User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Page "Lithuania"

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

Hello, I am professional historian and I would like to ad some more sentences about Lithuania history concerning the 100th anniversary of the state. As well I would like to post more information about Lithuanian heritage at UNESCO ant the latest information on economics. Would it be possible to get the temporary permission?Giedremeshka (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Giedremeshka. Use the page at Talk:Lithuania to explain your proposed changes. Hopefully someone will comment on your ideas there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Awdal Region of Somalia

• BlueandWhite2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You have unfairly blocked me from posting on the Awdal Region. I have provided reputable links from proving that Awdal is a region of Somalia.. Moreover, I have provided links from both the US State Department and UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office recognising Somalia's territorial integrity. How can non recognised statelet claim ownership of any region? Wikipedia recognises that Donetsk and Luhansk regions are part of Ukrraine, despite being under separatist control. Please be consistent, under international law Awdal is part of Somalia and not the self-proclaimed unrecognised statelet of "Somaliland". Please be professional, objective and consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueandWhite2017 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A reading of your talk page at User talk:BlueandWhite2017 shows you have now been blocked a second time for edit warring. If you want to participate on Wikipedia you are expected to follow our policies, even when you find yourself disagreeing with others. The argument about Somalia versus Somaliland comes up many times. In this topic area, we often have newcomers who immediately want to 'fix the article' as soon as they arrive on Wikipedia. (You yourself have only 13 edits so far). Admins do not have any way of knowing who is right in most of these disputes. All we can do is make people observe the proper steps to resolve the disagreement. Admins may have to issue blocks whenever it appears people are not willing to wait for the result of Talk discussions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

References

68.129.15.71

68.129.15.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

When you get the chance, could you evaluate this IPs edits again? They've gone back to adding unsourced/poorly sourced content to articles just two days after your previous 1 month block. Would you mind warning them again, or if you think necessary, blocking them again? Thank you. 46.251.126.237 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked again. Details left on the user's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI complaint about an editor on you put on 1RR

Hey, I don't know if you got my ping from WP:ANI. I asked about Film Fan, a user you put on 1RR. I was wondering if that ever got rescinded. He's been edit warring on a few pages, and two editors asked me to help resolve the situation. Since I'd also been involved in a dispute with FF recently, I filed a complaint at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I have replied in the ANI thread. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, EdJohnston. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Chernobog95

• Chernobog95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could you please deal with my post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring concerning Chernobog95? SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request for blocked Brexit page

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

Hi EdJohnston. The controversial user Volunteer Marek has persuaded you to block the Brexit article. The problem now is that the article is not being updated with ongoing significant Brexit events. Could you therefore please add the following content to the Negotiations section, last paragraph of Brexit#History? Thanks. 86.170.121.209 (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

After more than 2 months of a caretaker German government since the German federal elections in September, on 7 Dec 2017 new elections were averted when the German socialist party under Martin Schulz agreed to negotiate a coalition government with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic party, but on condition that a "United States of Europe" be created by 2025.

The following day (8 December), the UK and EU negotiators agreed on the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and formally announced to proceed immediately to the next phase of talks on a transition period and future trade relationships.

References

• Consider making this request at Talk:Brexit. You can use the Template:Edit semi-protected, and any autoconfirmed editor can act on it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Response on my talk page

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

I’d be grateful if you could review on my talk page my response to your recent block. Thanks, Gravuritas (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This must be a comment on my AN3 closure. This was a complaint of edit warring at Brexit, and the person who brought the complaint also believed you engaged in personal attacks and POV-pushing. I continue to believe that you engaged in personal attacks, and I maintain my previous opinion about the type of edits you were making. I think the article might benefit from one or more WP:RFCs to get decisions on some of the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The person who brought the complaint repeatedly misrepresented my views, and has done so on several occasions since then, so his view that I was POV-pushing should not be taken at face value. It is true that I made remarks which constitute personal attacks- these were fairly mild apart apart from my final accurate description of a serial misrepresenter in non-WP language. I accept the verdict and the block- for personal,attacks. However, introducing the extra description of POV- pushing just because a -serial misrepresenter- alleges it, without further discussion, without any specifics, is not warranted. I repeat my request for you to remove POV-pushing from the description of the block.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wait, are you the same person as the IP account that's been edit warring on the Brexit article? If so, why are you using multiple accounts? I guess there could be a legitimate reason, but it also looks like you started using a new account to edit war just because the old one got blocked for it just a few days ago. Volunteer Marek  14:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@VM Stalk off. I’ve only had one WP account for years, and I’ve signed every post I’ve made. Please withdraw the ‘edit warring’ slur- you accused me on ANI and it was not upheld, remember? and apologise for the accusation of multiple accounts.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to EJ for this extraneous stuff on your talk page, but the accusation was here and hence I guess the response needs to be. @VM- I now realise the IP posts you mean-fwiw I think for the argument you are involved with the IP, you’re both wrong. The root article about which you are wrangling is in economic joke territory because it pretends that the only effect of devaluation is inflation, and ignores the slower effects on e.g tourism, exports, and import substitution. I hope that convinces you it wasn’t me.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

" I’ve only had one WP account for years' - Fair enough, my apologies. Reason I asked is because in addition to Brexit, you and the IP (and myself too) share another interest, which is articles related to Poland, so it sorta raised a red flag (plus both of youse got that snarky tone). Anyway, this probably belongs on the talk page, but no, the source does NOT "pretend that the only effect of devaluation is inflation". Rather, it focuses on costs which have already materialized. Tourism, exports, import substitution change on a longer time scale (there's also the J-curve effect on trade balance). furthermore, the effect of depreciation on exports and imports may very well be offset by the very rise in prices that the article talks about. Finally, the income/welfare implications of changing exports and imports are not immediately clear - yeah, your trade balance might eventually "improve", but that's because you have to pay more for the stuff you're buying from abroad. Volunteer Marek  04:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I thought my snarky tone was fairly distinctive, but I’ll try to make it even more so- maybe I should try for more tone and less snark? The rest is, as you say, better on the relevant talk,page.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

IP hopper edit-warring to add unsourced gamer trivia to Laureano de Torres y Ayala article

Hi Ed, I'm having a problem with a persistent IP hopper who insists on repeatedly adding unsourced gamer trivia to the Laureano de Torres y Ayala article. This junk tells absolutely nothing about the actual subject of the article, describes an alternative imaginary history of the subject, and is unsourced besides. Carlstak (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article, but you really need to discuss this on the talk page. Popular culture sections do exist and it is not vandalism to create them. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I understand that it's not vandalism, and I don't oppose popular culture sections per se, just those (especially referring to games), that have zero content actually related to the subject of the article, other than a character who has the same name but otherwise no more than the barest connection to the historical figure. In my opinion, if the added content can't meet that criterion, surely it should say something about how the fictitious character relates to the subject's continuing place in culture. If it can't meet that criterion, it should at least be sourced. I wrote the Legend of Billy the Kid article, for example, that consists almost entirely of information about his place in culture, as well as the Youth culture and music section of the James Dean article, so I'm not constitutionally opposed to pop culture sections. I will remove the section and leave a note on the talk page. Carlstak (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Carlstak (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Martin Frobisher

I think that indefinite semi-protection at Martin Frobisher is overkill. The total number of edits on that article is small and of course that makes any vandalism much less. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Reduced the semiprotection to one month. But in defence of the overkill, this is one of the articles where anonymous editing tends not to be beneficial. In 2017, out of 18 IP edits I think two were kept. Undetected vandalism can build up in infrequently edited articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. True enough but I'm usually here every few days and would probably notice it if someone else didn't. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Your comment about Akocsg

I noticed your comment on the Edit Warring noticeboard and thought I should bring something to your attention. Wario-Man has had numerous run-ins with Akocsg and posted on AN/I 08:41, 28 October 2017.[1]

• Akocsg (talk · contribs) and block log
• Blocked on German Wikipedia [2] (Ethno-POV-Account on a mission)

This user removes the contents which he does not like and replace them with his own personal opinions. He always uses misleading and false edit summaries.

• I mention some of his edits for the comparison:
  • WP:BATTLEGROUND and misrepresentation of sources[3][4]
  • Removing sourced text and replace it with his own POV[5]
  • POV and labeling his edit as minor[6][7]
  • Removing any non-Turkic info which are based on the sources[8][9][10]
  • Disruptive edits like[11]
• The recent issues:
  • Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[12] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[13][14][15]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[16][17] That IP-range is from Germany and since this user was active on German Wikipedia, then I'm sure it's him. IP's edit pattern and edit summaries matches with him too. IP targeted related articles[18][19][20][21][22][23] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[24]
  • Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[25] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[26] And this one.[27]

It's a nationalistic mission/quest by him on English Wikipedia just like German Wiki. Is it necessary to provide more evidences? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

---

I will say from my own experience that Akocsg tried to cherry-pick information from Otto Maenchen-Helfen(ie. using only a few pages from his book) to present a Turkic-POV rendering of the Huns.[28] Richard Keatinge agreed with me that this was cherry-picking information.[29]

I have not checked the information posted by Wario-Man, but he is an editor that is meticulous in their sourcing and editing. I felt, judging from your comment on EW board, that you should be completely informed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit is the most duplicitous edit summary concerning Akocsg.[30] By removing an ethnicity and source which either Akocsg lied about the contents of the journal article or had no access to said journal article, in which case Akocsg's statement,"The source gives no such information" is a lie. I do not believe this editor can edit neutrally.

• Per the source,"As for Taqi-al Din, an Arab astronomer and astrologer from Damascus..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Every edit of that user (in some specific topics) should be checked by other editors. Did you see his recent edit warring on Göktürks? I did not review his edits on there, but it seems he used his favorite methods again: changing the sourced content, writing misleading edit summaries, misrepresentation of sources or cherry-picking them (highly probable). There is a strong reason why German WP blocked him and we should consider it. As I said in my ANI report, I didn't report him for requesting an indef-block. I just wanted a solution by admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, its beyond me how no one has put a proper halt to this long-term WP:TENDENTIOUS "editing". I took a proper look, and virtually about every single edit "Akocsg" has made on history / ethnic-related topics, is one that should be reverted per WP:TENDENTIOUS. They're all packed with dishonest edit-summaries and self-formulated unsourced additions.

I just had to revert him once again. Its a pretty beautiful example as well. Take a look at how he, at the same time, removed mention of the Armenian and Greek Genocides, added more information on violence against Ottoman muslims, and added a bunch of other self-formulated POV twists to already sourced content. All under the label of "improved language, fixed dubious claims and pov, removed unrelated content, fixed statement mentioned twice in the same section".

The fact "Akocsg" has already been indeffed by our German colleagues in late October, should tell a thing or two. Its really not that hard to see whether an user is WP:HERE or WP:NOTHERE, especially with the experience we all have. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Urgent problems on your blocked Brexit article

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

Good morning Ed Johnston. At the instigation of the new editor "Volunteer Marek", you had blocked the Brexit article for unregistered editors such as myself. However, if you now look at the Brexit article and its Talk page, you will find that Volunteer Marek is now fighting/threatening/ignoring other registered editors. Meanwhile, the page is not being properly updated. Specifically, there has been a major meeting of the 28 European Union state leaders earlier this month, resulting in the first breakthough agreement on Brexit,[31][32] and none of this has been added to the article.

It is urgent: the Brexit article is read by 5000-6000 readers per day. You are the expert - can you please take action (sock puppet search, lifting the block, mediation, whatever)? 86.170.121.241 (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The talk page at Talk:Brexit is open to you. Why not make a proposal there of any new text that you want to see added to the article. The article remains semiprotected due to an edit war reported at AN3 in early December. I assume you are the same person as the IP 86.170.121.152 (talk · contribs) who was previously reverting at Brexit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question: No, because proposing new content on the Brexit Talk page has in the past not led to any material being added to or subtracted from the article, and I do not anticipate that passive editing culture to change. I do not know the reason for this editorial inactivity, but it is reminiscent of your attitude of "passing the buck". It appears there are simply too few registered expert Brexit editors to cover such a huge and developing topic. No offence meant, please.

As concerns your assumption: yes, I and others were involved in removing the new and controversial content. I understand it is Wikipedia policy to postpone controversial new content until consensus has been reached on the Talk page. Also, I did not like Volunteer Marek's threatening language to shut down the Brexit article for editing. That is not how we conduct business in Britain. Or on Wikipedia. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You are choosing to work on a hotly-contested article. We can't always assume that other editors will behave perfectly. VM is known for his colorful remarks and he has not escaped sanction in the past. Under your previous IP you did participate in the RfC at Talk:Brexit#RfC on the 'Economic effects' section and POV. If you are willing to continue in this way, and if all editors would wait for RfC outcomes then the dispute would solve itself, and there would be no need for any admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds promising, Ed. Brexit was a surprisingly good-natured article most of the time. Yes, the economics discussion was a brick wall (some of my background is in statistics). But I am not sure what you suggest my next steps should be now. Please advise. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The last RfC was withdrawn by the submitter, User:EddieHugh due to objections to the question. I can't tell if he was intending to submit a new one. Can you think of an improved RfC question that is worded neutrally and might inspire people to comment pro or con? The previous thread was full of people attacking each other rather than content-based reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not think I could improve on Eddie Hugh's RfC approach. I support Eddie on the inadequacy of the economics section. But my priority at the moment is to get the UK-EU Brexit "breakthough" agreement into the article. That should not be controversial with Marek and therefore no RfC needed. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the solution would be to create an account instead of being an IP-based editor, but I know that some people don't want to do that. I've become reluctant to make any edits to the article recently, as the pattern of interaction with Volunteer Marek is: my edit gets reverted; I start discussion on the talk page; there's some to and fro; VM tells me to justify my edits/position; I justify my edits/position; VM stops discussing; I re-add my edit; my edit gets reverted... This happened in one talk page section; I'm hoping it doesn't happen again in the latest section, but I'm not optimistic. In the words of 86.170.121.241, above: "proposing new content on the Brexit Talk page has in the past not led to any material being added to or subtracted from the article". I don't know how to deal with this approach to editing, when it involves (from my perspective) talk page engagement until the discussion turns against an editor's position, and that editor then stops engaging, only to return when his preferred version of the article is altered or even has legitimate tags added to it. If this has put me off editing the article, I'm sure it (and I have to include the actions of several editors, including me, in 'it') has put others off too, hence the absence of the "breakthrough" agreement in the article. I'm sure that another RfC would be looked at by more editors, who would then join the list of those put off. All suggestions on the impasse are welcome! EddieHugh (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Another way to interpret these results is that you made a proposal but it did not win general support. To someone like myself who was not following closely, the matter was extremely confusing. Starting with an RfC question that is too vague will sometimes not lead anywhere good. If an RfC reaches a definite result it can be enforced by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think EddieHughes' RfC was to blame. Nor do I think there was a question of support/opposition. Eddie and I simply failed to extract basic clarification from VolunteerMarek on his new material. Example. Marek: "Economists predict the UK will be poorer by 1.3% as a result of Brexit". Question: "When will we be poorer by 1.3%? In 2019? For the next 10 years? Forever? And compared to which baseline year? 2000-2017? 2019?)". With Marek sidestepping this basic request for information, we could not begin to discuss Marek's new material. VM continued refusing to provide the information, he then turned to you (EdJ) to save his edit. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@86.170.121.241 draft something regarding the developments you refer to, put it on Talk:Brexit, suggest where it should go in the article, and if it seems reasonable to me I’ll put it in the article. Suggest this moves to Talk:Brexit. @EH please don’t despair.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas, if you make such a change you are expected to have a realistic belief that the change has consensus. Otherwise it represents a renewal of the previous edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Afaik there have been several edit wars/ near edit wars over parts of the economic stuff in the body and the lede. The change proposed by the IP, if I’ve understood it correctly, would be an update to the progress/ negotiations/ part of the article, so I don’t understand how that is continuing an edit war, unless you’re suggesting my mere involvement will automatically trigger an attack from another editor. Posting the draft on the Talk page will in any case allow comments from other editors before I include it in the article. I am trying to be constructive in a very destructive atmosphere, and. I personally am not worried whether the article is up to the minute with the twists and turns of negotiations and politicians’ stances, so if you oppose this idea I’ll withdraw my offer.

