User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 45

A year ago ...
"I have been known to try; mediating disputes"
	... you were recipient; no. 1749 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

This is an archive of past discussions with User:EdJohnston. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

→

Range block

Hi, I am considering issuing a range block on this range, as there has been a lot of disruptive editing and block evasion from IPs in this range. I've calculated the range using this tool. Having never issued a range block, I was wondering if you would recommend this block and if much collateral would be done. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey! What edits were "disruptive"? All my edits are constructive, according to the real facts and figures. Show at least one wrong edit. All your "blocks" were absolutely inadequate to my correct edits. And most your reverts were "disruptive" as here: Jimmy Abdou. The blocks doesn't help to you here when you made a dozens of incorrect reverts. So try to speak with other users, not only reverts and blocks. 46.211.128.89 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

If I were to list all your disruptive edits we'd he here all day. My blocks are justified as you are constantly IP hopping to evade previous blocks. A question for you: why do you keep monitoring my latest contributions? It's been going on for about ten hours now, it's a little disconcerting. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Because, as I can see, many of your reverts were removing of the de facto correct updates from different users. That users made the fresh updates to infoboxes, categories, but you have reverted it without checking, correct information or not. I am a regular IP user with big useful contributions. Of course, you could block many ranges for providers with 10 million users, but I have the dynamic IPs from different countries and many other proxies to fight with your incorrect reverts. Your could not block all Internet. If you want a peace, don't remove the de facto correct updates from some inexperienced users. For example, if they forgot the timestamp, then you could correct that timestamps, but don't remove the correct updates. If user changed the manager in the infobox, then help to him to add the time or source or something else needed, but don't remove the correct info. And always check first, correct update or not. (sorry for my poor English). 46.211.129.63 (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Would it not have made more sense to have updated the timestamps than reverted my reverts ad nauseam? BTW the responsibility for providing references is on the user who added the content, per WP:BURDEN. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

IP: blocked is blocked, even if you get a new IP. You're blocked, you may not edit Wikipedia with any IP. When the last block expire, use talkpages to present the changes and their sources. Until then - stop editing! Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this talkpage for a while, editors may not game blocks with new IPs - if they have a case they need to stick to one and make an unblock request there. No ISP reassigns IPs that fast, this is deliberate block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Now this is straight-up bad-faith, disruptive editing. Reverting the updated timestamp from an infobox so the statistics no longer align with the date. Acroterion, what is your opinion on a range block? Mattythewhite (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a broad range, but I see little collateral damage. Go ahead and block for a week or so to see how it goes, or I can do it if you're uncomfortable. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I just blocked Special:Contributions/46.211.153.115/16 for 3 days but don't object if another admin wants to make it longer. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, a /16 block should be as short as possible to stop the disruption. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Dynasty episode list locked from editing

List of Dynasty episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, I'm deeply sorry if I'm the one who caused it to be locked from editing by vandalising that page. It was not my intention. I was only providing sources on preempted dates.2600:6C50:7006:400:1541:C156:4D34:A295 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your changes were fine. The only problem was the 'Firooz Oskooi' vandal, whose changes had been revdelled. If you want to get the article changed during the semiprotection, consider using {{Edit semiprotected}} on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

More IP socking

Becoming rampant now.[1]-[2] I already requested page protection for a number of pages, but this won't stop unless a range block is performed. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/204.40.128.0/17 for two weeks and left a note in the ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

ZH8000 and Vignette

It was good to see that ZH8000 took your advice and left the article alone. However, an underlying problem has been revealed in that ZH8000 clearly does not have the necessary competence in English to edit the English Wikipedia. He has self identified as a native German speaking Swiss. I have not been here that long and I don't know how this would normally be handled so please bear with me and forgive me if this is the wrong place.

The original problem at Vignette (road tax) was that ZH8000 misunderstood the original contribution as claiming that the annual cost of the vignette was the most expensive and not the cost of transiting the country in spite of clearly stating the latter. His response on the talk page betrayed this. Making no further discussion and that his edit summaries continued to reference the original edit, this interpretation either did not change, or he never read the talk page or what he was reverting.

He is editing other articles adding unintelligible English. The article on Gun laws in Switzerland has become a mixture of good English, pidgin English and the plain unintelligible. Consider this nugget:

[Of ammunition that cannot be sold]

Ammunition with one or more floors to the release of substances which damage the health of people in the long run

There are several others, but I'm trying to be brief. Just recently, this was added to AC power plugs and sockets

[Of disadvantages with multi-standard sockets]

Using appliances which require earthing, but socket does either not provide it, or the socket's earthing connects not with the one by the plug.

He subsequently provided a rewrite but it wasn't any more intelligible. His reaction is that anyone is free to improve the contribution but it is rather difficult if you can't figure out what it was trying to say in the first place.

Thank you for your time (and I hope: patience). 81.156.46.74 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worth adding that ZH8000 has a history (and three blocks) for battleground edit warring with others, mostly over his lack of understanding of how to present ideas in English. 81.156.46.74 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not make a specific proposal at Talk:Gun laws in Switzerland. I don't intend to follow this issue in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I just want to add to this rather questionable behavior/statements by this IP-hopper, that I got the impression that the "hunts" me through WP, whatever I write. And he also gets quite offending, see e.g. this summary . Thanks for your support. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warrior

Vaalpak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Joseph diGenova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AN3 complaint from 23 May

I'm just here to note that a drive-by editor who was warned by you in late May has returned and is edit-warring on the same pages and same topics as last time[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I left a notice of the WP:ARBAP2 sanctions for User:Vaalpak since they have been editing at Joseph diGenova. He wants to downplay some reliable sources which call diGenova a conspiracy theorist. Calling Valpaak a 'drive-by editor' could be too strong. He might be editing in service of a personal POV, something which is not unknown in the American Politics area. Neither of you has so far left any message on the article talk page. An RfC is one way to sort out who is genuinely committed to article improvement. diGenova has a curious career; he seemed to have started out as a mainstream figure, but now tends to give unusual interviews on TV. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Restriction on Y page

User has been blocked for six months by another admin.

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.

