Wikipedia

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 50

< User talk:EdJohnston
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Ktrimi991 in topic Nationalist edit warring in Balkan article
Archive 45 ← Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

Flowcode

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flowcode again --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:NoobMiester96

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there,

Just wanted to mention that this user has been disagreeing with others over at Looney Tunes Cartoons, I just recently reported and you just blocked an IP who may have been User:Evelynkwapong539. The other user, User:NoobMiester96 has been removing cast members on the page, citing that they are not necessary as their only reason. I have tried to remain civil towards them, and other users seem to agree that adding additional cast members is OK. This user's behavior towards me has been very againnst policy, citing that they have sole control over the page and has went so far as to report me over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism , citing that I am vandalising the page through edit warring, which was never my intent at all. Here are the edit summaries citing the inappropriate behavior:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002560998 : Citing only their own personal preference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002501444 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&action=edit

Outright denying this info be on the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002299710 : Stating that they alone want to keep the page the way they want it.

I hope this brings to light my side of this situation and I have been monitoring this page since Evelynkwapong to make sure it stays in a state where the community finds it alright. I apologize if the constant edit history suggests an edit war, I'm just trying to prevent the page from having info removed from it at a constant rate. I feel Noobmeister's intentions are sincere, but they should not take ownership of the page because other users don't agree with them.

Thank you or taking time to read this and I hope you have a nice day,

Noelephant (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

OK first of all, I apologize for reporting you NoElephant and second. I disagree with the consensus for adding more voice actors onto the cast section that isn't voicing characters that were in the original Looney tunes shorts. It really seems extremely generic frankly. NoobMiester96 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Look at articles for other Looney Tunes Shows The Looney Tunes Show and New Looney Tunes. If you look at the characters and cast list, all named characters, including characters that did not appear in the original shorts, appear in these articles just fine and have not had any opposition to it as far as I know. Looney Tunes Cartoons is a separate show from the original shorts, so characters like the Goon and Norm Macabre, who have substantial roles in the shorts they appear in, have a place here. I hope you understand that and go with the flow of working with other users on the page, even if you do not agree with the consensus.

Noelephant (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah no I'm sorry. I'm sticking with the facts since Looney Tunes Cartoons is supposed to be in the spirt of the original shorts and henceforth no additional characters. That's it. NoobMiester96 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:NoobMiester96. Recently you made a revert at Looney Tunes Cartoons with edit summary "(→‎Voice cast: Yeah I'm gonna put my foot down. NO ADDITIONAL ROLES.". Be aware that your *opinion* that aditional voice characters should not be listed is just that, an opinion, until such time as you get support from others. I should point out to User:Noelephant as well that their side of this argument (which they refer to as 'consensus' in their edit summaries) has no discussion so far on the article talk page. The steps of WP:DR are open to both of you. Obviously this could go either way depending on what others think. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions on the Horn of Africa

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Thank you for alerting me about the discretionary sanctions in effect on Horn of Africa. I removed my comments in the discussions you referred to partly because I have recently felt as if a group of editors has been ganging up on me and trying to undermine my work on Wikipedia.

A discussion was published on the BLP talk page for Sharif Sheikh Ahmed asking me whether I had a COI. I asked for the discussion to be placed on my own talk page, but rather than this it continued and more editors commented on it. Then the editor who had initiated the topic made out that they had only just realised that the discussion should have taken place on my talk page. I tried to remove the discussion on the BLP page, but this was reverted, the discussion was frozen and marked as closed. One editor has persisted in adding comments about it in a new discussion underneath, but he has referred to me as 'an editor'.

It is quite clear which editor he is referring to because of the frozen discussion which still remains above it. As the warning about discretionary sanctions says, ' Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.' Quite clearly, Wikipedia policies have not been followed in publishing this COI question on the BLP talk page, and yet I am the one who has received a warning. I have asked that these discussions be removed from the BLP talk page, as they never should have been posted there in the first place. I would also like to ask that you warn the editors involved as you have warned me about the descretionary sanctions.

The editors involved include; Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Alexis Jazz, Buckshot06, Cullen328, and Ohnoitsjamie. This incident has really made me feel like I am being bullied by these editors and their unfounded accusations against me. I don't mind them asking me questions which they are entitled to ask, but they should do it in the appropriate place, where I have the right to archive it, so that everyone who views the page won't necessarily see it. And then they have turned the exact rules which they are flouting themselves on me in regards to this.

I feel that this little gang is vying for a total monopoly of the subject area, and going out of their way to frame honest editors such as myself in order to stop them from editing the entire subject area or abandon their accounts. What is more, in the continuing discussion on COI personal information has been implicitly asked of me such as why I interpret the English language in a certain way and it has been assumed that English is not my native language. As it happens English is my native language, but I may use language differently to others, firstly because I am an individual and no two people use a language in exactly the same way, and secondly for neurological reasons which are personal and private. I object to this level of delving into my personal life. When asked if I have a COI it should be sufficient for me to say 'No, I do not'.
Amirah talk 13:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

To assist any talk page watchers, I'm adding some links to prior discussions:
User:AmirahBreen, if you want to engage in difficult areas but you also seem to be very sensitive to rebuke, that's a tricky combination. When others criticize your edits, that's an everyday thing, and you can't take it too seriously so long as you are following policy and are willing to engage in proper discussions. Your advice to User:Abdallem about the picture seemed perfectly correct. You now seem to be charging that a whole group of editors (Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Alexis Jazz, Buckshot06, Cullen328, and Ohnoitsjamie) is working against you. Such charges can backfire so I urge caution. From what I have seen, the COI complaint was proper though it may have run its course. Removing your own comments from a discussion thread can be extremely confusing and people would ask themselves why it's necessary. If it's an issue of personal security (per your edit summary) then consider asking at WP:CHU/S for your account to be renamed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The COI issue was brought up based on your own statements (where you said you would "speak" to the subject of the article yourself). A simple review of my edit history should make it clear that I'm not trying to take ownership of any Horn of Africa topics. I believe I became involved with the Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed page after seeing it mentioned on a WP:RFPP request, and noticing that it appeared to be heavily slanted toward criticism of the subject. I only recently became aware that other editors had noticed that you were making edits to a rival Somali politician that were obviously slanted in the other direction. This is not a case of an organized gang of editors conspiring against you; most of those editors are quite experienced, having been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years in a variety of topics. When a number of independent editors are telling you the same thing, it may be time to consider the possibility that your behavior is the issue, not theirs. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Since there are plenty of admins more or less involved, I expect things will work out eventually. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You have both totally ignored the whole point of what I have said above, which is the hypocrisy of the warning I received when these editors who you say are so expreienced, have also been doing exactly what I was warned against and yet they have not been warned. You have taken what I have said and instead of listening to my concerns, you have just used it as an excuse to see what you can find there to try to pull me to pieces again. I am asking you to address my concerns about the discussion about me which was posted on the article talk page instead of my own user page and why it has been left there when it should never have been posted there in the first place.

I am talking about the warning I received on discretionary sanctions which stated 'Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.' But you seem to think it is necessary to bring up a whole load of other things which totally detract from answering my concerns. If I am expected to 'strictly follow Wikipedia's policies' as it states in the warning, but these other editors are not, then clearly I have cause to be questioning this.

Off course I feel I am being treated unfairly. Whenever I try to question anything, anywhere, or ask for any kind of help with regards the issues I am currently facing, you just try to drown out my voice with all your allegations against me. I have as much right to raise such issues as you do, so why have you totally ignored the issue I have raised in favour of trying once again to pile on top of it everything you can possible think of to make me look bad. Amirah talk 17:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston I have been engaging in the same 'difficult' areas for five years, and not experienced any rebuke at all since my first few edits five years ago, so no, I don't personally find that this is an everyday thing. Or at least not until very recently. I am willing to engage in proper discussions, but when it comes to hearing my concerns about their behaviour they do not appear to be, as described above. I don't know if it is a fact that they are actively working against me as a group, but it is the way that I feel as a result of their behaviour. I feel as if I am being bullied and it is taking it's toll on me as an editor. It is taking my time and effort when I could be working on other things.

The comments here by Ohnoitsjamie are just repeating the same accusations against me over and over instead of addressing my concerns. I have heard these accusations and I do not need to hear them again. He has no reason to repeat them here again. You have said the COI complaint was proper. Why are you saying this when it is clearly against WP:COICOIN guidelines, which say that a COI question should be raised on the editors talk page, instead of on the page where the suspected COI took place?

Why are you sending me warnings to say I must strictly follow guidelines and not enforcing these standards on other editors, whose behaviour in disregarding guidelines has left a discussion about me in a place where it should not have been made in the first place? Why are you addressing their concerns about my behaviour and ignoring my concerns about theirs? Amirah talk 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And the conflict of interest issue you have linked to above, calling it 'original conflict of interest complaint', was not the original. The original was on the article talk page, not my own talk page, which is the whole point of what I have been trying to say here. Also, you have called it a 'complaint', as far as I was aware it was just a question about whether I had a conflict of interest, as something I had said had given somebody the idea I may have. No conflict of interest was established so no complaint has been made about conflict of interest, but the way you have worded it implies that there has been a complaint. Amirah talk 19:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Impartiality

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Edjohnston. Pardon me but I see there is a persistent impartiality in favor of user:Iaof2017. The editor still insist to avoid any kind of discussion while endless reverting and this pattern will continue as long as there is not action against him. The case of Apollonia (Illyria) remains still very characteristic of sterile edit warring.Alexikoua (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Which are the edits which highlight "endless reverting" by @Iaof2017:? Ed protected Apollonia on January 15 2021 and I can't even find an editing dispute in Iaof2017's editing[1], let alone "sterile edit-warring" in any way, shape or form. I see that he has written a couple of GAs about Eurovision since January 15. Alexikoua put forward two accusations: a)persistent impartiality in favor of Iaof2017 b)endless reverting by Iaof2017. Iaof2017's editing isn't even linked to any editing dispute, let alone edit-warring, so it has been verified that this is a false allegation - one which was used to ask "action" against Iaof2017. The other allegation here is that there is impartiality in favor of Iaof2017. This hasn't been demonstrated in any way, shape or form. I think that if an editor puts forward allegations which are verifiably false, there should be a warning that they shouldn't put forward allegations without evidence against editors or admins.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Side comment: I pinged Iaof2017 - Alexikoua didn't notify them. Now that it has been verified that Iaof2017 isn't even involved in editing disputes, I think that Alexikoua bears the responsibility of providing a clear answer about his other allegation. I don't think that Ed or any of the very few admins who spend their time in applying admin oversight in the Balkans topic area have ever acted in favor of any editor in particular.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
[2] @Alexikoua: received a warning and I think that the community deserves a clear answer about the "persistent impartiality in favor of Iaof2017".--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Which are the edits which highlight "endless reverting": This was one of many times that Iaof stubbornly refused to participate in talkpage while insisting on performing instant reverts [[3]] [[4]]. Iaof nearly never shows up in a talkpage as his contribution log clearly shows. Alexikoua (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The editor still insist to avoid any kind of discussion while endless reverting and this pattern will continue as long as there is not action against him. - these two edits were done before Ed protected the article. They're not "endless reverting" which highlights that a pattern will continue. You've several made allegations which are verifiably false and you received a warning [5]. Now, you've put forward that there is a persistent impartiality in favor of user:Iaof2017. Editors are responsible for what they put forward - either be specific - diffs which show "persistent impartiality" by any admin - or retract the statement.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After posting sources, quotes and page numbers[6][7][8][9] on the article talk page, user:Karakeçi24 called my comments propaganda.

This is not the first time user:Karakeçi24 has personalized this discussion.

I will not be continuing this discussion with user:Karakeçi24, since said editor refuses anything that disagrees with what they think. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

500/30 Rule violation

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, an IP is editing A-I conflict material and violating the 500/30 Rule , can you please lock the article so no IPs can edit it?

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

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The entire Druze article may not fall under WP:ARBPIA but the particular sentence about the Golan Heights would. I've applied semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Decision on User:Engine850 3RR

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I have to raise a concern that User:Engine850's blatant 6 reverts were not sanctioned, even after a warning.

Even if we disagree on that, to give the same sanction (the warning) to User:Skenu is equating equating the 2 which is unfair. Any breach of 3RR is worthy of some sanction, but the latter expressed regret, while the former continued reverts even after the Edit warring case was raised. Even using the same warning does not sit well with me, i.e. "You may be blocked if you revert the article again before obtaining a consensus in your favor on the article talk page" -- User:Skenu, although wrong to breach the 3RR, was upholding the talk page consensus. At the very least this should have been omitted from that warning.

I am not trying to overturn the decision. It's done and let's all move on. But I am confused by the rationale and would appreciate if you take this on board. Happy to discuss further if you wish. Best, Mark83 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. At least one of the parties is now on thin ice so I hope the reverting doesn't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The process itself seems to have cooled the situation. So I hope discussion and consensus is the path everyone takes. Mark83 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sdcheung

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed, you recently blocked Sdcheung for edit warring. It looks like they've started to lash out with personal attacks on their talk page now. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Block extended to one week and talk page disabled. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You blocked Realpatricio earlier today for edit warring and it appears they've engaged in some socking. A newly created account (Theoneandonly813) attempted to remove the same content that Realpatricio did (1, 2). Is there any need for an SPI in such an obvious case or can you handle it? Thanks. – 2.O.Boxing 18:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Theoneandonly813 and semiprotected Josh Harrington. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

User:31.10.163.99

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You blocked this editor for edit war changing Unilever entries from "British" to "British/Dutch". They are back at it again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked for an additional three months. In any unblock request they should agree to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

IP block evader is back

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings! I hope you remember me from this edit warring that happened a month ago. The IP you blocked seem to have returned, and they've gone back to reverting articles with false information again. Sorry to bother you again! T  CloseDatMouf 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've renewed the block on Special:Contributions/192.38.128.0/20 for another three months. Assume that the original rationale still applies, about the falsified chart positions. Thanks for your post. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Yep, they reverted to a past revision of theirs with all those false chart positions. Thank you again! T  CloseDatMouf 10:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to clean the backlog?

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi EdJohnston, I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to remove this block from the backlog [10] (Do you remember? I got a 24h ban fighting with a sockpuppet). Thank you! --Mhorg (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you want your block removed from the block log. That would be unusual and unprecedented (in my memory). If you edit normally for a period of time many of these things tend to be forgotten anyway. Meanwhile please be careful with your future editing of Alexei Navalny. If we see continuing reverts there (by anyone) an increased level of article protection may be needed. In case you find yourself disagreeing with others, it never hurts to wait for consensus on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering because maybe those who see the backlog can think wrong things. I must then explain that I get the ban fighting with a malicious user. If generally this thing isn't done, ok... about Navalny, I literally stop doing edits, a made an AE request. Thank you.--Mhorg (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
You can leave a note on that on your userpage, if you wish so. But do not worry about your block log: I have two blocks and nobody has judged me due to that. It is your edits in general that show to others who you are, not the block log. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Ktrimi991 Thank you for your answer!--Mhorg (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Cheers and happy editing :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

arbitration enforcement sanction

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, just checking that my arbitration sanction on American Politics post-1932 articles is now expired. Was issued at 4:29am on January 18, 2021 for one month, so I'm in the clear for it now I believe. Davefelmer (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Indian Caste Dispute

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello EdJohnston, first of all, I thank you so much for attending to the edit war on the page Karanam (Caste). I wish to inform you all about it at length without any bias. I would like to substantiate it all as well. User: Sangramz has a conflict of interest. By going through the edit-history of the page Khandayat(Caste), we get to see that the same user has made changes many times. He has been warned there as well by other editors. He has many a time conspicuously tried to glorify the caste that he seems to have interest in, that is, Khandayat. The two catses--Karanas and Khandayats--are regional rivals and they thus keep disturbing each other's pages continually, trivializing each other. User: Sangramz has to say that the Karanas have made an attempt to glorify their caste on Wikipedia, but the fact is that all the distinct pieces of information on the page Karnam (Caste) are well-sourced without fail--all of them. They have been sourced by different editors at different times. I beg you to look into the two pages once, and you will get a complete idea as to the problem, I assure. I beg you to take out a little time to look into this matter once. This will protect the two pages from many likely future vandalisms. I will be indebted to you for good. Have a great time ahead! Take care of yourself.

--Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User: Sangarmz is trying to serve as a link between the pages Khandayat(Caste) and Karanam (Caste), attempting to glorify the former, that is, Khandayats, and malign the latter, that is Karanam. Unfortunately, it's indicative of the age-old caste-based discrimination in India. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1007152563

All his edits on the page were unsourced. He constantly did it. I was really saddened by the fact that India is still fettered to the gloom of casteism. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The two caste articles are now under extended confirmed protection. That is Karan (caste) and Khandayat (caste). EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU! EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

About Tuesday Group

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you want to consider applying discretionary sanctions as this article appears to be about post-1932 US politics? Aasim (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You can go ahead and warn people with {{subst:alert|topic=ap2}} if you want. At present I would not place the AP2 banner on Talk, though any other admin can do so if they think appropriate. If you have an interest in this topic, would you consider starting an RFC or at least a discussion on whether they should be described as liberal or conservative? That seems to be the reason for a lot of the reverts. And do you think the page should be moved to Republican Governance Group? EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Dafina Zeqiri

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

I asked protection for the Dafina Zeqiri article today, and it got semi-protected to prevent some IPs from editing it. I just noticed that there is a report there concerning the article. Since you are familiar with the area of the conflict - and with the usual editors with the usual accusations - you might be interested in taking a look before the discussion there goes more off-topic amd becomes longer than already has. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, after posting here I decided to make a post there too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. You protected Apollonia until February 15 because of edit-warring. Alexikoua didn't get a consensus about his edits on the talkpage and his general manner was very confrontative towards other editors (Calthinus: it appears you have complete ignorance of the evolution of the Greek language). He has been warned for his general tone towards other editors on February 1, but he proceeded to reinstate his edits now [11]. I don't think that the Balkan topic area needs another round of edit-warring. Editors shouldn't force their preferred version via reverts. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Does that apply to Iaof2017 too? Or nah? The only one who edit-warred at Apollonia over the incredibly petty and tendentious distinction between "Greek" and "Ancient Greek" was Iaof2017, who is lying low now to avoid a block. So there is no edit-warring, unless you intend to start another round. It's interesting you are trying to bring this up here and now though. There is a thread on the article talkpage, but instead of participating it seems you are more interested in admin-shopping and mud-slinging using diffs from over a month ago. Khirurg (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The last edit before Ed's protection was by Iaof2017(January 15) and Alexikoua reverted them today without a consensus - three days after the protection expired. I am bringing this up now, because it happened at 19:32 today. An editor reverted another after the protection ended without consensus and I'm reporting it to the admin who protected the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Iaof was edit-warring and his edit was extremely petty and tendentious. There is a discussion at the talkpage. It's pretty obvious what you are trying to do though. Btw, you didn't answer my question: Does Editors shouldn't force their preferred version via reverts. apply to Iaof as well, yes or no? Khirurg (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The answer is absolutely yes. But it's Alexikoua who tried to put forward changes and Iaof2017 was reverting to the WP:STABLE. A consensus for the edits Alexikoua and you put forward didn't emerge but Alexikoua made the same edits. It's edit-warring. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense. The WP:STABLE is "Greek", not "Ancient Greek" - it had been that way ages until Ioaf unilaterally changed it without consensus or discussion in late December [12]. So yeah, he was edit-warring. Khirurg (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that "ancient Greek" is not WP:STABLE, because it was established in December? I think that it's still WP:STABLE - there's 200+ edits between December and February - but restarting the content dispute without consensus is still something which I wouldn't put forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Something that has been stable for years, is what is WP:STABLE. Something which is being brute-force edit-warred using deceitful edit summaries is not WP:STABLE. Khirurg (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
As you know from the many discussions we've had with each other, I can't know the edit history of every article for more than a certain period. I know that in January this was the WP:STABLE and you didn't seem to consider it a problem. It's very trivial, but we can try WP:RFC too.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, now you know. As a sign of good faith, you should self-revert this [13]. It has been "Greek" since the article was created. This whole "Ancient Greek" instead of "Greek" is some nonsense that was started by Iaof for reasons only he knows, and has never explained. Khirurg (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that it should be "Ancient Greek" like Calthinus has argued but I understand that there is no "real" WP:STABLE because three months ago another version was present. I can say on my part that I will not invoke it as an argument. We should probably continue the discussion at the talkpage.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm really astonished about Ioaf's "defence" in this report [[14]]. Isn't that a straight way to declare that he ignores wp:NPA? It's bizare that someone feels to have the authority to "revert unlogged editors, " and accuse uninvolved editors that they are "always involved in disputes, edit warnings and other problems". No wonder this kind of impunity will definitely triger much more violent action from his part.Alexikoua (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Not everyone behaved wonderfully in the Dafina Zeqiri dispute. I wonder if people are very concerned about whether Kosovo Albanians ought to be linked. The supplied diffs in the AN3 report were about the linking and unlinking of that phrase. When viewed from a distance, the comments added to the AN3 made it look more like a clash between Team A and Team B and not a sincere disagreement about content. (The thread here on my talk has echoes of that as well, and suggests that national loyalties could be influencing people's thinking). There are steps to follow in a genuine content disagreement. But in a Team A versus Team B contest even rudimentary dispute resolution seems unlikely to happen. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I myself only requested page protection, and asked the involved editors to stop messing up the report and wait for an admin to decide. In any case, the Albanian-Greek articles are rather obscure ones, and, as a consequence, the disputes always involve those few editors interested in the (crappy) topic. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, FYI, the dispute there was not about content (nobody cared about it). It was about whether Iaof2017, an editor who is heavily involved in Albanian-Greek articles, should be blocked or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic based hate Vandalism

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Ed. There is an editorthat keeps vandalizing pages and insulting people in their diffs. He accuses me of “disgusting Anti Serb edits” despite Serbian editors undoing his page wipes. Could you look into it? Cheers OyMosby (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Johannesblitz seems to be interested in Balkan topics and is possibly a nationalist warrior, per the 'disgusting anti-Serb vandalism' in their edit summary. I have alerted them to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I noticed this disruptive editing (and warned both editors since neither edit summaries seemed much more friendly than the other). Is the report for page protection warranted or was that me being too trigger-happy? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I declined the RFPP request for now, but no objection if another admin wants to do it. I suspect one editor may have an indef block in their future. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: How were my diffs remotely comparable to the editor wiping pages. The objective is nationalist as Ed said and vandalizing pages based on such object. I said it was a series of anti-Croat edits which evidently were. I don’t think my diffs were less friendly and my recertes were restoring a stable article that was wiped. I feel there is a false or misleading equalization here. I think I give up at this point if this is how things are. It’s pretty clear e difference between me and the sudden new account that seems familiar as if a sock accoubt. Ed I don’t know your take on this. OyMosby (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Johannesblitz is now blocked 24 hours by Peacemaker67, which seems appropriate. 'Ed I don't know your take on this'. I must be too subtle in my veiled mentions of bad consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hah! Pardon me I can be a bit slow at times with thing flying over my head ;). OyMosby (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Article with a large number of reverts

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you make a page protection or sth there? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

PashtoPromoter Report

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hello User:EdJohnston, You have warned both of us after I reported PashtoPromoter[15], which is a decision I can understand, however the reported user keeps on doing edits on the topic without consensus yet[16], the talk page was slowly going towards a consensus on the issue and he randomly decided to do another edit on the discussed section and topic, I just saw it now and was shocked. --Xerxes931 (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  1. [17] is new information not related to information in [18] hence the edit warring warning in my opinion does not apply. Further this new information was removed [19] without any reason by Wikinoob2939. I reverted his [20] undoing of the edit considering that this new information was removed without any explanation. And I also opened another talkpage for this discussing whether this new information [21] is credible with an RFC tag PashtoPromoter (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Moreover the same account Wikinoob2939 I suspect to be sockpuppet of Xerxes931 having done 3 continuous reversions to the previous issue under dispute [22] [23] [24] contrary to your decision [25] but inline with the propositions by Xerxes931 [[26]] PashtoPromoter (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello PashtoPromoter. Since your edit here is a revert at Pashtuns and it violates my warning, I'm planning to proceed with a block. You also described Wikinoob2939's edit as 'vandalism' in your edit summary, which is not correct. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay but to my defense I was reverting a revert of new information added by me by the user if you see the edit it will show I added a picture with 2 citations and a new sentence in a different paragraph with a citationPashtoPromoter (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


Hello User:EdJohnston, 1. Thanks for intervening in this situation, the edit warring was going way too far, you only mentioned this revert as a basis for the temporary ban, however he reverted 3 times after the warning of you, not just 1 time [27][28] Now since he is back he keeps adding content about the topic to the section which is yet to find a consensus on the talk page[29], instead of enganging in the comments of multiple users on the talk page[30][31] he creates random RFCs about those sources that dont even talk about Pashtuns specifically in first place, but about historic regions thousands of years ago which happen to be inhabited by Pashtuns today , it belongs into other articles, but not into this one, Having that included in the article was a big compromise towards him to begin with, yet he keeps edit warring and creating random RFC’s[32] for whatever reason, this is clearly disruptive--Xerxes931 (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston PashtoPromoter continues with his disruptive behavior by canvassing [33][34][35][36]. He purposefully asked multiple users of Indian descent to vote in his favor in the meaningless RFC he created and in contrast he only asked one Afghan guy( Casperti) who is topic banned... I will ignore the fact that the "Pashto" he tried to ask Casperti with is solely google translator and grammatically wrong to say the least. This is clearly canvassing.--Xerxes931 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible socking after edit warring block

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HanKim20. Wareon (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Technical evidence shows these editors are unrelated, as I wrote in the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ed I think we have another one

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think we have another similar somewhat case. I almost thiught they were an administrator per their warnings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Docholliday11

If you could take a look please. Are they correct about the commonly used sources? OyMosby (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Compare Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnGotten, another report where Dara of Jasenovac is mentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

IP range block

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Several IPs of the same range have been making disruptive edits on articles of settlements in southern Albania. Their disruption includes removal of sourced content and modifications that counter with what the used sources say. A week ago one of them was blocked and one of the articles was protected for two weeks. The IPs, among others, include [37][38][39]. The latest one is [40]. They have been reverted by User:Bes-ART, User:Βατο and User:Maleschreiber. Can you make a range block or guide us where/how to make a range block request? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is Special:Contributions/77.28.13.0/24. Do all these edits look bad to you? I see that nearly all have been reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Last warning already given there [41]. I have not reverted any of them myself, but I agree that they are being disruptive - removals of sourced content and modifications of sourced content that counter with the used sources. So, 77.28.13.0/24 is the range? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
What's an example of the vandalism, e.g. removal of sourced content? And where is the actual link to a warning? It looks the IP is from North Macedonia. Plus, what do you think about 72.44.210.181 (talk · contribs)? EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Examples of removals of sourced content include [42], [43] and [44]. Examples of source falsifications are [45] -check the source, it does not say that- and [46] -again check what the source says. Two of the warnings [47][48]. The IP you mentioned above changed article links to their Greek spelling, although the target articles use the English/Albanian spelling. The one editing today is removing Albanian translations of names of places in Albania to add or leave only Greek translations [49]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, I have blocked 77.28.13.128/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope there is no such disruption in the future, and the person decides to make constructive contributions when the block expires. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • An IP from the same country is making the same kind of edits (removal of Albanian translations from articles of places in southern Albania etc) [50]. What should be done in this case? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, he's back again. Look at this source falsification edit for example [51]. Getting sick of this.Bes-ARTTalk 11:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
This is another guy from the same /16 range: Special:Contributions/77.28.0.0/16. A /16 block might be overkill. See if a block of Special:Contributions/77.28.7.0/24 should be done on the grounds that it's the same pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed, this editor whom you blocked recently[52] has resumed with the same WP:NOTHERE editorial pattern as soon as his block expired. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Kurd%C3%AEmHeval looks like a sock of Kurdishhistorian27 or 1HistoricalCorrecter1 in my opinion. Same edits, same behavior, and same edit warring pattern. Wario-Man talk 12:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Violation of WP:NPA in addition to pursuing the same disruptive editorial pattern:
  • "Safavids were Kurdish. Accept it Persian boy."[53]
- LouisAragon (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Block-evading IP using new IP address

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi!

In early January you blocked User:197.89.10.25 for block evasion. They're now using User:197.87.63.7 to edit -- see their edits to Talk:Betty Boop.

I'm also getting a little weary of the IP repeatedly calling me a "liar" on that talk page. [54] Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Beyond My Ken: Repugnant quacking; blocked for a week. Favonian (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Personalized comments, Kurdish dynasties

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I find this comment by user:KurdîmHeval unacceptable. And said editor restoring said personalized comment is even more unacceptable. Considering this editor was blocked by you for 4 days and immediately goes to the List of Kurdish dynasties and countries and Talk:List of Kurdish dynasties and countries, and initiates an edit war, followed by personalized comments of a battleground nature, I believe KurdîmHeval has proven they are not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Those People telling me give some resources, after I gave, they tell me use the Talk page, after I do, they want to report me. In my eyes the editors have Anti-kurdish views. KurdîmHeval (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I have now blocked User:KurdîmHeval for reasons explained on their talk page. The continued to revert at List of Kurdish dynasties and countries after many warnings and their prior block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello there (Obi Wan voice). Frat070699 is basically the same type as KurdimHeval, and has restored some of his edits (again) [55]. Here are some few examples of his many nonconstructive edits in the same article; [56] [57] [58] [59] He has been previously blocked for disruptive editing in the (u guessed it) same article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I've alerted User;Frat070699 to the newly-adopted discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. Back in June 2020 they were given a two-week partial block from List of Kurdish dynasties and countries. It is unlikely that KurdîmHeval is the same person as Frat070699. (Notice that F. reverted one of K's changes, about the Safavids being in the list). For the moment I suggest that the reverts of the list of Kurdish dynasties regarding the Zand dynasty should be handled like a regular edit warring issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply by User:Ascribe4

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Would have truly appreciated if either you had tried to reach out to me before making your respective decisions but I suppose what's done is done.

The user User:Hostagecat claims they filed the complaint as a last resort, but actually didn't even bother to respond to my reply , which I think we can agree was reasonable and cooperative, so that we could finish our discussion. They made multiple false assertions which I rebutted and side-stepped other raised concerns which needed to be addressed. Based on the limited discussion we've had, it appears as if Hostagecat was simply stringing together false claims pertaining to Wikipedia standards as well as exaggerated concerns that they now concede were actually just minor errors and a simple fix (i.e. removing the hyphen in a given word), and presented them as alarming issues in order to justify a complete and total revert of my edit. The attempt seems to be driven by grown attachment for the articles and others related to it and an irritation that I didn't check in with them before making my edit. Which again, I am not required to. Also, regarding the user's claim that I and others got "completely hung up" over the fact "that I used the word 'manage' when I clearly meant "maintain")". All that I will say is to that is that all we can do here is respond to words that others type down and submit. --Ascribe4 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In your reply to Hostagecat at User talk:Hostagecat you said Lastly, regarding the lack of discussion prior to my edit, I neither had to nor did I feel compelled to. If you find that it's too tedious to participate in discussions you should probably avoid getting into any disputes because it usually takes discussion to resolve those. Continuing to revert is not an option. (It seems that you broke WP:3RR on 22 February, and you accused Hostagecat of being a sock). It should not be that hard to clear up the points raised by Hostagecat regarding your new material if you're willing to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I have no qualms with engaging in discussion in order to settle a dispute. In fact, as mentioned earlier, I find it quite frustrating that User:Hostagecat failed to respond to my follow-up reply so we could continue our discussion and come to a resolution before deciding to file their report, supposedly as a last resort. I had even closed by requesting that they "Please indent in the reply." Here's what I believe is the primary point of contention: Hostagecat keeps bemoaning that I didn't seek some sort permission through discussion on the talk page before before making my edit. As others have pointed out, the user appears to have bequeathed a de facto managerial role related to these particular articles. User:David notMD has questioned if they are being paid. I personally don't hold that suspicion but agree with them in that User:Hostagecat doesn't hold any more control over the page than I do. Hence why I boldly went for it in my initial edit without seeking any such permission through discussion prior. Even though, again, I'm willing to cooperate and particpate in any good faith discussion to settle any disputes, as illustrated right here. Again, to clarify, the edit being referred to in quote was the very first edit which started all this. This was back when User:Hostagecat's user page was blank and their was name still in red, hence why I suspected that they potentially may be a sockpuppet but refrained from actually definitively accusing them of being one and filing an investigation and so forth. They've clarified that they are not and even though they have made several false claims so far, I've assumed good faith and taken it at face value.
I hope that clears any confusion. Now that there are some other things I must make clear. As said before, User:Hostagecat has made several false claims that I believe probably have influenced your judgement:
User:Hostagecat repeatedly claimed that AllMusic is an unreliable source. It is listed as "No Consensus" on WP:RSPS and under "Generally reliable" on WP:RSMUSIC.
They claimed that I didn't cite a source for the inclusion of the genre electro. The citation was at the end of the very end of the sentence that they copy/pasted from for their accusation.
They claimed that there are were several grammatical and spelling errors and inconsistencies throughout the article as a result of my edit. In my reply, I told them them they were minor and could be easily dealt without a complete and total revert. User:Hostagecat then backpedaled and conceded that its mostly just somewhat pedantic punctuation aspects and "a simple fix."
User:Hostagecat repeatedly and incessantly keeps making these assertions that are either hyperbolic in nature or outright false and not grounded in reality whatsoever. Whenever I rebut them, they fail to address exactly why or how is it such a blatantly false claim was made, and instead move on to platform yet another inaccurate assertion. Then they present all false claims (sans any reference to my responses and debunkings) to other editors such as yourself who aren't familiar with our conflict and, like myself, are inclined to take them at face value without vetting if everything they're saying is actually accurate, thus leading to an undue warning. Hope I have clarified things, but feel free to reach out if you have any more questions.--Ascribe4 (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
You broke the WP:3RR on 22 February. Unclear how any of the above reasoning makes that acceptable, or shows the way forward for a good compromise. If you call Hostagecat a sock again (without evidence) you are risking a block for WP:ASPERSIONS. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand that I tend to provide lengthy replies, but I'd appreciate it if you would try to use active listening skills to concentrate and on the larger scope of my responses rather than selecting and basing your replies almost exclusively on the seemingly most confrontational line that appears to jump out the most. I was being quite genuine when I started off by saying that I would have appreciated it if either of you had reached out to me for discussion before making your respective decisions. And I just explained that while at first I suspected they may be a potential sock because their page was blank at the time, I refrained from actually definitively accusing them of being one and filing an investigation and that User:Hostagecat has personally clarified that they are not, which I assumed good faith, take at face value and believe.
That aside, I didn't receive the revert until 00:35, 23 February 2021 and as I have explained, Hostagecat's disputes were based on false assertions that really need to be addressed. We were not able to reach a compromise because they chose to break off from discussion without explaining those false claims that I rebutted and filed the report. Allow to me to reiterate: User:Hostagecat claimed that I did not cite a source for the inclusion of text when the given citation was at the very end of the sentence they copy/pasted from to make their accusation. Moreover, the critic review source (deemed reliable) that I derived my edit from has been on that very article for the past nearly five years. And now thanks in part to that false allegation and many others like it, in addition to Hostagecat's failure to continue our discussion by responding to my reply and their not-so-hesitant decision to instead go ahead and report me, I now have an undue warning under my belt.
The user and I can not reach a compromise if they do not directly address the details of the concerns I responded to which they raised in the first place. Do they believe AllMusic should be designated an unreliable source? Have they actually taken the time to read the content of the web pages that have been listed on that article as sources for years? Or the very least, did they read the sources I cited at the end of the sentences that they copy/pasted from to make their accusations? Did they somehow miss the citation that I placed on the text? Perhaps you can help settle this confusion, because it seems like every time I respond their claim, they side-step it and seek out some other editor without regard or reference to my corrective responses. --Ascribe4 (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


