![]() | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 |
We've got an edit-warring student editor, 808desiree808, adding badly written unsourced material to this article. Here's a sample of text he added here: "When things seem to be going well Captain James Cook arrived in 1778 bringing down the Hawai’ian population to almost extinct the arrival of Cook he not only brought devastation to the local people but he brought dieases such as small pox, measles, sexually transmitted dieases, influenza and whooping cough,Leaving the hawai’ians at just 40,000, Almost making their language and culture extinct as well."
He added copyvio content copied-and-pasted from The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style with this edit and from this website with this edit. Carlstak ( talk) 00:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, because Ishan87 start first, if Ishan87 not doing anything incorrect about Megalodon. Then I will not do that. And edit war will not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaursKing ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that at WP:RFPP you said that you would EC protect Hurricane Sam for 3 months, but you set the time to indefinite. I just wanted to be sure you set the time you intended to. TornadoLGS ( talk) 01:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious how my past actions at
Talk:Swastika are considered as a "disruption". As explained in my 2nd unblock request, which was accepted by another admin and CU
here, my actions were solely abided by the RFC's neutrality dispute policy. Would be interested to know which specific action was a talkpage disruption
, such that I may refrain from that move. Regards,
WikiLinuz 🍁 (
talk)
18:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template? Which is what I did here. The original author also changed the RFC wording here on December 1 10:41, 4 days after the RFC had already begun, so shouldn't this also be considered as a violation? (Because this modification by the author also seems to invalidate the votes). WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk) 19:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. I have filed a new SPI at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solomon155. The CU has finished and the two accounts are indeed the same person, but no administrative closure has been applied and the master account is still placing the same edits every couple of days. Can you close the report?-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 00:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi 2402:3A80:169D:9BCA:0:19:FA5D:D401 ( talk) 17:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Obviously there won’t be consensus on this page. And your action has supported a minority view since there is one more editor who supports my version and only one disruptive vandal who continually makes rude abusive remarks and accusations. I have repeatedly asked Mujinga to re edit the text to achieve neutrality but they continually insist on deleting the text and insulting me. I am sorely disappointed by your lack of neutrality here PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal ( talk) 09:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, I wish you and your family a merry christmas and a healthy and happy new year. Regards -- Serols ( talk) 16:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ed! I'm sorry to bother you this time of year, but I have a question I'd like to ask.
Are there any formally compiled statistics available on the number of SPI cases that are filed, yearly?
I haven't been able to find anything on Wikipedia. I've searched the web but could only find secondary sources that give uncited figures for certain years.
For example, a quote from Case Study of Sockpuppet Detection on Wikipedia":
"Sockpuppets are a prevalent problem in Wikipedia, there were close to 2,700 unique suspected cases reported in 2012. "
This is helpful, but I can't find any facts on the number of sockpuppets investigated/confirmed for 2014, 2018, or 2020, etc.
Are these facts even formally collected and disseminated? If so I would greatly appreciate knowing where to find them. Thanks for your time.
By the way, I am aware of this SPI archive, but it dates back to the 2000s and seems inactive, and not very quantitative. To clarify, I'm looking for more recent figures, rather than a list of cases.
Thank you for your time and I hope the year 2022 will go easy on you. Hunan201p ( talk) 15:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, sorry, but you just warned Taharka155 ( talk · contribs) regarding African Americans. They removed the term "ethnic group" from the lead again, here. They also made another personal attack at my own talk page ( here), which they reverted some hours later, but finally restored. Since "his" in that attack refers to Hitler and "some of his people" obviously refers to me (clear from their previous edit at my talk page and from their knowledge that I am German), and since I hate Hitler and his ideas and endorse WP:NONAZIS, that's just too much. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400: I have not reverted anything. I updated information with 2020 census information, because the opening statement is based on outdated 2010 census info, which rsk is hell bent on keeping their to maintain his Point of View in the article. Taharka155 ( talk) 08:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
And after I complained to you, they added this to my talk page. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 09:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe the edit warring accusation aimed against me was not fair. Do I have any recourse to an appeal, or can I request further explanation?-- Underthemayofan ( talk) 05:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
It's in the page Climate of Greece. I have filled the proper report already in the Administrator's Noticeboard but it seems after all kinds of warnings (even admin issued ones) this user doesn't change his disruptive behavior. In this case, he first made an edit without any kind of source, after I've recalled him for that, he inserted a random source in Greek that doesn't back up anything he claims. I've inserted the official Hellenic National Meteorological Service Greek Climate Atlas map and he ignored that official source putting again his source that doesn't even back up anything he says. Now he says that's "content dispute" but isn't this disruptive editing? He also broke the WP:3RR even if I warned him several times today. -- TechnicianGB ( talk) 13:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, belated happy New Year. This guy just won't give up. The latest socks are BTGOG12 and IP 186.77.132.0. Carlstak ( talk) 04:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you restore the Bajaur Campaign page back to my version, cause my source clearly states 1,000 rather then what he is posting, there was also U.S and soviet involvement, and even in the talk page provided I showed him where to check, but he has ignored this. The page was protected for 1 week in turn of this, but its access was only listed to Wikipedia administrators only, could you restore it back to my version? Noorullah21 ( talk) 16:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Any way you could block 64.251.32.252 and 174.197.128.0/20, perhaps? Much appreciated, thanks! wizzito | say hello! 06:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
From 8 januar 2022 he vandalizes and trolls [1] "PolishBoyInUK" again. His "creativity" is only harmfulness and poisonous deep vandalism. Can't such imbeciles be finally blocked? 2A01:C23:903A:8800:6161:BBB6:7C36:39FF ( talk) 19:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my
fat fingers,
hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you.
EvergreenFir
(talk)
05:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'm not sure whether to take this to you or to ANI. In December, you blocked Taharka155 ( talk · contribs) following my complaint at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_52#It's_African_Americans,_Taharka155,_and_me_again. After that, we had no interaction except for one edit at my talk page by them which I reverted. Today they made this edit to my talk page and these edits at Talk:African Americans comparing me ("a white German man" - that's clearly me) to David Duke of the KKK. Can't really say that I'm happy that they no longer compare me to Hitler.
@ Taharka155: Pinging them. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, yesterday I blocked Miller110 as a suspected sock of Bengaliwikipro. The topic area (caste warring), article intersection, and username similarity (see Safron710 and others) were the basis for my block. The user is screaming bloody murder, which, as far as I can tell, is not typical of Bengaliwikipro socks, but it's also been a while since any was blocked.
Now at ANEW, TrangaBellam, who filed the original SPI report, says that another user, Satnam2408, is reinstating Miller110's edits. Satnam2408's username is also similar to other socks (e.g., Josua4533), but they are different in other ways. First, they've been around a long time, including in August 2021 when you ran your checks but did not uncover them. Second, they seemingly had a disagreement with a sock, Sourav431, back in June 2021.
I was hoping that you could check both accounts. Obviously, they can be checked against each other, and I don't know about UA information, but the CU logs from August might be helpful in connecting one or both to the confirmed socks. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I think 217.149.166.67 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is 217.149.166.11 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) evading his ban. Could you please have a look as an enforcing admin? Thank you. Grand master 09:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Would you consider protecting this article? There has been an edit war since 23 December 2021. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think your 3 month edit limit for the "Crimean War" article is justified. Yes, there was a heated discussion. But it was an interesting and generally constructive discussion, without personal insults. Your actions raise the question of the need for them. Moreover, you did not participate in the discussion of this topic at all and suddenly came and banned the discussion. This is strange of you. 93.81.219.116 ( talk) 11:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I do not claim your time, but if you carefully read the complaints against me from some people, you will understand that, on the contrary, they reproach me for using quotes, only somehow not in the way they want. To be honest, I don't quite understand them, I give a link to the author, his book, edition, page and even ISBN. What's more - I don't understand. 93.81.218.92 ( talk) 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
By the way, you're wrong. Even after registering, I cannot edit the article "Crimean War". I would ask you to remove your editing ban. It prevents discussion. ViewFromRussia ( talk) 09:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
EdJohnston, the user Crashed greek, even after warning from you on edit warring noticeboard and two on his talk page by me and user Slatersteven, has continued edit warring and made 10 edits today, including trying to delete the tags and the Afd message on Battle of Peshawar (1758). The user clearly just reverting and keeping changes to his preferred version and not agreeing with others. MehmoodS ( talk) 12:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
GB has returned to Wikipedia today and continued to edit Viroid. He did not respond to my ping at WP:ANEW, so I went to his Talk page. His response to my request to answer my question about 3RR was unacceptable in my view. Therefore, I want to pblock him for editing Viroid for one week. A couple of questions. First, do you think the pblock is reasonable based on his behavior? Second, I've never pblocked anyone before, and I find the Twinkle form confusing. Can you help with that? If not, the normal block form is much easier, so I can use that (I assume I uncheck autoblock?). Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
just seems taking revenge in my view? You're kidding, right? You have demonstrated no willingness to discuss your behavior. If you were not an administrator, I would already have blocked you for your lack of insight into your behavior and your lack of understanding of edit-warring policy. Instead, I cut you some slack and asked you to explain why which one of the four reverts listed at ANEW was not a revert. Instead, you refused. What is left to discuss?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct in part. Perhaps I should have made my intentions more clear. I plan to do some work on the article and as was the case with my work on Menstrual cycle, which I brought back to FA status (and which was on the Main Page last year) this required a lot of culling of many poor edits that had accumulated over several years. I had similar complaints with my efforts there. Quantity is not quality, and poor edits can, unfortunately, remain for a long time. I would happily remove ten years worth, or more, of edits to improve Wikipedia. My question is why did you not engage with me on the Talk Page. Graham Beards (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
"Discovery of new viroids has been difficult with methods available prior to ~2013. Ito et al 2013 uncovered one using next generation dsRNA sequencing more easily than previously possible... in part because plants do not produce dsRNAs, lessening noise..." Graham Beards ( talk) 19:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Could you possibly unprotect after six years? I want to change the misspelling "saves" to "slaves" but I can't. 156.61.250.251 ( talk) 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This IP 106.79.202.2 [8] has been hopping on to different articles and removing content along the way, without any proper explanation and at times, none at all. Doesn't seem like this IP has any right intention of being productive. Can you please take action? MehmoodS ( talk) 23:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Have you seen Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Mandatory retirement/maximum age for admins?? Doug Weller talk 12:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
You have previously helped me with an edit war at the BLP for Martin Kulldorff. I am once again in need of assistance from an administrator.
On the talk page for Kulldorff, two editors: Drmies and Alexbrn have insinuated I have a conflict of interest to report. Alexbrn has now made the insinuation three separate times, with the most recent on my talk page, despite the fact that we were already discussing it on the Kulldorff talk page.
I have encouraged Alexbrn to follow the proper reporting procedures if he is still not satisfied that I have no conflict of interest to disclose (if I had any, I would have disclosed) and yet they still insinuate I must disclose. At this point I find the behavior to be an example of incivility, namely " ill-considered accusations of impropriety".
I would welcome your feedback either here or preferably on my talk page where Alexbrn has made the most recent insinuation and where he also claims he has engaged an admin. I have not been contacted by an admin nor do I see that a complaint has been filed at the COI Noticeboard.
According to my understanding of the disclosure policy, it is an editor's duty to disclose before editing. Therefore a lack of disclosure should be assumed (in good faith) that there is no conflict of interest (COI). If another editor believes there is a COI that has not been disclosed, even after they have warned the other editor, there is a clear path of escalation available and it does not include repeatedly asking an editor to disclose potential COI. I have no COI to disclose, hence I have disclosed none. That should be enough. I can not prove a negative and therefore I should not be required to repeatedly engage in games of baseless insinuation. I have asked for specific reasons they believe I have COI and they have not provided any.
If it is more appropriate for me to post this on the the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard I will do so.
Thank you in advance for your help. Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Azərbaycan haqqında yalnış məlumati vermək müəllif hüquqlarni pozurlar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.43.189.98 ( talk) 08:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, I wanted to turn your attention to an article Battle of al-Hasakah (2022) where an edit war has apparently been going on for several days now, which I myself took no part in until recently and was only observing (I have started engaging only as of the day before yesterday). Apparently one specific editor (DiB2014) has been inserting in the results section of the battle unsourced OR/WP:SYNTH and has been removing sourced info with its source. Example - [9]. Several other editors have apparently tried to warn the editor his edit's were lacking verifiability, were pure OR and requested sources, but he hasn't reacted to this and has continued to edit war. There is also an ongoing discussion at the article's talk page in which the editor hasn't tried to engage in. DiB2014 also appears to be a single-purpose account - created only a few days ago, only edited this one article and focused specifically on this one issue. I warned the editor regarding WP's guidelines on OR and SYNTH and that he has already violated the 1RR ban which applies to Syrian civil war/IS-related articles, since he made no less than 4 reverts of other editors within 24 hours, with a 5th soon after. At this point it seems to be simple OR POV-pushing to me. Extended confirmed protection has already been applied to the article. So I wanted your recommendation what could be done here, in the sense should I maybe report the issue at AN due to the repeatable reverting conducted by the editor which has already violated the 1RR ban? Although I try to avoid that as much as possible, hoping an issue can be resolved through talk. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! On 29 Jan you blocked 240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64 for a week for disruptive editing. It appears that this editor is now evading the block by using IP 175.132.186.113. This IP is making the exact same disruptive edits to the same articles as the blocked IP. CodeTalker ( talk) 18:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The potential RfC which you commented on over the week-end is currently written and in my Sandbox for the 2022 Winter Olympics. If you still feel its useful, then I could suggest that you remove the problem sentence from the lead section and possibly remove one of the banners currently at the top of the article, in order to clean up the appearance of the article during the Olympics which is in progress (the Controversy sentence is currently the first sentence of paragraph 3 in the lead section). When the Controversies sentence is removed from the lead section, then either you or I could place this RfC on the Talk page there if it looks ok to you. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause ( talk) 15:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Here is another one: This IP 149.86.88.238 has been hopping on to different articles, removing and altering content without any proper explanation and at times, none at all. Can you please take action? MehmoodS ( talk) 02:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Since you have protected the page, am I allowed to revert to the appropriate version? Noorullah21 ( talk) 00:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do apologize that I have to come to you again.