Anti4ITCELL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@EdJohnston: for what reasons did you put a block on the Yadav page when I was adding some good sources to them. I want to add few things can you add them on my behalf?? Anti4ITCELL (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti4ITCELL, I understand you are under a topic ban that prevents you from editing at Yadav. If I agreed to make the changes for you, I would be allowing you to edit by proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2018 (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.

DK2149 still edit warring

I don't have enough background to know if these editors are in a long term dispute. Anyone who thinks this is an important matter that needs more admin attention will presumably think of a better place to pursue it. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2018 (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.

Darkknight2149 (talk · contribs) just admitted he is not going to engage in discussion on the talk page or respect the opinions of literally everyone else. I've never seen anyone get away with something like this -- blocked for edit warring, making a wikilawyerish appeal based on their not having been aware that 3RR applies to any given 24-hour period rather than to calendar dates, then continuing to edit war regardless. HI, the aforementioned Udar, MyNameIsASDF and I are all in agreement that "remake" is the better term, I've completely debunked his only argument ("we go by what the sources say", when said sources are cherry-picked for the specific reason that they use one term over the other, while other sources don't), and yet he is insisting his version remain live until someone closes the discussion because he is apparently not willing to change his mind. His version isn't even the status quo and therefore implicitly supported by everyone who edited the article but didn't comment -- he unilaterally added it four months ago and has been in dispute since it was apparently first noticed two weeks ago.

Anyway, now that DK2149 is demanding an admin "close" the talk page discussion before he'll recognize consensus, would you mind doing so, or reblocking him for the continued edit warring? He doesn't need to violate 3RR to edit war -- he's already refusing to use the talk page, and communicating edit summaries while insisting I have a "grudge" against him.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, still at it as usual. You saw that I was blocked for something, then unblocked, and you didn't like it. Now you're stalking my edits, WP:HOUNDing me, and this is why I am filing an Arbritation Committee case request this weekend. This WP:GRUDGE behaviour has been going on-again, off-again from you and Curly Turkey for well over a year now. It's the same behavioural problems and dishonesty every time. Let's cut the B.S. - When you saw that I was unblocked, you went through my recent contributions and reverted me on more than one article, hoping that I would revert back so that you could yell "He's edit warring again!" Now, you'll probably do anything to see that the ArbCom case request against you doesn't get filed.

First of all, I reverted you once. That's not an edit war. If I had reverted Udar55 again, then yeah, I would 100% deserve another block. But no, I reverted you (and only you) one time on that article. Second, even now, your accusations against me are hilariously dishonest. Who the Hell said anything about "he is not going to engage in discussion on the talk page or respect the opinions of literally everyone else"? You posted on the Talk Page, and then immediately used that as an excuse to revert. You know full well that's not how WP:BRD works. You have to wait until the discussion is actually OVER, not that you even care about said discussion.

"Anyway, now that DK2149 is demanding an admin "close" the talk page discussion..." - LOL, what? I would love to see where I ever said that. Again, cut the dishonesty. If you have a problem, you should take it up with the blocking and unblocking administrators, as I will be taking your behaviour to the Committee over the weekend. This is a classic case of "Darkknight2149 was unblocked for something? But... I don't like that guy. NOOOOOOOOOOO!"

This isn't even the first time you have done this, nor will it be the last. You, Curly Turkey, and Twitbookspacetube are all known for using disruption policies, deliberate dishonesty, and WP:ANI as an excuse to get back at users that you don't like. You three are also known for WP:CANVASSing and WP:FACTIONing with one another in said administrative discussions. Twitbookspacetube has already been banned from Wikipedia for doing this one too many times, just as you have been blocked (and will probably be blocked again) for WP:BATTLEGROUND. Just last April, when Jack Sebastian and Adamstom.97 were engaged in mutual incivility at ANI, you used the entire situation as an excuse to place all of the blame on Adamstom while Wiki-lawyering that it was none of it was Sebastian's fault. You also continued to repeatedly express vocal dismay, even when the two of them agreed to be civil to one another. Hell, in that same discussion, I posted something without saying a word to you (having interacted with these users on many occasions) and you immediately started your rants against me as well, before randomly reverting me at Halloween (2018 film) (an article that I have been known to edit). There are countless other examples that I can name, so don't act like your all-too-consistent behaviour is some sort of massive coincidence. Dark Knight 2149 00:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Unclear why you guys are posting here. My talk page is not ANI. And if this material *was* at ANI, it seems unlikely that much would be done since it's too confusing. If somebody opened an RfC at Talk:Suspiria (2018 film) we would at least know what the dispute is about. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Already working on an ArbCom case request (which Hijiri is probably trying to sabotage anyway), so don't worry. I apologise that Hijiri88 bothered you with this mess. This dispute has been going on for quite a while and through many different Talk Pages, ANI disputes, ETC, so ArbCom is long overdue. Dark Knight 2149 01:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: and @SQL: Just a head's up, Hijiri88 is probably going to forum shop this on your Talk Pages next. Dark Knight 2149 02:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(Response to Ed, not DK, whose comments I haven't read and amn't particularly interested in reading.) FWIW, the reason I posted here was because you closed the ANEW thread after I had commented there that despite being blocked and then unblocked, DK2149 was showing no signs of giving up the edit war, and then after you closed it he went right back to directly edit warring. I don't think it's technically okay for you to close an AN/ANI/ANEW thread on issue that hasn't been resolved, then express confusion as to why you are being directly messaged and asked to deal with the fallout of your close.

That said, I don't actually mind if you don't want to do anything about it. If DK2149 is going to shoot himself in the foot over this that should solve the problem handily, and if he just gives up and drops it that would have the same effect. The ball's in his court now, anyway: he can respond on the talk page or wait to be reverted again as a consequence of refusing to use the talk page.

Also, apologies for bringing this up here. I didn't know you would be uncomfortable with it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"DK2149 was showing no signs of giving up the edit war, and then after you closed it he went right back to directly edit warring." - "Continued edit warring"? Really? *Facepalm* So far, the only person who has a problem with this since the block is you... And the only reason you have a problem with it is because you started stalking my recent contributions, reverting me on more than one article... And the only reason you did that (and if you've done it before) is because you want me blocked again... For edit warring... And I only reverted you (and only you) once... Which isn't an edit war.

