuss whether I must be blocked and I am not even notified. Secondly, I want to know, what referenced information was deleted by me? So, you don't care when HistoryofIran have deleted 5 references, but you want to impose ban for... for what? Thirdly, and what is wrong with the Turkish connection of Safavids. Yes, English Wikipedia ignores that Safavids were in fact Turkic dynasty with Azeri Turkish as the native language till the very end dynasty with probably Turkish origin and that Safavid period was in fact another stage of Turkic domination in Iran with Qizilbash State as the common name of the state. Moreover Safavid state in English Wikipedia is considered as national Iranian one, despite criticism of modern scholars.

And when I try to add this to Wikipedia some users revert sourced information, violate some rules as Edit Warring and Civility and when I try to stop this violations admin offers topic-ban for me. OK, anyway. Whatever you will impose, I demand that Kansas Bear, HistoryofIran and Mazandar will be sanctioned too because of severe violations. All diffs in administrator's noticeboard. Thanks. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Collapse reference list to save space. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

• Hello User:John Francis Templeson. My mistake for not notifying you of the discussion here. I personally don't know who is right about the Turkic versus Iranian nature of the Safavid dynasty, but I do know disruptive editing when I see it. If you really have such a massive justification for them being more Turkic, why not open a WP:Request for comment on Talk:Safavid dynasty and make specific proposals for changes in the article text. If you are inclined to remove any references, I suggest you not do so until you have got consensus on the article talk page, perhaps with a second RfC.
• When viewed from a distance, the Turkic versus Iranian argument looks to administrators like a nationalist dispute (why feel so strongly unless you are defending your own 'team'?). We tend to assume those fighting over the nationality of a dynasty are inviting discretionary sanctions unless they behave extremely well. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that, 'cause in Russian Wikipedia there is no such odd restriction (WP:BOLD). Please, have a look on Administrator's noticeboard#Several violations and check all accusations. John Francis Templeson (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Btw, where have I deleted referenced information. It's actually @HistoryofIran: deleted 5 sources added by me. John Francis Templeson (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Catito14

Don't know if you're online but the guy you warned yesterday has been creating merry hell by creating a series of sockpuppets to get around your prohibition. See [55], Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catito14, [56]. WCM_email 20:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Thanks for your notification about discretionary sanctions on the Barbara Hewson page (User talk:Legis#Barbara_Hewson is covered by discretionary sanctions). Is this related to my recent complaint about Edit Warring or just a coincidence? If the Edit Warring allegation is still being reviewed then that's fine obviously. But if this represents the decision at the end of the review, then I wanted to go back to the article to resubmit those changes for review under the discretionary sanctions system. Not sure what the approved protocol is in these matters. Thanks. --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The edit warring report is still awaiting closure. I have notified both parties about the sanctions since the editing on the Barbara Hewson article raises BLP concerns. I trust you are aware that the Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source for use on Wikipedia? You used the Daily Mail as a source when adding material about Mahul Desai on May 1. We also frown on using legal complaints or statements made in lawsuits as sources. Facts that are confirmed by court decisions are usually reliable but statements by plaintiffs or defendants may not be (they are just allegations). EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all understood. I will leave the Barbara Hewson article well alone. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Young

Might I ask whether you had reviewed the series of self-penned articles on this man, introduced by a series of sockpuppets over many years, before concluding that my edit note description if him was untenable? Additionally, on what basis do you think that the article should be deleted, now that he clearly meets notability standards? And finally, I would let you know that I have no intention of recusing myself from the right to edit the article having defended myself against an ARE trying to make me do that, and am insulted that you propose such. Kevin McE (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The result of the AE should speak for itself. It included a warning to you, which you can take or leave. If you are not satisfied with the result at AE, you can appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee. Since you have been notified of the BLP sanctions already, any single admin can choose to ban you from editing Robert Young (endurance runner) if, in their opinion, the problems are continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

And my other questions? Kevin McE (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

User:TParis is the admin who believed that AfD should be considered. You might ask him. I don't have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: as far as I am concerned, I'm still uninvolved in editing this article. If you're going to keep an eye on the article from an admin position, I don't mind involving myself. But if you're getting ready to wash your hands of it, then I'd like to stay neutral and uninvolved. Please let me know.--v/r - TP 20:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: If you want to become a content editor on the article, go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

And my first question? Did you review the series of self-penned articles on this man, introduced by a series of sockpuppets over many years, before concluding that my edit note description if him was untenable? Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Kevin, no amount of self-published commentary or socking would justify the phrase 'proven liar' you used in your edit summary. But if a reliable source used that wording you could cite it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

So I'll take that as a no. You pass judgement from a place of wilful ignorance. That is as much as I need to know. Kevin McE (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Templeson again

I will ask again for your insight into Templeson's comments towards other editors, misrepresenting other editors(ie. strawman arguments), and battleground attitude. See here.
Templeson has refused to accept what is already written and source within the Qizilbash article, instead pushing a pro-Azeribaijani agenda into the lead. While ignoring this entire section.
This is at least the fifth time I have seen Templeson state, "Please be careful with WP:CIV."
Templeson likes to label other editors comments as threats,"Such threats as Or you have nothing shouldn't be used in Wikipedia."
Clearly this editor is not capable of working with other editors to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Firstly, colleague Ed Johnston, I want to ask you one thing: how Wikipedia works? As I know, it works this way. We find the reliable source, written by scholar and specialist in this topic, and we add this source to Wikipedia. Yes? Ok, let's go on. When we have two contradicting to each other views, we add both of them and let the reader to decide himself. Am I right? I guess yes.

Now, I have 6 sources or even more (it can be 10, never mind) claiming that Qizilbashs were in fact Turkomans. And I know that there are also sources that do not. Thus we have two different points of view, although the latter one is presented in preamble, and former one is not presented at all. So, as peaceful Wikipedist, I added the first point of view that in fact dominate among scholars. Note that I don't deleted second point of view.

And now, what's happening? One user, @HistoryofIran:, deleted referenced information with 6 (!!!) sources (I have more, though) and other one, @Kansas Bear:, considers my contribution as pushing a pro-Azeribaijani agenda into the lead. Note that it's second time when I add referenced information and being accused in pro-Azerbaijani agenda.

So, every time when I point to the violation by users above, they try to make boomerang, so I will ask you, Ed Johnston, how we can call such behavior?

Next. Have a look on Talk:Qizilbash#Qizilbash Turkoman. As you see, I added quotations, showed my arguments, supported by sources and what? Kansas Bear chose randomly one of the many arguments and said Either produce the source supporting this statement Or you have nothing. Excuse me, what does it mean. User ignores all other arguments and wants to say that I don't want even to read your text, if one of the your statements are wrong (it's not wrong, but it's other topic) they are all wrong. As I know such brusque refuse to keep a discussion, even when your opponent making a compromise, ignore arguments and so on is... Aww, sorry, I should not. You tell, colleagues, what is this?

