![]() | 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 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 |
Hello, wikipedia user :@ ButtersIO: seems to have been engaged in an edit war for a little bit over a month. he claims the NLA was supported by al-qaeda however none of his three references state this, instead refer to the N. Macedonian news and sources claiming this with no substantial proof. I only reverted his edits once. however he added it back. then other wikipedians reverted his edits and asked him to go to the talk page. after a 5 day silence he came back and accused me, @ Maleschreiber: and @ Jingiby: of "trying so hard to hide the facts and change the truth". Durraz0 ( talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Since you understand this request better than usual admins here, I am making the request here. Can you consider putting WP:ECP on B.R. Ambedkar? It has been long affected by the socks related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/संदेश हिवाळे for more than 4 years and still is. Current disruption is being caused by the throw-away obvious socks like this account and frequent page ownership by an SPA.
They lack a collaborative approach with their clear personal attacks [3] [4] and their ownership of this article is concerning. If they are blocked, then new ones will pop up. I believe ECP will solve the problem. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 09:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
Talkback|Talk:B._R._Ambedkar|Censoring_Hindutva}}
I know I went with closing as it wasn't needed, but was I in the right in the first two reverts? Or were the sources really not enough to fix the issue? Is it made of Wood ( talk) 14:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
You've got mail}}
--
Kansas Bear (
talk)
13:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.-- BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I just upgraded Economy of Kolkata to full protection because autoconfirmed users are edit warring. In two weeks, when that expires, one of us should probably re-establish indefinite semi-protection. — C.Fred ( talk) 14:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
As you've dealt with user:Eddaido before, I'm hoping you can step in and provide some advice on the situation here Talk:Frank Schuster (music patron). He's being very defensive about an unsourced sentence and can't provide a realistic explanation why is it needed when it implies unproven things about that paragraph's main topic. People like him is why my participation in wikipedia is erratic. I just wanted to remove the implication that Elgar was exclusively heterosexual, because that is under scholarly debate. He is insistent on keeping that sentence simply because it has always been there? I have tried to reason with him but feel it is time for another set of eyes. If you are the wrong person to go to, please forward this to the right person. I'm exhausted here and beginning to feel like he is just wearing me down for the fun of it. Wickedjacob ( talk) 11:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for protecting Xiongnu. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ed. This user is continuing their disruptive behavior that led to their first block. Amaury • 10:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I just read all the messages now and I'm not the one who is starting this edit war It's Amaury who is removing an important information from a page which was agreed to be on that page since November 2020. NoobMaster01 ( talk) 09:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi again. I wonder if you have any ideas about this RFC [5]? Obviously I feel you've had an influence on this use of RFCs, but it is not going well, and I continue to have concerns that the article has been quite deliberately and successfully frozen.
I have no problem discussing the article with other editors apart from the article owner who got the article semi-frozen. The problem is to find people willing to look at the article and its talk page over such a long period when every type of proposal is disputed and obfuscated. Since the beginning, you've continually taken the position that if someone's proposal is reasonable, then they should obviously be able to get edits done by other editors. Apparently they will come along, and volunteer to sift through every proposal, while being bombarded by the article owner. In fact we've been lucky to drag along a few editors who've done this for some basic things like that tripled genetics section over more than a year, but it can't go on forever, and it is especially depressing for all involved when we see how easily Krakkos could rewind all that work and force everyone to discuss everything anew, as I explained in previous discussions. This indirect editing method would not work on any WP article needing any substantial level of work, and it certainly can't work in a case like this where one editor wants to freeze the article. (You were asked on 28th February 2020 to intervene to stop changes on the article. Despite that being on 3R, only one edit was cited and the rest of the post was about how I had changed another article in the past. [17] This was clearly not just a simple 3R case.) If this indirect editing method worked, we could work like that on every article. But we can't. No one can. Editors should not be allowed to get their content protected long-term like this, and especially not based on the argument that without admin intervention other editors will change the articles?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Greetings and salutations!
I apologize in advance if I failed to bring sufficient information, I am still quite green at Wikipedia. If you need anything, please contact me.
Thank you.
LjaljaMM18 ( talk) 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear EdJohnston, I am writing to you because of a small technical request. In January 2018, my userpage has been vandalized with a small series of racially-charged edits (containing insults in my native language targeted at the content of my userpage), that are still viewable in the page's history. I want to request these revisions to be made un-openable (or whatever the technical term is for "deleting" those versions). These are the four versions: 1 2 3 4. Number 3 is the one with a highly offensive verbal attack that is my main issue. I realize that this is a minor problem, but let me know if executing this is viable. Regards.-- Concus Cretus ( talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston. I saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alluburam and was in the process of posting something there when it was closed. It's clear that Alluburam and Alluburam 2 are the same editor. I don't believe there's a need for two accounts based upon what's written in WP:MULTIPLE, and the fact that Alluburam 2 is being used to continue the disputes taking place at articles with edits like this and this is disconcerting. The issue, however, goes well beyond the claim of WP:SOCK and involves more editors than Alluburam. There's been edit warring going on at 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election quite sometime now between Alluburam and other editors, and none of those involved seem to be willing to try and sort this out on the article's talk page. Alluburam has posted on the talk page before; he knows it's there, but has decided not to use it in this case. There's also nothing on 2022 talk page (or at Talk:List of current members of the Rajya Sabha as a matter of fact) from Dev Adhi; so, they're not trying to discuss. The IPs that show up might not know about the talk pages or may know and just don't care. Basically, all involved seem to have decided that edit warring is the way to go here and that's going to likely continue until an administrator steps in and takes action. If you look at User talk:Alluburam and Talk:2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election, you'll see that other editors have been expressing concerns about Alluburam's overall editing approach for some time now. You yourself previously blocked Alluburam back in April; so, maybe this now is a case of WP:CIR or WP:IDHT. There are also similar concerns (though not as many) being expressed at User talk:Dev Adhi. A discussion about all of these things could be started at WP:ANI or WP:AN3, but I'm wondering if there's another way to try and resolve things. The articles could probably be page protected to stop the IPs, but that won't really stop the registered accounts. Do you think a "last warning" to all involved from an administrator (you perhaps) will have any effect here, or is this ultimately something that's going to need to be resolved at one of the ANs? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
My account is Alluburam. Alluburam is created by someone else with my name Alluburam ( talk) 02:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't lie Alluburam 2 is yours you abused me from your second account Dev Adhi ( talk) 02:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, we've been having trouble with a new edit warring editor and various ips at this article, who insists on imposing their preferred version of the article, regardless of consensus or the lack of it. It appears that editor Sonnenrage may be abusing his account with sockpuppets and proxied ips. He has engaged on the talk page, but there he's making comments such as "You are not honest" and "Once again, you are acting in bad faith."
He has commented most egregiously with this edit on his talk page after receiving a warning from another editor, in which he added the words: "You are criminal, traitor, enemy. You are worthless as a human being. You think you are a defender of culture? But you are ready to destroy everything that doesn't go your way. You are a liar. Deceiver. You are an enemy of freedom and truth. Oppressor. Karma will catch up with you, don't doubt it." Carlstak ( talk) 02:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston,
The page named Rajput is under "Extended confirmed protection" for a long time (last time, you increased its semi-protection level). Due to this, a very few users can edit this page and experienced users with 500+ edits have a monopoly over the page. I found that there is some scope for improvement in the article. Therefore, I request you to reduce the level of page protection to semi-protection so that inexperienced users can also make contributions to the page. Dympies ( talk) 01:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Despite your warning, User:Alluburam is reverting our users edits example: 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election , I am so tired of reverting again his several users have been affected by him. Kindly please take necessary actions. regards Nahtrav ( talk)
He is continuing his reverting in the 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election page you can see from the page's edit history, the whole article has been transformed into Alluburam's imaginary favourite article. He is just reverting other users edits without any summary or reason. Also Have a glance at his talk page and see several users compaining and opposing him for their content deletion.His actions may led to discouragement of Experienced wikipedia users which is nothing but hunting down of Wikipedia's Policies. Please consider this problem as soon as possible Nahtrav ( talk) And also Why I am reporting to you is I already have reported him in edit warring WP:AN3, but because of unknowing the way in filling up the details there, no action has been taken, So I request you to help me in reporting this issue -- Nahtrav ( talk) 10:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
/* Original title was: Hello, I have a question about a Wikipedia Rule. */
Hello, I have a question regarding Wikipedia:COI based on Wikipedia:Self promotion.
I found an user who's posting his own blog posts from a website (which is a forum/blog, made by himself) as "reliable sources" in many of the articles he edits. I think this is obviously not reliable but not even valid as a source itself. Is this valid on Wikipedia or there is any kind of procedure to be done? I am asking this first before doing any action, because I don't know exactly how to proceed. I saw you on the Active Administrators list, I hope you can answer me if it's possible. Thanks! -- TechnicianGB ( talk) 14:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry but I consider you biased when it comes to Greece's data, you did not bother to check that the Meteoclub article is actually supported by the links provided by the Rhodes guy and myself (granted you would need to use synthesis to check them but still they are absolutely verifiable). I also consider Average Joe biased if I judge from his edits in Hardiness zones regarding Azores etc. The data from the National Observatory of Athens seem to challenge both of your POV's. I appreciate that an admin does not think Meteoclub is reliable however at a second stage by asking community wide feedback and making my case as clear as possible I hope that they will change their mind. Weatherextremes ( talk) 22:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Granted, climate normals are used for a 30 year period but in absence of this and especially considering that Lindos has strong meteorological interest since it is the warmest area in geographical Europe as verified by the links provided so far (through some synthesis unfortunately) to back up Meteoclub. Fair enough we could initiate an RfA on the Lindos article if we don't reach consensus. As you will notice in the Lindos talk page I provide an explanation of how Meteoclub works and why it is a reliable source for Lindos. We could wait and hear what the other users now think about Meteoclub and if needed we should consider an RfA on Lindos in case we don't reach a consensus. Let's continue the discussion on Lindos's talk page. Weatherextremes ( talk) 23:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ EdJohnston: a brand new user with a very similar writing style made his first Wikipedia edition coming to my talk page to "teach me" in a very familiar style and then he reverted my edits and added again the meteoclub data in the page Lindos. Same actions as the other user did before, which was firstly a message in someone's talk page or the page's talk page and then doing a revert before even waiting for a reply. In this case it's a brand new user called "FactDistributor" and I have a strong reason to suspect that it might be a sockpuppet not only because of that, but also because of the "fact" thing in his nickname which is a word commonly used by Weatherextremes, so this "FactDistributor" fact thing sounds familiar as well. Also because he made two edits trying to put meteoclub again in Lindos Talk:Lindos saying it's the hottest area in Europe and Greece, and the same day this "new user" came to my talk page to say the same and just the following day, which is today, this brand new account came to add that data again in the Lindos page. Not sure at all if it's the same user or someone else from that meteoclub forum or whatever that site is. But this is way too suspicious. The new user came straight to the same point repeating and doing almost the same stuff. -- TechnicianGB ( talk) 22:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to educate the user with the official data for the Lindos weather station. I am not citing meteoclub but the official weather station http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos The official data from the last year is http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/NOAAPRYR.TXT TechnicianGB is adding unreliable sources that contradict the Greek National weather station. There is only one weather station in Lindos which was set up in April of 2014. I am from Rhodes and I know this place(Lindos) and the weather of the island. Please if you want to challenge my sources analyze all the data from the weather station don't add sources that differ 3 degrees from the official measurements!!! FactDistributor ( talk) 03:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC) − FactDistributor ( talk) 03:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I only reverted back meteoclub because it was citing the official weather station of Lindos. I am not a fan of meteoclub. I have gone through all the results of the official weather station and they were correct. I had written both in my edits and in his talk page the sources I gave you and he simply ignored them. If the comparison with Teneriffe seems to be the problem I can remove it but as far as the data goes the numbers are good. Lindos is famous for being really hot amongst anyone who visited Rhodes and Lindos. I know to some this might seem far fetched but this is why the weather box describing Lindos's climate contains these sources to the official weather station. I can also remove as a source meteoclub altogether (and leave only http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos) but since I verified their numbers I don't see the reason. FactDistributor ( talk) 03:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC) The only
I think you are contradicting yourself and if you are mentioning you had the same issues with other people I think the problem is with you. I only cited in this discussion http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/ and in general meteo.gr . What is your problem? Should I just remove the source of meteoclub.gr and leave the article as is (only with a link to the weather station)? The data you provided in your "correction" is not for Lindos in contrast to what I did, the only issue I see is that there is not a direct link to the weather station average, as it only provides it for the last year http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/NOAAPRYR.TXT . However as I said you can browse the database here http://meteosearch.meteo.gr/ select Δωδεκάνησα in the blue box and Λίνδος Ρόδου in the next, then browse all the results by yourself. I am completely transparent in my sources. Can you please provide some reliable source that proves your data is related to Lindos? I did everything I can to show you I am telling the truth. Where is your proof? FactDistributor ( talk) 04:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I only blanked my page because you blanked it first
Proof. Your justification for blanking was rude you said "not even worth explaining"
I am knew to wikipedia and didn't know about the 3 revert rules but it seems to me you are someone who just wants to make the life of people here difficult TechnicianGB. It seems to me you are the worst nightmare for someone who just want to starts in wikipedia... By the way you broke the rule here too. You reverted 3 times first!
