Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53

Edit-warring student editor at Ancient Hawaii

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)

It would be helpful if you would try to communicate with him. You might also contact User:Ian (Wiki Ed) who is apparently serving as an advisor for the course. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
You did see that he deleted my post here? Carlstak (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
User has now been warned for edit warring by Bbb23. Expect consequences soon. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Carlstak (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Wow - that's a lot. I partially blocked them from mainspace, and I'm going to get in touch with their instructor. Thanks for the ping. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Revdel'd as well. Carlstak please feel free to ping me if you run into problems with students editing. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know what this student was thinking. Carlstak (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

To EdJohnston

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)

DinosaursKing, you are risking a block the next time you edit Largest prehistoric animals unless you have obtained a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Protection for Hurricane Sam

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)

Thanks for your note, I have fixed the duration. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

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)

Comment at AN3 and block note

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)

An RfC is often started to deal with an *article* edit war. If the RfC becomes the subject of a *talk page edit war* things are going downhill fast. If you try to change the topic of the RfC after others have already begun to vote, you are (in effect) *invalidating their votes*, without their permission. "My actions were solely abided by the RFC's neutrality dispute policy" sounds like your fight over the RfC wording was purely a magnanimous gesture on your part. This is hard to credit. It sounds to me like you were trying to continue your original edit war by other means. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
But doesn't Responding to an RfC's point 5 say 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)

SPI

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)

I've blocked the confirmed accounts, per this link. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hi 2402:3A80:169D:9BCA:0:19:FA5D:D401 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 09:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

London Action Resource Centre

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)

The sourcing for your edits is not clear. If the matters you describe have been covered in any WP:Reliable sources you could present them on the article talk page. The web site http://antisystemic.org appears to be a WP:Self published source and is unlikely to be reliable for Wikipedia purposes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
As an update, Paki.tv ignored the clear warning on their talkpage and added the disputed text again without consensus. Mujinga (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking action, all the best Mujinga (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
ok i have changed the antisystemic source to an article from Mute (magazine) which clearly covers the same material. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
It's a bizarre edit to add a new citation which doesn't actually cite much; it's even weirder they think that adding this citation on one sentence justifies re-adding the two disputed paragraphs. I've removed the text again and left a longer answer at the talkpage. Mujinga (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Wishes

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)

Checkuser statistics

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)

I think that User:RoySmith has already been able to help you with this question. I don't know the answer myself. If you want to see how many checks have been performed, there is a table at WP:AUDIT/STATS. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's African Americans, Taharka155, and me again

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)

I second Rsk6400's report. This is a gross violation of WP:NPA. –Austronesier (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Taharka155 is now blocked for a week. Continued edit warring and personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring accusation

User:Underthemayofan is now blocked indef for undisclosed COI. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 29 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)

Your best plan is to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. You will be able to get changes made to the article if you are able to persuade the other users that your material is better. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
They are still reverting despite the lack of any consensus. This is a behavioral problem—with Underthemayofan, seeing only those comments which he interprets as supporting his edits and ignoring the rest—and a page-block will probably do good. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I've now blocked Underthemayofan 48 hours for continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
That user is now blocked indef by another admin for undisclosed COI, per ticket:2021122810008593. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I need help with an user that's constantly engaged in edit wars and I don't know how to act.

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)

See a recent AN3 case for how this ended up. Since Weatherextremes is now blocked three months I don't plan to look into the dispute further. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

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)

Rogue "Mosquito Coast" guy is back

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)

I've now blocked BTGOG12 (talk · contribs) indefinitely and 186.77.132.0 (talk · contribs) two months for sockpuppetry. This edit to George Frederic Augustus I was sourced to Lulu Press, a vanity press. The edit even produced a self-published tag in the edit history! EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Yes, I saw that tag, it was new to me as well, and I think it's great.;-) Carlstak (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Can User Khan Bababa's edits be removed?

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)

The page protection was by User:Amortias. See if they are inclined to roll back the changes. But in the mean time, you could give a clearer explanation at Talk:Bajaur Campaign of the changes you want to make. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:WRONG I protected it on the current version. Chuck an edit request on the talk page and drop a message here when its been done so we can make sure were ticking all the boxes. If its as obvious a request as I'd hope the turn around should be fairly quick. Amortias (T)(C) 21:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Rgalo10

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)

Blocked Special:Contributions/174.197.128.0/20 for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

vandalism by PolishBoyInUK and her puppets

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)

I've proposed a one-year block of the 82.25 editor. I can't quite figure him out. He works on a lot of Polish topics making changes that are hard to understand, and the changes usually get reverted. If you notice any articles that deserve semi-protection, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
IP now blocked six months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

A ridiculous cat

Information icon 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)

It's Taharka155 and me again

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)

Left a note for Taharka155. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bengaliwikipro/Archive

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)

I'll try to work on this Wednesday. Still have some notes from the CU work last August and will see if they suggest anything. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
See my results at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bengaliwikipro. No technical evidence against Satnam2408. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Ed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

IP ban evasion

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. Grandmaster 09:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Both IPs are now blocked, per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Guido of Arezzo

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)

This dispute was reported at ANI on January 15. Since User:Pisarz12345 joined the discussion at Talk:Guido of Arezzo#Infobox and has not continued to revert the article since the 15th I would wait and hope that he got the message. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about the "Crimean War"

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)

  • Not strange! If I had contributed to the article in the normal way I would be involved and wouldn't be allowed to take admin actions. The way is open for you to register an account. Then the semiprotection won't restrict you. But the people complaining said you were pushing POV and making unsourced changes. You would have to find some way to correct this, or some way to persuade them that your changes were good. The fact that you used multiple IPs also made it hard to communicate with you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 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)

Semi-protection doesn't prevent discussion; the proper place to discuss the article is on the Talk page. In any event, to clarify Ed's comment above, registration is the first step toward being able to edit a semi-protected article. See WP:SEMI for the other requirements.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
EdJohnston assured me that his actions did not "restrict" me. It can be stated that he is wrong. You are also wrong when you try to deny it.ViewFromRussia (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
You will be able to edit the article after four days and ten edits. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Crashed greek edit warring again after multiple warnings

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)

As to the removal of the AfD notice only, Crashed greek removed it but restored it one minute later in a series of consecutive edits. I would assume therefore that the removal was inadvertent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I could not find an edit by Crashed greek since the warning of 18:05 on 17 January where User:Crashed greek restored a disputed source that had been previously removed. If you notice such an edit, let me know. As I understand it, the sources criticized at RSN were works by Jeneet Sorokhaibam and Abhas Verma. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
actually when the discussion was at its initial stage in WP:RSN, I added back the two disputed sources myself in good faith of Jeneet Sorokhaibam and Abhas Verma, along with the undisputed ones, till we got further opinions so that the user would stop reverting. This is when I did it, 23:38, 13 January 2022,[2]. Yet, even after this, Crashed greek continued reverts, removing the UNdisputed citations, then readding them, mis-arranging them, changing information going against the reliable citations and so on. This is all that he continued, even today and user Slatersteven warned him on his talk page for edit warring [3]. MehmoodS (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The disputed sources of Jeneet Sorokhaibam and Abhas Verma still needs to removed but user Crashed greek will revert even after his opinion has been disagreed on [4]. Your intervention will be helpful to do so. This is the revision that the article needs to be moved to, Revision of 08:11, 13 January 2022, [5]. MehmoodS (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Crashed greek 31 hours for continued warring at Battle of Peshawar (1758), after the warning I gave them at 17 January at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Graham Beards

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)

Perhaps you should discuss this with me on my Talk Page first. If you did not find my response acceptable, tell me why. Blocking another admin and the author of several FAs (on viruses) will not go down well with the community and just seems taking revenge in my view. Graham Beards (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Graham, your good intentions don't render the WP:Edit warring policy null and void. If you can outline a plan for reaching consensus, the 3RR case might go away. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to do that at Talk:Viroid. Graham Beards (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
That would be fine but only if you self-revert your fourth revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Graham Beards: 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)
The improvements to the viroid article, after you accept my unqualified apology. Graham Beards (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Graham, can you do any better than this comment:

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)

I have already summarised the issues here [6], which are open for discussion. Graham Beards (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
'Removing poor edits' is not listed as an exception under WP:NOT3RR. Can you offer a proposal at Talk:Viroid explaining what the 'poor edits' are, and trying to get support for their removal? EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Improvements to the viroid article can be discussed by you and others on the article Talk page; that has nothing to do with me. And I don't understand what you're apologizing for. But at this point the most important thing you can do is self-revert your last changes made on January 20. Then, as long as you don't resume edit-warring at the article, we would be done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I am apologising for missing your comment at WP:ANEW until today and for breaking the 3RR rule, by one revert. I don't intend to edit war at this or any article. I don't have a history of edit warring. It was late, past my bedtime, and I made a mistake. Sorry. Graham Beards (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Your apology is accepted and appreciated, but you still don't address the fourth revert. We're talking about one paragraph that you removed again, and you're more than welcome to seek consensus on the article Talk page that the paragraph should be removed, but you first have to restore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll find the paragraph and happily put it back in: I think it was this one:

"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)

Done [7]. Graham Beards (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Perfect! I will now "close" the ANEW report, and you can proceed to the more important work of improving the article. Best of luck to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians

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 article is semiprotected because it is a nationalist football. You can use the template Template:Edit semi-protected on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

106.79.202.2

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)

This looks to be pure vandalism, so I've blocked the IP for five days. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Age limit for Admins?