I said what I wanted to say, you decide. Take into account that I still demand sanctions for @Kansas Bear:, @HistoryofIran: and @Mazandar: for all brusque violations, perpetrated by them, described in Administrator's noticeboard#Several violations, although this section was deleted by some reason. Good luck everybody. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• "showed my arguments, supported by sources and what?"

Your "argument" is not supported by any source.

• "Now, I have 6 sources or even more (it can be 10, never mind) claiming that Qizilbashs were in fact Turkomans. And I know that there are also sources that do not. Thus we have two different points of view, although the latter one is presented in preamble, and former one is not presented at all."

Here is the lead;

• "Qizilbash or Kizilbash (sometimes also Qezelbash or Qazilbash) is the label given to a wide variety of Shi'i militant groups that flourished in Azerbaijan, Anatolia and Kurdistan from the late 15th century onwards, some of which contributed to the foundation of the Safavid dynasty of Iran."

Odd, I see no mention of ethnicity in the lead. So exactly where does this show, "the latter one is presented in preamble"??

Whereas your version;

• "Qizilbash or Kizilbash (sometimes also Qezelbash or Qazilbash) refers to:
  
• "various Azeri-speaking Oghuz Turkic tribes that were the main supporters of Shah Ismail I and founders of Safavid state."

Hmmm. This is undue weight, since not all spoke Azeri and not all were from Turkic tribes. And this has been explained to you, ad nauseam.

This is exactly what I am talking about Ed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Another example of POV pushing and removal of a reference and referenced information.[57] Followed by changing to Azeri with a source not even stating Iskandar Beg Munshi was Azeri.[58] --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Paraccra is a genus of moths

Yes, you're right. Thanks for your suggestion, Paraccra (archaeological site) is a good name. Frank R 1981 (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

Discussion continues at Talk:House of Ilok#Requested move 22 May 2017. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
House of Ilok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) What you just did on House of Ilok was that you were duped into protecting a page in such a state that it forces an unspported edit by the User:Borsoka. If you actually looked at the edits it is he (the person who requested the protection) who actually started forcing the move without any proper discussion or starting the process on the talk for the move. If you are going to protect the page then please revert it to it's actual state before that person in question started moving it to a non-consensus location (name changed it). Shokatz (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC) User:Shokatz, would you use the relevant Talk page to initiate the move of the article? Please remember, multiple reliable sources verify the present title (Újlaki family). You have not listed a single source, published in English that verifies the form "House of Ilok".Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Actually that was what you were supposed to do before you moved the page and started all this. I have nothing against the article being named after it's prevalent name in English language as long as it is DONE PROPERLY and not in the manner you did. Furthermore the article is now named in one way but the family is referred in the other all across the article...so what you did there is that you only made the article even worse and lowered the quality even further. The fact your only concern there is the actual name and the claim on your talk page that we are talking about "ethnic Hungarian family" leads me to believe your motives are nowhere near in good faith. The article should be reverted to the name it was before you started moving it without initializing a discussion or starting a proper process to move it. Shokatz (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC) User:Shokatz, if you were intending to open a Requested Move then this edit failed to to do. The 'Current discussions' page is bot-generated and gets rewritten every hour, so your post disappeared. Your best plan is to place a {{Requested move}} template at Talk:Újlaki family and give your rationale. A long debate as to who should provide rationale first is hardly worth it. I see no urgency to moving the page back during discussion since Lawrence of Ilok is now at an inconsistent title. Both of these will be fixed by a successful RM. Neither of you should make any more Ilok-name-related changes until talk page consensus is found. Otherwise you could be reported for edit-warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I only would like to understand the reason of your last action. When on 12 March I realized that the title of the article ("House of Ilok") cannot be verified, I was bold and moved the article. The new name ("Újlaki family") can easily be verified. Two months later an editor moved the same article to the unverified original title without referring to a single reliable source. I did not accept this unilateral action and asked him to provide sources, demonstrating the sources which verifies the new title. He did not provide a single source, but restored the unverified version. I asked move protection, because I wanted to avoid an edit war. And now the unverified title is restored, although he has not provided a single reference. I initiated a requested move. So during the next couple of days I will have to discuss the thoughts of an editor who has so far been unable to rise a single valid argument. Sorry, I am not sure this was your best decision. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC) The problem is you moved it without actually providing any sources that would justify that move and furthermore there was no discussion or even notice on the talk page of your move. For this reason alone I reverted your change back trying to motivate you to actually start the discussion or if you really want to move it - to start a proper process of moving the page via WP:RfM. Also the burden of proof is on you, not one me...as it is you who forced and want to force this change. The fact you just moved the page without actually correcting the article itself leads me to believe you are not sincere in your motives...but that is my personal opinion. In any case please start a discussion, properly list your sources, preferably ask for a WP:3O and I will have no problems whatsoever there. Shokatz (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC) There has been a move war. I reverted the earliest move in the series, which was yours. There is a tradition that admins can revert undiscussed moves on request. As soon as consensus appears, the move will no longer be undiscussed and we will have an answer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Completely agree. All I wanted from the beginning (but Borsoka simply didn't want to listen) is a transparent proper process i.e. how you are supposed to do it. Shokatz (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC) I am not surprised that you cannot assume good faith. Sorry, I will not continue the debate here. Borsoka (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Do whatever you want...as long as you respect the process of how it should be done...which is what I want and wanted from the start. And yes...we shouldn't debate anything here since this is a talk page of a user (admin to be exact). Shokatz (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Since User:Borsoka has now opened a move discussion at Talk:House of Ilok#Requested move 22 May 2017 any further discussion should occur there. It may happen that a topic is not very often referred to in English and there might not be a commonly-used English name. In that case see WP:AT and WP:UE for advice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Star World India

• AllyJay50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Star World India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Some advice please. You recently blocked AllyJay50 for edit warring at Star World India. User has now been unblocked, but all they have done since then is reverted the edits on the page yet again in contravention of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, despite an invitation to discuss on talk page. How would be best to proceed now? --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I left a warning on the user's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

So, that user has now created List of programmes broadcast by Star World (India), which I have nominated for deletion, at the same time editing TV lists out of other stations under the WP:NOTTVGUIDE rationale. [59][60][61] Whilst I commend the latter, they are not being very consistent! --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

So far this is within the rules. Let me know if further edit warring occurs. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg

Hi, could you leave a note at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antichristos#26_May_2017. Manul ~ talk 08:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

In the SPI I said an admin would drop by. I didn't expect the checkuser request to be evaluated before that happened, but it was. It was declined. I've asked to reopen. If you could say something to the effect of "obvious socks, please checkuser", that would be nice. Manul ~ talk 14:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that there won't be any checkuser action. I've added some articles that could possibly be affected. Unless you have something more to add, my guess is that a clerk will close it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Celebrating 11 years of editing

Hey, EdJohnston. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mz7 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's a long time! Thanks for the message, EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Equipment of the Serbian Army

