Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 53

User:BH72 at ANI regarding Khamzat Chimaev

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.[LINK] Kent Bargo (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I left a further warning for User:BH72 but they have not returned to editing since then. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for further protection on Chess Olympiad

Hello EdJohnston,

some days ago you kindly processed my block request for a write-only user altering the page in subject ([1]).

Unfortunately I must contact you again, since the IP is back after the block, and still alters the ranking without consensus nor attempts to discuss ([2], [3]).

I would therefore ask you to intervene again, either by blocking the IPv6 /64 range for a longer time, or by semiprotecting the page. I'd prefer the first solution because another IP made constructive changes to the page in recent times, but obviously you have more experience to judge.

Thanks! --Gengis Gat (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've now applied a one-month block to the /64 range since the user resumed since their original 48-hour block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Swati (Pashtun tribe)

I've lifted the full protection on Swati (Pashtun tribe), since User:Haider khan10 has not edited recently. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2020 (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.

Hi, a discussion surrounding the Swati tribe was archived with no outcome since there was no response from both the main conflicting parties Haider khan10 and Azmarai76. I wanted to add a request about that article that it be allowed to edit as per the talkpage discussion. Though the discussion was inconclusive about the origin however a neutral lede I proposed mentioning both the accounts of origin was almost agreed. So I want that lede I proposed to be added in the article. A subsequent page move as per heading will also be required for the neutrality of the article. Azmarai76 also is back and inquired on my talk about the matter so I added this request. I hope you'll consider it. Thanks! USaamo (t@lk)

Hello USaamo. I see that I fully protected the page on 14 August. There are two threads in my talk page archive that mention Swati (Pashtun tribe). There also seems to be a truly gigantic discussion at Talk:Swati (Pashtun tribe)#Swati_tribe: Pashtuns or Tajiks?. I'll try to get back to this later today. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
User:USaamo, can you summarize the discussion at User_talk:USaamo#Swatis. Are you waiting for the return of another party? EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I left a note atUser talk:Uanfala#Knowledge of South Asian languages?. Uanfala had some helpful comments about the article on Swati (Pashtun tribe), for example on the quality of sourcing. I have some concern that the people editing there might be adding claims to the article based on their personal knowledge and not on the reading of sources. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston the sources especially from the Raj times are all detailed ones on the origin of the tribe. As far as use of Iranica articles as serving the sources here is what is pre islamic history of these people that they otherwise would try not to speak about.

Swatis to my knowledge are bilinguals in Hindko and Pashto.

Referred by many sources as Pashtunized race of Tajiks.

Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:RAJ sources are usually considered poor quality. I hope there is something better. When you say "Swatis to my knowledge are bilinguals", is that based on your reading, or on your personal knowledge? EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That's what has been mentioned about them in Census Report 1911 as being bilinguals in Hindko and Pashto ( both which they adopted once the community came in contact with Afghans and Hindkowans). Azmarai76 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


As far as modern sources to what I say about this community are online and can be verified at :-

1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317276843_The_Short_Lived_Gibari_Empire_A_Little_Known_Chapter_of_the_History_of_Medieval_Hazara

2. https://www.academia.edu/34912049/THE_KINGDOM_OF_SWAT_GIBAR_UNCOVERING_THE_LOST_TAJIK_LEGACY_OF_NORTH_PAKISTAN

These to my understanding are both well sourced and well written concise research papers that are based on classical as well new sources in support. Azmarai76 (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, you are true about the discussion that it was more based on personal knowledge since I believe we all somehow are related to the tribe. As to that gigantic discussion mainly between Haider khan10 and Azmarai76 the discussion started off with former backing Pashtun origin and latter backing Tajik origin of the tribe. The discussion remained pointless and there were so many irrelevant things mostly based on personal knowledge and information that prevail among people in the region. However the important point to note from that discussion is that Dehqan(Tajik/Persian) origin of tribe and Pashtunization, the process of transformation into Pashtuns because of living with them for centuries or which can simply be called tribe being culturally Pashtun was somehow accepted by the dissenting party as well but he was insistent to add Pashtun in lede for a reason that another tribe Khilji is also accepted as Pashtun tribe despite being of Turk origin. So for that reason I proposed two neutral ledes and rest asked them to add whatever they have in body below as per their sources. And I believe this is the most suited lede for the article:

Swatis are a tribe in North Pakistan region, mostly inhabiting cis-Indus Hazara division of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. They are a tribe of Dehqan origin while some historians have described them of Pashtun origin as well. However they are regarded as culturally Pashtuns, adopting Pashtunwali over the years living among them, thus became Pashtunized Tajiks. Swatis are divided into three major clans, namely Gibari, Mitravi and Mumiali. Over the last century majority of the tribe is living in Hazara division and speak Hindko as first language while those living in Malakand division continue to speak Pashto.

USaamo (t@lk) 13:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


USaamo I never oppossed any of your ledes .. as far as the other editor is concerned he is at every page with his fairytales. I still agree to the lede you proposed above. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2020 (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.

Needs your help over preplanned conspiracy and serial harassment against me

AleviQizilbash has retired due to the ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2020 (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.

Three users with the same method and same mentality appeared in the same time and started to vandalize the article of Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies , deleting third party sources and citations of existing information then added tons of promotional primary sources , then engaged in edtiing warring and accused me of vandalism and warring ! here is the revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begin%E2%80%93Sadat_Center_for_Strategic_Studies&action=history However later I found out that User:Paradise Chronicle and User User:AppleBsTime turned out to be planning a conspiracy against me on Begin Sadat Center article , they pre planned an escalated dispute to grant me a block , here is the evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paradise_Chronicle#Sheikh_Adi_Ibn_Musafir_was_a_Muslim and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wbiases , I believe that they need to be blocked and banned for life along with their IP ranges over their hateful and abusive behavior along with the three other users whom I highly suspect that they are actually the same person , their pages are :User Wbiases , User I69i197496 and User Thhings6sz along with User AppleBsTime and User Paradise Chronicle ,they falsely and unjustly reported me over warring editing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3#User:AleviQizilbash_reported_by_User:Thhings6sz_(Result:_) , they are abusing me and abusing wikipedia to finish their business with whomever they don't like . Thank You so muchAleviQizilbash (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Though I don't know much about this issue, AleviQizilbash seems to be quite angry and they are making WP:Aspersions against other users — calling them vandals and socks. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
They are calling me vandals as well , so you should investigate the issue first to see who is right and who is harassing the other and planning a conspiracy against the other , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
We probably have a textbook case of Wikipedia:BOOMERANG about to unveil itself. In my humble and only tangentially-informed opinion, it will be well-deserved. About 13 minutes of perusing edit histories and (especially) engagements with other editors that lack any collegiality at all, should be enough to prove out this case. - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The dispute at Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies is going to settle down soon because another admin has just applied WP:Extended confirmed protection to the article, per a request at RFPP. In their opinion the page is covered by WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Not canvassing for input, but if you are so moved: I opened a WP:AN/I about the user AleviQizilbash. - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2020 (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.

Hungarian irredentism, Hungary in World War II, History of Transylvania, Origin of the Romanians

Not working any further on this. If this dispute needs to continue, please seek assistance elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2020 (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.

Hi, per the recent events, I kindly as your attention, as I did @El C:'s before, however, he told me recently his activiy a bit scattershot, so we would appreciate your time. As well, I am planning to restore the four pages the problem occured the status quo ante version, as El C also clearly outlined ([4]) to the user how things should be conducted. The reason as well I draw the extra attention to this the recent happenings due to the user's inverse-accusation practise which may happen again and I wish to outline of course I have no other intention just to follow our policies, as I've always struggling. Maybe it would be better if any of you admins would do that - so the user could not target me - however, indeed it has to be done, regardless by whom.

Last stable revisions:

- Hungarian irredentism: Revision as of 19:48, 27 July 2020
- Hungary in World War II: Revision as of 01:13, 6 September 2020
- History of Transylvania: Revision as of 20:46, 5 September 2020
- Origin of the Romanians: Revision as of 21:55, 6 September 2020

Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC))

I don't have much time tonight but I did look over Hungarian irredentism recently. The big problem is that nobody has put a clear explanation of the content issues on the talk page. Though you don't have to do a formal WP:RFC if you don't want to, you should create a better talk page story if you expect very much admin help. Otherwise it is just charges and countercharges. Also, if any references are used on talk they should be complete references that are high enough quality to use in the article. What is the census of 1941? If you are using Hungarian-language documents, at least translate their titles to English, and say who the publisher is. Give actual quotes from the books or articles if necessary. That will reassure us that you know what you are talking about. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Edjohnston,
exactly the time you moved the discussion to the bottom of the page, I posted my answer, a summarization possibly better understandable for admins as well, but it did not take effect due to edit conflict, but now I fixed, you may read it. The census of 1941 is the officially valid Hungarian census conducted. About the sourcing issue, all of these are properly and peer reviewedly sourced in the Northern Transylvania article, which cares the issue in deep details, all the other pages the user confronted are just referring to that, or concisely summarizing it. Hence the user's action are problematic to insert POV-pushing or copy-pasted info into more articles, which does not have it as a main scope. About the time, don't worry, won't touch the article about two days for sure. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC))
You say there are good references in the article on Northern Transylvania? I'll accept your assurance, but it's not one of the four articles where you say there is a dispute. I recommend that you pursue some kind of formal WP:Dispute resolution on one of the four disputed articles, if you expect admins to stay interested in the matter. I read the comment by User:El C that you referred to but I don't believe it gives you carte blanche to revert on any of those four articles. The comment you made here doesn't satisfy my objection to the lack of clarity, that I made above. You will have a better case if any visiting admin can tell at a glance exactly what you are asserting and what evidence it is based on. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Edjohnston, I see that admins are busy and sometimes don't have time to enter in to deep issues, but the points are pinpointed are clear. Should I summarize again with in more detail, point by point, summarizingly because I should assume mostly they won'tread all the discussion? The things is the user's additions and the way done it is so amateurish, that does not satisfy at this point to even enter a formal dispute resolution (which I have no objection, but it would seems just a formal showcase event without real need). Issues like this is just taking away precious editing time not just editors, but administrators. I never considered I would have carte blanche because of El C-'s remark, but by our policies, which are clear, El C just reinforced this and drawn the attention of the editor what he/she missed. Otherwise, how the new user will understand his/her conduct is not a viable solution and with such behavior would mean no justification in our community? When I was a newbie editor, especially I learned much from you in the beginning and I never commited mistakes I commited before, because I learned, if no consensus or dispute, if I was the bold editor, I have to accept to be reverted, and until the end of the discussion not touching the page is holy and status quo ante will be. This more of us learned (past near 10 years) and respected, otherwise admin sanction were imposed, etc.
In Hungary in World War II, the section in question referred for details of demographics of the Northern Transylvania article, neutrally. The user deleted this an introduced the very similar edit in the Hungarian irredentism article. This is the root cause, we have already everything in an article, full scope, but the user abandoned neutrality and took sides. None of has any problem to identify the 1930 official Romanian census, and the 1941 official Hungarian census, but the 1938 and the claimed 1940 estimations are just estimations, and are dubious, the latter i.e. I never met, however I learned the 1938 one is just a delayed derivative on from the 1930. This is the most concise and easy to summarize, we have to remain at each article's scope, and highlight two widely confirmed data from each side to achieve neutrality.
History of Transylvania, is another issue, the user introduced WP:OR and changed text to what the sources don't say, and forgets just because we have discussed anyway the details, it does not mean a personal opinion would be reflected in the page, but what scholar's summarized from each sides.
Origin of the Romanians, at this page I changed my mind, not willing to intervene as two editors already dealing with the issue, and warned the user soon the additions will meet deletion if will not meet some essential requirements.
Per your remark, at the Hungarian irredentism, I will again summarize with more details the issue, so anyone may easily grasp it without reading the whole, and will wait another two days. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC))
Here ([5]), it has to be clwar now for every user not having expertise in the area, please check and tell me if it's understandable enough. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC))
Sorry, but your posts at Talk:Hungarian irredentism cause my eyes to glaze over. Is there some big point that turns on the 1940 census? Are people trying to prove (at least to their own compatriots) that Translyvania ought to belong to Hungary instead of being part of Romania as it is currently? Does the other guy believe you are defending the Hungarian side of this issue? Do you see him as promoting a Romanian viewpoint? EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Edjohnston, I referred now only the last post, after the outdent, where I summarized in details every points, as you asked and told an overviewer admin should clearly see the issue, otherwise it would hardly to judge someone who is not an expert in the special field. I tried to do my best, given the diff, point by point I explained concern of the user's edits, contradictions and non-neutral matters so I don't know what you meant by "glazing", exactly...to your questions:
- Between 1938-1940 as I explained, we cannot speak about censuses. These estimations are not reliable, obviously, moreover one part is just the delayed issue of the 1930 Romanian census (found nothing from Hungarian side in 1940, btw.). Hence, anything between this timeline is problematic. Peer reviewed reliable source use Hitchins, which as well posit the 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian census as relevant, again, they were official censuses.
- I don't think people trying to prove anything regarding present-day belongings, as the article before were neutral, did not take sides. What the other guy would believe I may just suggest, but as you saw he did not have a nice attitude towards me or Hungarians (you were the witness long ago some issues in the Origin of the Romanians page, similarly with other users, so such attitudes are quite recognizable). What we see having prejudications against us, just see the recurrent accusations of lying, despite the evidence was there, referred multiple times, your admin note stopped only these and made it acknowledged, my word were treated NULL until then, it is concerning...
-Whatever he would believe, anyone may see I defend neutrality, I agree to mention the 1930 Romanian census, and I did not introduce edits that would try to push anything pro-Hungarian.
-I see him an SPA editor, who very bullyingly reverting everything and the copy-paste-inverted edit logs and harsh accusations making him suspicious, so quickly lawyering and turning out the guidelines and rules, I was quite surprised he reported me after I dared to post after a big patience a simple warning to him. Like I would be targeted, I don't know, genuine fresh user's are not such likely...and he is just inserting contradicting content, yes promoted the Romanian viewpoint by changing the neutral significant Romanian population to Romanian majority, after added the Hitchins quote which clearly tell neutrally about the two censuses, letting the question undecided. Contradictive. Or see the Yugoslavia part, he tried to identify Hungarians as a small minority, though they were the largest ethnic group...this smells generally something against Hungarians.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC))
How about admins just put full protection on the four pages you listed at the top of this thread? Then we can wait for some kind of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
El C asked a feedback, I responded to him and mentioned you as well (hope you received the ping). Protecting the articles I don't see necessary now (would be imminent by an ongoing edit warring), especially these versions which suffer of the lame and controversial edits. As pointed out by my summarization at El C's talk, dispute resolution would only necessary if the issues would be above a certain barrier of quality. Now we have syntactically, semantically failed POV/OR/controversial edits pushed by one user, which may be verified in details on the talk pages. We have to respect the precious time of editors/administrators and try not to feed the trolls.
Hence I would recommend as I said to El C to wait a few days, now adding the talk page discussion on Hungarian irredentism and Origin of the Romanians are ongoing, while the other two pages it seems to finish w/o new points (given Hungary at WW2 articles's issues are practically identical with HU Irr article). In case the other two talk pages may not introduce new considerable points, I will restore status qou ante in 3 pages, and see what will happen. If the other user continues what he did before, it's a clear cut situation, since it would demonstrate he is not willing to follow and respect our guidelines. Then admins should act whether any sanctions on pages, etc. In case the user will not continue what he did, the discussion would continue and that point a DR could be considered. We have to see the other user understood our principles, wikietiquette and conduct.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC))
If you aren't starting serious dispute resolution, then you are in the same boat as the other guy. At present the evidence you are offering is not sufficient to block them, so if you start reverting, it will just be a two-person edit war. You are just as likely to be sanctioned as they are. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Edjonhston, I understand you, but after the report closure and warnings, one-time status quo ante restoration is legitimate (given the current frame, even if I am involved), of course in case the other user would revert and I would continue, then your envisioned scenario would hold, but of course I am experienced enough to know that would mean I'd endorse edit-warring, which of course I don't want and won't do. I just feel you wish to move already one step forward although it is not even sure will be necessary...
i.e. in the Hungary in World War II article less then two minutes anyone may check that the neutral wordage on Northern Transylvania was changed to a non-neutral one (added dubious and ignored other data, quote contradiction, etc.), while regarding Yugoslavia misleading population material was added which is not in the source, although the user recurrently says it is (it's not...2 sec point&click check)...what kind of serious dispute resolution I may do? Such evident issues are easily reverted as disruptive editing daily, etc. The user is already WP:BLUDGEONING soon everywhere, tendentiously make appear his faults to others...Really, tell me what DR alternatives you suggest for such evident cases, which does not even bear almost the minimal level of extension to wider audience?...I may show any diff/source/rule/policy/guideline, he will ignore and deny it...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC))
There is no substitute for getting editors to agree with you on the talk page. If you have never tried opening an WP:Request for comment, I recommend you do so now. If your view is so obviously correct it shouldn't be hard to find people to support it. Since RfCs are advertised, the discussion might bring in new people. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I will try to find some way to make a proper like question(s) to the community and try to establish an RFC, on the Hungarian irredentism talk page (as this page is under discreationary sanctions). While I will perform status quo ante on Hungary in World War II and History of Transylvania (this cases are so obvious, however the earlier is connected with the previously mentioned article's issue). I think it's a fair deal. I deliberately did not approach any other editor, not to receive any accusation of canvassing, while I think other editors are as well very reluctant against bully/time consuming trolls. I will establish the above mentioned likely tomorrow evening, and will inform as well El_C. We'll see what happens, seeing the tendencies going on, we have to prepare to foxy counter-accusations again. Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC))
Done ([6]).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC))
Hi, also another dispute resolution became opened. Besides the editor having serious BLUDGEONING at all talk pages, also the same way WP:COMPETENCE issues arose, simply the same way as described above, practically inverting his own activity with serious accusations to others (and try to give more of us short answers as possible, but getting WALLOFTEXT back). I have been very patient, but despite I warned the user about these policies (WP:LISTEN), it's already becoming disruptive. Here ([7]), he again accusing me about lying (the 6th) time ("KIENGIR's reply to you is a lie") and above earlier with "childish naivity", here again ([8]) ("lies and not listening to reason") where the user claim he knows betters WP policies and repeating the nth time his casting aspersions. In one of the pages he was already blocked for one week for edit warring, but this did not make him to continue edit warring here ([9]) falsely referring to the RFC I opened which is is ongoing and not even closed (that is anyway not binding to this article, but the other one), but what is worse, he inserted material that was not even coined or mentioned in the RFC (practically restoring his preferred problematic edits earlier). At this point, I expect something to happen, otherwise I see no other possibility than WP:DENY very soon.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC))