However, I’m more worried that you seem to be saying that any edit to the section constitutes continuing the edit war if made without consensus. I’ve recently made a few small edits, of some of the more blatant propagandistic stuff: do I really need to ask for consensus before deleting the weasel ‘supposed’ from ‘supposed failures’, or adding the data source of 2010 to a study misleadingly labelled 2017?

Gravuritas (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

An update on the progress of the negotiations would be new material and would be less of a problem. But anything further about the supposed economic damage done by Brexit (or, criticism of the reliability of academic economists) probably needs good discussion and support on the talk page. My comments here are plain vanilla policy, if I'm not mistaken, so it may not be wise for me to go on too long. If the point hasn't been accepted by now it's not going to be. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Gravuritas. To update the Brexit article, two insertions are needed, one in the lead and one in the body, as follows.

Please add the following content to the Negotiations section, last paragraph of Brexit#History:

Since the German federal elections in September, a German caretaker government under Angela Merkel had unsuccessfully tried to form a stable coalition with various parties. On 7 Dec 2017 new elections were averted when the German socialist party under Martin Schulz agreed to negotiate a coalition government with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic party, on condition that a "United States of Europe" be created by 2025.

The following day (8 December), the UK and EU negotiators announced a "breakthrough agreement" to begin negotiations immediately on future UK-EU trade relationships and on a 2-year transition period after 2019. The net payment offered by the UK is estimated at 40 billion pounds but is conditional on the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

And please add the following sentence to the lead, just after "Negotiations with the EU officially started in June 2017.": In December 2017, all EU leaders agreed to commence negotiations on future UK-EU trade and on a 2-year transition period after 2019.

Thanks. 86.170.121.241 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

References

This could have been prevented...

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive351#User:Davey2010 and User:Mrschimpf reported by User:Modernponderer (Result: No action)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartoon_Network_(Canada)&action=history

Also: not actionable by themselves, but...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_Swim_(Canada)&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teletoon_Retro&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%A9l%C3%A9toon_R%C3%A9tro&action=history

Presented with minimal commentary, to avoid unnecessary bias. Modernponderer (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Should probably also mention this, regarding your talk page discussion comment: Talk:Cartoon Network (Canada)#Removal of programming list Modernponderer (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A long-term problem

I have been seeing the similar/repeating issues on multiple pages for a long time and it is getting tedious. Here it goes again[33][34]. I think the anon 94.176* deserved to be blocked longer time for evading their edit warring block and the user deserved to be indeffed due to their persistent nothere behaviour on multiple articles. 185.43.229.0 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If you think 94.176.89.105 (talk · contribs) was previously blocked for edit warring, can you link to that? Technically, 'Eastern Iranian' and 'Indo-European' could both be true. The book by James A. Millward appears to be a good source, and can be previewed on Google Books. This kind of thing deserves a good talk page discussion at Talk:Xinjiang. You are writing to me from an IP with only three edits. Presumably you are raising this complaint because you have participated in this topic area under another identity (either account or IP). If so please link to it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is your block regarding evading previous edit warring block[35]. No, i did not participate in the discussions in this topic area before and my point was not the current discussion on Xinjiang. It is a long-term issue and since their editing topics are within my areas of interest, i am aware of the ongoing issue(s) and i think it needs to be comes to an end. The ip is evading their previous edit warring block and the account is nothere to contribute (if you check his edits thorough). Therefore, i think, both deserved to be blocked as i mentioned above. Since you are also, to some degree, aware of the problem, i wanted to bring it to your attention again. Cheers, 185.43.229.85 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You are continuing to hop IPs, which is ironic since you are requesting action against a different IP-hopper. Which probably won't do any good without a rangeblock, which is risky and would need good evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It changes unintentionally and i was not aware of it, sorry. As for evidence, the ip requested unblock was also 94.176* (as can be seen in the link i provided). Actually, i requested action against the nothere user too (i.e. not only against the ip). 185.43.229.85 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring block

You recently blocked me for a 1RR violation in an area where I did not know about the 1RR violation and had not received a discretionary sanctions warning. Can you explain this please? I am asking because I thought formal DS warnings were mandatory for each topic area before DS can be applied under ARBCOM remedies - [36] Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't see a big green box that states:

• "Note!"
• "This page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the discretionary sanctions imposed here. Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period or you may be blocked from editing for a short period. Seek consensus for any contentious edits at Talk:Armenian Genocide." ???--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(Reply to Seraphim System): You are referring to this AN3 complaint about Armenian Genocide. As noted at Talk:Armenian Genocide this article has been under a page-level 1RR restriction since 2008. We don't notify people individually about the 1RRs that are imposed as page-level restrictions. Editors are expected to be aware from the talk page. In the case of Armenian Genocide there is also an edit notice of the 1RR that appears when you hit the edit button to change the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I still think it was a bad block since I didn't know about the restriction and there were no attempts to discuss prior to reporting. I never received any DS notice for WP:ARBAA2, did I? - I don't see why the rule for DS should be different for any discretionary sanctions - the rules are stated clearly "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." - if what you are saying is true it should be clarified at WP:ARCA. If not, you should be able to admit you made a mistake. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe I have correctly described the current practice regarding 1RR violations. If you want to change the practice, you would need to get consensus somewhere. It's not even required that a person blocked for 3RR should have been made previously aware of 3RR (WP:EW: "A warning is not required"), though admins often try not to block newcomers in cases where they seem unaware of Wikipedia policies. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

1RR is a discretionary sanction, it is not WP:EW - there does not need to be warning regarding the specific editing restrictions on the articles, but there does need to be proper notice in each topic area. WP:ARCA would be for clarification. The point is we have a notice/awareness requirement because even experienced editors may not be aware that DS are in effect in a particular topic area, which I was not.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

An administrator may choose to apply a 1RR restriction to a page under WP:AC/DS, but nowhere does it say that blocking for the 1RR depends on prior notice of every editor. See the material at WP:1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

ADMINACCT

Honestly, I had assumed good faith on this but please show me exactly what diffs constitute a "pattern of long term edit warring" and explain what this means. I thought thought term edit warring had to be discussed by the community and that WP:AN3 was only for clear violations (including gaming the system). My understanding when the block was imposed was that I was nowhere near even 3 reverts, because I did not even know that removing content that had been in the article for eight years could be counted as a revert until you told me. I want a clear explanation of what "long term edit warring" means and which of my diffs you are referring to. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You've asked for a review at WP:ARCA and should make your arguments there. I considered that the diffs included in the AN3 report showed a pattern, though it extended over more than 24 hours. The policy that applies is WP:EW, and there is nothing there about long-term warring having to be 'discussed by the community'. EW blocks can be appealed per WP:RFUB like other blocks and the user can thus get a review by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And under admin account I want to know which diffs and why you thought that. (For example, restoring an NPOV template that should not have been removed?) And no, I have not asked for review of your block at ARCA, and the suggestion that ARCA is a substitute for ADMINACCT is ludicrous. ARCA is regarding an issue that the community as a whole has an interest in, this is about an accusation of long term edit warring and you explaining your decision. It says so clearly at the top of the AN3 page - "for violations of 3RR and gaming the system" - this usually means making 4 reverts in a 25 hour period, or other non-controversial things. Not sanctioning an editor for editing an article. I am trying to assume good faith here, but I would like an explanation.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe that my responses satisfy WP:ADMINACCT. As you would surely know, there are hundreds or thousands of edit warring blocks imposed every year and Armenian Genocide must be one of the most controversial articles on the encyclopedia. You didn't appeal the block while it was in effect, so it's unclear what is to be gained now. If Arbcom agrees with your policy reasoning, they could modify how 1RRs are handled. I don't intend to continue the discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Greeting

Hello EdJohnston: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Thank you! – EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas EdJohnston!!


Hi EdJohnston, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

How does one deal with a user such as this one?

• Swetoniusz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive352#User:Surtsicna reported by User:Swetoniusz (Result: Filer warned)

Some pages in dispute:

• Mary, Queen of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sorry to bother you, but since you were the one to issue the edit-warring warning to Swetoniusz, I thought I should consult with you. I reverted an edit with an explanation, only to be told to "stop demaged this article". I then directed the user to WP:BRD and the talk page discussion I had started, but got the same kind of incoherent nonsense as before. He has already indicated that he sees any interference with his editing (by anyone) as destroying his work. That persistent kind of attitude and incomprehensibility of his comments leaves me wondering how to act in cases such as this. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel tired of Surtscina editions. 1) User many times reverted my editions blindely. He even restored false information in the articel [37]! In the case of Mary, Queen of Hungary he had no argument for the form "Hedwig of Kalisz" using instead of "Jadwiga of Kalisz", even he stated that he wrote about his whole editions. It is impossibly to discuss with someone who reverting me blindly, did not read what he revert and even put false information into article (at least in one). Swetoniusz (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Being tired of Surtsicna's edits doesn't give you a license to revert without having a talk page consensus. Can anyone point me to any talk page discussions that pertain to this edit, where Hedwig is replaced by Jadwiga? EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the rule of Wikipedia that Surtsicna should accepted my editions? First, he reverted me without reading carefully what I checked. Not only in these case. For example in Jadwiga of Poland Wdowiszewski is cited in footnotes as Wdowiszewski 2005. I added the information about his book into references section. I do not why Surtsicna removed these information [38] [39] [40], [41]. Second, as I pointed he even put false information into article. I do not know how to deal with these kind of users. Swetoniusz (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I honestly feel bullied into accepting unhelpful edits by a user who consistently refuses to abide by the simple WP:BRD process. Mary, Queen of Hungary passed the Good Article criteria. If your edit there gets reverted, you are supposed to explain on the talk page why it has merit. What Swetoniusz does is force his change through endless reverting. Not only does he not understand how Wikipedia works, but he refuses to learn. Borsoka and I have asked him to acquaint himself with basic guidelines and policies to no avail. It leaves me completely dumbfounded. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Surtsicna, if an article is called Jadwiga of Poland why should that be piped to Hedwig? Has there ever been a move discussion for this article? EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Because the other names in the article are also anglicized. Borsoka, who worked on it, may have also had in mind that much of the article refers to her before she was queen of Poland (Jadwiga), i.e. when she was only a Hungarian princess (Hedvig). I do feel more strongly about the ancestry chart and much more strongly about Swetoniusz's modus operandi. This is a mockery of WP:BRD; Swetoniusz expects that his change (rather than status quo) should be upheld while its merits are being discussed. He does not allow himself to be reverted or challenged in any way at all, as he views that as an attack on "his work". Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka is not an authority in these case. Swetoniusz (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

And you are, Swetoniusz? Surtsicna (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka said... is not an argument. Swetoniusz (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I said... is also not an argument. An edit is not inherently helpful just because you made it. If someone reverts your edit, you are not supposed to revert back. You are supposed to start a discussion on the talk page and explain why your change should be implemented. That's how Wikipedia works. What you are also not supposed to do is accuse editors of vandalism and trolling simply because they reverted you. That's especially revolting when the supposed vandal or troll is the user who brought the article to a GA or FA status. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, read carefully. I wrote that there are 3 possibilities. Swetoniusz (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC) PS That somebody wrote the article which received GA or FA is not an argument. Editors should be treated equally Swetoniusz (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I recommend that neither of you post here again until you have opened at least one talk thread to get agreement on outstanding issues. For example, Jadwiga versus Hedvig or any of the rest. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a thread: Talk:Mary, Queen of Hungary#Ancestry. You can see how that's going. I contacted you because co-operation with Swetoniusz is impossible. Indeed, a discussion is impossible. Can you honestly say that his comments are coherent? Half the time I cannot even comprehend what he says, and that might even be his goal. It's certainly easier to rant than to be constructive. Borsoka and I acquiesce because do not see any other option. Surtsicna (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 02:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello EdJohnston: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 01:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year, EdJohnston!

Happy New Year!

EdJohnston,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Edit warring report

Hello Ed. Regarding the edit warring report, can you semiprotect Beirut as well? since edit warring and 3RR breaching within 24-hours took place there. Regards - Swazzo (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/94.187.0.0/16. I've begun by blocking two IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: sorry to bother you again, but it seems I've been reverted in Beirut by the registered user I mentioned in my report. As I said in the report, user exhibits the exact same behavior as the blocked IPs. How should this be handled? Regards - Swazzo (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Even the edit summery of one of the blocked IPs in Sidon here[42] states 'Readded' and 'Again' after the edit by the user[43], making it very clear that this is a WP:Sockpuppetry situation. Swazzo (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The naming convention WP:NCPLACE provides a limited role for names in other languages if there is some reason why alternate names might be recognized. The 'official language' argument isn't enough to rule out every alternative. See also Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names. Even the article on French language in Lebanon includes a photo of a highway sign where both the Arabic and French names of a place are given. Unless there is good behavioral evidence why this user is the same person as the IPs, I recommend you follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. And, you haven't yet replied to User talk:Swazzo#French as a secondary limited official language of Lebanon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I thoroughly understand the guidlines regarding the naming convention, but I think it's fair to say that the user exhibits almost all signs of sock puppetry, especially the edit summaries mentioned above. Swazzo (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External Wikipedia assessment of Ed Johnston?

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. Last month you blocked the Brexit page for 6 (six) months, after someone had added his controversial new material to the lead. Now, one month later, the situation has not improved: the controversial lead material has still not been removed despite Talk page requests, the page has not been updated with the "breakthrough" EU conference results in December despite Talk page requests, and despite the page being visited over 5000 times per day on average.

As I mentioned previously to you, Brexit is a huge subject which the few registered editors are proving unable to cover adequately. This seems partly due to vested economic/political interests of the few active registered editors (representing the Irish/German/City of London pro-EU viewpoint), but also due to a lack of language skills among registered editors who, with the exception mainly of Boson (German), seem to command no other language than English and therefore are largely ignorant of the European sources.

I believe the way forward now is to ask an independent Wikipedia editor to review your judgement in blocking this important page for six months. Can you advise us on the procedure how to formally investigate your reliability? Can you also name one or two Wikipedia editors who you feel could testify to your goodwill? I am copying this message to the Brexit Talk page for the benefit of the others. Many thanks, and please do not take this personally. 86.158.154.78 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The reason why the "breakthrough" hasn't been added is because there's no consensus to add it. Protection is working as it should - that is, minimizing disruption on the article by editors who want to modify the article without working towards consensus. See WP:DR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Neil, thanks, but you should put your Brexit comments on the Brexit Talk page. This is a query into the formal Wikipedia procedure of investigating EdJohnston's judgement/reliability. 86.158.154.78 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have copied them there. And there is no "formal procedure" for what you want. You can post to WP:ANI if you think Ed abused his tools but all you're going to get there is a quick close of your complaint by any editor with a clue as it has no merit, looking at the history of the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

86.158.154.78 - I suggest that you read WP:ADMINABUSE.

The first step you need to take is to express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. So far the only concern you have expressed is a content concern. But a content concern is irrelevant to the question you are raising. What matters are behavioural concerns. Do you have a point that you can express in terms of concerns about EdJohnston's behaviour?

86.158.154.78, have you ever registered an account on Wikipedia? If the answer is no, then why not create an account for yourself, edit other articles for a month, and then try editing the one on Brexit?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Toddy1. Your link to WP:ADMINABUSE is exactly what I was looking for. It seems I have taken the right step to talk to EdJohnston first to give him a chance to reply. So let us see what he says, before we take it to the next level. (Do you know anything about this NeilN interloper? - I saw his comment on the Sexual Intercourse article with regards to children in early 2017. He gives me the creeps.) 86.158.154.78 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN and Toddy1: The latest remark from the IP resembles this gem of an edit summary from the ubiquitous WP:LTA/VXFC. Agreed? Favonian (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: Yes, same style, same waste of time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! IP blocked. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (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.

Notice of ban appeal

• Dailey78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I appealed my Ancient Egyptian race controversy topic ban. This is a notification.Rod (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You must be referring to this thread at AE that you just opened. My 2014 comment about your behavior was:

"I don't see any progress regarding the complaints that others have made about your editing previously.