Blocked

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! Can you please lift the block you punished on me almost 8 months ago to the awards page of Beyonce. I promise an edit warring won´t occur this time. THank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyhiveboys (talk • contribs) 18:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not planning to lift the partial block. Judging from the awards you have added to Angel Locsin, you still have no intention of limiting yourself to notable awards, that is, those awards that either have their own Wikipedia article or would be worthy of one. You can still propose whatever changes you want on the talk page of List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé and find out what others think. It appears from a quick look at the talk page for Beyoncé's awards that some people want to show that their favorite artist won the most awards. It is easy to game this competition by lowering your standards and accepting awards that nobody else has heard of. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

For the Attention of EdJohnston (talk

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good afternoon @EdJohnston I took up your suggestion and have posted a Draft:Theatro Technis on my user page for your attention. Thank you {Panayotmarkou (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)}

Edit war puppets

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed, hope you are doing well! There is a problem on the Croatisation. Now there is an edit war there. The banned puppet account added pov content and as you can see here they have an agenda against Croats. Your inout on this situation would be welcomed. I usually see the same editors defending puppet edits mass wipe edits by other sock accounts that get blocked ignore whatever the content is. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:John L. Booth is now indef blocked by the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnGotten sock case. Croatisation has been fully protected for a week by another admin. Some negotiation is needed on whether all the changes to that article by John L. Booth need to be reverted. The talk page is the best place for that issue. Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

AN/I discussion maybe of interest

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You previously blocked User:Wilkja19 for refusing to communicate. I have raised this issue again at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_refuses_to_communicate,_adds_unverifiable_information,_falsely_marks_all_edits_as_minor. Andesitic (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Andesitic (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of WP:BKFIP so my response is no longer needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible COI

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Cathyoates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Cathyoates a person named Cathy Oates is owner/chief manager of Original Matters talent agency.source. The same Cathy Oates is a former head of marketing at EMI.source. As a check user could you (or someone else) investigate their editing for possible CoI issues.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
What article do you think has been affected by COI editing? Can you supply any diffs? And have you expressed your concern yet to User:Cathyoates? I don't see any COI notices on Cathy's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Reply: Nearly all the edits by the named user appear to be for clients or relatives (or both). I provided the following query: Conflict of interest? back in December 2012. The subject(s), Angus & Julia Stone, are referred to in the EMI source above and that same source was in my query at the user's page. There was no reply from the user.
Other clients with only one diff supplied but some of these have numerous edits by this user with some substantial content added/subtracted but described as minor edit in summary.
  1. Megan Washington: diff 1
  2. Kira Puru: diff 2
  3. Alex the Astronaut: diff 3
  4. Dean Lewis: diff 4
  5. The Walking Who: started article here 1. Association: here 2
  6. Mt Warning (band): started article here 3. Association: here 4

As far as I can tell the user has not provided any response to concerns about their COI editing. Do you think I should provide another query regarding COI but with an actual COI template?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added a CoI template to the user's talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing on GetJet Airlines

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Admin, since I have a history in aviation as well as I've been working in Lithuanian aviation companies, I can tell that there is currently a fake news wave going through the country. The current situation was that someone added Aviatic MRO as a sister company to Getjet Airlines, which is legally wrong as both companied have totally different shareholders. Second of all, the claims were made in a fake news manner, where facts were mixed. Let me know if you need more information on the Lithuanian aviation scene to get a clearer view. AviationLogger (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article was protected for a week per the AN3 report, through 18 March. The material about the supposed sister company Aviatic MRO has been removed, due to BLP concerns. If you have more information about the 'fake news wave' perhaps you can comment at Talk:GetJet Airlines. Mention of 'bribery allegations' appears to be nonsense, at least from the sources provided so far. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor coming off block and edit warring re the Khazars

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you have the time, I'd appreciate you glancing over this, where I note the same editor is restoring garbled text whose utility under dispute on the talk page. I think you blocked him for disruption on that page just a few weeks ago. Perhaps an avuncular reminder to pull their socks up might be needed to avoid drastic measures in the future.Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears some progress is being made over at Talk:Khazars. Let me know if not. I have not been able to figure out what text you are referring to as 'garbled text'. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

IP disruption

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Ed, I hope this message finds you in good health. I would like to ask if you could check something related to a upsurge in IP contribution, more a disruption really. At first I overheard about it from editors (most recently at Enforcement - Sadko's case), but these last few days I noticed it myself:

  • 93.86.237.154 and 212.200.206.143, almost certainly one and a same editor from, as it seems, from Novi Sad, Serbia. They not only removing RS-ed content at personal whim, they also editing with these different IP's on the same articles;

and another:

  • 109.165.153.124 is on one particular article, attempting to inject some info, for which they include entire bunch of refs, but misrepresents what these refed sources claim - I mean, completely.

I guess, the first two, most likely one and the same person, IP's could be someone who is recently banned (it (maybe) could even be a blocked sock from three yrs.ago), but whoever is they potentially IP-socking via contributing at the same article(s) (right? that's possibility?), and they certainly removing info which is refed with RS. The second, 109.xxx, is almost certainly (and I am saying this with 99% of ceratinty) editor and admin from bs.wiki, who did same thing regarding the same topic and same article, with identical refs and its identical misrepresentation on bs.wiki. Please, Ed, if you are free from other matters and willing, check this out, and if you need any more information on both cases, please ping me. Thanks - stay safe and take care.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the IP editor may have some historical knowledge but they aren't using talk pages. If you think that 109.165.153.124 (talk · contribs) is an editor from the Bosnian Wikipedia, you should be willing to provide his name. This issue is getting into SPI territory, though you might be right in your suspicions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I have never filed SPI report, and as you can attest I was not sure if I should post bs.wiki suspected user's name - 109.165.153.124 (talk · contribs) could be AnToni - while the first two IP's, 212.200.206.143 (talk · contribs) and 93.86.237.154 (talk · contribs), which both come from Novi Sad in Serbia, and, as you could see, edits from those IP's are concentrated on just few articles where they both appeared and edited, may or may not have some knowledge in history, but they are removing information validated by RS in apparently "I don't like it" style, I could even say sanitizing these few articles from inclusion of non-Serb, that is Bosnian and Albanian, historical actors in the articles' narratives. They had no reason for that, as those are mainstream academically verified information for which RS exist. Besides, they appeared together on the same articles, which means, and if they are indeed one person, that IP's are socks (I guess?).--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I've semiprotected Battle of Pločnik, Battle of Kosovo and Humska zemlja in response to this complaint. I don't see anything else to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
More than enough to bring any party to the TP if there are any problems with RS and/or prose. Thank you.--౪ Santa ౪99° 02:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by blocked user

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sir, User:Johnblaze editor, whom you blocked at AN3 here has resorted to sockpuppetry. I have opened an SPI case here. Please see the case. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The new account TheriPandi (talk · contribs) is now blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnblaze editor. Let me know if you see any others. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ascribe4 still undoing edits, refusing to use article talk page

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I had previously reported user Ascribe4 for breaking 3RR on the article Operation: Doomsday back in late February 2021, and you gave them a warning in response. You had told me to let you know if they continued to undo other users' edits without gaining prior consensus on the talk page, which they have indeed continued to do. I have told them time and time again to use the article talk page but they have refused every time. I'm letting you know of this as you asked me to and also because I'm really, honestly just not sure what to do here. Maybe getting WP:3O is in order? I just want this ridiculous situation to be over. They've been complaining to random editors about me for weeks. --Hostagecat (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Ascribe4#Complaint about you on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: My apologies for not responding earlier. Had things going on with family. Right, so I will once again begin by providing some obscured key details.
It is not simply that I "refused" to use the aritcle talk page. I merely, and quite politely, requested that we utilize user talk pages, and offered to continue on my user talk page if they do not want the text on theirs. Aside from personal preference, the issues that User:Hostagecat raised, specifically regarding AllMusic's reliability, go beyond the scope of that particular article. A primary reason I have been at this is because they have circumvented addressing their claims regarding AllMusic being unreliable this entire time. While I understand Hostagecat does "only edit Wikipedia for fun", I hope they are aware claims that they make have meaning. I hope they do not use desire to use user talk page to once again evade the AllMusic concern, seeing as they have had no problem with touching on so many other subjects on the user talk page.
As I told Hostagecat, if one inspects my edit history, you will notice I have a focus on removing unreliable sources from articles, particularly those that are music-related. I also routinely alert other users when they are using sites deemed generally unreliable, namely user-generated sites like WhoSampled and Genius.com. Hence why I have been at this so much, it falls under a purview of mine. Among other things, Hostagecat repeatedly claimed that AllMusic is an unreliable source. To clarify, as of right now, RhythmOne websites are listed under "No consensus" on WP:RSPS and AllMusic is listed under "Generally reliable sources" on WP:RSMUSIC. Based on what Hostagecat has claimed, there may need to be another Wikipedia discussion to contend whether or not RhythmOne websites such as AllMusic should continue to be designated a reliable source. I believe this goes well beyond the given article, which is why I did not want the locale to be that article's talk page. That's all. Moreover, ◢  Ganbaruby!  the editor who gave Hostagecat their 3RR warning has stated user talk pages are sufficient. Like I said, I would be more than welcome to continue our discussion on my page. I would really like to address this once and for all and move on to regular routine, I am sure we all would. --Ascribe4 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Dispute about Humska zemlja

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
/* original section header was: Some remark */

When I posted the relevant data, they deleted it and said there were no marked pages, when I posted the marked pages (per-review) they said it was misinterpretation. This is chauvinistic terminology used on the Croatian Wikipedia. When they have no arguments, then they start with such disqualifications.

More information at the following links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Humska_zemlja#%22Humska_zemlja_/_Zahumlje%22_and_%22Duchy_of_St._Sava%22_should_be_separated

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BOSNIA.htm#_Toc359577451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.152.93 (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

G'day Ed, I have accidentally removed your protection at Humska zemlja, but the reason is more problematic than that. I have moved the page with substantive elaboration at its TP few weeks ago - the article had unsustainable title, and I provided arguments with sources, and proceeded moving the page to its proper title, with some prose being replace to befit the new RS reality. However, and I alerted you few hours ago, some IP disrupted the page, and now User:Sorabino moved the page without any discussion to its old and unsourced title. I reverted them and referred them to TP, however I removed your recent protection. I think that, and if you have time and energy, you should check this IP's tone and Sorabino's conduct. I am really sorry.--౪ Santa ౪99° 11:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)c
Not some, the IP - 109.165.153.124 (talk · contribs), 109.165.152.93 (talk · contribs)--౪ Santa ౪99° 11:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems that user Santasa99 is trying to disrupt or compromise this article, by summary removals of referenced contents and constant changes of its title. This article was created and defined in order to present contents on the well attested medieval title "Duke of Saint Sava" and its historical scope (15th century). We also have a more general article, on the region of "Humska zemlja", that has a common English title: Zachlumia. As I noted on the talk page, there is no need to confuse those too subjects, or to corrupt this article, that has its distinctive theme. This article is well defined, by the historical scope of this 15th century feudal title (Duke of Saint Sava), while the general regional history of "Humska zemlja" is covered in the Zachlumia article. Same order is observed in other Wikipedia projects. Sorabino (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
G'day Ed, Sorabino is very likely, sock of the above IP's 93.86.237.154 (talk · contribs) and 212.200.206.143 (talk · contribs), and they again moved (re-titled) this article (Humska zemlja into "Duchy of Saint Sava" without consensus, and more importantly without sources, and I mean any sources. However, they did completely buried the TP with sources with page numbers, but non speak about the thing they are injecting into the article title and prose, notably completely invented "duchy" used to construct a name for the piece of medieval land in worst OR I have ever seen in my time on the project.--౪ Santa ౪99° 11:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
EdJohnston, this is getting really odd. Please, can you ask someone to investigate if I am a sock? Lets do that, and get over with this. And regarding the article on the Duchy of Saint Sava, I just restored that article to its stable form, that existed for years before that user started to move it few weeks ago, and I added referenced content. Unfortunately, it is that user who is removing referenced content and corrupting that article. And please, take a look at the talk page of that article. Historicity of the feudal title (Duke of Saint Sava) is not disputed. Sorabino (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
And regarding the sources, for the term in English historiography, here are just two selected references: The Cambridge Medieval History, t. 4 (1923): Duchy of St Sava and Encyclopædia Britannica, t. 15 (1953): "Duchy of St Sava". I really wonder, what is that user trying to achieve by corrupting this article. Sorabino (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
And please note, when it comes to the term "Humska zemlja" both Serbian Wikipedia and Croatian Wikipedia are in full accord (yes, its a miracle): on Croatian Wikipedia, article Humska zemlja covers the entire history of that region, thus corresponding to the scope of the article Zachlumia on English Wikipedia and to the scope of the article Захумље (Zahumlje) on Serbian Wikipedia (there "Humska zemlja" is a redirect to Zahumlje). Those are all synonyms: Humska zemlja = Land of Hum = Zahumlje = (English via Latin) Zachlumia. Therefore, here on English Wikipedia, Humska zemlja should be a redirect to Zachlumia because those are synonymous terms. Sorabino (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
G'day Ed, I said I won't be posting about this on your TP anymore, but things have really escalated with Sorabino after IP's were repelled with your semi-PP, so, in a desperate hope that you will decide to step in, I am going to post few more words, focusing on the essence. There are other violations at this point, regarding OR and RS, but the most important issue is that Soarbion has moved the page and then even its redirect without reaching a consensus on TP with three involved editors, all whom objected his position on the matter. Sorabino also misrepresents his intention regarding article's topic and scope, and uses sources in such a way to achieve this little ploy - he switches his position between intention for article to be on noble title vs. land/country (political entity), where as article is obviously on "country" with particular name derived by editor from one man noble title. The page is obviously categorized as a country, it uses country infobox, myriad of navboxex refer to it as a country, even greater number of link are used toward the page connecting it as country, so whole story how article is about noble title does not holds water - by the way, article on this noble title would most certainly fail notability threshold. I f you are interested in further info I will provide answers on any question, if you say that we stop using your TP, I am apologizing in advance and will desist.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
(Inserted remark) I have just realized, and it is important: when Soarbino realized that I am (or anyone else) able to undo their move reverts to reinstate an old unsustainable name "Duchy of Saint Sava", they came up with an idea to change the name completely, to rename it as "Duchy of St. Sava", but since such name with this "Saint" abbreviation "St." is in existence, they tweaked abbreviation by removing a full stop (dot, point) from its abbreviation "St"! Now we have this article with a title using improper English language against MOS:TITLE, "Duchy of St Sava".--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Parallel vandalism on BW: Recent actions of user Santasa99 were so strange that I had to take a look at what is happening with similar article on Bosnian Wikipedia. And of course, everything became clear. Please, take a look at the recent edit history of this article: Vojvodstvo Svetog Save (Duchy of Saint Sava). Few days ago, BW administrator "AnToni" had to protect that article in order to prevent further vandalism, performed by the same users that are targeting English article Duchy of Saint Sava. It seems that no further comment is needed. Sorabino (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone interested in Saint Sava. I think you are all experienced editors (except possibly for the IPs) so I think you know how to pursue dispute resolution on this topic. If you do not, let me know. To settle an article name, the WP:RM procedure works very well. If anyone believes User:Sorabino is a sock, WP:SPI is open to receive your evidence. Since there is no obvious admin action for me to take, I don't see a need to continue the discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
G'day, Ed, it can't be settled because three of four editors involved in TP objected Sorabino's move, and flip-flop on what should be the scope, which Sorabino used to justify moves, yet they moved it anyway. (At this point title abbreviation is without the dot that goes behind abbreviated Saint.) Now, Sorabion has created series of redirect, directing these new redirect pages to unrelated article, and all that just to obstruct possible move proper or at least something closely resembling proper name for the article. Since they moved the page yesterday, they reverted twice yesterday and three times today. So, they didn't followed WP:RM and when three editors objected their position they didn't care. I will try to put something together for SPI and also 3RR. But what they are doing is not OK.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CentOS

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I really don’t want to go to dispute resolution because I don’t think that’s necessary for now. I also read the message you left for the other party and it conveyed what l've been telling him since the start of this.

With that said, I request your permission to revert the other party's edits and continue discussing the matter on the CentOS talk page. I have the intention of telling him about them. Quetstar (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not first describe the change you want to make, in a post at Talk:CentOS, and allow time for responses. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

All good Quetstar (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked me

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! You blocked me a year ago because of edit warring on the awards page of Beyonce. This is my nth time to convince you to lift the blocked since the page is literally in chaos right now. Random users are deleting valid awards, such as MTV Video Music Awards which is obviously valid. Let me regain access on the page and I will fix it as what I use to do before. I promise that an edit warring wont occur this time. Thank you Beyhiveboys (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are relieved from the partial block, it seems likely you will once again fill up the page with low-quality awards, in the effort to burnish the reputation of Beyonce and establish she is more awarded than other artists. (Surely a person at her level doesn't benefit from an endless list of low-quality awards). See WP:Indiscriminate. Others have recently commented on your judgment regarding awards on your own talk page but you don't appear to listen. If you want to propose specific changes, you can write something on the talk page at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Language tone

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I can only hope you won't hate me. Here we go - 109.165.152.93 (talk · contribs) practically spamming the TP with photo-links with irrelevant sources per RS (whole shebang related to policy), and that's OK, or maybe it's not. However, that's not my main concern - here's some quotes from their discussion directed at me (there is no one else at that point, and it's my edits that provoked such outbursts):

  • Possible vandalism. The reasons for removing the text are probably chauvinistic. [60]
  • Despite this, the title of article "Duchy of Saint Sava" was changed to "Humska zemlja" for non-scientific reasons. [61]
  • This often happens to those who deal with history recreationally or for nationalist reasons. Relevant sources are usually ignored or such people do not know the historical sources at all. [62]
  • In any case, everything is easy to check in the above literature (L. Nakaš) unless you have a chauvinistic odium towards the Cyrillic alphabet. [63]
  • I have to notice an identical and simultaneous change on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedia. Croatian Wikipedia has the lowest rating and is marked as extremely chauvinistic.
  • This is chauvinistic terminology used on the Croatian Wikipedia. When they have no arguments, then they start with such disqualifications. [64]
  • In 2021 the Wikimedia Foundation posted a job ad for a Disinformation evaluator position, with the aim to further examine disputed content on the Croatian Wikipedia. - these diatribes come from this one huge post;

followed by:

  • All detachments are Western (predominantly Catholic) sources. In order to fight against false information that usually comes from right-wingers and ignoramuses [65]
  • *IMPORTANT NOTE: On this occasion, I once again draw attention to the infiltration of right-wing editors from the Croatian Wikipedia, which is qualified as chauvinistic garbage: [66]
  • The abundance of historical sources as well as relevant literature here is deliberately ignored or ignorance is involved. In any case, the tendency to edit as on the Croatian Wikipedia has been very noticeable lately [67]
  • Along with all the other listed sources, I do not see what is disputable here. Unless there is some vile and chauvinistic intent. [68];

if you missed this one [69].