Two commenters in the RfC about Hungarian irredentism (User:Astral Leap and User:Borsoka) are now proposing that the article should quote the census figures directly, and not use any qualifiers such as 'significant'. What do you think about that idea? This might offer a way of settling the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Edjonshton, I already reacted to this in the talk ([10]) - last pharagraph -), while if you check my latest edit about this ([[11]]), it already did so on the censuses exactly. Shortly the change would be to the last stable version ([12]), that we mention as well the 1930 Romanian census, and change "significant xxx" above to ethnically mixed. I tell in andvance, the user as he did in the other article, falsely draws from the RFC as it would support his version, namely modifying and re-adding other probleamtic contents unrelated to the RFC, to say nothing of he re-added estimations, that are NOT censuses, the same way he ignored the 1941 census.
I also expect you to step regarding the casting aspersions 6-7 times calling me practically a liar, I don't think I should open a noticeboard issue for this just to tire the community, myself and admins, you warned him in a noticeboard already (then he was at 5, now +2).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC))
I'm not happy about the aspersions, but remain puzzled by your position on the article. Can you draft up ACTUAL TEXT that you would put in the article, and tell me what section it would replace? Give me a complete paragraph. You are so busy criticizing the other guy that I can't get a clear picture of the content issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but please keep in mind if we compare the volume of critics, I am far back than the other user, who's behavior had to be seen summarized. From now I would just inform you about new/collateral things, assuming what I already told you noticed.
So, last stable version/consensus is this: ([([13]]) (to avoid edit warring, the user's modifications which is now presented at the page was not reverted)
MOD 1 (lead last pharagraph) change would be (INSERTION 1930 census):
- "The population of Northern Transylvania, according to the Hungarian census from 1941 counted 53.5% Hungarians and 39.1% Romanians." ---> "The population of Northern Transylvania, according to the Romanian census from 1930 counted 38% Hungarians and 49% Romanians, while according to the Hungarian census from 1941 counted 53.5% Hungarians and 39.1% Romanians."
MOD2 (Near realization, 3rd paragraph) change would be (MODIF significant x pop to ethnically mixed):
- "and the Second Vienna Award in 1940 (Northern Transylvania with a significant Romanian population as well)" -> "and the Second Vienna Award in 1940 (Northern Transylvania with an ethnically mixed population)".(KIENGIR (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC))
Edjohnston, see ([14]), "Liar, liar", "your low character is subject of Greek plays", Enough!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC))
And again you "insist on lying" ([15]), how long I have to bear this?(KIENGIR (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC))
Well I just noticed the unblock request, and my jaws falling down...not just the very casting aspersions are repeated again so many times towards me (7 (?) times I became again a "liar"), but the user insist in fact he is innocent, on the other hand I would be the same or more guilty as him...impossibly amazing...if he claims he did not get a warning, also I did before many times ([16]) e.g. here....now the user is keeping pinging me on his talk page ([17]) (just bludgeoned again after your notice, explaining his personal attacks are "reasonably justified", forgetting the whole conversations in several pages are visible to everyone, cherrypicking just fragments in a lame way), but I will simply ignore, and won't feed the troll. This user is always innocent, while all other editors/admins are all guilty and unfair...now you may see reinforced what I had to get through in the several pages, although I've always tried to discuss with this editor with an extreme patience, among others. I became really tired all of this, and I appreciate but as well sorry for anyone's time consuming for this serious IDHT issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC))

Dispute resolution request: Look, I don't want drama and never wanted it in the first place, I just wanted to improve Wikipedia by correcting a few historical inaccuracies and non-neutral language, I hope that we all 3 can have a civil discussion without ad hominems. If I understand it correctly, I wasn't temporarly banned for my edits, but for the personal attack of calling the other user a liar. I understand that my comment regardless of truthfulness or evidence was unhelpful and unnecessary, I could and should have only sticked to proving the arguments of the other person wrong without any accusations about the person itself, which I will take care to avoid from now on. So I would like to ask you, if you would like to be a mediator in our discussion? Personally, I don't think we will ever reach a compromise without a third opinion. The other user already told you a short summary, but honestly I don't trust him to tell everything and be impartial, a reasonable doubt considering we are at odds, so I wish to make a summary of my own. If our point of views clearly contradict each other, we can easly check the diffs. It's clear that nobody will bother reading walls of text, so I'll try to be as succint as possible.

A summary of the discussions: We have 3 pages in question: Hungarian irredentism, Hungary in World War II and History of Transylvania. - With the Hungarian irredentism and Hungary in World War II pages being about the same information. In these 2 pages, I criticized the biased language and outright historical inaccuracies, such as near equal number of Romanians and Hungarians when no source implies that, it's OR. The source states 48%-50% Romanians but makes no statement about the rest being Hungarians, considering that there were significant numbers of: Hungarians, Jews and Germans; even as a personal assumption it's wrong. In the RFC on the page, 3 out of 4 participants agreed to just quote the census figures directly. - The debate on Hungary in World War II is about the same subject, the population of Transylvania during the Second Vienna Award. I would argue that this means the RFC decision should also apply there, since it's exactly the same information but displayed on both pages. The other user argues that we should not. Should it, or should it not? If it should not, can I make an RFC for the Hungary in World War II page to settle this in a similar way as in Hungarian irredentism? - In History of Transylvania, I agrued that the current text is worded overwhelmingly in favor of Hungarian historians implying the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Clear Hungarian bias. In my edit that led to the debate, I simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources, and removed the language that implied one is objectively correct. Eventually we ended up talking on the neutral point of view board: [[18]]. And this is where the discussion is today. User Blueboar suggested we find other sources talking about the same subject, in case one of the translations is an outlier, not in sync with the rest of the academic community. So far we have a Romanian, British and American source agreeing with the Romanian translation. And a Hungarian source agreeing with the Hungarian translation.

Reply to your previous conversation with KIENGIR: Because your conversation was long, unfortunately this is going to be long as well, feel free to only read the parts that you find useful.

Clear explaination - The Second Vienna Award happened in 1940. Why use the 1930 and 1941 censues when we have the 1940 Romanian and Hungarian censuses? It makes no sense. They can be found in: Rumania : 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe) - Hitchins, Keith and Charles Upson Clark, Racial aspects of Romania's case. I also removed some text that implied/stated near equal number of Romanians and Hungarians in 1940. This is OR. No listed source ever stated that. A longer summary was made in my first reply to the RFC: [[19]].

The other editor accuses me of being wrong because I'm new to Wikipedia - He is right that I'm new on Wikipedia and don't completly understand all its mechanisms, but I understand the way Wikipedia is supposed to work in theory. That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for summarizing what the scholarly community says in a neutral way. Anything added on the article has to be backed up by a scholarly source. The other user not only blocked attempts to remove parts of the articles not supported by scholarly sources and biased (picking sides when sources contradict each other), but refused to allow edits for which scholarly sources were provided. Wikipedia's core methodology for understanding is reaching consensus between users. But that is assuming both users are going to accept the opinion of scholarly community over their own OR and write the article in a strictly neutral way, otherwise consensus can't happen. I didn't know at the time that Wikipedia has other ways to deal with this. I wasted time talking to him a lot on this, trying to convince him, while missing out the obvious, I should have went to and asked for 3rd opinions and admin atbitration sooner. In this sense, he is right that I made mistakes because I'm new to Wikipedia, but just because I'm new to Wikipedia it doesn't mean that the content I try to add it's wrong. Or if it is, let an impartial party decide that with reason and arguments rather than "no you" constant talk.

The other editor accuses me of abandoning neutrality and taking sides - how and where? I never said anything about the 1938 estimations. I am not against the 1930 official Romanian census, and the 1941 official Hungarian census. I'm against non-neutral language such as "has a significant number of Romanians" and "near equal numbers of Romanians and Hungarians" which the user claims to be based on sources and the 1930 and 1941 censuses. But as I already told him: (1) No source ever states such a thing. He claims Hitchins does, but we already discussed Hitchins on the RFC. Please see the discussion for yourself and Hitchins's actual quote. (2) Just because the 1930 census showed a Romanian majority and the 1941 census a Hungarian majority, it doesn't mean that in 1940 there were nearly equal. Not only because (A) it's a logical fallacy, the middle ground fallacy. And (B) no source explicitly states such a thing, it's OR. But also because (C) we know for a fact that after Northern Transylvania became part of Hungary many Hungarians migrated back to Northern Transylvania. User KIENGIR admited to such a thing: "Many Hungarians returned after being exiled, or may sough refuge there from South Transylvania". In short: We have an absolute Romanian majority in the 1930 census, it becomes part of Hungary in 1940, we know for a fact that there was a mass migration, we have an absolute Hungarian majority in the 1941 census. Based on this, you can't say that their numbers prior to the Second Vienna Award was nearly equal, it's not even OR, it's just bad logic.

And that is making abstraction of the 1940 census that the other user refuses to accept despite me already providing source. And without pointing out that the 1941 census is dubious, considering that the 1930, 1940 and 1948 are very similar to one another yet at the same time completly different from the 1941 census. How could the Romanians be a majority, then suddenly become a minority, then suddenly become a majority again without any mass migration? This is not a criticism of the 1941 census, as it is stated by a source and my personal questions about it don't matter since it demands the rules of Wikipedia, being a scholarly source. But a criticism of the other user's outright refusing to mention a population migration in the Hungarian irredentism and Hungary in World War II articles, next to the 1941 census, because he argues it's not relevant.

Moving to History of Transylvania - The other user's argument falsely tries to paint this issue as a me changing text into what the sources don't say. When I asked him what text I added that the source didn't say, his response was silence. The part in between quotation, which is what the source itself says, was left completely unchanged. This is, in order to diverge attention from the true problem of that paragraph - lack of neutrality.

Where is the lack of neutrality? - Not in the sources (the other user accuses me of being I'm against the Hungarian sources, therefore I complain about a lack of neutrality because the Hungarian source is there too). This is completly false and easily proveable, notice that in my edit, I did not remove the Hungarian source, in fact, it was left unchanged. The lack of neutrality is in the words used by the editor. Wikipedia article is not simply "copy-paste from the source", we add our own words and make our own sentences around it. It is our responsability to make those words as neutral as possible. For example: "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", this sentence is not present in either source. It is a phrase added by the editor. This is where the bias can happen.

Concerning this "Does the other guy believe you are defending the Hungarian side of this issue? Do you see him as promoting a Romanian viewpoint?" -> He is not simply defending the Hungarian side of this issue, he is promoting the Hungarian side of this issue in a non-neutral way. I could easily make the case that the Romanian translation in the page History of Transylvania is the correct one, this is because: other neutral (English and American) sources agreed with the Romanian source, rather than the Hungarian one, and that the Latin translation supports the Romanian version, since the text itself doesn't imply the "any" that is added in the Hungarian translation. But this is not how Wikipedia works, it is not an encyclopedia of truth, it is an encyclopedia driven by academic consensus. You can see in my proposed edit, that I posted both versions, next to each other, with no mention which is the correct one, only that one source says one thing while another source says the other thing. In short: I believe that while I try to promote a neutral viewpoint, the other user tries to promote a Hungarian viewpoint.

"otherwise it would hardly to judge someone who is not an expert in the special field" -> Neither of us is probably an expert in the field, but you don't need to be an expert in the field to understand the cause of the debate. It's more of a matter of logic and believing\not believing sources.

"He did not have a nice attitude towards me or Hungarians" -> How did you get to the last part? I actually have a nice attitude towards Hungarians, I've met plenty and had a good time with them. Even had a Hungarian co-worker that I used to make silly jokes with. Towards you, yes, I did not have a nice, attitude, but you started it: [[20]], this was the first personal attack ever made in our conversation. I'm not without blame for I continued to play this dumb game, but you are not the victim here either.

"I did not introduce edits that would try to push anything pro-Hungarian" -> Because the page was already pro-Hungarian, whether it was you or someone else who made those edits is irrelevant, I was not accusing the user lacking neutrality (until you started defending the sections lacking neutrality) but the page not being neutral.

"yes promoted the Romanian viewpoint by changing the neutral significant Romanian population to Romanian majority" -> This "Romanian viewpoint" is not even contested by Hungarians because there are censuses that clearly state the Romanians as the majority. While the "significant Romanian population to Romanian" as I argued in our conversation, is not neutral because that "significant population" was the largest ethnic group in that region. Where was "significant population" can also mean a 13% population. It's not much, but it's significant.

If the phrase "significant Romanian population" was neutral, as you have constantly said, why did you outrightly disagreed with my suggestion for a compromise of saying "significant Hungarian population" instead? -> If you genuinely feel that way about the meaning of "significant", then you should have no problem with this as according to your own logic its basically the same thing. You believe it's the same thing so we just change from "significant Romanian" to "significant Hungarian" and the phrase would still be the same thing, just as neutral. I believe it's not the same thing and I gave concensus for the "Has a significant Hungarian population" version that you believe to be the same thing, so it's win-win.

I would raise the speculation that there are some double standards involved, for there is no clear reason why the same user who argues "the number of Hungarians and Romanians was near equal" and "the phrase significant Romanian population" is neutral because quote "is perfectly neutral, significant does not refer to low percentages", would be against the phase "significant Hungarian population" instead. When I asked him in our conversation why is he against it, he didn't answer.

I wish to come back to a previous issue, concerning the RFC about Hungarian irredentism and Hungary in World War II -> The other user said [[21]] "moreove here the content has not been even identical", but I see now that he told you this: "(given Hungary at WW2 articles's issues are practically identical with HU Irr article)", so which one is it? is the content identical or not identical after all? My stance is that it's exactly the same information but displayed on both pages. On his stance, I won't address.

The user's spam of WP:COMPETENCE, WP:LISTEN and WP:BLUDGEONING did nothing to ease the situation, as I told him the first time that this is what I believe he is doing. The constant spam of these links from then on served only as a personal attack, constantly accusing me of not doing this and that, while I made it very clear that I find his accusations ironic because I believe he's the one not respecting the very policies he is spamming at me. In many of his messages, the constant spams of such accusations, was a lot longer than the statements he made concerning the discussion itself. Leading to unnecessary ad hoeminem talk.

He inserted material that was not even coined or mentioned in the RFC (practically restoring his preferred problematic edits earlier) -> I posted the census figures directly in my edits, overlaping biased language and outright historical inaccuracies such as "near number of Romanians and Hungarians" with the actual data from the census. As explained in the RFC discussion. My "problematic" edits are merely the census data for which I provided a scholarly source, that the other user disagrees with for reasons I can only assume to be personal, as he rarely gave reasons for his declarations. In my opinion, he did not come across as reasonable but conflictual and accusatory while the actual discussion was merely a side-show to him. As you have stated "remain puzzled by your position on the article", I am in the same situation. In his disagreements, he rarely offered any good reasons for disagreeing, it was mostly criticism about me, quoting a WP policy that it looked to like it applied to him, making blunt statements with nothing to back them up. And when I asked him about his arguments, his response was silence and ad hoeminems, it was a painful discussion which is why I'm glad we can finally do this with a 3rd opinion. If I was aware you can do this on Wikipedia, ask for a 3rd opinion or admin mediation, I would have done it a lot earlier.

Sure, but please keep in mind if we compare the volume of critics, I am far back than the other user, who's behavior had to be seen summarized. -> No, you're not. Anyway, let's leave that behind and only focus on the discussion itself.