You had replied on my talk page but without explaining your apparent violation of your voluntary restriction. Here is what you said at that time, which was in July 2014. The header of that section was "User Dailey78 has broken his restrictions again".

By accepting the restriction in September 2013, you agreed to get consensus before making changes, but instead of actually doing that, you just went ahead and made your changes anyway. Based on the promise you made at the time, I had written "Dailey78 will wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians" and that was part of the closure of the 2013 3RR report. So, when User:Dougweller pointed out in July 2014 that you weren't following your restriction, I went ahead and formalized the restriction as a topic ban under WP:AC/DS. Your most recent ban appeal was at AE in February 2017. The appeal was denied. When closing, User:Laser brain said Appeal declined. Establish a solid track record of editing peacefully in unrelated topic areas, and then try again in 6–12 months.' I think you haven't done that. The one single edit not related to AE that you made in the last six months is this one. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Chernobog95

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

Hey, it seems that our old “friend” Chernobog95 maybe trying to avoid a 2 month block that was placed on them recently for edit-warring. It seems that they are using a local IP to make edits on various articles relating to North Korea, this is evidenced by the fact that the IP (188.129.26.144) is editing many of the pages Chernobog95 recently edited and is using non-native English on several of those edits. Isn’t sock-puppetry to avoid a block against site policy? SamaranEmerald (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply. It appears this was handled by User:NeilN on 2 January. He put a 3-month block on the IP for evasion of Chernobog95's block. If you are watching this set of articles, please keep me posted if you see more recent suspicious edits. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

More evidence was provided here: User_talk:NeilN#Sock_puppet_of_Chernobog95 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute about maximum extent of the Safavid Empire

Original title was: 'Can you help me out with a potential "edit warring" case?'

Can you please take a look at this page, where I have explained my problem:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoryofIran#Regarding_The_maximum_extent_of_the_Safavid_Empire_under_Shah_Abbas_I.png

The main problems are as follows:

1) The user, HistoryofIran, keeps reverting changes made to several files and articles without giving any explanation. In my case, we have this map:

File:The maximum extent of the Safavid Empire under Shah Abbas I.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_maximum_extent_of_the_Safavid_Empire_under_Shah_Abbas_I.png

I made a correction, on December 30 2017, and removed eastern Anatolia from the map, since this region fell into permanent Ottoman rule, after the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514. HistoryofIran reverts my correction even though I give an reasonable explanation to my correction. He does not give any explanations at all, but just reverts and says "take your concerns to the talk page". The Turkish town, Arzinjan (Erzincan) was under Ottoman/Turkish rule from 1514 undtil 1916 when it was occupied by Russian forces during WWI. The town came back under Turkish control in 1918. The town Diyar-Bakr (Diyarbakir) has been under Ottoman/Turkish control from 1515 until today. These are very simple facts that can easily be accessed. There are lots of sources:

"The defeat at Chaldiran also highlighted and accelareted trends that were defining the character of the Safavid state. Prior to this defeat, the boundaries of the Safavid possessions were beginning to resemble those of earlier Turko-Mongol states. In its aftermath, eastern Anatolia was permanently lost, [...]". The History of Iran, Elton L. Daniel, 2nd edition, 2012, p. 88

2) By directing any change to the "talk page", HistoryofIran is making wikipedia a difficult place to work. According to the Wiki rules, a correction or reversion just requires an explanation. But HistoryofIran is thus complicating the work proces at Wiki.

3) I nevertheless accepted creating a topic on his user page, but because I didn't manage to create it right, he just deleted my topic, instead of reflecting on the content.

4) I then created a new topic on his user page, but then he ended up not being able to give any explanation or refer to any sources. He instead refers to the user, LouisAragon, who accordingly knows better than everybody when it comes to the Safavids. Again HistoryofIran is complicating Wikipedia. First of all, if HistoryofIran thinks that LouisAragon is the owner of these maps, HistoryofIran should stop acting behalf LouisAragon. Second of all, he should right away, as a comment to his reversion, refer to LouisAragon instead of making me create a new topic. This is unacceptable. It is obvious, that HistoryofIran considers himself the "owner" or "guardian" of certain topics, and he spends lots of time preventing others from making any changes to these files or articles.

(Qizilbash (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC))

Hello Qizilbash. You have begun a discussion at commons:User talk:HistoryofIran#Regarding The maximum extent of the Safavid Empire under Shah Abbas I.png. Probably the talk page of the map would be a better place to start than a user talk page. I know that the discussion at Commons has not started out very friendly, but HistoryofIran is one of the few people who might know anything in this area. Since I'm not a Commons admin I can't take any action there anyway. If you want to get more attention to this problem, I suggest starting a thread on enwiki (rather than Commons). For instance at Talk:Safavid dynasty. I retitled the present thread because sometimes talk page stalkers will help out if they see a topic they recognize. I'm leaving a ping for User:HistoryofIran since he is active at enwiki as well as on Commons and he's the person you are disagreeing with at Commons. User:LouisAragon is the editor that HistoryofIran suggested you talk to, and that also sounds like a good idea. The discussion at Commons has an unnecessarily personal tone and I suggest that if you do open a discussion on enwiki you start out in a more cooperative spirit. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. "Qizilbash" seems to be an "user" who only (?!) has an account on Commons and has not made any edits on Wikipedia. Prior to this "event" with HoI, he hadn't made any edit on Commons for about 7 years. To rush in that agressively at a veteran user, for something petty like this, is simply unacceptable. In fact, its very, very odd to say the least.

Having said that, the Ottomans never firmly controlled all of Eastern Anatolia/Western Armenia until the signing of the Treaty of Zuhab (1639). Many parts were re-captured by the Safavids at various moments during the reign of Tahmasp I and Abbas I. For example, Ahlat was back under Safavid control in 1526,(Floor, Willem M. (2008). Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration, by Mirza Naqi Nasiri. p. 140) as well as in 1548.(Bosworth, C.E.; Crane, H. (1984). "AḴLĀṬ". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. I, Fasc. 7. pp. 725–727.) Diyarbekir was recaptured by the Safavids in 1623/24 (Suraiya Faroqhi (2008). The Ottoman Empire. Markus Wiener Publishers. p. 91)

But I know what this nonsense is all about. I have strong suspicion to believe that this is another WP:SLEEPER of Qara xan/John Francis Templeson. See SPI. Alike "Qara xan" and "John Francis Templeson", "user:Qizilbash" only finds himself pre-occupied with a very select amount of users whom "Qara xan/JFT" also extensively targeted, and/or whom are preventing him from making his WP:OR/POV edits. These users are basically only HistoryofIran,[44]-[45]-[46] EdJohnston,[47][48] and Kansas Bear.[49][50][51][52][53]. Notice that "Qara xan" also specifically asked Edjohnston for his opinion about matters involving HistoryofIran,[54] alike John Francis Templeson.[55][56]. And now "Qizilbash" is doing the same. Such remarkable similarity with only a few edits on his curriculum. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

More evidence:

• user:Qizilbash refers to me, LouisAragon, as someone "who accordingly knows better than everybody when it comes to the Safavids".[57] Even though me and user:Qizilbash have never interacted before. Notice how sockmaster "Qara xan" also referred to me in a similar way; similarly, we had never interacted before.[58]
• "Qizilbash" is obsessed with the Safavids, another textbook Qara xan/JFT habit.[59]
• Similar obsession with Turkifying everything ("The Turkish town, Arzinjan (Erzincan) was under Ottoman/Turkish rule from 1514 undtil 1916")[60], John Francis Templeson[61]-[62].

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Special:CentralAuth/Qizilbash has 589 edits on the Danish Wikipedia and some on the Turkish Wikipedia. So you can check some past edits if you are in doubt about good faith. I'm unclear on why he has no user talk page here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas of Ilok

Hello Ed, thanks for your answer. Well, I'm also asking myself what is my concern and at the same time why am I concerned? I didn't invent or make up the name of Nicholas of Ilok (Croatian name is Nikola Iločki), it's not my personal or private opinion, but it's based on sources in English. I don't see anything nationalistic in it. Am I wrong? Regards, --Silverije (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. We follow the preponderance of sources for somebody who is referred to by more than one name. If you are sure your choices are not influenced by nationalism, why does your move log only show you moving things to Croatian names? EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Lio Rush edit war

Hello, I see that you have issued me with a warning as per this edit warring report. I wish to point out a few things, firstly that my reverts did not break the 3RR, I reverted twice and then on two occasions used the 'undo' link to save time while restoring a large amount of removed content but these edits involved adding sources and restoring specific sections of content per discussions that were ongoing. Secondly the admin whose changes I was reverting actually did break the 3RR before my third edit and has gone unchecked for this, thirdly a consensus was reached on the WP:PW talk page regarding the content of the article, which I see has now been reverted yet again by a heavy-handed editor who didn't seem to fully understand or appreciate the situation and presumably sprung into action when they saw an IP account challenging 'experienced' users (FWIW I've been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years). I would ask you to read my comments on the edit war report, understand the edit war report and reconsider your actions here. This isn't about the standard of pro wrestling articles, it's about me attempting to restore content that was wrongly removed by an admin and facing obstruction in doing this from a total of 6 different experienced users, all of whom appear to have sided with the admin without actually reviewing the situation or the content in question. I'm happy to provide further clarification if you're unsure of the situation. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There has been a discussion thread at WT:PW#moves. Do you perceive a consensus there for any of your changes? If so which? The argument that other pro wrestling articles might have to be stripped down if the same standard were applied everywhere isn't very convincing. Plus, WP:BLP provides that challenged material ought to be removed unless consensus is found to support it. The stuff about signature moves was indeed challenged. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any need to establish a consensus for the inclusion of the type of biographical info that was removed by Drmies initially, it's key biographical content that is standard across all pro wrestling articles. Again, look at the content removed in the most recent revert of my changes, it's relevant, long-standing sourced content that was deleted without explanation and presumably in error. I wasn't the first one to revert Drmies changes and the idea that we need to establish a consensus before reverting admin is absurd, also I again point out that Drmies was the one to violate 3RR leading to this situation yet I have been issued with a warning.
As for my conduct, my first two edits were reverts, the third was restoring content with additional sources to fix the BLP issue claimed by Drmies (which I found questionable as only a very small amount of the content he removed was unsourced, but whatever), and my fourth edit was restoring the bulk of the content but removing the signature moves section as per the discussion you've linked. The further discussion there regarding the signature moves section is moot in this case as I had already removed that section from this particular article as soon as Nikki311 took issue with it. None of the other content restored was questioned by either Nikki311 or Drmies and the edit war report was filed by a different user over an hour after the issue had been settled.
Again, please take at look at the changes that were reverted. I perceive there to be a very strong consensus for including sourced biographical info about the performer's career because, you know, that is what Wikipedia is. And just to make it clear this isn't my content, I'm not sure I've ever edited this article before, I was restoring long-standing sourced info that was removed by an admin who, based on his edit summaries, did so because he didn't seem to understand the nature of the content found in this type of article and wrongly dismissed it at 'trivia'. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"key biographical content that is standard across all pro wrestling articles" doesn't sound like a reference to any actual Wikipedia policy. It sounds like an argument against applying the WP:Reliable sources policy to pro wrestling articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the content was fully and reliably sourced and has actually now been restored by a different user. It would help if you actually looked at the content in question at some point. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:

1. The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
2. There was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.

Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

1. They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
3. In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
4. In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
5. In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

Belated best wishes for a happy 2018

^{The Fox Hunt (1893) by Winslow Homer, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.}
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Abbatai 11:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

3RRNB

• Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, it appears you made an error here He was already given a notice by me, but continued reverting, then he was warned by an admin, and still continued reverting. So he was already warned, and now a block is called for. Otherwise, you're giving him a free pass and enabling him to edit-war again. A warning here means the process is a waste of time and, the next time he does it, it will be treated like a first offence, which it clearly won't be. If there was ever a glaring example of edit-warring and total dismissal of the rules, this was it. Please reconsider. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 19:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that he's been officially warned, it doesn't go back to zero. *Any* further revert is blockable. If the war continues, let me know or file a new 3RR complaint and link to the first one. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't take another revert. He should've been blocked when the report was filed, right after his 4th revert in as many minutes, the last one coming after a warning was posted to his talk page by an admin. You even edited the report shortly after it was filed, you could've, and should've, blocked him then, and you should be blocking him now. There is absolutely no reason to give this user a free pass, and expect other editors to have to monitor his behavior and go through the hassle of filing another report if/when he flagrantly defies the rules again. This is why you have these extra tools. Why is this user exempt from the rules here? - ^theWOLFchild 22:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Why should STKS91 have been the only one blocked when you broke 3RR as well? Each side appears to have a defensible case on the ship displacement, but it's undesirable when a person with 94 edits goes on a crusade to 'fix' something. Since you have more experience, I would hope you'd be the one to take the case to another forum before going past 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed this post. This is why I asked you (or any admin) to look at the article talk page. His first edit (and possibly his second) had no source. I was reverting him for removing sourced content for original research. When he finally added a source, it did not even support his edit, so again he was removing sourced content for original research. (acroterion only warned him, not me btw) It's not only disruptive, but tantamount to vandalism. Aren't we supposed to remove vandalism? Can we be blocked for protecting a page against an edit-warring vandal? That's news to me. It would be interesting to see how you would justify blocking me and not him, so why don't we dispense with the threats, go block the actual edit-warrior and put all this to rest? I just want to see that report actioned properly, the way it should've been. - ^theWOLFchild 03:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Doing this is a good way of getting yourself blocked for disruptive editing after Ed declined to also "enforce policy" against you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:52, 23, January 2018 (UTC)

Wow... so you're threatening me now? And where did "Ed decline to enforce policy against me? I'll need a diff for that. And what policy? Pfft!... unreaal. Blatant and unapologetic edit-warrior gets a free pass, and the editor that took the time to try and steer him right, patiently trying to engage him, giving him options, posting comments with links to policies, then finally spends the 15 minutes or so fill out the 3RR report, just so you, (and, yes... you too Neil, you were active on that board last night at the same time and did S.F.A.), and Ed here can give the guy the a free pass; "edit warring? No problem! Go tear up as many pages as you like! It's block-free-Sunday here on Wikipedia!". Of course I'm going to follow up on this ridiculous failure of administrative oversight, and when I do... you threaten to block me? Nice. You guys are doing a real bang-up job here. No wonder this project is slowly sinking into the toilet. If you aren't going to use the tools for the reasons they are meant to be used, the reasons they were given to you and you accepted them, then turn them in. Unbelievable... The edit-warrior gets a free pass and the guy who reported him gets threatened. What a fucking joke. - ^theWOLFchild 02:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild, you didn't notice that you broke 3RR yourself? What did you expect to happen? EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I only reverted STKS91 three times. Then another editor reverted him after that, and I was here filling out the report. What did I expect to happen? I expected you, or Neil, or any other admin that was here, (I know acroterion was watching) to see that the report was a straight-forward 4RR that even had the guy doing the 4th revert after being warned by an admin, and do what you're supposed to do... block him. Why is that so difficult? Why are we still belaboring this? Just block the guy and let's be done with this. - ^theWOLFchild 02:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You previously reverted an IP here about the same issue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, the ip user that was basically vandalizing the page. He switched a value in a convert template that had a source attached to it, trying to give the misleading impression that that the source supported his edit. Of course I'm going to revert that. You should want me to revert that, not be trying to use it days later as some tenuous basis to suddenly block me for... well, not edit warring. Because if you were to give out blocks for edit-warring, then STKS91 would be blocked already, like he's supposed to be. So that just leaves this here... my comments. You and Neil now threatening to block me because I dared to criticize you and your failure to act when you clearly should have. Seriously? Surely you guys are above that sort of abuse? Instead of, for some strange reason, trying to justify why you would block me, why don't you just acknowledge that you had no reason not to block STKS91, and just do it now? Why are we still going on about this? I'm the guy that filed the report. You're the admin. Neither of us should have to be dealing with this kind of grief. Just block the guy already and be done with it. I'm sure we all have better things to do. - ^theWOLFchild 03:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You are not exactly listening, and I have nothing further to add. Admins are not required to block when they think it's not the best action. If edit warring continues, you know how to report it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sosnowiec article fiction in administrators noticeboard