Have you seen Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Mandatory retirement/maximum age for admins?? Doug Weller talk 12:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Now I'm worried! EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It's never going to happen. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of COI

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)

I have notified Alexbrn that I have requested your feedback.
Thanks again. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Michael, I don't see any obvious evidence that you have a COI, especially after looking at your user page. There has evidently been a dispute about the Martin Kulldorff article and further steps of WP:Dispute resolution should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Your suggestion for dispute resolution is also well-received. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022

Azərbaycan haqqında yalnış məlumati vermək müəllif hüquqlarni pozurlar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.43.189.98 (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please post in English. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Battle of al-Hasakah (2022)

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)

This page is now EC protected under WP:GS/ISIL by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Great, thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64 evading block

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 new IP has been blocked for a week for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you about this again, but the block has apparently expired and the 240F:113:125:1::/64 IP has resumed the same disruptive overlinking edits. The current IP is 240F:113:125:1:2D9F:FBF8:8358:C176. CodeTalker (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The /64 range has been re-blocked for six months by User:Kinu. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Winter Olympics

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)

An RfC like this one could be added to the article talk page, but I am not willing to enforce the restriction you propose in the last two sentences of User:ErnestKrause/sandbox. That would require an admin board. But meanwhile you could go ahead and start the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Changed the closing sentence of the potential RfC to make it voluntary for participating editors. Let me know if its ready to go. Should the lead section have the "Controversy" sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the lead section of the article be removed in order to make it more neutral for the RfC? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I've just placed the edits as stated and invited all editors to participate on the Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

149.86.88.238

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)

I left a note for the editor and hope they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
EdJohnston I doubt the user will respond because seems like IP number changes and there is a range of this particular IP 149.86.*.*. Currently the user is editing with IP 149.86.90.71. The edits are similar where the user alters/changes the results of the battles without any explanation or source, as well as adds comments in the article which are not supported by the citations. MehmoodS (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I have blocked both of these IPs for a month as suspected open proxies. (See the block log of 149.86.90.71 for a previous proxy block by User:ST47's bot). If you are hoping for a wider block consider requesting one at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The activity that I believe you were targetting immediately resumed on Special:Contributions/149.86.89.154. I have softblocked the /19 range for one year for block evasion. ST47 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bajaur Campaign protection

Since you have protected the page, am I allowed to revert to the appropriate version? Noorullah21 (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not first propose on the talk page the changes you want to make. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@EdJohnston I have, but the user I am arguing with, aka the one that has been disruptive editing has just been ignoring my points claiming I am repeating myself, even though I brought up even more sources, etc. Noorullah21 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
You are technically able to edit the page directly. Be sure to have your arguments ready if there is any resulting controversy. The page at WP:DR also has advice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Martin Kulldorff dispute

Resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 25 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)

Hello, EdJohnston. I hardly think my edit was a revert -- it was normal editing that built on the work of another editor, Foghy -- and my editing affected none of Michael's own words in the article. I think no words in the whole paragraph that surrounds it were Michael's, except for a tag -- which I left as is, because for a month we have avoided editing each other's words besides tagging. I didn't see it as a "violation" to edit a section not written by Michael and partly by me, even if Michael was discussing on the talk page (where other editors didn't seem to agree with his position). My edit was within the range of talk page consensus, and I noted it at the talk page for further discussion. One editor, WhatamIdoing, even thanked me for it. Nobody else has disputed or reverted my edit -- not even User:Alexbrn, whose editing was affected. If anyone had wanted to revert my editing, I would have been all right with that -- my intent was to collaborate. I could have even self-reverted if Michael had suggested it (although other editors have since worked more on the wording). So I don't see why this should be escalated. I would like Michael to be more understanding and forgiving of other editors, even if he often disagrees with edits. I also support returning to normal editing. Llll5032 (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, I am going to take a break from this article per WP:DISENGAGE. Llll5032 (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
P.S.: My edit may have kept Michael's "disputed" tag in the wrong part of the sentence. I apologize to him for this mistake and thank him for fixing it. Llll5032 (talk) 20:12, 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)

The discussion at Talk:Martin Kulldorff seems to be making progress so I don't see any need for me to intervene. If you are hesitating about making any particular edit, you can always pre-announce it on Talk and see if anyone disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, EdJohnston. Llll5032 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

request

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. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Sorry, I don't see what this is referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Mplssouthside

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)

Hello. You are here under the Mplsnirvana account, so does that mean you found the password after all? EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 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)

OK, so I can block Mplssouthside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and let you continue to edit as Mplsnirvana? EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. Thank you! Mplsnirvana (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thanks for the good wishes User:CAPTAIN RAJU! EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

2001:EE0:4370:701C:A053:D4D9:3DD5:128C

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)

@CodeTalker: Checking, I see that I also blocked the larger /48 range, making the /64 block redundant, so I have removed it. (The log reason I gave when I unblocked is misleading, because at the time I had not checked all of the relevant history.) Whenever I consider blocking any IPv6 address, I always first check the editing history of the relevant /64 range, and if, as in this case, there is no other editing, or only editing which is clearly from the same person, I block the /64 range. That is because the substantial majority of ISPs allocate a whole /64 range to one user, with the result that blocks on individual IPv6 are usually totally ineffective, as the editor just moves to another IP address in the range. On this occasion, further study of the editing history made it clear that the same person had been active over a longer period on an even larger range, and that there had been no editing from other, constructive, editors in that range, so I blocked that range, making my first block redundant, and Ed's block, which came later, is redundant too. JBW (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. It appears that this is resolved unless the original dispute resumes. The two articles listed above are now under semiprotection. Let me know if anything else is affected. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding SPI: Bengaliwikipro

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)

Two editors who are in conflict with User:Surtsicna

/* Original section title was: A concern */

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)

I am notifying all the mentioned users. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I strongly suspect we are seeing yet another reincarnation of the eternally banned Guilherme Styles. His persistence is fascinating; it's been nearly a decade now. Surtsicna (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Ed, it would appear that said IP(returned on the 28 February) and Thiago.moreira.gomes have chosen to ignore your notifications. The IP has reverted Surtsicna twice on Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Problem with an edit-warring IP at Al-Andalus

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)

User:Daniel Case has blocked the single IP listed above for 24 hours. It is possible that a wider range might need blocking if this continues. For example, one that also covers 2A04:4A43:4DAF:C3D6:917:85E4:D44D:E687 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (One possibility for a wider block is 2a04:4a43:4d00::/40 (talk · contribs). Meanwhile I am semiprotecting Al-Andalus. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Best, Carlstak (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Ogidigada

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)

Now blocked. See my update at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
As soon as they were unblocked they did it again.Rathfelder (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Your warning

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)

"the user's edits make the article look so ugly"
I'm sorry I didn't know articles were supposed to be beautiful, top models...
My version is sourced, complete, up to date and more appealing. Your version is equally sourced, but incomplete and old-fashioned. Please, look at sources dates (that's important).
I've worked really hard to improve this article.
I hope you respect it.
Thanks in advance. Brightstarrrr (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Brightstarrrr. Hard work is appreciated, but what looks good to you may not look good to others. You should be obtaining consensus for any changes that encounter opposition. If you revert that article again (without getting consensus on the talk page) you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Ed, the user reverted after I warned them of edit-warring and told them I would file a report at WP:ANEW. However, because their revert was before your warning above, I let it go. At the same time, Schazjmd began work on the article, and, as I said at the article Talk page, I thought their edits were a significant improvement over the April version and, obviously, Brightstarrrr's version. Then, Brightstarrrr reverted yet again, and Schzjmd filed a report at ANEW. I think this relatively new user has some real problems with competence and collaboration, in addition to the obvious disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
User is now partially blocked for 31 hours by another admin for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding biased ban on me

I was banned for confronting a visible vandalizer named https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

This is a case that was reported at WP:AN on March 3. The article in question was Maratha Empire, but the actual complaint was for incivility by you. My admin action was to block you for incivility. If we look at User talk:Adhonorium, we can still see your message, "You've maniacally desecrated the Maratha Empire Wikipedia page on accounts of your Hindu-phobia.." Your statement violates our policy on WP:Personal attacks. Though the edits by Adhonorium were apparently not good, they have not continued since February 13. In the future, you see what you think are improper edits by Adhonorium or anyone else, you can use the article talk page or report them to an administrator. Such reports should be made calmly and without attacking the character of the other editor. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Why?