You responded to an edit warring complaint involving myself and User:Llll5032. You warned us both to reach consensus before making any reverts to the Martin Kulldorff page.
Recently User:Llll5032 reverted a statement that has not yet reached consensus, despite ongoing and extensive discussions on both the talk page as well as on the wikiproject Medicine talk page. The comment for the edit acknowledges there is no consensus justifying the edit: "WP:BOLD aim at compromise wording"
In the talk page, L1115032 further acknowledges there is not yet a consensus:
All right, I tried an edit in the article. There are many editors now and I doubt it will be the final word.
— User:Llll5032 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC
It was my understanding that the point of the warning was to ensure that both of us proposed reverts in the talk page and those reverts could be implemented in the article once consensus was reached. It was my understanding that reverts to the actual article were not part of consensus-building.
I am not sure of the process for Llll5032 and I to return to normal editing (moving beyond the warning). Does a process or rule exist and did the warning somehow expire, returning us both to normal editing?
Thank you again for your help and especially for your patience!
Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 00:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
EdJohhston, Michael has raised another question on the talk page about a sentence I contributed to that has since been added to by other editors. (Michael has not written in that paragraph, although he previously objected to it and then dropped his objection after I added footquotes.) I agree with his question partly, not completely. I am wary of another contentious pre-discussion on the talk page, but wider consensus could be simple via normal editing. Is it all right for me to fix the sentence in the article and ask for reaction on the talk page, a process that resolved problems in that sentence before? (Re-engaging sooner than I expected. I am open to the idea that other editors may be better suited for this.) Llll5032 ( talk) 16:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this post, please? Axxxion's photo of an Iraq-War era Colin Powell testimony is completely irrelevant to the Ukraine situation and is WP:FORUM in my opinion - I'd like to see it removed. Thanks. ( /info/en/?search=Talk:2021%E2%80%932022_Russo-Ukrainian_crisis#Suggestion_on_addition) section: February 16 (bottom of thread) 14:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 ( talk)
I forgot my password and that is why I started a new profile. I am not trying to hide anything. The admis should do what they feel best but I would also like to have mplssouthside checked to make sure this isnt the subject person not anyone close to him there were details an average person would not know in the posts. I also would like to note that I attempted to end this edit war that was STARTED by mplssouthside by combining the two versions together of which mplssouthside refused to do. I think that plays into the thought that this person is whitewashing anything critical of Cunningham. I 0osted the items on the Powderhorn 9 and his debate due to the fact it was a MAJOR reason he was defeated. He also disparaged a minority owned auto repair garage because they supported his challenger. I hope the admis continue working on this page to make it better. Mplsnirvana ( talk) 16:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I wrote it down originally on a piece of paper since I never save passwords. Mplsnirvana ( talk) 17:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to delete of have admins delete the 2nd account mplssouthside and just use the original Mplsnirvana ( talk) 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is fine. Thank you! Mplsnirvana ( talk) 22:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, I have a small question. Today you (quite appropriately) blocked 2001:EE0:4370:701C:A053:D4D9:3DD5:128C for 48 hours in response to an AN3 complaint about their edit warring. But earlier today, JBW independently blocked the /64 (( 2001:EE0:4370:701C::/64)) for 72 hours . When your 48 hour block expires, does the 72 hour block resume? So was the 48 hour block unnecessary? CodeTalker ( talk) 04:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston & RoySmith, this is regarding the last sockpuppet investigation related to User:Bengaliwikipro ( link) where I had reported regarding the suspect Nobita456. Both of you had used the term 'Possilikely', and it was mentioned that 'Behavioural evidence needs evaluation'. Behavioral evidence has been provided here but the same has been rejected, can you please have a look; I am not sure what else is required!
Also, if you have a look at Nobita456's own statements, s/he says s/he is a new editor and is editing here 'since 1 month', please see here; again s/he says 'I saw many editors getting blocked for this offence', please see here; how is it possible for a new editor with 1 month experience on Wikipedia to see many other editors getting blocked, unless they have themselves got blocked multiple times? I just wanted to bring to your attention these behavioral evidences; Nobita456 has currently been topic banned for 3 months and has been blocked for 1/2 weeks for personal attacks. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian ( talk) 08:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
IP143.0.52.206 appears to be stalking user:Surtsicna. These edits appear to be nothing but blatant reverts(I counted at least 8 reverts) which the IP has taken no part in any discussions(unless they are editing while logged out). Would you be willing to look into this? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Thiago.moreira.gomes, whose user page states they are from Brazil, has had a few run-ins with Surtsicna. IP143.0.52.206 just happens to geolocate to Brazil. My, what a coincidence! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. We're having a problem with an edit-warring IP at Al-Andalus. As you can see, this editor has reverted quite a number of times, just today. The IP insists on changing the text, supported by, at least according to this person, a self-published book that is certainly not a reliable source, and on removing a cite of book published by Oxford University Press. Carlstak ( talk) 01:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Still reverting my categorisation. No attempt to communicate. This seems to be almost the only article they have ever edited. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, you warned the user about an edit war on another article. Unfortunately, I took a look at the edits Brightstarrrr had made to the List article, and I restored the article back before the editor had touched the article. I have left (standard) warnings on the user's Talk page, including the latest this morning about edit-warring. I am also edit-warring; I rarely revert more than twice, but in this case the user's edits make the article look so ugly I regard them as close to vandalism, if not technically fitting within the definition of vandalism. I would block the user if this were happening between them and another editor, but obviously I am involved and cannot. Up to you if you wish to take any action.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I was banned for confronting a visible vandalizer named https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Adhonorium&action=view (Adhonorium), this user literally disrupted the Maratha Empire page(which I later rectified) but he's still free! How come?! What's your actual intention?! I'd await your reply & see if he's blocked as well. Bramhesh Patil ( talk) 07:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, EdJohnston. Why you protect " Djibouti" page? 114.10.24.75 ( talk) 11:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, This is with reference to User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_51#User:Bhaskarbhagawati. I just want to update you that the user has started editing. Please look at this exchange and this . Chaipau ( talk) 15:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello User:EdJohnston,
Please see talk page on 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus. This has been resolved two days ago. no need to continue with threats.
DmitryShpak ( talk) 21:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I think we have a new sock ( Aratigran) for Araxes TheThief. Other editors have also been suspicious [11]. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 10:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Unexplained reversion Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Ed, I realize that you are not too active at the moment but since I mentioned your previous interactions with Bhaskarbhagawati in my comment at this AE report, I thought I'd drop you a note in case you wish to chime in. Just an fyi. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 22:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello i was wondering if you saw my comment here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Foorgood_reported_by_User:Celia_Homeford_(Result:_) stating i concede to the other two users and wont make another change to the sentence they were editing. I give you my word i will not edit war again. Foorgood ( talk) 19:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Me and Kevo327 were warned for the edit wars. We asked to reach the consensus before making any reverts. Kevo just did the while we not reached any consensus.
As per [WP:ONUS] The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That Kevo did not wanted to do, so I started talk myself...but Kevo just swapped one partisan source to another and did edit. What shall I do next?
A. C. Santacruz, what do you think?
Thanks-- Abrvagl ( talk) 14:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey Ed, there's an ongoing edit-war between me and this user who's persistently holding on to a sentence he wrote that contradicts the whole section of the article ( Laurel forest). According to scientific literature (that I cited to try to fill in the lack of sources to that section), laurel forests went extinct in Europe around the Pliocene Epoch. From the dozens of papers I've read about laurel forests, I haven't found a single one which mentions their current existence in Europe. Yet, he uses a source promoting a local nature park in Spain to say the contrary [12]. The user is clearly waiting for me to break WP:3RR so he can add that as an excuse, but I won't do that.
You can read the edit history of that article to see the ridiculous excuses he gave [13]. Recently, he also attenuated what the source said and what he wrote to keep it low profile. Instead of a full "laurel forest" like the source says, he changed it to "mixed laurel forest" [14] and instead of saying "the whole park" he changed it to "a small area inside [the park]" [15]. This move is clear original research from his part (or no research at all, just fabrication). The user basically only edits things about his country and despite having no clear knowledge on what a laurel forest is, he'll find any source that agrees with what he thinks and revert anyone who might have a reason to disagree.
What do you think? Thanks and regards. Average Portuguese Joe ( talk) 14:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Lengthy discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi Ed. In December 2021, [16] you issued this LTA IP hopper [17] another range block. They are pursuing a long-standing anti-Iranian and pro-Caucasus agenda. The range block has now ended, so, yet again, he's at it. Mind reinstating it? The range block prevented all disruption basically. Thanks, - LouisAragon ( talk) 00:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Would you be interested in addressing this person's issue(s). Their only , is a childish personal attack.
Translation via google:
Regarding this close you made, why did you semi-protect an article over a dispute between just two editors? Are you aware of the recent background of the dispute, or the editor's (Hipal/Ronz) three-plus year history since he unilaterally seized control of the article? Did you see the editor's pleas for sanctions against me on another noticeboard just a couple weeks ago and his complete disregard to what he was told? Read Uncle G's comments; they beautifully summarize what's been happening. As you can see, the editor didn't get the response he had hoped for, so he tried his luck again on a different noticeboard (the one on which you did the close). Also, look at every thread on the talk page going back to 2018 to see who the common thread is (no pun intended). When an administrator made these block comments to the editor in 2012, I'm sure he had no idea that the types of disruptive editing behavior he so accurately described would still be occurring 10 years later. In any case, how can you justify semi-protecting an article when there's a dispute involving just two editors (one with an account and one without), in addition to knowing his editing history of the article and what he was told very clearly by uninvolved editors on his noticeboard complaint a few weeks ago? The suggestion for using the dispute resolution noticeboard is great, so why also semi-protect the article? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 ( talk) 14:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.1 You'll see that editor also made six additonal edits following his removal of the five sources. Instead of waiting for the repeatedly requested RFC (which you also suggested) and getting significant input from unbiased editors, he decided waiting for consenus wasn't good enough. He claimed ownership of the article and this disputed issue in 2018 and should be banned from editing this article anymore. If that's done, I will agree not to edit it either, or even participate in any discussion if an RfC is started by an outside, unbiased party. I've said enough on the talk page about the issue, and the other editor has said far more than enough. You'll see threads where he talks and talks and talks, non-stop, to himself. Can you please get ask him to revert the edit and then keep him away from the article so that others who are currently uninvolved can finally resolve the matter, which began about 10 years ago? I don't care what the result of an RfC would be; whether other editors ultimately side with him or me. I just want a group of editors to look at this with a reasonable eye and decide on the best and fairest solution. But that is apparently the last thing the other editor wants because it would require him relinquishing control (ownership) of the article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 ( talk) 13:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't notified of this discussion.
The ip has apparently created an account Stoarm ( talk · contribs), where he's followed me to a COI-heavy BLP, Lori Greiner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as returned to edit-warring at Scott Baio [18], even removing completely appropriate reference cleanup. WP:AE?
I didn't realize it was the ip when I reverted this new account, so I self-reverted for the time being. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I saw that you had protected the article "Mosquito Coast" for long term disruption and sockpuppetry. The same guy, discussed several times before, is using the IP address 190.143.242.17 to several connected articles. I've been reverting his edits, again; I get the impression he thinks he'll get his way eventually. He's certainly persistent, I'll say that. Carlstak ( talk) 21:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
So the RfC has come to an end after 30 days, and well, no one other than the users who were already discussing the issue before participated, me and Gooduserdude agreed that the map that was removed should stay, but Shimbo and Sapphorain were against it, but couldn't decide what should replace it (or if anything should):
/info/en/?search=Talk:Hypothetical_Axis_victory_in_World_War_II#RfC_on_map_in_lead
What is your opinion? -- 2804:248:f6f7:5f00:658b:becc:a353:7fba ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Liberaltarian12345 has continued edit-warring at Socialist Labor Party of America after the block ended and apparently still has no grasp about how to build consensus. See [19] and [20].-- User:Namiba 15:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I made my point. Objectively I am in the right and I am editing the page to make it more accurate. Liberaltarian12345 ( talk) 16:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Sheesh, it never ends. I hope you're doing well, Ed. We've been having a good bit of trouble with a belligerent IP coming from a certain range at the Barbacoa article. Some of the lowlights include: this edit with a summary that ends "Stop lying to people"; this one, which they cap off with "You're all dumb"; and this with a choice f-bomb summary. I'm getting tired of reverting this SPA who wants to have it their way with a statement not in the given source, which they leave in place. Carlstak ( talk) 22:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, you protected TVXQ indefinitely in 2017. However, I don't think that protection is needed anymore and Wikipedia articles should be open to editing as possible. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'm having trouble with an IP going off in long diatribes with extreme personal attacks on this talk page. Samples include "you are a Marxist agitator and propagandist", "Skunkwipe!", "Maoist scum!" "asshole!", "you two ding dongs", "neocommunists", and "your a fascist!", to be seen here. I keep removing his personal attacks, and he just responds with more of the same. Carlstak ( talk) 05:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Happy First Edit Day! Hi EdJohnston! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! interstatefive ( talk) - just another roadgeek 00:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
![]() |
Happy First Edit Day, EdJohnston, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
[21]. To be honest, I wanted to ask during this 3RR report: which of these 4 diffs you think was not a revert? But I did not because I totally understand your point about collaborative editing. But what is happening now? I returned to editing this page after 3 weeks using "zero reverts" approach, and the user I reported on 3RR repeataedly reverts my edits on this page
[22],
[23],
[24] (this is 3 reverts of my different edits on the same page, none of which was revert, during one day), follows my edits on another page to revert them
[25],
[26] (he never edited this page before), and incorrectly accuses me of a BLP violation
[27], instead of discussing this first on their talk page
[28] (note that edit summary in this diff was misleading: I posted question on the user talk page before they posted "BLP violation" on article talk page). Can I please consider your warning void? Needless to say, I am not going to edit war on this page.
My very best wishes (
talk)
11:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
<ins>...</ins>
(as per
WP:TALK#REPLIED).