Now your blockade is reported in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sosnowiec_article_fiction --83.10.5.144 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Declined as a content dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#Sosnowiec article fiction. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting page protection

• Serbian army's retreat through Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• 91.148.77.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston,

Requesting page protection for Serbian army's retreat through Albania. In the space of a few hours IP 91.148.77.61 has been vandalising the page [63], [64], [65], [66].Resnjari (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotected, but you should be prepared to discuss the matter on the article talk if the IP does so. The term 'vandalism' seems incorrect. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the Semiprotection. With the IP other editors suggested that they take it to the talkpage [67] and they haven't, were warned via 3rr due to their edits [68], also they gave no reason for their repeated edits. Usually in those contexts such editing behavior meets criteria of WP:VD, and also breaking 3rr.Resnjari (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

He's not trying to make the encyclopedia worse and therefore it's not vandalism. Might be POV-pushing but it's too early to tell. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

He broke 3rr, other editors would not hesitate to refer editors in such instances for a sanction. I preferred this course of action. If the IP has concerns he should raise them in the edit summary or if they feel strongly about it further elaborate in the talkpage, as other editors do so to maintain good faith. Neither action has been done and the onus does not fall on other editors to guess their concerns or editing motivations. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic IP

May I ask you please to protect Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. IP-hopping revert warrior: 5.172.255.101 a.k.a. 5.172.255.250 disrupting multiple pages. Much appreciated. Poeticbent talk 08:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Another dynamic IP edit warring

Please semiprotect these articles. Yet another IP hopper is making life unbearable for a number of editors there: The Holocaust in Poland‎, Bełżec extermination camp‎, Treblinka extermination camp‎, and Blue Police (see his summary there [69]). Much appreciated. Poeticbent talk 15:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This has been dealt with by other admins. See the range block; several pages are now semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks for reverting

..also, note that AndresHerutJaim, (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim) has been active on the page Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories recently, with user Kordovak, and IP 181.90.241.52)..... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration CA notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#SECTIONTITLE and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Seraphim System (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Negotiation skills

Re: this edit, where does one go about improving negotiation skills on Wikipedia? It's not that I've never been in a content dispute before, I just don't have much experience in the area of conflict resolution and am not quite sure where to start. Sro23 (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Try taking a WP:3O request. Substantial involvement in a talk page discussion is good too as is showing and helping new editors with the ins and outs of talk page participation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User:PersianFire

I saw that you blocked User:PersianFire for a day for edit-warring at Tawakalna ala Allah Operations. However I believe you missed his edit wars at Iraqi Air Force article, where he's been edit-warring to remove sourced content on the premise that Los Angeles Times is very unreliable.[70]. A closer look at his edits over the years shows that his edits were blatantly POV-pushing pro-Iranian, anti-Iraqi, at battle-articles of the Iran-Iraq war. Typically he falsely exaggerate the number of Iraqi troops, decrease the number of Iranian troops, then adds massive boosterisms with respect to the performance of Iranian troops. He also deletes reliable sources, changes content supported by sources, add synthesis. And he at times even add irrelevant unrelated book sources that regular Wikipedia editors can't verify easily, to back his false original research.--Kkkakp (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me know if the problem continues after his block expires. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for removal of redirect

Hello! I put in a request for consideration on the Gravity Payments page that the Dan Price redirect be made into its own page and hadn't heard back, so I'm contacting you here. Apologies if I should contact someone else! He seems notable on his own, as most of the news and recognitions surrounding the pay increase- both negative and positive- seems to have focused on Dan Price as a person, rather than the company. Almost all of the interviews and national news appearances centered around him. I have a draft of a proposed page on my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BeekeeperRed/sandbox. BeekeeperRed —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Unclear if there is a case yet for a separate article on Dan Price. At present, the name Dan Price redirects to his company, Gravity Payments. The redirect has been fully protected as a result of the 2016 edit warring case, so it can't be made into an article yet without further steps. If you desire a separate article you should establish a talk page consensus first, for example at Talk:Gravity Payments. In practical terms, does it make much difference? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

So I put something up on the Talk:Gravity Payments page, but haven't gotten any response. Sorry if I'm a bit new, but is there something else I should do to try to establish a talk page consensus? BeekeeperRed (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Gravity Payments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

With no responses to your proposal, there isn't yet much of a case. Consider leaving a note for User:Northamerica1000 and User:TechnoTalk, since they have made some prior content additions to the article. Personally, I don't see much point in having a separate page on Price. Much of the material in your sandbox (including the $70,000 salary floor) is already included in Gravity Payments. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw that I was just pinged. I created the original Dan Price article, when the news hit that he was offering employees a minimum $70,000 salary. This was where I left it: [[71]] If it was submitted to AfD, it would be a keep. Unfortunately, several editors, identified as being from Seattle, started to add puffery and caught the ire of Lemongirl942. To punish them, she and Grayfell took turns turning this into a redirect. I reverted the bold moves and asked for a discussion on the talk page. Turning the article into a redirect needed to have consensus, and not be simply punitive. Also, Price is more notable than his company. If anything, the company article needed to redirect to him. All the coverage is about him. He was recognized by President Obama, and named Entrepreneur of the Year by Entrepreneur Magazine. Price's brother's lawsuit against him made news for months, in addition to the $70,000 salary policy. I reverted the redirects multiple times but each time asked for a proper discussion since I knew the redirect was an emotional knee jerk decision and the notability argument was on my side. I was accused of edit warring. It's all in the edit history. There's no way the article would be essentially deleted without a more extensive consensus if there weren't COI editors involved. Price is clearly notable. Ed was uninvolved and saw my name brought to the administrator's noticeboard, with a report filed by Lemongirl942. Ed saw all the reverts (mine and others), likely quickly lumped me in with the other puffery editors, and gave me my first and only editing block, and now I have a permanent black mark on my profile for my troubles:[[72]] You're welcome to try to repost the article, but this was redirected improperly and accompanied by a punitive block when I tried to rectify things, so your success is anything but guaranteed. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to add your opinion to the thread at Talk:Gravity Payments. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Details about the 3RR.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The 3RR from September 2016 was closed based on the pattern of reverts, which can be viewed at the edit warring complaint. Reverts are voluntary and it is hard to disclaim responsibility for a plain 3RR violation. The discussion thread at Talk:Dan Price indicates some real COI problems, though it offers nothing specific about you. User:Lemongirl942 is a longtime editor and she often comments on matters at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The actual decision was based only on the 3RR violation. The only thing a 3RR closer might have done differently is ask you to respond before acting on the complaint. Due to the need for quick action, this doesn't always happen. Blaming others for an 'emotional knee jerk decision' (per the above) while edit warring yourself isn't too persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Lloyd George

• David Lloyd George (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A year's semi-protection? I don't see anything in the recent history to justify that. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be watching the article since you've done some vandal reverts. Do you think complete unprotection is the way to go? EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I do have the article watchlisted, and am a regular editor of it and contributor to the talk page. I do not see the need for any protection at this time. The two IP edits today could be put down to 1) a not-much-more-than-usually rubbishy spell checker, and 2) someone not knowing the plural of crisis. Most of the other IP edits this year appear to be either constructive or at the least good faith but misguided. DuncanHill (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment at User talk:Murraydaw

Hi Ed, I saw your comment at this user's talk. I wanted to point out that for several days now, I've been trying to get a discussion going at Talk:Aharonov-Bohm effect#Latest information on the A-B effect, but have thus far met with no response except continued edit warring from what is coming more and more to resemble a position of onwership. For what it's worth, my version of the edit (which was heavily re-worded from the original to add attribution and dry out the language a bit) is still live in the article, so Murray may be happy enough to leave it as is.

But I'm concerned about the WP:BITEing that went on as well as the impression I'm getting that this edit will be opposed for whatever reason can be imagined up to oppose it. I've seen multiple, bad-faith accusations against the new editor and multiple refusals to discuss the issue.

Xxanthippe first reverted the addition with a bit of a pithy edit summary which is not, itself, problematic. When the new editor reverted back, Xxanthippe accused them first of inserting content based upon as-yet unpublished material, then accused them of trolling when politely asked about the disagreement at their user talk. Then, a few days later (for no apparent reason) edited their own comment to add an accusation of sockpuppetry to it. At the article talk, XXanthippe then accused Murray of engaging in original research, despite Xxanthippe's obvious prior knowledge that this content was sourced. XXan then went on to claim that the source needed to acquire "100+" citations before we could use it, a claim that I (having edited in the science as well as in highly controversial pseudoscientific subjects) find to be frankly, ridiculous. Darkness Shines (who may be indeffed but not over their understanding of content policy) also seemed to find this notion remarkable.

As of now, there seems to be a complete refusal to engage. I've commented at talk four times in addition to (as I mentioned above) re-writing the and re-inserting the contested content, and have been met with a stony silence, while Xxan responded to SarekOfVulcan's comments (materially similar to my first) by apparently suggesting that even 100 cites might not be enough. Xxan is clearly interested in this discussion, as their posts to other pages shows. The whole situation is disturbing, precisely because it's a dispute that could go either way. I've explicitly stated that I, for one, am open to discussing whether or not this information is WP:DUE (and gotten no response, of course). It's not like this is obviously accurate, POV-changing information that some ideologically-driven editor feels they must oppose at any cost. The behavior I've witnesses is just completely inexplicable.

Anyways, I'm sorry for the long post. But I think, since you've gotten involved in what seems to be entirely your capacity as an admin (as opposed to Sarek, who got involved in the content discussion, however briefly), I think you might want to take a closer look at what's going on and perhaps try to encourage a bit more discussion and a bit less drama from Xxanthippe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The claims of OR don't seem correct. You may be aware that this is an obscure topic that takes a lot of background to understand, even for people who know some physics. If somebody just finds two refereed papers, notices that they are about the A-B effect, and wants to add them it doesn't sound like very deep reasoning. Do you know how to set up an WP:RFC? That might be the simplest option, if you want to help resolve this. I've replied at User talk:Murraydaw#Need consensus. User:Xxanthippe gives the impression of knowing something about the physics, judging from prior discussions on Talk:Aharonov-Bohm effect, though their answers to Murraydaw were a bit heated. It is understandable that Xx might react harshly to somebody who comes from nowhere to advocate two specific papers, while not revealing any detailed knowledge of the A-B effect, or at least, none they have disclosed so far. Any real discussion ought to shake this out. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel like an RfC would be an overreaction. Xxanthippe has already posted some notices to relevant wikiprojects, so I guess we can see if that draws any further input. I just don't want to see Murray -whom I would bet money actually works in physics, based on their writing style and approach- driven away from WP by this experience. And this experience seems like exactly the sort that would drive a new editor away, especially one with any expertise. Having edited in subjects in which I'm an expert myself, I know how frustrating it can be to have good edits opposed by editors who simply lack the knowledge to understand them.

I'm a fair hand with physics -for a layman- myself, and as such I have a good idea of why the claims in these papers are worth including here. Seeing them being opposed for what amounts to made-up excuses reminds me a great deal of my past experiences, even though I agree with you than Xxanthippe seems to be perfectly capable of understanding what's being said by the edit in question and the implications thereof (there are implications, but without a secondary source to elucidate them, they're not documented in my version of the edit. You can check the article history to see where Murray touched upon them in his version). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeated Russian POV edits by User:Szerbey

Hello. You warned the user here but to no avail, since they're still going at it, making the exact same edit again on one of the articles they're active on, even after being warned, and showing they're not here to build an encyclopaedia, only to push Russian POV... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Query

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

Hi Ed, can you let me know whether this restriction is still in place? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

After a bit of research, it turns out that Md iet's topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra was fully lifted in June 2017. I updated the DSLOG so it won't be so hard for me to figure out next time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. He and another account have been causing problems re: FGM/Dawoodi Bohra. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Ford Jr. No drug charges

• Doug Ford Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed, I noticed you very understandably assumed there were drug charges. There were never any charges or arrests whatsoever...yet now we have the Blp protected with a big section smearing this guy from some alleged high school activity while he's in a 2 month race for the political leadership of a province with 13 million residents. I do not know why Nixon Now and Ivanvector or anyone else wants this in any Blp, I do not get it, but please do what you can about this since you were asked to protect it and assumed there were drug charges you can relate to how our readers can also come to this inaccurate assumption. Thanks, Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: Is there a reason why you haven't commented in the RFC and are instead lobbying an admin? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, consider joining the discussion at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report. The information comes from a reliable source, and it doesn't appear to be a BLP violation to include it. So it comes down to editorial judgment as to whether it is important enough to include. When something comes from a WP:RS it becomes harder to refute. See also a comment from the editor of the Globe about sourcing for the story. If any other publications have disagreed with the Globe, that information might be added. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

) I'm a slow typer and can't keep up with you guys...Yes, I just got back online and was really surprised to see the protection having been requested by Ivan soon after Nixon Now reinserted the content for which an Rfc was just begun....I am going to comment there now, however, this protection with this content...please read it yourself, Neil....is really, really offensive to our Blp policies or at least the spirit thereof, what do you think? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: I have more concerns with your seeming desire to hide this information just because the subject is now running for office. I looked at the article history and the info was added almost four years ago. Many editors have worked on the article since then and the content doesn't suddenly become a BLP vio just because the subject may have a higher profile now. As Ed says, it's a matter for editorial judgment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Try making your BLP argument on the talk page. I notice at least one source which now says 'there are unproven allegations that he was a drug dealer in the 1980s', though they don't explain the basis for their doubts or say whether they did their own reporting. You could search around and see if there are more sources that are skeptical have given an opinion or reported any interviews on the topic of his possible drug dealing, whichever conclusion they reach. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

ok Ed, will do. Thanks, sorry to bother you with this. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Vlachs in the history of Croatia

• Vlachs in the history of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New huge vandalic edits in Vlachs in the history of Croatia made by Zoupan. He really want to finish with the Vlachs. This editor erased 30% from this page !!! Who will stop this Wikipedia exterminator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.182.148 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Nationalist editors from former Yugoslavia

• Vlachs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Morlachs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hasanaginica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear editor, There are a lot of vandalic edits (see Vlachs, Morlachs and Hasanaginica pages) of some nationalist editors (Staszek and Zoupan) who deny the Vlach minority existence and heritage in Western Balkans. (They erased a lot of references in Vlachs including the gallery of funerary monuments attested by several references) . There are too much references about the Vlach minority heritage (I saw 15 references in the talk page of Vlachs). The nationalist editors try to deny the Vlach heritage and they bring only original research. Probably is a campaign of nationalist editors. I found this lines: The cultural heritage of national, ethnic and religious minorities as well as stateless communities in the 20th century in Europe was doomed in many countries to assimilation, persecution and even oblivion. Such minorities are often faced with the situation in which their heritage is rapidly vanishing, which is caused by a lack of general care. The heritage of minorities, including the one of the Vlachs,is not infrequently passed over in silence in official national discourse.

Europe has politics of minorities cultural heritage protection. Why administrators from Wikipedia accept vandalic edits of nationalist and extremist editors? Why Vlach minority references are rejected ?