I believe this makes a good summary, although long. If it's too long, read only the part above "reply to your previous conversation", the rest is just in case you need extra info. If you have any other question feel free to ask. Currently, I'm waiting for your opinion on the RFC decision, on what should be done with it, and whether it involves the "Hungary in World War II" page as well, and for the History of Transylvania, we have an on-going noticeboard discussion that I talked about at the beginning of this long wall of text. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I try to have really a "succinct" reaction, you practically repeated many issues arleady discussed, or demonstrated otherwise as you describe, not just the talk pages or above, this just reaffirms the problems I addressed: (shortly, as anything else may be verified above or in the talk page discussion)
- "Hungarian irredentism and Hungary in World War II pages being about the same information. In these 2 pages, I criticized the biased language and outright historical inaccuracies, such as near equal number of Romanians and Hungarians when no source implies that, it's OR" -> Nope. The first page attested about significant Romanian population, while the 1941 census. The other page about divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians (depending on the census, cf. Second Vienna Award). Conclusion, not identical, not the same, no bias, you just grabbed the word significant, which is arguable.
- "3 out of 4 participants agreed to just quote the census figures directly." - No, above diff proves you are the 4th (?) time unable to summarize/draw appropriately user's opinons.
- "should also apply there, since it's exactly the same information but displayed on both pages" -> as per first point nope
- "implying the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one" -> Nope, the user's tendentious repeat on this xth time in several pages does not stand, simply failed to read/interpret appropriately the source, and IHDT the summarization is not against the direct quote, on the contrary it could be extended
- "have the 1940 Romanian and Hungarian censuses?" -> yth time failure to understand these were either not censuses or just estimations
- "refused to allow edits for which scholarly sources were provided" -> On more pages more editors draw your attention about the failure of appropriately follow our sourcing policies
- "..ing neutrality and taking sides" -> This you did with your edits by stating "with a Romanian majority".
- "even OR, it's just bad logic" -> No way, the logical inference and possible discrepancies may be easily checked out by those who take the precious time to read talk, and it's not on me
- "quotation, which is what the source itself says, was left completely unchanged" -> I was not silent, user fails to understand his summarization did not represent what the source say, apart from the quote
- "He is not simply defending the Hungarian side of this issue, he is promoting the Hungarian side of this issue in a non-neutral way." -> n+1 accusation, while the user's edit show the opposite (above), not understandiong neutrality, my "promotion" has been the neutral approach, may be read on the talk pages
- Summa summarum, if you talk about personal attacks it's enough to see how many times you've made serious accusation and were friendly with other editors as well (counter would reach high), it has nothing to with your personal life and/or silly jokes with others. I think Edjohnston's talk page should not be endorsed with lengthy content issues, be satisfied now you presented your opinion as well here.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC))
It is disappointing that neither User:KIENGIR nor User:LordRogalDorn is able to present their case briefly. I sometimes attempt to mediate disputes but I'm unlikely to do anything useful on this one. If either of you wants to take this elsewhere, consider reading the advice in WP:Dispute resolution. I do not intend to participate further. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2020 (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.

Re closure

Just a follow-up note for the record, Ed. As I predicted, Debresser wasted no time in getting back at me, but worse still, obstructing once more the article's development.

This is his inveterate edit summary (WP:NPA)) that I brush off silently as always. But in re-asserting that he approaches my edits in the conviction I should not edit Wikipedia, he is never going to be open to the 'negotiations' you advised in closing. How can one negotiate with someone who has eliminated or mangled two sections I opened in order to get discussion?

Debresser must have seen my edit series, but, on a pure formality, reverted the result by, he thought, placing my new section in its proper place, repeating the same error I made, prior to my correction. He didn’t check the effect of his repositioning - had he, he would have realized, as I had, that it was badly flawed. The result of his revert is that the section I wrote requesting input re templates and formats is mutilated (‘garbled’) beyond recognition and the section setting forth the two contested versions has been restored to invisibility, and so won't be discussed (negotiation).

No one in his right mind would edit with this sort of smirky and disattentive reverting on the article or talk page. The simplest solution would have been, given his witting breaking of 1R out of ignorance, and now his inept mangling of two talk page sections, to simply get the man to stay off that page for a few months. I know it won’t happen of course, but just for the record. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that this article is still causing stress. In some of these contested articles, there are regular editors who are often in disputes. Trying to get regular editors sanctioned when they are also content contributors often leads to a lot of wheel-spinning and not much progress (after what seems like an endless appeal process). It might be better to go through steps such as RfCs. The outcomes of RfCs can be enforced by admins. It is fortunate there is at least some discussion on the talk page even if not super cooperative. You may have noticed that the article was quiet for several months and just lately there is a burst of activity. It would not have been been realistic to expect peace and harmony when trying to do content work on Hamas, even if well-intentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't try to get Debresser sanctioned off my own bat. I noted the violation without registering a complaint.I must have the strongest record for abstaining from AE/ANI disputatiousness of all regular I/P editors over the last decade, despite being hauled there relentlessly by four editors often three or four times a year. If I didn't have a very high tolerance of stress (just as my doctors say I have a dangerously high tolerance of pain) I wouldn't have devoted 14 years to the IP area, where I specialize in comprehensive top to bottom article redaction or created substantial articles from zero. Not to blow my trumpet. But stress is not the problem. The problem in that area is that 99% of edits made are tweaks, drive-by reverts, minute additions, creating over time source stacking - predominantly inspired by reading contemporary mainstream news reports. By my calculations there are 7 editors still active who, by their editing, show that they read articles from top to bottom, and familiarize themselves with the topic via scholarly sources before editing. An editor like Debresser is an esteemed regular, elsewhere. He is a template specialist, and like Shrike does a huge amount of bot-like corrections of minutiae. He almost never adds content, though he regularly reverts out content, at least in my case. Most dedicated content editors spend at least an hour, reading several sources before they undertake an edit, and, if they are good, they restrict their sourcing to academic works that are some years distant from the events otherwise described briefly and sensationally in newsprint.
I don't expect peace and harmony on an article like Hamas. But when I undertook to pull it into order (it only needs about 250 references, not 550, which is way more than Al-Qaeda and ISIS, global terror organizations, get) in I didn't get disrupted.
I began a general recension and reorganization of the whole article in February 2016, announcing my intention of doing so. In a week (17 to 22 Fevruary 2016) I performed 51 edits all substantial content addition or reorganization of the material. There was no disruption.
I returned to the overhaul task on 22 Sept through to 10 November 2016 I did 21 substantial edits to start fixing the page. From then until recently I only did two substantial edits one in 2018 and in 2019. There was some objection this time around. But, if you check all edits from that date, they are overwhelmingly tweaks. Over 11 years with 5 edit Debresser has added 49 bytes and in two (fell) swoops deleted (bytes): -2,323 in 7 edits, 5 of which regarded my edit on 3 October this year. There is no evidenc of interest in the article, or knowledge of the topic. The reverts were flawed, as admitted. Yet the damage done remains. Your advice is to negotiate and use RfCs. No, it's too time consuming to get sucked into long negotiations over just one piece of content, when that time is all a detraction from what I do best, read the available technical literature and edit to ensure this encyclopedia reflects the best contemporary scholarship. Obstacles don't stress me: stonewalls do.
Just to clarify my position. This has nothing to do with POV clashes, but method and incentives to work productively on Wikipedia. The major incentive comes from strict rule observance: when that fails, people like me are fucked because it opens the door to persistent niggling disruptiveness that consumes valuable editing time. Sorry for these longueurs, which are a distracting to your own heavy commitments. Best regards, and let's leave it at that. Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

AleviQizilbash

User temporarily blocked as a delayed result of the ANI thread. See their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Dear EdJohnston, hi I am one of the two that were called an Islamophobe repeatedly by AleviQizilbash and he would have been blocked if he wouldn't have said he would retire. He now is active again. See the edits of today here here and here. I mention it to you as you were the admin involved in the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't call you Islamophobe , this was on September and admin Black kite interfered , I desisted and everything went well . I never repeated it again , as for mentioning the last noticeboard , I was just explaining the history of the issue . I wouldn't have been blocked either over it because it was in a context of explaining the history of the whole issue , the context wasn't in calling you an Islamophobe , so there would never be any block , it's just your planned assumptionAleviQizilbash (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
That you called me an Islamophobe and reconfirmed it gave you a final warning by Black Kite. Ok, you didn't call anyone an Islamophobe again (at least I didn't see it), but several other things which was made very clear in the discussion after the final warning. Which made Edjohnston admit AleviQizilbash has a terrible attitude. EdJohnston himself had the idea of a weekly block due to this edit and similar ones without knowing (as far as I know, it wasn't mentioned) of the final warning by Black Kite. Rosguill also mentioned that it might be better for AleviQizilbash to desist editing in contentious topics for a while.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
So the Islamophobe trick doesn't work anymore you decided to bring up the noticeboard again from the start , no problem , edit the noticeboard again and bring your other dudes Apple and Things6sz to it in order to solve this headache once and for allAleviQizilbash (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2020 (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.

Rename category

Sorry for troubling you. "Category:Converts to Eastern Catholicism from the Assyrian Church of the East" has five pages. The five persons in question lived and died long before 1976, when the name "Assyrian Church of the East" was adopted. The Assyrian Church of the East claims to be the continuation of the church that they left, the "Nestorian" Church of the East. So does the Ancient Church of the East. (So indeed does the Eastern Catholic Church that they became members of: the Chaldean Catholic Church.)

For each of the seven individuals I would like to change "Category:Converts to Eastern Catholicism from the Assyrian Church of the East" to "Category:Converts to Eastern Catholicism from the Church of the East". That would mean creating a new category and deleting the present category: an empty category would be senseless. I am unsure about how to delete the existing inaccurate category, and whether I have the authority to do so. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Why not use the process at WP:CFD? They will know how to do it right. Anyway, it doesn't sound like this qualifies for a speedy move; it probably needs a discussion. Religious things that have the word 'Assyrian' in them have a tendency to cause disagreement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Just what I needed. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Tell Abyad quotes

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have mentioned you at the ANI, and therefore I inform you. You offered help at the time.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

The Committee thanks the community and all of the candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed
Congratulations, Ed! I'm looking forward to working with you. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the good wishes! ..It seems there will be a learning curve. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! – EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing

Thanks for addressing the edit-warring, and looking further into the dispute.

Yes, I brought up that we should be looking at other terms and descriptions in my first comment to Grnwng and on the article talk page. Hopefully we can find a better description.

I'm unclear what you are referring to (or what you're suggesting) when you wrote, "See also the reference in the first line of the article to pyramid selling which on Wikipedia is considered a type of fraud." Which reference in which article, Multi-level marketing or Pyramid scheme? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Pyramid selling is currently a redirect to Pyramid scheme. The latter sounds to me like a scam, but not everyone may have the same association. If there is a benign meaning to pyamid selling, I don't see it being reflected in the pyramid scheme article. Perhaps this is a situation where some article improvement could be done. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, pyramid scheme's are scams, and some multilevel marketing approaches are scams as well. I've been looking for better references, and what I'm reading has me concerned that the distinctions that we're making in the articles in Wikipedia's voice are not so distinct. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Grnwng (talk · contribs) went ahead and reverted as soon as the block expired with no further discussion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
User now blocked by another admin for three days. Let me know if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It continues: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Grnwng_reported_by_User:Hipal_(Result:_), User_talk:DMacks#Grnwng_continues_to_edit-war --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Grnwng is now blocked indef by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Hi, I'm unable to edit Wikipedia because I'm using a VPN. Could you kindly unblock this IP 107.150.95.36 so I can continue editing? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This IP is blocked three years for being a colocation webhost by User:ST47. You could follow up with him. There is also a process for getting WP:IPBE, but it depends on your having a specific need. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Premature archiving of a report at AN3

Hi,

see ([22]), the bot archived (by mistake?) also a report without result/closed yet. I just noticed, since the issue open at ANI also points to this, (and you asked community feedback, you've got a few). Hence I wrote to you, for clarity, bots don't check the result header, or just automatically archiving even open cases at AN3 after a time? Thanks for clarification.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC))

Since the AN3 report got archived before a closure, I restored it and issued this topic ban. You are correct. The bot removes reports after a certain time and doesn't look at the header. Thanks for your note, EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Another personal attack

Thanks for your help last time around, but it looks like the disruption continues at Talk:Cedar Point. The responses are becoming more aggressive and direct, and now from a different IP range. Apparently they are having a hard time dropping the stick. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll second the motion. This IP user has gone far beyond being a mere annoyance.—JlACEer (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I have proposed some action to User:NinjaRobotPirate on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Continued LTA/socks

New IPs continue the pattern at 21st century and 2020 in the Philippines from User talk:58.71.120.251 and Yaysmay15. The latest IP: 122.53.222.45 (talk · contribs · 122.53.222.45 WHOIS). Is it time for these articles to be semi-protected or PC-protected? — MarkH21talk 16:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/122.53.128.0/17 for two weeks and marked it as User:Yaysmay15. That may be of some help, but he ranges very widely. Also semiprotected 2020 in the Philippines for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I wonder if this will ever subside... but I somehow doubt it. — MarkH21talk 02:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

not my edits

f.y.i., prior to this year, i have never posted ANY edits to the Cedar Point page, before this year. But, nice job alluding to someone else's long-ago edits (via their totally different i.p. and location, than me). but you make me wonder if wikipedia is under the control of any sane people, any longer. oh well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:84B7:C9E4:65B:951D (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ARBPIA3

Just on a finer point of policy, Ed, I'd appreciate your view. At Hamas, there is a User:Watchlonly, who registered recently, and went straight to this article, and since, of his 97 edits, a significant number consist of argufying or joining sides on the talk page. Of course, anyone can, regardless of the rule about direct editing rights, drop in and make a suggestion: I am not challenging that. But his views are now being counted in consensus calculations as to what can be edited in, and what not. This strikes me as potential gaming, if not a form of WP:Meatpuppetry, in the sense of participating in discussions to determine their outcome by numbers. His suggestions, adopted by others, become proxy edits, objectively. Secondly, it seems odd to me that, while the 500/30 rule was designed to get new editors to prove themselves outside the I/P field, this chap is ratcheting up his count (so far 97) towards that figure largely by Hamas talk page comments.

I don't think this was foreseen as a possibility. To me it looks very much like a loophole has been found which gets round the broad drift of the original rule, i.e. stay off I/P articles until you have done 500 edits. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify the technical position here. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Arbcom wanted to leave ARBPIA *talk* pages open for new editors. If you think there is abuse, you could ask for EC protection of Talk:Hamas but there could be controversy at such a step. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
In other words, there is no explicit Arbcom consideration of matter, but we are stuck with guessing at what their intentions might have been? Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions:

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.

This appears to state that editors who are not extended confirmed may *not* participate in RfCs. I didn't know that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Typo in header

The same message with the same typo in the header was spammed to three user talkpages — all the three users who were considering the same unblock request. I've just complained about that here. So, about the headers... Bishonen | tålk 18:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

Sorry, it's hard for me to control myself when I see a spelling mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hehe, must be a medical condition. But I didn't mean to complain, more to suggest that you might want to fix the other two as well. If you need to actually see the mistake to have your compulsion kick in, it's right here, top of the list. :-) Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

Cardano extended confirmed.

Hi EdJohnston :

I was wondering as to why Cardano is now placed under extended confirmed? The user complaint made namely refers to users with over 500+ edits removing information and reverting edits. In particular, this is referring to David G. I believe (judging by the original complaint). I also saw you referred to "new" users making unjustified edits, one of which includes myself. Does the removal of an "unreliable source" tag really justify blocking an entire page? The tag I removed was in reference to a TNO publication - a national institute for science/research/technology... https://www.tno.nl/en/, it even has its own wiki page -> Nederlandse Organisatie voor toegepast-natuurwetenschappelijk onderzoek / also an english version available. I justified this in the comments and could easily have been reverted / undone. I sincerely apologize if this was not correct. Placing this page in a higher category for edits will ensure this page stagnates for months instead of coming to a consensus quickly.. Thank you & sorry for the long winded comment ;) Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have good arguments for removing the 'unreliable source' tag, please make them on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached there, you could also try the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wikipedia has suffered from promotional editing in the past, in the area of cryptocurrency. That is why we have the restrictions. In fact, we still have the phrase "Cardano is developed and designed from a scientific philosophy by a team of leading academics and engineers" which in most other articles, would be removed as WP:PEACOCK language. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
As I stated above ^ TNO is an enormous company with 2600+ scientists, engineers etc https://www.tno.nl/en/about-tno/ that performs work for industry (Shell, national defense, construction, energy transitions etc) and I described this in my edit comment when removing the tag. If the edit were so contentious I would happily have allowed someone to revert my change and dispute it on the talk page. The individual who placed TNO as being an "unreliable" source also has no consequences and without proof (no mention/justification on talk page) is allowed to publicly smear a source such as TNO whilst its removal for justified reasons is punished as I am no longer able to make edits. Regardless of whether or not I am a new editor I am trying to do what is right and I checked both the source & wiki guidelines before making any changes. I realize and have read the comments on the talk page about promotional editing - it is indeed a very valid concern and I would agree with you there is much to do to improve phrasing and language. However many "enthusiastic" editors, myself included, are now no longer able to contribute and reach consensus quickly.Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Leorto95

Hello, I just noticed you blocked him due to removing the AIV report. While obviously people shouldn't be deleting reports of themselves, his edits do not appear to be vandalism; rather, it appears to be a bad-faith report by someone involved in an edit war. Hence, I declined to block and protected the article involved. Leorto95 appears to be a new editor who probably wasn't particularly aware of the fact that you can't just delete reports about yourself, especially when the reporting person is making dubious vandalism claims.