"He can respond on the talk page or wait to be reverted again as a consequence of refusing to use the talk page." - You were reverted for briefly replying on the Talk Page as an excuse to prematurely revert, yourself... So you could do this... And me not replying immediately when you want me to is not an excuse to edit war... And when I called you out on it, you invented some bullsh*t (as you and Curly usually do) about me demanding that an administrator close the Talk Page, ETC ETC. And I actually planned on taking this to WP:RSN and then WP:DR, but now I can't because I'm going to spending all weekend dealing with you, preparing the ArbCom case request, and then filing it. So go ahead and dig yourself into a deeper grave. Dark Knight 2149 03:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(←) Ed - That was actually me that argued in favor of an early unblock, not 57. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:SQL. Thanks for noticing the discussion here and making a comment. Given what has transpired, do you think the edit wars at Suspiria and Suspiria (2018 film) are now adequately dealt with? I would be willing to issue a new block for the continuation, but on his own talk DK24 is now sort of offering to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2018 (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.

SoundCloud rap

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=845917902&oldid=845916062

"Change pp-protect to small=yes per a request elsewhere"

Elsewhere where? Oshwah said it was okay. Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. You wanted the *large* banner, so I put it back. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

GPRamirez5

GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs)

[4] (edit summary). This user was warned about DS in EE area. He is also active in the area of US politics, with comments like that [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The response by the user [6] was not encouraging. This is clearly directed at another contributor. I am also concerned that user Paul Siebert said that he acts together with GPRamirez5 [7]. Just above he tells that "I decided to support Ramirez, as soon as he started that" [speaking about their rejected Arbcom request]. GPRamirez5 admitted the same: [8] "We think your evasions are boring.". "We". What "evasions"? Curiously enough, GPRamirez5 blamed me of incivility [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not think GPRamirez5 interacts reasonably with other users [10]. My very best wishes (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Creation science

Is this topic also under discretionary sanctions? A user has already been warned about Young Earth creationism. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 18:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The talk page at Talk:Creation Science already carries the template {{discretionary sanctions}}. If you think any improper editing is going on there, check the history of the article to find some experienced contributors who may have been active. Or consider posting for advice at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Somaliland

Please see this ANI report MB 19:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well-known sockmaster

Hi Ed, fyi, the "Firooz Uskooi vandal" is Jaredgk2008.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Bloodofox

Bloodofox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Paleface Jack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Ed, Just thought I'd say something about user Bloodofox. For some time now he has been making some questionable edits/revisions to articles on cryptids/cryptozoology. When people add them back or ask him to stop, he claims that they are making personal attacks on him. I myself am a very sarcastic guy, something that has come back to bite me when dealing with this guy as he always seems to take my sarcasm and warnings as personal attacks and threats. In spite of me and several other users telling him to stop he refuses to do so. I'm not really the sort of person to deal with this sort of thing so I was just wondering what I should do.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Paleface Jack. I fixed the spelling of Bloodofox above. Can you provide a link to where you have been having these discussions with Bloodofox? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

A 1RR question

Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ed, can you please read this, and explain if it constitutes a 1RR violation and refusal to a polite request to self-revert? If you are sick and tired of all of that (which is quite understandable), can you please recommend me another admin whom I can ask? I cannot ask NeilN, because I had some content dispute with him, so he does not consider himself uninvolved. Thanks,--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Paul, you should explain to which version did I make a revert, according to you. Also, both edits were a rearrangement of materials; none of them was a rearrangement to any previously existing version. I did not remove anything. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In addition, I think that Paul is engaged in a "wiki-battle". Here are some diffs about it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A revert means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. This edit removed a part of the text added by other editors and placed in to the different part of the article. Obviously, it reverted in part what other users did. this change partially reverted my edit that restored the text changed by you. Both these edits reverted other's contributions in part. Unfortunately, that is not a technical violation, what you are doing is an attempt to emphasize one very concrete POV and understate others. However, leaving that beyond the scope, I need to know if I am right, and if these two edits are reverts. If Ed says this type changes are not reverts, I'll keep that in mind, and will act accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The full protection was recently lifted from that article (Mass killings under Communist regimes) and I guess the predictable consequences are now happening. Please ask someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I self-reverted [11] - just to minimize disruption. Otherwise, Paul will report it to 3RRNB again, where it will stay for three days again without action because none of my edits was a revert. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The article was kept under full protection for years (causing some shock) but there was nothing preventing those interested from using WP:RFC to get some changes made. In fact, that did happen a couple of times. The result of re-opening it to editing is that it has gone back to the previous chaos. I wish the set of people who want to improve the article would develop some system for resolving their own conflicts and not burden the rest of us. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

As someone who recently edited this page, I think the page has been recently improved, and removing this protection was actually a good idea in terms of improving the content. It just so happened that Paul decided to declare each my edit on this page a revert. Why? I do not think that actually has anything to do with this page. For example, all of that had happen on another page where Paul followed my edits (he did not edit this page about gas vans before). But whatever. I do not care. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ed, I asked a very concrete question are these two actions considered two reverts within a 24 hour period of time? My goal was not to draw you into details of the dispute, my question was about universal rules, because one user claims these considerable modifications of other people's contributions are not reverts, whereas another users demands me to self-revert even after I made even tiny changes, for example, when I am peacefully copy-editing separate sections, and some unrelated edit has wedged between my edits. That is why I am expecting you to explain me whether the edits of that kind are not considered as two reverts (or not reverts at all), or they are two reverts. If you are not willing to or not capable of explaining me this, please, advise me who else can answer this quite formal question.