Me and some activists of Vlach minority in Europe set this message to other editors because Wiki is little by little transformed in a propaganda platform and not a scientific one. 86.124.182.148 (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If you believe you see 'vandalic edits' please link to some of them. Have you edited any of these articles yourself? For example, are you the same person as 86.124.160.242 (talk · contribs)? EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Nationalist edits

Next lines show vandalic edits of two editors:

Article: Morlachs

article about minorities in Croatia: they desperately try to mitigate the existence of Morlachs (there are 3 references about the Croatian Census)

Lengthy post
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Editor Staszek: (cur | prev) 19:39, 28 February 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,902 bytes) (-584)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 86.124.160.242 (talk). (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 17:39, 28 February 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,902 bytes) (-584)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 79.112.117.211 (talk). (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 17:42, 26 February 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,902 bytes) (-567)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 93.122.250.112 (talk). (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 19:22, 22 February 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,137 bytes) (-944)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Riadder (talk) to last version by Zoupan) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:03, 14 February 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,876 bytes) (-592)‎ . . (→‎top: there is no Morlachs in the census) (undo) Editor Zoupan: (cur | prev) 06:21, 25 February 2018‎ Zoupan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,137 bytes) (-944)‎ . . (Undid revision 827526379 by 93.122.251.75 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:10, 22 February 2018‎ Zoupan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,124 bytes) (-1,333)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 06:55, 15 March 2018‎ Zoupan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,773 bytes) (-129)‎ . . (→‎Legacy) (undo) Article: Hasanaginica They try to eliminate the word Vlach/Morlach. Italian Fortis discovered this ballad in Morlachian land as is stated in the article. Again they deny the Vlach/Morlach existence and their heritage: (cur | prev) 19:14, 24 February 2018‎ Zoupan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,694 bytes) (-1,370)‎ . . (rev. POV-warrior) (cur | prev) 17:56, 2 March 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,680 bytes) (-1,965)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 86.124.160.242 (talk) to last version by Staszek Lem) (Tag: Rollback) Article: Vlachs They try to eliminate the Vlach heritage (testified by 15 references) cur | prev) 06:45, 15 March 2018‎ Zoupan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,376 bytes) (-937)‎ . . (Undid revision 830498336 by 79.112.45.135 (talk)) (undo) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 11:33, 11 March 2018‎ Zoupan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,376 bytes) (-937)‎ . . (Undid revision 829858969 by 79.112.45.135 (talk)) (undo) (Tag: Undo (cur | prev) 18:07, 7 March 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,388 bytes) (-815)‎ . . (→‎Shepherd culture: rm repeated sentences) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:52, 7 March 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,192 bytes) (-878)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 86.124.160.242 (talk): Rm gallery. Nothing new. Belongs to commons. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 20:14, 5 March 2018‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,192 bytes) (-878)‎ . . (→‎Gallery of Vlach funerary monuments in Bosnia and Montenegro) (undo) Article Vlachs in the history of Croatia (cur | prev) 07:10, 5 March 2018‎ Zoupan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (79,691 bytes) (-416)‎ . . (→‎Slavic Vlachs: User:Crovata has seriously misinterpreted sources or outright OR (Šarić p. 357, Roksandić p. 21)) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:10, 5 March 2018‎ Zoupan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (79,258 bytes) (-414)‎ . . (more faulty citation identifications, translations and conclusions) (undo)

It is impossible to read something about Vlach minorities because of these vandalic and nationalist edits. The two editors offer OR against references! 93.122.250.94 (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me that all these IPs are being operated by User:Riadder, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riadder. Since socking is against policy, I am prepared to use semiprotection on any articles where the Vlach war is likely to continue. Previously I had semiprotected Vlachs and now I see that User:AlexiusHoratius has put semiprotection on Hasanaginica. You have posted now on several admins' talk pages, which seems to constitute admin-shopping. For example User talk:Titodutta#nationalist editor and User talk:AlexiusHoratius#Hasanaginica and nationalists from former Yugoslavia. The editors you are accusing include User:Staszek Lem, User:Zoupan and User:Crovata. Your charges of vandalism have no merit. The topics you are warring about are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC, and your actions appear to be conventional nationalist POV-pushing of the kind that the sanctions were designed to prevent. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Julián Moreno again

There will be some way to include this name to some spam list or something like that ?. Now a new ip has appeared that insists on adding this name in telenovleas, in which an actor with this name has never appeared, for example here. I had mentioned this to you before, here.--Philip J Fry / talk 19:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked an IP and semiprotected Las vías del amor. That is at least a start. Perhaps it is worth restoring the rangeblock on Special:Contributions/37.157.222.0/24 which was in place for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I hope this works for now. Anyway, thanks for your help .--Philip J Fry / talk 20:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Olonia and his IPs

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

Can you please permanently block 193.206.177.144, he continues edit warring and personal attacks.

I opened a sockpuppetry investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/193.206.177.144Crook1 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears that User:NeilN has blocked the IP for 72 hours. We don't usually block IPs indefinitely. And your SPI is a bit unusual -- you are filing it under the IP's name, even though you think User:Olonia is the same person. Usually we prefer a registered account as the master. Since the IP has been editing Italian destroyers since January 2016, it appears to be the same guy working long term on the same subject. You might ask User:NeilN if he would consider a longer block of the IP. Possibly as much as one year. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for one year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Renewed attacks by socks of Marios2134454

Hi Ed. Can you please delete AEK Rugby League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the latest article created by the newest sock. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marios2134454. Thank you. Dr. K. 20:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Already done by User:Malcolmxl5. Since the page has been repeatedly created I've applied create protection. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ed for your help. Take care. Dr. K. 00:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Guy you just blocked edit warring with a new IP address already

At Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kirsty_Gallacher Special:Contributions/94.118.53.218 admitted to being the same guy. He also admits to being Special:Contributions/94.118.34.131. Can you block that article and others he keeps using different IP addresses on to get around blocks? Dream Focus 20:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotected Kirsty Gallacher one month. Can you link to where 94.118.53.218 admits to being the same person? I wish there was a list of IPs somewhere that could be him. There was an SPI but it got deleted; maybe this gives reason for starting a new one. Having some IP edit wars shouldn't distract us from our interest in creating well-balanced articles that don't sensationalize. Especially in cases where it's a fairly short article to begin with. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

New IP blocked. [73] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Where he says Only I didn't start "cutting out large amounts at once", rampagingly or otherwise. There were four separate edits. So that shows that IP is him, and then he links to edits he admits to doing previously, and with those linked to edits you can see it is the other IP address I mentioned. Dream Focus 22:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:1408:E600:599D:6C71:4B14:672C which has been blocked 48 hours by User:NeilN. Presumably this is yet another incarnation of User:Hillbillyholiday. Earlier I had blocked Special:Contributions/2a02:c7d:781c:a200::/64, also a Sky Broadband address from the UK. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The dress (viral phenomenom) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The dress (viral phenomenom). Since you had some involvement with the The dress (viral phenomenom) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MZMcBride (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for this stupidity. There's absolutely no reason a deletion discussion is needed here, other than some bizarre unwillingness to just speedily delete this redirect. Sigh. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

See RfD discussion. This redirect contains the misspelled word 'phenomenom' which seems unlikely to be used by chance, so I wouldn't object to its deletion. The wording of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#R3 does not make an obvious case for an R3 speedy. For example, 'recently created redirect' doesn't apply to a redirect created in 2015. So if an admin looked at a redirect tagged with R3 and didn't think that R3 applies, I'd recommend they take it through the full process. I wouldn't favor G6 for this one because that is really, really supposed to be a technical deletion. (Wrong namespace may be technical but wrong spelling would not be). EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

IP 172.251.100.84 again

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

Hello, I come because, the user 172.251.100.84 has returned to the same thing again, and what he does is ignore the messages, it is really a waste of time to leave messages to him. However, now an account has been created to continue.--Philip J Fry / talk 06:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Notified the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Now blocked one month. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Swetoniusz's sock puppet

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

Hi, EdJohnston. We've already established that Swetoniusz has no intention to learn how cooperation works on Wikipedia. After being blocked, he returned with a sock, Jarowkci. Can we put an end to this? Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the two editors are obviously one and same. Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Both editors were blocked at SPI per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swetoniusz. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Problems with Spshu at MGM Television

• Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NewYorkActuary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• King Shadeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MGM Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey. Sorry to bother you. Perhaps you and/or @Bishonen: can try to resolve this. This has been going on since last week at MGM Television. Basically last month, I've added some sources about MGM Television's foundation and all of a sudden, Spshu called himself messing with the source I've added by adding a .PDF document on the page where on American Radio History's site strictly said "Do not link to search pages for Wikipedia citations. These pages are not static and change often." And according to the site master, he said "On the list of search results the Issue Date "1951-01-17-BC-OCR-Page-0012" is the link to an issue containing your search terms ub YYYY-MM-DD and page order. Click on any link to view the actual page." Now I've been using that format for four years so there would be no confusion or violation. So Spshu called himself edit warring me "again" and then NewYorkActuary got involved in the matter. you can check this out. I've just about had enough of this crap, dealing with Spshu always trying to edit war users to have his way and I'm about to hang the towel up editing here! I can't deal with this mess anymore! Can either one of you PLEASE do something about this?? King Shadeed April 2, 2018 23:12 EDT

@King Shadeed:, it looks as though your edit here makes reference 7 be non-clickable, since you took out the URL from the reference ("C. Pete Jaeger Appointed To Post With New MGM-TV"). Is this what you intended to do? When others reverted your change, they put the URL back. I notice that you discussed this with User:NewYorkActuary at User talk:NewYorkActuary#Broadcasting. In that discussion it's hard to figure out what you are advocating. If you truly believe your approach to making references is better and you intend to revert again you should use WP:Dispute resolution. Maybe this is a case where people don't fully understood each other. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't take the URL out when I first added that. King Shadeed April 6, 2018 01:46 EDT

Your response is puzzling. Are you saying that you didn't remove the URL? EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for AEK Rugby League

An editor has asked for a deletion review of AEK Rugby League. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 5.144.219.199 (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? I don't see a deletion review, and you have never posted at WP:DRV. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

3RRNB

• Closure

No, I'm not here to complain about your close. If anything, I should thank you for finally closing it (after 6 days and 8 other admins visiting at least 26 times, closing 18 reports filed after that one), so 'thank you'. I realize that after that long, semi-protecting the page was just about all you could do.

But I would like to ask, do you know why that report sat there unaddressed for so long? It was a straight-forward 4RR vio, and the reporter wasn't even involved. The user was warned, the other party tried discussing, so it seemed like the report was called for. Was there something wrong with it that I missed? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Neither IP was notified of the filing of a 3RR complaint. In a borderline case, the person may respond and then the admin may get a better idea of what's going on. But if they don't know about the report you won't get a response. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, shit... I forgot. But, that was it? That's the reason every admin ignored it? There's got to be a better way of dealing with situations like that. A head's up or something. Edit-warrior skates on a technicality, it's like the courts. Anyway, like I said, thanks for finally closing it, and at least taking some action, and for the reply. I'll make sure I post the notification next time. - ^theWOLFchild 19:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

When I first saw the report, I couldn't figure it out. I thought you were claiming that the two IPs were reverting each other. Assuming there was a plain 3RR by the first IP, starting at 11:37 on 3 April, it could have been better to mention that and leave the second IP out of it. Usually sock cases are harder to sort out than 3RRs. My guess is that admins at the 3RR board start with the complaints that are either very blatant or very simple. The others may have to wait. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I replied already in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I replied already in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring a comment on my talk page wasn't neccessary since I'm active and I constantly check for any new reply there. I did 3 reverts, not 4, since the 1st one you counted was an edition, but not a revert. We both did 3 reverts, but we took the right way and presented it there, we just want arbitration on the case, well, I want it, I never presented it to block no one. I see out of the way any kind of block either on me or himself since we apport a lot of nice things to the Wiki, and this is not something common. I just wanted some arbitration since that user says it's using a "no flag policy" yet after I added all of these flags, just the Spanish one was consciously removed, and not one but 3 times. So that is no way a "no flag policy" but an action to remove that only flag, since the others were left (and I added them all) so that's why I wanted some counseling here.

Please, remove/undo this edition as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_Country_(autonomous_community)&diff=835782915&oldid=835753457 since it's an already blocked sock account the one which did this, and it was removing my changes (reverting them) since neither me or Akerbeltz changed it but this user did it. I'm ok with your conditions btw, but please undo this edition I posted here since that account was clearly made yesterday to put more wood on the fire. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey EdJohnston, can you please revert the last edit of Depotverge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (the blocked sock) on the page Basque Country (autonomous community)? Thanks! --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't plan to revert this edit. Consider using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Holbach Girl - More than a month of Disruptive edits on Rob Sherman article

Hi EdJohnston,

Hope you are doing well today. Appreciate you helping me in the past very much.

In the Rob Sherman article, there has been a disruptive editor (User:Holbach Girl) who has engaged in very disruptive editing since February 28, 2018 til today still. She made some major changes to this article and has been reverted by 5 editors multiple times since then and told to discuss the changes on the talk page to reach a consensus BEFORE adding stuff to the article many times over and over since her edits are disputed. See the article history log [74] for how many times and editors have reverted her.

She has been re-adding her edits on the actual article multiple times when editors have been discussing her edits in the talk page to try to reach a consensus and negotiating with her. Again see the article history and talk page log. To be more precise, she keeps on ignoring the fact that no one has supported her edits and in fact two editors (User:1990'sguy and User:Sdmarathe) have said that her additions are not an improvement (i.e. the article was better organized and worded before her add). It looks like they were on their way to reach some agreements as of yesterday, but she still persisted in re-adding her disputed content without discussing the content on the talk page.

5 editors so far have informed her about WP:BRD in the article talk page [75] or the article edit summary over and over and she still keeps on re-adding without reaching a consensus (as seen in the article history log [76]).

She has also been warned on her talk page for edit warring on April 12, 2018 [77] by User:MBlaze Lightning but she has simply deleted the warning from her talk page to cover up that she has been warned about edit warring. See her user page history log [78].

This is constant bad behavior on her part really disrupting too much and she is not taking other editors seriously. She even accused me of making up rules when I quoted WP:BRD procedures, which she is not following at all.

Can you please assist with this situation? Any help would be appreciated. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Reported at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Holbach_Girl_reported_by_User:Capitals00_(Result:_) Capitals00 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the help very much. Added some context on the situation there for some clarity. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've also added some less-skewed context on the situation. I won't repeat it here, but the salient points can be summarized here: My edits were article improvements, not disruptions. Yes, 5 editors joined in to revert every little improvement I made, without giving substantive, actionable reasoning why, with the exception of 1990'sguy. 1990'sguy was the only person to engage with me on specific content matters, but as soon as I addressed his objections, he went silent for weeks, taking the only content discussion voice with him. He only to re-appeared just yesterday to say he was too busy. I've followed Consensus. The fact that I've also followed the Consensus guidance on "common sense" reverting, and reverting after a "reasonable amount of time" has passed without further actionable objections, seems to have upset Huitzilopochtli1990. Especially when I informed him I would no longer be wasting my limited editing time on the Sherman discussion tab responding to his page after page of rule-twisting without a single word of input from him on content improvement. I just don't get Huitz's role in all this; he does sweeping reverts 3 times without discussing them; he demands that I wait "a few days", then changes that to "a week", and then when I realize I'm being played for a dupe and complain, he runs here.

Of course I do not want to be blocked, and will comply with whatever necessary to that end. Holbach Girl (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edits were not "common sense", and the article history shows you did not wait for a consensus. I tried twice to reach a consensus, adding some of your changes while respecting my very strong objections to your article reorganization and bloated wording, and I offered to look through again fora compromise -- you reverted all three times 100% to your favored version. Also, based on your comments, you appear to have little to no interest compromising to my objections on the reorganization and bloated wording (the things I feel most strongly about) in exchange for your information additions. Ramos explained WP:BRD and disruptive editing to you at least three times,[79][80][81] but you appear to have "not heard that" when you commented at the AN3RR noticeboard.[82] His actions are perfectly reasonable. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Holbach Girl: Another admin has now taken a simpler route by closing the 3RR report with a week of full protection. I don't see how you can claim consensus when literally nobody agrees with you on the talk page. If it turns out that you can't persuade them, you should take your efforts elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wars involving Bulgaria

Hi EdJohnston. It might also be a good idea to protect Category:Wars involving Bulgaria since it also was being edited by the same IP 141 hopper. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotected the category. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. FWIW, I believe the IP is probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources/Archive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your weigh in on the Needtobreathe complaint / added protection! Appreciate it. Best, MJJ

MikeJonesJones (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Socking?