Arguably, both editors could be blocked for edit warring since they both exceeded the three revert rule, but I personally felt it would be best to just protect the article since Leorto95 had not been warned about edit warring—he just received highly-dubious vandalism warnings. I don't think blocking just one of the editors is the right call, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have unblocked Leorto95 (talk · contribs), and ought to have checked AIV for a prior action before issuing a block. I may have relied on what I saw on my watchlist which is perhaps risky. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I never have a vandalism for Wikipedia. I just make the article better. I love Wikipedia. Leorto95 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @EdJohnston:. This is regarding User:CuriousGolden reported by User:Գարիկ Ավագյան case on the edit warring admin board. User today still engaged in reverting edits on the topic of Nagorno-Karabakh particularly 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attack article. The said revert is substantial to the topic, and removes any reference to preceding attacks on civilians in Stepanakert and the weapons used. The user had done the revert despite there being two open discussions on it and he/she being part of one of them. Isn't the agreement to stay away from the Nagorno-Karabakh topic for two weeks? Thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The AN3 was closed with the agreement by Curious Golden to stay away 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and its talk page. If you believe this voluntary restriction is not sufficient, you could file a request at WP:Arbitration enforcement. But that's a heavyweight process and may not always get the result you are hoping for. It would be better to first attempt to get agreement using the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I will attempt to resolve the dispute.--Sataralynd (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Breaking an agreement

Hey EdJohnston, according to the reached agreement this user should "refrain from mentioning Nagorno-Karabakh in other places" during two weeks. However, from the contribution page becomes clear that this user not only continues to edit in articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh, but also makes biased edits, regardless of the agreement reached. In particular, removing links, information, titles in this article and replacing them with other, more preferred ones. And in this article he clearly removed information from History section that does not correspond to his interests. He also does not clarify in the summary the reasons for edits. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, as I have already mentioned in the original report page, this is how the conversation between me and EdJohnston went and what I agreed to:
EdJohnston: You might be able to avoid a block if you will agree to stay away from this article and its talk page for a period of two weeks.
Me: I'll choose avoiding the article for two weeks. Thanks.
And I have avoided 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article and its talk page per our agreement.
About my edits, I have provided sources for all of my additions, if you have problem with any of them, please open a discussion in the appropriate article's talk page and raise your concerns, so we can both try to reach a WP:CONSENSUS. Because without that, what you're doing now just seems like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. And I clarify most of my edit summaries but may forget to in some cases. In that case, please reach out to my talk page and leave me a note so I don't repeat the same mistake again. Thanks. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Bashar Masri

Hi EdJohnston, not completely [23]. The edit history still needs to be rev/deleted. Per my explanation at ANI, pretty much everything the blocked accounts added was a copyright violation. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not ask User:Materialscientist who did the blocks whether he thinks this is necessary. It seems unlikely we would get a complaint for leaving promotion in the history, as opposed to valuable content that somebody was hoping to get money for publishing. If RD was done it would need to remove most of the history. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
That's the first time I've heard a pragmatic distinction made re: copyright issues. Understood, and I'll leave it be. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

How does the local ban work?

Hi, John! I was topic banned from all topics covering WP:ARBEE, in order to avoid further violations by mistake, I would like to ask you, how does that this ban work? If there is a page that I'm not allowed to modify due to my topic ban, will Wikipedia's code allow me to do the edit or I can't do it automatically due to Wikipedia's code? If there isn't an automatic restriction, how can I tell which Wikipedia article I am or I'm not allowed to edit? I understand the topic ban is on "Eastern Europe", does the topic ban involve all articles about Eastern Europe? Or just all articles about the history of Eastern Europe? Is the topic ban about all articles on the history of Eastern Europe or just all controversial articles about Eastern Europe? how can I tell which articles is labeled as controversial or in debate, and which article isn't labeled controversial? thank you! LordRogalDorn (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The software does not enforce your ban. You need to observe the limitations yourself by checking whether the topic of each article (or talk page) is related to Eastern Europe. The ban as its worded now covers *everything* to do with Eastern Europe. Attempts to fine-tune bans often lead to difficulties, so I'd recommend you avoid the area completely. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Just breached the topic ban [[24]], although *everything* is unambigous. I deliberately did not answer the meassage, however what is status quo ante have already been explained to this user earlier, and I really won't wish to enter futher explanations, because the outcome unfortunately we may assume.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC))
I didn't edit any of the two pages, I didn't even write on their talk pages, I merely told you that you accidentaly removed parts of the status quo when you restored the status quo, not to get to a fight but because I genuinely assumed you did it by mistake. How was that breaching the topic ban? It seems you care more about having me banned than building an encyclopedia. Yes, you already explained me what is status quo ante, the version of the article before any edit warring or discussion on the talk page began. In other words, the last version with consensus. This part:

The historian Keith Hitchins summarised the situation created by the award in his book "Rumania: 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe), Oxford University Press, 1994": Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Romania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Romanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained north of the new frontier, while about 500,000 Magyars (other Hungarian estimates go as high as 800,000, Romanian as low as 363,000) continued to reside in the south.

Was already in the Hungarian irredentism [[25]] page before we began discussing, was sourced and had consensus. Not to mention, that our discussion wasn't about Keith Hitchins' quote. Nobody contested Keith Hitchins' quote, not you, not me, not someone else. While in World War II [[26]] page, you gave your consensus for adding Keith Hitchins' quote. But do whatever you want, I didn't come to your talk page to pick a fight with you but because I genuinely assumed you removed that information by mistake. LordRogalDorn (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
And you continue, despite another editor as well warned you by courtesy [[27]]. Unless an administrator does not openly ask me to answer/explain you (again...), I won't enter this show again (since the reality contrary what you claim is a bit different, not understanding our policies/results/outcomes; their correlations is a problem, but I really stopped here).(KIENGIR (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC))
And you continue to make a soap opera out of a simple mention that you forgot to add something. I didn't see that editor's message, but you probably know that "another editor" just so happens to be a Hungarian (just like you) so his impartiality on the Hungarian - Romanian issue is out of the question, on top of being Hungarian, he's the same Hungarian that I had the dispute with that resulted in this local ban, where he supposedly explained something but actually didn't explain anything. So beside his lack of impartiality on the issue, that "by courtesy" is probably the last reason he warned me for. This may come as a shock to you, but I trust that he's saying that in good faith as much as I trust you. Unless an administrator does not openly tell me that WP:ARBEE also includes talks on a user's page, I won't take your or Borsoka's word for it. But regardless of what an admin says, I don't care about entering this show again, and you have made your point that you care more about having me banned than building an encyclopedia, the reason I gave you that message was because I genuinely hoped you are acting in good faith, now I know what I'm dealing with, consider yourself left alone. LordRogalDorn (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@LordRogalDorn: editors and administrators are not here to explain you simple policies and bans. If you do not respect your ban, you will be banned from the whole community. This is my second and last message on this subject before taking you to ANI for breaking your ban and for your WP:NOTHERE mentality. I feel sorry that I supported a topic ban instead of a general ban ([28]). Borsoka (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
User:LordRogalDorn, topic bans are explained at WP:TBAN. It seems that you have technically violated your ban by continuing to talk about Eastern European issues on a user talk page here. Please avoid this in the future. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand, sorry about that, I won't talk about the local banned topic on a user talk page in the future. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
John, I would like to make an appeal for the local ban, I read over the links you provided me, but I don't know where is "the appropriate forum" in this case? Don't worry, I'm not going to make a very long explanation on why the trial was unfair, how I was railroaded with a false narrative and why I was actually right. I'm simply going to acknowledge my mistakes and name them, say that I have learned my lesson and I understand the way Wikipedia works now, promise that I won't do it again and hope for the best. LordRogalDorn (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
LordRogalDorn, if you want to appeal your topic ban from WP:ARBEE, you can do so by following the steps of WP:AC/DS#Appeals. This link was in your notice though it is not very visible. I would not lift the ban myself until, as I said when issuing it, "your editing outside this domain gives examples of you working successfully with others on difficult topics". EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, I will make an appeal. I see what you mean, you just want to make sure unnecessary conflict is avoided and that my contribution to Wikipedia is overall positive. In order to give you examples of working successfully with others, I would have to engage in conflicts the first place, which I would like to avoid. I understand now the way Wikipedia works and what I am supposed to do. If it ever comes down to a conflict, I will not engage in an edit war but simply talk on the talk page with civility, should we not be unable to reach a compromise or concensus, I'll either make a post at an RFC or relevant noticeboard and respect their decision. Considering the accusations of WP:NOTHERE, I believe the fact that everything I added was sourced (although some sources I used, primary ones, are not allowed on Wikipedia, I didn't know that, I know this now) and nothing I added was a troll edit is evidence enough this is not the case. I know I made mistakes and I don't want to do them again: engaging in an edit war, engaging in heated discussion with personal attacks that had little to do with the subject at hand, insisting on primary sources. I didn't know the way Wikipedia's policy worked back then, I should have known it but I didn't. Now I understand the way Wikipedia's policy works and I will abide by it. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I made the appeal here [[29]] at the AN. LordRogalDorn (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I undid this edit ([30]), per policy.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC))

Al-Ahbash Protection

Would you consider unprotecting this article, at least on a trial basis? It's been fairly quiet and I'd like to expand it. I've made some comments on the talk page with some of my thoughts on the article. Thanks! 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Not convinced. In the past this has been a controversial article. Four of the past editors are now blocked. Also, I'm concerned that you may be the same person as this one, who received complaints for their use of a rotating IP. Since anyone can create an account, it is hard to see how the encyclopedia benefits from you having an unstable identity. You can appeal at WP:RFUP if you still think you have a case. Keep in mind that you can use {{Edit protect}} for any changes that have consensus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm the same person as that "rotating IP," though I don't see how that violates policies in any way nor were there any policies that I've been found to previously violate on the article. 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I do not concede that the accusations made here are in any way accurate. I did not edit the article prior to 2018. 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Due to your use of a constantly-new IP, we can't tell if you have been banned or blocked in the past. There isn't a record of your past edits that could inspire us either to trust you or be wary of you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the default presumption to be wary, then? Do you think this sentence from WP:AGF might apply here: "[w]hen dealing with potential breaches of policy, administrators should assume good faith when dealing with the parties. Editors should not be assumed to have breached policy; rather, evidence to that effect should be produced." 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I've appealed at WP:RFUP, as you suggested. Thank you. 2601:243:2200:60E:D0C9:C5D3:6655:BA57 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Under the light of your comments which you have left on the Al-Ahbash talk page as well as your current edit to the Abdullah_al-Harari, it is quite obvious that you are not here to do any "constructive expansion" of the Al-Ahbash or any other Al-Ahbash related page but to push the very same agenda of sanitizing the Al-Ahbash which has been pushed for the past almost 2 decades now by hook or by crook. Thanks, but no thanks.  McKhan  (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Please remove blocking on Cardano page

What has happened to “the open-door policy of allowing anyone to edit had made Wikipedia the biggest and possibly the best encyclopedia in the world, and was a testament to the vision of Jimmy Wales”? By all means, block the user who is warring, but about a dozen other people appear to be trying to improve this page, which has only just been released from draft, and they should be allowed to continue to do so.

You make an aside: “the phrase ‘Cardano is developed and designed from a scientific philosophy by a team of leading academics and engineers" which in most other articles, would be removed as WP:PEACOCK language’.” The academic underpinnings of Cardano are one of the factors that distinguish it from previous blockchains, which simply released white papers from their PR departments. Research for Cardano is funded at 4 universities and is submitted for peer review at cryptography conferences. The algorithm that runs Cardano has been accepted by rival researcher Elaine Shi as the first proof-of-stake algorithm proven to be mathematically secure (at CRYPTO 2017). A search shows that 160 Wikipedia pages use the phrase “leading academics”, and 43 “leading engineers” (“leading companies”: 632, there is a Wikipedia section for them). The “leading academics” working on Cardano’s development include Philip Wadler, Emilios Avgouleas and Elias Koutsoupias (but just saying that on their Wikipedia pages may get you blocked as a spammer!). By all means ask for these claims to be justified, but the blocking will have to be lifted before this can be done – at present this is a Wikipedia Catch 22. IOHKwriter (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it is the community that reviews the actions of 'ipsos custodes'. While you are waiting, consider perusing the 35 archives of Talk:Bitcoin to become aware of the strife that has affected this topic area. If you believe the protection of Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) is unnecessary, feel free to appeal the protection at WP:RFUP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Yet you decide. Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: would you please reconsider undoing the increased protections? It has crippled any improvement on the page as I had feared. Almost 40+ edits were made in a couple days prior to the upped protections and since then progress has crawled to a halt with no major improvements... Is this just going to stagnate for a year until someone with enough edits is able to make changes? Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Blockchainus. I wouldn't remove the protection, but I notice you have made an edit request at Talk:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform)#Minor edits. Why not see if you can get a response from either User:CaptainEek or User:David Gerard and find out if they will support your changes. Somehow I would guess you'll get more support if you could drop "with a scientific philosophy" from your proposal. Some editors might interpret that phrase as boosterism with no actual content. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Parga article protection

The article Parga has seen a surge of disruption and edit-revert warring over a questionable new content that some editors are trying to ram into the article despite objections and concerns expressed about it from the other editors. The new content dispute wasn't discussed adequately and no WP:CONSENSUS has been achieved yet for its inclusion. Can you do something about the article? Edit warring leads nowhere and an article protection will be much appreciated until the content dispute is settled down. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Page is now fully protected by another admin. See a complaint at WP:AN3. It now appears that there is at least one good academic source (Brendan Osswald, 2011) available for the settlement of Albanians in Epirus during the years 1200-1500. It was already being cited in the article and I hope people will find ways to use it. It is possible to go overboard on some nuances of geography and Parga may or may not have been part of the 'Albanian' area in the late middle ages. The phrase "the term Albania was used in certain cases as a designation for Epirus" sounds to me like an overstatement of what was actually happening on the ground, even if Epirus might have been called that way by one source of the period. I was able to review some of Osswald's work via Google Books. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with harassment

Hey. How do I deal with harassment? I am asking, because a certain editor has been harassing me on my talk page for quite some time. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this relevant? DMacks (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks DMacks. I've added my own warning. I think that 1Luca2 (talk · contribs) is now on his last chance. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the help from both of you. Looking at his/her behavior I assume that messages will be ignored and a block will have to be issued. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
That editor seems to edit with few-day gaps. No edits since blanking of my warning for the offending behavior, so either they have gone away permanently (problem solved) or will have to keep watching for a few days/weeks for re-occurrence. Let us know if you need further assistance. DMacks (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Status of Republic of Artsakh

Hello. In my opinion, the status of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh article is incorrect. If the state does not recognize it, the country to which it belongs must also be written in its status. For example, unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria are not like Arsakh in the article. Arsakh's status was written by three non-UN member states. Sorry, is this important? Does it matter? However, they are unrecognized separatist organizations. Even four countries have recognized the independence of those separatist organizations. But Arsakh was not recognized by any state. Excuse me, why isn't the Republic of Artsakh article the same as the 3 unrecognized states article? Don't you think this is a double standard? Sword313 (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You have already made this argument at Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 3#Status of Republic of Artsakh. Perhaps your post there will attract support from the other editors. I don't think this matter needs any admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Waterwizardm

Hi. Waterwizardm is back as Aquahabitant, apparently still refusing to understand the meaning and inappropriateness of OR (based on the content of their talk page and this Teahouse post). Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive321#Waterwizardm and NOTHERE was the previous discussion. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I have left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Peervalaa

Hi. I just noticed that this user whom you indef blocked a few days ago has added some pretty egregious vandalism to their talk page, which might merit revdeling. CodeTalker (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Handled. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Notification

I had just realized I should do that, so thanks! —valereee (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If you haven't opened any issue at ANI for five years, it's easy to overlook! You could also ping the other admins you mentioned at AN. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

194.223.31.39

194.223.31.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is evading their block as 124.168.220.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). See for example this edit by the former, and this edit by the latter. IPs geolocate to the same area of Australia, plus there's the usual attempt to add a "decisive" to an Ottoman victory. Could you block please? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Shakshak31

Hi EdJohnston, as you probably know, ever since the eruption of the new Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, some new user/IPs have arrived to this site, including User:Shakshak31, whom I believe is only here to push a certain narrative. Here are some of his diffs

Personal attacks: speak properly dummy. I'm not sockpuppet of someone. I just didn't see the archive

Major lack of WP:CIR [31]

Removal/alteration of sourced information in a GA article to push his own narrative [32] [33]

Showing signs of anti-Iranianism or at least more disrespect from his side:

I'm deleting my own comment. because the iranian guy deleted my other comment.

== Persian chauvinism == Hello teacher, farsi editors on wikipedia are making Turkish history Iranian. They constantly write "Turco-persian, Turco-afghan, persianized" to Turkish states, but for example, they treat safevis whose origins are controversial as if they were purebred Kurds. Also, I added the posters to the List of Turkic dynasties and countries list. The guys watched all the articles about Turkish. If anything they don't want, they say unreliable source and delete it directly. I've never seen such a lousy site. These are the thieves of history. I will be glad if you can do something. I, too, that same farsi complained to someone I don't know called sockpuppeti and I will be banned soon. Come easy to you. You can delete the message after reading it.

Honestly, some of his diffs are very concerning (especially the last one) and I just don't believe this user is here to WP:BUILDWP. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You also reported this user at WP:ANI#Shakshak31 I see. And someone else made a report about them at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ulpionz. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Gleb Svyatoslavich

Hello EdJohnston. When you find some time i would appreciate if you could come by the Talk page of Gleb Svyatoslavich in order to share your opinion on a dispute. Thanks in advance for your time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

My only connection with this issue is through WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive413#User:Agricolae reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: No action). At present I don't want to share any content opinions. If you need help organizing an RfC let me know. Pushing DNA into articles about historical people is surely a risky business. A page like List of haplogroups of historic people is a more logical home for this kind of thing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Harassment

Just wondering, why a "last chance"? He harassed me first and I decided to talk to him about that, but all he's been doing is deleting my claims and I did it like three times, and he said it was "for quite some time". Please give him a warning as well. 1Luca2 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You told him 'Delete your page', 'You are a terrible Wikipedia editor'. I don't think he is doing anything like that to you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Editor's last edit summary indicates that he/she is WP:NOTHERE. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There is obvious bias here. He purposely sabotouged and vandalized my work and others on Stephen Silas' Wikipedia after he was hired by the Rockets. He then has the audacity to say that it wasn't official yet, but Woj and ESPN were reporting on it, and even NBA.com had it official. I can not issue bans yet but if I could I wouldn't allow him to edit for a week. Please do me some justice here. I obviously went to far, but this could've been avoided if he decided not to be selfish. 1Luca2 (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC). 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.