M.Bitton (
talk)
00:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Hi Ed, well, our old friend the "Mosquito Coast" guy is back at it with a different IP and another user name,"Whentimecomes"; his new kick is going back to all the related articles to change text to redlinked "Mosquito Reservation" from "the Miskito Nation" (this is the same one who previously changed every mention of "Miskito" to "Miskitu". God knows what it's going to be next. This is getting to be ridiculous. Carlstak ( talk) 17:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
is live -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you can review this draft and provide any feedback on whether there are any issues. It seems many admins are against a new paid editor making a new page and I can understand their reasons, but even if I have made mistakes I need to start some place and if this draft is really terrible, I will advice my client to hire a paid editor that has more experience than me (someone who has a track record of accepted pages). My plan is to contribute more edits, so I won't be here just for this client. I would appreciate if you can spend a few minutes and let me know what you think. Dwnloda ( talk) 07:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry, but the template for this article contains bias and double standards. Why didn't you mention which country the unrecognized state belonged to? Why is it said that this unrecognized state is recognized by unrecognized states? However, the article of those unrecognized states is not like the article "Artsakh". Why are you doing this? Is it possible to know the reason? Sword313 ( talk) 16:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Dr.AndrewBamford is now evading his block with an IP [29] to restore all his edits related to university rankings. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 17:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Please consider reinstating the block on IP address 216.246.144.248, where the editor has again removed images without discussion or explanation, see User talk:216.246.144.248#Edit warring to remove images at Ed Roland and Dean Roland. Verbcatcher ( talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This is in regards to the page
Abd El-M'umin, it was reported that the page contains erroneous information. It only makes sense to put the status of the page as in dispute, when other users made provisions to present the information accurately. The page must adhere to neutral point of views yet disseminate irrefutable pieces of information. I invite you to look into this, and it is in accordance with Wikipedia editing policies.
SamSilvergate (
talk) 18:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fma12. As you had suggested, this is now being discussed at a noticeboard; not sure if WP:ANI#Fma12 and legal threats and keeplocal is perfectly appropriate, but you may like to have a look as I've mentioned your close there now. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, hope you are well, @ EdJohnston [ [30]] according to your decision on article Zachumlia me and editor Santasa99 were both warned and will be blocked if we edit without reaching consensus on talk page, that was something that was officially posted on their talk page too [ [31]] since then nothing happened on talk page, actually I was the one that had support from other editor [ [32]] but today Santasa99 made the same disruptive editing on the page Zachumlia [ [33]], which means they broke the official warning. Can you please react. Thank you. Theonewithreason ( talk) 02:20 09.July 2022 (UTC)
Good day. If I understand our policies and guidelines well, enough time has passed since we stumbled over this issue (more than a half a year has passed) for me to start new round of BRD process. I have made my edit along with a TP elaboration - editor who filed this report had to be reminded by you, Ed, to join earlier discussions, and now again to join current one. This is actually constant problem within Balkans scope, where editors suddenly appear from their home wikis to establish a local consensus on ethnicity in contradiction with a wider consensus on the same thing and its application in articles on medieval histories This is done by Serbian as well as some Croatian editors, especially in articles about Montenegro and Bosnia, by strength of sheer editors number, since number of Bosnian and Montenegrin editors is so insignificant that we rarely get opposing view from them (there is almost zero outside participants on these topics, which hugely complicating things). But most problematic aspect is that discussion and process of reaching a consensus is almost always bogged down by misinterpretation of what actually sources say (which is, to a neutral editor with some grasp on medieval history and nature of ethnicity and ethnic labeling in any part of the old world, immediately visible from those discussions - most recent examples where I participated are Talk:Zachlumia, especially very last round, and Talk:Crnojević noble family).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 19:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Theonewithreason ( talk) 19:34 09.July 2022 (UTC)
A criticism of this approach. Whatever the solution is in this case, this editing-by-RFC idea just does not work EdJohnston. As an observer of this talk page who has been victim to this same experimental approach to Wikipedia, and seen it fail very badly on the article
Goths I'd like to make it clear once more that it does not work, unless stopping editing is our aim. It basically meant the article could no longer be edited. There is a good reason Wikipedia does not normally work by using RFC's. This just doesn't work. After 2 or 3 RFCs people just can't be bothered to approve every single edit, and the article is left stuck. People who want to freeze questionable material long term into articles are automatically "winners". BRD stops. This approach seems to me to be a personal preference that is in very direct conflict with the Wikipedia way of working. I have never seen any other admin demand it. Past attempts to discuss the problems of principle in this bad approach give the impression that you insist your "rulings" need to be treated like legal precedents by a judge, and not tainted by debate. That's really bad IMHO. To me it is still 100% clear that Wikipedia is not a place for experiments in democracy, or bureaucracy. Also wikilawyering, which is strongly encouraged and rewarded by this approach (which is why I had to start watching this page, given the chaos you encouraged), is NOT the aim of Wikipedia. This approach creates a situation where all discussion has to revolve around how to interpret your laws, and begging. That is bad. WP:NOT is arguably the most fundamental policy of WP. These experiments are a major distraction from good quality editing. IMHO BRD should be the standard approach except for special cases and temporary situations, surely? There is wide community consensus for this way of working. How can you convince anyone including yourself that this is not just about the thrill of exercising personal discretionary power? Please stop experimenting this approach, and at the very least please give such cases an expiry date!! You have no right to create permanent fiefdoms within WP which no longer follow WP core policies, but follow your personal laws.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
19:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi I’m new to wiki, but… why did you block me? I wouldn’t have written anything untrue. Gypsy jazz Retreats ( talk) 21:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, a sockpuppeteer whom you had blocked in the past and confirmed by CU is active again with his disruptive behavior (for which he got blocked). Was unfortunately handed a light block by another admin, considering his sock ( User:Sitush7) was impersonating a venerable editor ( User:Sitush) among other things. Should be mentioned that the same user has also uploaded a boatload of copyrighted images on Commons falsely claiming them as his own ( see here), which he has linked quite extensively here on enwiki articles. The user now impersonates another person, by using a copyvio image on his userpage (caption: "This is my picture from 14th August, 2021 (Pakistan's Independence Day)"); which is of a popular actress Pakistani actress ( Nazish Jahangir).
Clearly the user's intention is not to contribute and build an encyclopedia, made clear by the disruptive edits, copyvio images with false claims on them, and the impersonation of others. This is unlikely to stop, especially considering that he continues with the same behavior even after the three-month block. Please see if the block can be made permanent in light of this. Thanks. Gotitbro ( talk) 00:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
hello EdJohnston can you remove the lock on the Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem it's been a month I'm new on Wikipedia it's very hard for me to find sources other than government sources I did find news articles and allegedly copyrighted. Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem is like a vice mayor of a city I used the same sources things on the Los Angeles County chair article you already locked my editing access for 1 month so can you please remove the locked on the Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:2902:64F4:6099:43C0:F052:6E5B ( talk) 04:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
On my talk page, see [36] Doug Weller talk 09:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEGMse-VCgs
Hi Ed, apparently this guy wants to make a career out of this. As you know, he's back at it with the IP addresses. Here's his latest activity; I see that you've already protected some of the articles, but there're more as you can see. Could you protect them too? Thanks, Carlstak ( talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Since you are the admin most familiar with Skylax30's past disruption when they were more active in controversial Balkan issues. A report has been filed at ANI/I on what appears to be a canvassing attempt on elwiki by Skylax30 [37]. Can you take a look at it if time permits? I note that they removed well sourced content on Souliotes before going to post on elwiki [38] [39]. Even the post on elwiki is not good. There they call the content they do not agree with Albanian and Turkish propaganda. Turks are not in any way involved in the content dispute, but in Greek nationalist narratives Albanians are Turks based on ethnic and religious prejudice. Not a good look for an editor who apart from the long block log on enwiki, has an extraordinarily long block on elwiki [40]. I do not want to comment at ANI/I as such reports might easily become walls of text - if you as an admin who has interacted with Skylax in the past are interested in taking a look at the report, that is much better. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct on Portal:Current Events and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Carter00000 ( talk) 10:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding
this block for a week (10 days ago), they are back continuing the same pattern. Now at
2607:FEA8:6999:AA00:D10B:7AC8:E60F:D498 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS). They are very detail orientated and make some useful changes (see
this edit where they have used the correct dash character in a date range). But in the same edit, they are adding small font to an infobox (
MOS:SMALL), and overlinking ([[Indianapolis, Indiana]], U.S.
to ([[Indianapolis, Indiana|Indianapolis]], [[Indiana]], [[United States|U.S.]]
To preserve the good changes, I have be manually fixing instead of just reverting everything they do, which is very time consuming. Thanks for your help. MB 14:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
An arbitration case to which you were a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The declining arbitrators felt that the request was premature. For the Committee, GeneralNotability ( talk) 21:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with this one but I keep seeing this user pop up in a ton of articles and mostly the same ones as this user that you blocked PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gilley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Tom Reedy (
talk)
02:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Original title of this thread was: "A concern"
I believe that user:Khorazmiy has competency issues concerning the English language.
I reverted them after they added information, out of context, into a paragraph that makes no mention of the Simjurids, Simjur al-Dawati, or even Turks! They posted on the talk page:" Stop deleting the text about the Simjurids, which directly refers to the reign of Ahmad ibn Ismail and is based on reliable sources."
I responded as to why I removed the information, out of context.
User:Khorazmiy then responded with almost the exact same comment," The Simjurids were the governors of the Samanids in Khorasan, which is confirmed by reliable sources."
Thus ignoring what I said, since the paragraph in question states:
Do you see any mention of Simjurids, Simjur al-Dawati, or even Turks, in that paragraph?
I warned them of WP:CIR, since their response seemed repititious and failed to address my concerns, I can only conclude said user is using a translator and does not have the necessary language competency to edit this Wikipedia. Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, HistoryofIran posed numerous questions to Khorazmiy concerning the Simjurids. Khorazmiy instead responds(copy & paste?) with information about the Samanids and side note about their "governors"(all unsourced) and ignores HistoryofIran's questions completely.-- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Ed. Just thought I'd let you know that after this incident, there have been follow-ups and if I have done wrong myself since that time, I am aware of BOOMERANG. I made a new report here. Thanks. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 20:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I hope this finds you well.
I am contacting you regarding a recent edit warring report I have filed for U:JulesAgathias. The action you have taken to this was "both users warned", which deeply disappointed me as I've made a very clear case that what Jules engages in is little more than vandalism.
I'd like to make the matter clearer and shorter to you; I have added information to the article, regarding a wide scope (background, battle, aftermath, etc) and have added citations to every single bit I have written. Jules then edited the article, and removed certain bits of information that I added; all specifically pertaining to number strengths of the Ottoman army, and wrote a message on my talk page saying "they do not constitute sources". I then went over the matter and re-added the information, this time taking care to add the citations with page numbers included in them.
Jules then made a revert once again. And I dutifully assumed he still has an issue with clarity or formatting, to that end I re-added the information and made the wording on the citations clearer, and included links to archive.org where the user can verify the information himself instead of deleting it outright. Jules then made another revert, and here I went to discuss the matter with him on his talk page. The response made by Jules in his talk page can be seen here, and I'll quote it in full;
"According to Mustapha Pasha" constitutes as much of a source as Napoleon's own correspondances or memoirs. They, in both cases, remain personal (and contemporary) takes reported, not assertions by modern historians. The former do not take precedence over the latter. And yes, I did read Connelly, Pawly and Isenberg's books (in case you didn't notice, some of the page references in the articles were done by myself). I also read the portion of Richet and Furet's "French Revolution" discussing the battle. I don't know if you did, but you should. In the latter, it is written that the Ottoman army was 18,000-strong (I don't know where the 15,000 came from but it is certainly not from that book; I don't know if you were the one to add it) and they highlight that according to Seid Mustafa (so Mustapha Pasha), only 8,000 of the Ottoman soldiers were in a condition to face the French at the time (likely also referencing the correspondance). They were certainly close but not quite right as Mustapha actually had stated only 7,000 men were, which is why removed the former about the 8,000 and maintained the 7,000 claim as it was actually what Mustapha said.
The suggestion was that some of the men who faced the French troops at Abukir suffered from disease by the time the Ottoman army landed at Aboukir Bay. However, nowhere was it suggested in the sources on the page and the ones you yourself linked, that 7,000 troops represented the strength of the Ottoman army. We clearly know more than 7,000 men were there considering the casualties. The choice of putting that first and foremost in the infobox (and above Connelly and Pawly's estimates at that) is not strange?! I also purchased Strathern's book after your edits (I properly linked it in the references at the end of the article as you hadn't done so, which you then removed again seemingly......). I read the portion relating to Abukir. Strathern reported what Mustapha had stated to Smith about the state of his army (having just a few thousand men in his force fit to fight the enemy) just like the French historians mentioned above did. Those weren't personal estimates on the Ottoman strength he gave.
Regarding British involvement: there was a lack of consistency. Britain is not listed as a belligerent in the infobox next to the Ottoman Empire. You can add it, which then justifies adding Smith to the commander section or leave both Britain and Smith out. I chose to do the latter until it was addressed in the Talk Page. That was my only issue in that regard, so you do what do what you see fit"
Jules first issue with the information I cited is that it is "primary" and does not take precedence over academic sources; to this end, I had actually cited both primary and academic sources, so he is wrong on this count. 2nd of all, Jules mentions other information on the article in the following statement; "I also read the portion of Richet and Furet's "French Revolution" discussing the battle. I don't know if you did, but you should. In the latter, it is written that the Ottoman army was 18,000-strong "I don't know where the 15,000 came from but it is certainly not from that book; I don't know if you were the one to add it", this was not added by me, it was added by some other user, which Jules had deleted. Jules claims this is fake information, and claims to have red the source material it came from, but judging from his track record so far in refusing to read citations I include and in light of something interesting I'll mention later I strongly doubt that Jules has actually verified whether that information is wrong or not or even have read Richet & Furet's "French Revolution". Jules' 3rd gripe is a lot of SYNTH and original research, which does not belong in a wikipedia page (I do not want to add any numbers from my pocket or such, only ones mentioned in sources, primary or secondary). Jules ends his paragraph by conceding that he was wrong about British participation in the battle (before, he would remove it and claim that no where in my sources it is mentioned that the British participated in any direct capacity in the battle, even though I had plastered an archive.org link in his face with the page number so he can read contemporary letters showing otherwise, but he finally conceded when I had actually copied the contents of this letter to the page, so in a sense Jules had helped grow the article's informational capacity with his biased edit warring).