In your summary at the 3RRN discussion related to my reverts at Needtobreathe you mentioned sockpuppetry in passing. I didn't see that raised in the discussion, but I had some concerns about it. What led you to consider it was happening or even mention it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The person who filed the 3RR had not edited the article. Also check out the consistent editing stance of the four or five red-linked user names you see in the history since March 1. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Unprotection

• Super Mario Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous discussion

But they're fully move-protected even though I can edit them. Plus, the pages were protected, due to persistent IP vandalism and page-moves. They're protected over 6 years. Super Mario Guy (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a particular move in mind? EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really, I think it's because of page-move vandalism and the protecting admins aren't active. Super Mario Guy (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You asked several different admins for unprotection. Nobody took any action on your requests, probably because they don't make sense. As User:Courcelles stated at RFPP, "No good reason to unprotect has been offered". Some of your edits suggest this may not be your first Wikipedia account. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

ARBPIA tagging

• James Zogby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, i noticed that you tagged and protected the article James Zogby under ARBPIA sanctions. The article however doesn't contain a single word on Zogby's relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only distantly related thing is his Lebanese Arab background and support to Hezbollah, which is an Iranian proxy. Just support to Hezbollah and its activities are not a warrant to install ARBPIA sanctions - Hezbollah is not so much a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but rather of the unrelated Iranian-Israeli dispute. If anything perhaps SCW&ISIL sanctions are relevant if any. What do you think?GreyShark (dibra) 07:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I can see arguments for both sides. You have stated that Zogby supports Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is an obvious part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Zogby is said to have supported Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, which is also an obvious part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. (Our BDS article has the ARBPIA banner on its talk page). Maybe User:Malik Shabazz wants to comment here because he is one of the people who believes that ARBPIA should apply to Zogby's article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Zogby may not have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, but somehow editors concerned about one side of that conflict find themselves vandalizing his biography.[83][84][85][86] I don't know enough about the BLP and American politics sanctions, but maybe those are sufficient to protect the article without the ARBPIA sanctions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The diffs you have cited do suggest the presence of POV-pushing related to the Arab-Israeli conflict on Zogby's article. So the ARBPIA designation appears justified. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Nakasone/Rogers

Regarding your comment here, it looks like a new account may have been created to continue the edit warring. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've left a 3RR warning at User talk:Markfletch though nothing prevents you from using the same message if you believe it is justified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Roger and thanks; I was concerned that it looked a lot like a sock was being introduced to continue the EW. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

After Fan4Life's restriction from the now-fully protected No Tears Left to Cry...

• Fan4Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ariana Grande discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

...They're just edit warring elsewhere, on Ariana Grande discography. It's a recurring pattern with this user. They've already made four reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4 Ss112 19:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Fyi only -- the user has started to edit again, calling out users for "ignoring consensus" while ignoring your inquiry on his talk page. I concur with User:Ss112 that this is a recurring pattern with this user. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalic edits on Vlachs page. Editor User talk:Zoupan erased 1200 bytes. There are explanations in Talk page: References about the Vlach origin of the funerary monuments (stecci). The editor erased too many references. It is a clear case of vandalism. By the way, Aromanians is another name of the Vlachs and our editor tries to manipulate the readers.

(cur | prev) 21:46, 8 April 2018‎ Zoupan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,189 bytes) (-309)‎ . . (→‎Shepherd culture: Winnifrith speaks of the Aromanians, not shepherd culture.)

(cur | prev) 21:13, 8 April 2018‎ Zoupan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,498 bytes) (-907)‎ . . (→‎Shepherd culture: see talk)

79.112.2.77 (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Riadder. There have disputes about the Vlachs some weeks ago. I've replied to a previous report at this talk thread. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need

I saw that you warned this user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that he is "warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Communist Party of the Soviet Union or at the Communist Party of China unless they get prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. He is clearly playing games and back at revert warring, this time at Workers' Party of Korea [87].Miacek (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The article, if you had read it Miacek, has renowed scholars accusing the party of being far-right. Read the text @Miacek:, but you havn't have you? --TIAYN (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. 1) the article has the following statement "According to Myers, North Korean military-first policy, racism and xenophobia (exemplified by race-based incidents such as the attempted lynching of black Cuban diplomats and forced abortions for North Korean women pregnant with ethnic Chinese children) indicate a base in far-right politics (inherited from Imperial Japan during its colonial occupation of Korea) rather than the far-left."... There are many others who hold that view. I'm keeping the infobox in line with the article. If you had read Talk:Workers' Party of Korea the discussion has been ages ago Talk:Workers' Party of Korea#Left/Right?, Talk:Workers' Party of Korea#Socialism ideology and Talk:Workers' Party of Korea#Edit war, Talk:Workers' Party of Korea#Ideology... again & Talk:Workers' Party of Korea#Far right, Talk:Workers' Party of Korea#Ideology... I actually know what has been going on in that article, @Miacek: clearly hasn't.

If I were you, since you're a big shot, I'd remove ideology and position from infoboxes. People go crazy over that shit. Easier to just have it in the lead. No one goes crazy over the lead. You would have saved WP from a shitstorm if you did. --TIAYN (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

So, you are warned for edit warring, and your response is to give a content argument? The people you need to persuade are your fellow editors and it seems you haven't done so. If you want to update all the leads of ruling communist party articles, consider opening a discussion at a central place. For example, ask one of the WikiProjects listed at Talk:Communism, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood EdJohnston. The consensus is no position there. Miacek reverted back to non-consensus... Again, I ment every party infobox. Not just one-party state but all parties in general. --TIAYN (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

To say it in more refine language. Whats the point of consensus if it always changes when no ones looking? --TIAYN (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Question, can you protect the articles Communist Party of China, Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Workers' Party of Korea. if you check the history of these articles there are often edit wars and many uninformed edits.. I'm thinking the same degree of protection as the China or the Soviet article. That you have to be a user of a certain amount of standing. This won't help me currently, but would make those articles way more peaceful. --TIAYN (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

New Generation Rollingstock

• New Generation Rollingstock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi ED, I'm not sure how to raise this further because I'm relatively new here but I've added my photo of the new train on its first journey and 4TheWynne keeps changing it to suit their own agenda. The image has been published in a magazine so there's absolutely no disputing that it is my own work and not the work of the sock puppet he has been accusing me of. I'd like to have him reprimanded for his non-constructive behaviour if possible. Thanks, Mick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmp1184 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you link to any previous discussion? You seem to be a brand new account, and I don't recall how I'm connected to this issue. Also, socks of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/LukaRuckels have been active on this page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ed, have a quick look on the wall of my talk page. That’s the conversation I’m referring to and how you’re involved. I can appreciate there is some sock puppetry but I’m not involved in it as I’m a well known and respected contributor to Railway Digest. I made one change because a number of changes are on the horizon once my article is published (I’m writing it now). Jamesmp1184 (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Md iet

• Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muffizainu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, are you willing to reimpose a topic ban on Md iet, either from edits related to FGM or the Dawoodi Bohra? You banned him from anything to do with the latter on 30 November 2014 under ARBIP, because of Dawoodi Bohra/FGM edits. You modified it in October 2016 so that it applied only to articles, then NeilN lifted it in June 2017 after Md iet appealed at AE.

He continues to cause problems. He wants to call it something other than FGM, or advocates for a "compromise" to decriminalize a minor form, or changes the name of the Dawoodi Bohra sect that practises it. Examples of edits since January to FGM: [88][89][90] and Talk:FGM: [91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100] Changes FGM to "female genital cutting" at Dawoodi Bohra: [101] Calls it "religiously virtuous": [102]

I warned him in December and again in January. Apart from the advocacy, there is also CIR. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, for giving me a chance to know my intentions. Let me assure you that by now I know my obligation to Wikepedia after guidance taken from you. I have tried my best to adhere to Wiki guidelines and never tried to edit war and started discussion on talk page on edit even removed unexplained.

As far as matter on FGM, I myself against the practice which is followed in the way at present jeopardizing the health of many children due to condition prevailing. Please examine all the examples cited above, I have never tried to re impose my edit if deleted once and immediately taken it to talk page, if I was not convinced.

I am blamed for 'wants to call it something other than FGM', which is never my intention. FGM will remain FGM. I Change FGM to "female genital cutting" at Dawoodi Bohra: [103], this was again as per wording of citation provided. The reference cited there have restricted them selves to word phrase "female genital cutting", khafd or khatna with Bohra and used FGM to refer general topic. FGM word still exist in the para which I never tried to remove. My intention was not to hide FGM but report the specific matter as per reference provided .This edit is not disputed by any other and still persist.

I am also blamed for advocating "a "compromise" to decriminalize a minor form". Please ref example [104][ cited above , where a technical Paper: "Female genital alteration: a compromise solution" by: Kavita Shah Arora,1,2 Allan J Jacobs3[105] was discussed. This is not to support FGM, but support helpless children who are victim of the system and forced to unhygienic conditions, till we eradicate the practice in toto.

I am also blamed for changing ‘ the name of the Dawoodi Bohra sect’. I have changed the Dawoodi Bohra to Bohra as there are citation available which describe it a traditional practice continuing from 12 th century. DB came into existance in 1561 Ad, and there are other Bohra exist in India claiming to be real Bohras. When this edit was undone, I have never fixed it again and fare discussion with proper citations is still going on at Talk.[106]

I have never called FGM "religiously virtuous" as blamed. To complete the discussion referring Quran, views of religious scholar well cited in genuine references was added by me with proper citations. The edit still persist.

Talk page is provided for discussion and most of above examples are of talk page discussion where my wording are courteous based on proper citations and not with intention of advocacy. Edit done by me in the articles pointed as above had fare citation, no edit war was there and, never forced my edit.

Although I have given explanation, you are the best judge on the matter. I have tried my best to be sincere to Wiki guideline but ready to streamline further. After removal of my blockage most of my edit (1900 counts) are live and hope to be helpful to viewers.Md iet (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

References

• Md iet's position seems to be that there is something called FGM, which he opposes, and something else that the Dawoodi Bohra do that is not FGM but something so radically minor that it is entirely unobjectionable. But in fact what the Dawoodi Bohra practice is Type I FGM, and reliable sources refer to it as FGM, e.g. [107] Md iet seems to work in conjunction with a similarly minded account, Muffizainu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One or the other have been almost continuously active on Talk:Female genital mutilation since August 2017. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SV, to make me clear what I think about FGM. Please let me explain my position with due permission from ED:

- FGM in its complete sense and formats is definitely a thing which nobody should encourage and try to eradicate as early as possible. - FGM involves religious sentiments. Women are most sensitive to religion and it is very very difficult to make them understand. - In spite of hilarious efforts millions are still affected and many many out of which are in developed countries. - The issue has become more grave and inhuman because children are forced to go into hands of nonprofessional in very unhygienic conditions' - Solution only is to educate the mass in friendly manner taking them in confidence, without hearting their religious sentiments. - This definitely is a long process hence in between do not create condition that parents and their children vulnerable to face horrible situation, and situation remains in control.

SV further remark me of thinking Dawoodi Bohra's FGM and it's objection ability. FGM is defined to be having different types starting from very minor to very major. But when we are discussing FGM of particular section, group or community, it need to be more specific and presented in user friendly manner to get effective solution as I presumed above. Regarding objection ability who I am to declare it entirely unobjectionable. When any form is defined by mass as FGM, definitely there are some objections, which needs to looked into.

I have made my view points and intentions very clear. As I am declared as DB and blocked indefinitely once with confusion on FGM topic only I do not want any further complications.

I respect Wiki and want to follow it's guidelines religiously. FGM is such a issue affecting many that FGM activist do not want to hear any thing unpleasant but some one can always feel that for effective overall improvement of health of children some unpleasant way also to be adopted.

Being declared DB, I voluntarily promised SV earlier to put my comments on talk page only if it is related with FGM. I am very sorry that I could not resist my self to put in things which were just well published research (how come some one object on neutrality) and some matter which were not confirming to citations ( clear cut WIKI guidelines).

I further promise that I will will not add any thing related with FGM on any article directly. If required I will put my views on related talk page, discuss them in friendly manner and if there is consensus, I will request SV to include the matter in her perfect professional manner. I once again apologies for not keeping my promise made with SV earlier, and making ED in trouble to come in.Md iet (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Chiming in after having been summoned to check Md iet's edits. I will not shed a single tear if the previous topic ban were reinstated. This user is--dare I say--obsessed with "family" trees and charts full of unsourced synthesis pushing the Da'udi Bohora (maybe even his own) POV, such as at Sevener with no less than three diagrams (2 in-text, 1 navbox at the bottom; another if you count the sidebar) basically showing the same thing. After several template versions of such messy family trees were deleted through TfD discussions, Md iet moved on to even worse PDF versions (see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 11#Chart spam). Those are inherently not easily editable by anyone but the original author and thus go against the spirit of "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Time and again this user has shown a lack of the necessary competence (neutrality, source assessment, language, to name a few) to edit in line with Wikipedia's quality guidelines, leaving a mess for others to clean up/revert. You would say that with almost nine years of Wiki experience, an editor should be able to produce at least at an acceptable level. Well, I am not seeing it. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Hyper for your kind assessment of my work. I know that you are dead against my "messy" family trees but I have messages from enthusiastic viewers who have liked my pdf versions of chart and they themselves utilized them for pointing out their sect position amongst Shia family. There are many version available of Shia family, but family chart with different color and tree format make people very clear looking them at a glance. Collective PDF versions list prepared by you have many such files which are live, surviving from months together and, must be visited by many viewer. Their survival still is self explanatory. Earlier I was mixing sects with Imam in template format, your objection was very much right and many of them were modified/deleted as per requirement. I very well know I am very weak as editor, but if people like you don't guide/support weak links then how Wiki will grow. Thanks again to make me aware of my weakness.Md iet (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've found Md iet a "Family Tree enthusiast" whose edits need to be checked under scrutiny since they're highly promotional. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Family tree is just a family tree how come it become promotional. I have just concentrated on Shia group and tried to make one chart specific to one group, covering all the major sub group of shia and groups related with Ali. Alevism chart(File:Imam chart-ali.pdf) has covered sects and person related with that group, how come it has become promotional. In Family tree of Ali#Descendants missing name of descendants Imams are added then how come it is promotional. If something is unusual and covered in excess or some material is left out can always be corrected and improvement can always be done.Md iet (talk)

• Ed, I saw this pop up on my watchlist and figured I should chime in too, but this behavior is typical, during the last topic ban all that happened was that the disruption moved to other areas of ARBIPA, as well as copyvios -- I don't know if that's still the case -- and finally Bishonen had to step in after RegentsPark and I were at our wits' end. I don't believe that a narrow topic ban will resolve anything, it'll just move the disruption elsewhere. —SpacemanSpiff 14:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

In case the ping didn't work, I've left a note for User:Bishonen. Other editors who have any interest are also welcome to comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a case of year 2016, when I just thought that the name "Bharat" so common and one of original name is missing in the article of India itself is not good for a neutral Wikipedia. I just tried to initiate discussion for it. When I came to know that it is an old issue and there was resistance for it. I immediately withdrew and really speaking, now I had to refer to link pointed above to know why Spaceman is here and how am I related.

I am bit surprised to have all this information pouring in suddenly. There is no 1R or unfair discussion done by me in recent past still case as old as of 2016 are being reminded and comments coming for my inputs which are still live for days/weeks/months together, hopefully acceptable to others. ED, I have clearly explained every thing I have. I have full faith on you as well as Wiki guidelines. I may be a weak editor but I am a fan of wiki and will remain sincere to wiki and assure you of my fullest cooperation whatever you decide.Md iet (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, the ping worked, Ed; I was just a little overwhelmed. I believe Md iet needs at least a topic ban from FGM plus Dawoodi Bohra. They promised Sarah "voluntarily", per their post above, to only put FGM material on the talkpage, and then couldn't resist, after all, actually putting it into the article. For this they are now apologizing, and again making promises: "I further promise that I will will not add any thing related with FGM on any article directly", etc. Well, you know what they say about fooling me once and fooling me twice; I'm completely against accepting another voluntary promise of any kind. A formal topic ban, enforced with blocks in the usual way, is needed IMO.

I'm further worried about a couple of things, though: first, the Spaceman's remark about Md iet's disruption moving to other areas of ARBIPA during the last topic ban. Disruption and POV-pushing that persistently waste the time of volunteers are perhaps the most serious matters that we as admins have to deal with. @SpacemanSpiff: are you implying that a topic ban from the whole ABRIPA is needed? If so, could you give some examples of why?