It was not I who started this game: someone definitely is trying to game a system, and is repeatedly requesting me to self-revert after I make two edits withing 24 hours. In connection to that, I need to clarify the rules, and if you are not going to help me with that, I respectfully request you to give me a name of some other admin.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the policy is very clear: "A revert means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors". For example, none of my two edits reversed any actions by previous contributors. If you do not understand the policy, this is your problem. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Besides, Paul, this is not a matter of 1RR, but a matter of your POV and making personal comments about other users: [12] (your father came back .... because my grandfather was killed... Please, show respect to the people whose deaths allowed you to live. They were not just cattle), or this (if a person behaves as a troll, then it is reasonable to conclude they are a troll, etc.), this, this, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Skylax30

Hi EdJohnston. Skylax30 is insisting on adding the same POV again. See his contributions on [13] and [14]. If you do not have experience in such cases and feel you can not handle this case, feel free to tell me and we can involve additional admins. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Left a note here. It is up to Skylax30 whether they intend to follow our policies, though we now have reason to be doubtful. Actually I do have experience with such cases. No objection if other admins want to take an interest as well. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand it is a difficult case, as the editor stopped warring on one article and started to push that POV on other articles. I made a suggestion today on the talk page of Arvanites, hoping it could satisfy all sides, but Skylax30 ignored it and reverted again. It would be a good idea to protect Souliotes page for a few days, since Skylax30 messed the situation which might lead other editors into confusion, and new warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the policy on the articles related to Balkans applies to all, and not only me, I suppose. A small group of collaborating users (while I am alone) is trying to create a false "Albanian" identity of the past in all related articles. While in art. Souliotes it is clear, or mainstream, that they were bilinguals, in the article Albanian Regiment, the other user of the group, Resnjari, is deleting the "bilingual" and keeping only the Albanian [15]. Then user Ktrimi991 is complaining to various administrators. Now admin FuturePerfect is involved in the attempt to erase the "non-Albanian" meaning in the disambiguation page Arvanites (disambiguation). In my opinion, this is cooperation for not a good purpose. Their aim is to keep me busy with false accusations and preserve a national POV in certain articles. I know that the same people are patroling all articles of Albanian interest. Let me know if I can brink this case to a higher official in WP, instead of getting warnings and by the same people.

Please check my above arguments, especially about the bilingualism of Souliotes, as it is written in the article. Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Skylax30. Since I don't perceive you intend to reach consensus before reverting again, and since you violated my warning (to get consensus prior to reverting about people of Albanian descent), I am intending to go ahead with a block of our account per the original AN3 complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Souliotes

This edit request has been taken care of by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2018 (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 EdJohston. Thanks for protecting the article. After some discussion on the talk page [16], there is an agreement that none of the recent changes benefits the article. The pre-dispute version [17], as agreed on the talk page, should be restored. To avoid any further confusion or conflict, can you instead of editors involved in the dispute restore the pre-dispute version? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Please use the {{Edit fully-protected}} template on the article talk page. Another admin will then decide if the change has consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Did I do it correctly [18]? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't think so. When I click on the link you provided it just leads me to the 'Identity' section of a previous revision of the article. Are you asking for that 'identity' section to be removed from the article? If so, who supports that? EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No, not to be removed. The editors on the talk page say that the all article should be in the version before June 2018 (practically all the changes are on the "Identity" section). Is this the right link [19]? I reworded the request and modified the link. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No. It seems to me you want to restore the whole article to the 21:17 version of 24 May 2018. Do you think the others understand that and agree with you? EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The link of yours is correct. It is a version that stopped edit-warring in 2015 and till a few days ago there was no warring on the Souliotes article. The editors were asked twice and they agreed. We can do ourselves because after a few hours the protection expires. However, since admins are trusted people, an admin reverting back to that version would be a good thing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather leave this to some other admin. But you want to include a version link rather than a diff in your request. I would suggest this link which is simply the 24 May version. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I changed the link. Is it OK now? If it has clarity issues, we can delete the edit request and make the edit ourselves after the protection expires. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the edit request is clear now. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help EdJohnston. The Balkan stuff is always a difficult nightmare. The recent edits did nothing else than lose our time. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2018 (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.

User:Er22chi

Er22chi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GNU Privacy Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user's first edit after their EW block expired was to reinstate the same material.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Left a new warning. Let's see how it goes from here. Thanks for the notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

COPYLINK

Hey EdJohnston, about your note here... as I noted in my comment, links to three pdfs were added by the other person in this diff. All three of those pdfs are to the final version published by the journal, and none of those journals are open access, and none of them permit that. Journals often permit authors posting a preprint, but that is not what these are. One of those journals is published by APA, and they are very hawkish on enforcing their copyright. That was the COPYLINK issue. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a 2017 report of a German court case about Researchgate that may be of interest. The publishers are trying to force Researchgate to change its policies, which are (for the moment) rather liberal. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. The other two (down at the bottom of the paragraph) were not OK as well, and the APA one was especially alarming. The other editor seemed to be completely deaf to that... it was so weird. Anyway thanks for your adminning at EWN as always! Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Swiss or Genevan

You probably remember User_talk:Sapphorain#Edit_warring_about_Swiss_nationality_at_Jean-Étienne_Liotard_and_other_articles from a day or two ago. Now a new account has popped up doing just the same revert. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Left a warning for Silaswoolf. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Er22chi

I noticed your comment at WP:3RR and the blocking notice at Er22chi. But it looks as if you didn't actually block them. I gave them a week for now until you can look it over. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I went ahead and changed the duration to indefinite. Hope it's OK now. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

3RR

Hello, thank you for your message. I have now added to my response an explicit pledge to refrain from edit-warring on all articles in the future. Again thanks. Μαρκος Δ 21:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It may be in your interest to promise to take a break from the Turkish election article for a period of time, such as seven days. Otherwise I might (per usual practice) either block or issue an enforceable warning. You might want to avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Closing SPI cases

I just wanted to respond to your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neurosurgeon2be123. For cases like this where a request for admin action has already been handled (or if you are handling it), you are allowed to close these cases yourself. Just change the parameter in the SPI case status template from admin to close, and leave a comment explaining what you're doing. Don't feel like you have to this, but if it seems appropriate to you, you don't need to ask someone else to do it for you. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll consider that. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