How they interpret sources they present, and how they understand our policies and guidelines is entirely secondary matter in this case, but if read in full these diatribes provide complete misunderstanding of both. Maybe IP should be blocked.--౪ Santa ౪99° 02:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Just that you know, this just keeps coming: User Santasa99 deleted this article from the Croatian Wikipedia and tried to deleted it from the Bosnian Wikipedia. It is more than obvious here that this user approaches the editing of Wikipedia in accordance with his CHAUVINISTIC beliefs. ([70]) Cut me some slack, Ed, I have been abused there for two days now, all the while I tried to navigate this situation with Sorbainos non-consensus approach.--౪ Santa ౪99° 04:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Then: SPECIAL ATTENTION should be paid to users under the nicknames Santasa99, Mikola22 and Tezwoo. There is a high probability that some (or all) of them are trying to apply practices from the notorious Croatian Wikipedia. It is also necessary to consider the possibility of an organized group of Croatian right-wingers. ([71])--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Issue

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mahammad tt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston, this banned user has now begun to disrupt Wikipedia articles across several languages, attempting to a force the very (fictitious) map [72] he attempted to add here. This is problematic (and honestly very low). I know this is beyond the English Wikipedia, but is there a way to deal with this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The person is indef blocked on enwiki, so that is a start. Consider reporting at m:SRG and try to get a steward to lock their account globally. It is done very often for socks, but for other accounts I'm not quite sure how much evidence they need. Do you know any stewards, or any SPI clerks? They would know the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Bishop Walsh Catholic School

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Our page keeps getting vandalised please could I have an IP trace on user James witkinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWSIT (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Another admin has put the article under WP:Pending Changes and has blocked a couple of vandal accounts. Let's hope that will be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Having trouble with student editor who insists on adding content not conforming to WP:MEDRS policy

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed, hope all is well with you. We're having trouble with an edit-warring student editor at Psilocybin mushroom who insists on adding cites of primary research rather than published reviews of such research as required by WP:MEDRS. Another editor has left messages at the student's talk page, but he persists. Carlstak (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ed, and Edjohnston, I am sorry if it seems I was in an edit war. This was not my intention, before undoing the edit, I revised said edit. It was to my belief that revision of my own edit would satisfy the necessary requirements to be a part of the article. I took out the information I provided from the journal that conveyed use in medicine and therapy for humans. I simply wanted to add under the title Research the research that has been done using psilocybin. I apologize if this irritated anyone.Jmorales96 (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster and Goths

Latest comment: 3 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion
I hope that the exchange of views here on my talk page has clarified the issues about the Goths article. There is some risk that people might continue to revert the article before agreement is reached on Talk. If that happens, it is likely there will be repercussions. I look forward to one or more RfCs being set up that will settle the outstanding matters. (Perhaps User:Berig wants to get the RfC started since they opened the thread here). As User:Nishidani mentions below, "too many disputes over content are actually reflections of rather careless editing practices". Nishidani also gave credit to Andrew for his good work at Khazars. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Dear EdJohnston, I noticed this post on his talkpage. I have seen him in action several times and I am starting to doubt that his agenda is for the benefit of this project. Here are some edits that may be violations of your warning: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. I would do something about this myself, but I have edited this article many years ago and could be accused of being an involved admin.--Berig (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!--Berig (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Berig, you should explain your accusation? What "agenda" are you talking about? I have not been editing much lately, so it kind of looks like this is a reaction to me telling you that Germanic peoples was not an article about linguistics recently, because that's almost the only interaction we've had? Or maybe you are worried about the old debate because you've started editing on Goths? Whatever your concern is, why did you not write to me about it first?
EdJohnston, as I explained at the time, your intervention into the Goths article was not easy for me to interpret in the examples which were really happening. So I think I am also in the category of not knowing the status. I noted to you quite early that Krakkos continued editing without anything I could define as pre-agreed consensus. I understood that you accepted that? Between the lines I understand you felt the red lines should be fuzzy and "common sense"? In any case, over the long period since then I've been more careful than Krakkos and only do minor edits without the artificial pre-discussions that have frustrated other editors as much as me. Any edits I've done should be uncontroversially in line with the consensuses which were arrived at in the past. FWIW I see that in some cases I've made such minor edits to that article, which is normally triggered by a one-off editor changing a few words, and me tweaking them, Krakkos has thanked me. But OTOH Krakkos recently wrote to Berig to say he has been the main editor of the Goths article. That's correct.
I notice Krakkos and Berig are active on the article in recent days, which is probably why Berig is now writing? Is that based on "consensus" because Berig agrees with the edits? It is not difficult to see that they are proponents of the idea that Goths came from Scandinavia, (which is one well-known proposal) and that they are emphasizing that. This would not normally be a concern to me, as long as discussion channels are open and we are all able to work together. But at first sight it does not match your ruling of working only by pre-agreed consensus. Note though: I've also never been the one asking for intervention, and I am certainly not now. I'd rather that we talk about sources and style and balance and so on, which was made more difficult in the situation we've had, not easier.
So is there any problem which needs fixing here? Concerning the past intervention, can I suggest you "officially" cancel it now? I presume the aim was to slow things down, which it did. The Goths article slowly got to a more stable version that reflects the real sources better, but had poor copy editing because of the difficult situation. (Other articles where there was similar debate about what scholars have published concerning Germanic peoples came to stable versions without these problems.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute. Also, the post above is so full of allegations, that all I can say is that I rest my case.--Berig (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
What is the case then? What is the problem which has arisen which needs discussion and/or action? Krakkos has been editing more or less at will for a long time, and EdJohnston is aware of that, because I informed him. I am not complaining about that, and why would I, unless there was a return of the controversies from the past? I am not seeing that. I think the editing restrictions Krakkos caused to come into effect on both of us should be ended. On my side though, I have historically stuck mainly to talk page discussion on the Goths article anyway, even before the strange edit war accusations, and am not editing much at all in recent months. I own copies of many of the relevant sources, and my quotations of them have, I think, helped resolve a lot of issues over a long stretch of time. So, I think it should be easy to understand that it feels a little odd to suddenly see a strong complaint being made to an admin about my "agenda"! What agenda? I honestly can't follow. You now say this agenda is not to do with content disputes, which makes it even harder to follow. Please spell out your allegations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Adding my thoughts here since my name is mentioned. EdJohnston's warning disallowed both me and Andrew Lancaster from making any edits at all to Goths without prior consensus. I have consistently abided by these restrictions the whole time. Berig is correct in pointing out that Andrew Lancaster has not done so. As recently as 5 March 2021 he made a major edit at Goths without any prior talk page consensus.[78] In his edit summary he claims to be reverting this IP edit,[79] but in reality he also making the same reverts which resulted in the restrictions being imposed in the first place. See how his 5 March 2021 edit removes the phrase "eventually came to live outside of Germania",[80] just like one his reverts from 15 February 2020.[81] The question of whether the Goths ever lived in Germania is at the very center of the editing dispute.

I think the WP:CRP restrictions imposed by EdJohnston at Goths have stimulated consensus building and article development. I believe these restrictions should remain in place, and strongly recommend it as a way of preventing edit warring on Wikipedia in general.

A problem is that Andrew Lancaster has a habit of posting numerous long and confusing comments at talk pages. Many editors have complained about this and charged it with being a deliberate attempt to create confusion and obstruct consensus building.[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89] If the WP:CRP violations are to have any consequences, i would recommend putting some limitations on the ability to post such repeated and confusing walls of text. Krakkos (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Krakkos the "major" edit you mention was indeed clearly a minor revert on an IP editor who was editing against an old consensus. (I don't agree that these words which I replaced are at the centre of any editing dispute between us. Where is this dispute? I have received several thank yous from you in recent months but no notes about concerns. As the self-proclaimed main editor of this article you've left this text in for a very long time until the IP changed it.) In the meantime, the article remains largely edited by you, and you have continuously edited at will, even when I've clearly disagreed, though apparently now taking more care not to mis-state what our sources really say. I've helped this article by making sure of this on the talk page, but never been the main editor.
The insinuation that my posts on talk pages should be penalized is very surprising! That would mainly stop me from quoting the sources which sometimes get cited wrongly. Why would you want that? However, since the beginning, your complaints to "wikiauthorities" against me have had this characteristic of moving around the accusations and trying to find some kind of vague combination of technicalities to get me eliminated. As I've pointed out to you before, this way of working is unlikely to ever be as successful as just trying to work in a normal way with me. What we are all supposed to be doing is making a encyclopedia. The intervention of EJohnston was only supposed to be justified because of supposed edit warring. Admins are not meant to block editing because of normal content discussions on talk pages. I have a reasonable long-term working relationship with most of the editors you've cited complaining about long posts. Each of those has a story. The period of trying to work on Goths under the special rule of having to post on the talk page instead of editing, was made very stressful for all involved editors. You were, keeping it simple, not just a bystander in these stressful discussions.
Anyway, I thought we'd gotten to a less worse relationship by the end and I am disappointed to see you trying to pump up the drama again. Can't you try a different approach based on citing sources and consensus building discussion? That is my proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Update.
  • Berig has refused to define my "agenda" which is against the interests of Wikipedia (mentioned above), but subsequent posts make it clear that Berig's was in fact a content dispute he was foreseeing, which I was not yet clearly aware of, although it was one of the ones I suggested with a question mark above: the claim that the Goths migrated from Scandinavia. New aspersion casting makes it clear that this is a big issue: [90]. Note that Berig's username comes from the one early medieval source (Jordanes) which claimed this migration. Berig, in that story, led the migration. I think it is obvious Berig is constantly casting wp:aspersions about me in order to get his way in a content disagreement. It is not subtle at all. The accusation made to start this thread was a serious attack on a fellow editor. Who does that?
  • Krakkos and Berig have continued re-writing the article in ways which unsubtly misrepresent what the field says, and ignore all previously negotiated consensus which involved quite a few editors. Today I finally found time to post some first careful problem descriptions of the big edits they made which went together with this thread. Please look at these: [91], [92], [93]. Instead of properly replying, they have begun new edits immediately, which double down and ignore the problems I described. After Berig agreed with Krakkos's proposal the edit went ahead minutes later, although one strong objection (mine) was already posted [94]. (Berig approval: 12:53, 27 March 2021; final edit: 13:06, 27 March 2021‎).