Hi, EdJohnston. Why you protect "Djibouti" page? 114.10.24.75 (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the message I left in the article's protection log:
18:32, 23 April 2021 EdJohnston talk contribs block changed protection settings for Djibouti (Edit: Require extended confirmed access) (indefinite)(Persistent disruptive editing: Somalia/Somaliland revert warring. Protected per WP:ARBHORN).
Let me know if you have further questions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati

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 edit. Chaipau (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you think anyone has violated WP:ARBIPA here? This user remains under a topic ban from the languages of Assam, both in articles and on talk pages, but I am unaware that editing of The Kashmir Files raises those issues. To scold people for leaving ARBIPA alerts (labeled as 'spurious warnings') certainly appears to be tempting fate. Can you tell me why this film is controversial? EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, I think I understand now—you meant an action will be triggered if they "resumed editing" Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty specifically. Makes sense.
I am not sure WP:ARBIPA has been violated, but it is close to being violated from the discussions. It is controversial because uses Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus as a context and, according to the critics, it has been lax with facts and Islamophobia, reports BBC.[10].
Chaipau (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Joining in support; this user needs a t-ban from ARBIPA. Consult this edit as a representative example. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

User:DmitryShpak

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)

I moved this post here from my user page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

New Araxes TheThief sock

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)

User:Aratigran has now been blocked as a sock. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI for now

Unexplained reversion Tom Reedy (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Noted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping

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)

Thanks for your note, I wound up providing a comment at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Henry VII of England

Hello i was wondering if you saw my comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Another admin has already closed the complaint with a block so I can't take any action on this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

Me and Kevo327 were warned for the edit wars. We asked to reach the consensus before making any reverts. Kevo just did the edit 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)

Per WP:AN3#User:Abrvagl reported by User:Kevo327 (Result: Both warned) you have both been warned to get consensus on the talk page FIRST before reverting the article again. You don't need to persuade me here that you are right, you need to persuade the other editors on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit-war on "Laurel forest" article

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)

I'm leaving a note for TechnicianGB that they were mentioned here. I won't look into this unless you have tried discussing it on the article talk page. There is no vandalism here, it is a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I've tried several times discussing with him about it. Not on the article's talk page but on mine. Nothing's changed. I do not think this is a content dispute, as:
(1) I believe the single source he is using to back up his claims is not reliable considering it is promoting a nature park. There is not one single mention of a scholar or trusted author text I could find supporting that information. Furthermore, besides not mentioning it, multiple sources cited in the text go directly against what he wrote. I've asked him several times to find a source as reliable as those that I've cited. This would in turn make it an actual content dispute. So I'm presuming the user has not found any.
(2) The user is clearly using original research, adding or altering certain things that are not present in the original text of the article he cites. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I completely agree. There isn't any edit war. Just as I've said on the page's edit diffs and on his talk page, thing he completely ignored and came here to do this, also making some alterations in the order of this storyline apart from personally having some kind of issues against me even if I always edit everything with reliable sources (just look at his talk page and the times I had to talk with him) and just because he has different POV, he tries to despise my edits.
Lengthy discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the page laurel forest, there is an official federal source (Junta de Andalucía, as Spain is a federation, called autonomous communities in Spain but each community has it's own regional government) explaining why the laurel forest exists in a small area called Los Llanos del Juncal in Los Alcornocales Natural Park. I always said a small area with that name unlike this user said right now "he edited to a small area and wrote mixed on it" which is a lie as the only thing I wrote is "mixed" to fulfill his desires (which I didn't actually have to, just in regard to agree over this dispute, as many other places of the world are listed there being mixed laurel forests) the source is clear about a laurel forest in that small area and even Average Portuguese Joe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) himself recognised there are unique laurel species in that place here in this edit made yesterday in his own talk page, something he seems to forget right now?
That text was there for years, just not properly sourced, I did properly source it, I even found some scientifical research regarding the existence of prehistorical species there (which I shown him on his talk page, as this dispute started 2 months ago) he left that, until few days ago when he edited the whole paragraph deliberately deleting the phrase and the source without mentioning it on the edit diff, as you can see on the edit diff #1078434390 no scientifical source is actually denying the existence of a mixed laurel forest in that small area (which is a valley that creates a perfect microclimate, as explained by sources I gave him on his talk page) he seemed to understand it 2 months ago until he deleted that from the laurel forest page.
Also, on a final note, this is obviously nothing close to WP:OR (how that could be if there are reliable sources) and the source is NOT "promoting a nature park" but actually explaining the characteristics of that place for people interested on the topic. There are several other sources talking about laurel forests in that area called Los Llanos del Juncal, which again, it always said "except for a small area in the southernmost tip of the Iberian Peninsula" I seem he said above "TechnicianGB edited now that only happens in a small area, not in the whole park" which is actually not true as it always said it's in a small area as what's the sources say, as that natural park has many more forested areas that have nothing to do with cloud forests or laurel forests.
And this is something I've always said both on the page diffs (as it's what the sources say) as well as in his talk page. There is actually no source contradicting this, as well as obviously laurel forests went extint from Europe, there is a small mixed one with remnants in Los Alcornocales called Los Llanos del Juncal and there are many more reliable sources proving this yet I've didn't insert more than 1 on the page laurel forest as it's not needed, not like this has to be extremely proven when that page has many places that have 0 sources and his only fixation is with this place inside of the Iberian Peninsula which does have a based source from an official federal regional government. Heck, the source even mentions what his scientifical sources say, what Europe had millions of years ago in the prehistory, when they were extinct, and so on, just as he denied the existence of a cloud forest on that area of Spain (until he was proven wrong by several sources which even had pics showing the cloud forest) I don't understand why is he trying to discredit the sources I gave him (not the source, as on his talk page I gave several more) which are actually reliable and saying basically the same as the scientficial research but easier for the average people that aren't botanical engineers. I also didn't try to push him to start any edit war, as I clearly said on the edit diffs that's an edit dispute, so another thing out of context here. Thanks for mentioning me. --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
My talk page is not the place for this. Follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The *article* talk page is where you should work out a consensus, not a user talk page. If a consensus is reached, it can be enforced by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I agree, just as I've said that's content dispute. But anyways it's already solved by both of us as now we have more extended information regarding this topic. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Anti-Iran North Caucasus fighter" is back

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)

For the record, as you can see in the block log, Ponyo and Oshwah range blocked them before you as well. Its as if the operator is literally counting the days for the block to expire (lol). Mind you, he's been pursuing the same editorial pattern since at least 2018/2019 as far as I could figure out. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The range has been blocked one year by User:Girth Summit on April 1st. Hope this takes care of it. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Dodobondo

Would you be interested in addressing this person's issue(s). Their only edit, is a childish personal attack.

Translation via google:

  • "Look at me, the disease called LouisAragon. Who are you man? You say it's unsourced, but look at your own maps, you have so many garbage maps (I'm calling out to all general wiki workers.) WHAT HAPPENED IF HE IS ER, MUST BE FULLY DONE. WE COULD COMMUNITY WITH YOU IN THE REGION OF BEÇ ZEHR. LET REAYA BE RELIABLE EVEN."--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe semiprotection of Treaty of Zuhab would be sufficient? EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Your noticeboard close

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)