And finally, there's the other user mentioned by Sarah as working "in conjunction" with Md iet, Muffizainu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). SarahSV, do you think there's a sock/meatpuppet situation? What can we do about it, if so? Bishonen | talk 18:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen, thanks for your comments. Interesting question about the two accounts. The writing is very different, so I don't believe it's the same person. The arguments are somewhat different too, but they amount to the same thing.

Like Md iet, Muffizainu's focus seems to lie with the Dawoodi Bohra. Most sources use the terms female circumcision and female genital mutilation interchangeably to refer to the same set of practices. Muffizainu argues that female circumcision refers to the removal of the clitoral hood only, and that it ought to have its own page (a POV fork). Note his requesting a citation for "Female genital mutilation ... also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision", and removing the redirect at Talk:Female circumcision. The World Health Organization calls removal of the clitoral hood FGM Type 1a and says that it is rarely performed alone; circumcisers who claim to perform Type Ia may actually be performing Type 1b, removal of part of the clitoris too. (Dawoodi Bohra women have confirmed that they've experienced both Type Ia and Ib.) The WHO position, Muffizainu argues, is just one position among many.

Md iet seems to oppose FGM but argues that, although FGM harms children, we harm them more if we don't find an effective way to stop it, and one effective way would be to accept that the less dangerous forms may take place, preferably under medical supervision. We should keep an open mind, he argues; it should not be banned or criminalized. Further, restricting non-MEDRS sources in the medical parts of the FGM article is like "restricting thoughts". For examples of his arguments, see [108][109].

Pinging Johnuniq, who has interacted with these editors, in case he has anything to add. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you asked what can be done about this. Ideally, a topic ban from anything to do with FGM for both, and a topic ban from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra for Md iet because of CIR, although as others argue that might shift the problem elsewhere. I haven't looked at Muffizainu's non-FGM edits. To what extent, if any, they're collaborating, I can't say. I've noticed only that one or the other, or both, have been active on FGM talk since August 2017. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding issue of family tree and promotional part, people are interested in them and actively participated to make them more effective, for example:[[User talk:Md iet #Turkistan Alevism]], User talk:Md iet #File:Imam chart.pdf etc.

There was doubt shown that "it'll just move the disruption elsewhere", the comment ( in Arbitration enforcement action appeal) from the one of uninvolved editor: "Support entirely lifting the topic ban: I have never edited these articles or had any interaction with Md iet. But I have seen his editing on different articles such as India and I appreciate the attitude of Md iet, that he has shown significant improvement in his editing. He knows now when to continue the discussion and when to drop it. Capitals00 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)" tells almost a different story.

Regarding FGM I am not involved much and very little to contribute as there is mass movement going against it, but banning me from DB will definitely harm my intentions of making DB related article more informative. I may be hard to convince but never tried to over rule Wiki guideline since lifting my earlier ban. DB article got involved because of FGM, and if I am banned from FGM related matters, this will automatically cover DB FGM, hence no CIR. It is my sincere request again to not to ban from DB at least and reserve the right to ban me immediately without any further discussion on first complain on any of issue.Md iet (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Bishonen, the disruption at India, and then instances (some still not cleaned up or even identified) of copyright violations that happened during the previous topic ban are examples. Of course, SarahSV's more recent examples are far worse, and the family tree spamming that's going on. Most importantly this is an attitude problem that borders on CIR issues, taking any mildly positive feedback as glowing tributes to justify their disruption elsewhere, as is seen by the single out of context positive quote above. I think we can deal with the broad scope proposed by SarahSV now, and I'm sure we'll be back to discussing add ons to that soon enough, no need to hurry on that. As for the socking, perhaps you and SlimVirgin may want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Md iet/Archive. I have no idea on this particular instance but there are confirmed socks with only partially similar behavior in the archives. —SpacemanSpiff 04:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

About the feedback that he got on his family trees: I would like to point out that all those comments of interest came from two IP addresses which clearly belong to the same user, but editing from different locations (home, work, university) in the same metropolitan area. Just look at their article edit summaries: both tend to enter strings of wikicode as edit summaries. So no Md iet, please do not make it look as if entire groups are supporting your edits when there is only one person posting neutral feedback. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Spaceman and Hyper are trying to dig whatever things they may get from my past/present. My intentions are positive and pointing toward more freedom and liberty to have positive outcome. My initiative at India article was to highlight 'Bharat' which is a original word generated from own land. Being Muslim no body can question me of promoting Hindutva etc. I feel proud to make India feel proud, but there are vested interest which are very against it. When I noticed I withdrew. Gurgaon city near Delhi is now Gurugram, who could do any thing, but if this alternate was suggested before actual declaration, there would have been many Spacemans. Similarly in case of FGM also there are some hopes to make condition of sufferer somewhat better, but all takes time. Regarding family tree my intention was to create one family tree of one Shia group such that all the smaller groups and their leaders are depicted simultaneously showing their position amongst overall Shia family. This will make all groups cohesive. I have highlighted Alevism, highlighted Kaysanites, highlighted small group of Pamiris and even Progressive Dawoodi Bohra having few tens of thousand members. Where is promotion of DB. In family tree of Ali, missing links of Ali's real descendants Imams are pointed out, how come it is DB promotion. In doing all there are some mistakes, omissions and over covering, which always be corrected due to beautiful Wiki systems, let it be pdf files.

In doing all there are circumstances when I may have troubled a lot or wasted valuable times of others but for positive reasons. I have learnt a lot and eager to learn more. I am proud of my contribution to Wiki and more than 90% of my contribution is live. I have stream lined the Fatimid historical sequences getting mixed up . Hidden Ismaili Imam names were never clear. Travel of them to Tunisia and mixed up of personal involved their was never clear. Sulayhid queen Arwa and Asma were having two articles but both of them mixing each other and non of link were proper. All of these have helped Wiki viewers definitely and I definitely would work further to improve them with all of your cooperation.

All of above confusion is due to over enthusiastic approach taken by me on FGM at DB. SV has not reverted them and I thought that I am doing acceptable editing. The only disputable point with DB and outside DB were related with FGM and Succession of Dai. The second Dai claimant is already dead and nobody is now further interested in remaining activities. FGM is only left out issue and now feel that I am still not competent enough to handle this complicated issue and take self styled topic ban from FGM. Regarding DB I have made my intentions very clear , now decision is with you all and I will abide.Md iet (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban from anything to do with FGM for both Md iet and Muffizainu (who Sarah alerted about discretionary sanctions for both gender-related disputes and IPA back in March), plus a topic ban from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra for Md iet. Bishonen | talk 14:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

I am still not able to understand that if I have done a such a hilarious crime of doing correction at DB on FGM (as to match citation put in there), how come the edit is live on Wiki still, even after weeks together. Md iet (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ed, do you have any thoughts about this? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am concerned that User:Md iet may not be able to edit neutrally about Female genital mutilation as it applies to the practices of the Dawoodi Bohra. The only way to ensure that Md iet doesn't go over the line is to impose a ban from Female genital mutilation across all articles and talk pages covered by WP:ARBIPA. This would still allow Md iet to write about the Dawoodi Bohra so long as he doesn't mention FGM either in articles or on talk pages. This would be on the authority of WP:ARBIPA. It seems that his earlier promise to only post his FGM changes for review on the talk page didn't last. His usage of family tree charts has been criticized above and I don't see him taking any of the criticisms on board. If he continues to ignore feedback about the charts then a ban from all of WP:ARBIPA is the only further step that would do the job. I'll hold off on that so long as he waits to get consensus before adding any more family trees. I'm notifying Md iet of this proposed closure. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Ed, thanks, but he needs to be topic-banned from FGM entirely, not only as it pertains to the Dawoodi Bohra. This edit (edit summary: "real issues"), for example, is incoherent and has nothing to do with the Bohra, even if that's what motivates him. This talk-page edit asks that we use a tiny-minority medical source that wants to decriminalize certain forms of FGM and call them something else; again, no mention of the Bohra. Having to deal with this is time-consuming, especially when he joins forces with Muffizainu. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• If you think he needs to stay away from FGM entirely, it needs to be either a voluntary ban or a community ban. There isn't an arbcom sanction that applies to all of FGM. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's a problem with the DS system. Before that existed, admins regularly applied topic bans instead of blocking. FGM falls within the gender DS too, but he hasn't received an alert about those, so he can't be sanctioned under them. Okay, a topic ban from FGM as it applies to the Bohra will have to do. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• I support this essentially final warning about his problematic family trees, provided that he gets consensus/help at a high-level venue, such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I hope this will help him finally realise what is and what is not appropriate for Wikipedia's quality. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Per Md iet's agreement on their own talk page, I have logged a voluntary ban from the topic of Female genital mutilation at WP:Editing restrictions:

Md iet (talk · contribs) has agreed to abstain indefinitely from all edits on Female genital mutilation on all pages of Wikipedia. This is a voluntary ban but can be enforced by blocks.

The ban can be appealed any time after 2018-11-11 at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

66.186.97.26

• 66.186.97.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

Thank you for blocking this IP address. I Just wanted to let you know that they appear to have a very long history of vandalism and have been blocked in the past: [110]. Normally a short block wouldn't be a problem, but they have also vandalized as recently as April 2018, so a shorter block may not keep them at bay for very long and they'll just return back again to continue vandalizing after the current block expires. With that being said, would you consider a longer block duration (at least 1 to 3 months, ish...)? Thanks. 110.175.83.162 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to a six month block since the previous was for 3 months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

User:Dougweller: Received, thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Repeated addition of Tamil scripts by User:Visnu92 without consensus

Hi there. It seems that User:Visnu92 is continuing his addition of Tamil scripts in other Malaysian-related articles, such as at the Church of the Immaculate Conception and the Goddess of Mercy Temple articles. Not only were the edits done without consensus, the Tamil scripts did not make any sense at all. For example, why would a Chinese temple need a Tamil script if it bears no significance at all to the Tamil community? These edits are a repetition of his past disruptive edits, which to an edit war some time ago; I highlighted this issue to you at the time as well. Hope you could look into this, as he has violated our dispute resolution without initiating any discussion. Thanks. Vnonymous (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that both users are involved in this edit war and zero attempt has been made to discuss this. Please see discussion on ANI. Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at WP:ANI#Repeated addition of Tamil scripts by User:Visnu92 without consensus, where I have left a comment. The use of Indian scripts in articles has been discussed elsewhere, for example in Bollywood films. I don't recall where I saw the prior thread. If memory serves there is a guideline for those films. This might not have applicability to Malaysian temples, but it would show what arguments have been given elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I just came across the Indic script discussion: See WP:NOINDICSCRIPT and a 2017 RfC about usage of Indic script in infoboxes. You would need to check if either of these would apply to temples in Malaysia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Needtobreathe - Protected Page

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

Hi Ed, Mike here. You recently stepped in on the long-running dispute that appeared on the band page for NeedtoBreathe. Your protection extends to June, yet the user who has misused edits with multiple instances of sock puppetry, has updated the page to his preferred genre preference with the note: per discussion on talk page. In further exploration of the talk page, no conclusion was drawn to support his approval to make this change. The previous revision held per your protection was supported with a reliable source and citation. Will you take another look into this? Would appreciate your eyes on this and offer your expertise on if this persistency is valid. MikeJonesJones (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The genre change to Christian rock was made by User:Walter Görlitz, who says 'per discussion on talk page'. If you disagree with this genre you should make your arguments on the article talk. There is currently a section at Talk:Needtobreathe#Christian rock 2. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's ridiculous how often you and others have given WG a free pass when he clearly violates edit warring, not getting consensus, disruptions. manic reverts, article ownership, harassment, vandalism, not discussing topics on talk pages, not following your own advice to stay off articles, sock puppetry, etc. History shows clear disregard for rules yet he doesn't get warned or blocked. That sets a bad example and causes Wikpedia to lose all credibility. Instead, your solution is to block IPs. That doesn't remedy his bad behavior. Tsk tsk! 2600:1702:1690:E10:2DEA:E2A9:22CC:5BCF (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr IP, the thread at Talk:Needtobreathe#Christian rock 2 is waiting for your comments. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

• Borama Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EELagoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Linkjan2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user whose edit I reversed has never previously edited the article and they reversed multiple edits of mine without explanation. Why is that considered acceptable but my revert is not? I did post on the talk page as you said. Does it mean even if another person edits the article, I will have to get consensus before I can reverse it regardless of the edit? Take a lot at the initial edit I made, the first source says Borama, Somalia in the footnote however it's changed to Borama, Somaliland on 31 January 2016. Many of the articles I've reverted are similar in nature. Regards. EELagoon (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The point is, not to look into the history, but what to do going forward. You are capable of abstaining from further edits that lack talk page consensus. That's what you should do. If you will agree to stop making these edits you may be able to avoid a block. If the other person is behaving as badly as you say that will quickly become evident. It is not up to you to restore order single-handed. I will notify User:Linkjan2014 that they are being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Linkjan2014 and User:Ciiseciise007 have already been blocked before and have a history of disruptive editing and they are employing the same tactics again. It's a privilege to edit the pages and I should be allowed to continue to do so. None of them have tried engaging in the talk page yet I am the one being told to abstain from editing, I mainly edit Wikiproject Somalia so what edits do I need to stop because a lot of Somalia pages can be characterized as lacking consensus? For instance if a user including those mentioned were to undo an edit I made and I reverted it again, would I be blocked for edit warring regardless of the context? EELagoon (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's my intention. If you revert again without a talk page consensus you may be blocked. You can only control your own behavior, not that of others. If you make a serious effort at WP:Dispute resolution, that is bound to pull in other people. What those other people may say in the discussion will reveal their intentions and tell us something about their neutrality. If you participate with good intentions it will reflect well on you, and set a standard that others may be expected to live up to. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston going forward I will attempt to build consensus for my edits. I reverted EELagoon's edits because this user was using a source from 2005 for population and also he was editing territories in defacto Somaliland to Somalia when it is clear to any impartial observer that these territories are administered by defacto Somaliland. It seemed to be very biased edits, as populations of cities were drastically decreased, and control of airports, ports and cities and towns which were clearly controlled by Somaliland were falsely represented as Somalia. There was also no consistency in this users edits, not all towns were edited, only those inhabited by certain clans were affected, leading me to believe there was tribal motivation behind this users edits.

Nevertheless, I promise to stop the edit warring on my side. My last block was a misunderstanding of the rules on my part, you'll note I was unblocked within 24 hours. I think my edits show that I have contributed a lot in my stay on Wikipedia, and I hope I can continue to do so. I don't think the ban should be reinstated as I immediately heeded your warning and stopped the edit warring. I await and will accept your decision either way. Thank you for notifying me of this discussion.