I am asking you once more for clarity about this special regime. Is this really consensus editing that Krakkos is doing? I don't see it. There seem to be no rules, no common sense. And if it this is what you intended, then how is this helping us make a better encyclopedia? This is just "who dares wins"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The above post is gaming the system, and this is beginning to look ridiculous. Andrew Lancaster is trying to use his own dissenting voice with WP:CONSENSUS as a tool to fight the introduction of an excellent text referenced to a very notable book by Michel Kazanski. WP:CONSENSUS is not intended to be used with single editor or minority views to stop the improvement of wikipedia articles per WP:RS and WP:DUE. I vouch that the information inserted is important to the article, mainstream, balanced and verifiable and in agreement with Wikipedia policy.--Berig (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Strange. Kazanski is not even mentioned on that talk page, and honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Why have you been happy to post so many accusations with no diffs or evidence, and yet not even mention this archaeologist who I am supposedly fighting against? Berig, this is not a normal way of working.
Anyway, none of the points I have been posting about have been about archaeology have they? The experts for the topics that worry me are historians and philologists, and as it happens, one of the things Krakkos and I have come to agree on, more or less, is which ones are cited by everyone and considered to be authorities. Citing historians for history questions is NOT an insult to archaeology, obviously!
Concerning consensus, I think I have no problem understanding the normal Wikipedia policies, but Krakkos and I are on special restrictions on Goths. We are supposed to have a consensus BEFORE editing. I do very admittedly have problems understanding how this is supposed to work, but in practice these "restrictions" have been weaponized by you recently (see above) while Krakkos continues to be the main editor of the article.
You mention gaming the system. Would that be like if when you were about to start editing an article, you first check to see if you can get another editor who you might disagree with blocked on a technicality, by going to an admin, casting aspersions with no diffs, and refusing to reply to questions about the accusation? I'll try to avoid doing anything like that. That would be really shameful wouldn't it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Berig: update. I see Kazanski in one footnote. The sentence he is being cited for is not being disputed by anyone, and it not likely to be. This attack you are building up is honestly starting to worry me, and I feel a need to say the following. Sorry, I have no experience working with you Berig, but the constant insinuations you make, which then turn out to have no basis, give a very bad impression. It kind of looks like you are trying to get people in trouble, and not too worried about the facts or the policies. I have a thick skin, but normally it is bad form, especially for an admin, to so obviously use intimidation tactics like you do. I can imagine this would often work to eliminate and frighten Wikipedians. I keep hoping these are all just misunderstandings, but it would be so easy to simply NOT keep making them? One of the things I honestly fear for WP is that it will end up being a community where everyone needs to be allied with a gang of admins in order to edit. Sometimes, I see stuff happening, and in all honesty I fear we are already well on the way. For example, Krakkos mentioned in his last big attempt to eliminate me that he was getting advice in off-wiki correspondence about what to do to get me blocked. I can't help thinking about it. Anyway. Fact: There are very clear reasons to believe that what you and Krakkos are trying to insert into WP is in conflict with WP core content policies, and I've explained that carefully. If you can prove me wrong, I will simply have no problem, but you are not even trying. Instead you seem to be doing everything possible to knock me out of Wikipedia with a "low blow", using cheap accusations. You clearly preconsidered how to do it. Why not post something constructive on an article talk page? Try assuming good faith with me, and let's see what happens? Crazy idea? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster:, I always assume good faith with editors, but I have seen dubious assertions from you in areas where I have formal education and that have made me question both your motives and most importantly your credibility. It has gone so far that I take nothing from you at face value anymore. However, if you are ready to start afresh, and assume good faith from my part, I am more than willing to do it. I don't think it is a crazy idea at all.--Berig (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Listen. Lancaster I only know from his work on Khazars, one of the most difficult and editor-conflicted history articles in the old days. His work there in standing aside and adjudicating the various edit additions and proposals was close to impeccably neutral, and was a key enabling factor in allowing that page to assume the quality it eventually achieved. I haven't looked at the Goth page in question, but entertaining suspicions about agendas and motives, certainly in his case, on my experience, is very odd.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Nishidani, I am ready to fully disclose my reasons here.--Berig (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Really? Another clownish aspersion attack! What is wrong with you? Over and over and over you go, but no substance to you. No diffs. No explanations. You seem to be a broken record. Name ONE of these dubious assertions, or "agendas" or whatever, for once! Bring evidence! I've never seen someone on Wikipedia who is so obviously making fake accusations, so consistently, and apparently totally confident of getting away with it. I thought that wasn't allowed? I am forced to seriously doubt those credentials you keep mentioning Berig. Do people with credentials keep mentioning it all the time? You arrived at the article and demanded that someone make it more about your username, and Krakkos then made some BS up for you to-order, while you went to try to get me knocked out of business. Aspersions when you arrived, some more aspersions, bit of credentials, and then some more aspersions. Can't edit or cite sources though. Krakkos found all the sources for you and twisted them to fit. How well-educated you must be! A real fancy gent: "I always assume good faith BUT...". Your interactions on the talk page make you look like a fraud Berig, who keeps raising the stakes, and is used to getting what you want by intimidating people. Your main effort has been aspersions. That's you in a nutshell. No understanding of the relevant sources concerning Jordanes interpretation, or how to use them, that I have seen. Aspersions without diffs. Lots of qualifications but writing anonymously. Most importantly: You have had so many chances to show good faith, and this new post seems to show it is impossible for you. You seem to be a compulsive bully who has found a victim who is not easily intimidated, but can't readjust. If you want to demonstrate good faith, how about this: read the actual sources being discussed and points I have raised, and then edit on THAT basis or make constructive contributions to the talk page discussion, which show that you are not a fraud. Vague aspersions are a waste of time and energy. In fact, I thought they were against policy, but I must have been mistaken.
EdJohnston you've put me in this pillory without ever feeling the need to give any sort of evidence to justify it. Berig gives the latest demonstration of how bullies can make this work against the aims of Wikipedia, even if I just stick to posting sources on talk pages! This time I was literally dragged in from a wikibreak by attacks. Great! I'm sick of it, the article is stuck, and sorry but I blame you. No positives at all for Wikipedia though, and Berig gets his cosplay article for his username, and bullies seem to be the future of Wikipedia. If I understand correctly, there was no plan: How does this deliberately toxic situation match the aims of Wikipedia? Where is this supposed to be leading? How does it end? How has quality been improved? The rest of normal Wikipedia seems to work just fine with the normal Wikipedia rules. So - stupid question - why can't the Goths article please re-join normal Wikipedia? Do you do this often by the way? It horrifies me to think that, because younger or newer editors would presumably just quit if this happened to them, and that is certainly a tempting option. Toxic editors can apparently just go find an admin and successfully get assistance to make the lives of other editors unpleasant, for no Wikipedia-based reason? If it does not work the first time, just keep looking for an admin that will do it for you, and won't look too close at the fact you give no valid diffs? Is there a new policy of trying to pare down the editor population? This situation is arbitrary and designed to be stressful for all involved, for no good reason. Proper article editing is repressed. My interest on Wikipedia is to improve difficult articles, but not if I have to keep begging for mercy from admins, or join some gang of bullies who want to identify as Roman-era Goths.
My apologies in advance to both of you for being so honest and making this long, but I'm sick of this and I want you to know I am a human being, a good faith editor, and you have responsibilities when you do things to others, just like I do. My concerns are absolutely real, and for goodness sake, this is a website built by volunteers, of which I am one - WP:NOT an experiment in politics, or a game where we all try to win against each other. It should not be so easy for a good faith volunteer editor who has mainly been talking about sources on the talk page, to be constantly attacked by people who feel their Gothic username is being offended by historians. If people like Krakkos and Berig make accusations again without valid diffs I should not have to panic about admins taking them seriously and changing my editing rights again. Or is that a crazy unrealistic dream?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Nishidani and nice to hear from you suddenly! Reminding me of a past case is a nice anchor to reality for me in a situation where there is a reality distortion attack being made like this, and I appreciate it. I believe articles like Khazars taught me a lot about how to improve articles like Goths, especially using the talk page, but from memory I was lucky enough in that case not to be attacked too often personally, and had no admins suddenly deciding I must be doing something wrong. In this case the only semi-clear accusation made, believe it or not, is that I am supposed to be passionately against a prehistoric Goth named Berig having migrated from Scandinavia. Normally I'd say, we will all laugh about it one day, but finding it hard to imagine right now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I see that Andrew Lancaster has started discussing sources with Krakkos while providing quotes and references so I am satisfied with that. There is no secret that I am passionate about the culture and history of ancient Northern Europe, and if you took my question about your interest as an offense I apologize. However, Andrew Lancaster I think it is totally unacceptable that you use the tactic "poison the well" by addressing my username like you did recently on my talkpage.--Berig (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree about the general principle, but your concern about ethics is clearly fake, in this context. In this case, I mentioned the background of your username as a person who was under attack from you, specifically under the charge of being passionate about the Scandinavian migration topic, aka the Berig topic, which FWIW is not true. May I ask you a personal question? Why you really find a possible connection between the Goths and Scandinavia so problematic? Is it ideological? You seem to be so very passionate about it that there must be something deeper than the mere intellectual stimulation of it. [95] My attempt to discuss this out-of-the-blue "personal question" on your personal page led to you deleting my post with the edsum "trolling" [96] and doubling down in aspersion attacks elsewhere, including here.
That aspersion on Goths was of course connected to your repeated allegations here that I have an agenda in conflict with the whole of Wikipedia, and your actions overall obviously constitute a quite serious attack that was clearly deliberately misleading to EdJohnston and others. Pointing out the background of your username in that context was certainly justified. While some Goths editors were probably chuckling from the beginning, EdJohnston will not have been aware of the gorilla in the room, which is your username and your own passionate non-neutrality, which is real. In contrast, concerning me you never had diffs or evidence of any agenda or ideology or passion, and you were making a very bold and extremely unethical bluff by attacking me this way.
One of the bluffs you made most recently is that I have an idiosyncretic way of interpreting WP sourcing norms.[97] I am so glad Nishidani dropped by and reminded us all of the long history I have of being involved in WP:RSN discussions and in resolving issues on controversial articles like Goths, where I have worked with so many different editors and NEVER (as far as I recall) ever been accused of not having a good understanding of WP sourcing norms. But that is just one more aspersion in the list of your attacks over a small number of days.
I still expect you to post an explanation of your agenda claim, with evidence. All just a misunderstanding, or are you just regrouping?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Andrew, exchanges like this are a timesink, so I suggest you not get sucked into them (I speak from vast experience in the matter!), as it goes against the grain of what you, in my experience, are adept at. What invariably happens on these occasions is that focused source analysis gets disrupted by personalizing a dispute - at least in the area I concentrate on (with no prejudice to the parties involved here)- and this in turn leads to a metagame logic of running up diffs to make a caae for WP:Aspersions, and WP:AGF, which lend themselves to the ultimate logic of applying for sanctions. In the meantime, the gravamen of textual disputes is lost from view . It is also the case that admins rightly do not enter into the merits of content disputes (the weakness technically is that too many disputes over content are actually reflections of rather careless editing practices). Remember there is no imperative urgency in editing. The slow, mostly offline, mastery of every source can take months, and in the meantime adopting Joyce's description of Parnell's 'utter coldness in the face of adulation of hostility' can't hurt.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
That said, I don't think that Berig's stepping in, not to edit that page, but to argue with Lancaster, is good form, esp. from an admin. If one has a mastery of the context and languages, one would expect some practical evidence of it, in lieu of which, the impression, perhaps false, is of numbers becoming a deciding factor in a dispute. Here Krakkos certainly knows his 'stuff' and Lancaster also seems to be capable of a meta-overview of the source conflicts (which the text resolves by, at a first reading, selecting for 'most scholars' (consensus) statements that underwrite the Scandza theory. I have only read Walter Goffart's 2005 paper so far, so this 'impression' may be superficial. For what little it's worth, I'll try to join the conversation on that page, when I get the time and manage more reading.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Nishidani. I was on a bit of a wiki break, and although I have been failing, it is my aim to reduce what I write on the Goths page. The new activity is obviously because there is this sudden effort to distort, which risks driving the article into a sand bank. Krakkos certainly should now be familiar with what the sources really say, and Berig knows the policy side in theory (I think) but apparently needs to do a refresher on some of the literature. It is obvious that Berig would never have been tempted to start this accusations thread, if there was no strange consensus-first regime on the article. If we did not have the consensus-first regime on this article Krakkos could edit, and others (like me) could jump in if we were unhappy. There are a relatively large number of experienced editors who occasionally enter discussion but the current situation which overloads the talk page makes editors understandably see the article as hopeless. If we fix that, we fix the article, or at least get it sailing safely out of the Suez. The effect of the consensus-first editing restriction on Krakkos is to create an incentive to continually try to edit in sudden surprise attacks, and to slip things under the radar, and make the talk page awkward. It is not how Wikipedia should work. This article really shouldn't be as difficult as Khazars! IMHO it needs the tried-and-trusted Wikipedia way of working to be re-installed. It is a long time since I read any Joyce. Thanks for the reminder that I should read a good novel again soon. It so happens that I was just talking to my neighbour about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster's appearant aim is to engineer my "exit from Wikipedia" and the "removal of all" my edits.[98] His relentless campaign to undo contributions i have made at Goths appear to be part of that aim. Now he has even begun edit warring at Talk:Goths to change contributions i have made on the talk page.[99][100]. Andrew Lancaster has been warned multiple times by EdJohnston and others against making personal attacks and casting aspersions against me.[101][102][103][104] These attacks have continued in this discussion, with Andrew Lancaster talking about how "Many Wikipedians were once critical of Krakkos",[105] accused me of "twisted" editing, called Berig a "compulsive bully" and implied that we are "toxic editors".[106] In an effort to reduce tension and talk page volume, i have tried to ignore these attacks, but talk pages continue to get flooded and attacks continue. It even appears that the attacks are swaying some editors. It is does not bode well for Wikipedia that such attacks appear to be paying off. Krakkos (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You guys, this is insane. Ed Johnston shouldn't have to put up with this squabbling on his talk page. Can you declare a truce, cease and desist, and start over as if this "conversation" never happened? Trading accusations resolves nothing. Carlstak (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2021 (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.

IPBE extension

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! You helpfully made an IPBE entry for me in October 2020, which will expire shortly. Any chance you would be able extend it? I will likely edit wikipedia via VPNs / VPSes indefinitely. -- pde (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I asked another checkuser who has more experience than me with granting WP:IPBE, and am waiting to hear back. The desire to use a VPN is often not considered a sufficient justification. Your editing record looks good, and if that were the only criterion I would probably go ahead. For some of the grounds that have recently been accepted to justify IPBE, you could look at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption/log. You can send me email if you have additional reasons that you don't want to share publicly. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to decline the IPBE renewal. There needs to be something more specific than just the desire to use a VPN. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Usage of RFCs at Goths

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

/* Original title was: The problem at Goths can not be fixed by an experiment in using RFCs to handle normal content disputes */

EdJohnston, you have closed the attack discussion Berig started, which you called me to. Fine by me. But having been called here and then attacked over and over by Berig with impunity (still no diffs), I feel compelled to register that insisting that the Goths article has to be edited by RFC has now had a long experimental trial, and the trial has failed and indirectly incentivized such attacks. Frankly, this has been bad for Wikipedia. You like the idea that the problems are of the type Nishidani described ("rather careless editing practices"). RFCs are spectacularly unsuitable for this type of problem, because each problematic sentence can be fixed in multiple valid ways.

You have created a who-dares-wins situation where, in practice, Krakkos simply edits in large blocks and deliberates stresses the talk page by opening new threads and pretending not to remember past threads. Clearly Krakkos and Berig have no need of RFCs. The drama started by Berig on your talk page here would not have started either, because it would not have been as likely to work, if this regime was not in place.

Wikipedia has established norms for handling content disputes, and you've broken them here. (IMHO this is about admin intervention into a content dispute, and always has been.) Admins are not supposed to change those as far as I can see. Insisting on RFCs for all content disputes is not something our community would normally accept as a demand, and you (like Krakkos) have never justified your initial intervention by finding any relevant diffs of me edit warring. (Here is my breakdown of the 3R accusation by Krakkos. It comes down to being a demand for article ownership.) IMHO this is nothing to do with 3R but a failed experiment by an admin in changing Wikipedia content dispute culture. When will this experiment be ended? It currently disincentivizes normal good faith practices, and seriously weakens the position of editors like myself who openly practice a policy of avoiding wikilawyering against people, even on difficult articles, and strongly aims at registering a good "paper trail" for every controversial decision made when trying to make a more stable article. (Consider the observations of Nishidani about my long-run editing history on difficult articles.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If you don't like RfCs, what else would you propose as a way of reaching consensus? EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:BRD, is the great Wikipedia method that really works. Complicated systems cause complicated problems on complicated articles. I am not, and was not, a heavy editor on this article's mainspace, but if another editor thinks I can never edit, then the potential for problems is obvious, as can be witnessed. BRD with limited reverts like 1R is another common solution. My experience on difficult articles is that BRD slowly starts to work in most cases, and normally when it does not, then the problems are generally more clear. In the current situation there is no reason to compromise, and every reason to make your proposals as extreme as possible, which is a game I refuse to play. BRD normally forces people to talk rationally and seek compromise, eventually, while the current situation has arguably made the talk page worse. Thank you for responding!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it is a great time to look at the Goths talk page, to explain my thinking on difficult articles. The recent passions have caused a flurry of activity of a type which I know many Wikipedians find horrifying, and therefore walk away from. Many important articles need to go through these phases. For good reason, very few experienced Wikipedians like to be there during them, or at least not more than a couple of times a year! Right now however, it is also not yet too ugly (and of course we'll try to make sure it does not go there, and Nishidani has helped without doing much yet!) - though some of the typical bad AND GOOD tendencies show, which are an illustration of what happens in such articles. This article has been trapped, but it can move forward. There are always things people have to get past. You can see it there, that for example there is a lot which connects the editors, even while things look terrible on the surface. Furthermore, another important benefit of BRD is that it speeds things up so that the talk page does not become a disaster, and this means other editors will stop running away. (One easy point on Goths is that once we get it closer to stable, there are already quite a few good editors who watch it but just thinks it's a lost cause. Once it no longer looks like a lost cause, the main job is done. We need this article to be unfrozen.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Andrew, I've been very busy offline, but will engage with that page once I have read more deeply. I see a certain impatience, (which I can share - I do think the Scandza showcasing based on a single datum of Jordanes is improper, and that there are other ways of handling it, as one of several hypotheses, rather than something deemed credible by citing numerous remarks about an ostensible consensus it is 'trustworthy') 'Trustworthy' for what? Certainly not the known fiction that the Goths, unknown to history under that name for another 1,500 years, came out of Scandinavia 3 centuries before the purported date of the Trojan war (i.e., emigrated around 1,500 BCE.) As Procopius, Jordanes' contemporary, a far more accomplished historian with access to a vast amount of ethnographic literature states, the 'Goths' of his time were several peoples. Editors should take that on board before isolating an extremely complicated datum from an epitomizer by Jordanes and making it, as has occurred in the Prehistory section, the guiding light to the 'origin' of the Goths. So I understand your agitation over the slowness on that page I would suggest a little patience and detachment for a few weeks. I'll try to sketch out some simple methodological issues which have been neglected in approaching the topic of the early history, issues the page editing seemed to have ignored. But Ed's page is not the place for this. Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Good comment in the context of one day's work, but that's not really my point. Slow is fine by me, but this article is not just glacial (we are now filling the page with discussions about a couple of no-brainer wording tweaks) but also has a tendency to swing back into a negative direction, massively. If you look at the article history it involves massive burst of controversial editing, whenever Krakkos feels that he can sell the idea that there was a consensus. (I actually have some sympathy for the reasoning of Krakkos.) Normal BRD editing works better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
And to be clear, I have limited the discussions I introduced on that talk page to I think only three sentences, and the problems with these are all new, from since the recent Berig thread started here on this page. Before Berig popped up, all burst of editing have had to be triggered by incidents or visitors, because these provide situations where you can say "someone agreed with me". It is a totally negative and "unnatural" situation, with no positive side in terms of Wikipedia's aims. None at all. I discourages people from learning to work with each other, because it gives an alternative way, to try to win control without cooperation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the WP:CRP measures implemented at Goths are working out well. It has made the article more stable and made the editing environment more inclusive. Since the measures were implemented, the article has improvement significantly, and the improvement continues. The talk page has indeed had a tendency to become a disaster. I think editing behavior is more to blame for that than the CRP measures. A greater effort to reduce the size and frequency of talk page comments would probably be of help here. I think the CRP measures should be maintained. They give the broader community a greater oppurtinity to shape the article's future. If the CRP measures are ended i fear that individual editors will come to dominate the article through force, as has happened previously at related articles. Krakkos (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Krakkos I think honestly that last sentence is the key, and it was the key theme in your the controversial (I would still say "fake") 3R complaint. You fear losing control of the article, and you want the opportunity to shape the article's future without people like me butting in and telling you that you've misquoted a source. That was also a problem on Germanic peoples where you feel you "lost" to BRD and therefore, unfortunately you just gave up on working with other editors there. You want article ownership. Many/most editors go through at least some problems with this. Working with me, and people like me, is much easier than you seem to think it is, but unfortunately you've not been forced to try it on one of the small number of bigger articles you want to have a bigger impact on. The current situation, IMHO is stunting your WP experience and development. I mentioned before that the current situation encourages you to exaggerate all your positions, and to ruin the talk page threads, making me explain everything multiple times. Maybe I'm crazy, but to me this seems like a very UNdesirable situation. The talk page shows all too clearly how you constantly act as if you don't things that you recently discussed in another place, and so forth. You know it won't work in a BRD environment. Why should WP as a community see BRD as bad then?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Once again i am forced to respond to attacks. Per the restrictions put in place by EdJohnston, Goths is under the control of the consensus of the community. I have no more control of it than you. These restrictions are not preventing you from "butting in" to tell me or others that they have "misquoted a source". Your accusation that i "ruin the talk page threads" is unfair. You are by far the biggest talker there![107] I'm starting to sense a pattern here of you projecting your own behavior on to others. It's interesting that you mention the article Germanic peoples. As can been seen at Talk:Germanic peoples#Rewrite and NPOV, there i a consensus that it it is in bad shape, but nobody is able to do anything about it. The bad shape of that article is a result of you rewriting it through edit warring. CRP restrictions ensure that it is community consensus rather than edit warring which determines the content of Goths. I believe that ensures higher article quality and a more inclusive editing community. That should be the aim of everyone. Krakkos (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I stick by my description. It is not an attack to describe what is clearly visible. Although you fear losing control of "your" article, you will be happier IMHO when you get past that phase.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, a small but poignant observation, that Nishidani reminded me of. We probably mention too often that the drama on Goths clearly stemmed from near-contemporary drama on other articles. Krakkos will reject any description I make of what happened. Less controversial examples of how Krakkos and myself can work according to normal BRD (apparently older and wiser?) are the more recent spin-off articles from Goths: Names of the Goths, and Origin stories of the Goths. I will admit to being the one who feared this and argued against it, when it started, fearing POV forks, but amazingly these two articles are not apparently a source of ANY major controversy between us, or anyone else! You have to note that these articles cover PRECISELY some of the most difficult controversies on Goths. As Nishidani has pointed out, this means Goths itself is markedly inferior to the spin-offs. That makes sense to me. We edit normally on those other articles, instead of being forced to debate every wording of every sentence, or call for RFCs. When someone who has experienced BRD breaking-down edits, they tend to keep other people's concerns in mind to avoid it happening again. Trust builds up. Everything gets easier. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Do you know if Gilabrands topic ban is still active? [108] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

These are the entries I found by searching WP:DSLOG and the WP:AE archives:
These sanctions were logged as the result of the AE discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147#Gilabrand
The editor was also blocked for three months in December 2016, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive205#Request concerning Gilabrand

Help requested with election page

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Ed! I am the creator of the page 2022 Los Angeles mayoral election, and seeking help with it. There are a number of "potential" candidates who keep adding themselves with IP address accounts and no sourcing, and it's a slight nuisance. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I feel some sort of protection to the page or a temporary block on an IP address might be helpful. What do you think? Thank you so much! PickleG13 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Page semiprotected one month for addition of unsourced content. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sock

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

G'day, EJ. You blocked yesterday those three socks (Duchy St thing), and they created new one. The person behind it won't easily desist.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mithrandir.Mithrandir is now blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Great Khaan/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § Reverting after an edit warring block

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Reverting after an edit warring block. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. Perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at this. I believe it has to do with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive430#User:Npovobsessed reported by User:新世界へ (Result: Blocked), but the dispute might've spread to other articles as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Npovobsessed is now blocked again for continuing the edit war. The original AN3 report was here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Ed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Protection of Michel Foucault's biography

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! I saw you placed the biography of Michel Foucault under semi-protection after the edits war on the accusations of pedophilia. As it stands, the accusations are sourced but are not explained, and another newspaper published an actual investigation (in French) since it was last edited. The subsection about these events on wiki fr appears to be well accepted and cite this new investigation. As there isn't much activity on the discussion page on the article, and that I'm fairly new to these processes, I was wondering if I should go ahead and translate it? It's a lot more detailed and better sourced than what we have currently (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault#R%C3%A9ception) but I'm not sure I have the right to edit the English biography.