Are there only two of you involved in this dispute? If so, the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard would be something to consider. Otherwise an WP:RFC would be logical. When I look over the discussion at Talk:Scott Baio it appears that neither side is being effective at framing the issues or exploring the space of possible agreement. DRN can sometimes help with that. When a revert war has been going on literally for years, it does seem high time for some admin intervention. I don't think the behavior of either side has been ideal, but in addition to being an edit warrior, you are also an IP-hopper. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the consequence of you page-protecting the article; the other editor yet again falsely claiming a consensus in his edit summary, and having the gall to unilaterally remove five of the eight reliable sources from the disputed content, including perhaps the most significant one even though WP:TWITTER is clear on its usage and WP:DOB says 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)
Consider opening a real WP:RFC at Talk:Scott Baio. You can do that yourself if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm the second-to-last person who should start the RfC and I wouldn't be good at doing that anyway. I am heavily involved (as of the past six weeks) in the dispute, and I am editing without an account, which would damage the credibility of the discussion before it even begins. So, can you please get the editor to revert the inappropriate edits that removed most of the sources (based on the completely false implication of a consensus), and ask him to back out of future involvement since, as you can from his history, he has been the singular roadblock to progress in resolving the matter over the past four years. Literally every editor will know exactly how he feels about the issue, and what his positions are, by simply reading his scores of talk page comments over the past years. He constantly talks so much, even when no one is talking back, that he buries what anyone else is saying. Because of this, editors give up out of frustration and never return. I am not the only one who has said this. An administrator told him the same thing. Finally, can you please either facilitate the RfC yourself or, alternately, find another editor you trust to do it? As I said, I will not say a word if you or some other "outsider" will start it. I will completely stay out of it if the other editor will do the same thing. We need your expertise or someone else's with your ability to get this decade-old conflict resolved. Can you please do these things? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
My role on this is only as an administrator, I don't want to investigate the content issues. As an outsider, it hard even to know what people are disagreeing about. If people now think that Baio was born in 1960, it's good that is settled. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Isn't part of your role as an administrator to help solve problems, especially long-standing ones, that will improve the project? No one has asked you to investigate content issues. This matter is far from settled. So, you won't even help to find someone else to facilitate a discussion, in which you would not even participate? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Though some admins may choose to be helpful in other ways, the things you listed aren't part of the admin role. We expect that those regular editors for whom an issue is important will apply some energy to the dispute resolution. In particular, they will do what is listed in WP:DR. As I have noted above, you have declined to open an RfC. From what I can tell, one of you wants more emphasis on the fact that Baio has changed his story about his date of birth. Except for that, it appears to be a tempest in a teapot. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
While it's disappointing that you don't want to help even in a small way, that is your choice and I'll respect that. I explained above, in detail, why I would be a poor choice to initiate an RfC, and I think any reasonable person would strongly agree with my reasons. I even offered to completely stop editing the article and commenting on the talk page if you would just do the small favor I requested.
I am now asking that you please remove the page-protection for the article immediately. I've thoroughly read WP:SEMI and WP:SEMIGUIDE. Your decision to protect the page violates both the policy and its associated guidelines. In its "Guidance for Administrators", WP:SEMI makes clear that "semi-protection should not be used...to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes". But that's precisely what you did since this is a legitimate editing dispute between just two editors: one registered user and one unregistered. Further, the guide says that even if there was a qualifying justification for semi-protecting the page, which there isn't, "its first application should be for a short duration, a few hours, a few days or a week depending on the type of page being protected and the level of disruption. If vandalism continues after the protection expires, it can be re-added and for a longer duration." Putting aside the fact that no vandalism exists, the page protection you set, which didn't qualify for it in the first place, is for three months. That is an absurdly longer period of protection than even the maximum stated for extraordinary circumstances. Your decision instantly allowed the registered user to continue editing, while preventing the unregistered one from doing so (for three months). As a direct result of your decision, the favored editor proceeded to inappropriately remove five of eight reliable sources in the midst of an obviously unresolved discussion on the talk page. That would never have happened had you not protected the article. So, for all these reasons, please remove the page protection. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
? Next step to be determined. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 13:36, 18 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 (edit | 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)

New administrator activity requirement

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:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

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)

The pain is back

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 edit 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)

How about a block of Special:Contributions/190.143.240.0/20? EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, anything that may help. Carlstak (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've blocked Special:Contributions/190.143.240.0/21 for three months for disruptive editing as the Mosquito Coast guy. This has now been going on so long that a series of indefinite semiprotections could be more productive. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Yes, I think so; he's not giving up. Carlstak (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Axis victory map RfC

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):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

As an admin, my opinion on a content matter should not be counted toward the result. You could ask for a formal close of the RfC by posting at WP:ANRFC. There is also the issue of what the article is trying to be. Is it wanting to be 'Depictions of possible Axis victory in fiction'? If so then no actual historical significance might be needed for a map. You would merely need to show that the actual map was used in one of the works of fiction. If it was put together as original research by one of the readers of the fiction it would have a harder time. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring

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've left a note for Liberaltarian. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 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)

User:Liberaltarian12345, you can avoid a block if you promise to stop warring until consensus is reached on talk. Most warriors believe that 'objectively I am in the right', that is a claim we hear frequently. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent IP at Barbacoa

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)

User:Ks0stm has blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b000::/40 for a month on 10th May. That should keep things under control for now. EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, Ed. Carlstak (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Unprotection

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)

The protection log shows fourteen protections since 2008. This is reflective of a lot of trouble in the past. I am not optimistic that anything good will happen but I will unprotect the article on a trial basis. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Name-calling IP going over the top at Talk:Christopher Columbus

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)

I have blocked 68.99.102.135 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours due to the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Ed, as always. Maybe he'll put his talents to use elsewhere.;-) Carlstak (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, EdJohnston, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A follow up on Azov Regiment

[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)

MVBW, it should not be too much trouble for you to get a consensus at Talk:Azov Regiment for the changes you want to make. I'm leaving a note for User:M.Bitton that you are mentioning him here, since you linked to his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is easy for some changes (because they do not cause anyone's objections), but not for others. Your warning was not an editing restriction (thank you!), but it does limit my ability and inclination to work on this page. That's why I asked. Just to clarify, please consider the following common situation. A contributor X (no, I do not mean specifically M.Bitton) insert a highly problematic text without consensus whatsoever. I'd like to revert his edit per WP:BRD, but I can not. But whatever. If that was your intention, then fine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Why you are going behind my back to complain about me is anyone's guess. Let's just hope that you give some thought as to why I didn't report you when you started removing chunks of text (again) and even sources (claiming overcite while trying to present what is undisputed by RS as "alleged"). M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
That was not a complaint about you, but a question about me. As you can see, I only asked EdJohnston to void their warning about me. But I needed to explain why. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
What's written speaks for itself. No comment necessary. M.Bitton (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I striked through a part of my comment. My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Since I already replied to your comment, I suggest you mark your newly inserted content with <ins>...</ins> (as per WP:TALK#REPLIED). M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
What is interesting to note here, is that after spending the whole day whitewashing Azov (by removing chunks of text at a time in the 1st of June, like they did before), they are complaining about this revert (a revert of their attempt at whitewashing the bothersome sourced statement that was added by myself 13 minutes earlier). The second revert is also their attempt at adding wikilinks to a sourced quote and the third is being discussed (as it involves a claim about a BLP). The claim that I followed them is also baseless since the last edit on Azov involved "Andriy Biletsky". M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

"Mosquito Coast" guy back at it

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)

My last thread on this guy is at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 52#Rogue "Mosquito Coast" guy is back. Looks like an WP:RBI situation. I have put an indef block on Whentimecomes and a one month rangeblock on the /24. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, RBI sums up my own philosophy on trolls quite well. Thanks, Ed. Carlstak (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
It looks like User:186.77.132.166 edited the same articles and is currently unblocked. I'm not adept with blocking ranges so I brought it to you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Liz, I've blocked Special:Contributions/186.77.132.0/24 one month for now, and might expand the range later if it is not sufficient. Thanks for being so alert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I came across some of the edits and, I regret, I kind of went down the rabbit hole with this guy. I started looking at the articles he edited, started protecting a few that he had edited, both with registered accounts and as an IP, and I protected too many. All short term protection so I don't think there will be collateral damage. But first it was a few then, next thing I knew, it was over a dozen articles. I don't work much with combatting sockpuppets but I think the common wisdom is that it is easier to deal with the editors when they appear than protecting all possible targets. So, now I know.
It's great that you have past involvement with this one so you and Carlstak know their habits and patterns. I noticed that they did, surprisingly, post an unblock request...not all of their edits were bad and they want to go legit and start contributing as a regular editor. That is probably unlikely but I think if they could control their instincts and work more collaboratively, it's possible they could become a potential contributor in an area where we don't have a whole lot of knowledgeable editors. Stranger things have happened! Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
It's true that this user is not a pure vandal. But the reason they are socking and block evading is apparently they don't want to comply with Wikipedia standards about sourcing and verification. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
If I may: some of the guy's edits have been legit, but who has the time to check every edit by a prolific editor to make sure he's respecting policy or not slipping in some fringe stuff, especially when it so often contradicts the content already there? He's definitely of the school of very amateur historians who've latched onto the historical British colonial treatment of the Miskitu people as a "kingdom", and want to present that people as having a well-organized monarchical government that dealt as equals with European powers. The reality was a lot more tawdry than that: the British were using the Miskitu leaders for their own politically manipulative purposes and were happy to humor their pretensions to the trappings of royalty—and to say the Miskitu "Kingdom" was "relatively loosely organized" is an understatement.
As far as I know, this editor has never engaged on a talk page to present his case, but he has left deceptive summaries of some of his edits, and he has removed sourced content without explanation, replacing it with his own content, sometimes with his own sources. Those have to be checked, because he has not demonstrated that he is a trustworthy editor. I would be skeptical of his declared intentions in his unblock request, and I wonder who would check his work, because I don't have the time. Many of the articles he edits are on rather obscure figures, and few other editors have paid attention to what he's doing. Carlstak (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq unban) request)

is live --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Kobi Arad

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)

Republic of Artsakh

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)

Are you here about my closure of an AN3 report back in 2020? Back then, my advice was to seek consensus on the talk page. You made a beginning in 2020 at Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 3#Status of Republic of Artsakh. That discussion ended quickly with no outcome. Try starting again if you are still hoping to persuade the others. Some related issues are at Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to you if you get stuck. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion

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)