To close all of this, I would like to mention once again that Jules' talk page is filled with edit warring complaints and accusations of bias. I am not here to fight petty wars over people who imbibe the concoction of nationalism, I wanted to, and took pride in adding more to Wikipedia articles, and remove misinfo wherever I found it, to help inform readers. Jules to me is an outrage against the idea of a neutral informational library or platform, he's trying to push his biases in a variety of pages regarding French history or French matters, and I was deeply disappointed to know that I was warned over my conduct even though I had attempted to discuss this matter with Jules, and responded to him diligently, while he dismissively and conveniently claimed that the "reply function" to my thread was "blocked", and went ahead and continued pruning things out of the article.
Best, looking forward to hear from you on this. Sormando ( talk) 05:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for your help here The User:Akshaypatill deleted the section again + deleted another edit from user at the same time on the same talk page! Thanks for following up. 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F ( talk) 12:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
After five years, what a long journey it has been. I am now going to retire from editing on Wikipedia. I feel like I don't wanna contribute anymore. Goodbye. (ps pls permanently block me as I am retired.) RapMonstaXY ( talk) 10:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know where to report this, so putting it here. This person has been adding unsourced content in various articles and is continuing to do so despite multiple warnings in talk page. The user has no plans to change. The latest addition is [46] (premise for an unreleased film). 2409:4073:4E99:4FB4:98BB:14CF:C514:20B5 ( talk) 18:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. I see that you've just recently (three hours ago) left a comment at TU-nor's talk page. I'm pretty sure the user Whoforwho that's been commenting there, and whose edits to the article page I've reverted as sockpuppetry, is the persistent Mosquito Coast sockmaster who's caused so much trouble and wasted so many editors' time. And now it appears that he may actually have his own article on WP? Oh, the irony.
Per your remark on 26 July 2022, I've assembled a list of the usernames and IP's used by this person (many descriptive adjectives come to mind).
Usernames:
IP addresses:
Doubtless there are more, but these are what I've found. Carlstak ( talk) 19:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I had to going this talk about this "Mosquito Coast Guy". Becasue I must assure everyone here, that this user is not related to me. I'm not from the "Mosquito Coast", nor from Central America. My edits that I'm currently making to the articles relating to the "Mosquito Coast" are base on information that I found on the internet relating to the same topic, and are even more accurate than most cited sources on this article. Our edits should not be bias, they should be neutral. I'm not supporting the Mosquito Coast, I'm supporting the neutrality of historical information. Whoforwho ( talk) 02:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Refer to your own archive, here. The same editor has recently edited at Alex the Astronaut see diff and at Megan Washington (and associated album article), see diff. A person named Cathy Oates is owner/chief manager of Original Matters talent agency. Washington and Alex the Astronaut are clients. Since July 2021 that person is also Head of Marketing for Warner Music Australia. [1] shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 05:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
References
Could I ask you to provide an outside opinion regarding the notability tag on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Indiana? User:FormalDude added the tag a few days ago. User:Rollidan and myself have added material to the article over the past couple days and identified a number of independent (none of the sources are from the LDS Church), reliable sources that, imo, have sufficient significant coverage to satisfy the presumed notability threshold of WP:GNG. I boldly removed the tag this afternoon but was quickly reverted by FormalDude, with an edit summary saying they didn't see independent significant coverage in the new sources. So I don't perpetuate a tagging edit war, I'd like to ask for an outside opinion. If you could take a look at the sources and provide feedback with respect to the sources and such, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 00:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
(Advance sorry for my bad English)
Please stop this user @ Toomanyyearskodakblack: He is involved in Pro- Imran Khan and PTI party POV & propaganda edits against the political opponent collision government of ( Pakistan Democratic Movement) and also against the military Leadership.
For example see some of his edits:
Maryam Nawaz: [50], [51], [52],
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari: [54], [55]
Fazal-ur-Rehman (politician): [56]
Against military
Nadeem Anjum: [ [60]]
Other article
Journalist Gharida Farooqi: [61] [62]
This user created account month ago and only used account for abusive and descriptive edits, from day first he starts POV and propganda edits, he was multiple times warned for them by the other editors and reverted his edits but this user refused to listen and again restored them and starts edit war at several articles, "please see his block and talk page history" and also edit war history. [64]
Also these two PakistanHistorian Agent0503 accounts are involved in same POV and propganda edits, they has same editing pattern I believed these accounts are also the Sock's of Toomanyyearskodakblack. 103.255.6.109 ( talk) 17:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Here [65] at Qamar Javed Bajwa article, You are using Imran Khan's political allegations statement and adding nick name of Army Leader as a "Ghaddar e Watan" which means in English "Traitor of Nation"
EdJohnston also see this [66] this user starts creating articles from first day, like an experienced user and created 4 articles,
He was involved in POV and Propaganda edits, starts creating articles from first day, continuously engaged in edit war's at several articles with editors and refused to listen them, it's clearly says this user is an experienced user, possibly a "Sock" that's only using this account for POV and propaganda on Wikipedia.
After these proofs and this users received POV and Edit war warnings from other editors are enough to permanently ban this user, launch sock puppet investigation and revert all of his propaganda edits. 111.119.178.168 ( talk) 00:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
As you are already aware, you had topic banned USaamo from "from the topic of wars between India and Pakistan". [67]
Until now he has violated it multiple times, [68] [69] as recently as May 2022.
He just violated this topic ban again on
Two-nation theory right
here by removing content about "sub-nationalities of Pakistan, with Bengalis seceding from Pakistan after the
Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971
", the same page (Bangladesh Liberation War) about which he was warned back in 2020.
[70]
Either a block or expansion of his topic ban is clearly warranted now per my explanation here about 2 weeks ago, as well as this recent topic ban violation. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
sub-nationalities of Pakistan, with Bengalis seceding from Pakistan after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971". The edit concerns the same page ( Bangladesh Liberation War) about which he was warned back in 2020. [72] WP:TBAN is clear that its a violation even if it concerns "
parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do" with the topic banned area. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 02:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
India-Pakistan only involved at the last stage of event making both belligerentsand you are still falsely accusing me of wikihounding when I have already provided evidence that I am editing this article for years. I am in support of the extension of your topic ban because you have failed to stay away from this year these 2 years as evident from your frequent violations of your topic ban. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 07:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
EdJohnston Just because I stopped replying to USaamo because he was not getting it, he has again violated the topic ban here by restoring his edit that removed large chunk of sourced content and violated his topic ban by touching content about Bangladesh Liberation War. I don't think he should be let-off again, given this is yet another topic ban violation by him. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 17:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello Meta and Tek Fog stories are pending to be added in the page The Wire (India). Many users arugued its addition, but till today the stories are not part of the main article. Requesting your intervention 103.51.138.251 ( talk) 15:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, there are recent edits on the University of Manchester by an IP editor 188.31.1.46 ( talk · contribs) that appear from the tone and content very likely to be block evasion by Dr.AndrewBamford ( talk · contribs), who you blocked permanently in June for exactly this sort of behaviour. I wasn't not sure how to proceed with this – I found a policy saying that edits made in violation of a block can be reverted, but not who can decide that it actually is block evasion or where to make a report. Thanks for any assistance/advice! Robminchin ( talk) 02:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this ever happened? Is it still your intention?-- Ponyo bons mots 15:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am writing to you concerned about moderator Wes Sideman (whom I have linked to below). He seems to have an obsession with this television character “Chad Johnson” from the TV show “The Bachelorette” and his Wikipedia page. He continues to change the notoriety of Chad Johnson from his TV shows, to his arrest records attempting to defame him. Those charges were dropped and as you can see in the video below, his girlfriend admits no assault happened. Apparently Wes Sideman knows more than the two people actually involved in the incident. Wes Sideman also continues to remove any remotely good press about Chad from the Wikipedia page. For some reason Wes has been monitoring and harassing this Wikipedia page for over two years now. If you have time, I would ask or suggest that you look into doing something about this Wes Sideman moderator using an abuse of power on Wikipedia. It is my request that you block Wes Sideman from continuing to commit vandalism on this page and others, he continues to remove any positive press articles or information and continues to edit and falsify information to his liking. Please discontinue his ability to modify this page. Thank you. Admission of no assault - https://youtu .be/qyK8-_kaVt8 Examples of Wes Sideman’s edits - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1116808783 Wes Sideman’s page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Wes_sideman&action=view Chad Johnson’s Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Johnson_(TV_personality) 193.192.116.74 ( talk) 20:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Page:
Klete Keller (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Wes sideman (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: before last revert
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82] [83] [84]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [85]
Comments: in addition to this:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:EdJohnston#Wes_Sideman_Abuse_of_Power Ironically, in a completely unrelated matter, Please be informed that wes sideman is again causing problems and edit warring another article about Klete Keller. (@Wes sideman: You need to stop now. When you point a finger at another, you point four at yourself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk)
17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)) - It seems to be a pattern. He was warned by another admin @Deepfriedokra: and he recommended to block him (
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&diff=next&oldid=1120943837) , As the previous complaint here states he falsified information to his liking and monitors and harasses. As he did with the Chad Johnson page, he becomes obsessed and does not want any remotely good press, even edit warring over the simple order in the lead of Klete Keller's impressive USA Olympic gold medal accomplishments BEFORE his minor participation in Jan 6. Another respected editor (SecretName101) clearly stated her case of the correct order in which the lead should be: "This being said, as far as the lead sentence, it seems pretty clear to me that it should mention that he is a swimmer first, then that he committed a crime. SecretName101 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)" --But he caviled into getting his way and reverted it AGAIN without any input from secretname101. Secretname101 still does not feel the lead is correct, and for good reason. sideman "acts" like he's a moderator/admin and that's why the person who reported wes sideman on admin EdJohnstons talk page was confused. Thank You.
208.78.105.40 (
talk)
18:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
/* Original title was: Article protection */
Good day to you, User:EdJohnston. In the article [Imam_Shamil], which you recently protected, there is a long-term vandalising edits. Editors delete sources with misinformation comments. In particular User:Reiner Gavriel breaks his own consensus version, which I can track as early as 1 year and 5 months ago, and he tries to wipe out some sources now. There are some accusations the editor makes in every edit, which are completely false as per even brief validation of the sources and comparison to the Russian Wikipedia. But the editor ignores the discussion where he is addressed — /info/en/?search=Talk:Imam_Shamil#Ancestry. There is also some unpleasant methods of editing, such as using anonymous edits. My question is, how can this issue be regulated?-- HamzatCan ( talk) 07:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am curious what is your reason for removing rankings from the ranking tables, leaving only a select few? This implies that they are somehow greater than the ones ommitted, which is not the case. They assess the universities from a different angle.
Particularly, with the University of Manchester, a ranking table has recently been removed which has been in place on the article, and the one that has been "restored" is in fact a very recent edition that wasnt there to start with. I have noticed in particular a user named Robminchin who has pushed for these changes over a long period of time on various pages, and it is now evident that he has managed to omit rankings from a number of university pages. I am suspicious of his reasoning to omit certain rankings, whilst keeping others.
I think it is logical to display all rankings, as an encyclopeadia, rather than providing rankings based on our own opinions of which is superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.226.1 ( talk) 20:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This is just precious! LMAO -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 13:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ EdJohnston! This user QuidditchCup53 has posted two hours ago on the talk page of Aristeus01. You've moved ( [86]) his writing ( [87]) to the bottom. I noticed that he has absolutely the same user page ( [88], [89]) as Aristeus01 and he's again waging edit war on History of Transylvania (page history: [90]). See his contribs: [91] and recent reverts: [92], [93]. Gyalu22 ( talk) 19:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Hey Ed! Thought I would ask you how to delete an article and the particulars surrounding that. The article in question is Hunnic invasion of the Sasanian Empire.
From the sources given, it is clear this is just a raid and I am not sure if notability or what comes into play. The entire article, which is made up of two paragraphs(maybe!), could be added to the Bahram IV article.
Thoughts? Suggestions? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston,
It’s profoundly disappointing that I was blocked for attempting to maintain the status quo ante bellum while a discussion was ongoing on the talk page regarding the contentious edits in question on Sheikh Hasina. LucrativeOffer reverted my edits on more than three occasions, why was no such action taken against them? The user has a long-standing track record of violating the three revert rule so I am crestfallen why they were issued a mere warning to “observe” while I was blocked. The reason I reverted the edits on more than three occasions was because the edits were under discussion, it was inappropriate for LucrativeOffer to continuously reinsert content which was contentious and under discussion (I did not insert my content throughout the course of the discussion). It would be a gross dereliction of duty and blatantly unfair if different treatment is doled out to users who have done the same actions. In future please ensure you take adequate steps to investigate and establish all the facts of the situation before rendering such harsh measures.
Kind regards-- AMomen88 ( talk) 02:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
See last block, although that seems longer ago than I remember their last appearance - I may have missed another report somewhere. Anyway, they are back today. BilCat reverted most and I did more. This time, it is 2607:FEA8:699B:B700:F912:9291:450C:DA52 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks. MB 04:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ EdJohnston would like alert you that i suspect that Atsbi is a sockpuppet of blocked User:Solniun, they have similar writing styles: [94] and [95] Banabakabiroshitha ( talk) 08:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} |
![]() |
Donner60 ( talk) 00:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, are the links you've added on my post for "block request" enough for admin or should I provide more links or diffs? Progrock70s ( talk) 21:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't need to promise anything cause recently I've been providing sources. Also I wasn't familiar with that policy when I first made my account but I really provided sources for all my edits recently. The problem is that Brazilian user, they accuse me when they don't have any evidence, they revert edits with sources and replace them with unsourced ones yet they expect others to provide sources. Basically they act like they're some kind of administer in here while they don't even have an account. Progrock70s ( talk) 19:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
EdJohnston,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See
this for background context.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡
18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ed, re [ [96]] I really don't understand, why he cannot be described as a fraudster when he was convicted of fraud in a court of law? There seems to be an endeavour to whitewash this character possibly to enable him to perpetrate more fraud. Unibond ( talk) 14:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ed, please see [97]. Talking about slow edit warring ( [98]), see [99]. I restored the content again ( [100]). Cheers. - DVdm ( talk) 12:52, 16 January 2023 (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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 |
We've got an edit-warring student editor, 808desiree808, adding badly written unsourced material to this article. Here's a sample of text he added here: "When things seem to be going well Captain James Cook arrived in 1778 bringing down the Hawai’ian population to almost extinct the arrival of Cook he not only brought devastation to the local people but he brought dieases such as small pox, measles, sexually transmitted dieases, influenza and whooping cough,Leaving the hawai’ians at just 40,000, Almost making their language and culture extinct as well."