68.129.15.71

68.129.15.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
House of Terror (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed. Not sure where I could post about this as I'm having a bit of trouble with an IP user. The user was previously banned for about 6 months for not adhering to Wikipedia rules. I've engaged conversation with the user on their talk page which led to you originally issuing a six month ban. Shortly after the ban was lifted the user has tried to add content with sources as requested, but countless times I've looked at their sources, the user is not writing information that is being claimed by their source. As you can see from the past month, I'm not really convinced the user has learned anything and seems to ignore any rules list I send them or suggestions on using a sandbox to learn how to use sources. This isn't blatant vandalism, but it is basicly problematic editing. How should I handle this? Feel free to respond here, on my talk page, or that users talk page. Hope you can help! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I have left a note for the IP that their edits are being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As you know, I just recently got back onto wikipedia after being blocked for 6 months. I seriously do not want to be blocked again, as I enjoy editing and trying to make the pages more complete and informative. There is an editor who is closely following every word I put on wikipedia, and he's been telling me every time I break a rule regarding the use of only "reliable" sources. I have been reading the information he links to me, and although I find the tutorials confusing at times, I've really been trying to follow the rules, because as I said, I don't want to be blocked again. I've been putting footnotes on everything I add, but he keeps telling me that the sources I'm using aren't reliable enough. All I ask is that you try to understand that I'm not deliberately adding unsourced material, it's just that every source I find seems to be not good enough. Even dvd liner notes and sources that other people have already used on the page aren't reliable enough. I've gotten to the point where I'm afraid to add even facts that are already alluded to on the pages by previous editors, it's paralyzing. I guess he just wants to get rid of me? But I'm just asking you to understand I'm a serious editor and I am really into the topics that I try to edit, and I'm not trying to be annoying on purpose. I really think I've got the hang of the "reliable source" thing now, and I'll certainly try my best not to break any rules. Please understand the topics I edit involve obscure foreign films that seem to have very few reliable sources at all on the internet. But from now on, if I can't find a source that's specific enough, I just won't add anything at all to the article. Thanks for your consideration and patience.68.129.15.71 (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that you have good intentions. Though good intentions are necessary they are not sufficient. We expect that new material will be reliably sourced, and that you are able to read the source carefully to verify what it says. Wikipedia can't tolerate frequent sourcing errors because we have no staff available whose mission it is to go around double-checking things. Your recent set of changes at House of Terror (film) suggest that you are on the right track. When you are uncertain, you should ask an experienced contributor. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Sorry to poke you again about this so soon, but the user seems to be not getting it. Since your edit, he's added a new release date to the article here (note that he leaves the old release date in too). I've looked at his source and while they do mention the year 1959, neither source explicitly states that these films were released in 1959. One is only mentioning an actor travel in 1959. I'd normally let this pass as a good faith edit, but I've told this editor this through months and months of editing that he needs to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Even in a most recent conversation on Talk:Face of the Screaming Werewolf, the user has suggested when a film was being edited, and when I asked for a source, they claim to just assume it. This is a repeated behaviour that I don't really see changing in the near future. I know this doesn't warrant a block, but the user really does not understand the rules and I'm running out of ways to explain it to them. Whats the next situation to help this person out?Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ed, please look at my situation here. Every time I edit anything, this editor reports me! He knows that you blocked me before, so he figures I have very little credibility with you. But if you look at this latest so-called "violation" he reported me for, you'll see how he's nitpicking every detail I write in an attempt to get me blocked again. I didn't say anything about the film's "premiere date". I was just quoting the two sources I listed verbatim. They both refer to Casa del Terror as "a 1959 film", that's what they call it. Every internet source I see calls it a 1959 film. The book source I used said specifically Lon Chaney "went to Mexico to make the film in 1959". I just wrote EXACTLY what the sources stated. I didn't say anything about any premiere date, simply because I wasn't sure of the premiere date. The reason I left the 1960 date in the infobox was because some other editor put it there awhile back, and I figured if I took it off, he'd report me for vandalism! (I had posted a reference source to prove the other editor's release date but I later thought it wasn't strong enough so I removed it, but I left his release date in the infobox to avoid being accused of vandalism). He just keeps posting notices on me like I'm vandalizing wikipedia, while I'm actually spending all my time and effort trying to improve the pages. I even purchased a bunch of expensive reference books to use. It looks like he just doesn't want me editing wikipedia. I even asked him, if he sees an error I made, to either delete it or tell me to change it. I told him I do NOT want to get involved in an editing war, but he keeps reporting me over and over. I don't know why he wants me blocked, I even asked him if we could cooperate on this stuff. All i'm saying is, PLEASE look at this latest violation he reported me on, and you'll see how petty it is, and how malicious he's making me appear so that you will block me from editing. I'm sure you will see that i'm being set up here, I did exactly what he told me to do, quoted the sources verbatim, and now he's saying I wrote the wrong "release date". I never said 1959 was the theatrical release date, I just repeated that the sources alkl refer to this movie simply as "a 1959 film". PLEASE look at the situation i'm in, and if you can, try to figure out why this editor wants me blocked so badly?? I love wikipedia, and I have been on it for over 10 years, I would never vandalize an article. Surely you can see this editor must have a motive for stalking me from article to article every day, and reporting me over and over. I'm trying to abide by the reliable source rules, honestly. I think I've gotten much better just in the past few weeks, I scrutinize my sources now like never before. But this editor corrects every word I write, and slaps "unreliable" notices on every footnote I use, and reports me to you for any little thing he can think of! Please look at my side of this? There's something wrong going on here, seriously. I know I make mistakes, but it's not done maliciously, I think you can see that?68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC) PS -If you get a chance, please look at my edits on LA CASA DEL TERROR and on FACE OF THE SCREAMING WEREWOLF. I'm sure you'll see I used some very good footnotes and I totally rewrote the plot synopses on both pages. Thanks for your consideration, Ed.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

At first sight, the arguments that Andzebanas is making at Talk:House of Terror (film) look to be valid. When WP:Reliable sources are not available we can simply leave the information out. If you can't get agreement on the article talk page, you could try some of the other steps that are listed in WP:Dispute resolution such as the WP:DRN. It seems that you want information for the article so badly that you are willing to use things you believe are likely to be true even when they can't be confirmed from the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty much the situation. I'd forgive it if were the first (or second...or third time) this editor has done that, but its just repeated behavior. I've explained the rules to user several times, and I'm confident the user has not read the rules pages. I'm beginning to bring up WP:COMPETENCE as an issue honestly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I never entered any information on the page claiming it was a theatrical release date. I just quoted a number of sources that said how Lon Chaney traveled to Mexico in 1959 to make the film. That 1960 date that was in the infobox was put there many moons ago by some other editor. I left it there to avoid getting accused of vandalism, but then I get blamed for the unsourced date? I just left it there where I found it, because I don't know the release date. I doubt anyone does. I just know every source i've seen refers to this film as "a 1959 Mexican film". As far as getting agreement on the talk page, Andzre doesn't have to get me to agree because he obviously outranks me and he can just put whatever he wants to on the pages. I'm not edit-warring with him or anyone else! If he deletes my information, I'll just leave it off. I'm not here to cause conflict, I'm only seeing what info I can dig up that isnt already in the articles and if it's deemed unreliable, then I'm fine with that. I don't want erroneous information in the articles either. That's why I'm doing this, to correct the erroneous facts and dates if I can. But his habit of reporting me for vioations at least once a day makes me think he's just trying to get rid of me by getting me blocked. Go back and look how many months (years) he's been following me from topic to topic. I feel like I work for him! Now he's calling me incompetent. I don't know why we can't work together. I already told him if he feels I made an error, he can delete any of my stuff that he doesn't like. I'm trying hard to do well at this, please give me the benefit of the doubt?68.129.15.71 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