IP now blocked three months. See also the IP's block log. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you should also warn Dr.AndrewBamford not to engage in IP socking. Thanks. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I have changed User:Dr.AndrewBamford's block to indefinite as a result of the block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You might also want to add a block for 213.205.198.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), since that's pretty clearly the same user making 16 edits to unversity pages last night identical to the ones by AndrewBamford, as per the AN3 report. Thanks! — Arcaist (contr—talk) 21:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The *.9 IP is now blocked for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I know this is turning into a game of whack-a-mole, but 109.249.187.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the most recent attempt at circumventing the ban. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 18:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
New IP blocked for a month. Thanks for the report. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

216.246.144.248

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)

I blocked the IP again for another three months. He has been continuing to revert images on three artiles. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Lack of proper handling of misinformation

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)

You must be referring to Abd al-Mu'min where a number of brand-new editors such as yourself have been reverting. The talk page at Talk:Abd al-Mu'min is open to you. Whoever is alleging a COI ought to be specific, because I doubt that al-Mu'min himself is editing his article after 900 years. Similar topics are discussed at Talk:Almohad Caliphate going back to 2010. Maybe the disagreement is whether the Almohads were Moroccan. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Fma12's SPI mentioned at ANI

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)

Breaking of a ban on Zachlumia article

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)

I'll notify User:Santasa99 that you have mentioned him here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay thank you,@EdJohnston but isn′t that something that is already decided by you, or something changed? If so may I also edit the page? Theonewithreason (talk) 02:30 09.July 2022 (UTC)
You opened a thread here without notifying Santasa99. It's reasonable to wait for him to reply before making any further edits that could get you in trouble. There is also no recent attempt by you to discuss the matter on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@EdJohnston I did that on January, actually I discussed a lot with them [[34]] but it did not help, meanwhile you can also check the source, [[35]] it is on page 20, and you can see that editor changed completely the text of the source. Again. I mean there are other sources too.Theonewithreason (talk) 02:39 09.July 2022 (UTC)
If you believe that compromise with Santasa99 is impossible, you could open an WP:RFC or use other methods of WP:Dispute resolution. But to be successful, you would most likely need to propose a specific wording to add to the article text. Whatever compromise is reached is likely to be full of qualifications, since only fragmentary information is available and reliable sources may disagree with each other. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay if I reach that on dispute resolution page may I edit then on Zachumlia page. Since Santasa99 already did that.Theonewithreason (talk) 04:41 09.July 2022 (UTC)
I have declined without prejudice the request for mediation at DRN, because a prerequisite for mediation is lengthy inconclusive discussion on the article talk page. There has been discussion on the article talk page, but not recently. So resume discussion at the article talk page. Sometimes discussion results in compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 9 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 ౪99° 19:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston As you can see the main argumentation from Santasa99 is Croatian, Serbian editors sheer number etc. but as you can see I was the only one who was in discussion with them and I do not label myself as one of them, not just that I do not cuntribute to any of the as they call it home Croatian or Serbian wikipedia so that is only digression from the topic. The fact is that the editor broke the ban, the other fact is I have responded on talk page with additional sources, so I have done us much as I can from my part without breaking the imposed rules, on the other hand editor made the same revert from which they got banned. So we have this situation now. Also the accusation against me or other editors of being nationalistic just because we are using Croatian or Serbian authors or on the other hand when we using international but Santasa99 then uses excuses that they are weak or agematters (1990,2000 and2010) sources are pure attacks and are breaking WP:CIVILITY rule Theonewithreason (talk) 19:12 09.July 2022 (UTC)
So, I "broke the ban", and now you would like to somehow get me out of your way? It was a warning to reach consensus half a year ago, and consensus can't be reached by watering down discussion, or constant misreading of sources - you have quoted four paragraphs from certain books and only POV pushing editors could somehow see and interpret what's in those quotes as you do. You can't reach consensus in completely shut down or died out discussion.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I did not misread the sources, I provided the whole citations from the book, it was you who cut the citation from the book, excluding every mention of the Serb population or the Church, Also I am not the one who is erasing the text. The fact is you did broke the ban and imposing your own WP:OWN policy what can go what not in the article, creating you own construction of the words how you see fit.

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)

User:Theonewithreason opened up a thread about Zachlumia at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The discussion was closed by the moderator, User:Robert McClenon, as premature. (There had not been a recent discussion on the article talk page). I encourage the participants here to take Robert's advice and have a real discussion on the article talk. It is possible that reliable sources exist which are in conflict, so patience would be needed. I don't intend to be a decision maker on this issue, so your objective should be either (1) to convince each other, or (2) to convince other editors new to the dispute who have no preconceptions. If you need admin intervention, don't come back here but either ask an admin you know or post at a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
There has been discussion at the article talk page in the last two days. At least the two editors have been making a lot of back-and-forth statements; I haven't tried to parse the discourse, and so I don't know whether it really is discussion or just restatement. User:Theonewithreason has opened another request at DRN, and I have said to notify the other editor, User:Santasa99, but that hasn't yet happened. I am assuming from your last post that you, User:EdJohnston, are now out of the loop. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
@Robert: That is correct. I am not going to be a referee for this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
We were at it on TP for a couple of days already, without new inputs from other editors. I am afraid that chances that any new discussant coming to our discussion are really low, especially at this time of the year - summer, vacations, nice weather, I wouldn't be surprised that people rather spend their spare time out on the sun than in hot debates about something called Zachlumia :) But sure, I am open for debates and arguments as much as my schedule allows me. Unfortunately, the less productive version, of two implied by Robert McClenon, is happening there - a sort of restatements, as he put it. But that's also has it's cause in a fact that in debate between two at least one doesn't or refuses to take the point, whether in good faith or not, and for that at least one neutral outsider would be helpful to break the spell that keeps the conversation in circle.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Why did you block me?

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)

You have never been blocked under this account. Need more details if you want me to investigate. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer disruption

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)

I've blocked User:Wildhorse3 indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts, after noticing User:Tamzin's 'last chance' message to the editor here. Regarding the image fakery at Commons, you could try posting on the Commons equivalent of ANI or you could try finding an enwiki admin who is also a Commons admin. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
You might notice an admin you know in the category Category:Wikimedia Commons administrators. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I had already started a thread at the Commons ANI (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Wildhorse3, extensive copyvio by sockpuppeteer, as linked above), that should probably be sufficient right? Gotitbro (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Let's hope that Commons will also consider a block of this editor. I see you also filed a Commons request for checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wildhorse3 is now indef blocked on Commons as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem

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)

The draft is semiprotected until 22 August due to a repeated problem with copyright violations by IPs. (Other admins have used revision-deletion to remove these violations). Please become familiar with our copyright rules. Though it is not compulsory to register an account, anyone with an account would be able to edit the article (after four days and ten edits). If you have no idea how to reword your material to avoid the copyright problems, it's better for you to work on something else. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
first the copyright problem is invalid I do not make any copyright violations on the last few edit they've actually and didn't finish because you locked it I was working on rewarding it and i'm following all copyright laws in america. 2603:8001:2902:64F4:A836:5401:E3A5:F1E4 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Two admins have felt that rev-del was justified, which is evidence that they believed it really was a copyright violation. You must not leave such violations in place even temporarily. You have also been removing tags from the article related to the violations. The next time this happens you may be blocked. Your personal opinion of what is copyrighted does not take precedence over Wikipedia's copyright policy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone's singing your praise

On my talk page, see[36] Doug Weller talk 09:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's invidious to particularize, when there are so many great administrators who herd the cats and keep the site usable for folks who show up in all good will with the intention only to contribute to Jimbo's beautiful creation & wonderfully strange encyclopedic playground here. But you'll have seen my kudos and thanks to Doug by now, I expect? ( I thought about LYK, but I knew *he* would, mensch that he is. ) So although there are many dozens of admins I could include under the moniker I hereby bestow on Doug, via the following link, you, too, are One Righteous Dude! Thanks so much for your many years of outstanding service to the project, and there by to the entire world, Ed. I couldn't be more sincerely grateful to you, just as to Doug..."He's a Righteous Dude!"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEGMse-VCgs

With great appreciation and esteem,
--OhioStandard (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Ohiostandard, thanks much for the kind words. I hope you yourself will consider coming back to Wikipedia and becoming active as before. You and I may have run into each other at AE. I hope your experience in conflicted areas hasn't discouraged you. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Ed! I appreciate that very much. I actually don't recall any specific interaction we might have had; I just noticed, and so valued, that you - like Doug - just never took personally any of the ubiquitous b.s. that naturally arrives here. A social psychologist would say you & Doug had no "ego involvement" in any of it, i.e. no ego identification with any of your contributions or actions. Nothing to prove, you never needed to be the baddest cat in the jungle, and the only "skin in the game" y'all ever showed was that you wanted people to contribute - and to be free to contribute - here in a positive, and (ideally) mutually respectful way. You, along with Doug, always used the authority the community here entrusted you with for *service*, and at no time in your long career for self-aggrandizement. A simpler way to say all this is that you, Doug, and many other admins I could name, always exhibited an admirable emotional maturity that has contributed to the project, and continues to do so, in the best, invariably constructive, and most exemplary way imaginable. If no one's said that to y'all before, well, it's about time: Thank you most sincerely for your many years of extraordinary service here.
Best regards,
--OhioStandard (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Mosquito Coast Sockpuppeteer

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)

I've now blocked Special:Contributions/190.143.192.0/18 for two months, with the caption "Mosquito Coast LTA — see my talk page for details". Admins who want to see the background can search my talk page archives for 'Mosquito'. User:Carlstak, let me know if you see other articles being targeted. There is a related SPI case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Themaker1/Archive. Although this guy has not registered any new accounts lately, I suppose it could be worthwhile to list somewhere all the IPs he has used and all the articles he has warred on. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. I'll see if I can do that next time I have a spare moment. Carlstak (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI/I issue

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)

Request for Arbitration Notice

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)

Replied there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Airport article disruptive IP

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)

I have reblocked the /64 range with this message: 'Disruptive editing, Continued since prior block. Per ANI complaint, "Airport disruption by IP", opened 6 August 2022 and now in Archive1105'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

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)

Mosquito coast LTA?