Followed up and left an additional note. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Problem with an editor you seem to have previously blocked

I recently undid some extreme POV additions by @AleviQizilbash: and I noticed that you had apparently dealt with similar edits of theirs before. Explaining the problems of their edits on their talk page resulted in some nasty personal attacks, and I've got a feeling that this kind of behavior is what your entry on their talk page was also about. Eik Corell (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I will ease up the hassle for you asshole with satisfaction guaranteedAleviQizilbash (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston , Block me Please , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

AleviQizilbash has been blocked indef by GirthSummit per a complaint at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Happy to see that the AleviQizilbash problem has been resolved. It's a wonder how Wikipedia's administrative system allowed him to fester on here for months on end before reaching what I saw as the inevitable conclusion. Furthermore, I'm still not-at-all chuffed that one admin even had the nerve to warn me that my description of Alevi's mental state was inappropriate for Wikipedia. Another case of "blame the victim", but alas, we all move on. P.S. We all know that Alevi will be back in less than a week, with a new User name, right? - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your decision about Edit warring at Hellenistic philosophy

Hello Ed, while you resolved the Edit warring at Hellenistic philosophy case, I was working on a very similar case opened (arguably in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) by the same user. Now we reached a point where a restorative justice inspired solution is in sight that would help Wikipedia, but cost me some commitment. I'm sorry that my suggested resolution is different from yours; it certainly isn't my intention to wheel war. I would respect it if you objected to my suggested resolution, since it takes a big portion of AGF and IAR. But I hope you can agree, since I do believe it would be the best for Wikipedia. Please have a look at it and let me know what you think. ◅ Sebastian 12:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:SebastianHelm, please go ahead and follow the plan that you have worked out. I won't take any further action unless the edit war on Hellenistic philosophy restarts. I do have my own suggestion for a source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. When deciding how Wikipedia should approach a topic, it is sometimes worth considering how tertiary sources organize their own material. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia article "Dependent territory"

Ed,

Re the Wikipedia article "Dependent territory," I recently made three well-thought-out and constructive edits to that article and gave reasons for those edits on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, however, user Chipmunkdavis reverted all three of those edits in their entirety without giving any reasons. What can be done in this situation?

Atelerixia (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please make your case at Talk:Dependent territory. It appears there is disagreement about the definition of a dependent territory. This kind of debate might be moved along by a WP:Request for comment or other methods of WP:Dispute resolution. In a recent AN3 case, I did warn you not to revert the article again before getting a talk page consensus. "I recently made three well-thought-out and constructive edits.." Most people think their own edits are constructive. It is getting others to agree with you that is the hard part. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Atelerixia has gone back to not using talkpages, having switched to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania with some of the same issues they wanted to put on Dependent territory. Clearly an enthusiastic editor, but that makes it tricky when something they're trying to push is incorrect. They also aren't using sources, but I don't think I'm best placed to try and communicate this with them. CMD (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Atelerixia 48 hours for continuing the war, without waiting for prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you so much for your time involved in finding and rooting out sock accounts. It really means a lot to me that someone cares enough to spend their time doing this, and it really helps me to continue adding and representing scholarship that I and others work so hard on relating to colonialism/the environment. You and your work are much appreciated. --Hobomok (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Why warned ?

You warned me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:KIENGIR_reported_by_User:Rsk6400_(Result:_Both_warned). My understanding of a warning is that I broke some rule or did something wrong or behaved unconstructively. If that understanding is correct, I'd like to know where my fault was, since I really took some pains reading the guidelines. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Rsk6400. I saw reverts by you on the lead of Germans on November 21, 22 and 25 following your original bold change of the short description on Nov. 19. Your statements on talk didn't give any indication that you would be stopping soon. I would welcome an assurance that you will make no more reverts of the lead until consensus is reached on the talk page. Slow edit warring is still edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Although I don't like your decision, I respect it because I totally agree that admins have to decide in a case where two users say there was consensus and two say there wasn't. I didn't revert after I took it to AN3 and I assure you that I will make no more reverts of the lede until a solution is reached. I wrote "solution" because I have despaired of reaching a consensus. The central issue was not the short description, as you said, but the first sentence of the lede. That's why I think it is too complex for RfC. I'm now planning to seek a solution at DRN. Do you think that might be a good idea ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Another Instance of Sockpuppetry Over at Spanish Colonization of the Americas

Hi EdJohnston, I'm Hobomok, and you previously intervened with some sockpuppetry over at Spanish colonization of the Americas r/t User:Php2000 and an anonymous ip. There's been some recent editing there by a couple recently created accounts (mainly User:Frijolesconqueso), which began editing over at the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples' page shortly after those two accounts were banned (in fact, the account was created the day the anonymous ip was banned). The edits in question there were related to the same edits at Spanish Colonization of the Americas and sources called into question by those two previously banned users. In short, I believe those previously banned accounts have reappeared and are working to undermine those pages again, which seems to be a persistent issue by one editor who has been banned multiple times and continues to make and remake sock puppet accounts after being banned. Would you mind stopping over there and taking a look at this issue? --Hobomok (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think you have enough for an SPI, you should go ahead and file. Your main evidence seems to be the account creation date and similar edits regarding subject matter. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you--I've done so here. --Hobomok (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Now handled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filologo2. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Bengal Sultanate

Hi EdJohnston. This IP [34] is trying to force a journalist source (Scroll.in) onto the Bengal Sultanate, even though it is clearly not reliable, at least in this area. He edit warred the source onto the article without any form of WP:CONSENSUS, and when I tried to discuss this with him, it was completely fruitless. Instead of focusing on the subject, he chose to go after me, accusing me of stuff and whatnot [35]. He failed to explain why the source is reliable, other than the unhelpful "because it is" argument. I did restore the original revision once more, only to be reverted by him. This is clearly disruptive behaviour imo. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Bengal Sultanate two months. Questions about sourcing can be raised at WP:RSN. The IP has also been triggering the edit filter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nov 2020: Cardano

Hello, I'm an editor at IOHK. I've been commenting on Talk pages for the past 2 years to try to discover why the Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) page was deleted; as you know it was recently restored. However, you have now put it under an indefinite sanction. This raises some questions:

- Persistent disruptive editing: Where can I see this disruptive editing? And why was a sanction made against the page, rather than the disruptive editor?

- was there any discussion about this?

- Protected under WP:GS/CRYPTO per a complaint at WP:AN3. I can see no complaint referring to this page at WP:AN3. Where do I find this?

- How can this sanction be removed?

- How can people ask for changes?

Thanks for your time. IOHKwriter (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the relevant WP:AN3 report at this link. (There was a problem with the archive but I fixed it). If you read WP:GS/CRYPTO you'll see some of the background for establishing sanctions. Mostly, it's in response to promotional editing by cryptocurrency enthusiasts. Read some of the editor comments in this AN thread which is what decided on the crypto sanctions. Though some of Wikipedia's countermeasures may appear vigorous, they are in proportion to the amount of pressure that we have received from those who want to include material favorable to their own project. Feel free to use {{Edit extended-protected}} on Talk:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) to request any changes to the article which have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello @EdJohnston:, it's me again. I have to say just like @IOHKwriter: I find it very saddening that I and others are unable to contribute for close to a month now. I have placed a "Minor Edits" section on the talk page and not a single point was addressed or discussed despite following your suggestion of asking for others to help out. Simple things like the name of the founders has not been addressed. It is exactly what I feared would happen: the page has already (after only 1-2 months) fallen into a state of stagnation as the edit sanctions are simply too prohibitive for many. For example pre-edit ban there were close to 100-200 edits in a months time period (also due to the page being rather new), in the subsequent month since protection levels increase it was 19 edits. As it is an incredibly niche topic there will be very few individuals who have the required wiki clout/interest to make changes that may help the page/ improve wording that isn't objective (puffery). The funny thing is that the original complaint was about individuals deleting content some of whom have 500+ edits and are consequently still able to delete content. Sadly have now become a casual observer of the page rather than being able to help... Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Blockchainus Maximus. Use {{edit extended-protected}} on the article talk page to ask for any changes to be made on Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) that have consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:... I have. However as I stated in the comment above even minor edits are ignored for over a month... Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NATIONALIST edits by a group of editors extending to over 21 articles

Hey Ed. Its the second time I am coming to you in less than a month and the situation is deteriorating already. I am particularly disturbed as I am witnessing a group of editors resorting to WP:NATIONALIST edits for a while now, (their contribution logs can provide several such examples) and the disruption extends to a very large number of articles (I counted 21 articles where editors promoted either Albanian or Illyrian identity of locations and people and demoted the Greek one). The town article of Parga is being already the subject of a large dispute and RfC due to irreconcilable differences between this group of pro-Albanian and pro-Illyrian editors and the rest of us, and the disruption also extends to the rest of the 20 articles, with the most recent ones being the tribal articles of Atintanians and Amantes (tribe), and today the city of Ohrid. These editors are engaging in large-scale disruptions where they either cited certain sources promoting Illyrian/Albanian POV and/or are using ethnic Template: Cham Albanians for purposes other than what is the common practice in Wikipedia. The aim in both cases are to promote/emphasize/wp:coatrack certain ethnic groups: Illyrians/Albanians at the expense of another group, the Greeks. These editors' nationalist edits affected these and the rest of articles as well despite a lack of WP:CONSENSUS. Today, I have spotted similar nationalist edits at Ohrid, and I attempted to restore the article back to the last stable version but I got reverted immediately. Their numbers as editors are also their strength, and for this reason, edit warring is their preferred way of impose their edits. Knowing from experience that edit warring is very likely had I reattempted restoration of last stable version, I decided to just throw warnings at their user talk pages and: [36] and there: [37] before coming to you. The problem isn't limited to edit warring; the Talk Pages in some of the articles already became cases of WP:STONEWALLing such as Atintanians and Parga. If nothing is done to constraint the disruption, I can predict this extending someday even to articles with high visibility that have been relatively peaceful, such as the Oracle of Dodona, whose the history log already has one nationalist-oriented edit by user Iaof, back at September: [38]. Your attention is urgently needed as my pleas were ignored in the past, and the problem escalated further ever since I came to you earlier this month: [39], about the edit warring at Parga, (which resulting in the admin User:Johnuniq's intervention to resolve the dispute there). But Parga is just one of the 21 articles and not the only. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Advice

Since you warned me for edit warring, and since Wikipedia editors are more litigious than I thought, I want to ask you whether a proposed revert would be counted as edit warring. Here is the talk page discussion: Talk:Solomon's Temple#Zhomrom's_additions. Zhomrom has not responded to my comment from December 2 but he has edited other Wikipedia pages after that. I have already reverted Zhomrom's additions twice; on November 30 and on December 2. If I revert again, would that be counted as edit warring? ImTheIP (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I find your arguments convincing, as you gave them at Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 3#Zhomrom's additions. Yet the word 'rarely' was put back in the article by User:Zhomron. You could ask the other party if there will be a need for formal dispute resolution. If so you could either open an WP:RFC or try WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Recurring problem

Hi, see these user contributions [[40]], a freshly iterated SPA, abusing the same way similar topic articles, quick reverts - already 3 in the Origin of the Romanians, but as well the other articles, talk page ignorance. The user quickly found my talk page ([41]), where another (sleeping?) SPA account with a very few edits abused the same part ([42]), and now again this new account abusing that part ([43]) which has been already regulated by other pages the two "famous" RFC-s.

Please also note ([44]) "more to summary" edit logs (bottom 6), as this user used already six times did that identical part of edit logs ([45]) - (the majority of the first edits)

Also all the three users recurrently use the word "bias", ([46]) - ("editorial bias", "Hungarian bias",), as did the other users in an identical way in the edit logs earlier ([47]), as originally ([48]), ([49])...

I have a bad feeling about this, and I don't wish to live that moments again...so I decided to inform/warn you in time, since everyting so apparent...(KIENGIR (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

And fresh new revert ([50]) again with ("Hungarian bias")...oh my goodness, not again...(KIENGIR (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
Feel free to alert any new accounts that cause you concern regarding their POV on Eastern Europe matters with {{subst:alert|topic=e-e}} on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, will do in case, but I tell you these issues are really unwelcome, I am sorry for our precious editing time as well :( (KIENGIR (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

unfortunately the updates now presented reinforce the suspicion:

- after more times his edits ([51]]) were explicitly contested in an article, the user started to add some of it's parts to another article ([52]), repetitively, despite earlier another user explained him his unilateral way of interpretation about getting consensus ([53]) is quite problematic, but this did push him back of to pursue the earlier referred phenomenon ([54])

- Despite more users explained him in edit logs and even in the talk page ([55]) about policies regarding the lead, the identical way he does want to understand or challenge it, with unprofessional responses ([56]), and continuing with problematic edits ([57])

- his style of arguing, non-understanding, even orthographical features are identical

- but what is really the top and prompted me to update you immediately, he is violating the result of the RFC's on both pages ([58]), ([59]), openly pushing identical traits, the places the previous user performed his running amock, despite the RFC results clearly decided what should be included and what not.

As per all of the evidence presented, it is clear that's not just a violation of the topic ban, but sock puppetry unfortunately. Sad story.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

Just noticed, meanwhile solved ([60]).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

In Praise of Blood

In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front is a 2018 non-fiction book by Canadian journalist Judi Rever and published by Random House of Canada;

This ia a section for continuing a certain debate at ANI, if anyone wants to. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have read the book, and I believe we could create a good NPOV article instead of a jumbled mess. I would welcome advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you want to propose something in your sandbox? I could certainly see the advantages of something short, but neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I am working on a re-draft of the Content section, which should, I agree(!) be "short, but neutral". HouseOfChange (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston, you say on the Noticeboard you have some ideas. Please tell what they are. So far "neutral" has proved to be an elastic concept and my suggestions about due weight and to not include errors etc. were fought every inch of the way but never resolved (or addressed properly). The whole discussion with Buidhe started when I corrected an error with my first edit and tred to expand expert's views but, as you know, we never recovered from that. Saflieni (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Since there have been hot disputes, my guess is that we will need either a formal WP:RFC to settle the wording, or a series of talk page agreements in which several people give their explicit approval. One way to approach this is to start from a very simplified version of the article that doesn't say much as to who is right (or which group engaged in mass murder), and then expand it by a series of agreements. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. Saflieni (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Btw: please extend the editing ban on the article during this parallel project. Saflieni (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft of "contents" based on having read the book, and the article's sources. "Contents" should reflect major themes of the book, rather than singling out points Rever mentions that others found controversial. I hope Buidhe will also comment. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, That's definitely an improvement, thank you. I believe that Caplan's summary, "almost every one of her 250 pages of text contains extremely damning accusations", should also be included somewhere in the article. I also support keeping the current blockquote since that explains her reasoning for framing it this way. And why did you take out the part where it says she conducted hundreds of interviews? (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Buidhe, for your thoughtful suggestions. Saflieni and EdJohnston, do you agree that Buidhe's changes would improve the "Contents" draft? HouseOfChange (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The summary is more or less ok but the texts in the references aren't. The quoted opinions suggest that Rever's information is correct, but except for Caplan, it's non-experts talking who assume something. This takes us back to the reliable sources discussion. Examples: "But Rever makes a plausible case for it," and the information following this remark present the book's content as truth, which is what Caplan challenges in that section of his article I was asking you all to read carefully. "Rever’s account will prove difficult to challenge," is outdated because parts of it have been successfully challenged (e.g. death camps theory, the assault on the plane). "She has been writing about Central Africa for more than twenty years," is an untrue statement. She worked in West Africa for several years (AFP correspondent in Abidjan 1998-2001, see p. 48). Then she became a stay at home mum (occasional free lance work) and resumed writing on Africa in 2010 (article on Mapping report, p.51)) and started on Rwanda in 2013. And so on. Saflieni (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC) This needs nuancing: "There is no part of this book that denies the genocide..." I'll get back to it tomorrow. Saflieni (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
"There is no part of this book that denies the genocide..." is a personal statement made in the book by the author. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure but that doesn't mean others (scholars, survivors, etc.) agree with it. That's why I said "nuancing". I'll get back to it.