Thank you! E mln e (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

In principle some of this material could be used. Why not translate whatever you think is relevant and present it at Talk:Michel Foucault for review? Have any scholars commented on this aspect of Foucault's life? Any publications offered as references would have to pass the WP:RS rules. Even the paper Jeune Afrique offered Guy Sorman's charges in quotation marks: "C’est en tout cas ce que rapporte l’essayiste Guy Sorman," suggesting that they didn't mind passing along the words of what Sorman said but are not themselves vouching for its truth. It appears that a reporter from Jeune Afrique must have visited the place where Foucault had lived in Tunisia and tried to verify the stories from local people. That person had limited success in confirming the more sensational details alleged by Guy Sorman. On balance I would vote not to include the stories unless the mainstream French press has written about them. But the decision is up to consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay! I'll propose a translation on the talk page. May I ask how is consensus achieved for this kind of issues? Do I just wait until other editors comment, or should I do a poll of some sorts? E mln e (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:DR offers some steps you might consider. You could also ping some people who have been previously active on the article so long as you do so in an even-handed manner. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the pointers! E mln e (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Cedar Point

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Saw you protected the article, and now there's an IP on Talk:Cedar Point spouting accusations of racism. Not sure if their last comment should be removed and/or if a warning or short-term block is needed for that IP range, but I thought I'd seek out another opinion on the best way forward at this point. Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Now semiprotected Talk:Cedar Point one month per WP:NPA due to the charges of racism. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I was about to make the same request. Is it possible to archive some of that debate? That talk page goes on forever and if someone does want to have a legitimate discussion it involves a lot of scrolling just to find what you are looking for.—JlACEer (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Usually, consensus decides when archiving is needed. Why not make a proposal on the talk page on how much to archive? EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ed! Appreciate your help here. JlACEer, currently the page is set to autoarchive threads older than 180 days, keeping a minimum of the last 5. We could always manually archive threads as needed, but considering it's recent, a better solution might be to collapse the WP:UNCIVIL part of the discussion. I'll work on that now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lurulu socks

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Evening, I see you recently blocked Wild.Reputation for edit warring. This is yet another Lurulu sock and I'd appreciate your help in keeping a look out for him. I've indef blocked that account and a few others I easily found. They almost always follow the same naming pattern (name1.name2) and will typically edit lists of concert tours and other music-related articles. He typically creates new socks 1-2 times a month and will edit for a few days, inevitably get into a conflict where he'll edit war and then resort to name-calling and making exclamatory statements in edit summaries. When he's blocked, he'll usually move on and create a new account. This issue has been going on for years. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Evidently there is a sock case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lurulu/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts....

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


See here.

You can file an SPI if you wish, but some of the above edits are quite old (2016). EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Attention may be needed, possible continuation of ethnic flag planting attempts

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear EdJohnston, you probably remember my concerns of the nationalist/ethnic flag planting certain pro-Albanian editors are resorting across a very wide range of Balkan articles (for which I had warned everyone, both here: [109] and elsewhere. I am disappointed that this practice, which has signs of possible WP:TAGTEAMING, has not ceased, as evidenced by the fact that more Greek topic area articles are becoming victims of this, again by the very same editors who were involved previously in numerous other cases of similar nationalist flag planting edits promoting "Albanianess" of bits and things around the Greek topic area, often using their numerical advantage to disregard the lack of WP:CONSENSUS, and forcing this way their contentious edits, despite WP:BRD. The newest incident occurred today at: Katerina Botsari and I would appreciate if the matter is being monitored, as it is disruptive and goes against the spirit of the project and only raises the question about whether the recent suggestions at the AE, about a stricter implementation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Discretionary sanctions rules is needed against this kind of ethnic-based flag planting in the Balkan topic area, where editors of different POVs are, focusing, not on promoting the multi-ethnic character of the area, but a certain ethnicity by using templates and categories to tag something as being related to it. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 05:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

IP 75.118.112.126 and user WWE and NFL superfan

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Good afternoon, Ed Johnston. You recently blocked this IP following their edit warring on Hunter Street (TV series) and subsequent personal attacks on the corresponding talk page. Based on this edit and this interaction report, I have reasons to believe the user, who made similar disruptive edits to the article back in March, and IP are the same person. Not sure if anything can technically be done, but I figured I'd bring it to your attention, at least. Thanks. Amaury • 19:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely editing while logged out, possibly to evade detection. Considering the named account has continued some of the edit warring behavior (though editing their Talk page post to remove the personal attacks), I would recommend taking a closer look at this. Thanks, Ed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
User:WWE and NFL superfan has now taken to edit warring on my Talk page after I've made clear they are not welcome there. This editor has a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem, and a block is likely now in order. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked WWE and NFL superfan (talk · contribs) one week for apparent logged out editing per WP:DUCK. EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for Atlantis: The Lost Empire article's protection level be lifted.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to add more information and a little clean up to a protected page; the "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" article. I suggest that the page's semi-protected indefinite be lifted, so that I can be able to add the information. It could use some room for reception and plot sections. Especially as this was a childhood favourite of mine.213.107.64.77 (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll unprotect for the moment but it may have to be restored after you are done. Go ahead with your idea. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice where you have been mentioned

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MarkH21talk 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

An3

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed, and thanks for all the hard work you do at WP:AN3. I noticed that you closed this discussion but have not placed a warning on Efbrazil's Talk page. Was this intentional? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I left a warning here. You should let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

ANEW

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed, I posted at suggestion at the ANEW talk page. It would be appreciated if you could review it and give it your support to get it implemented. I'm sure you'll see the benefit. Thanks - wolf 06:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Responded at WT:AN3#Suggestion. I'm not persuaded yet, personally. But nothing prevents you from including the additional link (pointing to the notice) in any reports that you file yourself at the noticeboard. If an admin happens to see that someone was reported but not adequately notified they could just decline the report. Or post on the user's talk page and wait for them to answer before taking any action. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I've already been adding it for awhile. I'm aware of an admins options if a reporter forgets to notify a reportee, the point in adding the line to the template is that it would both serve to remind people to notify, and show admins, and anyone else, that it was done. There's really no downside. It's a short and simple addition, basically just another diff. As I suggested, how about adding it for a trial, and then after a short term, evaluate whether to keep it? Seems reasonable, no? - wolf 02:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
How would you measure the success of your proposed reform? EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
You are one the main admins on that board, meaning you are there regularly. The line would be added, then for the next 30 days... just see how often it's added. Is it only used sparingly or not at all? Are there any other issues? After the 30 days, I would trust your judgement and evaluation. If it's used as intended, great. If not, remove it. Simple as that. - wolf 14:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, go ahead. I don't actually remember how this is done, so I hope you can figure it out. One of the files involved is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Editintro but that might not be the one you need to change. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Ha, I figured it was a protected template (or I would've boldly added it awhile ago). I found the actual page. Thanks for giving it a go. - wolf 17:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Atlanta United Football Club

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I wanted to know if this official club source announcing the full name – Blank officially announces name as Atlanta United Football Club – will also be rejected/ignored because it refutes the disruptive user’s point of view and stands in opposition to his WP:OWN and WP:ROWN practice.

You probably missed my question to you at WP:AN3 where you ruled in the favor of the reported user: Seeing that logos are decreed to be relevant sources now, should the lead text and article title about the second team be changed as well, since the current logo says ATL UTD 2, so »Atlanta United 2« is incorrect and should really be ATL UTD 2? The same question goes for the article about Inter Milan, because from the coming season on, the logo will only bear the initials »IM« so the article should be renamed to »IM« if I understood your reasoning correctly? Cheers. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Admins don't decide who is right in a content dispute. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The reason for my question was based on the fact that you referenced a specific source (in this case a club logo) as one of the decisive factors to decline action against the reported user, whose disruptive behavior was confirmed by another editor in the same incident report (»The title of the club that is written on their current logo is Atlanta United FC«). While my intention is to no bother you any further with this matter, I would welcome a response to my question regarding football logos in regard to renaming Atlanta United 2 and Inter Milan, following your explanation in the report. I shall consider WP:RFC in parallel. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Asked and answered (see above). EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Avoided answering (see above), but that’s all I needed confirmed, thanks. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for Edward Smith article's protection level be lifted.

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to add reliable first hand information to a protected page; the "Edward Smith (sea captain)" article. There are several weak paragraphs that go against more reliable evidence. And this article gives a completely inaccurate account of Smith's reaction to the crisis. The "Sinking of the RMS Titanic" article claims he was effective and even heroic whereas the Smith article says he was in a state of nervous collapse which has now been disputed. I suggest that the page's semi-protected indefinite be lifted, so that I can be able to add the information (I have asked user "Brookie" who blocked the page the same suggestion but they seem to not be as active anymore) The page talks about the account by Robert William Daniels of seeing Smith in the bridge and dying there, while it goes against all the more reliable evidence from other survivors - including the enquiry testimony of the second radio officer Harold Bride, not one of the thousands of far-fetched newspaper accounts given by passengers like Daniels - that Smith may instead have jumped into the sea just before the bridge was submerged, and possibly even nearly reached collapsible B (notice: I say possibly, and indeed Smith's fate will remain uncertain): it is not even certain that Daniels was really still aboard when the ship sank, and IF he was, he was in the extreme stern (newspaper account by the fireman Thomas Patrick Dillon, which is also the only source that placed Daniels aboard - many Titanic historians are instead convinced that he was already in a lifeboat by this time, and there is no way he could have reached the extreme stern if he was near the bridge when it began to flood, because from that moment to the moment the Titanic sank only five minutes or so passed, and there is no way he could have walked up the slanting deck for al the length of the ship. Moreover, all the survivor accounts (see enquiry testimonies) are unanimous in saying that the fore end of the boat deck, where the bridge was, was submerged in a very quick and violent manner, like a "tidal wave" had struck it: it had not flooded slowly like Daniels said. Excuse me for being so commanding but this second hand account has been repeated for nearly several years and is not a reliable account.79.68.150.165 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the latest manifestation of the LTA I call the UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP, who has been haunting this subject for years and is the reason for the protection. I've blocked the IP. Acroterion (talk)
This request for unprotection is declined per User:Acroterion's comment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Mr Johnston, I'd like to ask for your assistance. I have been trying to have a discussion about a certain matter at the MoS talk page (that quagmire of all quagmires), but unfortunately, an editor has been hostile to me from the moment I set foot on the page. In the first place, I was accused of 'wasting people's time' by starting what I admit now was a malformed RfC. Therefore, I opened a new talk section for discussion of the matter in a more appropriate format. Instead of allowing the discussion to progress naturally, this editor has continually casted asperions against me, for reasons I cannot comprehend, basically poisoning the well and preventing the possibility of a productive discussion. I admit I should have been more deft in my handling of the discussion, and should have ignored his comments, rather than sinking into the mire as I have done, but when the nature of his attacks has escalated to suggesting that have an 'obsession' and that my behaviour is 'manic', I feel that's going a bit too far. I requested that he strike these remarks, but he declined. I am asking, therefore, for the removal of these remarks. Is this too much to ask? RGloucester — ☎ 19:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Fact: of the most recent 35 edits to the talk page in question, 22 were made by a single editor, being your complainant. Five were by me, leaving just eight from other editors. I would simply suggest that dominating the discussion in this way and harrying and bullying anyone who disagrees with him (or her) isn’t the way to build meaningful consensus. MapReader (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand who I've 'harried' or 'bullied'...as far as I can tell, the only person who has been subject to such behaviour is myself. I opened an RfC, and whilst I was at work, I did not respond at all, doing exactly what you have now so 'kindly' suggested. I later withdrew the RfC in line with your suggestion that it was malformed, in deference to your opinion, and in an attempt to ensure a constructive discussion. I instead opened a talk section, and intended to have a discussion, and to clear up some of the muddle that existed in the RfC, so that some potential route forward could be agreed upon. Most of the edits mentioned were copyediting of the original RfC, closure of that RfC, and copyediting of the new talk section, and I cannot see anything untoward in any of them. Instead of being allowed to have a discussion, I have been subject to your hounding, and your continued attempts to poison the well, seemingly in an attempt to shut down all discussion. Furthermore, you have, for reasons I cannot understand, issued personal attacks against me. You then refused to redact these attacks. I admit that amidst your continued hounding I may have become more trenchant than is advised, but that's exactly why I am seeking mediation here.
According to the above party, I apparently have an 'obsession' with this matter, and yet I have done nothing to change the status the quo, and have constantly appealed for constructive suggestions on a route forward. Have I forced my interpretation on anyone? No. Have I boldy tried to modify the MoS? No. Have I tried to change anything in articles, or otherwise disturb the existence of ENGVAR templates? No. Have I ever before discussed this matter, or otherwise brought it to anyone's attention? No. Where are the grounds for this fellow's continued hostility toward me? I cannot find them. RGloucester — ☎ 20:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes a discussion goes downhill fast, for no reason that could have been predicted. I don't have time to follow up now, but may do so later today. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The volume, frequency and tone of his contributions today evidence my intended-to-be-helpful suggestion as to where RG is going wrong, in my opinion. He’s dominated the talk page, posted on my talk page, and also here, and it is only day one of a mission to change WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES, some of the most sensitive parts of the MoS. I am sure Ed will be able to reach his own conclusions. MapReader (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
MapReader, I have been here ten years. I have something like 35,000 edits. This is not my 'first rodeo'. I think I can handle myself, without your 'suggestions'. Now, for some reason, you paint me as an advocate, seeking to manipulate the 'most sensitive' parts of the MoS, for what I purpose I cannot understand. I can't imagine that there is any motive for your continued weaving of this narrative, other than to beat me into submission. And so, I grant you what you seek. I will withdraw the talk section I opened, and leave it to more esteemed editors such as yourself to tinker with these most 'sacred parts' of our encylopaedia. We would not want anyone to get away with even discussing improving our guidance on this subject, now would we? Indeed, enjoy your articles written in 'Pitcairn Islands English'! I had only recently returned here from a period of reduced contribution, but it seems I had been correct in staying away. Wikipedia is a waste of time!
I do stand by my request to have MapReader's remarks reviewed, however, and if appropriate, ask for their redacting. I will be most obliged for your assistance, Mr Johnston. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I put greater weight on behaviour rather than edit count or years of editing. Even by your own account you haven’t handled this well; you’ve even mentioned me by name twice here without pinging me, which is very bad form. All you had to do was raise your editing suggestion on the MoS talk page - and then WAIT a week or two to see what other editors had to say or suggest. Instead, you weighed in with one ill-judged suggestion after another, jumping on every editor who commented with a lengthy rebuttal (it isn’t me who has been doing the “beating”), and when two of us tried to get you to step back a bit, pursue the issue to my talk page and then to here. Now you’ve taken your bat home and withdrawn the discussion altogether. All in twenty four hours! I expect Ed is already fed up having his personal talk page misused like this; this was never the right place for you to be complaining, in the first place. MapReader (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I did not make an 'editing suggestion' (this continued purposeful misconstruction seems to be a tactic of yours), and as to whether any of my comments were 'ill-judged', I don't think that's for you of all people to determine, given that you continued to repeat what anyone can see here are 'ill-judged' remarks (see WP:NPA) in an effort to prevent me from even opening a debate on this subject (i.e. poisoning the well). I wanted to have a discussion about what possible suggestions could be made in a future RfC, therefore, it was necessary to talk about the matter and clarify the intent of the discussion, rather than simply propose something for adoption, which was never the purpose of the section that I opened. I have held many similar discussions over the years, and indeed, many later resulted in RfCs where community approval for a given proposal, created through discussion and consensus, rather than by one editor, was granted. Instead, for reasons that still have yet to be made clear, you continue to paint me as a obsessive tied to one proposal to revise what you deem a 'sensitive' area of the MoS, who is willing to ram it through at all costs through a long campaign of advocacy, when in fact, I did not even make such a proposal. What I offered was simply a starting point for the discussion, and the hope was to create an agreed upon tighter wording for TIES so as to avoid the problems identified. And certainly, there were numerous people present in the discussion, however short it was, who agreed with that position in priniciple.
For some reason you seem to think you are some kind of self-appointed guardian of that page, well I say, balderdash. As for Mr Johnston, I have long sought his mediation in cases like these, as he is a man of good judgement, whom I trust to determine whether something I or someone else did crossed a line. I was perfectly legitimate to come here for mediation, and I do not regret doing so. If Mr Johnston has any objection to such, he can tell me so, and I will cease bringing such matters to his attention! In the meantime, I would appreciate if you would drop that WP:STICK of yours and leave me the bloody hell alone! Thank you! RGloucester — ☎ 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
RGloucester, thanks for the kind words but I don't think the incivility has reached a level where admins ought to intervene. Another point is that lately people are asking the proponent of a change to open a preliminary discussion before an RfC is launched. While this extra step might might seem fancy, it helps when the RfC is controversial. Though a couple of very experienced people did show up in support of your view at WT:MOS, so I may not understand this fully. You might have considered posting a sample version of MOS:TIES that would meet your approval. There could be some latent support for your idea out there which has yet to materialize, since the discussion was quite tense. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your counsel, Mr Johnston. To be frank, I should've known better than to get involved in such matters, for only misfortune awaits those get involved MoS-related matters. Perhaps I will try to raise the matter again in a more organised fashion at a later date. In meantime, I'll focus on writing some articles... RGloucester — ☎ 19:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Michel Foucault page accusations

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, apologies if this isn't how to do what I'm trying to. I'm only a fledgling Wikipedian. I believe you're the one who made the page on Michel Foucault semi-protected. In the version history, where it says the protection began, it says to get a consensus on the talk page. I'm not sure how many people you're hoping for, but on my end it looks unanimous. Guy Sorman, the man who accused Foucault of pedophilia, has retracted his claims. This was after a Tunisian journalist published an article claiming the locals where this supposedly took place did not corroborate the accusations. Sources for both of these are in the talk page. They've also been on the French page for a little while now. When the accusation was initially added to Foucault's page, it was on the basis of a single newspaper article. I made this account specifically to try to get a "dubious" flag on there. Right now, the page contains the initial accusation, as well as a second, also coming from Sorman, but none of the sources disputing this, and no indication these sources may be dubious. I can't edit the page due to the protection, which I understand as a security measure and think should probably stay in place, but the Tunisian article refuting his claim and the one in which he retracted it himself both need to be cited on there, as soon as possible. Benevolent Robot Overlord Hivemind (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

See a previous discussion at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 50#Protection of Michel Foucault's biography. Why not use the article talk page to make your arguments? Personally, I would be grateful if someone could remove the paragraph about Guy Sorman's charges from Michel Foucault#Underage sex and pedophilia, especially in the light of Sorman's retraction. Another approach to consider is the one in the French Wikipedia where they state the initial charge, then quote some critiques of Sorman's claim and mention his retraction. But is it a notable fact about Foucault that someone made an incorrect charge about his sexual behavior and then retracted it? There might be an argument for leaving it out completely, except that new editors would probably keep showing up to restore the incorrect charge. I can't edit the Michel Foucault article myself without becoming WP:INVOLVED. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, sorry I missed the prior entry on here. I had written something similar on the talk page, I just wasn't clear on who could edit protected pages (also wasn't yet familiar with the guidelines on admin involvement). Looks like somebody has now removed the section entirely. I agree with you that, following the retraction, Sorman's claim isn't relevant to Foucault. Your other point, that people may restore them anyway, is surely also right; other online news sources have continued to spread the accusations. I'll hope for the best. For the most part, I have a great deal of a faith in Wikipedians' commitments to make this place the most accurate source of information out there. Thanks you for this response!Benevolent Robot Overlord Hivemind (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User Ascribe4 still continuing do undo changes while refusing to use article talk page.