3rd
2nd
1st
FactDistributor ( talk) 06:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
FactDistributor ( talk) 07:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: now TechnicianGB suggests that this new account is my sockpuppet. Please take action against these kinds of ad hominem attacks. The fact that an editor from Rhodes showed up has NOTHING to do with the UNFOUNDED accusations this user is throwing. He is in violation of a myriad of rules suggesting I am a sockpuppet. How dare he? Weatherextremes ( talk) 20:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Related with the user Weatherextremes as well. Since the user is claiming he's not the one writing the blog entries in that website (albeit after the website gets updated, in barely few hours he comes to Wikipedia to put that data, but let's use the "trustful" card) there are some images uploaded by the same user in Commons claiming it's his own work (pics taken off meteoclub.gr) when just above he has said he only uses data from that site as he "is not even a member there" so all of these added images to Wikipedia Commons don't have the proper Author and Source then, as in all pages he claims he's the author and the source for all of these images. https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Special:ListFiles/Weatherextremes&ilshowall=1 so then all of these images should be removed because he doesn't hold the authorship for them. Am I wrong? Also that "Greece Köppen climate map" is the standard map coming from the Köppen climate classification guide which has real copyright. -- TechnicianGB ( talk) 16:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Finally and just to address TechnicianGB's claims on Commons, I can confirm that I have used pictures from Meteoclub (I took screenshots if I remember correctly) but unfortunately at the time I was not well versed with Commons (well I am still not good at that) and probably claimed wrong authorship, its been so long that I do not remember all the details.
EveStardust ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has been adding/changing/removing information, without any explanation, throughout French nobility articles.
Some of EveStardust's edits are of copy-edit type, whereas other edits clearly fall into the category of someone writing whatever they want. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
How do i respond to posts on my Talk Page??? EveStardust ( talk) 16:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)EveStardust EveStardust ( talk) 16:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Chatterjee95 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to split articles and remains unresponsive. Do you wish to block? Sam Sailor 22:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
About a week ago, you closed an item on WP:ANI about Piquito Veloz. My interaction with this editor was unpleasant, and I think I need some help from someone outside who will tell him how to behave. I'm hoping for your help in this matter.
Among other things, I formally closed a discussion on my talk page by collapsing the section, and moved it to his page where the discussion had started. He immediately undid] the collapse, removing the collapse markers and added a comment, followed by a whole bunch of other comments, one by one.
At that point, I walked away, resolved to not interact with him until I was no longer angry. Today, I felt capable of re-closing the discussion and telling Veloz to stay off my talk page. I re-collapsed the section and formally told him to stay off my talk page. His response was to remove my explicit statement that he was not welcome and should not post again, and insert a claim that I was inciting hatred. See here.
I'd earlier pointed him at a variety of policies, which he completely disregarded. Could you, as a third party with some authority he's likely to recognize, please inform him that he must obey the demand to stay off my talk page? Thank you. Tarl N. ( discuss) 01:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you about this SPI again, but I see it has been closed. The sockpuppeteer has not been tagged or blocked; did you make a determination that the "Likely" CU finding meant only the sock should be blocked? Thanks. Grandpallama ( talk) 14:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. 187.58.190.46 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a block evasion IP of [27] 177.205.214.74 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'll send you an e-mail with further details.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 10:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. The article has had a considerable number of reverts today. The dispute started when Pixius added without consensus a strong POV claim to the lead that the KLA is an terrorist organization. There is no consensus currently to make such edits. I tend to believe that Pixius might continue the edit war, since they have made aggressive edit summaries calling other editors' reverts "vandalism or test edit" and "vandalism". Ktrimi991
On the tp they made the extraordinary fringe claim that "In Serbia, KLA - the terrorist organisation is kidnaping people and killing officials and civilians from ambush or by direct confrontation". One can very easily verify that the KLA does not exist anymore, and there is no report of any such activity going on in Serbia. Ktrimi991
Pixius even placed a vandalism template on the talk page of one of the editors who reverted [28]. Ktrimi991
Pixius made similar disruptive edits on another editor's tp a month or so ago [29].
Two months ago Pixius posted on the talk page of an editor, who has been editing for some 15 years, a "Welcome to Wikipedia message", adding a definition of vandalism and that " Upon reviewing your edits and talk page it seams that your strong chauvinistic view on Bulgarian supremacy inhibits your perception of what Wikipedia is". Ktrimi991
For clarification, I have never been involved in a dispute with Pixius. Ktrimi991
The first time I noticed them was when they called an academic book, widely cited on Wiki articles and other academic works, a "nice copy of the fantasy book". I was going to warn Pixius for edit warring, but now I am not sure how many and what warnings should I give to them. Can you suggest sth? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Ktrimi991
Ktrimi991 ( talk) 22:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
If this is not enough to designate that the KLA is indeed the terrorist organisation (especially the part terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army ), then I do not see the point of explaining WP:BLUE maintaining the wiki at all. At the end what i want to say is do what you think you have to do. I stand behind my doings as they are standing on wide foundation of scientific facts and proper research methods. Thank you. Pixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
As a side note, I would like to add another user Durazz0 as a destructive editor. Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kosovo_Liberation_Army&oldid=prev&diff=1034972451&diffmode=source. First I strongly believe that he has not read the sources at all ( excerpt UNSC 1160 resolution provided above ), then he marked the edit as a vandalism, again not reading the document. It is the same behavioural pattern like Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912 - WP:IDONTLIKEIT then marked as WP:vandalism Pixius talk 08:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston:: I have already explained that it was oversight and apologised. Can you please read the excerpt of UNSC 1160 and tell me do you see this part "... as well as all acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training ..." , or Durraz0 has its own "interpretation of English language" Pixius talk 20:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: Can you please transfer parts of the the conversation referring to the KLA to the KLA article page? I would like to be visible to other users. Also I propose to put on the vote if UCK is terrorist organisation based on UN Security council resolution and A Department of Homeland Security Emeritus Center of Excellence headquartered at the University of Maryland National_Consortium_for_the_Study_of_Terrorism_and_Responses_to_Terrorism MIPT_Terrorism_Knowledge_Base and another input from global terrorist database maintained by Homeland Security ( Homeland Security Global Terrorism Database) which designates the KLA as a terrorist organisation. Thank you EdJohnston in advance. Pixius talk 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This editor has removed reference(s) and referenced information in three different edits. [30] [31] [32] And with this edit, removed Persian form of the article name. It would appear this editor is determined to remove the word Persian from this article. They have taken their anti-Persian editing to the Bukhara article. [33] Would you be interested in addressing this issue? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Good day User:EdJohnston,
Do you have time to review the recent edits/reverts by User:Pipsally?
He seems to be POV-Pushing without proper explainations. I tried to cooperate and clarify the problem, but he is unwilling to do so.
I would be thankful, if you could try to help us out here as a neutral party and Adminstrator.
Thanks in advance.
-- InNeed95 ( talk) 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Did you even look it up? I did user the Articles Talk Page. He isnt willing to cooperate tho and insist on that he is right.
As such, I was looking forward for a third party and adminstrator view.
-- InNeed95 ( talk) 11:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to be disrespectful by claiming "Did you even look it up?" But I felt like that you did not follow my efforts of trying to cooperate with the distruptive Editior.
Adding that after the VANDALIZER reported me with pathetic reasons, you directly acted in favor of him. While ignoring me at the same time.
I read your comment about claiming that the whole "Revert" thing is about the "Procentage". This is not correct. Please regard the edits on Kosovo Serbs. (The Vandalizer did not think about cooperating, which you seem to disregard).
Vandalising should be stopped by someone like you (Admin) instead of supporting it.
This is not supposed to be offending. If you felt like it did offend you, than I am sorry. But everybody has to be able to handle criticism.
-- InNeed95 ( talk) 16:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@
Ktrimi991:
I called it "Vandalism" because of him editing the article several times without explainations.
You seem to misunderstand the problem and by that, you re falsely accusing me to be the one to be in the wrong.
Please review the the problem again.
-- InNeed95 ( talk) 16:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Aha, I did fall into a 3RR edit warring trap in a page infested with socks [35]. I was unblocked when I pointed this out. Nevertheless, I am really sorry I did violate 3RR. Still can't get over the shame. Chaipau ( talk) 23:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
HammerFilmFan (not logged in)
I appreciate your support and trust in my recent run for admin. I've had an interesting first few weeks and am learning a lot by being able to better watch (through tools) what admins do. Please call on me if you see making an error, or if you just need help. Thanks again. BusterD ( talk) 18:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
After some time I revisited an old 3RR being
And I still see no result. Kingsif's latest accusations are in the link above, and my response is at the bottom of my own talk page. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Erikdr
As next month I'll be visiting my friends in the island again and might have lots more plans for Wiki edits, it's important to get a final conclusion to the April 3RR. If for any next contribution I have to face IMHO disruptive and destructive behaviour of this fellow editor, then I simply cannot make these next contributions. "if you cannot understand why such edits are wrong, you should probably not be making any edits at all. There is no discussion to be had, no compromise to reach on bad edits." is sooo strongly against netiquette that it blows my mind.