• Equipment of the Serbian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey there, just dropping a note that I reverted a sockpuppet's edit through your full protection at Equipment of the Serbian Army. It's been my observation from watching this set of articles for a few months now that that one IP-hopper is responsible for the entirety of the disruption in that topic, notwithstanding the one new-ish user getting swept up in an edit war just recently, but if you object to this revert please feel free to restore the protected version. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem. But do you understand the issue they are disputing over? The talk page cries out for attention. The darn article has 109 references so somebody must have put time into it in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've invited the editors to comment on the talk page. The two registered editors seem to have disagreed over what equipment should be listed in the article. Evandro321's most recent edit seems like they understand the objections, so maybe this is already resolved, but there's a history of issues with unreliable sourcing in these articles so I'd wait to hear from the editors. There's also a related dispute at Serbian Air Force and Air Defence. The sockpuppet working the IPs is a user WP:ARBMAC-blocked for massive, persistent edit-warring in Balkans topics and I think that these articles are probably heading for long-term semiprotection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to apply indefinite semiprotection to Equipment of the Serbian Army once the full protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Page unprotection requested

Could you please unprotect Wreck of the RMS Titanic? The IP editor who was disrupting it has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of a long-term disruptive user - see Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#June 2017 - so the discussion on the talk page is now moot. Prioryman (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Since we are now sure the IP is not working in good faith, I've reduced the protection to semi. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Joohnny braavoo1

• Joohnny braavoo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has returned and is back POV pushing using his own interpretation of sources, again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like he is citing this to Encylopedia Iranica. Do you have some way of getting hold of this reference? What do you think of the article at Mohammad Khiabani? EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

[62]

• "The Russian military departure enabled the Ottoman army to advance into Azerbaijan and to occupy Tabrīz in summer 1918. Meanwhile, a democratic party under Shaikh Moḥammad Ḵīābānī (q.v.) had arisen in Tabrīz, and after the end of the war, disputed control of Azerbaijan with the central government of Woṯūq-al-dawla in Tehran. Early in 1920 Ḵīābānī proclaimed Azerbaijan to be Āzādīstān “Land of the free”, but his movement was suppressed militarily in September, 1920, and the control of Tehran re-asserted there, only momentarily to be challenged in February, 1922, by the brief revolt of the gendarmerie officer Abu’l-Qāsem Lāhūtī against the commander in chief Reżā Khan (later Reżā Shah), suppressed by the latter."

No seeing a mention of "Turkic", "Turkish", etc. Hardly a dynasty, much less a "state". --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess he did not like what I had to say. He deleted my paragraph, including the warning to avoid battleground statements. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Braavoo1's recent source posted on my talk page would appear to mention Azeri Turks.[63] This does not, however, erase the battleground comments, ignoring HistoryofIran's concerns of original research, or Braavoo1's edit warring instead of going to the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want there to be some admin action, the situation needs to be much more clear. It is best to start from an article talk page where you can show what the dispute is about, and get more voices than just you and the other party. Your link mentions an ethnic Turkish component to Azadistan. Your argument seems to be that Azadistan was not a real state, just some kind of short-lived rebel government. He is allowed to delete your comments on his own talk page. What are your own criteria for how serious a regime has to be before being included in List of Turkic dynasties and countries? You might open an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Have you read his talk page? HistoryofIran clearly asks for a source. Neither the Iranica or the Edmonds source makes any mention of Turkic, Turkish, etc.

• "What are your own criteria for how serious a regime has to be before being included in List of Turkic dynasties and countries?"

For some odd reason I feel the source should state that a dynasty/state was Turkic/Turkish. Maybe that's just me.

• "Your argument seems to be that Azadistan was not a real state.."

It lasted 9 months, maybe? Which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Braavoo1 instead of taking this to the article talk page instead chose a battleground attitude;

• "not nationalistic editing dont talk pull shit i have reference and I'm behind it"
• "rv vandalism go away whit your pov pushing talk o have reference that are approved,it never stood that the leader was iranian but when i changed to azeri you pov pushing to iranian"(List of Turkic states)
• "rv vandalism go away whit your pov pushing talk o have reference that are approved,it never stood that the leader was iranian but when i changed to azeri you pov pushing to iranian"(Azadistan)

Four reverts(by both editors) by my count on Azadistan, Braavoo1 still couldn't find the article talk page.

HistoryofIran stated a few days ago, on the article talk page of List of Iranian dynasties and countries, that it attracts POV pushers similarly to List of Turkic dynasties and countries. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So far *nobody* has found the article talk page at Talk:Azadistan. I see the following quote from "The Persians" based on your above link: "In several instances provinces declared their autonomy. Khiabani proclaimed a new government of Azadistan, which had an Azeri Turkish ethnic component and could have led to separatism, but failed.” So far your best ground for admin action might be WP:CIR due to the editor's difficulty in explaining his position in English. Also the edit summaries are not civil. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Help me

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

Ason27 is discouraging me in editing. he/she mostly like Revathi, Shriya and Simran.Some times he/she crossing the limits. You are not a motivator. he/she knowingly attacking of my edits (Not only Jyothika) Please do help me. Don't let him/her to follow my edits. GOOD morning (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello GOOD morning. I'm trying to remember how you and I have interacted before, but now I see my warning to you in April. I'm afraid you are not doing well here, and I see you have just returned from a 31-hour block. Unless you figure out how to improve your behavior soon I'm afraid you may not be around long. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Putlocker and User:Ccxtv94

Ed: There's been no response by Ccxtv94 on their talk page, on the talk page for Putlocker, or at the AN3 listing. I would not generally consider their external link edits to fall within WP:3RRNO#6 but with the allegation of serious problems from the link they keep adding and no communication, I'm starting to think it might. For what its worth, my browser won't display the site given, claiming it's been reported as an attack site, so the allegation may be correct. "Reported as an attack site", of course, does not mean "confirmed malware vector." Thanks for your help and input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Since there has been no response from Ccxtv94, I went ahead with a one-month block. It can be lifted if they promise to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Gerua

Please note that Gerua was an article before it was converted to a redirect. The article was about the same topic as Gerua (song). I was in the process of trying to check the exact relationship between the two articles when the move took place, but now I can no longer see what was there before. I was wondering whether a histmerge might be more appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

All the old versions (prior to 12/23/15) can be seen in the history of Gerua thanks to the histmerge. If you find anything useful in the old content you could use it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! —BarrelProof (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Today part