He added copyvio content copied-and-pasted from The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style with this edit and from this website with this edit. Carlstak ( talk) 00:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, because Ishan87 start first, if Ishan87 not doing anything incorrect about Megalodon. Then I will not do that. And edit war will not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinosaursKing ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that at WP:RFPP you said that you would EC protect Hurricane Sam for 3 months, but you set the time to indefinite. I just wanted to be sure you set the time you intended to. TornadoLGS ( talk) 01:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious how my past actions at
Talk:Swastika are considered as a "disruption". As explained in my 2nd unblock request, which was accepted by another admin and CU
here, my actions were solely abided by the RFC's neutrality dispute policy. Would be interested to know which specific action was a talkpage disruption
, such that I may refrain from that move. Regards,
WikiLinuz 🍁 (
talk)
18:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template? Which is what I did here. The original author also changed the RFC wording here on December 1 10:41, 4 days after the RFC had already begun, so shouldn't this also be considered as a violation? (Because this modification by the author also seems to invalidate the votes). WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk) 19:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Ed. Hope you're well. I have filed a new SPI at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solomon155. The CU has finished and the two accounts are indeed the same person, but no administrative closure has been applied and the master account is still placing the same edits every couple of days. Can you close the report?-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 00:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi 2402:3A80:169D:9BCA:0:19:FA5D:D401 ( talk) 17:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Obviously there won’t be consensus on this page. And your action has supported a minority view since there is one more editor who supports my version and only one disruptive vandal who continually makes rude abusive remarks and accusations. I have repeatedly asked Mujinga to re edit the text to achieve neutrality but they continually insist on deleting the text and insulting me. I am sorely disappointed by your lack of neutrality here PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal ( talk) 09:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, I wish you and your family a merry christmas and a healthy and happy new year. Regards -- Serols ( talk) 16:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ed! I'm sorry to bother you this time of year, but I have a question I'd like to ask.
Are there any formally compiled statistics available on the number of SPI cases that are filed, yearly?
I haven't been able to find anything on Wikipedia. I've searched the web but could only find secondary sources that give uncited figures for certain years.
For example, a quote from Case Study of Sockpuppet Detection on Wikipedia":
"Sockpuppets are a prevalent problem in Wikipedia, there were close to 2,700 unique suspected cases reported in 2012. "
This is helpful, but I can't find any facts on the number of sockpuppets investigated/confirmed for 2014, 2018, or 2020, etc.
Are these facts even formally collected and disseminated? If so I would greatly appreciate knowing where to find them. Thanks for your time.
By the way, I am aware of this SPI archive, but it dates back to the 2000s and seems inactive, and not very quantitative. To clarify, I'm looking for more recent figures, rather than a list of cases.
Thank you for your time and I hope the year 2022 will go easy on you. Hunan201p ( talk) 15:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ed, sorry, but you just warned Taharka155 ( talk · contribs) regarding African Americans. They removed the term "ethnic group" from the lead again, here. They also made another personal attack at my own talk page ( here), which they reverted some hours later, but finally restored. Since "his" in that attack refers to Hitler and "some of his people" obviously refers to me (clear from their previous edit at my talk page and from their knowledge that I am German), and since I hate Hitler and his ideas and endorse WP:NONAZIS, that's just too much. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400: I have not reverted anything. I updated information with 2020 census information, because the opening statement is based on outdated 2010 census info, which rsk is hell bent on keeping their to maintain his Point of View in the article. Taharka155 ( talk) 08:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
And after I complained to you, they added this to my talk page. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 09:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe the edit warring accusation aimed against me was not fair. Do I have any recourse to an appeal, or can I request further explanation?-- Underthemayofan ( talk) 05:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
It's in the page Climate of Greece. I have filled the proper report already in the Administrator's Noticeboard but it seems after all kinds of warnings (even admin issued ones) this user doesn't change his disruptive behavior. In this case, he first made an edit without any kind of source, after I've recalled him for that, he inserted a random source in Greek that doesn't back up anything he claims. I've inserted the official Hellenic National Meteorological Service Greek Climate Atlas map and he ignored that official source putting again his source that doesn't even back up anything he says. Now he says that's "content dispute" but isn't this disruptive editing? He also broke the WP:3RR even if I warned him several times today. -- TechnicianGB ( talk) 13:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, belated happy New Year. This guy just won't give up. The latest socks are BTGOG12 and IP 186.77.132.0. Carlstak ( talk) 04:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you restore the Bajaur Campaign page back to my version, cause my source clearly states 1,000 rather then what he is posting, there was also U.S and soviet involvement, and even in the talk page provided I showed him where to check, but he has ignored this. The page was protected for 1 week in turn of this, but its access was only listed to Wikipedia administrators only, could you restore it back to my version? Noorullah21 ( talk) 16:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Any way you could block 64.251.32.252 and 174.197.128.0/20, perhaps? Much appreciated, thanks! wizzito | say hello! 06:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
From 8 januar 2022 he vandalizes and trolls [1] "PolishBoyInUK" again. His "creativity" is only harmfulness and poisonous deep vandalism. Can't such imbeciles be finally blocked? 2A01:C23:903A:8800:6161:BBB6:7C36:39FF ( talk) 19:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my
fat fingers,
hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you.
EvergreenFir
(talk)
05:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'm not sure whether to take this to you or to ANI. In December, you blocked Taharka155 ( talk · contribs) following my complaint at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_52#It's_African_Americans,_Taharka155,_and_me_again. After that, we had no interaction except for one edit at my talk page by them which I reverted. Today they made this edit to my talk page and these edits at Talk:African Americans comparing me ("a white German man" - that's clearly me) to David Duke of the KKK. Can't really say that I'm happy that they no longer compare me to Hitler.
@ Taharka155: Pinging them. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 15:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, yesterday I blocked Miller110 as a suspected sock of Bengaliwikipro. The topic area (caste warring), article intersection, and username similarity (see Safron710 and others) were the basis for my block. The user is screaming bloody murder, which, as far as I can tell, is not typical of Bengaliwikipro socks, but it's also been a while since any was blocked.
Now at ANEW, TrangaBellam, who filed the original SPI report, says that another user, Satnam2408, is reinstating Miller110's edits. Satnam2408's username is also similar to other socks (e.g., Josua4533), but they are different in other ways. First, they've been around a long time, including in August 2021 when you ran your checks but did not uncover them. Second, they seemingly had a disagreement with a sock, Sourav431, back in June 2021.
I was hoping that you could check both accounts. Obviously, they can be checked against each other, and I don't know about UA information, but the CU logs from August might be helpful in connecting one or both to the confirmed socks. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I think 217.149.166.67 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is 217.149.166.11 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) evading his ban. Could you please have a look as an enforcing admin? Thank you. Grand master 09:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Would you consider protecting this article? There has been an edit war since 23 December 2021. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think your 3 month edit limit for the "Crimean War" article is justified. Yes, there was a heated discussion. But it was an interesting and generally constructive discussion, without personal insults. Your actions raise the question of the need for them. Moreover, you did not participate in the discussion of this topic at all and suddenly came and banned the discussion. This is strange of you. 93.81.219.116 ( talk) 11:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I do not claim your time, but if you carefully read the complaints against me from some people, you will understand that, on the contrary, they reproach me for using quotes, only somehow not in the way they want. To be honest, I don't quite understand them, I give a link to the author, his book, edition, page and even ISBN. What's more - I don't understand. 93.81.218.92 ( talk) 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
By the way, you're wrong. Even after registering, I cannot edit the article "Crimean War". I would ask you to remove your editing ban. It prevents discussion. ViewFromRussia ( talk) 09:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
EdJohnston, the user Crashed greek, even after warning from you on edit warring noticeboard and two on his talk page by me and user Slatersteven, has continued edit warring and made 10 edits today, including trying to delete the tags and the Afd message on Battle of Peshawar (1758). The user clearly just reverting and keeping changes to his preferred version and not agreeing with others. MehmoodS ( talk) 12:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
GB has returned to Wikipedia today and continued to edit Viroid. He did not respond to my ping at WP:ANEW, so I went to his Talk page. His response to my request to answer my question about 3RR was unacceptable in my view. Therefore, I want to pblock him for editing Viroid for one week. A couple of questions. First, do you think the pblock is reasonable based on his behavior? Second, I've never pblocked anyone before, and I find the Twinkle form confusing. Can you help with that? If not, the normal block form is much easier, so I can use that (I assume I uncheck autoblock?). Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
just seems taking revenge in my view? You're kidding, right? You have demonstrated no willingness to discuss your behavior. If you were not an administrator, I would already have blocked you for your lack of insight into your behavior and your lack of understanding of edit-warring policy. Instead, I cut you some slack and asked you to explain why which one of the four reverts listed at ANEW was not a revert. Instead, you refused. What is left to discuss?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct in part. Perhaps I should have made my intentions more clear. I plan to do some work on the article and as was the case with my work on Menstrual cycle, which I brought back to FA status (and which was on the Main Page last year) this required a lot of culling of many poor edits that had accumulated over several years. I had similar complaints with my efforts there. Quantity is not quality, and poor edits can, unfortunately, remain for a long time. I would happily remove ten years worth, or more, of edits to improve Wikipedia. My question is why did you not engage with me on the Talk Page. Graham Beards (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
"Discovery of new viroids has been difficult with methods available prior to ~2013. Ito et al 2013 uncovered one using next generation dsRNA sequencing more easily than previously possible... in part because plants do not produce dsRNAs, lessening noise..." Graham Beards ( talk) 19:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Could you possibly unprotect after six years? I want to change the misspelling "saves" to "slaves" but I can't. 156.61.250.251 ( talk) 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This IP 106.79.202.2 [8] has been hopping on to different articles and removing content along the way, without any proper explanation and at times, none at all. Doesn't seem like this IP has any right intention of being productive. Can you please take action? MehmoodS ( talk) 23:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Have you seen Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Mandatory retirement/maximum age for admins?? Doug Weller talk 12:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
You have previously helped me with an edit war at the BLP for Martin Kulldorff. I am once again in need of assistance from an administrator.
On the talk page for Kulldorff, two editors: Drmies and Alexbrn have insinuated I have a conflict of interest to report. Alexbrn has now made the insinuation three separate times, with the most recent on my talk page, despite the fact that we were already discussing it on the Kulldorff talk page.
I have encouraged Alexbrn to follow the proper reporting procedures if he is still not satisfied that I have no conflict of interest to disclose (if I had any, I would have disclosed) and yet they still insinuate I must disclose. At this point I find the behavior to be an example of incivility, namely " ill-considered accusations of impropriety".
I would welcome your feedback either here or preferably on my talk page where Alexbrn has made the most recent insinuation and where he also claims he has engaged an admin. I have not been contacted by an admin nor do I see that a complaint has been filed at the COI Noticeboard.
According to my understanding of the disclosure policy, it is an editor's duty to disclose before editing. Therefore a lack of disclosure should be assumed (in good faith) that there is no conflict of interest (COI). If another editor believes there is a COI that has not been disclosed, even after they have warned the other editor, there is a clear path of escalation available and it does not include repeatedly asking an editor to disclose potential COI. I have no COI to disclose, hence I have disclosed none. That should be enough. I can not prove a negative and therefore I should not be required to repeatedly engage in games of baseless insinuation. I have asked for specific reasons they believe I have COI and they have not provided any.
If it is more appropriate for me to post this on the the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard I will do so.
Thank you in advance for your help. Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Azərbaycan haqqında yalnış məlumati vermək müəllif hüquqlarni pozurlar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.43.189.98 ( talk) 08:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston, I wanted to turn your attention to an article Battle of al-Hasakah (2022) where an edit war has apparently been going on for several days now, which I myself took no part in until recently and was only observing (I have started engaging only as of the day before yesterday). Apparently one specific editor (DiB2014) has been inserting in the results section of the battle unsourced OR/WP:SYNTH and has been removing sourced info with its source. Example - [9]. Several other editors have apparently tried to warn the editor his edit's were lacking verifiability, were pure OR and requested sources, but he hasn't reacted to this and has continued to edit war. There is also an ongoing discussion at the article's talk page in which the editor hasn't tried to engage in. DiB2014 also appears to be a single-purpose account - created only a few days ago, only edited this one article and focused specifically on this one issue. I warned the editor regarding WP's guidelines on OR and SYNTH and that he has already violated the 1RR ban which applies to Syrian civil war/IS-related articles, since he made no less than 4 reverts of other editors within 24 hours, with a 5th soon after. At this point it seems to be simple OR POV-pushing to me. Extended confirmed protection has already been applied to the article. So I wanted your recommendation what could be done here, in the sense should I maybe report the issue at AN due to the repeatable reverting conducted by the editor which has already violated the 1RR ban? Although I try to avoid that as much as possible, hoping an issue can be resolved through talk. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! On 29 Jan you blocked 240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64 for a week for disruptive editing. It appears that this editor is now evading the block by using IP 175.132.186.113. This IP is making the exact same disruptive edits to the same articles as the blocked IP. CodeTalker ( talk) 18:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The potential RfC which you commented on over the week-end is currently written and in my Sandbox for the 2022 Winter Olympics. If you still feel its useful, then I could suggest that you remove the problem sentence from the lead section and possibly remove one of the banners currently at the top of the article, in order to clean up the appearance of the article during the Olympics which is in progress (the Controversy sentence is currently the first sentence of paragraph 3 in the lead section). When the Controversies sentence is removed from the lead section, then either you or I could place this RfC on the Talk page there if it looks ok to you. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause ( talk) 15:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Here is another one: This IP 149.86.88.238 has been hopping on to different articles, removing and altering content without any proper explanation and at times, none at all. Can you please take action? MehmoodS ( talk) 02:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Since you have protected the page, am I allowed to revert to the appropriate version? Noorullah21 ( talk) 00:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do apologize that I have to come to you again.