If however (s)he finally learns to get into constructive/cooperative mode, we're talking... Hope to get a status update from you soon!
Erikdr ( talk) 14:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
There are currently open threads in Talk about different points of dispute (some already resolved). Could you take a look at those threads and the article?
Mainly, in case you want to leave some points to fix the new content to the Wikipedia rules. Even if they give me an indefinite block, I think it would be nice if at least the extra content of the article is well adjusted.
I am not writing to you to avoid a blockade, but to let you know that before they block me (if they do) and can't write.
A greeting. BaylanSP ( talk) 17:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey, you locked Tabbouleh 1 year ago, but the same problems has now returned after. Can you lock it from IPs permanently? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 07:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you placed the Hindu mythological wars ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article under Extended Confirmed Protection mid-July, citing repeated disruptive editing.
I think reducing the protection level to Semiprotection would be better, as the disruptive editing was mostly done by IPs.
The article really needs a lot of work done - it needs major reformatting and sourcing of information and it's lacking a lot of information about several Puranic wars. Placing it under such a high protection level when the article has so much space for improvement is really restrictive. So, could the protection level please be reduced to Semiprotection?
Aathish S | talk | contribs 15:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I've seen you protected the National Union article for 2 years, I just would to tell how the dispute began.
It all began in 2019, the Estado Novo regime for years was considered a fascist regime on Wikipedia, but JPratas decided to remove it without seeking consensus for it:
There was a big edit war over it, then I reported him for it, he originally was blocked for 2 weeks, but since that was his first block, it got reduced for 3 days, another user involved was blocked for 1 day:
We then decided to hold and RfC over whether the regime should be considered fascist or not, we failed to gain consensus one way or the other, so we decided to maintain the status quo, namely which it was a fascist regime:
But despite this JPratas insisted to go against what was decided, as seen recently on the National Union article, at one point in the discussion he even claimed that I and another user of being the same person, then he at some point he said another user was "recruited" by me, etc.
As you can see, JPratas is guilty of disruptive editing, I was going to send you this back when you saw his IP list, but I got lazy and didn't, I apologize for it, doing so might have prevented lots of disruption that happened since.
I'm not asking you to unprotect, to intervene, or anything like that, just wanted to give you some context to what was happening, I'm not going to try to impose the status quo again, this has caused too much disrupton, has been going on for 2 years, and frankly I'm tired of it and have a lot more things to do.
That's all I wanted to say. -- 2804:248:fb62:6e00:4c4c:1035:1f59:8fba ( talk) 06:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, were you aware of these two personal attacks ( #1 and #2) moments before you blocked the user? I would have blocked indefinitely when you add them to the edit-warring violation.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, long time no see. I don't know if this is the correct place, but there has recently been a surge of anti-Shia edits by several IPs [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] They mainly engage in reducing the numbers of Shias in various regions, or outright delete information about them, whilst exaggerating the numbers of Sunni Muslims. All of them are from the exact same area in Uttar Pradesh, possibly the same person? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure what the issue is with this editor. They have multiple warnings on their talk page.
My first interaction with HernánCortés was after their removal of referenced information at the Battle of Mohi.
After their 2nd edit on the Battle of Mohi, which removed referenced information, I posted a suggestion.
HernánCortés then removes the referenced information on Battle of Fleurus, stating "change according to sources". This is not correct. Per the The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon, Gunther E. Rothenberg, page 247, which indicates 5,000 k+w for both victor and defeated.
I will leave it to you to decide. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
/* Original title of this section was: Third opinion */
I will like you to take a look at recent edits of "User:Bhaskarbhagawati" which exhibit (1) removal of reliable sources, (2) addition of non-contextual POV content which is either sourced to poor sources or not sourced at all, and (3) edit-warring with multiple editors. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
What? TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
/* The original title was: IP from Uttar Pradesh is back */
Hi EdJohnston. Unfortunately the IP still hasn't refrained from adding Sunni everywhere and attempting to remove Shia related stuff.
[47] [48] -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 10:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, I have a question. I opened this request for comment on July 31. When could it be closed? it has only received a new response during the last week. regards Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
"it cherry picks accomplishments" "Leaner is meaner" "the biggest problem here is a lack of summarisation" "Even the proposed alternative is far too long in my opinion". Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 19:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi for some reason my ISP address was blocked and I don't understand why. The reason given was vandalism and page disruption which I have never done.
My ISP 2001:8004:2781:aa77:b7be:e016:b62f:2cc6. I didn't mean to vandalise or be disruptive it wasn't intended I just don't understand how to edit pages correctly.And if you do remove the block I will be more careful in future. Aussie2021 ( talk) 14:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston. I haven't checked my watchlist since the morning; only replying because i received an alert of you pinging me. I agree with engaging in the talk page until consensus is reached, and in fact that's what i proposed if you see my first comment in the report. There is an issue though. Shouldn't the article return back to a version that was stable? What happens if i disagree with certain changes in the article, and i don't find consensus with the other user? His changes remain? Right now i don't have time to engage, but tomorrow i will leave a message listing my issues, which points i am willing to compromise on, etc. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 17:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I did leave a small comment on the 27th ( diff), to which Haldir Marchwarden said we can work on the article as we (me and editor Maleschreiber) wish ( diff1, diff2). Can i reinstate the stable version, and begin working on it with Maleschreiber per what we discussed (you can read the last comments in the talk page)? Demetrios1993 ( talk) 07:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Editor AlbionMike76 has not contributed to Talk page so far even though I have asked him to multiple times via the edit summary (only way to communicate to him). I have been accused by him of bullying and belittling which I reject, though I have been rather direct in my opinion of the excessive detail he had added to this page on a tiny locality (1 sq mile in area, ~4,700 inhabitants) which is really only a mini-suburb of Sunshine, Victoria and only has been considered a separate suburb as it has a train station called “ Albion” in it. (I have a print street directory from 1995 which still calls the area “Sunshine”.) Not sure how this can progress if he continues to not use Talk page. 122.150.83.215 ( talk) 07:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Note about an editor you warned last week for edit warring. They made 4 reverts within a few hours today on Muhammad Ali of Egypt. You might find this of importance if someone reports that editor in the future for edit warring. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I would like to request the reviewer right. I have around 1,400+ edits and the rollback right. I meet the criteria and would also like to help out in the pending changes log. Am familiar with vandalism and relevant guidelines. Sreeram Dilak ( talk) 14:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, you protected the pages Solo, Ddu-Du Ddu-Du and Kill This Love back in March because of a stubborn IP-hopper who keeps re-adding the same stupid edits over and over and over again and they keep doing the same thing despite being reverted every single time. This person just doesn't want to stop and ignores all warnings given to them. They have plenty more edits on different pages that keep on getting reverted that will be too long to list them all right here. All of their IPs geolocate to Melbourne, AU and some of them can be found here. Note that not all of their IPs are listed there because it's too tiring to keep track of them all. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
On September 5, you warned AlbionMike76 about continued edit warring on Albion, Victoria. They have continued. [49] [50] It appears the IP attempted to use the article talk page but AlbionMike76 just reverts with abrasive edit summaries about fighting trolls. Notfrompedro ( talk) 13:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I did not notice this until now. I understand this happened 6 September 2021, however I find this completely unacceptable and am further shocked said IP was not indefinitely blocked! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
A discussion was going on on the talk page regarding improvement of the article. Was it not too early to protect the page? Thank you. Dear Debasish ( talk) 14:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, please add the traditional accounts of Bengali Brahmins and then protect the page. Wikipedia should be a place where people can refer to it. Thanking you. Mikemarssss ( talk) 18:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It appears that you blocked 199.82.243.102 for thirty days about six days ago for disruptive editing. However, there are now edits from 199.82.243.108 and 199.82.243.88 and 199.82.243.83 at Talk:Second Anglo-Afghan War. I haven't done a whois on the IP address, but I know that IP addresses shift within what used to be called Class C blocks and are now called /24 blocks or something like that. I have a request at DRN for moderated discussion from a registered user concerning Second Anglo-Afghan War. If this appears to be the same person, then maybe the block should be expanded to at least the /26 block, in which case I can dismiss the DRN request. I haven't reviewed the history in enough detail to know what exactly was the disruption. I see that the user is stubborn and is at least borderline uncivil, but I haven't been looking at the past history, and I know that there might be disruption that I don't see. So do you think it is the same user, and do you think that the block should be expanded? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Why am I being dragged into this conversation? The changes I made was due to WP:3 decision and I copied and pasted the sources provided on the talk page as [[WP:3] considered strong reference. After seeing this message, I did little check on Raoulduke47 and Noorullah21 and not only can you see that they share similar opinion on the Second Anglo Afghan War but also are possibly from same town and country. Noorullah21 used this IP 2A01:CB15:300:3000:CCD8:437F:F3AD:1B66 to make a change on page Afghan Independence Day which he also admitted to. This IP is in Assamese France. On the other hand Raoulduke47 provided a reference on the Second Anglo Afghan talk page which pointed him to location France as well because the reference showed this: https://www.google.fr/books/edition/A_Traditionalist_History_of_the_Great_Wa/cJUYEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=afghanistan+british+protected+state&pg=PA372&printsec=frontcover. Why and how,, Raoulduke47 became part of the discussion? Coincidence? Definitely not. These two individuals are something to be looked into. Rezanaul ( talk) 13:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I have been suspicious that Oswald would tell Holmes he working on an upper floor when the shooting occurred, then went downstairs. On page 306, it is clear what Holmes meant:
Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule. Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule? Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part. Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor? Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember? Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.
Based on this, I think the paragraph regarding Holmes on the “Police interrogation” section on the Lee Harvey Oswald article should say “Holmes (who attended the interrogation at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz) said that Oswald replied that he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman.” [1] 213.107.66.169 ( talk) 09:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. An editor that apparently uses multiple IP addresses, and now seems to have switched to various unregistered accounts, is making similar edits and additions of "information" that contradict the existing sources about the rulers of the Miskito people of Central America who were part black. This editor sometimes adds a ridiculous fringe source that claims the aboriginal peoples of Central and South America were actually black. Here are the diffs where I've reverted these changes by his latest incarnation:
Carlstak ( talk) 21:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Due to continued editing of these articles from IPs in the /24 range, I have now blocked Special:Contributions/190.143.247.0/24 for two months. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ed Johnston I've Requested to you Please give me Pending Change Userright for Trial. I've also Requested on WP:PERM But any Admin doesn't Attention on My Comment. Please see [ [57] and [58] I'm also Read WP:RPC and WP:PC. Best Regards. Jiggyziz 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 06:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
"SobuJ Ahmed" BalPakna2021 ( talk) 04:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 18:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: Hi , Please give rollbackers right because i am remove vandalism on articles and userpage and talkpage i am already request on WP:PERM.Plase check me my contribution and gave me this right.Best Regards. Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 14:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I believe I'm under a Zionist ban. Can I ask for this to be lifted for editing on Elazar Shach? Chesdovi ( talk) 17:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, EdJohnston I never meant to revert your edit nor did I notice that I reverted your edit. I have just seen it when you restored it. I think I probably clicked it accidentally when I searched my watchlist, my deepest apologies for the mistake.— TheWikiholic ( talk) 02:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I am sure you are tired of me posting these, but user:Yusiffuctd has, since 8 October, been edit warring(about every 2-3 days) the term(s) "Political Muslim Victory as Muslims remain in control of Jerusalem" into the infobox of the Third Crusade. Yusiffuctd has been reverted 9 times by 4 different editors.