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Once again, Ascribe4 has undone edits on the article Operation: Doomsday while ignoring all posts on the article talk page. They have already been given a warning for breaking WP:3RR, and you have personally warned them twice [110] [111] since then for undoing edits without gaining consensus on the article talk page. I have tried and tried with this user but they simply refuse to adhere to Wikipedia's rules and insist everyone else change the way they do things to fit this user's personal preferences. They have been incredibly difficult to work with and seem to have no intentions of changing their behavior unless they are forced to do so. I have never dealt with someone this difficult in my entire time editing Wikipedia, and looking at the posts on their talk page, it seems I'm not alone [112] [113] [114] [115]. I am not sure what the best course of action is here but I am requesting that you do whatever you can to put an end to this. They have made it abundantly clear that they do not care about working with other editors and just want to get their way. --Hostagecat (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

What am I missing? It appears that Ascribe4 has made only one edit to the Operation: Doomsday article in the month of April and it was a small tweak. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Ascribe4 has been GW'ing on the article since February over the inclusion of electro, an unrelated genre with only one very shaky source which does not meet WP:EXPLICITGENRE (when one user removed the inclusion of electro, Ascribe immediately undid their edit and claimed it was simply "vandalism"). I made a post on the article talk page where I outlined why this genre inclusion was inaccurate and finished my post by saying "It is probably best that the genres are left to only that which can be reliably sourced", meaning that we should both just let credible sources determine how this album should be categorized, which is what I had done in my edit. Ascribe4 made no response on the article talk page and once again changed the genres back. Even after you yourself told them "If you are continuing to edit Operation: Doomsday with no talk page discussion in your favor, you are risking a block", they have made it very clear they have no intentions of using the article talk page, and instead have tried to get personal about every disagreement they have with my edits by pestering me on my personal talk page about changes made to the article, something I have repeatedly asked them to stop doing. --Hostagecat (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Ascribe4 did reply back in March to the prior discussion. I can't see how this is an edit war. He has not edited WP at all since 14 April. If there is still no reply to your post on article talk you could probably go ahead and change the genre to whatever you think is correct. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@Hostagecat: I will begin by clarifying that I did in fact regard your posts on the article talk. You will notice that I recognized your comment on refraining from placing lo-fi in the infobox. We have both been warned about 3RR, and everyone involved has been made aware of it at this point so perhaps we both should go easy on referencing that fact. I am not sure why you continue referring to 2601:14d:480:6890:d2:1e92:f2f:eaf7 as if their some credible witness to something. Given their anonymity, lack of a cogent explanation for their edit and rhetoric "This shit is no electro. What the hell guys leave him alone", obviously I am inclined to disregard it as vandalism. All that aside, I am not following my personal preferences, I am following Wikipedia guidelines. I understand that much like the anon, you seemed to be peeved with the inclusion of the genre of electro. However, simply because you do not like it does not automatically disqualify the given source. The source is deemed reliable under WP:RSMUSIC and it explicitly states, "Doom in ’99 offers bedroom electro." As I have said before, if you take issue with the given source, you may want to consider starting a discussion to have to declassified as a reliable source. Regarding the article talk page. We have already been through this. Ganbaruby has stated that either a user talk page or article's talk is sufficient for communication. I prefer for communicating via user talk page, seeing as many of the concerns you have raised throughout all this goes beyond the scope of the article. I am sure you are well aware that I left you a reply on you page when I made my edit. It would be quite helpful if you would respond to it. Again, you are welcome to take this to my user page. When you opt to forgoe responding to my replies and instead start a section about how I am "refusing to use article talk page" you frame me as being silent and noncooperative. I am still willing to work with you, but do I grow tired of these mischaracterizations. --Ascribe4 (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Ascribe4, if you are having a disagreement about content and need to discuss the matter, you should use the *article* talk page. Others may need to weigh in (besides the two of you), and they won't be able do so if all the arguments are off on some user's own talk page. Hostagecat says that you refuse to use the article talk page. (That might not be true, we don't know your motivations, but anyone can observe that you have never posted on the article talk). There is still time for you to fix the situation by joining the discussion at Talk:Operation: Doomsday and tryiing to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:Respectfully, almost any time I have had some sort of dispute, it is quickly settled by the two of us having a discussion on either my or the other users talk page. The concerns that Hostagecat has raised throughout this entire ordeal go beyond the scope of that particular article so I do not want the article's talk page to be the locale. Moreover, as I said before Ganbaruby has stated that it was fine for us to communication with each other on either the article talk page or the user talk page. I truly do want to reach a resolution with this, so I really hope this matter of location isn't being used to sidestep the concerns that Hostagecat has yet to address. I find it all very odd, they clearly have no qualms going on another user's talk page. After all, here we are. --Ascribe4 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Ascribe4, since I get pinged every time you copy my signature, and I think you need to hear me say it: take content disputes to the article talk page. Knowing that Hostagecat has a comment there and refusing to respond is not helping your case here. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: Ah, gotcha. Sorry bout the pings. So be it, I'll just copy/paste the responses I have already given Hostagecat and see where we go from there. --Ascribe4 (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of inappropriate comment on talk page

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi EdJohnston, according to @Johnbod: I apparently need permission to remove an outright personal attack against me at [116] Is that true? If so, can I has permission? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

He should not be the one to remove criticism of his editing (of which there has been an awful lot over the years). Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Sigh, there's a clear difference between criticism and a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is. This is the edit you removed, which I don't see as "outright WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS". Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, lemme put it this way; if him accusing me of bias, nationalism and whatnot (without any proof), is not a violation of those rules, what is it then? Oh, and add WP:BATTLEGROUND in as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
If the editor's behavior continues, an additional block is likely for personal attacks. What would people think of just archiving their post from Talk:Darius the Great? That would allow their comments to still be referred to in a future block discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, when you say it like that, I have no quarrel I guess. This also goes to show that referring this to simply as 'criticism' is mildly said, pretty far-stretched. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I hid one of the personal attacks using the 'rpa' template and archived the comment to Talk:Darius the Great/Archive 1. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Hello @EdJohnston, I noticed you were active not too long ago so I thought you could take care of this.

User @ButtersIO said this on Jingibys page about me:

'Jigsby again thank you for your great interest for making Wikipedia a better place. I added my source and I also live near Petrovec, it shouldn't be allowed for people with foreign IP to edit pages that they are not competent in, like 'Alltan'. Please scan his history; he doesn't use sources and promotes nationalism, homophobia and radicalism.'

Here is the diff.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest this, never I have even once edited articles related to LGBT topics, and I always try to use the most up to date sources on subject that I do edit. I actually find it weird he resorted to this kind of language, instead of making his points on the talkpage, like I advised him to This was at 13:46 and he made his comments about 10 minutes later.

I don't know if this is the right place to report this too, but me and Jingiby have been trying to get him to use the talkpage to no avail. He also calls the NLA as al-Qaeda allies, removes names related to Albanians in various articles, even after Jingiby tried multiple times to inform him not to inform him not to.

I also think he broke 3rv at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petrovec_Municipality&action=history

Thanks in advance! Alltan (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)



Small update, he replied Alltan (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


Update (Sorry for cluttering your TP)

He is edit warring:here and after being reverted by MS here he adds sources claiming al-Qaeda supported the NLA. ARBEE aside, I believe this is a matter of source falsification. After looking through the sources he presented they make no such claim, In fact the first source seems more like it explains the opposite, while the second source by a certain Atanas Panovski Major in the Army of the Republic of Macedonia, raises concerns of POV to me. The excerpt I post highlight the political and nationalistic tendencies of the Macedonian media apparatus in trying to misrepresent the and propagandize everything to do with Albanians:


In the battle between journalistic standards and sensationalism, sensationalism usually triumphed. In the case of the alleged photographs of Mujahadin in Macedonia, for example, as the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, IWPR, pointed out in its media monitoring bulletin for September 2001, the pictures could have been taken anywhere in the world. At the end of October 2001, the Macedonian language media widely quoted a story from the British Independent newspaper, reporting that Interpol had discovered links between al-Qaeda, the Albanian mafia, and Albanian “terrorists” in Macedonia. In fact, the Independent made no mention of Macedonia, the NLA or even “Albanian terrorists”. Although the original text did indicate that police in Tirana had provided Interpol with information suggesting links between criminal organisations in Albania and Bin Laden, who had probably visited Albania, the alleged “link” to Macedonia was fabricated and then attributed to the original text.-- page 41

While this summary has outlined the huge grounds for pessimism over the media in Macedonia, it is heartening to note that some important players, especially in the private sector, have attempted to analyse their own behaviour. Goran Mihajlovski, editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper Vest, points out that the conduct of the media was partially conditioned by its audience. “If we published a photograph of an NLA member on the front page, or even made a simple reference to Arben Xhaferi [a leading Albanian politician], we would receive numerous calls from readers threatening to boycott the paper.” Mihajlovski believes that such pressures worked subconsciously on Vest’s writers and was reflected in their output. In this way, the media became part of a spiral of violence. The editor-in-chief of the private Al television channel, Aco Kabranov, believes that right across the media the conflict was reported in an unprofessional, hysterical fashion. In this process, the truth - and therefore the profession as a whole - was the major casualty-- page 42


In my opinion, the user in question is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Alltan (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


@EdJohnston can you protect the page below? Its the one from before, its constantly being reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petrovec_Municipality&action=history an IP is reverting the page, the user stated that he is from around this area so it might be a sock Alltan (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

User Alltan spreads hate speech and manipulates with articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Admin, user 'Alltan' wrote on my profile that he had reported me to you. I wrote to the member 'Jingiby' who I suppose is an admin also but now I am writing to you. Even though I am new and registred today I assume that User 'Alltan' is possibly part of some radical-Islamic or Turkish bot structure. He spend all of his day in changing Macedonian Wiki pages with non-sense, lies, hate-speech and homophobia. He writes totally unnecesery facts about Albanians and Turks on random Macedonian articles that it's just doesn't make sense. Please scan his history and editing, and not only Macedonian, he edits and manipulate articles of all of his neighbors(assuming he is Albanian); Montenegro, Serbia and Greece, he is full of hatred and brings down the credibility of Wikipedia .


Today I made the account just to edit him because I couldn't stand the lies and hate speech anymore. Also he started to bully me with spamming my profile intentionally knowing that I made my account today. Please review and scan his edit history.

Thanks for your attention and have a great day! - ButtersIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButtersIO (talk • contribs)

After only 32 edits, User:ButtersIO is making charges like 'homophobia', 'lies' and 'hate speech'. I fear that they may not be around much longer. I have warned them on their talk page. Their only substantive change to articles appears to be removal of Albanian names, which falls under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Admin, I don't think there is a good reason to be a whole 'Albanian-only' paragraph in city article, I thought that is made intentionally. As I said in my previous post I apologize for editing without Edit Summary/Commentary, I'll do my best to ensure that such mistakes don't occur in the future. --ButtersIO (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


Thank You EdJohnston, feel free to archive my OP in case of cluttering issues. Cheers mate! Alltan (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

On Delhi dynamos and Odisha fc clubs

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I am writing this on the matter that it is officially said in the Indian super league website and the club as well that the former club Delhi dynamos was a club based on delhi. the club relocated and rebranded from odisha to be known as odisha fc but the current club odisha fc don't hold previous records of delhi dynamos fc. Owners have said odisha fc is the new club and old delhi dynamos is disbanded. So it will be better if separate pages with both the clubs' records are formed in 2 separate page.for current records it is odisha fc. and for previous records in ghe delhi dynamos fc page as the club played by the name of delhi not odisha, cleared by both clubs and league officials. Imsamrat392 (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You are asking to maintain articles under both the old name, Delhi Dynamos FC, and the new name, Odisha FC. Why not propose this idea at Talk:Odisha FC and see if you can persuade others to support this? EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for unprotecting Vaticinium ex eventu

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear EdJohnston, you recently EC protected Vaticinium ex eventu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as a result of edit-warring. However, the content dispute which triggered the edit war has since been resolved, and constructive editors have already found themselves unable to edit the page. Would you consider unprotecting it? Thanks, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll accept your assurance that an agreement has been reached at Talk:Vaticinium ex eventu, though it is not easy to figure that out. Protection has been reduced to semi. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Ok, I agree to make no more reverts on English wikipedia articles I have previously edited without consensus first , but I am able to revert if the changes is confirmed to be vandalism right? or will I not be able to revert any article even if I see destructive edit 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I was asking only , I get it no revert from me under any circumstance right? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern with an editor

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Varenx101 (talk · contribs)

This editor has been edit warring over 3 articles for over a week(including logging out to continue edit warring)[117]. Considering this editor has chosen not to use the talk page, there is no way to understand why they are removing references and referenced information.

The 3 articles are:

Perhaps you can help with this issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

about delhi dynamos redirecting odisha fc

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

here's a link. Delhi Dynamos should have its page where all the records under delhi dynamos is there. odisha fc should have a separate page where only record under the name of odisha fc should be there. here's a link

https://m.timesofindia.com/sports/football/indian-super-league/top-stories/odisha-gets-its-own-isl-football-club-as-delhi-dynamos-shift-base-to-bhubaneswar/amp_articleshow/70928674.cms Imsamrat392 (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I understood that you chose to not sanction Luwanglinux concomitant to his agreement of not reverting any editor on S. Asian topics. Hours after such a commitment, he is back to his usual ways over History of Manipur. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It is impossible to reach a consensus by discussing with him, as @Kautilya3: noted in the edit-war-noticeboard. He is using computer-science journals/poems/fringe non-indexed journals to push fringe views that are rejected by modern historians! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The latest addition seems milder than what might have been there before, though it is well short of an NPOV treatment.
I agree that he should have agreed the content with you on the talk page before putting it into the mainspace. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you. He has now created a new article, by copying the same content (check the edit summary) which I had disputed and removed over History of Manipur. I propose that this be considered as an indirect way of edit-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Since my negotiation with User:Luwanglinux on their talk page was not successful, I went ahead with a one week block, per my closure of the AN3 complaint. Just today I became aware that they also have a block history. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for the blocks and protection. Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 18:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Unprotection

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, back in January 2017 you semi-protected TVXQ to indefinite. However, nowadays I don't think semi is necessary anymore given the relatively low level of editing on the page. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The page on the musical group TVXQ is still getting 30,000 views per month. You may notice from viewing the log that the page has needed semiprotection many times in the past. I would keep the protection, but you can appeal if you want at WP:RFUP. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thankful message

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for blocking TWCZane and zack, They deserved it for abusing multiple accounts. Your a good admin. Scottlover20248 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Was it because they all had the same name. Scottlover20248 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It seemed likely from behavior and it was also confirmed by checkuser, See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TWCZack/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Mindless edit warring

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Despite your warning,[118] Generalsagar is still edit warring and resorting to bad faith personal attack.[119] I think an indef page block is the least you should do for editor. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

PR Edit Warring by Srijanx22

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This user named Srijanx22 appears to be a part of Modi's PR machinery, and is repeatedly removing [120] the facts related to criticism of Modi holding election rallies - which in fact made the situation worse in the country. This is a fact which the readers must know. This user Srijanx22 is engaging in edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalsagar (talk • contribs) .