Resolved

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)

Special:Contributions/Thecaribbeancoast has now been blocked as a sock of Special:Contributions/BTGOG12 by Tamzin. Indeed, this is the Mosquito Coast LTA. Thanks for your report! This guy is very persistent. But since he always goes to the same articles it's just a matter of enough people having those articles on their watch list and being willing to make reports whenever they see him under a new identity. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Gonna need an admin sooner or later if you're footloose and carefree.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Gilley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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)

Issue which suggests a lack of competence in English

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:

  • "Not long after his accession, Ahmad invaded Sistan; by 911, Sistan was under complete Samanid control, and Ahmad's cousin Abu Salih Mansur was appointed as its governor. Meanwhile, an Alid named Hasan al-Utrush was slowly re-establishing Zaydi over Tabaristan. In 913, Ahmad sent an army under Muhammad ibn Sa'luk to deal with him. Although the Samanid army was much larger, Hasan managed to emerge victorious. Ahmad, before he could plan another expedition to Tabaristan, was the following year murdered by some of his slaves in a tent near Bukhara. During his reign, Ahmad is also said to have replaced the language of the court from Persian to Arabic, which made him unpopular among his subjects, and forced him to change it back to Persian. After Ahmad's death, his eight-year-old son Nasr II (r. 914–943) succeeded him."

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)

This has nothing to do WP:CONSENSUS, this has to do with adding information that is out of context with the paragraph. This fact has been ignored by you so far. Kansas Bear (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I stopped adding this information to previous section and I proposed to create a new section, but you still have not expressed your opinion on this issue.Khorazmiy (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
You have presented nothing. Posting(copying & pasting) references and telling other editors to go read them is not an answer. WP:BURDEN is on you! This is starting to be disruptive editing.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I understand that in order for my text to fit the context, this section of the article needs to be redone. Unfortunately, I don't have much time right now to edit the text of this section in detail. I did not expect that Kansas Bear would judge me so severely. I thought that according to the rules of Wikipedia, the participants should be kind to each other and help avoid mistakes.Khorazmiy (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The edits[42][43] added to Samanid Empire suggest a severe lack of competency, else why would someone add information about Simjurids, Simjur al-Dawati, or even Turks(POV pushing??), when Simjur al-Dawati is already mentioned.
Another issue with WP:CIR, Khorazmiy could not understand how an empire could be a vassal of the caliphate. Clearly Khorazmiy has never heard of khutba, or read the article for that matter! "However, Nasr had been the one who had been invested with Transoxiana, and the Abbasid caliphs continued to recognize him as the rightful ruler."
The opening comments on the article talk page by Khorazmiy reek of ignoring concerns by other editors and WP:CIR.
Now Khorazmiy contends the Samanid Empire was only an "empire" according to their interpretation of sources(most likely to highlight the Simjurid involvement), which is WP:OR. Numerous university sources have been posted to the talk page showing Samanid Empire 819.
Here is the most interesting part, Khorazmiy has never made an edit to Simjurids, Simjur al-Dawati or Ibrahim ibn Simjur(the other two of the Simjurid family being redlinks). ZERO. Which reinforces the possibility of their editing being POV motivated.
Your thoughts Ed? WP:CIR, POV-pushing, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Kansas Bear (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
From Khorzamiy's last edit on the article talk page, I do not believe they understand English well enough.[44]
My response clearly refutes Khorazmiy's statement. Neither source they presented says anything about creating anything.[45]. Looks like WP:CIR to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I am against edit wars and do not promote any ideas or original research. I follow Wikipedia's rules that, «articles must conform to policy regarding the neutral point of view and verifiability. Content within articles must be based on reliable sources and thus be verifiable; article content must not include editors' own personal opinions or theories». I agreed not to include the text about the Simjurids in the article. I did not propose to change the date of the beginning of the emergence of the Samanid state in the article. I just reacted to the accusations against me. I have already explained that there are different opinions about the chronology of the political history of the Samanid state. I agree that there are sources that state that the Samanid state arose in 819, but there are also alternative reliable sources that claim that this state arose in 875. I cited sources that claim that the unified state of the Samanids arose later than 819. The date of the creation of the unified state of the Samanids in 875 is stated in such sources as: Ubiria, Grigol. Soviet nation-building in Central Asia: the making of the Kazakh and Uzbek nations. Routledge, 2015. p.30; Abazov, Rafis. Palgrave concise historical atlas of Central Asia. Macmillan, 2008; Olson, James Stuart, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas Charles Pappas, and Nicholas CJ Pappas, eds. An Ethnohistorical dictionary of the Russian and Soviet empires. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1994; Akiner, Shirin. "Islamic peoples of the Soviet Union:(with an appendix on the non-Muslim Turkic peoples of the Soviet Union)". Publisher, Kegan Paul International, 1983. I have a fairly good command of academic English, I read various publications on the history of Central Asia, and I strive to improve articles on the history of Central Asia in Wikipedia.Khorazmiy (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the degree to which our article on theSamanid Empire ought to mention the Simjurids needs consensus. If User:Khorazmiy continues to restore his material against the advice of the other editors they are risking a block for edit warring. I also notice that Khorazmiy has been triggering the edit filter though I can't tall whether any of these events add up to a genuine problem. A typical message from the fiter is "Newer user possibly adding unreferenced or improperly referenced material". EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your comments. As I wrote earlier, a consensus has already been reached. I will not include the text about the Simdjurids in the article in the form in which it was before. About this edit filter, could you explain to me how it works? Khorazmiy (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what the filter is complaining about, I just note that it's giving those messages. The filter's main purpose is anti-vandalism, and the issue here is not vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

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)

LJstats (talk · contribs) is now blocked indef for sockpuppetry, according to the outcome at WP:ANI#LJstats. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding edit warring notice report

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)

If you see there is a dispute, it is never the right thing to keep on reverting. That is when you should be undertaking the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, there's no point really. I'd probably find someone as un-enthusiastic and careless about this as you are. it's fine, let this "neutral" platform be under the mercy of fervent POV pushers and nationalists.
Good day. Sormando (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing warning for a user

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)

The AN3 complaint has now been closed by another admin here. I left a comment in the thread. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Retirement from Wikipedia by User:RapMonstaXY

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)

Sorry you are going. If you wish to be blocked, try one of the admins in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced content at Monster (2022 film)

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)

I have left a warning here for User:Nalina.E.Nalina against further addition of unsourced content. Their block log shows they were previously blocked by Spencer (talk · contribs) last April for the same thing. Please let me know if the pattern continues. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm considering an indef block of this user. I have checked their talk page over the last few months. They are interested in film articles. In a typical month, dozens of their edits will be reverted by others, indicating that their edit was not helpful. (Not usually edit warring, just mistakes). They often get automated notices, such as a notice for adding links to DAB pages. But month after month, they continue to receive those notices. In my opinion their error rate is too high for them to be a net benefit. Plus they do not learn from experience. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I reverted a few edits and have been thinking of requesting a block for more than a week, but know it can be difficult because the account is not actually vandalizing anything. That said, their sheer determination to put messy fingerprints on a lot of articles ought to be reason enough. Little evidence that anything is improved by their efforts, and WP:CIR is aggravated, as you said, by disinterest in improving. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:A72E (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The most recent edit is representative of hundreds which preceded it [47]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:A72E (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
While I was on my much-needed break of Wikipedia, I have been scrolling through user's talk pages. I do agree that Nalina.E.Nalina needs an indef block, we've given them too many chances. I'm not sure if now's the time or we should wait a bit longer. I'll leave it to the more experienced editors though. Dinoz1 (chat?) 17:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
ANI [48]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:A72E (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Nalina.E.Nalina has now been unsurprisingly blocked indef by User:Cullen328. The block message was Disruptive editing: Many warnings on their talk page, and many apologies. But the disruptive editing has continued. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for helping! I decided to participate in this conversation (reading talk pages) because other editors have to clean up their mess multiple times. Dinoz1 (chat?) 12:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The never-ending saga of the Mosquito Coast guy