You responded to an edit warring complaint involving myself and User:Llll5032. You warned us both to reach consensus before making any reverts to the Martin Kulldorff page.
Recently User:Llll5032 reverted a statement that has not yet reached consensus, despite ongoing and extensive discussions on both the talk page as well as on the wikiproject Medicine talk page. The comment for the edit acknowledges there is no consensus justifying the edit: "WP:BOLD aim at compromise wording"
In the talk page, L1115032 further acknowledges there is not yet a consensus:
All right, I tried an edit in the article. There are many editors now and I doubt it will be the final word.
— User:Llll5032 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC
It was my understanding that the point of the warning was to ensure that both of us proposed reverts in the talk page and those reverts could be implemented in the article once consensus was reached. It was my understanding that reverts to the actual article were not part of consensus-building.
I am not sure of the process for Llll5032 and I to return to normal editing (moving beyond the warning). Does a process or rule exist and did the warning somehow expire, returning us both to normal editing?
Thank you again for your help and especially for your patience!
Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 00:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
EdJohhston, Michael has raised another question on the talk page about a sentence I contributed to that has since been added to by other editors. (Michael has not written in that paragraph, although he previously objected to it and then dropped his objection after I added footquotes.) I agree with his question partly, not completely. I am wary of another contentious pre-discussion on the talk page, but wider consensus could be simple via normal editing. Is it all right for me to fix the sentence in the article and ask for reaction on the talk page, a process that resolved problems in that sentence before? (Re-engaging sooner than I expected. I am open to the idea that other editors may be better suited for this.) Llll5032 ( talk) 16:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Can you take a look at this post, please? Axxxion's photo of an Iraq-War era Colin Powell testimony is completely irrelevant to the Ukraine situation and is WP:FORUM in my opinion - I'd like to see it removed. Thanks. ( /info/en/?search=Talk:2021%E2%80%932022_Russo-Ukrainian_crisis#Suggestion_on_addition) section: February 16 (bottom of thread) 14:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 ( talk)
I forgot my password and that is why I started a new profile. I am not trying to hide anything. The admis should do what they feel best but I would also like to have mplssouthside checked to make sure this isnt the subject person not anyone close to him there were details an average person would not know in the posts. I also would like to note that I attempted to end this edit war that was STARTED by mplssouthside by combining the two versions together of which mplssouthside refused to do. I think that plays into the thought that this person is whitewashing anything critical of Cunningham. I 0osted the items on the Powderhorn 9 and his debate due to the fact it was a MAJOR reason he was defeated. He also disparaged a minority owned auto repair garage because they supported his challenger. I hope the admis continue working on this page to make it better. Mplsnirvana ( talk) 16:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I wrote it down originally on a piece of paper since I never save passwords. Mplsnirvana ( talk) 17:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to delete of have admins delete the 2nd account mplssouthside and just use the original Mplsnirvana ( talk) 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is fine. Thank you! Mplsnirvana ( talk) 22:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, I have a small question. Today you (quite appropriately) blocked 2001:EE0:4370:701C:A053:D4D9:3DD5:128C for 48 hours in response to an AN3 complaint about their edit warring. But earlier today, JBW independently blocked the /64 (( 2001:EE0:4370:701C::/64)) for 72 hours . When your 48 hour block expires, does the 72 hour block resume? So was the 48 hour block unnecessary? CodeTalker ( talk) 04:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston & RoySmith, this is regarding the last sockpuppet investigation related to User:Bengaliwikipro ( link) where I had reported regarding the suspect Nobita456. Both of you had used the term 'Possilikely', and it was mentioned that 'Behavioural evidence needs evaluation'. Behavioral evidence has been provided here but the same has been rejected, can you please have a look; I am not sure what else is required!
Also, if you have a look at Nobita456's own statements, s/he says s/he is a new editor and is editing here 'since 1 month', please see here; again s/he says 'I saw many editors getting blocked for this offence', please see here; how is it possible for a new editor with 1 month experience on Wikipedia to see many other editors getting blocked, unless they have themselves got blocked multiple times? I just wanted to bring to your attention these behavioral evidences; Nobita456 has currently been topic banned for 3 months and has been blocked for 1/2 weeks for personal attacks. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian ( talk) 08:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
IP143.0.52.206 appears to be stalking user:Surtsicna. These edits appear to be nothing but blatant reverts(I counted at least 8 reverts) which the IP has taken no part in any discussions(unless they are editing while logged out). Would you be willing to look into this? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Thiago.moreira.gomes, whose user page states they are from Brazil, has had a few run-ins with Surtsicna. IP143.0.52.206 just happens to geolocate to Brazil. My, what a coincidence! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. We're having a problem with an edit-warring IP at Al-Andalus. As you can see, this editor has reverted quite a number of times, just today. The IP insists on changing the text, supported by, at least according to this person, a self-published book that is certainly not a reliable source, and on removing a cite of book published by Oxford University Press. Carlstak ( talk) 01:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Still reverting my categorisation. No attempt to communicate. This seems to be almost the only article they have ever edited. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, you warned the user about an edit war on another article. Unfortunately, I took a look at the edits Brightstarrrr had made to the List article, and I restored the article back before the editor had touched the article. I have left (standard) warnings on the user's Talk page, including the latest this morning about edit-warring. I am also edit-warring; I rarely revert more than twice, but in this case the user's edits make the article look so ugly I regard them as close to vandalism, if not technically fitting within the definition of vandalism. I would block the user if this were happening between them and another editor, but obviously I am involved and cannot. Up to you if you wish to take any action.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I was banned for confronting a visible vandalizer named https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Adhonorium&action=view (Adhonorium), this user literally disrupted the Maratha Empire page(which I later rectified) but he's still free! How come?! What's your actual intention?! I'd await your reply & see if he's blocked as well. Bramhesh Patil ( talk) 07:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, EdJohnston. Why you protect " Djibouti" page? 114.10.24.75 ( talk) 11:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, This is with reference to User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_51#User:Bhaskarbhagawati. I just want to update you that the user has started editing. Please look at this exchange and this . Chaipau ( talk) 15:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello User:EdJohnston,
Please see talk page on 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus. This has been resolved two days ago. no need to continue with threats.
DmitryShpak ( talk) 21:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I think we have a new sock ( Aratigran) for Araxes TheThief. Other editors have also been suspicious [11]. -- Semsûrî ( talk) 10:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Unexplained reversion Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Ed, I realize that you are not too active at the moment but since I mentioned your previous interactions with Bhaskarbhagawati in my comment at this AE report, I thought I'd drop you a note in case you wish to chime in. Just an fyi. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 22:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello i was wondering if you saw my comment here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Foorgood_reported_by_User:Celia_Homeford_(Result:_) stating i concede to the other two users and wont make another change to the sentence they were editing. I give you my word i will not edit war again. Foorgood ( talk) 19:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Me and Kevo327 were warned for the edit wars. We asked to reach the consensus before making any reverts. Kevo just did the while we not reached any consensus.
As per [WP:ONUS] The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That Kevo did not wanted to do, so I started talk myself...but Kevo just swapped one partisan source to another and did edit. What shall I do next?
A. C. Santacruz, what do you think?
Thanks-- Abrvagl ( talk) 14:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey Ed, there's an ongoing edit-war between me and this user who's persistently holding on to a sentence he wrote that contradicts the whole section of the article ( Laurel forest). According to scientific literature (that I cited to try to fill in the lack of sources to that section), laurel forests went extinct in Europe around the Pliocene Epoch. From the dozens of papers I've read about laurel forests, I haven't found a single one which mentions their current existence in Europe. Yet, he uses a source promoting a local nature park in Spain to say the contrary [12]. The user is clearly waiting for me to break WP:3RR so he can add that as an excuse, but I won't do that.
You can read the edit history of that article to see the ridiculous excuses he gave [13]. Recently, he also attenuated what the source said and what he wrote to keep it low profile. Instead of a full "laurel forest" like the source says, he changed it to "mixed laurel forest" [14] and instead of saying "the whole park" he changed it to "a small area inside [the park]" [15]. This move is clear original research from his part (or no research at all, just fabrication). The user basically only edits things about his country and despite having no clear knowledge on what a laurel forest is, he'll find any source that agrees with what he thinks and revert anyone who might have a reason to disagree.
What do you think? Thanks and regards. Average Portuguese Joe ( talk) 14:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Lengthy discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi Ed. In December 2021, [16] you issued this LTA IP hopper [17] another range block. They are pursuing a long-standing anti-Iranian and pro-Caucasus agenda. The range block has now ended, so, yet again, he's at it. Mind reinstating it? The range block prevented all disruption basically. Thanks, - LouisAragon ( talk) 00:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Would you be interested in addressing this person's issue(s). Their only , is a childish personal attack.
Translation via google:
Regarding this close you made, why did you semi-protect an article over a dispute between just two editors? Are you aware of the recent background of the dispute, or the editor's (Hipal/Ronz) three-plus year history since he unilaterally seized control of the article? Did you see the editor's pleas for sanctions against me on another noticeboard just a couple weeks ago and his complete disregard to what he was told? Read Uncle G's comments; they beautifully summarize what's been happening. As you can see, the editor didn't get the response he had hoped for, so he tried his luck again on a different noticeboard (the one on which you did the close). Also, look at every thread on the talk page going back to 2018 to see who the common thread is (no pun intended). When an administrator made these block comments to the editor in 2012, I'm sure he had no idea that the types of disruptive editing behavior he so accurately described would still be occurring 10 years later. In any case, how can you justify semi-protecting an article when there's a dispute involving just two editors (one with an account and one without), in addition to knowing his editing history of the article and what he was told very clearly by uninvolved editors on his noticeboard complaint a few weeks ago? The suggestion for using the dispute resolution noticeboard is great, so why also semi-protect the article? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 ( talk) 14:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.1 You'll see that editor also made six additonal edits following his removal of the five sources. Instead of waiting for the repeatedly requested RFC (which you also suggested) and getting significant input from unbiased editors, he decided waiting for consenus wasn't good enough. He claimed ownership of the article and this disputed issue in 2018 and should be banned from editing this article anymore. If that's done, I will agree not to edit it either, or even participate in any discussion if an RfC is started by an outside, unbiased party. I've said enough on the talk page about the issue, and the other editor has said far more than enough. You'll see threads where he talks and talks and talks, non-stop, to himself. Can you please get ask him to revert the edit and then keep him away from the article so that others who are currently uninvolved can finally resolve the matter, which began about 10 years ago? I don't care what the result of an RfC would be; whether other editors ultimately side with him or me. I just want a group of editors to look at this with a reasonable eye and decide on the best and fairest solution. But that is apparently the last thing the other editor wants because it would require him relinquishing control (ownership) of the article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 ( talk) 13:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't notified of this discussion.
The ip has apparently created an account Stoarm ( talk · contribs), where he's followed me to a COI-heavy BLP, Lori Greiner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as returned to edit-warring at Scott Baio [18], even removing completely appropriate reference cleanup. WP:AE?
I didn't realize it was the ip when I reverted this new account, so I self-reverted for the time being. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I saw that you had protected the article "Mosquito Coast" for long term disruption and sockpuppetry. The same guy, discussed several times before, is using the IP address 190.143.242.17 to several connected articles. I've been reverting his edits, again; I get the impression he thinks he'll get his way eventually. He's certainly persistent, I'll say that. Carlstak ( talk) 21:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
So the RfC has come to an end after 30 days, and well, no one other than the users who were already discussing the issue before participated, me and Gooduserdude agreed that the map that was removed should stay, but Shimbo and Sapphorain were against it, but couldn't decide what should replace it (or if anything should):
/info/en/?search=Talk:Hypothetical_Axis_victory_in_World_War_II#RfC_on_map_in_lead
What is your opinion? -- 2804:248:f6f7:5f00:658b:becc:a353:7fba ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Liberaltarian12345 has continued edit-warring at Socialist Labor Party of America after the block ended and apparently still has no grasp about how to build consensus. See [19] and [20].-- User:Namiba 15:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I made my point. Objectively I am in the right and I am editing the page to make it more accurate. Liberaltarian12345 ( talk) 16:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Sheesh, it never ends. I hope you're doing well, Ed. We've been having a good bit of trouble with a belligerent IP coming from a certain range at the Barbacoa article. Some of the lowlights include: this edit with a summary that ends "Stop lying to people"; this one, which they cap off with "You're all dumb"; and this with a choice f-bomb summary. I'm getting tired of reverting this SPA who wants to have it their way with a statement not in the given source, which they leave in place. Carlstak ( talk) 22:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, you protected TVXQ indefinitely in 2017. However, I don't think that protection is needed anymore and Wikipedia articles should be open to editing as possible. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I'm having trouble with an IP going off in long diatribes with extreme personal attacks on this talk page. Samples include "you are a Marxist agitator and propagandist", "Skunkwipe!", "Maoist scum!" "asshole!", "you two ding dongs", "neocommunists", and "your a fascist!", to be seen here. I keep removing his personal attacks, and he just responds with more of the same. Carlstak ( talk) 05:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Happy First Edit Day! Hi EdJohnston! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! interstatefive ( talk) - just another roadgeek 00:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
![]() |
Happy First Edit Day, EdJohnston, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
[21]. To be honest, I wanted to ask during this 3RR report: which of these 4 diffs you think was not a revert? But I did not because I totally understand your point about collaborative editing. But what is happening now? I returned to editing this page after 3 weeks using "zero reverts" approach, and the user I reported on 3RR repeataedly reverts my edits on this page
[22],
[23],
[24] (this is 3 reverts of my different edits on the same page, none of which was revert, during one day), follows my edits on another page to revert them
[25],
[26] (he never edited this page before), and incorrectly accuses me of a BLP violation
[27], instead of discussing this first on their talk page
[28] (note that edit summary in this diff was misleading: I posted question on the user talk page before they posted "BLP violation" on article talk page). Can I please consider your warning void? Needless to say, I am not going to edit war on this page.
My very best wishes (
talk)
11:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
<ins>...</ins>
(as per
WP:TALK#REPLIED).