EdJohnston: Could you please take another look at your comment [61]. Because other comments were inserted above it, it now gives the impression you weigh in on those, and that I have not three but four opponents. Thanks. Saflieni (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Saflieni Rever's critics (and fans) have their say when we get to "Reception." Also, can we please discuss the article, not your "opponents"? Perhaps we could put "Reviews" and "Alleged inaccuracies" into two different sections? Would you like to write a draft of the latter, and I will draft the former? HouseOfChange (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
About my sidenote for EdJohnston: He can remove it and respond on my Talk page (or solve it). I'm ok with two sections for Reception, but better to split positive and critical, or journalists and scholars. An inaccuracies section would probably take too much space. I will try to find time for writing something but I'll have to look at my schedule. About my suggestion regarding the personal opinions of reviewers in the references: I meant not including any tendentious statements, especially if they're conflicting with the book's content. Best remove the opinions or use them in the Reception section. Saflieni (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The "References" section will appear at the bottom of the page, far from the "Contents" section. When a quote appears in a reference, it represents the opinion of the author of that piece. If you want to suggest better quotes for any references, please do. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no need for opinions in the References, is there? A quote belongs in the text and the source of the quote in "References". Saflieni (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
In the absence of any more comments by admins in the ANI, I think the best plan is for all of you to continue the negotiation at Talk:In Praise of Blood#Consider making a new version. It might help if anyone who has read the book could make a note of that in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Obviously I have read the book, 2018 and 2020 versions (and all of her other work except the arts and crafts stuff, the reviews including the ones not yet discussed, the scholarly literature and journalism as well as the fringe and denialist literature, survivor testimonies, diplomatic communications, just about all the judicial documents related to the subject, etc.). I haven't seen any comments by admins or did I miss something? In the meantime you guys might consider apologizing for your disgraceful attempts at character assassination in your concerted campaign across Wikipedia. It's just a thought. Saflieni (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have read the book, the reviews, and some other background literature, so I am in a position to describe what RS have said. Also, I have the book on Kindle, so that I can help with text searches if disputes arise. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

About RS, because we were unable to resolve that debate I posted a question here [62] to get independent opinions about the status of reliable sources from one field of science who offer opinions on other, unrelated disciplines (Health vs genocide/transitional justice in our case) but unfortunately someone came along to mention the ANI so I doubt anyone will respond. I don't mind writing the draft for a "reception by experts" section but we'll have to get beyond that obstacle to prevent further disputes. Saflieni (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the article should minimize book reviews by authors like Helen Epstein and Laurie Garrett on the grounds that they have not devoted their distinguished careers to specializing in Rwanda genocide. Nor should it greatly stretch out the opinions of Helen Hintjens and Jos van Oijen on the grounds that they have. HouseOfChange (talk)
We know your opinion but the discussion is (or should be) about giving due weight to the facts presented in peer reviewed journals over layman's opinions, whoever they are. That was my point from the beginning four weeks ago but we haven't moved an inch. Since you seem to have a special problem with Hintjens and van Oijen: you may have noticed that Gerald Caplan in his long and thoughtful article refers to their research as "so valuable" compared to "Rever's fan" Epstein. I'm not making things up here as I keep telling you. Check and you will know. Saflieni (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
There is also a COI problem with some of your "experts." And it's not just that Rever's book disputes their "wisdom." It would be dangerous for them to agree with Rever. Caplan got booted from "Friend of Rwanda" status for saying much less than Rever has said. It is funny that until January 2019 letter to the Lancet no "experts" said that Rever denied the Rwanda genocide. Caplan directly said that she did not. Jos van Oijen, reviewing the book on December 18, 2018, never mentioned "genocide denial" and what he found "Most alarming about this book is that nobody appears to have bothered with fact checking to establish the veracity of the information." Then in January 2019, three Rwanda-based academics denounced Rever as being just like a Holocaust denier. Those three, living in Rwanda, would face jail or even death if they believed in "the crimes of the RPF" (topic of Rever's book) so no wonder they blame her for not saying more about Hutus plotting against Tutsis (not the topic of Rever's book.) And bingo, your experts climb on the latest bandwagon and Rever becomes a "genocide denier." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, first of all you are entitled to your opinion and you may agree or disagree with anyone on the denial issue, which we can discuss separately. I am now trying to discuss the RS argument I brought up. You put experts between quotation marks to suggest they are not experts. But it is their peers who decide whether they are experts or not. The editors of Genocide Studies International are all highly regarded senior scholars in their field. The editor-in-chief, Roger W. Smith, the founder and former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, wrote in his introduction: "The essay by Helen Hintjens and Jos van Oijen on genocide denial that accompanied the Rwandan genocide from its beginnings to the present is, I think, one of the finest articles we have published in GSI."[63] I have already highlighted Caplan's remark in which he compares the relative value of their work and that of Epstein. About your bandwagon suggestion: peer reviewed journal articles usually take a year or more before they're published. Please be careful with your suggestions. But before I become too "wordy" again, I'm going to ask you to read the section "Appeal to false authority" on this page [64]. I have tried but failed to make this point clear before so I hope this explanation will help. I will propose some text for our Wikipedia article soon but since I have a day job and a social life too that will probably be on friday or saturday if that's ok. Saflieni (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC) PS: Don't go down the same road by introducing new allegations of bad faith against bona fide scholars or me. There are at the moment sixteen references to Epstein and Garrett and only three to Hintjens and van Oijen and still you're suggesting the latter are too dominant. Keep things in perspective, please. Saflieni (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston, May I suggest we settle the Epstein vs Hintjens & v. Oijen discussion so we can leave it behind? I have two arguments besides the ones I have already stated. One: About the repeated COI suggestion I want to remind everybody that not I but Buidhe introduced them as a source [65]. I merely added some information which I thought was relevant to a statement in the Content section. Two: A helpful comment on my RS Noticeboard question [66] refers to the guidelines WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI, which combined with the appeal to false authority explanations appear to support my approach. I'd rather not have to address this issue again. Saflieni (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually you brought them up first, on the talk page. Regardless, I agree with HoC that everyone's views should be represented according to NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I can't believe this. You inserted two references to their GSI article on 11 November. I didn't get involved until 12 November. Saflieni (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Both Epstein and Hintjens/vanO should have their opinions fairly represented. Please let's work on some text that people can respond to. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Ignoring all of my arguments, including the references to the Wikipedia rules regarding the use of opinions by non-experts I've mentioned in my previous comments, is not cooperating. I've predicted that you would just ignore everything and delete edits again once the ban was lifted. Saflieni (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • User:EdJohnston, since you set this up to start a new, neutral article the new proposal hasn't been neutral. And when the ban on editing the article was lifted, everything resumed as before: my edits being deleted, others forcing a consensus not based on facts, and my efforts trying to educate the other editors to whom the subject is a complete mystery but who still act superior, met with the same contradictions as before. HouseOfChange polarized the debate by referring to critical scholars as "anti-Rever militants" and "angry reviewers" and runs to the Noticeboards to get their way. So what happened to "neutral" and why do you condone that behaviour?
  • For anyone else still interested, I've parked my proposal for "Reception" and an additional section "Double Genocide" here: [67]Saflieni (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I removed two trivial but POV phrases, as discussed here and here. Then I replaced the disputed "Contents" section with the draft from my Sandbox, as discussed here, inviting more discussion on the article talk page. (I also had to rescue some references.) Otherwise the article is unchanged and we are discussing new drafts proposed by Saflieni -- who responds "don't start about a consensus when you really mean that you want to make final decisions." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes but EdJohnston's suggestion was not to give one side of the dispute the advantage which is what actually happened. Not sure why you reply to questions I ask him unless you two are one person. The tendentious quotes, which contain misinformation, btw, are still there in the references.
Anyway, my version here: [68]. Sensible comments please.Saflieni (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston - given the repeated accusations of bad faith I invite you (or a mediator) to discuss this topic further by email. I understand and agree that I'm too direct in my language and will adjust it in the future but that doesn't solve the underlying problem which I've been trying to address but has so far been neglected. Saflieni (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Though you are not happy about the situation, this is one case where our regular Wikipedia processes should be allowed to work. We depend on editor consensus to decide what to do. In the Rwanda case, we are only deciding how we ought to write about a *book*. That's surely not an earthshaking issue and it is hard to mess that up too badly. I don't use email for this kind of thing. Good luck. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston I'm talking about your tendentious remarks, like this one: "He seems to want the author of the book to be considered a Rwandan genocide denier." That is turning my references to sources in the literature into a personal opinion and a personal motive that I, according to you, am supposed to have. This is the kind of personal attacks and allegations that I've been getting from the other two editors for five weeks now and is not something I expect from the admin. The examples you put up on the Noticeboard were taken out of context. And this: "Saflieni objected to this 'stealing bits and pieces from my draft without permission'. Does he know about the copyright release that appears under the edit window whenever you hit 'Save'?" omits the fact that I was trying to follow your own suggestion to which we all agreed: "Since there have been hot disputes, my guess is that we will need either a formal WP:RFC to settle the wording, or a series of talk page agreements in which several people give their explicit approval." Considering the earlier experiences - e.g. the refusal to check the facts of my alleged misquoting and cherry picking with the intent to mislead, which is a serious accusation, I'm getting the feeling that you're either siding with the other two, or not understanding. I thought the situation - also the general dispute - might benefit from a peaceful exchange by email. I don't remember anyone asking me a normal question or responding to one of mine without jumping to conclusions, contradictions, false accusations, weird assumptions, value judgments, condemnations... Oh well. Saflieni (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the role of admins on Wikipedia. We hardly ever check on content or read the cited books. We just make sure that the regular editors are following reasonable steps and being courteous. Needless to say, your high level of engagement (and occasional over-the-top remarks) on this issue do draw attention. You probably will get blocked sooner or later unless you can settle down and work with the others. The only cases where admins would override regular editors would be in case of defamation or source falsification. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I never asked you to read the cited books. I asked you to check the truth of one serious accusation against me which would have taken a few seconds, instead of taking the accuser at his word. And now you've been adding your own accusations which are quite similar to theirs again, and ignore my explanation again. To others it's all evidence for my devious personality so they don't bother to check any allegations either. Not sure if you've heard of mob psychology but all I see is a growing number of people parroting each other and not thinking rationally. Saflieni (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Saflieni, please don't post here any more unless you are willing to discuss in good faith on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a difference between warning and "planning to warn" Saflieni to stop the PAs? Between these disputes and the last month of Trump + coronavirus--I know I should be more chill. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're hounding, House, like Buidhe was doing a couple of weeks ago. Taking turns, like on on the Talk page and the Noticeboards. I hope you're having fun with it. Saflieni (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Poor EdJohnston, having his talk page on both our watchlists. Saflieni, please calm down. I worry about you. You seem like a guy whose motivation is good -- a knight on a white horse -- but distracted from noble goals by picking a bitter fight with every effing windmill. Please, get more sleep and eat more chocolate ice cream. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It's getting more interesting everyday to see how you get away with tendentious, demeaning and patronizing texts and false accusations, apparently because you're a regular editor and I'm an irregular one. I came to the article five weeks ago to assist the creator/editor because I'm knowledgeable and had noticed factual errors and misrepresented sources. They rejected my input, reverted my edits time and again, refused to cooperate, and continued to add more erroneous content. When I insisted on cleaning up the article they ran to the Noticeboards to discredit me. And look where we are now. Nothing's changed except now there are two editors unschooled in this subject but with an illusory superiority bias, knowing everything better than even the author of the book herself, not tolerating dissenting voices, pushing their POV because their two to one majority, according to the administrator, means consensus. You're making quite a spectacle of yourself. Go on, post this comment on a Noticeborad as a PA too and don't forget to quote me selectively to enhance the impact. And EdJohnston: don't worry about me coming back here if that's the mentality you support. Saflieni (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank You!

User:EdJohnston, thank you for your help protecting against the defamatory postings, e.g. today on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Gordon_(businessman). My mother said, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me," but that was before the Internet! It is exhausting dealing with trolls who form single-use accounts for vindictive purposes. I appreciate that you are taking the time to do this, and it really makes a difference to keep Wikipedia a neutral source of knowledge rather than a place for carrying out vendettas. This is a good way to make the world a better place, one step at a time! Bengee123 (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

5.43.72.55

I dangled a worm purely in the interests of good order, and they took the bait. More fool them - and, unfortunately. Narky Blert (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think he is gonna give up this easy. See: 109.175.38.114 (talk · contribs) Coltsfan (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
109.175.38.114 (talk · contribs) is now blocked. Also editing anonymously from a Sarajevo ISP. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there is more. Better to protect the pages he is editing, rather than blocking him one IP at a time (like 109.163.168.91 (talk · contribs). Coltsfan (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Ed,

There are 2 users lukeemily and heba they are continuously vandalising wiki pages and they targeting a single community in india.

Please take action against them and if possible restore the previous content. Jbinsan (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

On your talk page you wrote 'I am writing because they 2 wiki page writers are writing this content with some sort of hate agenda'.
I don't believe that is a correct summary of the situation. I notice that User:Bishonen has already given you some advice on User talk:Jbinsan and I suggest you take it. You are choosing to edit in the domain of WP:ARBIPA, which is troubled by promotional editing especially about castes. If you look at the CASTE general sanctions you will become aware of some of the problems. I recommend caution. The page at WP:CIR is worth reading if you choose to wade into a difficult area without becoming fully aware of the past issues. An example of what *not* to do is to use the word 'vandalising' and the phrase 'hate agenda' about regular mainstream editors such as User:LukeEmily and User:Heba Aisha. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Tones and I edit warring

Thank you for your intervention. I was unable to engage the user in fruitful discussion at the article's talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sarmiento 007 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for using unreliable sources for biographical information. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Continued warring at Lere, Kaduna

Greatings, Sir. It seems despite the previous warnings and 31-hour block, the user, Ismaila69, still continues to revert adamantly. I don't know, what else could be done about this? Thanks. Kambai Akau (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ismaila69 (talk · contribs) is now blocked for continuing the same edit war. Thanks for your message. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate, Sir. Thanks. Kambai Akau (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive new users

Hi EdJohnston, sorry for bothering you again but a new issue has arisen.

Recently these two new accounts [69] and [70] have started disrupting the Languages of Iran article, the former is changing the procent of Persian speakers to a mere 18% while making Azeri speakers 53%, whilst the latter is replacing Persian with Azeri as the main language. They are clearly mimicking each others edits. This is not something new, almost a month ago, a IP did the same kind of disruptive editing [71] [72]. I would assume they're all connected. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've put Languages of Iran under a month of extended-confirmed protection. Will wait and see if any sanctions are due on individual editors. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


Walter Elmer Schofield, Across the River (1904), Carnegie Museum of Art. 		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2021.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.
BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Oneupsmanship: This painting turned the friendly rivalry between Edward Redfield and Elmer Schofield into
a feud. Schofield was a frequent houseguest at Redfield's farm, upstream from New Hope, Pennsylvania,
and the two would go out painting together, competing to capture the better view. Redfield served on the jury
for the 1904 Annual Exhibition of the Carnegie Institute; at which, despite Redfield's opposition, Across the
River was awarded the Gold Medal and $1,500 prize. It was not until a 1963 interview that the 93-year-old
Redfield revealed the painting as the cause of the 40-year feud between them. Schofield may have painted it
in England, but a blindsided Redfield knew that it was a view of the Delaware River, from his own front yard!
Thanks, User:BoringHistoryGuy! EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, and regarding the ANI

Ed, I saw the ANI report [73] against Βατο regarding the nationalist edit war in the article Apollonia (Illyria) and if you allow me, I want to express my satisfaction for the fact that i am not the only one here realizing that there disputes in the Illyria topic area have WP:NATIONALIST characteristics. Your acknowledgement [74] that The questions about Illyrian involvement in this colony seem to be a reflection of modern nationalism about Albania and Greece is a good step in the right direction.

However it is unfortunate that more nationalist disruption happened and you had to intervene and lock the article Apollonia (Illyria) from editing. In my prior warnings [75]) I had expressed my fears that this nationalist disruption may spread to even more articles, and I am saddened that my fears came true. What I know is that the article about Apollonia won't be the last. I can predict the this pro-Illyria/pro-Albania flag planting to keep up, if left unchecked by the admins, like how it hasn't stopped for whole months already.

I do not disagree with your recommendation to resolve the dispute at the WP:DRN, but I have my doubts whether this can be a viable option under these circumstances. The DRN is effective in cases where there is a content dispute. But thing is, here we are dealing with an organized flag-planting pattern which aims at promoting a nationalist Illyrian/Albanian narrative across 20+ AE-protected articles, with Apollonia (Illyria) being just the most recent case. Also, it is unfortunate that even though couple of RfCs are ongoing, these editors kept making contentious edits elsewhere. From the looks of it, they will generate disputes and cause more disruption even if a dispute resolution is already in the progress at the DRN. IMO, given the large amount of disruption, red lines should be drawn or even AE sanctions should be considered in curtailing it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

When there is a dispute, it should be up to those who are interested to organize their own dispute resolution. If that doesn't occur, and when the intractable dispute is about esoteric topics such as Apollonia (Illyria), it would be natural for admins to use full protection very broadly. That forces all changes to be made via discussion. Such a plan would not be tolerated for a major article such as Albania but the out-of-the-way topics now in dispute, full protection may not be such a bad idea. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom case filed by Saflieni concerning recent disputes

Most unsettling has been the quantity of false accusations with administrators echoing them without verification...It's not encouraging when administrators repeatedly assume bad faith Your name isn't mentioned but your diffs are included, so ... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Fringe_theories_and_advocacy Otherwise, happy New Year. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Wishing you a well-deserved happy new year

EdJohnston,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! HouseOfChange (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

SPI scripts

Hey Ed, saw Girth Summit's ping at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amrapahal_Pahanswan. Here's a bunch of scripts which I consider extremely useful for my day-to-day SPI work (I made Girth Summit install these when I took him on as a clerk trainee):

  • The MarkBlocked gadget
  • User:GeneralNotability/spihelper.js - shameless plug, though I can’t take full credit; this is a rewrite of Timotheus Canens’s script of the same name. Not sure how much you'd use it, but this automates a lot of SPI steps like changing the case state, blocking, tagging, and archiving.
  • User:RoySmith/tag-check.js - more a clerk thing than a checkuser thing, but this uses color-coded indicators to show what kind of tags are applied to users listed in the SPI.
  • Add the following lines to your common.js (this will put a note next to {{checkuser}} templates in SPI with the user's date of creation and last edit - it's good for a rough guess of "is this sock stale or not," but as you know it's possible to leave CU logs without actually editing so it could say "stale" when there actually is CU data):
lazyCheckCUStaleness = false;
maxUsersCUStaleness = 100;
mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/cuStaleness.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/sockStaleness.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

I'm not sure how much experience you have at SPI, but if you're fairly new then feel free to give me a ping if you have procedural questions. If you've been around SPI a while, then just ignore that offer :). Glad to have you helping out! GeneralNotability (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Usaamo is violating his topic ban here, despite clear warning by you.[76] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This one is very borderline. But if a person were hoping to get their ban lifted, it would be better to avoid this kind of thing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Libel and baseless personal accusations