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:

Whoforwho

Thecaribbeancoast

BTGOG12

Blackkeyboard080400

Thejenkins44

Whentimecomes

IP addresses:

186.77.132.0

186.77.136.125

186.77.132.166

186.77.136.247

190.124.39.234

190.143.242.11

190.143.242.12

190.143.242.17

190.143.246.189

190.143.247.45

190.143.250.217

190.143.251.140

190.143.251.145

Doubtless there are more, but these are what I've found. Carlstak (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging User:Tamzin who recently blocked Special:Contributions/Thecaribbeancoast (August 2022). There is an existing SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Themaker1 relating to the Mosquito Coast (though that case is inactive since Feb 2021). Should we add new behavioral information to Themaker1's sock case or start a new one? The article on George Henriquez may also be of interest. Henriquez is an activist who "is making history as he fights for the rights of marginalized Black and Indigenous populations of the Atlantic Coast", according to the Vice article cited on his page. Though this seems to be a worthwhile activity, there is a risk that our articles on this part of the world might be affected by partisan editing. Proponents may be suggesting that the Mosquito Coast has a noteworthy history and was taken over by neighboring countries in the 19th century only due to superior force. If our coverage of the history of the Mosquito Coast is to be expanded, it ought to be based on reliable sources. Anyone who edits in this domain should not be hiding behind multiple identities. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. I emphatically agree. If this guy had been straightforward after he was called out the first time, a lot of this trouble could have been avoided, and perhaps that person could have contributed constructively and collaboratively, but I would never trust his edits or his motives again after the proliferation of all this unnecessary nonsense, and more of it still being added to WP. Carlstak (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
So is anything going to happen? Carlstak (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Have you run a check here? Looks likely at a glance; can do a deeper analysis if needed, but figured I'd first ask what CU has to say. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Checked per off-wiki ping from Tamzin. Whoforwho is  Confirmed to Thecaribbeancoast. I feel like there was a different SPI that this character belonged to, the Themaker1 case referenced above doesn't have as many accounts listed as I expected. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:43, 24 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)

The WP:DUCKTEST applies. Carlstak (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
So now this account, Whoforwho, is blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. I think this tells us all we need to know about this user. Carlstak (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Cathyoates and Possible CoI edits, again

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

  1. ^ "Cathy Oates joins Warner Music Australia"
I've applied a connected contributor template at Talk:Megan Washington as this appears to be the intention of the user. There has been no further response, for the moment. The user has a long history of intermittent editing, typically returning when clients have a new release sometimes more than a year later.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Outside opinion on notability tag

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)

My intervention is no longer needed. It appears this problem has solved itself due to some recent expansion of the article. The challenge to notability has been dropped. In terms of the avaiable sources, I liked the 2015 article in Indianapolis Monthly by Adam Wren. It takes more of an outsider view of the church and tries to explain the LDS practices in simple terms. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

POV and propaganda edits by user

(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:

Shahbaz Sharif:[49],

Maryam Nawaz: [50], [51], [52],

Nawaz Sharif: [53]

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari: [54], [55]

Fazal-ur-Rehman (politician): [56]

Asif Ali Zardari: [57]

Ishaq Dar: [58]

Against military

Qamar Javed Bajwa: [59]

Nadeem Anjum: [[60]]

Other article

Journalist Gharida Farooqi:[61] [62]

Fozia Ilyas: [63]

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)

Those are not my sockpupppet accounts and these are not propaganda edits from my side as I always provide reliable and credible sources. As you can check I revert PakistanHistorians edits whenever they undo my edits for no reason. Do show me where I have done "propaganda" edits on Nadeem Anjum and Qamar Javed Bajwa, etc? I've actually added their education and tweaked a few things but never entered any "propaganda". Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@Toomanyyearskodakblack @EdJohnston
You edited Asif Ali Zardari to call him a murderer, and your source was 1) an article about a murdered prosecution witness against a fashion model involved with Zardari, and 2) an article about a murdered journalist who investigated Zardari's party. I agree these are suspicious and Zardari may have had a motive but that is not proof that Zardari was involved in those murders. What if Ayyan the model or Zardari's son Bilawal arranged the murders without Zardari's involvement? You don't know for sure yet you still put "murderer" on Zardari's page. This is not enough evidence for Wikipedia standards. Winampman (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Fair point, I desist. Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 00:22, 31 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)

"Here[24] 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""
That was a very old edit and was a joke, it's pathetic how you dug through the edit history to find that. I already received a warning for that and didn't do it again. How about you come on a real account instead of giving false truths on an IP address. Do you work for the Pakistani Army or the PDM for you to be offended from edits made a while ago? Toomanyyearskodakblack (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Continued topic ban violation by USaamo

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)

I am leaving a note for USaamo. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I have replied to this editor about his accusations when he showed up at that report and my reply is still the same to that extent. [71]
As to this report, I don't understand how do a mere mention about a conflict and that too undue POV pushing and based on original research in an article make it India Pakistan war topic when it's actually an article about pre-independence phenomenon that was there before the existence of the states of India and Pakistan. At best it's the matter of clarification whether topic ban applies to it or not and as I've always abided by it, I intend to abide by it in future as well.
Having said this I have reservations over the behaviour of User:Aman.kumar.goel which is like WP:WIKIHOUNDING me everywhere on Wikipedia which needs to be stopped! USaamo (t@lk) 20:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Your reply confirms that you violated the topic ban after you have been already told enough times that the topic ban is broadly construed. This is not even the first time that you have violated your topic ban. Your false accusation of wikihounding shows your own battleground mentality. I am editing this article for years, and that's how I observed your edits. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Does User:USaamo's editing at Two-nation theory concern the wars between India and Pakistan? I assume that the two-nation theory is a political, not a military issue? EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
His edit concerns it because with this edit he removed content about "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)
The line I removed was political aspect of that event, Secession of East Pakistan is not just Bangladesh Liberation War but as I said above this insertion itself was undue POV pushing. India-Pakistan only involved at the last stage of event making both belligerents. While this article is about something before the existence of states of India and Pakistan and wholly a political theory.
He may have edited this article before but it is unacceptable behaviour on his part to single me out everytime, showing up at a report to settle left over scores against me, this is what battleground mentality is. Not appealing my ban after more than two years shows my intention of not getting into this topic and abiding by my topic ban. I request this editor should be warned for Wikihounding me... USaamo (t@lk) 07:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Your reply confirms that you don't understand your topic ban. You admit India-Pakistan only involved at the last stage of event making both belligerents and 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)
If everything has to be confirmed and decided by you then what good these admins on Wikipedia are for? You're not falsely accused of Wikihounding but coming after my edits and showing up on reports to settle scores suggest this behaviour.
Also you have reverted my edits even after EdJohnston differing with your allegations of violation above and that too with a misleading summary. [73] So it clearly shows malice on your part and battleground mentality which doesn't belong here. I request admins to take note of this and he should be warned of these shenanigans. USaamo (t@lk) 12:49, 4 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)

Since I was reported here so I humbly presented my case about the edit being not in violation of topic ban and asked for further clarification. EdJohnston viewed above that it is political and not military issue so the thing should have been over for you. But then you went on to revert me with a misleading summary. I was not up for an edit war as are you so I brought that in EdJohnston's notice and waited for his response. Since no further response came on report so I thought his reply has probably come what he said above and I went ahead with reverting you but now you have started edit warring so I asked EdJohnston to kindly look into this and a stern warning atleast is needed for Aman.kumar.goel to stop his disruptive behaviour or else take proper action against him. Thanks! USaamo (t@lk) 20:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I have filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#USaamo where we can continue this discussion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Can you close this report? There has been no objection for nearly 2 weeks by any admins since your last comment there. Thanks. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The Wire

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)

Pinging @Bishonen from here 103.51.138.251 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It now appears that the allegations made by The Wire (India) against the government are admitted to be bogus. Though I have yet to see any links where The Wire itself concedes this. If material about Meta or Tek Fog is to be added to The Wire's article it would need to be done very carefully, due to the BLP issues. I haven't yet seen any adequate proposals on the article talk page for how to do this. If you can find a draft version that could win the support of both User:TrangaBellam and User:Kautilya3 my guess is that it would be of good enough quality to post. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
See the Version 3 subsection. It's all set to go in. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The talk page is moving toward a better version. I hope that someone will create an exact quote of what they wish to be added to the article. Also I'm wondering about the story that The Wire filed a complaint about somebody without getting verfication from anywhere that an actual complaint was filed. Will we update the article every day of the week based on the breaking news that day? EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion

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)

The common element seems to be the desire to create a much larger rankings table. (In the edit history, look for 1500-byte additions that usually get reverted by others). I've semiprotected University of Oxford and University of Manchester for now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Robminchin (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Quick AE question