M.Bitton (
talk)
00:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Hi Ed, well, our old friend the "Mosquito Coast" guy is back at it with a different IP and another user name,"Whentimecomes"; his new kick is going back to all the related articles to change text to redlinked "Mosquito Reservation" from "the Miskito Nation" (this is the same one who previously changed every mention of "Miskito" to "Miskitu". God knows what it's going to be next. This is getting to be ridiculous. Carlstak ( talk) 17:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
is live -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you can review this draft and provide any feedback on whether there are any issues. It seems many admins are against a new paid editor making a new page and I can understand their reasons, but even if I have made mistakes I need to start some place and if this draft is really terrible, I will advice my client to hire a paid editor that has more experience than me (someone who has a track record of accepted pages). My plan is to contribute more edits, so I won't be here just for this client. I would appreciate if you can spend a few minutes and let me know what you think. Dwnloda ( talk) 07:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry, but the template for this article contains bias and double standards. Why didn't you mention which country the unrecognized state belonged to? Why is it said that this unrecognized state is recognized by unrecognized states? However, the article of those unrecognized states is not like the article "Artsakh". Why are you doing this? Is it possible to know the reason? Sword313 ( talk) 16:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Dr.AndrewBamford is now evading his block with an IP [29] to restore all his edits related to university rankings. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 17:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Please consider reinstating the block on IP address 216.246.144.248, where the editor has again removed images without discussion or explanation, see User talk:216.246.144.248#Edit warring to remove images at Ed Roland and Dean Roland. Verbcatcher ( talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This is in regards to the page
Abd El-M'umin, it was reported that the page contains erroneous information. It only makes sense to put the status of the page as in dispute, when other users made provisions to present the information accurately. The page must adhere to neutral point of views yet disseminate irrefutable pieces of information. I invite you to look into this, and it is in accordance with Wikipedia editing policies.
SamSilvergate (
talk) 18:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fma12. As you had suggested, this is now being discussed at a noticeboard; not sure if WP:ANI#Fma12 and legal threats and keeplocal is perfectly appropriate, but you may like to have a look as I've mentioned your close there now. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, hope you are well, @ EdJohnston [ [30]] according to your decision on article Zachumlia me and editor Santasa99 were both warned and will be blocked if we edit without reaching consensus on talk page, that was something that was officially posted on their talk page too [ [31]] since then nothing happened on talk page, actually I was the one that had support from other editor [ [32]] but today Santasa99 made the same disruptive editing on the page Zachumlia [ [33]], which means they broke the official warning. Can you please react. Thank you. Theonewithreason ( talk) 02:20 09.July 2022 (UTC)
Good day. If I understand our policies and guidelines well, enough time has passed since we stumbled over this issue (more than a half a year has passed) for me to start new round of BRD process. I have made my edit along with a TP elaboration - editor who filed this report had to be reminded by you, Ed, to join earlier discussions, and now again to join current one. This is actually constant problem within Balkans scope, where editors suddenly appear from their home wikis to establish a local consensus on ethnicity in contradiction with a wider consensus on the same thing and its application in articles on medieval histories This is done by Serbian as well as some Croatian editors, especially in articles about Montenegro and Bosnia, by strength of sheer editors number, since number of Bosnian and Montenegrin editors is so insignificant that we rarely get opposing view from them (there is almost zero outside participants on these topics, which hugely complicating things). But most problematic aspect is that discussion and process of reaching a consensus is almost always bogged down by misinterpretation of what actually sources say (which is, to a neutral editor with some grasp on medieval history and nature of ethnicity and ethnic labeling in any part of the old world, immediately visible from those discussions - most recent examples where I participated are Talk:Zachlumia, especially very last round, and Talk:Crnojević noble family).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 19:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Theonewithreason ( talk) 19:34 09.July 2022 (UTC)
A criticism of this approach. Whatever the solution is in this case, this editing-by-RFC idea just does not work EdJohnston. As an observer of this talk page who has been victim to this same experimental approach to Wikipedia, and seen it fail very badly on the article
Goths I'd like to make it clear once more that it does not work, unless stopping editing is our aim. It basically meant the article could no longer be edited. There is a good reason Wikipedia does not normally work by using RFC's. This just doesn't work. After 2 or 3 RFCs people just can't be bothered to approve every single edit, and the article is left stuck. People who want to freeze questionable material long term into articles are automatically "winners". BRD stops. This approach seems to me to be a personal preference that is in very direct conflict with the Wikipedia way of working. I have never seen any other admin demand it. Past attempts to discuss the problems of principle in this bad approach give the impression that you insist your "rulings" need to be treated like legal precedents by a judge, and not tainted by debate. That's really bad IMHO. To me it is still 100% clear that Wikipedia is not a place for experiments in democracy, or bureaucracy. Also wikilawyering, which is strongly encouraged and rewarded by this approach (which is why I had to start watching this page, given the chaos you encouraged), is NOT the aim of Wikipedia. This approach creates a situation where all discussion has to revolve around how to interpret your laws, and begging. That is bad. WP:NOT is arguably the most fundamental policy of WP. These experiments are a major distraction from good quality editing. IMHO BRD should be the standard approach except for special cases and temporary situations, surely? There is wide community consensus for this way of working. How can you convince anyone including yourself that this is not just about the thrill of exercising personal discretionary power? Please stop experimenting this approach, and at the very least please give such cases an expiry date!! You have no right to create permanent fiefdoms within WP which no longer follow WP core policies, but follow your personal laws.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
19:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi I’m new to wiki, but… why did you block me? I wouldn’t have written anything untrue. Gypsy jazz Retreats ( talk) 21:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, a sockpuppeteer whom you had blocked in the past and confirmed by CU is active again with his disruptive behavior (for which he got blocked). Was unfortunately handed a light block by another admin, considering his sock ( User:Sitush7) was impersonating a venerable editor ( User:Sitush) among other things. Should be mentioned that the same user has also uploaded a boatload of copyrighted images on Commons falsely claiming them as his own ( see here), which he has linked quite extensively here on enwiki articles. The user now impersonates another person, by using a copyvio image on his userpage (caption: "This is my picture from 14th August, 2021 (Pakistan's Independence Day)"); which is of a popular actress Pakistani actress ( Nazish Jahangir).
Clearly the user's intention is not to contribute and build an encyclopedia, made clear by the disruptive edits, copyvio images with false claims on them, and the impersonation of others. This is unlikely to stop, especially considering that he continues with the same behavior even after the three-month block. Please see if the block can be made permanent in light of this. Thanks. Gotitbro ( talk) 00:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
hello EdJohnston can you remove the lock on the Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem it's been a month I'm new on Wikipedia it's very hard for me to find sources other than government sources I did find news articles and allegedly copyrighted. Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem is like a vice mayor of a city I used the same sources things on the Los Angeles County chair article you already locked my editing access for 1 month so can you please remove the locked on the Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:2902:64F4:6099:43C0:F052:6E5B ( talk) 04:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
On my talk page, see [36] Doug Weller talk 09:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEGMse-VCgs
Hi Ed, apparently this guy wants to make a career out of this. As you know, he's back at it with the IP addresses. Here's his latest activity; I see that you've already protected some of the articles, but there're more as you can see. Could you protect them too? Thanks, Carlstak ( talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Since you are the admin most familiar with Skylax30's past disruption when they were more active in controversial Balkan issues. A report has been filed at ANI/I on what appears to be a canvassing attempt on elwiki by Skylax30 [37]. Can you take a look at it if time permits? I note that they removed well sourced content on Souliotes before going to post on elwiki [38] [39]. Even the post on elwiki is not good. There they call the content they do not agree with Albanian and Turkish propaganda. Turks are not in any way involved in the content dispute, but in Greek nationalist narratives Albanians are Turks based on ethnic and religious prejudice. Not a good look for an editor who apart from the long block log on enwiki, has an extraordinarily long block on elwiki [40]. I do not want to comment at ANI/I as such reports might easily become walls of text - if you as an admin who has interacted with Skylax in the past are interested in taking a look at the report, that is much better. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct on Portal:Current Events and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Carter00000 ( talk) 10:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding
this block for a week (10 days ago), they are back continuing the same pattern. Now at
2607:FEA8:6999:AA00:D10B:7AC8:E60F:D498 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS). They are very detail orientated and make some useful changes (see
this edit where they have used the correct dash character in a date range). But in the same edit, they are adding small font to an infobox (
MOS:SMALL), and overlinking ([[Indianapolis, Indiana]], U.S.
to ([[Indianapolis, Indiana|Indianapolis]], [[Indiana]], [[United States|U.S.]]
To preserve the good changes, I have be manually fixing instead of just reverting everything they do, which is very time consuming. Thanks for your help. MB 14:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
An arbitration case to which you were a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The declining arbitrators felt that the request was premature. For the Committee, GeneralNotability ( talk) 21:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with this one but I keep seeing this user pop up in a ton of articles and mostly the same ones as this user that you blocked PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gilley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Tom Reedy (
talk)
02:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Original title of this thread was: "A concern"
I believe that user:Khorazmiy has competency issues concerning the English language.
I reverted them after they added information, out of context, into a paragraph that makes no mention of the Simjurids, Simjur al-Dawati, or even Turks! They posted on the talk page:" Stop deleting the text about the Simjurids, which directly refers to the reign of Ahmad ibn Ismail and is based on reliable sources."
I responded as to why I removed the information, out of context.
User:Khorazmiy then responded with almost the exact same comment," The Simjurids were the governors of the Samanids in Khorasan, which is confirmed by reliable sources."
Thus ignoring what I said, since the paragraph in question states:
Do you see any mention of Simjurids, Simjur al-Dawati, or even Turks, in that paragraph?
I warned them of WP:CIR, since their response seemed repititious and failed to address my concerns, I can only conclude said user is using a translator and does not have the necessary language competency to edit this Wikipedia. Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, HistoryofIran posed numerous questions to Khorazmiy concerning the Simjurids. Khorazmiy instead responds(copy & paste?) with information about the Samanids and side note about their "governors"(all unsourced) and ignores HistoryofIran's questions completely.-- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Ed. Just thought I'd let you know that after this incident, there have been follow-ups and if I have done wrong myself since that time, I am aware of BOOMERANG. I made a new report here. Thanks. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 20:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I hope this finds you well.
I am contacting you regarding a recent edit warring report I have filed for U:JulesAgathias. The action you have taken to this was "both users warned", which deeply disappointed me as I've made a very clear case that what Jules engages in is little more than vandalism.
I'd like to make the matter clearer and shorter to you; I have added information to the article, regarding a wide scope (background, battle, aftermath, etc) and have added citations to every single bit I have written. Jules then edited the article, and removed certain bits of information that I added; all specifically pertaining to number strengths of the Ottoman army, and wrote a message on my talk page saying "they do not constitute sources". I then went over the matter and re-added the information, this time taking care to add the citations with page numbers included in them.
Jules then made a revert once again. And I dutifully assumed he still has an issue with clarity or formatting, to that end I re-added the information and made the wording on the citations clearer, and included links to archive.org where the user can verify the information himself instead of deleting it outright. Jules then made another revert, and here I went to discuss the matter with him on his talk page. The response made by Jules in his talk page can be seen here, and I'll quote it in full;
"According to Mustapha Pasha" constitutes as much of a source as Napoleon's own correspondances or memoirs. They, in both cases, remain personal (and contemporary) takes reported, not assertions by modern historians. The former do not take precedence over the latter. And yes, I did read Connelly, Pawly and Isenberg's books (in case you didn't notice, some of the page references in the articles were done by myself). I also read the portion of Richet and Furet's "French Revolution" discussing the battle. I don't know if you did, but you should. In the latter, it is written that the Ottoman army was 18,000-strong (I don't know where the 15,000 came from but it is certainly not from that book; I don't know if you were the one to add it) and they highlight that according to Seid Mustafa (so Mustapha Pasha), only 8,000 of the Ottoman soldiers were in a condition to face the French at the time (likely also referencing the correspondance). They were certainly close but not quite right as Mustapha actually had stated only 7,000 men were, which is why removed the former about the 8,000 and maintained the 7,000 claim as it was actually what Mustapha said.
The suggestion was that some of the men who faced the French troops at Abukir suffered from disease by the time the Ottoman army landed at Aboukir Bay. However, nowhere was it suggested in the sources on the page and the ones you yourself linked, that 7,000 troops represented the strength of the Ottoman army. We clearly know more than 7,000 men were there considering the casualties. The choice of putting that first and foremost in the infobox (and above Connelly and Pawly's estimates at that) is not strange?! I also purchased Strathern's book after your edits (I properly linked it in the references at the end of the article as you hadn't done so, which you then removed again seemingly......). I read the portion relating to Abukir. Strathern reported what Mustapha had stated to Smith about the state of his army (having just a few thousand men in his force fit to fight the enemy) just like the French historians mentioned above did. Those weren't personal estimates on the Ottoman strength he gave.
Regarding British involvement: there was a lack of consistency. Britain is not listed as a belligerent in the infobox next to the Ottoman Empire. You can add it, which then justifies adding Smith to the commander section or leave both Britain and Smith out. I chose to do the latter until it was addressed in the Talk Page. That was my only issue in that regard, so you do what do what you see fit"
Jules first issue with the information I cited is that it is "primary" and does not take precedence over academic sources; to this end, I had actually cited both primary and academic sources, so he is wrong on this count. 2nd of all, Jules mentions other information on the article in the following statement; "I also read the portion of Richet and Furet's "French Revolution" discussing the battle. I don't know if you did, but you should. In the latter, it is written that the Ottoman army was 18,000-strong "I don't know where the 15,000 came from but it is certainly not from that book; I don't know if you were the one to add it", this was not added by me, it was added by some other user, which Jules had deleted. Jules claims this is fake information, and claims to have red the source material it came from, but judging from his track record so far in refusing to read citations I include and in light of something interesting I'll mention later I strongly doubt that Jules has actually verified whether that information is wrong or not or even have read Richet & Furet's "French Revolution". Jules' 3rd gripe is a lot of SYNTH and original research, which does not belong in a wikipedia page (I do not want to add any numbers from my pocket or such, only ones mentioned in sources, primary or secondary). Jules ends his paragraph by conceding that he was wrong about British participation in the battle (before, he would remove it and claim that no where in my sources it is mentioned that the British participated in any direct capacity in the battle, even though I had plastered an archive.org link in his face with the page number so he can read contemporary letters showing otherwise, but he finally conceded when I had actually copied the contents of this letter to the page, so in a sense Jules had helped grow the article's informational capacity with his biased edit warring).
