This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 |
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flowcode again -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
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 /info/en/?search=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/?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002560998 : Citing only their own personal preference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002501444 , https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&action=edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
Noelephant ( talk) 05:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?title=Druze&action=history
-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 talk contribs 20:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you make a page protection or sth there? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HanKim20. Wareon ( talk) 05:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we have another similar somewhat case. I almost thiught they were an administrator per their warnings.
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
and another:
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 ౪ 99° 19:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
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)
All good Quetstar ( talk) 22:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 ౪ 99° 02:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
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 ౪ 99° 04:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
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 ౪ 99° 15:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
/* 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)
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)
Do you know if Gilabrands topic ban is still active? [108] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 ౪ 99° 23:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
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! 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)
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)
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)
See
here.
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)
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)
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)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MarkH21 talk 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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/?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)
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)
Thank You EdJohnston, feel free to archive my OP in case of cluttering issues. Cheers mate!
Alltan (
talk)
17:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
Dear EdJohnston, you recently EC protected Vaticinium ex eventu ( | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for the blocks and protection. Zai ( 💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 18:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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) .
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 |
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flowcode again -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
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 /info/en/?search=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/?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002560998 : Citing only their own personal preference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002501444 , https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&action=edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
Noelephant ( talk) 05:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?title=Druze&action=history
-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 talk contribs 20:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you make a page protection or sth there? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HanKim20. Wareon ( talk) 05:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we have another similar somewhat case. I almost thiught they were an administrator per their warnings.
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
and another:
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 ౪ 99° 19:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
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)
All good Quetstar ( talk) 22:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 ౪ 99° 02:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
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 ౪ 99° 04:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
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 ౪ 99° 15:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
/* 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)
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)
Do you know if Gilabrands topic ban is still active? [108] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 ౪ 99° 23:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
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! 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)
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)
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)
See
here.
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)
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)
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)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MarkH21 talk 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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/?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)
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)
Thank You EdJohnston, feel free to archive my OP in case of cluttering issues. Cheers mate!
Alltan (
talk)
17:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
Dear EdJohnston, you recently EC protected Vaticinium ex eventu ( | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for the blocks and protection. Zai ( 💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 18:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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) .
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)