• Panam2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TompaDompa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If this needs to continue it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, the problem is that these withdrawals are unilateral and are not the subject of any consensus. The rules of Wikipedia stipulate that a consensus is needed for this. You have to let me go back to the consensual versions or I'll let you do that. For the blockage, I know well that it should not violate the "3RR" so anyway I was not going to make other reverts on the article. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC) He continues that so there are no consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC) But why ? I did not violate the "3RR" so I do not see what justifies this warning. And why did not the other get it? For the rest, I know quite well the rules of the encyclopedia that stipulate that if a user imposes chain changes to several articles, his modifications must be canceled. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC) For the record, I made that edit to Kievan Rus' before the message was left at my talk page, alerting me to the issue. TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC) I ask the author of the deletions to hand over the countries in all the articles as long as there is no consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Why TompaDompa is not warne like to me when he made major changes without consensus? His edits are a form of WP:POINT. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Why don't you take the lead in resolving the problem by opening the first discussion on an article talk page. One of the places to discuss this might be Talk:Kievan Rus'. Try reading over Template talk:Infobox former country#"Today part of" for empires spanning lots of modern countries before offering your opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Okay and for my answer ? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC) The other party does not seem to be continuing, and I believe he has got the message. Your reverts of TompaDompa seem to be the first time he found out that anyone objected to his interpretation of Template:Infobox former country. If you yourself are prepared to always talk before making changes that are known to be contentious then you won't get any more warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC) But I ask one thing to understand, I know that both of us stopped. But the height is that I receive a warning without violating a rule but he does not receive it despite his non-collaborative attitude. What justifies this difference in treatment? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC) You didn't break 3RR on any single article but in my opinion you *were* edit warring. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. Regarding the rest of your comment, I do not see any proof that he was 'non-collaborative.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC) If I interpret you correctly, you're requesting that I self-revert the edits I made earlier today removing the parameter from the respective infoboxes on the different former countries. I have done so. Tell me if there are any I missed. TompaDompa (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC) You have to be two to make an edit warring. For the rest, his behavior is non-collaborative since he made this change without warning and on a large scale. Knowing that this is not controversial. For the rest, he himself acknowledged his error. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Bis repetita

Hi I am sorry but I have been reverted. The problem is that user also participated to an edit warring and I haven't the right to revert him. What is the solution ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Vanjagenije has responded at User talk:Vanjagenije#Yugoslavia. I would advise you to make no more edits at Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until you have got consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I have not participated in any edit war. I made one edit to the page. Please, do not throw accusations like that. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: No, there was already an edit warring between me and the other contributor on several pages and you, you have given his version. I only say the truth and I do not accuse anyone: you have, like me and TompaDompa , participated in an edit warring. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Original Research at Christian contemplation

• Christian contemplation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LoveMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have waited and sat back and not engaged in an edit war. However the massive amounts of edits done to the Christian contemplation[64] article are atrocious and un-academic and encyclopedic. It is no longer the norm in academia to treat all of the subjects of any topic as being synonymous and to take someone's opinion of a subject as the basis for an encyclopedia article or articles. This person's radical rewriting of that article without adding valid sources to the very large and diverse groups that they have globbed together is pure original research. If the work can not be reverted and then discussed on the article talkpage, then I ask that you as an admin at least restore the Theoria (Eastern Orthodox Christianity) article. I am requesting that the article be marked Original Research. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

These changes in whole and or part should be reverted as they appear to be undue reductionist and POV rather than how these terms contemplation and theoria are actually treated academic sources in the subjects of either science, pagan philosophy or various Christian theologies. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you participate in the discussion at Talk:Christian contemplation. It would help if you would explain in more detail what you actually disagree with in the article. Also, you night consider quoting from some of your sources on Talk if they are books that are not widely held in libraries. Try to avoid personal attacks, and to help with the negotiation, maybe you can change this section header to get rid of 'horrible'? EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have now changed the section header. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, EdJohnston, I have re-blocked LoveMonkey because any involvement of his in matters of Western vs Orthodox christianity disputes still violates his topic ban that was his unblock condition in 2014. If I should be mistaken about this and this restriction was lifted in the meantime, I'd be grateful for a pointer; I couldn't find anything to that effect (but I could find earlier warnings against breaking the restriction, by yourself.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please search WP:RESTRICT for LoveMonkey. I don't think he is in violation of the wording there (from 2011), but I suppose he violates the additional restriction imposed in 2014 by DangerousPanda. The current discussion with User:Joshua Jonathan at Talk:Christian contemplation appears to be courteous. So if it were only my decision I would not have reblocked at this point. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the beginning of that thread and found his behaviour quite disruptive (personalizing the issue immediately at the beginning, aggressively demanding sources for something while refusing to specify what his objections actually were), and JJ's annoyed reaction very understandable. This is the same style of behaviour he used to display before his block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'd seen his edit-trestrictions, not the block. I'm sorry for them, but I also can understand why he was blocked; the discussin has not been courteous at all points. But he seems to try, so taht's good. Meanwhile, I do have questions about his pov, and I think that some articles he contributed are one-sided, but he does know a lot about it, so mutual interaction may actually be beneficial for improving those articles. Though he probably won't like it, but alas, better try then either just give up or go for a full collision. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance at Talk:Spacetime

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

Hi, Ed.

I just wanted to say that it is sometimes lost on poor editors immersed to their eyeballs in drama, that Admins are A) volunteers, and B) humans, who C) have feelings. Sometimes it seems as if editors assume Admins just crawl back into their Dracula coffins when they’re done doing their Wikipedia thing.

So I wanted to pass along that I noticed and appreciated the rather hands-off, minimalistic way you dealt with matters on the recent ANI on Talk:Spacetime. I don’t know if it was your intention, but it looked like you kept the dynamic at a low boil and sat back to watch as the real picture slowly developed. I thought you handled all that quite well.

Thanks.

Greg L (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The Dracula coffin was a nice touch. I hope you will find a way to get the discussion restarted at Talk:Spacetime. The effect of the archiving was to leave no trace of the past debates, whether for good or ill! Maybe someone (yourself?) will make a proposal of where to go from here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there's more than a trace. I archived the page here at Talk:Spacetime/Archive 11. That talk page was pure disfunction junction centered about the I.P. Whatever might have been useful was highly disjointed because of the way multiple posts were made in various places inside of other people’s posts: organization turned into an accordioned train wreck. Someone may want to refer to it to pull a passage or to-do list out of it for recycling, thus my link to the archive.

I was unsuccessful in getting the Archive 11 bullet to appear in the page’s ClueBot III archive index. Can you help on that? Or do we need a separate, non-ClueBot archive like you have at the top of this page? Greg L (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Indexed archives must be very advanced. I wouldn't know where to begin on that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

M’kuay. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson

I see now that you said at the now archived discussion on Drmies' talk that a mention in the newspaper might put the footballer over the top. Accordingly, I've gone ahead and used many of the sources I had listed there to rewrite the article from User:EdJohnston/temp at User:Yngvadottir/Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (footballer). I've removed the specific birthdate because I found only the year in the sources, and removed the source where I was unable to find him listed. I was able to flesh out his career with both his domestic teams and his youth career. Could you have a look and see whether he can be undeleted at Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (footballer) with that as the top version? Many thanks for your time either way. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Yngvadottir. I restored the deleted edits of Draft:Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson to Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (footballer). Can you go ahead and replace the top version with your latest draft from User:Yngvadottir/Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (footballer)? If you want, I can delete your draft as a G6. Notice we have a DAB page at Thorsteinn Thorsteinsson but the main title at Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson is devoted to the economist. Until today I didn't even know the name of the Thorn (letter). Let's hope that nobody restarts the diacritics wars! EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! (I see I have a couple more copyedits left to do, bouncy internet permitting). Yes, please delete the one in my user space now. Icelandic names, especially, have always been a flash point for alt. chars. conflict, so I felt it was simpler to set up the DAB page at the Th spelling. The footballer was originally at the non-disambiguated title simply because his was the first article created; there have been a slew of people of the same name, but the economist has a couple of advantages in the notability department so I was happy to see him moved to the plain title, but not happy with the reason. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I deleted User:EdJohnston/temp and User:Yngvadottir/Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson (footballer) as G6 so we have no more duplicate copies of old stuff. Thanks for your work! EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at VivaAerobús destinations