On the Bajaur Campaign, Yusiffuctd has been reverted, since 4 October, 3 times by 2 different editors.
On the Eighth Crusade, Yusiffuctd has been revert, since 9 October, 5 times by 2 different editors.
I am unsure what the issue is concerning Yusiffuctd, but the slow edit warring on Third Crusade is becoming somewhat disruptive.
Thank you for your patience in this matter. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Ed, I was about to block the user as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xavier 500.30.10. Any objections?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
In fact
User:UnknownEditor1234567890 is Confirmed to
User:Xavier 500.30.10. And, now that you noticed the recent creation of
Draft:Mohammed Shanooj I would support the renaming of the case to
User:MohammedShanooj03. Is it too late to unclose the case and make that request? In
User:MER-C's block notice for
User:UnknownEditor1234567890, I also see mentions of
User:AlamanKlm,
User:Al aman kollam and
User:Muhammed fairoos. They are all blocked, but are not stale and it might be worth tagging them. With some more work I might be able to confirm them to Xavier 500.30.10. Will be taking a break for a few hours.
EdJohnston (
talk)
19:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. We're having trouble with an IP edit-warring to add somewhat incendiary content without citing the actual sources for the information at Luiseño. Carlstak ( talk) 11:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I've applied for the New page reviewer permission here. Could you please grand me the right? Thank you. -- Agnihothri Sharath ( talk) 06:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed. You closed this discussion with a warning that Igec was not to revert at Next Slovak parliamentary election again. Unfortuantely they have done so today, restoring the infobox that they were edit warring to reinstate ( this repeats this edit) and deleting a table of all the parties with seats. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Further to your warning here (which they've blanked, so obviously seen), they've decided to turn up a year later and carry on the same way. FDW777 ( talk) 10:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Ed, may I ask for your advice? Is there any way to draw more third party attention to a Move Request I have initiated, and which appears to be far more controversial than I have imagined. A third-party input from the broader Wikipedia community will very much be needed here to make sure that the Move Request doesn't reflect strictly the usual local Balkan topic area consensus but a broader consensus. Any ideas where can I ask for such third-party attention? A particular noticeboard? And how to notify them? Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The closer has been reverted for not following Wikipedia's rules about impartiality in spirit. An uninvolved third party Admin closure has been requested at:
Wikipedia:Closure Requests. ---
❖ SilentResident ❖ (
talk ✉ |
contribs ✎)
21:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey EdJohnston, your advises to me are always appreciated but I see that even though I have submitted RM closure requests (per your recommendations above), I am realizing that the RM has not closed and was relisted for a third week. I had the impression there is a consensus regarding the guidelines but, according to both reviewers, it seems there isn't. The RM is being open for more than 14 days and was relisted probably for 7 more days and I am not sure what else (and if) can be done there. I have worked tirelessly to put opposite arguments to test, but the new reviewer has suggested against my further participation to it. I could appreciate any feedback on the matter. Thanks and good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This redirect was protected in 2009 by you if I'm reading the logs correctly. I think unprotection can be removed, since the main target is also semi'd and I doubt most vandals would target it. Will you consider unprotection? Thanks in advance, Sennecaster ( Chat) 03:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Could I just say, I thought that was pretty shabby moderating you did back there? The warning for warring, fair enough, no problem. But you specifically asked the other editor to undo the 4thRR; she called your bluff and carried on editing other pages. You know what the correct response under policy is! To pretend my first edit was a revert, when it introduced brand new wording into the article and wasn’t reverting anything, just to duck out of having to follow through on your earlier request was poor IMHO. MapReader ( talk) 21:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
What do you think of WT:EW#3RR blocks for first offense? Regardless of the merits, should I go about it differently, meaning should I start an RFC, make the same proposal at WP:VPP, advertise it at WP:AN? As I said at the Talk page, I've never done this before. Thanks for your thoughts.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, why was I blocked for 48 hours then and not 24 as WP:3RR states is typically given for this?( see here). There have been others before this most recent one. I think they were my blocks, which, btw, are often more than 24 hours, but I'd have to dredge them up. I do agree, though, that a discussion might achieve a "worse" result. In general, I don't like having admin discretion limited as to when to block, how long to block, etc. It's similar to those admins who feel that partial blocks for edit-warring are the only way to go. Nonetheless, I'll probably let it go as I don't think I have the stomach for the extended discussion that is likely to ensue.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
You are one of four editors who greatly encouraged me in my early months here and provided heart-warming support both before and during my RfA, which I looked at today for the first time in several years. I don't know if you realize how important that was and is to me. I am very glad, both on my own account and for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole, that you are still around. – Athaenara ✉ 20:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, I've been editing Wikipedia through a VPN server, that I host on one of my VPS servers, due to privacy concerns. Recently I switched my VPS provider to another one and found that their ASN's IP prefix range has been blocked by another administrator (ST47), which prevented me from editing the Wiki through my registered account. Since you're one of the checkusers, I'm seeking an IP block exemption for this account. I could fill you in with the specifics such as IP ranges and such if required through email. Thanks,
WikiLinuz (
talk)
00:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: I had emailed checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org before making the request here; I just wanna mention that, although I didn't receive a reply from them yet; edited
WikiLinuz (
talk)
03:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. Is it possible to semi-protect Anastasius I Dicorus for a few months? IPs regularly target it.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 16:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads up after you blocked User:Josemontoya558 [66] for vandalising music articles by changing the recording dates, an IP [67] continued with the same behaviour on other AC/DC-related articles. He seems to have stopped, but I guess he might come back. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Hhl95 has already been warned to reach consensus on the talk page before reverting other user's contributions, yet looking from the contribution history he didn't took the warning seriously. Now he's at it again, reverting the changes I made according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Exhibit one, two (the second time without an explicit revert). Perhaps further action is needed? Exlevan ( talk) 17:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
You have closed my complain but this is wrong. The editor reverted me multiple times despite being told to stick to WP:BRD on Last Night in Soho. Even when he did start discussion he has stone-walled any attempt at compromise. This will encourage further BRD violations as editors will take advantage to freely revert. AbsolutelyFiring ( talk) 15:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, despite my report on WP:AN3, Robepang seems to have refused to WP:DROPTHESTICK despite your advice for caution and had returned on Milo dinosaur to reintroduce their edits once more, with a pretty deceiving edit summary of "Rv to pre vandalised version". I've checked the edits of the IP, and they definitely weren't vandalising, in fact, they made the article much more neutral and less of the gastronationalistic edit warring Robepang was having with others. In fact, Robepang's edit only serves to restart such potential future edit wars again, presumably on purpose to shoehorn their version. Canzeelia ( talk) 02:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Following coming off your block here, Nazran225 has gone back to exactly the same edits they were edit warring over before [69] [70], including edits which remove information and introduce inaccuracies and using misleading edit summaries. There's no 'new edit war' so to speak, so I don't know if it fits on AN/EW, but it's a disruptive continuation of the past one. CMD ( talk) 12:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Per your note here, Nazran has continued in this campaign, including trying a copy paste move. I didn't see your comment before it was archived last time. My understanding is that use is mixed in both political and technical fields, so there could be a few reasons for opinions on the matter. CMD ( talk) 02:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, how have you been? Sorry to bother you again. Just informing you that the RM at Imia which we talked about, was dead for 2 weeks before a completely uninvolved and impartial volunteer came to close it. However now someone wants to reopen it even though the discussion has concluded. [71]. Just notifying you. Have a good weekend. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, you asked us on 25 September to keep an eye on Special:Contributions/190.143.247.0/24 to see if he branches out to new IPs. He's back to his shenanigans again using IP 190.143.246.189 and as Wethepeople45 on multiple articles to do with the Miskito people. Carlstak ( talk) 23:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it seems like Igec133 whom you warned twice ( 1 2) is continuing to engage in an edit-war ( here) after not participating in discussions even though he was pinged and warned an excessive amount of times. The page Direction – Slovak Social Democracy (among some others) seems to be a matter of dispute, and I plan on cleaning it up in a near future due to the recent addition of mess and disputes. Also 95.105.213.96 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 178.143.113.252 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have made changes on the page recently but I'm not sure if this is Igec editing while logged out. IMO the page should be returned to the status quo before the disputes and admin-protected until the editors come to a consensus on the talk page. Cheers, -- Vacant0 ( talk) 17:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you but a weird thing is going on that might require some help, including CU. (And even if no CU matter, I'd appreciate your advice.) In the past two days, there have been no less than 65 attempts to hack my account (as WP informs when I log in). This is not random; two other users (@ DeCausa: and @ Impru20:) are also targeted. None of us ever had any attempts to hack our accounts previously, but in the last two days all three of us are subject to regular attempts at our accounts. That seems unlikely to be a coincident. The only thing we have in common is having reverted the same user in one article (the matter is explained here). Any advice you might offer would be appreciated. Jeppiz ( talk) 02:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
"There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device"messages. Impru20 talk 10:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Since your block on DeeHistorian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has expired, they've made no edits except continuing the same edit war as before. FDW777 ( talk) 21:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, could you look into Robepang's behavior? I checked his talk page and realized you were the administrator that briefly blocked him for nationalist edit warring. Seems like he's not learnt anything from it and has continued upon it, this time with other articles/dishes, by removing mentions of other countries and trying to rewrite their origins. See Mee siam and Laksa (a dish variants available in multiple countries being moved within Malaysia instead). 119.192.71.192 ( talk) 14:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Ed, forgive me for being blunt but in what universe does the 'evidence' presented here constitute edit warring? By warning me you've sent the message to this editor that it's OK for him to try and brute-force changes through without first gaining consensus, because anyone who tries to revert back to the stable version is going to hauled before AN3.
I have not once reverted back to anything other than the existing, stable version of articles which in many cases have been that way for years. What's going on here? Are we supposed to let editors get away with this sort of behaviour – repeatedly deleting bits of articles, even after they have been reverted – because we might be punished for acting against it?