You already are familiar but in this report a user writes libel about me when I’m not eben part of this report or conversation [Here]. This editor goes after another editor too. Could you advise as you are active in the thread? How can this be acceptable? OyMosby (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"Libel" is legal jargon, OyMosby. You know that. Wikipedia has a policy against legal threats (WP:NLT). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Does not rise to the level of needing action, in my opinion. Anyone who goes anywhere near a Balkan dispute will surely get this kind of flak. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Libel isn’t a “legal threat”. I never said I was threatened or sought legal action, Amanuensis Balkanicus. Point is there was no need to call me out and accuse me of baseless accusations in an a conversation I’m not involved in, not even the talk pages that report was filed under. WP:Attack is a thing however. I wasn’t involved in the conversation.OyMosby (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@OyMosby: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. No one is forcing you to edit Wikipedia. Such an outlandish reaction to some frankly benign and milquetoast remarks at an ANI is completely unwarranted. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You were accusing me of causing issues on Wikipedia “involved in 100s of disputes” apparently. How am I being outlandish? Your remarks were. I had to speak up. As in the balkans such issues are always reported to admins. If you did nothing wrong than why are you here? So why are you so concerned with another editor saying unsavory things about Sadko in the report thread. I welcome the heat. Just don’t burn yourself when you start it. As I said, boomerang. So you are a fan of my edits and follow me around I see. Is that what you say when you and Sadko blow up at name drops. Please stop with the projections. You absolutely would react if your name was brought up with claims without even a ping may I add. Stick with defending Sadko. And stop going after my edits now as tit for tat policy. Again following me around. It isn’t helping Wikipedia. Or perhaps, Wilipedia isn’t the place for you. ;) OyMosby (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
EdJohnston, oh I agree. I’m not heartbroken over it. Wasn’t asking for a report or any punishment to AB. Just a warning. The same people who throw mud don’t like it when it’s thrown their way. But you know how it is. Just wanted to see if this goes against Wiki policy. And if I will be followed. If not I am happy to participate. This sort of harassment is becoming to normalized in Balkan Wikipedia. We should have standards the same across the board. Thanks for looking into it.OyMosby (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Block

Hi, EdJohnston. Apparently, you blocked me for 3 days because "I wished to engage in an edit war indefinitely and said so in the talk page". Are you serious? How can an experienced user like you make such a mistake? Have you actually looked at what I said in the ACTUAL talk page, or did you just take a look at cherrypicked quotes at the notice board and think "yeah, they're probably right. Let's just block him". I can't believe that that's how the administrators decide to block users. It's rediculous. I don't have anymore words to say. Sweetkind5 (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's the link for the ACTUAL talk page that I engaged in: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Europe#Recent_edits Sweetkind5 (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sweetkind. I did notice your ten reverts {from 12/21 through 12/27} that were listed in the report. In my opinion that was enough to justify a block. The statement of yours that made me think you would continue indefinitely was:
"I, honestly, don't care to take part in this discussion, since the only that's talked about here is pure antiTUrkish propaganda with no basis in reality. Until that changes, don't expect me to stop my war on propaganda edits. Sweetkind5 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)".
On your part, there was no mention of deferring to consensus or making use of WP:Reliable sources. The decisive factor seemed to be, your personal opinion that other people were being anti-Turkish. See WP:BATTLEGROUND for why this kind of argument on talk pages is to be avoided. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you take a look at my other statements that I had written 20 minutes after the first one? Sweetkind5 (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What the heck?

Saflieni just deleted and refactored a lot of IPOB's talk page.[77]

Having spent his week of block attacking me on his talk page and deleting my replies, he is continuing BATTLEGROUND behavior first at ArbCom and now at the article talk page. Please advise? HouseOfChange (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop calling everything I write an attack and "reporting me" on different pages.Saflieni (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
(Update, the deletion was a mistake, Saflieni says, as he merely wanted to insert some more BATTLEGROUND POV-pushing into the talk page.) HouseOfChange (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Checking a multi-IP user

Dear EdJohnston, as an admin with CheckUser rights, could you please check whether this is the same person commenting from random Turkish IPs on NKR related topics despite an advice 1 2 of registering themselves?

  • 37.155.240.129
  • 212.156.71.30
  • 94.235.34.165
  • 151.135.144.173

I can see a recurring pattern of comments on this talkpage:

  • "Talking to you is useless." "It's useless to agrue with a person like this." "It's pointless".
  • "I agree with SolaVirum", "I agree with SolaVirum's reasoning". "Agree with SolaVirum".

The previous discussion on a noticeboard highlighted 2 IPs, it looks it may be more than that - it is likely a user blocked from editing the page I think, intentionally avoiding a login.

Regards, Armatura (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser has no special ability to find out whether different IPs are operated by the same person. Even assuming that policy allowed this to be done. If IPs are behaving disruptively on talk pages, the page can be semiprotected though this doesn't often occur. You might wonder how any IP votes might be counted in a dispute. If a discussion is held such as an RfC, the discussion closer can take account of any IP votes that do not seem to be in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for explaining, EdJohnston. Would be grateful if you could consider semi-protecting the talk page - sounds like a good idea for a talk page of an extended-protected article that is about recent violent hostilities and which is attracting anonymous IPs who refuse to login despite admin's encouragement, considering the history of coordinated editing and voting in Russian Wikipedia. I am not sure the discussion closers are necessarily going to look that deep. Regards Armatura (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
At present I don't see enough IP editing at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war to be significant. So not enough justification for semiprotection. For someone to decline to create an account isn't against policy, though it may turn out that the person gets less credibility that way. IPs work under limitations though they can generally participate on article talk. They can't create an article; they can't open an WP:AfD without assistance; they can't move a page without assistance; they can't vote in Arbcom elections or open a request at either WP:AE or WP:RFAR. IPs can and do file at other admin noticeboards unless protection is temporarily in effect. More details are at WP:LOGOUT. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into the possible options and patiently explaining, EdJohnston.

Disruptive user

Hiya EdJohnston - got a new issue at hand. Looks like User:HistoryofObjectivity simply made his account just to unleash a barrage of attacks and accusations (with nothing to back it up with) against me [78]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If this "new user" HistoryofObjectivity makes a few more edits, perhaps they can be checked against a certain user's editing history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think we would need to see more behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkey's position

Hello EdJohnston, Wikipedia's own main article states Turkey's geographic position (Europe) and (Asia). Furthermore, here is a link to recent edit war on the same topic:[1] Regards, Aquintero82, (talk), 18:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In the June 2020 AN3 report you said, "Having myself been a member and edited articles on Wikipedia for more than ten years, there have been numerous discussions and debates on this topic.." It's good to know this, but even better to have links to some of those discussions. Especially if one or more of them was an WP:RFC. Otherwise it is hard to document the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston. Why did you say that "adding prior Turkey-Asia discussions would help the 3RR report"? Isn't 3RR reports meant to sanction edit warriors? Not deciding on what the consensus is by receiving only those consensuses which favours position X. By digging deep one might find other consensuses that favours position Y, Z et cetera. Enlighten me if I'm saying something incorrect. That said, WP:CCC. Randam (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=962436812

Disruptive IP account

Hi a user recomended me to you. There's this IP account who is making disruptive edits to the climate section of Elche, the climate values seemed wrong at first so I changed them to a good climate model, he reverted the edit; I then saw the official climate values on the Spanish Wikipedia, a good article, and transfered them to the English Wiki, with the apropriate source (the Spanish article although good had no source to the values, a quick search led me to the official values (1981-2010)); he still persists telling me these are fake values, which they are obviously not, tells some BS story about his Uni and changes back to values from a cheap, incredibly wrong website, not even related to this suposed "study he saw". I have come across a plethora of other Spanish IP's who do exactly the same, coming with values from these websites which are not official when there's clearly official values.

Can you do something about this?

Edit: He now did the same to the Spanish article, this guy is nuts. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Please open a discussion at Talk:Elche and give the rationale for your views. If you want admins to become involved you must show you have tried to have a proper discussion first. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


Hello, I came here after I received a friendly message from Roxy and I have seen that user's recent edits. I am that supposed "disruptive user" when in fact I tried to explain to "Average Portuguese Joe" why he shouldn't change that data, which is there since 2015, he changed it recently for no reason. Today he first used an unreliable site and then he used unsourced data while he kept reverting all my sourced changes.

I have tried to explain why is he wrong and I have also added useful information about the climate of Elche made by the Faculty of Geography from Universidad Miguel Hernández which is the university of the city of Elche. I don't know why he wanted to change that data and I kindly explained why he shouldn't. The city hall of Elche doesn't have any kind of weather station as he claims, they just use meteoelche.com and Generalitat Valenciana or AEMET short term data, there aren't any 1981-2010 values, if not, they would have been posted in the official website, and they aren't. The Spanish Wikipedia had wrong unsourced data and I have changed there the data too, but that's unrelated to the English Wikipedia.

I have also received bad mood messages and he called me dumb in one of the edit summaries, and right now he called me nuts because I have deleted unsourced data in the Spanish Wikipedia. Is this really tolerable? I kindly explained why that data is actually closer to reality as Elche doesn't have any long term recording station and he just reverts and insults. If he wants to change old data, isn't he supposed to ask in the talk page? He started an edit war trying to overtake me just because I am an "IP" like if I was inferior. Yes I have edited that article before (never made anything wrong) but my IP is dynamic so it changes every day, as I use mobile internet on my laptop. But it always starts with the same numbers and my location is the same. I didn't do anything bad and I am not inferior because I'm not a registered Wikipedia user. --31.4.227.63 (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the issue is being discussed at Talk:Elche. Please try to reach a consensus there. If editors still disagree, a WP:RFC can be opened. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Enforcement notice

Hello, thank you for providing a conclusion. In regards to your warning, can I still add new information to COVID-19 vaccines, such as updating results (i.e. increase in production of a vaccine, or new country approval), without it counting as a reversion and requiring first through the talk page? Thanks, Albertaont (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If it undoes or replaces any material currently in the article, it still counts as a revert. (The only thing that is clearly not a revert is pure addition of new material that has never been in the article). If your changes are important to include, it is worth proposing them on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thats fair, should I assume that even if I self-revert, (I seem to be updating my own edits for sections of the article), I should still go to talk page? Thanks, Albertaont (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
A pure self-revert would be OK (if nobody else has changed the same material since) but use of the talk page would help avoid misunderstandings of your edits. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--

Apologies if that was too undetailed. EdJohnston's involvement was purely helpful and useful in an earlier ANI, now being mentioned at this recent ANI. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:HouseOfChange. It's not clear whether my further participation on the issue of In Praise of Blood would help. I am more likely to participate further if someone (anyone) would open an WP:RFC. In a pinch a WP:DRN might be sufficient, but DRNs are fragile and can go off the track if some editors won't cooperate. If a real RFC is opened and it gets participation, anyone who behaves badly there can be sanctioned by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is a disputed sentence I'd like an RfC about: "The book describes the RPF crimes against Hutu civilians during the 1990s as a genocide comparable in scale and cruelty to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi." IMO, the problem with combining "scale and cruelty" in a way the book never does is that it gives fuel to the charge that Rever is trying to downplay the genocide against Tutsis. IMO this is SYNTH because 1) Nowhere does the book describe the two genocides as "comparable in scale and cruelty." 2) Nowhere does the book compare the estimated numbers of Hutus killed by the RPF to the estimated number of Tutsis killed in the 1994 genocide. Saflieni justifies the two components "cruelty" and "scale" separately, because 1) the book compares the cruelty suffered by Hutus to the cruelty suffered by Tutsis during the genocide, 2) when Rever quotes her informants guessing at 500,000 Hutus killed, she is giving a number "comparable" to the number of Tutsis killed during the genocide. By putting both ideas togeher in one sentence, he says I've summarized a main theme of the book in a few words. But I have no idea how to turn this into a "neutral" RfC. (Longer discussion here.) HouseOfChange (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

IP block evasion

Hello! Thank you so much for banning 93.164.22.202 yesterday following their edit-warring behavior. However after about 3 hours later, another IP (192.38.140.42) went and reverted one of the pages again. This was the same IP that I suspected to be the same person in the report as they have been editing and reverting the same information as 93. Here are some of their past reverts that exhibit the same behavior: [79] [80] [81] They all follow the trend of adding fake Denmark positions and reverting whenever someone reverts their fake positions. It is also almost always accompanied by "(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit, Manual revert)" and nothing else in the edit summary.

But that's not all! After I reverted 192's edit and fixed the rest of the vandalized articles, a second IP (192.38.136.10 - note the last two numbers are different from the first one) appeared and reverted the same exact things as the first two. If you look at their contributions, you will find that it's a new account that only reverts the same things on the exact same pages. Here are their reverts: [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] I'm pretty positive they are all the same person.

Not only is this a form of IP block evasion, but they clearly have not learned their lesson on edit warring and have continued to do so. I'm hoping something can be done about this. Thank you! T  CloseDatMouf 16:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/192.38.128.0/20 for a month. Hope that helps. Let me know if further IPs appear doing the same things. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'll be sure to let you know if they come back. Cheers! T  CloseDatMouf 18:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Box-Office bombs

I have articles that show Justice League was able to break even after release like Waterworld was. Zomgrose (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zomgrose: - you should be posting to Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs to discuss issues regarding that article, not people's user-pages. FYI - wolf 03:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

AN3 Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

I wanted to think you fro responding so quickly on my report of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I was trying, and it looks like some other people were also, to credit cast members for guest appearances. In the history, it looks like the user keeps arguing with people about it. I know IMDB links were sourced, but user kept deleting and saying this isn't IMDB. Is that no longer a valid source for media pages here, and is there anywhere I can go from here to correct this? Thanks! Ev Thom (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Try asking at WT:TV. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Anorther long Balkan discussion

I am coming here due to your experience with this kind of stuff. There is an ANI discussion that has basically attracted half of Balkan editors. They are accusing each other and proposing sanctions against others involved. Maybe you are willing to take a look, and maybe act or close the discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That complaint should be at WP:AE. An admin who tried to take action based on a thread like this would risk making a mistake, since the evidence is not well organized and is not easy to digest. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree, AE is much better place. However, Balkan editors rarely are willing to go there, as reports there are more likely to end with both sides sanctioned :P If nobody closes the report without action, I assume it will be automatically archived after a few days. It is sad so much energy is wasted while it could be used to improve content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Block-evading sock

Hi. You recently blocked 197.89.10.25, now IP 197.86.195.162 has appeared to take their place editing Baby Esther.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Baby Esther due to the IP-hopping edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ilirida article

Has been disrupted by two IPs trying to add a country infobox, although the subject was never a country [88]. Since persistent socking took place in the past to add the same infobox, maybe a short semi-protection would be of help. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Due to the long history of trouble at this article while it was named Republic of Ilirida, I've applied indefinite semi. This protection can be lifted if the problem goes away. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Since the article has a very low traffic with minor edits once in a few months, indefinite semi-protection is a good idea. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Apollonia

There has been no opposition about the use of the Greek name as the talkpage topic reveals Talk:Apollonia_(Illyria)#Alternative_names (since 11 Jan.). Nevertheless Iaof decided once again to resort in revert warring without slightest talkpage page participation. Definitely a page protection is thnot the most appropriate way to deal with this kind of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It is the easiest way to always blame someone else. Anyways danke EdJohnston for the protection, it is definitely of help.--Lorik17 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Iaof: endless revert warring without taking time to discuss the issue is not cool. Page protection is not enough for this kind of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Warring about a map of the Republic of Mahabad

Original title was: Disruption (again..)