To close all of this, I would like to mention once again that Jules' talk page is filled with edit warring complaints and accusations of bias. I am not here to fight petty wars over people who imbibe the concoction of nationalism, I wanted to, and took pride in adding more to Wikipedia articles, and remove misinfo wherever I found it, to help inform readers. Jules to me is an outrage against the idea of a neutral informational library or platform, he's trying to push his biases in a variety of pages regarding French history or French matters, and I was deeply disappointed to know that I was warned over my conduct even though I had attempted to discuss this matter with Jules, and responded to him diligently, while he dismissively and conveniently claimed that the "reply function" to my thread was "blocked", and went ahead and continued pruning things out of the article.
Best, looking forward to hear from you on this. Sormando ( talk) 05:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for your help here The User:Akshaypatill deleted the section again + deleted another edit from user at the same time on the same talk page! Thanks for following up. 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F ( talk) 12:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
After five years, what a long journey it has been. I am now going to retire from editing on Wikipedia. I feel like I don't wanna contribute anymore. Goodbye. (ps pls permanently block me as I am retired.) RapMonstaXY ( talk) 10:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know where to report this, so putting it here. This person has been adding unsourced content in various articles and is continuing to do so despite multiple warnings in talk page. The user has no plans to change. The latest addition is [46] (premise for an unreleased film). 2409:4073:4E99:4FB4:98BB:14CF:C514:20B5 ( talk) 18:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. I see that you've just recently (three hours ago) left a comment at TU-nor's talk page. I'm pretty sure the user Whoforwho that's been commenting there, and whose edits to the article page I've reverted as sockpuppetry, is the persistent Mosquito Coast sockmaster who's caused so much trouble and wasted so many editors' time. And now it appears that he may actually have his own article on WP? Oh, the irony.
Per your remark on 26 July 2022, I've assembled a list of the usernames and IP's used by this person (many descriptive adjectives come to mind).
Usernames:
IP addresses:
Doubtless there are more, but these are what I've found. Carlstak ( talk) 19:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I had to going this talk about this "Mosquito Coast Guy". Becasue I must assure everyone here, that this user is not related to me. I'm not from the "Mosquito Coast", nor from Central America. My edits that I'm currently making to the articles relating to the "Mosquito Coast" are base on information that I found on the internet relating to the same topic, and are even more accurate than most cited sources on this article. Our edits should not be bias, they should be neutral. I'm not supporting the Mosquito Coast, I'm supporting the neutrality of historical information. Whoforwho ( talk) 02:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Refer to your own archive, here. The same editor has recently edited at Alex the Astronaut see diff and at Megan Washington (and associated album article), see diff. A person named Cathy Oates is owner/chief manager of Original Matters talent agency. Washington and Alex the Astronaut are clients. Since July 2021 that person is also Head of Marketing for Warner Music Australia. [1] shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 05:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
References
Could I ask you to provide an outside opinion regarding the notability tag on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Indiana? User:FormalDude added the tag a few days ago. User:Rollidan and myself have added material to the article over the past couple days and identified a number of independent (none of the sources are from the LDS Church), reliable sources that, imo, have sufficient significant coverage to satisfy the presumed notability threshold of WP:GNG. I boldly removed the tag this afternoon but was quickly reverted by FormalDude, with an edit summary saying they didn't see independent significant coverage in the new sources. So I don't perpetuate a tagging edit war, I'd like to ask for an outside opinion. If you could take a look at the sources and provide feedback with respect to the sources and such, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 00:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
(Advance sorry for my bad English)
Please stop this user @ Toomanyyearskodakblack: He is involved in Pro- Imran Khan and PTI party POV & propaganda edits against the political opponent collision government of ( Pakistan Democratic Movement) and also against the military Leadership.
For example see some of his edits:
Maryam Nawaz: [50], [51], [52],
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari: [54], [55]
Fazal-ur-Rehman (politician): [56]
Against military
Nadeem Anjum: [ [60]]
Other article
Journalist Gharida Farooqi: [61] [62]
This user created account month ago and only used account for abusive and descriptive edits, from day first he starts POV and propganda edits, he was multiple times warned for them by the other editors and reverted his edits but this user refused to listen and again restored them and starts edit war at several articles, "please see his block and talk page history" and also edit war history. [64]
Also these two PakistanHistorian Agent0503 accounts are involved in same POV and propganda edits, they has same editing pattern I believed these accounts are also the Sock's of Toomanyyearskodakblack. 103.255.6.109 ( talk) 17:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Here [65] at Qamar Javed Bajwa article, You are using Imran Khan's political allegations statement and adding nick name of Army Leader as a "Ghaddar e Watan" which means in English "Traitor of Nation"
EdJohnston also see this [66] this user starts creating articles from first day, like an experienced user and created 4 articles,
He was involved in POV and Propaganda edits, starts creating articles from first day, continuously engaged in edit war's at several articles with editors and refused to listen them, it's clearly says this user is an experienced user, possibly a "Sock" that's only using this account for POV and propaganda on Wikipedia.
After these proofs and this users received POV and Edit war warnings from other editors are enough to permanently ban this user, launch sock puppet investigation and revert all of his propaganda edits. 111.119.178.168 ( talk) 00:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
As you are already aware, you had topic banned USaamo from "from the topic of wars between India and Pakistan". [67]
Until now he has violated it multiple times, [68] [69] as recently as May 2022.
He just violated this topic ban again on
Two-nation theory right
here by removing content about "sub-nationalities of Pakistan, with Bengalis seceding from Pakistan after the
Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971
", the same page (Bangladesh Liberation War) about which he was warned back in 2020.
[70]
Either a block or expansion of his topic ban is clearly warranted now per my explanation here about 2 weeks ago, as well as this recent topic ban violation. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
sub-nationalities of Pakistan, with Bengalis seceding from Pakistan after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971". The edit concerns the same page ( Bangladesh Liberation War) about which he was warned back in 2020. [72] WP:TBAN is clear that its a violation even if it concerns "
parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do" with the topic banned area. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 02:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
India-Pakistan only involved at the last stage of event making both belligerentsand you are still falsely accusing me of wikihounding when I have already provided evidence that I am editing this article for years. I am in support of the extension of your topic ban because you have failed to stay away from this year these 2 years as evident from your frequent violations of your topic ban. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 07:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
EdJohnston Just because I stopped replying to USaamo because he was not getting it, he has again violated the topic ban here by restoring his edit that removed large chunk of sourced content and violated his topic ban by touching content about Bangladesh Liberation War. I don't think he should be let-off again, given this is yet another topic ban violation by him. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 17:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello Meta and Tek Fog stories are pending to be added in the page The Wire (India). Many users arugued its addition, but till today the stories are not part of the main article. Requesting your intervention 103.51.138.251 ( talk) 15:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, there are recent edits on the University of Manchester by an IP editor 188.31.1.46 ( talk · contribs) that appear from the tone and content very likely to be block evasion by Dr.AndrewBamford ( talk · contribs), who you blocked permanently in June for exactly this sort of behaviour. I wasn't not sure how to proceed with this – I found a policy saying that edits made in violation of a block can be reverted, but not who can decide that it actually is block evasion or where to make a report. Thanks for any assistance/advice! Robminchin ( talk) 02:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this ever happened? Is it still your intention?-- Ponyo bons mots 15:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am writing to you concerned about moderator Wes Sideman (whom I have linked to below). He seems to have an obsession with this television character “Chad Johnson” from the TV show “The Bachelorette” and his Wikipedia page. He continues to change the notoriety of Chad Johnson from his TV shows, to his arrest records attempting to defame him. Those charges were dropped and as you can see in the video below, his girlfriend admits no assault happened. Apparently Wes Sideman knows more than the two people actually involved in the incident. Wes Sideman also continues to remove any remotely good press about Chad from the Wikipedia page. For some reason Wes has been monitoring and harassing this Wikipedia page for over two years now. If you have time, I would ask or suggest that you look into doing something about this Wes Sideman moderator using an abuse of power on Wikipedia. It is my request that you block Wes Sideman from continuing to commit vandalism on this page and others, he continues to remove any positive press articles or information and continues to edit and falsify information to his liking. Please discontinue his ability to modify this page. Thank you. Admission of no assault - https://youtu .be/qyK8-_kaVt8 Examples of Wes Sideman’s edits - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1116808783 Wes Sideman’s page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Wes_sideman&action=view Chad Johnson’s Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Johnson_(TV_personality) 193.192.116.74 ( talk) 20:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Page:
Klete Keller (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
User being reported:
Wes sideman (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Previous version reverted to: before last revert
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82] [83] [84]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [85]
Comments: in addition to this:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:EdJohnston#Wes_Sideman_Abuse_of_Power Ironically, in a completely unrelated matter, Please be informed that wes sideman is again causing problems and edit warring another article about Klete Keller. (@Wes sideman: You need to stop now. When you point a finger at another, you point four at yourself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk)
17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)) - It seems to be a pattern. He was warned by another admin @Deepfriedokra: and he recommended to block him (
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&diff=next&oldid=1120943837) , As the previous complaint here states he falsified information to his liking and monitors and harasses. As he did with the Chad Johnson page, he becomes obsessed and does not want any remotely good press, even edit warring over the simple order in the lead of Klete Keller's impressive USA Olympic gold medal accomplishments BEFORE his minor participation in Jan 6. Another respected editor (SecretName101) clearly stated her case of the correct order in which the lead should be: "This being said, as far as the lead sentence, it seems pretty clear to me that it should mention that he is a swimmer first, then that he committed a crime. SecretName101 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)" --But he caviled into getting his way and reverted it AGAIN without any input from secretname101. Secretname101 still does not feel the lead is correct, and for good reason. sideman "acts" like he's a moderator/admin and that's why the person who reported wes sideman on admin EdJohnstons talk page was confused. Thank You.
208.78.105.40 (
talk)
18:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
/* Original title was: Article protection */
Good day to you, User:EdJohnston. In the article [Imam_Shamil], which you recently protected, there is a long-term vandalising edits. Editors delete sources with misinformation comments. In particular User:Reiner Gavriel breaks his own consensus version, which I can track as early as 1 year and 5 months ago, and he tries to wipe out some sources now. There are some accusations the editor makes in every edit, which are completely false as per even brief validation of the sources and comparison to the Russian Wikipedia. But the editor ignores the discussion where he is addressed — /info/en/?search=Talk:Imam_Shamil#Ancestry. There is also some unpleasant methods of editing, such as using anonymous edits. My question is, how can this issue be regulated?-- HamzatCan ( talk) 07:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am curious what is your reason for removing rankings from the ranking tables, leaving only a select few? This implies that they are somehow greater than the ones ommitted, which is not the case. They assess the universities from a different angle.
Particularly, with the University of Manchester, a ranking table has recently been removed which has been in place on the article, and the one that has been "restored" is in fact a very recent edition that wasnt there to start with. I have noticed in particular a user named Robminchin who has pushed for these changes over a long period of time on various pages, and it is now evident that he has managed to omit rankings from a number of university pages. I am suspicious of his reasoning to omit certain rankings, whilst keeping others.
I think it is logical to display all rankings, as an encyclopeadia, rather than providing rankings based on our own opinions of which is superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.226.1 ( talk) 20:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This is just precious! LMAO -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 13:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ EdJohnston! This user QuidditchCup53 has posted two hours ago on the talk page of Aristeus01. You've moved ( [86]) his writing ( [87]) to the bottom. I noticed that he has absolutely the same user page ( [88], [89]) as Aristeus01 and he's again waging edit war on History of Transylvania (page history: [90]). See his contribs: [91] and recent reverts: [92], [93]. Gyalu22 ( talk) 19:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Hey Ed! Thought I would ask you how to delete an article and the particulars surrounding that. The article in question is Hunnic invasion of the Sasanian Empire.
From the sources given, it is clear this is just a raid and I am not sure if notability or what comes into play. The entire article, which is made up of two paragraphs(maybe!), could be added to the Bahram IV article.
Thoughts? Suggestions? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston,
It’s profoundly disappointing that I was blocked for attempting to maintain the status quo ante bellum while a discussion was ongoing on the talk page regarding the contentious edits in question on Sheikh Hasina. LucrativeOffer reverted my edits on more than three occasions, why was no such action taken against them? The user has a long-standing track record of violating the three revert rule so I am crestfallen why they were issued a mere warning to “observe” while I was blocked. The reason I reverted the edits on more than three occasions was because the edits were under discussion, it was inappropriate for LucrativeOffer to continuously reinsert content which was contentious and under discussion (I did not insert my content throughout the course of the discussion). It would be a gross dereliction of duty and blatantly unfair if different treatment is doled out to users who have done the same actions. In future please ensure you take adequate steps to investigate and establish all the facts of the situation before rendering such harsh measures.
Kind regards-- AMomen88 ( talk) 02:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
See last block, although that seems longer ago than I remember their last appearance - I may have missed another report somewhere. Anyway, they are back today. BilCat reverted most and I did more. This time, it is 2607:FEA8:699B:B700:F912:9291:450C:DA52 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks. MB 04:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ EdJohnston would like alert you that i suspect that Atsbi is a sockpuppet of blocked User:Solniun, they have similar writing styles: [94] and [95] Banabakabiroshitha ( talk) 08:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} |
![]() |
Donner60 ( talk) 00:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, are the links you've added on my post for "block request" enough for admin or should I provide more links or diffs? Progrock70s ( talk) 21:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't need to promise anything cause recently I've been providing sources. Also I wasn't familiar with that policy when I first made my account but I really provided sources for all my edits recently. The problem is that Brazilian user, they accuse me when they don't have any evidence, they revert edits with sources and replace them with unsourced ones yet they expect others to provide sources. Basically they act like they're some kind of administer in here while they don't even have an account. Progrock70s ( talk) 19:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
EdJohnston,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See
this for background context.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡
18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ed, re [ [96]] I really don't understand, why he cannot be described as a fraudster when he was convicted of fraud in a court of law? There seems to be an endeavour to whitewash this character possibly to enable him to perpetrate more fraud. Unibond ( talk) 14:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ed, please see [97]. Talking about slow edit warring ( [98]), see [99]. I restored the content again ( [100]). Cheers. - DVdm ( talk) 12:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)