Some clarity would be appreciated. I know I'm not a neutral observer, but I cannot see how my editing is construed as edit warning and the filer's isn't. Frankly, I was expecting a block for the other party. Am I putting too much stock in the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Dāsānudāsa ( talk) 16:55, 1 December 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 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 |
Hello, wikipedia user :@ ButtersIO: seems to have been engaged in an edit war for a little bit over a month. he claims the NLA was supported by al-qaeda however none of his three references state this, instead refer to the N. Macedonian news and sources claiming this with no substantial proof. I only reverted his edits once. however he added it back. then other wikipedians reverted his edits and asked him to go to the talk page. after a 5 day silence he came back and accused me, @ Maleschreiber: and @ Jingiby: of "trying so hard to hide the facts and change the truth". Durraz0 ( talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Since you understand this request better than usual admins here, I am making the request here. Can you consider putting WP:ECP on B.R. Ambedkar? It has been long affected by the socks related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/संदेश हिवाळे for more than 4 years and still is. Current disruption is being caused by the throw-away obvious socks like this account and frequent page ownership by an SPA.
They lack a collaborative approach with their clear personal attacks [3] [4] and their ownership of this article is concerning. If they are blocked, then new ones will pop up. I believe ECP will solve the problem. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 09:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
Talkback|Talk:B._R._Ambedkar|Censoring_Hindutva}}
I know I went with closing as it wasn't needed, but was I in the right in the first two reverts? Or were the sources really not enough to fix the issue? Is it made of Wood ( talk) 14:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
You've got mail}}
--
Kansas Bear (
talk)
13:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.-- BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I just upgraded Economy of Kolkata to full protection because autoconfirmed users are edit warring. In two weeks, when that expires, one of us should probably re-establish indefinite semi-protection. — C.Fred ( talk) 14:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
As you've dealt with user:Eddaido before, I'm hoping you can step in and provide some advice on the situation here Talk:Frank Schuster (music patron). He's being very defensive about an unsourced sentence and can't provide a realistic explanation why is it needed when it implies unproven things about that paragraph's main topic. People like him is why my participation in wikipedia is erratic. I just wanted to remove the implication that Elgar was exclusively heterosexual, because that is under scholarly debate. He is insistent on keeping that sentence simply because it has always been there? I have tried to reason with him but feel it is time for another set of eyes. If you are the wrong person to go to, please forward this to the right person. I'm exhausted here and beginning to feel like he is just wearing me down for the fun of it. Wickedjacob ( talk) 11:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for protecting Xiongnu. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ed. This user is continuing their disruptive behavior that led to their first block. Amaury • 10:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I just read all the messages now and I'm not the one who is starting this edit war It's Amaury who is removing an important information from a page which was agreed to be on that page since November 2020. NoobMaster01 ( talk) 09:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi again. I wonder if you have any ideas about this RFC [5]? Obviously I feel you've had an influence on this use of RFCs, but it is not going well, and I continue to have concerns that the article has been quite deliberately and successfully frozen.
I have no problem discussing the article with other editors apart from the article owner who got the article semi-frozen. The problem is to find people willing to look at the article and its talk page over such a long period when every type of proposal is disputed and obfuscated. Since the beginning, you've continually taken the position that if someone's proposal is reasonable, then they should obviously be able to get edits done by other editors. Apparently they will come along, and volunteer to sift through every proposal, while being bombarded by the article owner. In fact we've been lucky to drag along a few editors who've done this for some basic things like that tripled genetics section over more than a year, but it can't go on forever, and it is especially depressing for all involved when we see how easily Krakkos could rewind all that work and force everyone to discuss everything anew, as I explained in previous discussions. This indirect editing method would not work on any WP article needing any substantial level of work, and it certainly can't work in a case like this where one editor wants to freeze the article. (You were asked on 28th February 2020 to intervene to stop changes on the article. Despite that being on 3R, only one edit was cited and the rest of the post was about how I had changed another article in the past. [17] This was clearly not just a simple 3R case.) If this indirect editing method worked, we could work like that on every article. But we can't. No one can. Editors should not be allowed to get their content protected long-term like this, and especially not based on the argument that without admin intervention other editors will change the articles?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Greetings and salutations!
I apologize in advance if I failed to bring sufficient information, I am still quite green at Wikipedia. If you need anything, please contact me.
Thank you.
LjaljaMM18 ( talk) 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear EdJohnston, I am writing to you because of a small technical request. In January 2018, my userpage has been vandalized with a small series of racially-charged edits (containing insults in my native language targeted at the content of my userpage), that are still viewable in the page's history. I want to request these revisions to be made un-openable (or whatever the technical term is for "deleting" those versions). These are the four versions: 1 2 3 4. Number 3 is the one with a highly offensive verbal attack that is my main issue. I realize that this is a minor problem, but let me know if executing this is viable. Regards.-- Concus Cretus ( talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston. I saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alluburam and was in the process of posting something there when it was closed. It's clear that Alluburam and Alluburam 2 are the same editor. I don't believe there's a need for two accounts based upon what's written in WP:MULTIPLE, and the fact that Alluburam 2 is being used to continue the disputes taking place at articles with edits like this and this is disconcerting. The issue, however, goes well beyond the claim of WP:SOCK and involves more editors than Alluburam. There's been edit warring going on at 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election quite sometime now between Alluburam and other editors, and none of those involved seem to be willing to try and sort this out on the article's talk page. Alluburam has posted on the talk page before; he knows it's there, but has decided not to use it in this case. There's also nothing on 2022 talk page (or at Talk:List of current members of the Rajya Sabha as a matter of fact) from Dev Adhi; so, they're not trying to discuss. The IPs that show up might not know about the talk pages or may know and just don't care. Basically, all involved seem to have decided that edit warring is the way to go here and that's going to likely continue until an administrator steps in and takes action. If you look at User talk:Alluburam and Talk:2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election, you'll see that other editors have been expressing concerns about Alluburam's overall editing approach for some time now. You yourself previously blocked Alluburam back in April; so, maybe this now is a case of WP:CIR or WP:IDHT. There are also similar concerns (though not as many) being expressed at User talk:Dev Adhi. A discussion about all of these things could be started at WP:ANI or WP:AN3, but I'm wondering if there's another way to try and resolve things. The articles could probably be page protected to stop the IPs, but that won't really stop the registered accounts. Do you think a "last warning" to all involved from an administrator (you perhaps) will have any effect here, or is this ultimately something that's going to need to be resolved at one of the ANs? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
My account is Alluburam. Alluburam is created by someone else with my name Alluburam ( talk) 02:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't lie Alluburam 2 is yours you abused me from your second account Dev Adhi ( talk) 02:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, we've been having trouble with a new edit warring editor and various ips at this article, who insists on imposing their preferred version of the article, regardless of consensus or the lack of it. It appears that editor Sonnenrage may be abusing his account with sockpuppets and proxied ips. He has engaged on the talk page, but there he's making comments such as "You are not honest" and "Once again, you are acting in bad faith."
He has commented most egregiously with this edit on his talk page after receiving a warning from another editor, in which he added the words: "You are criminal, traitor, enemy. You are worthless as a human being. You think you are a defender of culture? But you are ready to destroy everything that doesn't go your way. You are a liar. Deceiver. You are an enemy of freedom and truth. Oppressor. Karma will catch up with you, don't doubt it." Carlstak ( talk) 02:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston,
The page named Rajput is under "Extended confirmed protection" for a long time (last time, you increased its semi-protection level). Due to this, a very few users can edit this page and experienced users with 500+ edits have a monopoly over the page. I found that there is some scope for improvement in the article. Therefore, I request you to reduce the level of page protection to semi-protection so that inexperienced users can also make contributions to the page. Dympies ( talk) 01:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Despite your warning, User:Alluburam is reverting our users edits example: 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election , I am so tired of reverting again his several users have been affected by him. Kindly please take necessary actions. regards Nahtrav ( talk)
He is continuing his reverting in the 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election page you can see from the page's edit history, the whole article has been transformed into Alluburam's imaginary favourite article. He is just reverting other users edits without any summary or reason. Also Have a glance at his talk page and see several users compaining and opposing him for their content deletion.His actions may led to discouragement of Experienced wikipedia users which is nothing but hunting down of Wikipedia's Policies. Please consider this problem as soon as possible Nahtrav ( talk) And also Why I am reporting to you is I already have reported him in edit warring WP:AN3, but because of unknowing the way in filling up the details there, no action has been taken, So I request you to help me in reporting this issue -- Nahtrav ( talk) 10:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
/* Original title was: Hello, I have a question about a Wikipedia Rule. */
Hello, I have a question regarding Wikipedia:COI based on Wikipedia:Self promotion.
I found an user who's posting his own blog posts from a website (which is a forum/blog, made by himself) as "reliable sources" in many of the articles he edits. I think this is obviously not reliable but not even valid as a source itself. Is this valid on Wikipedia or there is any kind of procedure to be done? I am asking this first before doing any action, because I don't know exactly how to proceed. I saw you on the Active Administrators list, I hope you can answer me if it's possible. Thanks! -- TechnicianGB ( talk) 14:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry but I consider you biased when it comes to Greece's data, you did not bother to check that the Meteoclub article is actually supported by the links provided by the Rhodes guy and myself (granted you would need to use synthesis to check them but still they are absolutely verifiable). I also consider Average Joe biased if I judge from his edits in Hardiness zones regarding Azores etc. The data from the National Observatory of Athens seem to challenge both of your POV's. I appreciate that an admin does not think Meteoclub is reliable however at a second stage by asking community wide feedback and making my case as clear as possible I hope that they will change their mind. Weatherextremes ( talk) 22:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Granted, climate normals are used for a 30 year period but in absence of this and especially considering that Lindos has strong meteorological interest since it is the warmest area in geographical Europe as verified by the links provided so far (through some synthesis unfortunately) to back up Meteoclub. Fair enough we could initiate an RfA on the Lindos article if we don't reach consensus. As you will notice in the Lindos talk page I provide an explanation of how Meteoclub works and why it is a reliable source for Lindos. We could wait and hear what the other users now think about Meteoclub and if needed we should consider an RfA on Lindos in case we don't reach a consensus. Let's continue the discussion on Lindos's talk page. Weatherextremes ( talk) 23:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ EdJohnston: a brand new user with a very similar writing style made his first Wikipedia edition coming to my talk page to "teach me" in a very familiar style and then he reverted my edits and added again the meteoclub data in the page Lindos. Same actions as the other user did before, which was firstly a message in someone's talk page or the page's talk page and then doing a revert before even waiting for a reply. In this case it's a brand new user called "FactDistributor" and I have a strong reason to suspect that it might be a sockpuppet not only because of that, but also because of the "fact" thing in his nickname which is a word commonly used by Weatherextremes, so this "FactDistributor" fact thing sounds familiar as well. Also because he made two edits trying to put meteoclub again in Lindos Talk:Lindos saying it's the hottest area in Europe and Greece, and the same day this "new user" came to my talk page to say the same and just the following day, which is today, this brand new account came to add that data again in the Lindos page. Not sure at all if it's the same user or someone else from that meteoclub forum or whatever that site is. But this is way too suspicious. The new user came straight to the same point repeating and doing almost the same stuff. -- TechnicianGB ( talk) 22:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to educate the user with the official data for the Lindos weather station. I am not citing meteoclub but the official weather station http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos The official data from the last year is http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/NOAAPRYR.TXT TechnicianGB is adding unreliable sources that contradict the Greek National weather station. There is only one weather station in Lindos which was set up in April of 2014. I am from Rhodes and I know this place(Lindos) and the weather of the island. Please if you want to challenge my sources analyze all the data from the weather station don't add sources that differ 3 degrees from the official measurements!!! FactDistributor ( talk) 03:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC) − FactDistributor ( talk) 03:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I only reverted back meteoclub because it was citing the official weather station of Lindos. I am not a fan of meteoclub. I have gone through all the results of the official weather station and they were correct. I had written both in my edits and in his talk page the sources I gave you and he simply ignored them. If the comparison with Teneriffe seems to be the problem I can remove it but as far as the data goes the numbers are good. Lindos is famous for being really hot amongst anyone who visited Rhodes and Lindos. I know to some this might seem far fetched but this is why the weather box describing Lindos's climate contains these sources to the official weather station. I can also remove as a source meteoclub altogether (and leave only http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos) but since I verified their numbers I don't see the reason. FactDistributor ( talk) 03:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC) The only
I think you are contradicting yourself and if you are mentioning you had the same issues with other people I think the problem is with you. I only cited in this discussion http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/ and in general meteo.gr . What is your problem? Should I just remove the source of meteoclub.gr and leave the article as is (only with a link to the weather station)? The data you provided in your "correction" is not for Lindos in contrast to what I did, the only issue I see is that there is not a direct link to the weather station average, as it only provides it for the last year http://penteli.meteo.gr/stations/lindos/NOAAPRYR.TXT . However as I said you can browse the database here http://meteosearch.meteo.gr/ select Δωδεκάνησα in the blue box and Λίνδος Ρόδου in the next, then browse all the results by yourself. I am completely transparent in my sources. Can you please provide some reliable source that proves your data is related to Lindos? I did everything I can to show you I am telling the truth. Where is your proof? FactDistributor ( talk) 04:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I only blanked my page because you blanked it first
Proof. Your justification for blanking was rude you said "not even worth explaining"
I am knew to wikipedia and didn't know about the 3 revert rules but it seems to me you are someone who just wants to make the life of people here difficult TechnicianGB. It seems to me you are the worst nightmare for someone who just want to starts in wikipedia... By the way you broke the rule here too. You reverted 3 times first!