What did you think adding a year would be? I already stated how these years are listed on wikipedia several times before. You ignore the manual of style when I show it to you, or if you do read it, you don't seem to follow it. Trust me, I don't want to follow you around, but your edits to films , despite being in good faith, have not been for the better. If you have been editing wikipedia for 10 years as you have stated, you did not choose to learn the rules in that time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lithuania

Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Niivent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is a user at Lithuania's page who is edit warring by changing the country's geographic position in the lead section despite a consensus being reached almost 1 year ago. I tried reasoning with that user in his talk page, but he just ignores it. You were the last administrator to protect the page in October 2017 for the very same reasons at my request. I need an advice about reporting that user. I thought about going to WP:EW, but I believe that would be premature since the WP:3RR rule was not broken. I am leaning towards WP:ANI, but I am not sure if that would help either. Any help would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Niivent (talk · contribs), so I've added a userlinks template for them. I'll let them know about your comment here. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Crown of Aragon

Crown of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi EdJohnston, I am trying to edit the "Crown of Aragon" page because some people try to introduce non-historical terms for promoting Catalonian independence. The term "Catalanoaragonese crown" has never used in the past. There is no ancient text which uses that term, but now it has been created for promoting the idea that Catalonia was a country. In the edition I made, I didn't delete the term, I only added that it was incorrect but saying that, even it's true, it's a problem for some people. I can send you references showing that but It's easy if they can send one ancient document reference using that term. If not, it has to be classified as incorrect because It's like call the Roman empire, the Spanishroman empire because Spain was inside. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.114.81 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Please make this argument at Talk:Crown of Aragon. You can provide your references there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Syrian Turkmen (also Turkish people)

Hi EdJohnston, I hope you're doing well. We had communicated on 20th June 2018 when you warned me about edit warring on my talk page. Since then, I have tried to communicate on the talk pages, particularly Talk:Syrian Turkmen, and a lesser extent on Talk:Turkish people. I included a disputed template on Turkish people which has since been removed. On Syrian Turkmen, I have sought to propose a rewriting on the talk page; however, I am constantly met with negative comments with no evidence to suggest that the other party wishes to work together. I am here seeking for advice; any help on who I can contact for mediation will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, O.celebi (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

In general, use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The disagreement you are having at Talk:Syrian Turkmen could probably be taken to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Kind regards. O.celebi (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Avianca

Template:Avianca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Edit warring complaint
Ju98 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before threating Wikipedia content contributors, firstly you should check if the other people's reviews are valid or not by contrasting other trustful information sources (i.e. relationship of Avianca brand with Nicaragua and Mexico). An almost perfect lack of knowledge from your side (using the same kind of friendly expression you used towards me). Ju98_5 (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This must be a response to the warning I left you per a complaint at WP:AN3. Even if you have good knowledge about Avianca, this doesn't give you license to keep reverting without ever discussing or using an edit summary. You did not take the opportunity to respond at AN3. As an administrator, I'm not expected to know about Avianca, only to check whether people are going through the proper steps when they disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Olsen24

I've blocked this editor twice for edit warring and fully support the indef but was surprised at your no article talk page posts ever assertion. Maybe you were looking at another namespace? [20] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops. I've apologized for my mistake on the editor's talk but still retain confidence in the block. Thanks for your note, EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Proof Olsen24 is lying: [21] SportsFan007 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

I saw that edit but believe that there is nothing more to do, for now. The user's block is in effect for another three months, and we'll see if everything is OK when he returns to editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Web_SourceContent

Web SourceContent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Something doesn't smell right here. Out of the blue they revert me on a page they have never been to. I suspect they might be looking at some latest edit list but... something's not right here. This is a user who has edited a handful of times outside of this last month, suddenly editing in a way that seems to imply they know way more than they should rightfully know, with a signature that doesn't match their user name. I saw you tried to engage with them on their talk page. Now they've started working in their sandbox in... another weird way. I'd keep an eye on them. I'll report back if I see anything unusual. --Tarage (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This is likely to be a returning editor. No problems yet. What's more of a concern if somebody pretends to be a new user and they are not. Their English is not yet good enough for them to work in contentious areas, so I hope they pursue a quiet career. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but the revert out of nowhere on my edit has me concerned. Regardless, I'll leave it be for now. --Tarage (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Airports AN

Ping [22] 219.76.18.76 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sockmaster JJ 25

He's still at it.[23] The range block you conducted some time ago was pretty effective. Perhaps worth doing again? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're talking about the ANI from early June, that rangeblock was of Special:Contributions/204.40.128.0/17. But now you are discussing a single IP at Special:Contributions/70.54.122.138. I don't recall User:JJ 25 being in this range. Do you have any links? EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Should've been more clear, my bad. The IP I linked is part of another IP range, but operated by the same sockmaster. He switched to it (first edit, 10 June 2018) after you conducted the range block on 204.40.128.0/17 a few days earlier. Same geo-location,[24]-[25]) same edits, sole concern is reinstating JJ 25's/204.40.128.0/17's edits (i.e. textbook WP:DUCK).[26]-[27]-[28]-[29]. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked Special:Contributions/70.54.122.138 for one month. Let me know if the problem recurs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Towns Hill

Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TurboCop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan/Archive

Hello there,

Would it be possible for you take a look at this new account?

Firstly he attempted to impersonate an editor (dormant for 10 years) on his userpage, who apparently created the 1971 Bangladesh genocide article. ([30])

After an editor asked him to declare the identity on the userpage of the main account as another editor fell for the claim of this new account, he comes back after 9 days and makes up a new story.