Hello EdJohnston, please note this [65]. Thank you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor is now blocked per the original warning at AN3 from June 13. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Titanic

The original material was not "restored", nor is another edit to include facts which refute the existing fringe theory likely in the current circumstances. Astronomy Explained (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Banned User:CindyRoleder AKA User:FlyingKicks seems to be back using IP this time

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

Hi EdJohnston,

Hope you are doing well. Sorry to bother you, but I think that blocked User:CindyRoleder AKA User:FlyingKicks seems to be back using IP this time around on the Irreligion page. There is some edit warring going on right now with me and User:Toddy1. The editing is the same behavior as User:CindyRoleder AKA User:FlyingKicks in trying to change Germany's numbers on demographics using the same survey WIN/Gallup and ignoring the others that show different values (see talk page for the Irreligion page to refresh on the behavior). Considering that this is the third time this page has been edit warred by the same editor, perhaps you can protect that page and block the IP address to prevent the same editor from editing. Thanks!Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Page semiprotected three months. Thanks for your note, EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:Contributions/77.71.210.138 for one month since it is based in Malta, like the other IP that was mentioned in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder, Special:Contributions/217.71.190.138. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks EdJohnston. I really appreciate the help. I tried to make this as simple as possible for you to decide on what to do since you are probably very busy. Hope you have a great day!Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Birmingham Airport

Thanks for stepping in and giving an opinion Pmbma (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It keeps on going and going and going...

A few days ago you blocked User talk:128Sugarloaf for edit warring at Janesville, Wisconsin, following a report at WP:AN3RR on his behavior. Today he's back again, making the same poorly sourced, ungrammatical, redundant edit to the article. Based on the wall of text on his talk page, it seems as though he's going to continue to be doggedly persistent about his addition to the article. Any suggestions? 32.218.47.36 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you believe he is adding unsourced information? If so, could you provide a diff? The edit you link to just shows him adding per-capita income and saying it comes from the Census. Though if there is an actual source for the $25,461 number I am not seeing it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(1.) "The census" isn't really a source. The link he provides just goes to a census bureau homepage, not to any data.

(2.) Data on income is already in the article, in the previous paragraph.

(3.) He removed the reliably sourced info on mean household income, for no good reason (perhaps because it doesn't support his POV?).

(4.) Poverty data is meaningless without a basis for comparison. 15% in poverty?? So what does that mean? Is that high? Low? Average?

It's just overall a meaningless edit that he insists is necessary. This is the epitome of mindless edit warring. 32.218.47.36 (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Question

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

What does it mean "Even if you are right" at Madreterra talk page? Are you trying to tell that my edits are vandalism and he has a right? NeonFor (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is 'even if he believes he is right'. Sanctions may be given out for edit warring regardless of who is right, with a few exceptions as listed in WP:3RRNO. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So the lead section should be restored to the form before user Madreterra made his changes. We should not change it without discuss the topic right? NeonFor (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I belive you don't even try to think that copy+paste some of Wikipedia rules answered my question? Some guy came, changed what was written there since the beginning of Wikipedia existence and now there some 'sanctions' if someone try to change it? So let me ask you a perfectly logical question: where are the sanctions for the user who changed all the sudden the content of this lead section? I do understand that his changes also should reverted and then we can start a discussion on the talk page NeonFor (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you revert again you are risking a block. Admins do not act as deciders of content questions; this is up to regular editors. Take a look at Talk:Poland/Archive 7 and search for the word 'central'. In particular, notice Talk:Poland/Archive 7#RfC: Should Poland be described as existing in "Central and Eastern Europe"?. The prior RfC's ruling still stands: "Until or unless decided elsewhere, "Central Europe" and "Eastern Europe" can be used interchangeably to describe Poland." (found at Talk:Poland/Archive 6#RfC: Eastern vs. Central Europe). EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Help

 Fixed

Hi EdJohnston, I see you're currently active in my watchlist, could you please delete Talk:Roblox/Archive 1 to make room to move User talk:Briguy9876/Roblox/Archive out of user space and to Talk:Roblox/Archive 1, there are other archive pages for this article that need adjusting, I'd appreciate your help so I can complete this task. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait, not sure User talk:Briguy9876/Roblox/Archive is actually archives of the article, looking further. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanx for the pastebin :P - FlightTime (open channel) 13:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if anything more needs to be done. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanx, I think I figured it out :) - FlightTime (open channel) 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

An idea with regards to your question

Hi EdJohnston, I saw you asked this question [[66]] in the context of this [[67]]. The user you asked deleted your question, regrettably. it has been my observation that he wasn't behaving like his typical self. My guess would be that it's in part due to unrelated factors offwiki. I had contemplated telling him to cool it and take a break, but I hesitated as given his possible mental state, I wasn't sure it would have the right effect. I'm not sure I was right. But you're observation was astute-- there has indeed been a long running edit war, with exchanges between the filer of the 3rr report and the subject being the most heated.

The current dispute of the multi-page edit war is pretty lame in my opinion, as it concerns what names of cities are included in their lead sections -- i.e. what languages they are in. The effected region is effectively any area close to the Albanian-Greek border, with occasional skirmishes in areas of the southern part of the Republic of Macedonia. The flashpoint of Sarandë is a city located in a multiconfessional (Sunni/Orthodox/Bektashi) and multi-ethnic (Albanian/Aromanian/Greek) region that has historically been contested between and Albania and Greece although for the past century it has mostly been part of Albania. Another complaint of Resnjari's appears to be the "sneaky" deletion of the "Albanian schwa" [[68]] [[69]], i.e. ë, unique to Albanian script among major European languages, outside of a few marginal languages like Piedmontese. For his part, Khirurg, the filer, himself appears to complain about the inclusion of the Albanian definite form of the city's name in the lead and description of ancient residents as "Greek-speaking" (presumably as rather than "Greek") [[70]] and appears to believe that a user named B A T O is a sock (of long time contributor and banned sockmaster Sulmues) and so reverts him [[71]] although there hasn't been an SPI.