3rd
2nd
1st
FactDistributor ( talk) 06:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
FactDistributor ( talk) 07:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: now TechnicianGB suggests that this new account is my sockpuppet. Please take action against these kinds of ad hominem attacks. The fact that an editor from Rhodes showed up has NOTHING to do with the UNFOUNDED accusations this user is throwing. He is in violation of a myriad of rules suggesting I am a sockpuppet. How dare he? Weatherextremes ( talk) 20:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Related with the user Weatherextremes as well. Since the user is claiming he's not the one writing the blog entries in that website (albeit after the website gets updated, in barely few hours he comes to Wikipedia to put that data, but let's use the "trustful" card) there are some images uploaded by the same user in Commons claiming it's his own work (pics taken off meteoclub.gr) when just above he has said he only uses data from that site as he "is not even a member there" so all of these added images to Wikipedia Commons don't have the proper Author and Source then, as in all pages he claims he's the author and the source for all of these images. https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Special:ListFiles/Weatherextremes&ilshowall=1 so then all of these images should be removed because he doesn't hold the authorship for them. Am I wrong? Also that "Greece Köppen climate map" is the standard map coming from the Köppen climate classification guide which has real copyright. -- TechnicianGB ( talk) 16:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Finally and just to address TechnicianGB's claims on Commons, I can confirm that I have used pictures from Meteoclub (I took screenshots if I remember correctly) but unfortunately at the time I was not well versed with Commons (well I am still not good at that) and probably claimed wrong authorship, its been so long that I do not remember all the details.
EveStardust ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has been adding/changing/removing information, without any explanation, throughout French nobility articles.
Some of EveStardust's edits are of copy-edit type, whereas other edits clearly fall into the category of someone writing whatever they want. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
How do i respond to posts on my Talk Page??? EveStardust ( talk) 16:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)EveStardust EveStardust ( talk) 16:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Chatterjee95 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to split articles and remains unresponsive. Do you wish to block? Sam Sailor 22:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
About a week ago, you closed an item on WP:ANI about Piquito Veloz. My interaction with this editor was unpleasant, and I think I need some help from someone outside who will tell him how to behave. I'm hoping for your help in this matter.
Among other things, I formally closed a discussion on my talk page by collapsing the section, and moved it to his page where the discussion had started. He immediately undid] the collapse, removing the collapse markers and added a comment, followed by a whole bunch of other comments, one by one.
At that point, I walked away, resolved to not interact with him until I was no longer angry. Today, I felt capable of re-closing the discussion and telling Veloz to stay off my talk page. I re-collapsed the section and formally told him to stay off my talk page. His response was to remove my explicit statement that he was not welcome and should not post again, and insert a claim that I was inciting hatred. See here.
I'd earlier pointed him at a variety of policies, which he completely disregarded. Could you, as a third party with some authority he's likely to recognize, please inform him that he must obey the demand to stay off my talk page? Thank you. Tarl N. ( discuss) 01:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you about this SPI again, but I see it has been closed. The sockpuppeteer has not been tagged or blocked; did you make a determination that the "Likely" CU finding meant only the sock should be blocked? Thanks. Grandpallama ( talk) 14:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. 187.58.190.46 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a block evasion IP of [27] 177.205.214.74 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'll send you an e-mail with further details.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 10:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. The article has had a considerable number of reverts today. The dispute started when Pixius added without consensus a strong POV claim to the lead that the KLA is an terrorist organization. There is no consensus currently to make such edits. I tend to believe that Pixius might continue the edit war, since they have made aggressive edit summaries calling other editors' reverts "vandalism or test edit" and "vandalism". Ktrimi991
On the tp they made the extraordinary fringe claim that "In Serbia, KLA - the terrorist organisation is kidnaping people and killing officials and civilians from ambush or by direct confrontation". One can very easily verify that the KLA does not exist anymore, and there is no report of any such activity going on in Serbia. Ktrimi991
Pixius even placed a vandalism template on the talk page of one of the editors who reverted [28]. Ktrimi991
Pixius made similar disruptive edits on another editor's tp a month or so ago [29].
Two months ago Pixius posted on the talk page of an editor, who has been editing for some 15 years, a "Welcome to Wikipedia message", adding a definition of vandalism and that " Upon reviewing your edits and talk page it seams that your strong chauvinistic view on Bulgarian supremacy inhibits your perception of what Wikipedia is". Ktrimi991
For clarification, I have never been involved in a dispute with Pixius. Ktrimi991
The first time I noticed them was when they called an academic book, widely cited on Wiki articles and other academic works, a "nice copy of the fantasy book". I was going to warn Pixius for edit warring, but now I am not sure how many and what warnings should I give to them. Can you suggest sth? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Ktrimi991
Ktrimi991 ( talk) 22:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
If this is not enough to designate that the KLA is indeed the terrorist organisation (especially the part terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army ), then I do not see the point of explaining WP:BLUE maintaining the wiki at all. At the end what i want to say is do what you think you have to do. I stand behind my doings as they are standing on wide foundation of scientific facts and proper research methods. Thank you. Pixius talk 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
As a side note, I would like to add another user Durazz0 as a destructive editor. Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kosovo_Liberation_Army&oldid=prev&diff=1034972451&diffmode=source. First I strongly believe that he has not read the sources at all ( excerpt UNSC 1160 resolution provided above ), then he marked the edit as a vandalism, again not reading the document. It is the same behavioural pattern like Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912 - WP:IDONTLIKEIT then marked as WP:vandalism Pixius talk 08:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston:: I have already explained that it was oversight and apologised. Can you please read the excerpt of UNSC 1160 and tell me do you see this part "... as well as all acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training ..." , or Durraz0 has its own "interpretation of English language" Pixius talk 20:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: Can you please transfer parts of the the conversation referring to the KLA to the KLA article page? I would like to be visible to other users. Also I propose to put on the vote if UCK is terrorist organisation based on UN Security council resolution and A Department of Homeland Security Emeritus Center of Excellence headquartered at the University of Maryland National_Consortium_for_the_Study_of_Terrorism_and_Responses_to_Terrorism MIPT_Terrorism_Knowledge_Base and another input from global terrorist database maintained by Homeland Security ( Homeland Security Global Terrorism Database) which designates the KLA as a terrorist organisation. Thank you EdJohnston in advance. Pixius talk 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This editor has removed reference(s) and referenced information in three different edits. [30] [31] [32] And with this edit, removed Persian form of the article name. It would appear this editor is determined to remove the word Persian from this article. They have taken their anti-Persian editing to the Bukhara article. [33] Would you be interested in addressing this issue? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Good day User:EdJohnston,
Do you have time to review the recent edits/reverts by User:Pipsally?
He seems to be POV-Pushing without proper explainations. I tried to cooperate and clarify the problem, but he is unwilling to do so.
I would be thankful, if you could try to help us out here as a neutral party and Adminstrator.
Thanks in advance.
-- InNeed95 ( talk) 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Did you even look it up? I did user the Articles Talk Page. He isnt willing to cooperate tho and insist on that he is right.
As such, I was looking forward for a third party and adminstrator view.
-- InNeed95 ( talk) 11:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to be disrespectful by claiming "Did you even look it up?" But I felt like that you did not follow my efforts of trying to cooperate with the distruptive Editior.
Adding that after the VANDALIZER reported me with pathetic reasons, you directly acted in favor of him. While ignoring me at the same time.
I read your comment about claiming that the whole "Revert" thing is about the "Procentage". This is not correct. Please regard the edits on Kosovo Serbs. (The Vandalizer did not think about cooperating, which you seem to disregard).
Vandalising should be stopped by someone like you (Admin) instead of supporting it.
This is not supposed to be offending. If you felt like it did offend you, than I am sorry. But everybody has to be able to handle criticism.
-- InNeed95 ( talk) 16:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@
Ktrimi991:
I called it "Vandalism" because of him editing the article several times without explainations.
You seem to misunderstand the problem and by that, you re falsely accusing me to be the one to be in the wrong.
Please review the the problem again.
-- InNeed95 ( talk) 16:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Aha, I did fall into a 3RR edit warring trap in a page infested with socks [35]. I was unblocked when I pointed this out. Nevertheless, I am really sorry I did violate 3RR. Still can't get over the shame. Chaipau ( talk) 23:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
HammerFilmFan (not logged in)
I appreciate your support and trust in my recent run for admin. I've had an interesting first few weeks and am learning a lot by being able to better watch (through tools) what admins do. Please call on me if you see making an error, or if you just need help. Thanks again. BusterD ( talk) 18:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
After some time I revisited an old 3RR being
And I still see no result. Kingsif's latest accusations are in the link above, and my response is at the bottom of my own talk page. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Erikdr
As next month I'll be visiting my friends in the island again and might have lots more plans for Wiki edits, it's important to get a final conclusion to the April 3RR. If for any next contribution I have to face IMHO disruptive and destructive behaviour of this fellow editor, then I simply cannot make these next contributions. "if you cannot understand why such edits are wrong, you should probably not be making any edits at all. There is no discussion to be had, no compromise to reach on bad edits." is sooo strongly against netiquette that it blows my mind.