The interaction utility tool shows this account overlaps impressively with Towns Hill and matches the huge lengths of content addition.

--RaviC (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I added some userlinks to the top of this report. It looks to me that the registered socks of Faizan are all stale so any sockpuppet case would have to be based on behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Faizan is dead and it'd be an inhuman move to attribute the perceived socks to a deceased. I hope there's a way to address 'impersonators' in such cases. Let him rest in peace. samee converse 13:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a puppet

Hi Ed, I recently sought WP:3O and looks like a sock has been created to handle it, see Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion#Weirdly_named_Puppet_handling_3O_requests. I am not sure how to proceed. I have responded to sock on the article talk and reverted my 3O request. appreciate your kind advice on best course of action. --DBig Xray 15:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have left a note for the editor. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a hunch plus this This looks to me as more evidence. --DBig Xray 16:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Any explanation for why you decided to come to a particular administrator instead of using official avenues? --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting. Another evidence of this editor indulging in my WP:WIKIHOUNDING --DBig Xray 16:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but the 3O is not a sock. You're just wrong. I do not need a sock to prove that. I'm free to question why you couldn't accuse our 3O of being a biased party in a more public forum. My guess? You were afraid of being wrong, and maybe you feel like you've built up some kind of rapport with this administrator (he seems like a nice enough guy.)

It looks a lot like you're just shopping around. Shopping around for third opinions. Shopping around for administrators. And you're dodging any suggestions (like RfC) that would mean you can no longer game the system. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Did somebody mention an RfC? If there is one, please link to it. I hope all parties are aware that the articles in question are under WP:ARBIPA. If people seem unable or unwilling to follow the steps of dispute resolution, topic bans are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ed, WP:RFCBEFORE says 2 editors can go for 3O ebfore RFC. If so, how is asking for a 3O before RFC not following the steps ? --DBig Xray 16:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As it says on the WP:3O page, that is a 'less formal' process and, in my opinion, it may not always be suitable. For something like the Khalistan movement that failed at WP:DRN you should be going to WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, As I said before, this was my first RFC, So I was following the steps of whatever WP:RFC page suggested. Never in my dreams had I wondered asking for 3O would be attracting Topic bans.

I have moved the RFC to the talk page now after some quick discussion with EH on the subpage. Please let me know if it needs more work or anything.--DBig Xray 17:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The RfC at Talk:Khalistan movement#RFC on Resurgence of the Khalistan Movement is off to a good start but it's so verbose you may have trouble getting participants. (People won't have the patience if they can't figure out what you're asking in less than an hour's work). I'd suggest making two different versions of the lead (one with 'resurgence' and one without) and asking people to vote between them. You could reduce the WP:TLDR problem by putting each reference list in a collapse box, with 'hat'. The RfC doesn't have to settle everything, you could have a subsequent one with other questions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that it is Too long, On the draft I had commented that lets focus on the resurgence first and rest later on. I have presented the 2 versions already one with resurgence and other without. I also agree with hatting the reference lists. User:Elephanthunter Do you agree on collapsing ref list and decluttering the Question with unnecessary comments on Me ? --DBig Xray 20:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's too long. Hatting ref lists is cool. If you are alright with removing (or hatting) all content between your first signature and the header for "Versions", I agree with that. You allowed me to update the headers, and I feel they are sufficient. I understand the usefulness of agreed-upon facts to people visiting the RfC, but the possibility of getting into some kind of meta-disagreement about what we agree on in our disagreement just makes my head hurt. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ED and EH. Hatting did improve the situation a lot. Now regardign the "too long" problem. As Ed suggested and I also mentioned in the draft RFC page, lets first only decide on the resurgence/active part of the dispute. rest disputes can follow later on. The RFC Question still only asks about resurgence/active but the lead versions presented by both parties contain extra parts. Does EH agree on editing our own versions to a bare miniumum so as to only reflect the question of resurgence/activity ? ( we can edit and agree on the draft versions of the lead at Talk:Khalistan movement/Rfc --DBig Xray 08:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I agreed to remove "all content between your first signature and the header for 'Versions'" (diff) you instead just removed the comments (diff). Maybe there was a misunderstanding. To be completely clear, I don't like that section. I don't want to negotiate a meta list of agreed-upon facts for the RfC. Also, it looks like after we both agreed to a particular header (diff) you changed the headers again (diff). I'm not sure if you should continue editing the RfC format. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

hi EH regarding this The text and the sources are Perfectly neutral and as per the source, (not sure what POV you are talking about here) and been added as a summary/Background to the Question. You never raised such issues when I sought your omments on the draft Rfc at Talk:Khalistan movement/Rfc. Let me know clearly what your objections are. I would like that text back in the Question and this edit self reverted.--DBig Xray 16:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Reading back, I realize my comment on the RfC draft could have been more clear (diff) At that point you had a section labeled "To summarize what we have established and agreed as per multiple source." I said "The section with the summary would be rather difficult to maintain, since we'd likely disagree on interpretation. You should be allowed to bold things, but clearly they're not things I would bold. It might be better to let our arguments sit separately." --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for your reply. I stand by my comment above regarding the need for a background. No reason given by you for objecting to the text or source. So I will move it to my version accordingly. --DBig Xray 16:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your facts are arguments. They are neither brief, neutral, nor signed. Your arguments should stay in the arguments section, and retain clear attribution to you. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

that is your opinion. Which I don't agree with. You had no problem with that part so far and suddenly u want it removed . Kindly do not move around my talk page comments.--DBig Xray 18:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ed, let me know your opinion of me including a context/ background as of now on Rfc. I feel it is useful and should remain. The text is short, factual and as per the sources to give a context to the new users coming to the Rfc--DBig Xray 18:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, EdJohnston probably has more experience with RfCs, and I agree to let him arbitrate this disagreement if he's interested. A brief neutral statement is prescribed RfC policy, and any text beyond that is argument. The facts DBigXray provided are misleading and unsigned. It looks like DBigXray and myself are starting to edit war over this expanded unsigned RfC description. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your closure

I can appreciate that there was not much you could do about the obvious meatpuppetry. I appreciate also that there may be an argument for not including one of the pieces of information that was reverted. But to ignore all the other evidence and suggest that I'm the one at fault is beneath you. Deb (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Dragon Ball Super: Broly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the case of Dragon Ball Super: Broly the IP won't let up and will not discuss anything in the talk page, how do I make a case for semiprotection? --Domushen (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You've never posted on the article talk page. If you do so and the IP won't join you, you will have a better case for semiprotection. Is there an argument for including the voice actors, or omitting them? What is done on other, similar articles? If they are to be included, why not give the names of the roles they play? It seems the IP wants to include the names of the roles but you do not. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Concerned with edits made by user Sabbatino

Dear moderator, I am stunned with situation when info added by me personally constantly deleting by user. I am going to report this cases here to protect the policy of enriching articles with content.