As such, I have only recently started focusing on editing in the relevant region (sporadically edited there previously) so I think I can only understand the nature of some, but not all, of these disputes. It seems that things have gotten unpleasant lately and it appears both of the two concerned users have a bit of a history with each other, and it's good to note that the entire region of the Balkans has long been subject to long-running disputes on Wikipedia, see WP:ARBMAC for example (although that was awhile ago). I haven't delved enough into the history (yet) however. I agree with you that the war must stop. I would suggest, for starters, some decision regarding what placenames belong in article leads in the effected region. Although placename wars may seem lame beyond belief to outsiders, for the nationals involved they can be explosive, for example the long running issue about "Gdanzig". Since you said the admins were looking for a way to end this war, I suggest some policy put forward with regard to which place names are appropriate for the lead of a geographic location in the Balkan region. Perhaps the most sensible way to handle it would be just to restrict the name to the language of the state of which it is a part (the Greeks will protest this because of the Greek minority in South Albania, and the Albanians will likely also protest because of the Albanian minority in West Macedonia, and the Macedonians could even protest because of the Slavic speakers of northern Greece who are viewed by some to be Macedonians. However it seems the best way to me to put an end to this particular issue), although more research on the nature of the dispute on Wikipedia might be necessary. If that doesn't fix the issue between the filer and subject of that report two days ago, and they continue to tangle with each other in an uncivil faction months afterward, perhaps an interaction ban might be in order as they do not seem to have good experiences with each other. Also, more oversight of pages in the affected region might be very helpful, to prevent provocations by either side from blowing up. --Yalens (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me for responding to a comment you already removed, since you raise some good points. Regarding language for place names, I believe that WP:NCPLACE handles it well enough. It is unfortunate that when a new editor goes into a Balkan topic, one of their first instincts is often to 'fix' the place names (though none of the people in this case was new). I see you've done a lot of content work based on the list at User:Yalens, even on Balkan topics. That is a good sign. Interaction bans tend to be troublesome. The AN3 case was not a disaster, but it's a shame that the dispute was between long-term content editors who had never been blocked. That didn't leave any good options for admins. It seemed there was no way to avoid the actual block. Feel free to delete this response, if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I've moved this back here, because I meant to reply to it, and perhaps its better to keep the entire conversation intact. It's not a disaster, no. True, Resnjari never had a ban before this one, but the two have a history. Reverting on the page has continued. At the moment, the analysis previously given by Fut. Perf at Sunrise elsewhere seems appealing, that actually none of this belongs in the lead as in addition to causing edit wars it just makes reading difficult for people who aren't nationalist hotheads -- but I doubt either side would support that for reasons I outlined above. Perhaps I'll try proposing it along the lines of the Gdanzig solution at some point, but for the reasons as mentioned above, the Balkan factions are unlikely to agree to it. I can't find anything on WP:NCPLACE that actually handles the case of definite versions of names. In Albanian (and some other Balkan languages too actually-- Romanian, Bulgarian, Aromanian etc), all place names have two forms in the nominative, and although people typically say "Saranda" in actual speech in English, the convention on English Wikipedia seems to be to use the indefinite, with a note for the definite form. The definite form typically will have more hits online, but the indefinite will be more used in academic literature. The only possibly relevant thing I can find is issues with the definite article in English not Albanian. If you or some other admin could have input on this issue that would be great to clear things up -- personally I'm willing to enforce whatever judgment that is. --Yalens (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like this is an issue of naming conventions similar to WP:THE. If we could add a new line to the naming convention just for Albanian place names it might be acceptable, but if we try to reopen the whole NCPLACE discussion it could take forever. Be cautious about using Danzig as a good precedent; that issue is constantly threatening to rise from the grave. Regarding how to handle this long term, since sanctions are available under WP:ARBMAC we could do a targeted page or topic ban against whoever wouldn't follow consensus. But we are not there yet. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree we're not there yet (and thank goodness). How would adding a new line for Albanian place names be done? (and some sort of consensus would have to be sought for it somehow, right?)--Yalens (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC) PS after replying could you kindly delete this whole conversation? Probably not uhhhhh politically correct for me to say certain things I said here. Don't want any unpleasantness myself haha. --Yalens (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Content deletion without an edit summary

Hello.

How do you do, Ed?

I must admin, you dropped a bombshell on me. You wrote: Codename Lisa's claim that "Content removal without explanation is vandalism" is not found in our policy. That's impossible! I saw it in a policy page four years ago and had been using it in presence of various admins. You are the first to contest it. I will try to trace this policy, but maybe this one of the time when it was removed from its policy page and, unsurprisingly, I was not alerted to its removal.

Of course, I argue that we do treat content removal by IP editor without an edit summary as vandalism and treat that IP editor with various messaging templates. That's de facto. Length of the remove content does not seem to be an issue either.

Now, please cast your mind back: Are you sure "Content removal without explanation is vandalism" has never been a policy?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops. To simplify matters, I struck out the sentence in my closure that commented on your statement. Removal of text is vandalism if it is intended to damage the article, but the policy has nuances that I don't want to investigate now. The IP did leave edit summaries most of the time, but his logic was hard to follow. One of those cases where the talk page would have been best. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The definition of vandalism here is very clear. It is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Well, firstly of course, I explained my edits. And secondly, "Content removal without explanation is vandalism" is not, never has been, and never will be a policy. In fact, the policy explicitly states that it is not vandalism:

1. IP editors should not be approached with the assumption that they are vandals. Although many vandals do vandalize without registering an account, there are many IP editors who are great contributors to Wikipedia. Always read the actual changes made and judge on that, rather than who made the changes or what was entered in the edit summary.
2. Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism
3. not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism.
4. Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is not in line with Wikipedia's standards is not vandalism

I am astonished that someone would claim they can attack editors with templates solely for editing from an IP address. There is no category of edit on Wikipedia that is acceptable if made by usernames and not acceptable if made by IPs.

I am even more astonished that an administrator appears not to know these standards. And you don't seem fussed about personal attacks or people tag-teaming to revert without explanation either. How familiar are you with the policies you've been entrusted to enforce? 128.40.1.2 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want me to review this, you can help by linking to whatever you think to be a personal attack. The 'tag-teaming' phrase is often used by whoever finds that more than one person disagrees with them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If you had read my report at the noticeboard, you'd have seen that I linked to the personal attacks there. But you also accused me of not explaining the history of the situation, when I presented every diff since it started. So I do not think you read the report.

Thus, stating things for a second time here, as simply as possible: I made an edit, removing some redundant text.[72] A user seemed to regard a different bit as redundant,[73] so I made another edit removing the other bit instead.[74] Six days later, someone undid that, saying Reverted misguided edit-warrior. That is obviously a personal attack. It was completely unnecessary. It was insulting and it was false.

Later, the pair of them engaged in tag team reverting. One of them absurdly claimed here on your talk page that they can consider any removal of any text to be vandalism, if it is done from an IP address. That is an outrageous view, in clear and total violation of the definition of vandalism. Far from correcting their grave error, you ceded to their viewpoint. For an administrator not to know Wikipedia's definition of vandalism beggars belief.