Linkjan2014 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move for Chandrakanta and brahmarakshas Shastri Sisters

Ok thanks but are you going to still rename it or stay VarunKhurana326 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

After seven days an uninvolved person will close the move discussion at Talk:Shastri Sisters#requested move 21 May. That will decide the question. Your arguments are so wide of the mark, it suggests to me that you should wait for more Wikipedia experience before you propose new article titles. You don't seem to understand the answers that the others are giving you in the move discussion. So you are just likely to end up frustrated, rather than having a worthwhile accomplishment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok so they will close the discussion by this Sunday then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

How to become an administrator

• VarunKhurana326 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just wanted to add another thing how can I become an administrator for Wikipedia VarunKhurana326 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ADMIN. But my own suggestion would be you should consider working at another Wikipedia such as the Hindi Wikipedia. Due to the topics you have been working on my guess is that you already know Hindi. If you can't understand what others are saying in English-language discussions that will present an obstacle to your work here. Your move log looks erratic and suggests to me you should not be doing these moves. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No I think you got it all wrong I don't know Hindi. My language I speak at home is English and my other language is Punjabi. I'm just saying that I used to watch tnese shows with english subtitles and just saying it is more professional. Don't get rude or anything because I have not had an arguements with any other user I was just voicing out what is right. Thanks once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Admins need to be able to tell if the problems you are having will come to an end soon. (We are protecting not just you, but others who will need to work with you in the future). If English isn't a problem for you, would you consider reading through WP:COMMONNAME and see if that page answers any of the questions you have been having at Talk:Shastri Sisters#requested move 21 May? If so, think about whether you would like to withdraw your move proposal. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No thank you I don't want to withdraw I just wanted to change the names to it's full names because it says it right there on it's article Shastri Sisters — Chaar Dil Ek Dhadkan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't I be able to move the article name my self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) @VarunKhurana326: Please state clearly if you've read through WP:COMMONNAME and understand the policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have read though the policy thanks but I'm not withdrawing though still— Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@VarunKhurana326: Then please apply that policy (not your personal preference) when discussing article titles. For example Oliver Twist is not located at the full title of the novel. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you are insisting on pursuing the move even though you have been advised by multiple experienced editors that the move would violate a Wikipedia policy, a policy you have read, without being able to offer a specific reason why the policy doesn't or shouldn't apply to this article? Candidly, that doesn't sound like admin material to me. General Ization ^Talk 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not withdrawing it thanks I'm not being rude saying it nicely Why are you all getting rude for (by the way its not an arguement— Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If you think that comment is "rude", you are not at all prepared for the process of a formal RfA. General Ization ^Talk 19:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok what do you want me to do then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@VarunKhurana326: Sign your posts. You've been given instructions on how to do so. If you can't follow them, then I will take it as meaning you won't or can't follow simple community norms. 2) The more WP:IDHT behavior you display, the more blunt responses will become. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK I am withdrawing it ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh and what about VJ Andy other vj's ie Bani J has its full name article Gurbani Judge. I wanted to rename it to VJ Andy. Can you give me advice or help for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I assume you meant that you wanted to rename the article to Anand Vijay Kumar, since that is the (unsourced) full name appearing at the article. There are five citations at VJ Andy. None of them refer to the subject as "Anand Vijay Kumar" (in fact, none of them support that being his full name) or even "Andy Kumar"; all refer to him as "VJ Andy". That means that (unless you have multiple other sources to cite to show otherwise) "VJ Andy" is very likely the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, and hence that is the name that will be used here. General Ization ^Talk 20:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Found a source http://www.tellychakkar.com/fun-zone/did-you-know/did-you-know-about-bigg-boss-contestant-vj-andys-real-name. This might help — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. In fact, that source makes it pretty obvious he is professionally and best known as VJ Andy, and not by his birth name (otherwise, the article you cited would be pointless). And one citation does not overcome five that refer to him only by the name currently in use as the article title. (However, it might indeed serve to source the mention of his birth name in the article.) General Ization ^Talk 20:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(Apologies to Ed for spamming his Talk page.) General Ization ^Talk 20:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Vignette (road tax)

• WP:AN3

Thanks a lot for your IP hopping comment. I can't help that my ISP changes my IP address every 24 hours. I never tried to hide that I'm the same person. You'll see that when my first IP number changed I wrote here that it changed so that people don't assume I'm trying to pose as multiple people. 86... was someone else.

Also, obviously it's not your job but if you would can you please explain why is my addition here WP:OR? I've even quoted the parts of the source that verify the statement. 78.0.246.100 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I gather there is no possible way you could use a stable identity here. Use the article talk page to try and get consensus for your position. You believed that "Switzerland's vignette is the most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers" but the source article doesn't actually say that. Our rules don't allow very much extrapolation from what the sources say. In any case the talk page should be the judge. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer (not sarcastically this time). If you wouldn't mind, I'd just like to run my logic by you. I've asked this on the talk page, but I can't seem to communicate this to ZH8000. It goes this way: 1) transiting (passenger car) drivers buy the cheapest vignette possible. 2) The source says that countries other than Switzerland have cheaper short-term vignettes for passenger cars. 3) Therefore, from #1 & #2, such drivers spend the most money in Switzerland.

I've changed most expensive to "highest priced" just to be clear it's not about price-per-km. Is there a better way to put this? What other assertions do I need to source here? I keep asking this on the talk page, and get talks about price-per-km and accusations of unreadable English in return. Is my English really that incomprehensible here?

If my point is not getting across, please read this explanation by the other IP person, I think he/she put it more succinctly than me. 78.0.246.100 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a question for admins. You could take this to WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've started a dispute resolution request here. Thanks for the suggestion. 78.0.246.100 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Again

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

Again this user has returned, and continues with the same pattern of editions. I left a message, but obviously it does not interest him.--Philip J FryTalk 18:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the IP user's talk page and have blocked for a year for long-term disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Rob Sherman

• Rob Sherman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Holbach Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 44#User:Holbach Girl - More than a month of Disruptive edits on Rob Sherman article (April 2018)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive365#User:Holbach Girl reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Page protected) (April, 2018)

Hi, @EdJohnston: I am responding to your post made here [111] where you wrote "I don't see how you can claim consensus when literally nobody agrees with you on the talk page." I think you measured that consensus situation wrong, as I will explain.

If we are going to be literal, then "literally" only one person substantively disagrees with me on that talk page. That person is 1990'sguy. He created the Sherman page, and he is the only person to raise a "legitimate concern" about my edits and engage with me. I say "legitimate concern" because that is the wording from the rule page on Consensus [112]. It is true that 5 other editors joined in censoring my improvements, but they never raised a "legitimate concern", even after I petitioned each of them, nicely asking "If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them." So I can't see how you can claim I didn't have consensus for my edits when literally nobody raised any "legitimate concerns" on the talk page about 95% of my improvement edits - and only 1 person, 1990'sguy, presented actionable concerns. I waited a loooong time, too, but there has been no objections at all to 25 of my 28 edits. I have even repeated my explanations for my edits because my last list of explanations is scrolling so far up the page [113]. So tell me please, and be specific, is there any reason now why I can not continue with improving the article?Holbach Girl (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ed, You told me "If it turns out that you can't persuade them, you should take your efforts elsewhere." Sorry for the pushback, and with all due respect, that is poor advice to give me. I choose instead to follow the Consensus rules page that says "In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole. Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy." You are one of these sysops, am I right? If so, can you please look again at the situation, and be fair about this? At first I thought 1990'sguy was just being possessive, as he is the creator of the Sherman article. I have reviewed his user profile tab and discussion tab and I now see a lot of proof of both the personal and ideological conflicts warned about on the Consensus rules page. This explains a lot of the resistance I am encountering whenever I try to improve the page, such as when he complained about sources I added being "supportive of Sherman" instead of from "critics".

I confess I am tempted to file your "take your efforts elsewhere" remark with the "going to get ugly" and the "you have editors watching your moves and they will be making sure you stay in line" creepy threats I've already received. Yes I've received the message loud and clear that I'm not part of the club, but that isn't going to dissuade me. In fact, it has just the opposite effect, as I said on the Sherman discussion tab, I hope to make this a featured article, and the attempts to dissuade me from editing it has only bolstered my resolve.

Can we try an experiment? Ed, take a look at the bottom of the Rob Sherman article. Do you see where the categories list him as dying in (1953 deaths) and also in (2016 deaths)? Does that seem right to you? Now look at this previous edit of mine to fix it: [114]. It was reverted. Many times. Does that seem right to you? If you agree with me that it isn't right, then you can add yourself to the "literally agrees" with me column. Now look at my removal of this redundant header [115]. I did not do that without support or precedent, as you see here [116], so potentially add them to the "literally agrees" with me column. If you'll step through each of my 27 improvements listed on the Sherman discussion tab, all but a select few of which have NEVER been objected to, you'll find the same thing.

Suggestions?Holbach Girl (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your post here that would cause me to change my previous advice. You have pointed out that Category:1953 deaths looks wrong. If you don't want to go ahead and make a single edit to remove that category yourself, why not post on Talk and point out the problem. Your previous change looks like it was undone through collateral damage, since other large changes were occurring at the time. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a good discussion has been taking place at Talk:Rob Sherman about the changes you propose. I left my own note on Talk proposing the change in the category. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Having trouble with an IP editor who insists on imposing his view and will not engage on talk page.

• Homosexuality in ancient Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 84.115.2.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, we're having trouble with an IP editor at Homosexuality in ancient Greece who insists on imposing his view (a manifestly incorrect one) on the article, and will not engage on the talk page, preferring to make his case in the edit summaries. Most of his contributions have been reverts of reverts made by other editors of his nonsensical claims at the this one article. Carlstak (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If he continues past Shellwood's 01:25 warning a block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Now blocked 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's hope he's learned something. Thank you. Carlstak (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WTF?

• Tolkien family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TolkienLover1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ever since you came on Tolkien Family I can't make any more changes. I was trying to remove that pointless movie called Tontine Massacre from Royd Tolkien. Did you lock me out? TolkienLover1 (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Why not propose your change at Talk:Tolkien family and see if others agree? Since you are autoconfirmed you should be able to edit the article. EdJohnston (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If I could do it, I would have by now. All I get is view source instead of the edit button. And what rule says I should take your agreement? I will not. It's just an unknown film. TolkienLover1 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You tried to post at Talk:Tolkien family and weren't able to? That would be surprising. See WP:CONSENSUS for how to resolve disagreements. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about the article. Jeez! TolkienLover1 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you succeeded in editing the article. But if you continue to revert the article without trying to discuss your change on the article talk page, you are risking a block. You have now removed mention of the film three times and each time someone else has undone your removal. You yourself have never used an edit summary or posted to the article talk page. Your explanation here was 'pointless movie' and 'unknown film'. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive, it is indeed exhausting and a waste of time that could be spent productively dealing with these socks. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Jakeroberts93

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. Please see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay. There's a good chance that the guy you wrote to yesterday might be a harasser and abuser himself. I can't make a proper report (this account is fresh), but I hope someone takes care of it anyway. Kbb2 (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A complaint was made against you on the edit warring page. That's where I found out about you. It was on the front page. You wrote a message where you cussed out and admin mumerous time and called a "canadian" user worthless. I went back and looked into your post for the past couple weeks and noticed you had done this on numerous occasions to various other users. I never called for a permanent ban for you unless you continued. And I stated you had made many good contributions to Wikipedia. A long as you are not harassing people, you are more than welcomes here. Jakeroberts93 (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jakeroberts93: Then checking my report will be nothing but a formality as far as you're concerned. Kbb2 (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2018 (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.

Aligula

Hi. Please see this edit, after the user's block expired. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Now blocked one week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI

Mentioned you at WP:ANI here. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

About Miss Universe 2018 edit war

• Alex Duilius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miss Universe 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AN3 complaint

Greetings.

I have been scolded by this:Talk:Miss_Universe_2018#Kyrgyzstan

It strikes me because I supposedly ignored a consensus, which one? In the talk page of the article, we have only participated the User:NewYorkActuary and me; therefore, I ask, what consensus? What other users should participate to consider such a consensus? Is my opinion, and experience as a wikipedist, worth less than that of the other user?

So far, I have given arguments and reasons to consider that the participation of a Kyrgyz delegate in Miss Universe 2018 can be a hoax, all of them have been ignored by the other user and with weak references, which are unable to tell the same version of the story, supports something that has no greater sustenance.

So far, the only person who says that Miss Karybekova will participate in Miss Universe, is herself through an Instagram profile, and amateur pages replicate the information, even reaching digital pages of newspapers. Some of the sources say that the lady was designated and others who won a contest (from there we should be careful with the information). None of the sources that the other user put can answer the following questions:

- when was the contest?

- where was the contest?

- how was the contest?

- who organized the contest?

- or, who appointed her?

In addition, there is no photo of the girl with a band or crown to be credited as a competitor of their country in Miss Universe 2018; or a web page of the organization that supposedly will send it to compete.

There are not enough reasons to think that it can be a lie?

I am not an English speaker, which puts me at a disadvantage in this discussion, as I do not understand much. But I find it disappointing that the whim of an editor is above the criteria that every wikipedia must have.

I do not accept the scolding.

Thank you. --Alex Duilius (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Alex Duilius. Your arguments at Talk:Miss_Universe 2018#Kyrgyzstan indicate you are either not familiar with Wikipedia policy, or that you disagree with it. If you plan to edit here, you are expected to follow our policy regarding sources. Your own personal doubts about the Kyrgyzstan candidate don't take precedence. It has been argued that angelopedia.com, India Times and the Miss Universe Organization are reliable sources for this information. If you want the quality of sources reviewed, you could post at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask for comments. But if you revert again at Miss Universe 2018 you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I can see you didn't make a deep review of this conflict: The Miss Universe Organization never confirm this, because the user put a Facebook Fake Page as source, like i make him to note. I take my time to make another review with what I'm supposedly doing wrong.--Alex Duilius (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the other editors. Wikipedia's goal is to correctly summarize whatever the good sources say. The editors on the talk are the people you need to convince. If you think one of the pages is fake, you need to give specifics. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I'm trying to understand what I'm doing wrong. The only thing I'm doing is removing references that clearly do not have complete and truthful information. Our mission as encyclopaedists is to provide users with reliable and self-supporting references, evidently the references used to sustain Kyrgyzstan's participation in Miss Universe do not comply with it. It is not my opinion, it is what Wikipedia demands !!!! Do the rules break when it comes to specific users? I am incredibly upset because you are threatening to block me and giving the right to the other user. You are not doing your job as moderator and librarian. As much as you tell me, a discussion between two people, do not make a consensus. You should intervene and understand the conflict well and understand why I am doing what I am doing. I demand that you do it! Good day.--Alex Duilius (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not getting the point, so there is no point in continuing. My warning stands (the above post dated 05:31 on 29 May). EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Your semi protection of Vignette (road tax)

• Vignette (road tax) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AN3 report
• DRN
• Latest discussion on Talk

You recently protected the above article following a request by ZH8000 following a claim of edit warring by IP editors accused of being sockpuppets. I now request that the page be unprotected for the following reasons.

• There is a good consensus on the article talk page for inclusion of the disputed claim. Four users support the inclusion which is probably a good foot fall in such an article. The claim is backed by many reliable sources of which four have been presented in the talk discussion.
• The original protection request was solely an attempt by ZH8000 to enforce his incorrect version of the article for which no evidence was ever presented.
• It has been established that there are three two unrelated IP editors who are participating (one from UK (me) and one from Croatia and one from the West Indies). ZH8000's allegation of sock-puppetry was the usual 'three two editors agreeing with each other must be socks' rather than the reality of three two independent editors disagreeing with him. Correction because ZH8000 included a third IP address (190.213.15.141) in his socking allegation, when in fact it was completely unconnected.
• The dispute was taken to DRN, in which ZH8000 declined to participate.
• The only person who crossed a line was ZH8000 who reverted to his preferred version five times. No one else reverted more than twice (if we ignore legitimate edit's where alternate and clearer wording was provided and references added).

Thank you for you time. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Semiprotection was applied to stop an edit war in which one person seemed to be using multiple IPs. It is regrettable that User:ZH8000 would not join the DRN, but another registered editor, User:TheVicarsCat has been participating. TheVicarsCat has stated "..I am prepared to apply the edit to the article once wording and references can be agreed upon here..". It looks as though TheVicarsCat has gone ahead with a change to the article per the discussion at 12:25 on 29 May. Hopefully you find this change suitable. If not, you could ask TheVicarsCat. The {{edit semiprotected}} template is also available to you. The semiprotection will expire normally on 24 June. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. The edit is good. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Look like we still have a problem. ZH8000 his just reverted the claim again claiming OR and lack of verifiability, in spite of three references being provided. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologiy

For this, by the way: I have no idea what I meant by it—possibly an unnoticed misclick, or perhaps I imagined you were a sock  ;) sorry about that though in any case! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Duilius (talk • contribs)

TPI Revisions

I saw that you restored a comment I left on the talk page. As per Wiki standards, I removed it, reserving my right to do so when it is recent and there have been no comments left on it. I will write a note in the revision comments this time--apologies if that is the standard practice--but you should not restore it.

AndersLeo (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, I had thought it was someone else's comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for looking out. I think I may have been a bit sloppy with my edit, so it's not so strange there would be some confusion. Now I know :) AndersLeo (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)