Hi Ed, you might remember this user [89] - he has been more or less disruptive in all his edits. His edits mainly include attempts to remove this map of the Republic of Mahabad from articles and replace it with an altered much smaller version of [90] and even [91], which is not even a map of Mahabad, but the Kurdistan province. He has been reverted multiple times, yet he occasionally comes back and tries his luck again [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]. Seems like WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(The capital of the Republic of Mahabad was the city of Mahabad, in northwestern Iran. The state encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the adjacent cities of Piranshahr and Naghadeh.[7] The republic's foundation and demise was a part of the Iran crisis during the opening stages of the Cold War.)Please read the text of this article here is for by Mahabad and the surrounding cities, but in the map of Urmia, Salmas, Mako, Khoy, Shut, etc., it is part of the Republic of Mahabad. Mahammad tt (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(From Sardasht to Mahabad and Buchan and Saqqez, the republic stretched)source:https://www.dana.ir/news/1285607.html/واکاوی-یک-واقعه-تاریخی--جمهوری-مهاباد-از-ظهور-تا-سقوط,Historians Ehsan Hooshmand and Abdolaziz Moloudi Mahammad tt (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, these are Armenians and anti-Turkish Kurds, and they spread hatred against the Turks without any source.I hope you judge fairly Mahammad tt (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Who exactly are the 'Armenians and anti-Turkish Kurds'? When you answer, be careful about WP:ASPERSIONS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am careful not to slander anyone, I mean these are the people who spread hatred without a source(sumsuri,luckie luck,historyofiran) Mahammad tt (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My other sources:http://wikifeqh.ir/حزب_دموکرات_آذربایجان ، http://www.ensafnews.com/203165/در-مورد-قاضی-محمد-و-حکومت-جمهوری-مهاباد/ Mahammad tt (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Mahammad tt, since you have accused User:HistoryofIran of 'spreading hatred without a source' I've indefinitely blocked your account. See WP:GAB for your appeal options. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Season of the Witch (song)

You closed a recent 3RR discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive424#User:ThereWillBeTime reported by User:Ss112 (Result: Page protected) about some reversions at Season of the Witch (song). I came across the article through an orphaned fair use file and reverted the section deletion, not knowing there was a talk page discussion at Talk:Season of the Witch (song)#Lana Del Rey Section (which the two editors involved did heed your instructions to use the talk page). I added my thoughts to the discussion and explained how the article should be taken back to the pre-BOLD edit per WP:BRD with an ongoing discussion and no consensus for the change. I then reverted the section deletion, which User:ThereWillBeTime reverted five minutes later telling me to use the talk page while they did not do the same. I feel that ThereWillBeTime is edit warring and I would appreciate it if you could at least explain to them the concept of WP:BRD, which both @Ss112: and I tried to do unsuccessfully. Aspects (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I left a note for User:ThereWillBeTime. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Ed, I just emailed Primefac after remembering this article, looking at the talk page again and finding a completely new editor named Mataytay has now contributed to back ThereWillBeTime up, and an editor who appears to have only edited one other page months ago, Kelseytron, to also back ThereWillBeTime up. On its face, this looks very fishy. Not only does the continued edit warring from ThereWillBeTime not help, but this looks like classic sockpuppetry to back themselves up in a discussion to me. I'd go out on a limb and say that the editor Jeckylback may be another sock of ThereWillBeTime, as TWBT contributed to There Goes the Neighborhood (album) yesterday and Jeckylback extensively edited the same article late last month, and left similar blocks of text to TWBT on the talk page of Richard3120. The whole situation involving ThereWillBeTime didn't look good from the outset. Ss112 18:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me Ss112 – I won't make any comment on the current investigation as I have assumed good faith on the part of TWBT, but will just note that there is a discussion between them and me on the talk page of Talk:There Goes the Neighborhood (album), which I think is worth leaving there regardless of the outcome of the investigation, as it explains why the recent edits over the album's release date have taken place, with sources to back up the current version... these would be useful for any future editors of that article. Richard3120 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I am just going to comment here that this accusation of sockpuppetry is completely out of line and baseless. Ss112 appears to be making irresponsible accusations regarding me and other accounts. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Nobody even pinged you to this discussion and you had not contributed before I did. How did you find this thread? Were you waiting for replies to it, or are you stalking my edits to see if I've edited anything related to Season of the Witch lately? What kind of obsession do you still have with this topic? 10 days later and it's basically the only thing on Wikipedia you've edited, and two editors have either registered solely to comment or have not edited in months then suddenly chime in at Talk:Season of the Witch (song) to agree with you when before this, you had nobody else agreeing with you. That is incredibly suspicious, and it's not baseless nor irresponsible to observe that new editors have appeared out of thin air to agree with you. Also, from where I'm sitting, writing on their talk pages only after you notice my reply here does not make you look any less suspicious and does not mean you aren't the same person, sorry.
@EdJohnston and Primefac:, can either of you please run a CheckUser on this editor? Surely I am not the only experienced editor who would think that on the face of this issue, it looks very suspicious on ThereWillBeTime's part to have two new editors pop out of nowhere to agree with them when nobody else previously had. It was already suspicious that this editor looks very much a single-purpose account and was still brazen enough to be reverting another editor on Season of the Witch (song) after the full protection expired, which is definitely WP:OWN behaviour. Please do something about this. If you run a CU and I'm wrong about this, then fine, I'll eat my words. But it doesn't hurt to check. Ss112 03:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I found this thread because the user Aspects reported their encounter with me to this admin. The admin reached out to me for my comments about it and I have kept my eye on it since then as it clearly does impact me. I do not have an 'obsession' with this topic, and am only hoping to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. I cannot speak for other editors and their actions, but I will add that I feel you have been uncivil towards me and you suggested I might be a sock puppet in our initial conversation over a week ago. I am going to bow out of this conversation here. I dunno if it this is the appropriate place for this conversation, but it certainly does not feel right to me.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I would hope you have the manners to apologize to me after eating those words. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Nope. Even if I'm wrong, I will not be apologising to you. You broke 3RR, are still editing from your IP address even after saying you would try not to, have repeatedly reverted both me and another editor—which is uncivil behaviour—and you're still obsessing over this topic 10 days later, writing paragraph upon paragraph at nobody on the talk page, then trying to obfuscate any kind of investigation into these new editors agreeing with you by interacting with them on their talk pages. That behaviour is still very suspicious. As I see it, you don't deserve an apology. Ss112 03:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
No offense, but you seem a bit paranoid. I am interacting with editors whom I cross paths with on Wikipedia. No one has claimed these interactions as any sort of proof against your claims, you are however, assuming bad faith and claiming these completely normal actions of an editort are attempts to 'obfuscate' an investigation. I fear the only one obsessing over a situation here is you. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a very sensible conclusion. Compare: I have now only left four messages here (three of which are replies to you), and I haven't edited anything related to the topic in 10 days. On the other hand, there's you, who has: kept editing the topic; engaged in an edit war with another user (@Aspects:) on the article; been threatened with a block by EdJohnston for doing so; notified WikiProjects of the talk page discussion over a week after starting it; and repeatedly left messages for other editors on their talk pages and on the article talk page about this one article that you can't move past. But yes, I am the one obsessing. Please make it make sense. I thought you were bowing out of the conversation. Looks like you can't leave something well enough alone even after insisting you will, but I think we knew that already. This remains entirely a pitiable affair for you. Ed, Primefac, if neither of you will take action in either running a CheckUser for these new accounts agreeing with ThereWillBeTime or per Ed's comments on ThereWillBeTime's talk page (User talk:ThereWillBeTime#Complaint about you on my talk page), blocking them for continuing to edit war, I'm really going to be quite astonished. Something needs to be done to prevent this editor from continuing to revert editors and edit to exert ownership over the article in question. Ss112 04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

(outdent)I have been away from editing for two days and two new(ish) editors joined the discussion agreeing with ThereWillBeTime, a brand new editor, Mataytay, and another editor with two previous edits, Kelseytron. This was suspicious to me, especially since this is a non-advertised discussion and I first thought these were WP:MEATPUPPETS from an off-Wiki pro-Donovan (original singer of the song) fan site or group. But with a couple of edits from ThereWillBeTime's IP address indicating logging in and out makes me think that these two users are WP:SOCKPUPPETS.

  • ThereWillBeTime edit at 19:25, January 17 [97]
  • Mataytay edit at 19:57, January 17 [98]
  • 173.88.250.97 edit at 20:06, January 17 [99]
  • ThereWillBeTime edit at 20:46, January 17 [100]
  • ThereWillBeTime edit at 21:30, January 17 [101]
  • Kelseytron edit at 23:45, January 17 [102]
  • ThereWillBeTime edit at 23:48, January 17 [103]
  • ThereWillBeTime edit at 23:49, January 17 [104]
  • Kelseytron edit at 23:51, January 17 [105]
  • 173.88.150.97 edit at 3:18, January 18 [106]
  • ThereWillBeTime edit at 3:29, January 18 [107]

The only two times the IP address edited since ThereWillBeTime started their account was right after Mataytay and Kelseytron edited. This to me rings of them starting new accounts, joining the discussion, logging out of the new account and meaning to log back into ThereWillBeTime's account, but forgetting to. Even if I did not think these were sockpuppets, I do not feel ThereWillBeTime's actions so far would lead them to work well with others and be able to contribute to Wikipedia. They edit war and when another user points out their edit war, they accuse that person of edit warring. They edit in bad faith and when another user points out their bad faith, they accuse that person of editing in bad faith. They go against WP:BRD and revert without discussion and when another user points this out, they accuse that person of reverting without discussion. They fail to take responsibility for any of their actions and instead accuse other of what they themselves are doing. Aspects (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I highly encourage you to make a formal complaint about this so my name can be cleared. Best ThereWillBeTime (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The page at WP:SPI is available for anyone who wants to use it. For now, I suggest that those interested in the song should participate at Talk:Season of the Witch (song)#RfC on Inclusion of Lana Del Rey section. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Vojtaruzek

Hi, just wanted to leave a brief note. I tried to ping you to Vojtaruzek's talk page [108] about some recent comments they made but they reverted it with an abusive edit summary [109]. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

V. has not continued to edit the article. Unsure whether 'doublethink' counts as a personal attack. But 'slander' on the article talk page is getting close to the edge. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm concerned about WP:CIR issues, at least in American Politics, given a heavy amount of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS-type text. Comments such as "you basically confirmed that I was right about wikipedia being hijacked", "Wikipedia was basically hijacked", "how exactly do you keep the doublethink of yourself being one of the good guys", or their rant against the WP:RS and WP:V policies [110]. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wilkja19

I see that back just last month, you had blocked this user for all their minor edits. Well, the problem is still continuing, including several +/-1,000 byte edits as minor (including [111], [112], [113], [114], and [115]). This is also following multiple talk page warnings, as well as an ANI thread that received no reply whatsoever from the user in question. No clue what should be done now, as a new talk page warning seems ineffective at this point- likely a new block might be necessary. Magitroopa (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked. Any admin can lift the block if they will agree to communicate and seek consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

About my restriction

Hey, in regards to my temporary ban on editing articles on American politics post-1932, would articles like the Abraham Accords, Israel–Sudan normalization agreement and Israel–Morocco normalization agreement count towards this? Just wanted to double check since I'd assume not as they are not to do with American politics per say but America had a minor role as a mediary for some of these agreements between other countries. Like, how big is the scope in regards to "American" politics? Is anything not US-internalised or US-centered fair game or is anything that has had any involvement with America whatsoever off limits no matter how minor like say a UN resolution article that's not US focused at all but was signed by 50 countries with one of them happening to be the US? Davefelmer (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the United States was involved in arranging those agreements, so unfortunately those fall under your American politics ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey sorry I just saw this, but that's a little excessive no? Like, the Israel–Sudan normalization agreement doesn't even mention the US apart from in the most minor of contexts alongside various other countries. They didnt so much arrange the deals as act as a minor go-between and neutral venue to sign a few agreements. Their name isn't in the title of any of the deals nor substantially present in the body of a lot of the articles, so like what's the scope of my restriction? Am I not allowed to post on an article such as Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which was a UN treaty signed in 1979 and ratified by 189 states since one of those was the US even though they are not substantially mentioned beyond that note throughout the piece?
And is there somewhere I could go to get approval beforehand for editing certain article(s) to ensure I stay within the limits of my restriction, or can that be done through you? I don't mean to impose but just don't want to risk violating the restriction by editing something I thought wasn't part of it, since you see from our conversation that the lines can be blurry on the exact scope of what is considered US politics. Davefelmer (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Topic bans can become annoying if their boundaries have to be constantly checked. To avoid inconvenience, I suggest you stay completely away from the area of American politics, including treaties signed by the United States. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbidden History arbitration enforcement sanction

Hi EdJohnston, I've been notified about the sanction, but I didn't found any summary that explains my faulty behavior that led to this sanction. So, I would like to understand what I did wrong (so, I don't repeat them in the future (Except the 3RR-which I explained why I did it)), to get this sanction. Thanks, --Forbidden History (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The problems were explained at ANI, prompted by a dispute which began on 9 January at Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour. The rest of the story is in the AE thread which is linked from your ban notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
EdJohnston, on that ANI explanation, there are my concerns about the user Jingiby as well, but I don't see that he was sanctioned or warned about his WP:BITE. Initially this started as 3RR-not respected by my side (and I explained why and how it happened). So, limitless topic ban for 3RR, I think it's way to rigorous sanction. That's why I'm asking to give me a summary of my violated rules per Wikipedia, so I don't do them in the future, or to appeal. Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I have been watching disputes about Macedonia for some time, and I was even here for the original WP:ARBMAC case in 2007. You are relatively new and need to learn a lot if you intend to participate in a hotly-disputed area. It is not up to admins to educate people in these areas; you need to hang around and learn. There are many much quieter areas of the encyclopedia for you to consider. With a name like 'Forbidden History' it does suggest that you arrived on WP with some issues that you wanted to have addressed. You do have appeal options that are explained at WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I guess you cannot provide me with answer for the sanctions-I didn't ask for you to teach me how to work on WIki, but what I'm accused for. Even the massive killers are receiving summary why they are sentenced, at the end. But, obviously there is another background here. My name actually proves what it stands for. I'm forbidden to talk my own history and I need to watch and read how Bulgars are presenting it to the world. I'm not sure how will I learn a lot, If I cannot edit an article or Talk page. But as I said previously I will respect your decision and stay silent, doing my sanction. Thanks, --Forbidden History (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Mr Johnson, I just want to highlight that the term 'Bulgars' that ForbiddenHistory used is a derogatory and racist term that makes fun of the Turkic origins of Bulgarians. It is often used by other nationalities such as Serbians and Macedonians that claim that Bulgarians are lesser than them because of their partial Asian origin. Don't want to involve myself in your conversation but just want to highlight this out. --SeriousCherno (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
SeriousCherno, what are you talking about? Bulgars and Bulgarians is used same as Serbs and Serbians...can you not interfere in the Talk - this is about my profile not about you.Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not true, you clearly know well that it is used as an offensive term along with other terms such as 'Tatar' and 'Mongoloid' in order to make fund of the Asian origin of Bulgarians. Forbidden History it will be better not to use racist terms while at the same time asking why you are banned. Bulgarians and Bulgars are not exactly the same thing, the modern day ethnic group identify as Bulgarians. --SeriousCherno (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, If you feel offended I didn't had such intention. As I said sometimes I use Serbs, sometimes Serbians, sometimes Croats sometimes Croatians, sometimes Bulgars sometimes Bulgarians, sometimes Macedons other times Macedonians, sometimes Hungars other time Hungarians...--Forbidden History (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Stop lying and stop using racist terms, it's embarrassing that rather than simply apologizing you are pretending that you don't know what that term is used for in the Balkan region. --SeriousCherno (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review: Wilkja19. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Peyman Keshavarzi

Hi, I chatted a photo from Persian and uploaded it to Wikimedia. I also mentioned this in the history of the photo, but the user considers me a saboteur.I am not a saboteur.--بولس245 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston and other experienced Wikipedia editors who are watching this page:
I would be open to criticism from other experienced Wikipedia editors on this matter. For starters, I think on reflection that my tone could have been more welcoming, and for that I apologize right now to بولس245. If there are other things I could have done to make this smoother for بولس245 without backing off of the things that needed to be done (this - which is looking more and more like a case of an unfortunate coincidence - as well as notices surrounding copyright, conflicts of interests, and other things here and on the Commons), I am open to ideas. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
davidwr And a question, dear friend, Pasman Keshavarz is a football player who has played professionally in the Iran League and has also become a champion with the tractor sazi team. Is he not famous enough? is played in Iran, which the Persian Gulf Pro League is considered professional?--Bolc245 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Helo Bolc245. I updated the SPI to propose that the complaint about you ought to be closed with no action. But since we are here, I'll ask about the caption of the image that you uploaded: "The picture was in a match I played on the football field with shirt number 5 and right back position. Shirt number 16 is for my training time and this photo was taken in our training in Sabail team". You are stating that you, the editor, are in real life the player Peyman Keshavarzi? EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, no, you made a mistake. I just copied that history from Persian, that is, I also copied the text, and I am not an Peyman Keshavarzi. I just copied the text below the image and wrote the same.--Bolc245 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If you read the image below, you will see the texthistory from Persianتصویر خودم در یک مسابقه ک در میدان فوتبال حضور داشتم با شماره پیراهن ۵ و پست دفاع راست زمین شماره پیراهن ۱۶ برای زمان تمرین بنده می باشد و این عکس در تمرینات ما در تیم سابایل گرفته شده است.

I copied the same text from there and wrote it on Wikimedia in the image history section.--Bolc245 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, you are not the player, but who actually took the picture? Did that person release the image under a free license? EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
In Persian, this photo was uploaded by the person himself and he has written the same in my history.And I think this image was uploaded in Persian by the person himself.--Bolc245 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @بولس245: (aka Bolc245): To answer your question of 19:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC), the notability of Peyman Keshavarzi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) / Draft:Peyman Keshavarzi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is not in question, playing for the Azerbaijan Premier League after 2013 qualifies under Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/WP:NFOOTY, no need to look any further than that except in the rare cases where a person who plays for such a team is shown to lack "significant coverage from reliable, independent sources" after a diligent search, including a diligent search of non-English and non-online sources. As far as I know, nobody is challenging the assumption of "notability" that comes with playing for a team listed in the list of fully professional leagues. If someone is making that challenge, the burden of doing a diligent search is on them. The issue is one of provenance of the text in the draft - was it a completely new rewrite by ShadowBallX or is it "tainted" by text from the blocked or banned editor? In the spirit of WP:DENY and WP:BMB, I am very reluctant to accept a draft that might include such material. If such a draft were accepted by another reviewer, I would recommend that the "tainted" material be identified and removed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
davidwr I actually think I have access to the "tainted" version (can be seen right here, with a message saying its a test page). I have no idea if its the same one from this wiki though. ShadowBallX (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Davidwr, do you want to look at the file offered by ShadowBallX as his source and see if you perceive any dubious contributions there? I see no obvious socks in the history. Meanwhile, I noticed that this football player has an Instagram account (with thousands of followers) and the photo currently in our article is one of the photos he displays. Without a pretty good story, I think it is unlikely to be free for our use. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The mystery is where the original content came from, see discussion at Draft talk:Peyman Keshavarzi#Ping ShadowBallX. If the original content was written from scratch, then we are good, if it has more than bare facts and references from what would be a WP:BMB-eligible revision if it were on en-wiki, then a rewrite is strongly recommended. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_49&oldid=1139713437"