I've issued a block to Generalsagar for continuing the war per the explanation at User talk:Generalsagar#Edit warring at COVID-19 pandemic in India. Your charge that User:Srijanx22 is part of Modi's PR machinery is also a personal attack, given that it's unlikely you have any evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, there is something I hope you can address, which is the persistent vandalism in this article, because people are continuing to edit the article in order to post Auston Matthews as the winner, but the National Hockey League is yet to declare it, as two teams still have at this point two games to play in the regular season, and no wins are official until it ends that renders any probability for players to surpass him impossible. It is very unlikely at this point for any remaining player in the race to do so, but the capability to do so still exists at the moment. Would it be possible to intervene, and ensure that people wait to make edits or risk action from you and/or your fellow administrators, until every team has finished playing their regular season games, followed by the league certifying the winner for that trophy alongside the Art Ross in their announcements? If you oblige to it, there shall be gratitude on my end, especially since this person is requesting your intervention ceasing the action of frequent undoing of what is designated as currently, vandalized edits, at least until tomorrow when the regular season officially ends. User: Jacked14 21:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

When will the winner of the trophy be officially announced? EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Tomorrow evening, after both Calgary and Vancouver play their final regular season game against each other. User: Jacked14 22:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Better request this at WP:RFPP, though personally I wouldn't oppose an indefinite full protection. It could be lifted when the winner of the trophy is formally announced. The announcement would need a published reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I can post there if you want me to. At least somebody is intent on waiting for the NHL Public Relations group to certify award winners not utilizing a voting process on the official league website, regardless of how the NHL handles the progression of the regular season. User: Jacked14 22:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry that i must to post the comment here. As far as i know, full protection can only be used if there is an edit warring/content dispute regarding contents and only can be in force temporarily not indefinite. You must look it in edit history, do you mean it needs to be salted? No. I think semi-protection is more preferrable. 180.245.108.107 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
There are extended confirmed members at this too by the way, not just random IPs. User: Jacked14 00:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Further Note: The article above that have been you requested for indefinite full protection has been declined by Oshwah because first, it is definitely not going to happen. Second, the article don't have enough distruptive acitivity to justify protection. Third, as previously noted, full protection only be applied temporarily not indefinite except for templates or categories that have more transclusions and fourth, the article protection is applied in a reactive measure, not preventative measure. Jacked14, you must have more asistance to learn about the how the page protection needed at Protection policy article. 36.77.95.247 (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
In this case it would be a reactive measure, since the reverts are ongoing. Some admins might be reluctant to protect for a thing that will be over in a day or two, when the matter is not earthshaking. Since the people reverting are registered users, there would be no point in semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please be kind

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think I have left a bad impression on you since the article Anglo Manipur War, I am not a very well experienced editor yet, kindly forgive me if I ever offended other editors and your advice is appreciated. Since I already had a bad past ( number of blocks) I really want to start cleaning up my bad reputation in wikipedia. Can you help me. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Grsecurity

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi @EdJohnston: Have you read my message on the talk page of Grsecurity which you deleted? I recreated the page with multiple independent reliable secondary sources that have significant coverage of the subject. The page meets WP:GNG, these sources were missed by all the people that participated in the deletion discussion. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. It's time for WP:DRV. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Oradour-sur-Glane massacre

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Can I make this edit [121]? The editor who objected to it has been indeffed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. I have semiprotected the page in case the recent IP editor is evading a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
At no point did anybody object to any edit resembling that. Somebody fixed some embarrassing grammar errors, and you aggressively and frantically objected. Are you deliberately misrepresenting the situation, or are you simply hallucinating things that didn't happen, as you have previously claimed to do? 213.39.115.59 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Please see the above IP editor's comment on User talk:Osomite, which can be found here. It appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPA. If so, can it please be rev-del'd? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
It also seems probable that the IP editor is User:Sergow violating their indef block. I no longer remember the specifics of Sergow's NPA-violating post on their user page, but the use of "pathetic toddler" in an edit summary still remains, and is consonant with "infantile behaviour:, "angry child", "child precocious enough to speak somewhat like an adult" and "tantrum" used in the above cited comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
You are referring to this edit by 213.39.115.59 (talk · contribs), which does raise concerns since it charges you with 'infantile behavior'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Sergow is probably WP:BKFIP. But Sergow is already indef blocked and Oradour-sur-Glane is semiprotected, which should keep things under control for the moment. I removed the personal attack at User talk:Osomite. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Macedonian issue

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Ed, as you already have been informed, a few days ago an user called Okrados was activated. He was nearly latent for years and had almost no edits, except for a few attempts to push through Macedonian nationalist ideas, but these unsupported by reliable sources. A few days ago, however, this user launched a large-scale campaign on a series of articles related to the Macedonian issue and the Macedonian-Bulgarian dispute, aimed at changing the identity of a number of people from Macedonian Bulgarian or simply Bulgarian to ethnic Macedonian. This is done without presenting credible sources or discussing the talk page of the article. It is clear that this editor has no purpose other than the described change of identities. A lot of neutral sources have been added to most of the articles in question, contradicting to his Macedonist thesis. The discussions there are also quite long, but there is no one to pay attention to them. Particularly characteristic was this edit, which removed several credible sources and changed the official name of a political party from Bulgarian section to Macedonian section. This is provided that there is no source to support such a nonsensical thesis. The last striking case today is with Todor Panitsa. The man was born in the town of Oryahovo on the banks of the Danube and his relatives had no kinship with Macedonia. His identity was also changed to Macedonian. I think he is WP:NOTHERE and WP:SPA. Please help to resolve this issue. Jingiby (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jingiby, Okrados here! Now while I understand that you care for Bulgaria as you're probably an ethnic Bulgarian, you shouldn't be trying to push dogmatic ideas and agendas into Wikipedia articles. I'm not a Macedonist nor have I ever referred to myself in that term. I have been actively using Wikipedia for years, I only logged in when I edited something. I have begun editing more now because frankly, I don't care to see my people marginalized as I'm sure you don't either, though to be fair, I have other interests and perform other edits such as vastly touching up the Roki Vulovic draft page. I had people in my family lay down the price in blood for freedom of my peoples and it's a disgrace to them to see fellow Macedonians be described as Bulgarians because they didn't vividly use the label of Macedonian, or only used it in a regional term. There is a Bulgarian hegemony on Macedonian English Wikipedia pages and I started editing to dissolve that hegemony. My question to you is, where is the evidence that they didn't use Bulgarian as a regional term? I acknowledge that Bulgaria and Macedonia have had a shared history, however to say that Tito or the Yugoslav Partisans created the Macedonian ethnicity out of some Bulgarian villages and towns is incredibly racist, hurtful and shockingly similar to how many Africans were treated by Europeans by calling them "uncivilized", "primitive" or "lacking of history/culture/etc." Now some Bulgarians, maybe possibly you, think that Macedonia is trying to steal Bulgarian history or that it's the "evil Serbians' fault for breaking up the Bulgarian peoples" etc. etc, however that is blatantly untrue as these people were ethnic Macedonians. They intermixed with Bulgarians but they are as Macedonian as the modern people of North Macedonia. I'm sure that if a Macedonian of the present were sent back in time to that era, you would call him a Bulgarian. Macedonians have had an ethnic consciousness since the 1860s, if not even further ago. Just because Bulgarians are similar to Macedonians and out populate them, does not mean they have the right to control the narrative and spin lies about many Macedonians' ancestors. Now, I already apologize for the Jane Sandanski edit which removed sources, it was an accident and a mistake. I personally have seen many sources that come from some Bulgarian nationalist website, that have a clear CoI or that are just blatantly biased and being presented as fact. As for the question of Todor Panitsa, he had fought for an independent Macedonia and advocated against the label of Bulgarian that I can affirm with a link is that unfortunately broken after all these years. Personally, a lot of this reminds me of the Germanisation policies in the 1800s conducted towards the Poles. The Polish were outnumbered in many areas of Germany by ethnic Germans and history, their culture as well as the overall narrative were rewritten in order to assimilate the Poles and reduce their ethnic consciousness. I advise you try to look at Macedonia and Bulgaria's shared history without a dogmatic, chauvinistic and ultranationalist lense as the last time those ideas were used in Bulgaria, the Red Army had occupied it and Bulgaria became a Soviet vassal for a good 50 years. Anyways, I do not have anything personal against you or any Bulgarians, Macedonians and Bulgarians are both fellow South Slavs just as much as Serbs and Macedonians are. Here's to resolving our differences in a good manner and I hope you have a great day! Okrados (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I have warned User:Okrados to wait for consensus before changing the nationality of people or places from Bulgarian to Macedonian, per the closure of an AN3 complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

2001 insurgency in Macedonia

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. ButtersIO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to place al-Qaeda as a supporter of Albanian insurgents in the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia. Several editors have checked the cited sources and they don't discuss such links (Talk:2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia#Al-Qaeda involvement). Can the article get a full protection?--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Arabian Sea

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

there are many mistake in the page I am trying to add necessary information.according to hundreds of books and documents previous name of Arabian sea was persian sea but there is no even a single mention of the name persian sea in all article.for example look at reference (8) in the alternative name:" Erythraean Sea,[1] this reference itself is a prove of the persian sea look at para No 34- 35 . why they don't want to mention it. somebody should look at my edit references and add the historical names and maps. at the moment it is not fair. revers of my edit is against the policy and the aims of wikipedi . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Basp1, you were reported to administrators because of your editing at Arabian Sea. To get out of the trouble you are in you should open a discussion on Talk:Arabian Sea and wait until you persuade the editors there to agree with you. Otherwise you are risking a block for edit warring. Whether 'Persian Sea' is a phrase that should be added to our article needs WP:Consensus. And it requires good quality sources. See WP:SIGN for how to sign your name on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Voyage around the Erythraean Sea". washington.edu.

Nationalist edit warring in Balkan article

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Less than a month ago you warned ButtersIO that " If it appears you are here on Wikipedia only for purposes of nationalist edit warring (e.g. removing Albanian names), you may be indefinitely blocked" and noted that "Your main activity since arriving on Wikipedia seems to be taking away the Albanian names from articles. If this continues I doubt you will be on Wikipedia much longer". Today they made 4 reverts on 2001 insurgency in Macedonia to add that participant at the conflict was Al-Qaeda, a view typical of Macedonian nationalists. Since you already know this editor, I am leaving this note here as maybe you are able to do sth. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Notified User:ButtersIO at this link. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
They returned today, and immediately continued the edit war [122]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
After the block, a semi protection might be needed [123] if they continue edit warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Goths

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

If there is any problem with this please let me know and/or revert: [124] . Your exact intentions for the Goths article remains unclear to me for reasons discussed previously.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am glad to see all the RfCs. If the IP editor insists on including his genetic material without support from others, semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I've left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I presume that means that specific revert was acceptable to you as law-giver in this case. I don't know if I can extend that precedent to many more cases, or how to match this to any Wikipedia community guideline, but I'm thinking about it more in terms of medieval law. OTOH the multiple RFCs on bigger issues are not going anywhere very fast despite the agreements "in principle" which we clock up, because exact wordings need to be agreed and RFCs just don't work very well for that. If/when I get agreement, there will be the same complaints of illegitimacy coming back the other way because this situation artificially creates a feeling that it is arbitrary. This situation is not POV neutral, but, let's be honest, "as ordered", all that time ago, on 3R, after several attempts to find a sympathetic admin. Parent shopping is a perfect description for what happened, and unfortunately it worked. Just to be clear, no one has ever explained this situation in terms of edit warring diffs. The demand made was, in effect, for article ownership, which was urgent because otherwise the article would change. It just isn't how Wikipedia works. The article should be allowed to change. You've blocked that? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see myself as having any special authority over the Goths article (different from any other article). What do you wish to do that you believe I am preventing? EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
3R was used several times to try to find an admin to stop me editing. You stopped me editing. There was no edit war, but you stopped me editing. Why? If you can't explain it, then why did it happen? The reason some editors don't like my edits is because I follow Wikipedia policy. Do I have to take editors to ANI or something? That is not the type of editor I am, so am I now excluded?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You also can't deny that you are aware that since your intervention other editors have also come here to your talk page to try to cause trouble for me. Right? You noticed that? So others see it the same way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This is not an accurate description of the situation, Andrew Lancaster. There was persistent edit warring at the Goths page. This created a toxic editing environment which drove away productive editors. As a result, EdJohnston imposed restrictions on edits without consensus at Goths.[125]. These restrictions effectively ended the edit warring and made the article more welcoming to broader community input. Since then the article has made great progress, largely thanks to the increased participation of multiple editors in its development. Krakkos (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Andrew, are you saying that you still feel restricted by some of the language I used in the February 2020 closure of a 3RR about Goths? That closure seems to have worked in the sense that the war between you and Krakkos about that article seems to have stopped. How could I reassure you about the future so you would feel free to proceed with your plans? EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I find that remark a bit shocking. Of course I am restricted. Yes, your ongoing block threat has "worked" in the sense that the editor who was effectively claiming ownership of the article, and was calling for an admin to stop anyone from changing their work, found an admin who then did that. The situation did not "work" in any other sense that I can see. As discussed before, other articles where Krakkos and I both work do not have this problem. You have taken away all incentive for Krakkos to engage and work towards consensus on this article, because Krakkos always wanted to protect older versions of the article. Constantly saying there is or was a "war" has proven to be the perfect way to keep this article ringfenced, but there was no war.

Please remember your strongly worded and ongoing blocking threat was made 15:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC) after action was called for by Krakkos less than an hour before at 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC). This post gives no diff to edit warring but falsely claims that "Now that the 24 hour limit on 3RR at Goths has expired, Andrew Lancaster is back at it with his reverting." That's apparently all editors need to do, to get exactly what they want, and ringfence an article version that they have made, protecting it from other editors. There was apparently no check of diffs or review of who had been editing on 28 February, and what was discussed on the talk page, and I've been unable to get you to explain this.

The fact that other "Goths are Swedes" POV editors saw this as a success is shown by the attacks posted here in March 2021 which were coordinated with a major wave of article changes from Krakkos despite the supposed editing block. These edits were reverting to positions known to be in conflict with consensus and with what scholars have published and what other Wikipedians write on this and other articles [126][127]. Such waves of edits can quickly reverse any marginal improvements that have taken months of RFCs etc to demonstrate sourcing and consensus, and then require many more months of effort to reverse the damage. Consensus building is and was easy to disrupt from one side, as shown by the only example you ever discussed: the publication date problem that Krakkos refused to respond to on the talk page, and then described as edit warring (26 Feb 2020). The only way to have avoided that would have been to assume that the refusal to answer on the talk page was a set-up (not good faith). Lesson learned. Now I can't edit. Just as you desired, I guess, even the "technical" publication date issues have been slowly resolved, but-by-bit, by dragging more editors in to look at it, taking up enormous amounts of time and energy and strengthening the general impression that this article is a lost cause, discouraging other editors from helping any further.[128][129][130] Is that really a success?

The restrictions you've placed mean that improvement of this article is trapped in a "one step forward, two steps back" pattern, favouring the fringe "Goths are Swedish" POV which was in older versions of the article, and making consensus building efforts a moot point, because I can't edit. Wikipedia does not have millions of editors on tap to come and help spend a week on resolving every minor issue such as publication years. But to the best of my understanding, the war you keep referring to is essentially a bizarre dramatization of things like publication year fixes in Feb 2020. Who could ever have imagined that making edits like that, after super carefully trying to get discussion on the talk page, would lead to the block now still in place more than a year later? This is an artificial situation that is blocking us in the aim of making an encyclopedia, and totally opposed to the normal ways we work on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

These issues began with edit warring at Germanic peoples. As a result, Dougweller locked that article to end the edit warring and begin consensus building.[131] Immediately after the article was unlocked, Andrew Lancaster completely rewrote Germanic peoples without consensus. There is wide agreement that the Germanic peoples article is in bad shape, but nobody is able to do anything about it, since the article is owned lock, stock and barrel by Andrew Lancaster. This is because most editors can't put up with neverending edit wars and extremely long and repetitive talk page posts. Andrew Lancaster has sought to do a similar rewrite of the Goths article.[132] The guidelines imposed by EdJohnston has however ensured that development of the Goths article is determined by community consensus rather than edit warring. That has resulted in both a better article and a better editing environment. Krakkos (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
So maybe EdJohnston should have blocked me from editing Germanic peoples instead of Goths? Confusing, but both you and EdJohnston constantly make vague references to that article instead of anything to do with Goths. This has been a constant theme of insinuation from both of you. It seems a classic case of constantly changing the subject and casting vague aspersions.
FWIW Germanic peoples has a range of editors, any way you look at it, and by at least one measure you are still the top historical editor there. I made a short burst of very big efforts to move it away from the disastrous situation in 2019, and those edits were heavily pre-discussed with other editors, and responding to concerns that had been raised for years. There are differing opinions and discussion about remaining problems which themselves tend to come from the nature of the evolving compromises which are the subject of an ongoing and slow discussion. I could have made a much neater article by ignoring the need for consensus, but IMHO no editor I have ever worked with is so careful and slow about building up consensus as I am - which is one of the ironies here. When the consensus against you became very clear, you shifted efforts to Goths, called for a GA certification and then claimed that no one else should be allowed to edit because of the GA discussion, which was one of the only clear claims in the 3R case EdJohnston took up. That should not have worked, but it did. Your absolute dominance of Goths editing is quite unusual for such a big article, despite you supposedly being under the same block conditions as me. (There are only small contributors apart from you.) That is the strange reality of how this block is "working" to stop a "war". Your strong tendency continues to be to work for the "Goths are Swedes" faction of IP editors etc, and there is nothing forcing you to do otherwise, because the Wikipedia idea that no one should own an article has been broken in this case. I think most better editors now see the article as a lost cause.
Having said all that, from work on other articles, and during periods when other editors visit the Goths talk page, I know we can work together much more smoothly as long as the incentives are not so artificially distorted in favour of being uncontructive. I do not have to edit much on Goths, but if I may not edit on the article this removes all incentives to cooperate with me until the next time another editor visits.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
And if anyone was looking for a good example of what changing the subject by casting ad hominem aspersions looks like:[133]. Did WP have any guidelines about ad hominem argumentation and aspersions? Who cares I guess. Good faith? Collaboration? What's that? Please: we need to take the incentives for doing this away. This is not happening on other articles. Why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_50&oldid=1075740034"