If however (s)he finally learns to get into constructive/cooperative mode, we're talking... Hope to get a status update from you soon!
Erikdr ( talk) 14:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
There are currently open threads in Talk about different points of dispute (some already resolved). Could you take a look at those threads and the article?
Mainly, in case you want to leave some points to fix the new content to the Wikipedia rules. Even if they give me an indefinite block, I think it would be nice if at least the extra content of the article is well adjusted.
I am not writing to you to avoid a blockade, but to let you know that before they block me (if they do) and can't write.
A greeting. BaylanSP ( talk) 17:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey, you locked Tabbouleh 1 year ago, but the same problems has now returned after. Can you lock it from IPs permanently? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 07:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you placed the Hindu mythological wars ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article under Extended Confirmed Protection mid-July, citing repeated disruptive editing.
I think reducing the protection level to Semiprotection would be better, as the disruptive editing was mostly done by IPs.
The article really needs a lot of work done - it needs major reformatting and sourcing of information and it's lacking a lot of information about several Puranic wars. Placing it under such a high protection level when the article has so much space for improvement is really restrictive. So, could the protection level please be reduced to Semiprotection?
Aathish S | talk | contribs 15:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I've seen you protected the National Union article for 2 years, I just would to tell how the dispute began.
It all began in 2019, the Estado Novo regime for years was considered a fascist regime on Wikipedia, but JPratas decided to remove it without seeking consensus for it:
There was a big edit war over it, then I reported him for it, he originally was blocked for 2 weeks, but since that was his first block, it got reduced for 3 days, another user involved was blocked for 1 day:
We then decided to hold and RfC over whether the regime should be considered fascist or not, we failed to gain consensus one way or the other, so we decided to maintain the status quo, namely which it was a fascist regime:
But despite this JPratas insisted to go against what was decided, as seen recently on the National Union article, at one point in the discussion he even claimed that I and another user of being the same person, then he at some point he said another user was "recruited" by me, etc.
As you can see, JPratas is guilty of disruptive editing, I was going to send you this back when you saw his IP list, but I got lazy and didn't, I apologize for it, doing so might have prevented lots of disruption that happened since.
I'm not asking you to unprotect, to intervene, or anything like that, just wanted to give you some context to what was happening, I'm not going to try to impose the status quo again, this has caused too much disrupton, has been going on for 2 years, and frankly I'm tired of it and have a lot more things to do.
That's all I wanted to say. -- 2804:248:fb62:6e00:4c4c:1035:1f59:8fba ( talk) 06:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, were you aware of these two personal attacks ( #1 and #2) moments before you blocked the user? I would have blocked indefinitely when you add them to the edit-warring violation.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, long time no see. I don't know if this is the correct place, but there has recently been a surge of anti-Shia edits by several IPs [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] They mainly engage in reducing the numbers of Shias in various regions, or outright delete information about them, whilst exaggerating the numbers of Sunni Muslims. All of them are from the exact same area in Uttar Pradesh, possibly the same person? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure what the issue is with this editor. They have multiple warnings on their talk page.
My first interaction with HernánCortés was after their removal of referenced information at the Battle of Mohi.
After their 2nd edit on the Battle of Mohi, which removed referenced information, I posted a suggestion.
HernánCortés then removes the referenced information on Battle of Fleurus, stating "change according to sources". This is not correct. Per the The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon, Gunther E. Rothenberg, page 247, which indicates 5,000 k+w for both victor and defeated.
I will leave it to you to decide. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
/* Original title of this section was: Third opinion */
I will like you to take a look at recent edits of "User:Bhaskarbhagawati" which exhibit (1) removal of reliable sources, (2) addition of non-contextual POV content which is either sourced to poor sources or not sourced at all, and (3) edit-warring with multiple editors. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
What? TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
/* The original title was: IP from Uttar Pradesh is back */
Hi EdJohnston. Unfortunately the IP still hasn't refrained from adding Sunni everywhere and attempting to remove Shia related stuff.
[47] [48] -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 10:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, I have a question. I opened this request for comment on July 31. When could it be closed? it has only received a new response during the last week. regards Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
"it cherry picks accomplishments" "Leaner is meaner" "the biggest problem here is a lack of summarisation" "Even the proposed alternative is far too long in my opinion". Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 19:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi for some reason my ISP address was blocked and I don't understand why. The reason given was vandalism and page disruption which I have never done.
My ISP 2001:8004:2781:aa77:b7be:e016:b62f:2cc6. I didn't mean to vandalise or be disruptive it wasn't intended I just don't understand how to edit pages correctly.And if you do remove the block I will be more careful in future. Aussie2021 ( talk) 14:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston. I haven't checked my watchlist since the morning; only replying because i received an alert of you pinging me. I agree with engaging in the talk page until consensus is reached, and in fact that's what i proposed if you see my first comment in the report. There is an issue though. Shouldn't the article return back to a version that was stable? What happens if i disagree with certain changes in the article, and i don't find consensus with the other user? His changes remain? Right now i don't have time to engage, but tomorrow i will leave a message listing my issues, which points i am willing to compromise on, etc. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 17:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I did leave a small comment on the 27th ( diff), to which Haldir Marchwarden said we can work on the article as we (me and editor Maleschreiber) wish ( diff1, diff2). Can i reinstate the stable version, and begin working on it with Maleschreiber per what we discussed (you can read the last comments in the talk page)? Demetrios1993 ( talk) 07:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Editor AlbionMike76 has not contributed to Talk page so far even though I have asked him to multiple times via the edit summary (only way to communicate to him). I have been accused by him of bullying and belittling which I reject, though I have been rather direct in my opinion of the excessive detail he had added to this page on a tiny locality (1 sq mile in area, ~4,700 inhabitants) which is really only a mini-suburb of Sunshine, Victoria and only has been considered a separate suburb as it has a train station called “ Albion” in it. (I have a print street directory from 1995 which still calls the area “Sunshine”.) Not sure how this can progress if he continues to not use Talk page. 122.150.83.215 ( talk) 07:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Note about an editor you warned last week for edit warring. They made 4 reverts within a few hours today on Muhammad Ali of Egypt. You might find this of importance if someone reports that editor in the future for edit warring. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I would like to request the reviewer right. I have around 1,400+ edits and the rollback right. I meet the criteria and would also like to help out in the pending changes log. Am familiar with vandalism and relevant guidelines. Sreeram Dilak ( talk) 14:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, you protected the pages Solo, Ddu-Du Ddu-Du and Kill This Love back in March because of a stubborn IP-hopper who keeps re-adding the same stupid edits over and over and over again and they keep doing the same thing despite being reverted every single time. This person just doesn't want to stop and ignores all warnings given to them. They have plenty more edits on different pages that keep on getting reverted that will be too long to list them all right here. All of their IPs geolocate to Melbourne, AU and some of them can be found here. Note that not all of their IPs are listed there because it's too tiring to keep track of them all. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
On September 5, you warned AlbionMike76 about continued edit warring on Albion, Victoria. They have continued. [49] [50] It appears the IP attempted to use the article talk page but AlbionMike76 just reverts with abrasive edit summaries about fighting trolls. Notfrompedro ( talk) 13:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I did not notice this until now. I understand this happened 6 September 2021, however I find this completely unacceptable and am further shocked said IP was not indefinitely blocked! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
A discussion was going on on the talk page regarding improvement of the article. Was it not too early to protect the page? Thank you. Dear Debasish ( talk) 14:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, please add the traditional accounts of Bengali Brahmins and then protect the page. Wikipedia should be a place where people can refer to it. Thanking you. Mikemarssss ( talk) 18:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It appears that you blocked 199.82.243.102 for thirty days about six days ago for disruptive editing. However, there are now edits from 199.82.243.108 and 199.82.243.88 and 199.82.243.83 at Talk:Second Anglo-Afghan War. I haven't done a whois on the IP address, but I know that IP addresses shift within what used to be called Class C blocks and are now called /24 blocks or something like that. I have a request at DRN for moderated discussion from a registered user concerning Second Anglo-Afghan War. If this appears to be the same person, then maybe the block should be expanded to at least the /26 block, in which case I can dismiss the DRN request. I haven't reviewed the history in enough detail to know what exactly was the disruption. I see that the user is stubborn and is at least borderline uncivil, but I haven't been looking at the past history, and I know that there might be disruption that I don't see. So do you think it is the same user, and do you think that the block should be expanded? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Why am I being dragged into this conversation? The changes I made was due to WP:3 decision and I copied and pasted the sources provided on the talk page as [[WP:3] considered strong reference. After seeing this message, I did little check on Raoulduke47 and Noorullah21 and not only can you see that they share similar opinion on the Second Anglo Afghan War but also are possibly from same town and country. Noorullah21 used this IP 2A01:CB15:300:3000:CCD8:437F:F3AD:1B66 to make a change on page Afghan Independence Day which he also admitted to. This IP is in Assamese France. On the other hand Raoulduke47 provided a reference on the Second Anglo Afghan talk page which pointed him to location France as well because the reference showed this: https://www.google.fr/books/edition/A_Traditionalist_History_of_the_Great_Wa/cJUYEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=afghanistan+british+protected+state&pg=PA372&printsec=frontcover. Why and how,, Raoulduke47 became part of the discussion? Coincidence? Definitely not. These two individuals are something to be looked into. Rezanaul ( talk) 13:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I have been suspicious that Oswald would tell Holmes he working on an upper floor when the shooting occurred, then went downstairs. On page 306, it is clear what Holmes meant:
Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule. Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule? Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part. Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor? Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember? Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.
Based on this, I think the paragraph regarding Holmes on the “Police interrogation” section on the Lee Harvey Oswald article should say “Holmes (who attended the interrogation at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz) said that Oswald replied that he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman.” [1] 213.107.66.169 ( talk) 09:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. An editor that apparently uses multiple IP addresses, and now seems to have switched to various unregistered accounts, is making similar edits and additions of "information" that contradict the existing sources about the rulers of the Miskito people of Central America who were part black. This editor sometimes adds a ridiculous fringe source that claims the aboriginal peoples of Central and South America were actually black. Here are the diffs where I've reverted these changes by his latest incarnation:
Carlstak ( talk) 21:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Due to continued editing of these articles from IPs in the /24 range, I have now blocked Special:Contributions/190.143.247.0/24 for two months. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ed Johnston I've Requested to you Please give me Pending Change Userright for Trial. I've also Requested on WP:PERM But any Admin doesn't Attention on My Comment. Please see [ [57] and [58] I'm also Read WP:RPC and WP:PC. Best Regards. Jiggyziz 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 06:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
"SobuJ Ahmed" BalPakna2021 ( talk) 04:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 18:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: Hi , Please give rollbackers right because i am remove vandalism on articles and userpage and talkpage i am already request on WP:PERM.Plase check me my contribution and gave me this right.Best Regards. Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 14:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I believe I'm under a Zionist ban. Can I ask for this to be lifted for editing on Elazar Shach? Chesdovi ( talk) 17:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, EdJohnston I never meant to revert your edit nor did I notice that I reverted your edit. I have just seen it when you restored it. I think I probably clicked it accidentally when I searched my watchlist, my deepest apologies for the mistake.— TheWikiholic ( talk) 02:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I am sure you are tired of me posting these, but user:Yusiffuctd has, since 8 October, been edit warring(about every 2-3 days) the term(s) "Political Muslim Victory as Muslims remain in control of Jerusalem" into the infobox of the Third Crusade. Yusiffuctd has been reverted 9 times by 4 different editors.