So. I was attacked in contravention of WP:NPA, and insultingly treated as a vandal by an editor who does not understand a fundamental policy. But you endorsed the behaviour of those people attacking me. Why was that? 128.40.1.2 (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider 'revert misguided edit warrior' a personal attack, though it might have been said differently. The 'edit warrior' part seems correct. You yourself said 'stop vandalising' in an edit summary and by the standard of delicacy you seem to favor this too might count as a personal attack. By this point in the argument, both you and the other parties ought to have been using the talk page. The underlying dispute seemed to be whether a plugin could be described as a browser extension. A nice technical question that talk pages are very good for. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPA says Comment on content, not on the contributor. Which bit of Reverted misguided edit-warrior is about content, and which is about the contributor? And no, edit warrior could not possibly have seemed correct. If you think it was, explain exactly how, please. Seems to me that you didn't read my report before acting on it, you don't know fundamental wikipedia policies, and your attitude to my complaint is shoddy and inadequate. If you think you're somehow making a better encyclopaedia by behaving in this way, you're not. But I don't think you do think that at all. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

My occasional attempts to improve articles are now at an end. As I've been repeatedly attacked by you in an incredibly cowardly and dishonest way for reporting attacks by other people, it's clear that making a quality encyclopaedia is not the priority for people like you. 128.40.1.2 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Futurepilot1999's warring across a number of articles

• Futurepilot1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello there, EdJohnston. Please note that Futurepilot1999 keeps warring across a number of airport articles. Thank you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have been editting articles - namely Ryanair's various routes from Frankfurt. I have been using the Ryanair website to help me with this. The show up to date schedule information for the airline. I have sourced this where this hasn't already been sourced. However for whatever reason, Jetstreamer seems determined to keep reverting my edits saying "the Ryanair website isn't a good enough source" etc etc. It's clear to me here who is edit warring and disrupting Wikipedia more! Futurepilot1999 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I never said that, another user did. I won't continue discussing this with you, let alone here. I already explained my reasoning at your talk page and you remove my message. An administrator will take care of this, if anything at all has to be overseen.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your decline of a BLP-prod on Nawab Mir Aali Saleem Akbar Khan Bugti

• Nawab Mir Aali Saleem Akbar Khan Bugti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. When cleaning up the article I noticed this edit on the article, where you declined a BLP-prod because of the subject being deceased. Which was a mistake, although a mistake that was easy to make considering the sorry state of the article at that time, since the article is about a grandson, and claimed successor, to the man who is deceased, Akbar Bugti. And the grandson isn't, IMHO, notable enough to have a stand-alone article, and possibly not even notable enough to be mentioned in the article about his grandfather. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, the subject is not deceased. I found more info at this link to pakistanleaders.com but I don't know if it is reliable. The Bugti tribe is clearly notable, and if he is the current leader that might incline us toward having an article. In a 2008 article about the insurgent parties in Balochistan the Bugti tribe is mentioned but Aali himself is not. Do you think the article at present qualifies for BLPPROD? Would you have an interest in trying to find sources yourself? EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I made a search on Google, but it returned only the usual Youtube-videos, Facebook-pages and blogs, not a single reliable source independent of the subject (Pakistanileaders is a user-generated site, and not RS), so since notablility isn't inherited he's clearly not notable by our standards, and ought to be sent to AfD, unless the article creator, or whoever is interested in it, comes up with a few reliable sources within the next week or two... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that the article creator (Zardar123) restored the prod-tag after I had removed the noise from the article to make the signal readable, probably because of being a more experienced editor than their short career (the account was created last January and has made 102 edits) indicates (i.e. socking), and knowing that it's easier to recreate an article that has been prodded, than an article that has been deleted at AfD... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that Aali's leadership of the Bugti tribe could not be easily confirmed, and that his sourced notability seems to come only from having a well-known grandfather (Nawab Akbar Bugti), I went ahead and nominated the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nawab Mir Aali Saleem Akbar Khan Bugti. Incidentally User:Zardari123 has been moving some articles to add 'Nawab' in front of many people's names. This appears to go against MOS:HONORIFIC. Instead of 'Nawab John Smith' we should just have 'John Smith'. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The "Nawab-moves" have been reverted now. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W, did you actually go ahead and do the moves? The articles still appear to have the 'Nawab' names. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I moved all except the one that is at AfD (and seems to be headed for deletion), so as not confuse people there. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 06:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yemeni Civil War

• Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi EdJohnston (talk · contribs) it is a pleasure speaking with you again. I just wanted to bring to your attention that the Yemeni Civil War article's semi protection has finished and was wondering if you could reinstate it on a more permanent basis like the one on the Syrian Civil War as I thing it did a good job in preventing sock puppets and encouraging editors to make edits without facing backlash from other users. Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hey again, I don't want to seem persistent or anything, but just wanted to know whether your would be pp the article or not? Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not make a new request if you think you see some bad IP edits. No IPs have touched the article since June 11. Consider the steps of WP:DR for dealing with the dispute which is happening at Talk:Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)#Usability of sources like criticalthreats.org. (** Section title was updated later. -ej**) One option is opening a WP:Request for comment. Questions about the usability of particular sources can be asked at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that you got back to me and fixed the title of discussion on the talk page as I was a bit insulted and tried to fix it previously but as you can see from the edit history he kept on reverting it back, hopefully he keeps it the way you have just edited it. I have also taken the situation with user:contravenum to incidents as one of the other administrators had recommended me to do on the article's talk page and I am hoping that you could give your opinion or insight on who you thought overstepped their boundaries to help reach a verdict. Appreciate all you help Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I appreciate that you blocked him but this is his second block of 48 hours in a span of only days. An you are telling me that by him insulting me and using derogatory terms only warrants a 48 hour block when he has clearly said that he doesn't care if he gets banned. [75] Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If the problem continues after his block expires, he can be banned by any administrator from the Syrian Civil War articles. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help in fixing my post to the edit warring board, and for the notice you sent to the other editor, concerning the article Floyd Skloot. This was a new situation for me, to encounter the subject of the article as an editor, and now all is moving along well. I continue to edit the article, trying to add inline citations to the material already there. Someday I may add some new parts as well. Mr. Skloot understood Wikipedia better, from your notice. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Lund University

• Lund University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Thanks for protecting the article, because I'm getting a bit tired of reverting them. Based on edits, editing style etc a single individual has been doing this for years, sometimes using IPs from various universities, such as 145.108.180.136 at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (edits, user talk) from two years ago, and still hasn't tired of it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there any centralized place to record this information? If it is one person on multiple IPs, an SPI might technically be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all just in my head, I don't even have it written down anywhere, but maybe I should document it somewhere... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it is allowed to record the IPs somewhere in your user space. From what I have seen a range block is unlikely to work. If you are challenged further on the content questions, it might be useful to get a list of universities that are 'about equally notable' so we can compare their leads and compare the quality of sourcing for any positive statements. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory

• Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Ed,

I am the Director of the UC Irvine Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory and trying to update the page to correct factually inaccurate information as well as to expand it as it is currently a stub and there is a lot of content that can be added to enrich it. The page is now protected and even though I am a registered user I am unable to make changes. I would like to be able to access the page to make changes but maintain its protection such that it is not altered or corrupted by others.

Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you.

Michael Yassa Director, Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory University of California, Irvine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike yassa (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mike, Per WP:COI, your best option is to make a proposal on the article talk page of what should be changed, and wait for a regular editor to implement it. If you get no response, let me know and I'll see if I can do it. Back in May, somebody copied a bunch of info directly off the Center's web site and it had to be revision-deleted due to copyright violation. Please be sure that any new (proposed) additions are expressed in your own words and don't repeat any text that is found elsewhere on the web. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

128.40.1.2 is doing it again

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

Hello, Ed.

As you have been the attending admin to the case of 128.40.1.2's edit warring in NPAPI article, I should let you know that he has once again started. He has made no positive attempt in establishing consensus so far; his only message in the talk page is a proclamation of "I am right", followed by a revert.

I, on the other hand, offered to forgo the disagreement entirely if he resumes collegial behavior, despite the fact that such behavior is mandatory here. He refused. He demands dominion over me and does not care for the consensus.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotected for now. The original AN3 complaint was at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive345#User:Codename Lisa and User:FleetCommand reported by User:128.40.1.2 (Result: Filer warned). I wonder if you have any ideas for fixing the problems described in the 'multiple issues' template? The page has been tagged for needing better referencing for almost ten years. All the necessary sources would surely be online, so how hard can it be? This is not your problem necessarily, but with better sourcing maybe the level of edit warring would drop. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring at Croatian language

I'm truly apologizing for my edit war. I just wanted to make that article better and I promise I won't do anything similar again. --Sheldonium (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Many thanks, EdJohnson. That (requested) version of the lead is rather denuded of internal links. So feel fee to add a few? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, that was quick. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC) "Period Drama personna"?? ... what an outrage!

IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology)

To be frank about my role, I have discussed IOTA elsewhere on the internet, but am not the persons I have been accused of being (Eric Wall, SatoNatomato), though I have followed the discussion with high interest. Besides IOTA I participate in other cryptography discussions, mostly on medium, reddit, bitcoin.com and bitcointalk.org. Nobody is paying me to write and talk, but my blog sometimes makes money from google ads. Excuse my reaction of reverting the reverts and responding to the edit war. 178.78.237.194 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

So your connection to the topic is that you blog about IOTA? I am afraid that admins are likely to do whatever is necessary to keep intemperate comments away from the talk page, and will not be tolerant of drastic revisions to the article based on personal opinion. For example, you added this text to the article itself: Criticism and censorship attempts by the creators is widespread, as can be seen on this wikipedia history page. Comefrombeyond is <name of person redacted>, trying to remove this criticism page." We don't like it when people bring off-site wars onto Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you like it when independent writers are prohibited from editing wikipedia articles by persons involved in said article? See the latest edit I made, was again reverted. There was no personal opinion or factual wrong information I added. As it is now, the article is factually wrong, you can read the linked primary sources yourself and the "IOTA transparency compendium"-blog which explains the Coordinator role. 178.78.237.194 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Outing?

Don't you see this edit as an outing? I've requested suppression of the edit; as an admin I would have thought you'd take stronger action. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to the edit being suppressed. The bad intentions are evident but it looks like the assumed connection to a real-life person doesn't exist. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Willard84

• Willard84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1988 Gilgit Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• July 6 AN3 case about Willard84 and Godhra train burning

He just came from a 4 days edit warring block started edit warring again.[76][77][78] And after 3 reverts he self-reverted[79] but yet to self-revert on other article.[80] I understand that only 2 of us are having this conflict on 1988 Gilgit Massacre and Osama Bin Laden currently, I can point out that how he is misrepresenting sources on talk pages or calling reliable sources unreliable, but Willard84's disruption is far more than that.

1. reported me to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[81]
2. copy pasting same messages on at least 3 pages.[82] even on Help Talk:Edit summary[83], [84][85], [86][87], [88][89]
3. copy pasted my message by himself[90] then falsely accused me of copy pasting my message[91]

Another concern with Willard84 is that it takes him 5-10 or more edits to make one reply, generally it takes only 1 or 2 edits.[92] It is really obvious that he is out of control. I think another block or topic ban will make things easier. Excelse (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

1) I didn't violate the 3RR as I self reverted the edits on Gilgit Massacre page once I realized that I had reverted three times - I had only counted two since I hit the "undo" button twice, forgetting that my initial edit that day was actually a reversion. In any case, i self reverted once I realized what happened since I'm not looking to be banned again. And the edit listed as [6] is a different page: doesn't 3RR rule refer to the same page?

2) the same issue was posted to the 1988 Gilgit Massacre page and Osama Bin Laden page because the information presented was written on both pages. Therefore the same issue arose on both pages. Keep in mind that this info was introduced into both pages by the same sockpuppet on 31 December 2016 User:Towns Hill over here and here. He posted the same sort of information on both pages, and hence why the same issue needed to be discussed on both pages. Besides, Excelse did the same. I suppose I didn't need to put anything on his talk page.

3) I think the "number of edits" is a superfluous argument - no one has ever told me that there is a limit to the number of edits which should be made. Especially since as you can see I actually leave pretty good edit summaries and do one edit at a time for each. And the example he gave is on the talk page rather than the article itself - so does this even matter?

4) As for his accusation regarding [17], I didn't notice that what he wrote differed by a few words. Otherwise as you can see he basically wrote the same thing twice back-to-back, the only thing I didn't really notice is that he included in his second version the words "your demands have been fulfilled." Otherwise the two statements were exactly the same. For this I apologize, and this was an inadvertent mistake; I was trying to clean up the page because it looked like he accidentally hit "paste" twice since the two paragraphs are identical minus the last 5 words.

5) The report for vandalism was genuine. User Excelse had completely erased the long discussion that was being had on the discussion page, and replaced it with email addresses and a link to a Facebook profile. This look like vandalism and so I reported it. You can see here on 11 July 5:56 AM that the user erased 5,900kb of information that was later voided, and so I didn't pursue the matter further after I noticed he reverted.

6) I misrepresented no sources. My concern is the. That all these accusations appear to Stanback to one single author. Are you been requested a comment for this from other users in order to help thus dispute prompting a third user, Kautilya3, to join.

Willard84 (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have protected 1988 Gilgit Massacre for a week. It is troubling that User:Willard84 moves on so quickly from one dispute to another. At present I don't see the need for a block at the 1988 Gilgit Massacre but Willard84's attitude to resolving disputes leaves much to be desired. Under WP:ARBIPA it possible to issue topic bans to one or both parties. Anyone who shows themselves unable to follow the usual steps of WP:Dispute resolution could be at risk of a ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

1RR?

Sorry, I'd never even heard of 1RR. I would have undid my reversion as you suggested but somebody beat me to it.—Chowbok ☠ 05:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)