I don't think this ever happened? Is it still your intention?-- Ponyobons mots 15:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to finish that today, but if you have your own assessment, why not make a recommendation or just close it yourself. The alternative I might still consider would be a logged warning to two editors (the subject of the complaint plus the filer), based on the skimpiness of the two diffs that caused the AE to be opened. The further data which came in later was Swarm's comment about the 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault. I have yet to analyze that dispute carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a regular at AE (a huge shout-out to those few admins who are, yourself included!). I only ask because USaamo was requesting the undeletion of an article created by a banned account. Given the article falls squarely in WP:ARBIPA territory, and with a topic ban seemingly imminent, I was treading carefully.-- Ponyobons mots 16:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't object to your restoring the article requested by User:USaamo. It would be surprising if the content of that article led to any controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Wes Sideman Abuse of Power

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/w/index.php?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)

Wes sideman is not an admin (='moderator') so I'm not following up on your claim about abuse of power. I notice you've made the same complaint at a couple of other places and have also managed to get yourself blocked for disruptive editing. Your own very short editing history suggests you may have been on Wikipedia previously under another identity. You have not discussed the dispute at Talk:Chad Johnson (TV personality). EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
In the example edit you provided, I do agree the removal of the word "allegedly" was not a good idea.
The addition of information using The Daily Mirror (an arguably unreliable tabloid) as a source was not entirely best practice. The Daily Mirror is considered by some Wikipedians to be an unreliable source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) and was formerly outright considered unreliable by the Wikipedia community. Though I am willing to presume that they did not know about the possible reliability concerns of the publication. While the Daily Mirror occasionally breaks accurate stories first, I'd usually not rely on them as a source. The Daily Mirror, some would argue, is akin to The Sun (United Kingdom) (considered an unreliable source by Wikipideans). Not the best evidence, but I feel obligated to not that that is why Lily Allen sings "I look in the Sun and I look in the Mirror" in the prechorus of 2008's The Fear (Lily Allen song).
Also, I should know better than to make this a forum, but as a sidebar, this is the first that I am hearing of Chad Johnson having dated the late Girls Aloud member Sarah Harding (may she rest in peace). That's surprising to learn. SecretName101 (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I will also note that [74] is not really evidence completely refuting the allegation, though. It is not uncommon for a victim of domestic assault that is still romantically involved with their perpetrator (as she clearly was at the time of this joint interview with him) to falsely recant an allegation. Though the context of her recanting (if well-sourced) would be good information to add to the article. SecretName101 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Wes sideman

Page: Klete Keller (edit | 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:

  1. [75]
  2. [76]
  3. [77]
  4. [78]
  5. [79] completely disregarded Secretname101 hard work on lead

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/w/index.php?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)

Imam Shamil dispute

/* 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 — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

I recommend you follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if you continue to believe that the claims of Shamil's Kumyk ancestry are (1) true, (2) important enough to include in the article. Disputes about the Caucasus seem to often lead to sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the references. My point is that the sources are present in the article since at least Summer 2021, match the consensus which the other editor refers to exactly from more than a year and a half ago, and are solid and multiple. Shouldn't the editor who has a sudden change of mood follow his own consensus and use the dispute resolution first, if he wants to redo consensus and wipe the sources out completely this time?--HamzatCan (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
See also a recent thread at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I haven't seen claims in the article that Shamil himself was Kumyk, but instead that his ancestors were, contrary to what you wrote there. Also, sources are:
  • M. N. Chichagova (who met Shamil), Shamil na Kavkaze i v Rossii. Biograficheskii ocherk (St. Petersburg: S. Muller and I. Bogel'man, 1889), reprinted edition 1991, ISBN 5-900450-03-1, page 15 "...his ancestor was Kumyk Amir Khan, a person famous in Caucasus."
  • Mark Bliev (Doctor of History), Google Books Russia and Mountaineers of Bigger Caucasus. 2004 "...informs that Shamil's grandfather came from Kumyks - from Kumyk Amir-khan, "a person famous in the Caucasus"".
  • He also often addressed his family in Kumyk. *M. N. Chichagova, Shamil na Kavkaze i v Rossii. Biograficheskii ocherk (St. Petersburg: S. Muller and I. Bogel'man, 1889), reprinted edition 1991, ISBN 5-900450-03-1, page 135
  • Some biographical details about Shamil // Military digest. Kaluga (where Shamil lived), 1859, issue 12 : "Here is the truth: Shamil's father was... and his fifth ancestor - Kumyk Amir Khan...".
Those sources are present and protected in the Russian Wikipedia too as fully reliable. They are not "Kumuk nationalist sources" as the disrupting editor tries to mispresent it. The consensus here (expressed by that editor too) was that sources should be in the article, and they were there piecefully for more than a year. Again, in this case shouldn't someone first prove that the sources must be removed? Otherwise it seems like supporting vandalism and mood swings.--HamzatCan (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, wow! Now going deeper I found one more source wiped from the article.
  • Quote from Shamil I'm a simple Tatar"". This book. Сaptivity by Shamil, The True Story of... captivity of the families of General-Mayor Orbeliana and Colonel Chivchavadze... // Journal for students of military education schools, Volume 121. № 483, year 1856.
Tatars in 19th century Caucasus was the name only for the Turkic peoples: Balkar-Karachays, Kumyks, Noghais, Dagestan Azerbaijans and Terekeme.--HamzatCan (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I mean, show me at least 1 similar source which states directly from Shamil about him being Avar. And even then it's not disputed at all that he was indeed Avar, only his ancestry.--HamzatCan (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

University Ranking Tables

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)

Are you here evading a block? You've already posted at Talk:University of Manchester#Rankings about this issue. Perhaps you will be able to find some other editors to agree with you. I assume that the others prefer the article to be concise and believe that the extra ratings don't add anything useful. Leaving a ping for User:Robminchin since his name was mentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Which rankings to include has been frequently discussed at Template talk:Infobox UK university rankings, with the infobox reflecting the community consensus to only include certain international rankings. The reasoning behind which are included are which are omitted can be openly seen and discussed on that page.
I would just add that I have not been actively changing university rankings infoboxes to the standard box, even though this might be justified. I have restored the standard infobox where this has been changed to a much larger listing – something done by a single user who was pushing this prior to being banned and subsequently by a series of IP users who are likely to be the same person evading that ban.
Sorry that this is happening on your talk page, EdJohnston! Robminchin (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If you are needing a good laugh

This is just precious! LMAO --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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)

User:QuidditchCup53

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)

@Black Kite you should also know this as you've blocked Aristeus. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
QuidditchCup53 has been indeffed but the SPI found that Aristeus01 is not an obvious sock. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Advice

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)

This could be a simple case of merge and redirect. The fact that you are asking me suggests that you have some reservations? EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Would it be that simple? "Merge and redirect"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
If you are unsure, why not ask some of the other contributors to Hunnic invasion of the Sasanian Empire and find out what they think? EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I just needed to know if I have to go through the entire article deletion process, like what HistoryofIran is doing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
If you do the merge-and-redirect and it's not reverted then you are all done. Otherwise an AfD might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah. Ok. Got it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

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)

WP:NOT3RR gives some cases where reverts won't be counted against the 3RR limit, but 'maintaining the status quo ante bellum' is not among them. So your reverts were counted as plain reverts. I wasn't happy with User:LucrativeOffer either so they had better not repeat that behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
AMomen88 has started to edit war again right after coming from the block. He is removing the sourced content because he thinks it's "negative". I am trying to explain the policies to him in the talk page but he is not listening. LucrativeOffer (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
LucrativeOffer removed my cited content on numerous occasions because he thought it was "promotional", he then added content which heavily biased the neutrality of the article. I removed his content so we could continue discussion on the talk page, but he was too immature and kept reinserting while the discussion was still ongoing. —AMomen88 (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive airport edits again

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)

I've now blocked Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:6000:0:0:0:0:0/36 for a month. Let me know if the problem continues. It seems that a /32 would be too much and a /38 not enough. In contributions from the above /36 range we see mostly airport edits, so that must be the guy. He may have done 1000 edits in the month of December alone. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sock of Solniun

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)

User:Atsbi has now been CU-blocked by User:Blablubbs under the Milktaco SPI case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greeetings

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)

User:Donner60, thanks for the good wishes! EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 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)

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

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

About block request

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)

You should promise to stop making unsourced genre changes. If you did, it might strengthen the case for an administrator to look into the matter. On your talk page, you state "there are not always sources to label an album's genre correctly so what's wrong if someone with their own knowledge of rock music try to help here?" If you don't have aources for a genre then Wikipedia can get along without it. The policy is WP:RS. That policy permits no reliance on your personal knowledge. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 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)

Happy New Year!

EdJohnston,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EdJohnston!

Happy New Year!

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)

Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur)

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)

Hello Unibond. You need to persuade the other editors that the word 'fraudster' is appropriate for the article. Otherwise your change may be viewed as a continuation of the previous edit war. Why not propose your idea on the article talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ping FYI

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)

I have warned Davidmholland. There was a 3RR case in 2018 then two more reverts in September 2021, and now this, all at Coriolis force. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_52&oldid=1136605288"