On the Bajaur Campaign, Yusiffuctd has been reverted, since 4 October, 3 times by 2 different editors.
On the Eighth Crusade, Yusiffuctd has been revert, since 9 October, 5 times by 2 different editors.
I am unsure what the issue is concerning Yusiffuctd, but the slow edit warring on Third Crusade is becoming somewhat disruptive.
Thank you for your patience in this matter. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Ed, I was about to block the user as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xavier 500.30.10. Any objections?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
In fact
User:UnknownEditor1234567890 is Confirmed to
User:Xavier 500.30.10. And, now that you noticed the recent creation of
Draft:Mohammed Shanooj I would support the renaming of the case to
User:MohammedShanooj03. Is it too late to unclose the case and make that request? In
User:MER-C's block notice for
User:UnknownEditor1234567890, I also see mentions of
User:AlamanKlm,
User:Al aman kollam and
User:Muhammed fairoos. They are all blocked, but are not stale and it might be worth tagging them. With some more work I might be able to confirm them to Xavier 500.30.10. Will be taking a break for a few hours.
EdJohnston (
talk)
19:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. We're having trouble with an IP edit-warring to add somewhat incendiary content without citing the actual sources for the information at Luiseño. Carlstak ( talk) 11:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I've applied for the New page reviewer permission here. Could you please grand me the right? Thank you. -- Agnihothri Sharath ( talk) 06:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed. You closed this discussion with a warning that Igec was not to revert at Next Slovak parliamentary election again. Unfortuantely they have done so today, restoring the infobox that they were edit warring to reinstate ( this repeats this edit) and deleting a table of all the parties with seats. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Further to your warning here (which they've blanked, so obviously seen), they've decided to turn up a year later and carry on the same way. FDW777 ( talk) 10:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Ed, may I ask for your advice? Is there any way to draw more third party attention to a Move Request I have initiated, and which appears to be far more controversial than I have imagined. A third-party input from the broader Wikipedia community will very much be needed here to make sure that the Move Request doesn't reflect strictly the usual local Balkan topic area consensus but a broader consensus. Any ideas where can I ask for such third-party attention? A particular noticeboard? And how to notify them? Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The closer has been reverted for not following Wikipedia's rules about impartiality in spirit. An uninvolved third party Admin closure has been requested at:
Wikipedia:Closure Requests. ---
❖ SilentResident ❖ (
talk ✉ |
contribs ✎)
21:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey EdJohnston, your advises to me are always appreciated but I see that even though I have submitted RM closure requests (per your recommendations above), I am realizing that the RM has not closed and was relisted for a third week. I had the impression there is a consensus regarding the guidelines but, according to both reviewers, it seems there isn't. The RM is being open for more than 14 days and was relisted probably for 7 more days and I am not sure what else (and if) can be done there. I have worked tirelessly to put opposite arguments to test, but the new reviewer has suggested against my further participation to it. I could appreciate any feedback on the matter. Thanks and good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This redirect was protected in 2009 by you if I'm reading the logs correctly. I think unprotection can be removed, since the main target is also semi'd and I doubt most vandals would target it. Will you consider unprotection? Thanks in advance, Sennecaster ( Chat) 03:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Could I just say, I thought that was pretty shabby moderating you did back there? The warning for warring, fair enough, no problem. But you specifically asked the other editor to undo the 4thRR; she called your bluff and carried on editing other pages. You know what the correct response under policy is! To pretend my first edit was a revert, when it introduced brand new wording into the article and wasn’t reverting anything, just to duck out of having to follow through on your earlier request was poor IMHO. MapReader ( talk) 21:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
What do you think of WT:EW#3RR blocks for first offense? Regardless of the merits, should I go about it differently, meaning should I start an RFC, make the same proposal at WP:VPP, advertise it at WP:AN? As I said at the Talk page, I've never done this before. Thanks for your thoughts.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, why was I blocked for 48 hours then and not 24 as WP:3RR states is typically given for this?( see here). There have been others before this most recent one. I think they were my blocks, which, btw, are often more than 24 hours, but I'd have to dredge them up. I do agree, though, that a discussion might achieve a "worse" result. In general, I don't like having admin discretion limited as to when to block, how long to block, etc. It's similar to those admins who feel that partial blocks for edit-warring are the only way to go. Nonetheless, I'll probably let it go as I don't think I have the stomach for the extended discussion that is likely to ensue.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
You are one of four editors who greatly encouraged me in my early months here and provided heart-warming support both before and during my RfA, which I looked at today for the first time in several years. I don't know if you realize how important that was and is to me. I am very glad, both on my own account and for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole, that you are still around. – Athaenara ✉ 20:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, I've been editing Wikipedia through a VPN server, that I host on one of my VPS servers, due to privacy concerns. Recently I switched my VPS provider to another one and found that their ASN's IP prefix range has been blocked by another administrator (ST47), which prevented me from editing the Wiki through my registered account. Since you're one of the checkusers, I'm seeking an IP block exemption for this account. I could fill you in with the specifics such as IP ranges and such if required through email. Thanks,
WikiLinuz (
talk)
00:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: I had emailed checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org before making the request here; I just wanna mention that, although I didn't receive a reply from them yet; edited
WikiLinuz (
talk)
03:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. Is it possible to semi-protect Anastasius I Dicorus for a few months? IPs regularly target it.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 16:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads up after you blocked User:Josemontoya558 [66] for vandalising music articles by changing the recording dates, an IP [67] continued with the same behaviour on other AC/DC-related articles. He seems to have stopped, but I guess he might come back. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Hhl95 has already been warned to reach consensus on the talk page before reverting other user's contributions, yet looking from the contribution history he didn't took the warning seriously. Now he's at it again, reverting the changes I made according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Exhibit one, two (the second time without an explicit revert). Perhaps further action is needed? Exlevan ( talk) 17:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
You have closed my complain but this is wrong. The editor reverted me multiple times despite being told to stick to WP:BRD on Last Night in Soho. Even when he did start discussion he has stone-walled any attempt at compromise. This will encourage further BRD violations as editors will take advantage to freely revert. AbsolutelyFiring ( talk) 15:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, despite my report on WP:AN3, Robepang seems to have refused to WP:DROPTHESTICK despite your advice for caution and had returned on Milo dinosaur to reintroduce their edits once more, with a pretty deceiving edit summary of "Rv to pre vandalised version". I've checked the edits of the IP, and they definitely weren't vandalising, in fact, they made the article much more neutral and less of the gastronationalistic edit warring Robepang was having with others. In fact, Robepang's edit only serves to restart such potential future edit wars again, presumably on purpose to shoehorn their version. Canzeelia ( talk) 02:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Following coming off your block here, Nazran225 has gone back to exactly the same edits they were edit warring over before [69] [70], including edits which remove information and introduce inaccuracies and using misleading edit summaries. There's no 'new edit war' so to speak, so I don't know if it fits on AN/EW, but it's a disruptive continuation of the past one. CMD ( talk) 12:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Per your note here, Nazran has continued in this campaign, including trying a copy paste move. I didn't see your comment before it was archived last time. My understanding is that use is mixed in both political and technical fields, so there could be a few reasons for opinions on the matter. CMD ( talk) 02:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, how have you been? Sorry to bother you again. Just informing you that the RM at Imia which we talked about, was dead for 2 weeks before a completely uninvolved and impartial volunteer came to close it. However now someone wants to reopen it even though the discussion has concluded. [71]. Just notifying you. Have a good weekend. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, you asked us on 25 September to keep an eye on Special:Contributions/190.143.247.0/24 to see if he branches out to new IPs. He's back to his shenanigans again using IP 190.143.246.189 and as Wethepeople45 on multiple articles to do with the Miskito people. Carlstak ( talk) 23:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it seems like Igec133 whom you warned twice ( 1 2) is continuing to engage in an edit-war ( here) after not participating in discussions even though he was pinged and warned an excessive amount of times. The page Direction – Slovak Social Democracy (among some others) seems to be a matter of dispute, and I plan on cleaning it up in a near future due to the recent addition of mess and disputes. Also 95.105.213.96 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 178.143.113.252 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have made changes on the page recently but I'm not sure if this is Igec editing while logged out. IMO the page should be returned to the status quo before the disputes and admin-protected until the editors come to a consensus on the talk page. Cheers, -- Vacant0 ( talk) 17:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you but a weird thing is going on that might require some help, including CU. (And even if no CU matter, I'd appreciate your advice.) In the past two days, there have been no less than 65 attempts to hack my account (as WP informs when I log in). This is not random; two other users (@ DeCausa: and @ Impru20:) are also targeted. None of us ever had any attempts to hack our accounts previously, but in the last two days all three of us are subject to regular attempts at our accounts. That seems unlikely to be a coincident. The only thing we have in common is having reverted the same user in one article (the matter is explained here). Any advice you might offer would be appreciated. Jeppiz ( talk) 02:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
"There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device"messages. Impru20 talk 10:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Since your block on DeeHistorian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has expired, they've made no edits except continuing the same edit war as before. FDW777 ( talk) 21:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, could you look into Robepang's behavior? I checked his talk page and realized you were the administrator that briefly blocked him for nationalist edit warring. Seems like he's not learnt anything from it and has continued upon it, this time with other articles/dishes, by removing mentions of other countries and trying to rewrite their origins. See Mee siam and Laksa (a dish variants available in multiple countries being moved within Malaysia instead). 119.192.71.192 ( talk) 14:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Ed, forgive me for being blunt but in what universe does the 'evidence' presented here constitute edit warring? By warning me you've sent the message to this editor that it's OK for him to try and brute-force changes through without first gaining consensus, because anyone who tries to revert back to the stable version is going to hauled before AN3.
I have not once reverted back to anything other than the existing, stable version of articles which in many cases have been that way for years. What's going on here? Are we supposed to let editors get away with this sort of behaviour – repeatedly deleting bits of articles, even after they have been reverted – because we might be punished for acting against it?
Some clarity would be appreciated. I know I'm not a neutral observer, but I cannot see how my editing is construed as edit warning and the filer's isn't. Frankly, I was expecting a block for the other party. Am I putting too much stock in the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Dāsānudāsa ( talk) 16:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)