Samogitia page. Added map from page Samogitian_uprisings was deleted with formulating 'rmv map, which doesn't add anything relevant to the context of history section'. But if we analyse the page we can found whole paragraphs about Teutonic Order. So user Sabbatino message is misleading. He decided to delete info added by me but somehow he has no complaints to Samogitian_uprisings page author for same info added.
Samogitia page. Added map of Samogitia in 1919. Instead of refinement that this is the map of Diocese of Samogitia in 1919 user comepletly deleted this info.
Vilna Governorate page. Added the original quote from 1835 book of M. Ross (of Durham.) which is in open source in Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=fqxDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA41 Information was deleted with blurred unreasonable formulating that 'This is not the place for such additions'. What's the problem with this book and this certain author? The book passage perfectly reflect that time with describing the province and enriches the article. Craft37by (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The map in question fits perfectly in the Samogitian uprisings page. However, in Samogitia's page it is the opposite. You just copied the map with the original description without even trying to explain the meaning of it.
This and the other map fall under the WP:IMGDD policy, which clearly says – "Don't overload articles with images." This is a relatively small page and 3 maps for that is not needed.
What relevant information does this quote add to the page? If it was added for the sake of adding something then that is not how this works. The other quote is unnecessary, because that information was already there in normal text format. I am not even going to discuss the additions to the "Ethnic composition" section, which just shows pure Litvinism theory and has no sources to back it up... – Sabbatino (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I've left a warning for Craft37by on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And what the real reason of this? Why user Sabbatino can vandalize whole articles without any reasonable explanation deleting edits which made for weeks? I regarding such moderation behavior as not fair and indifferent. Craft37by (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Map absolutly fits Samogitia page cause History section describes Teutonic period and lacks some visual information. Original description perfectly explain all colors meanings in the map. Your argumenting misleads the moderator. There is no reasons to vandalize this page. I recommend you revert you deletion. Craft37by (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Map of 1919 was deleted with different explanation so you just searching excuses to leave the article deficient. I carefully adjusted the size of the images so that the content looked readable and consistent which is easy to check in history. Craft37by (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant?! Article describes Vilna Governorate and quote with description of Vilna region from contemporary researcher fits article PERFECTLY. Second paragraph added by not me, your vandalise someone else edits in this case. The next additions in Ethnic Composition is mine and was added to explain 'strikingly different numbers' of censuses. I hardly waiting DOCUMENTED proof that this edits somehow wrong. I read a lot about demography researches from ethic, linguistic researches in this region and READY to prove this with sources. For example you can check modern article of Polish linguist Miroslaw Jankowiak http://zw.lt/opinie/jankowiak-mowa-prosta-jest-dla-mnie-synonimem-gwary-bialoruskiej/ What you can do if specialist name 'prosta mova' of Vilna region as belarusian? Craft37by (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You must understand that not everything needs a photo or a map. In addition, the page does not mention anything about the Samogitian uprisings and that map, which you added, does not reflect anything about the Teutonic Order period since Samogitia was always going from one hands to others (from GDL to Teutonic Order and vice versa).
Just because you, as an editor, misinterpret certain information (1919 map in this instance) that does not mean that someone is right or wrong. I already mentioned that there are policies or guidelines that should be followed, but you just keep ignoring it.
That quote comes with a reference where an unreachable page number is shown as the source. How can we verify that information? And yes, that quote is misplaced and not needed, because it does not improve page in any way. And that paragraph after the quote was just put in its former and proper place so do not accuse me of vandalism when there is none. As for the "Ethnic compositions" section, the content by you was added without any sources, which implies that it is either made up or that is the case of Litvinism (this is more probable). Statements like "Historical name of Belarusians is Lithuanians while modern Lithuanians is Samogitians" and similar just show that you cannot accept the fact that more scholars say a completely different thing than what you want to introduce, which just shows that you cannot stay neutral. In addition, all the statements in that section are just a fringe theory, which some modern Belarusian (or other relatively unknown) scholars try to introduce to people who have less knowledge about the history and situation. And that Znad Willi source is just a personal opinion of an individual who does not really understand what "prosta mova" means. The "prosta mova" speech is a mix of Polish, Belarusian and sometimes Russian languages, which is nowhere near what he or you try to claim. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent Belarus page revert seems like a joke. Why Polotsk Principally map changed to Kiev Principally ?? Keiv not even situated in Belarus - Polotsk is. It's just protection soviet propaganda historiography here. I can't believe that this possible in Free Encyclopedia. We need you explanations, Sabbatino. Now I understand such activity as vandalism from user which Talk Page full of 'What are you doing?!?' mentions. Craft37by (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Craft37by, it is up to you to find support from other editors. If you are constantly in the minority, maybe your changes aren't so necessary as you believe. You can still present your arguments on the article talk pages and see if people change their minds. If you misuse the term vandalism, you are risking a block for casting WP:ASPERSIONS. If you continue to post here unnecessarily I will move this discussion to the archives. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston Is it really we need moderators approval for original proven documents and maps? Where I can find a list of those moderators? Could you invite them in this discussion? What if all moderators are prejudiced - article is doomed to defective reflection of a subject? Thanks. Craft37by (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I will only intervene if it appears you are ignoring feedback and are continuing to make contested changes without waiting for consensus. Your theory that 'original proven documents and maps' deserve to be included is not backed up by Wikipedia policy. Generally, we want the modern scholarly consensus, which may or may not think that specific documents and maps of the period give a correct and balanced account. See WP:PSTS for details. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I include also researches from modern times - for example from Devis and Jankowiak. It's absolutely accepted by modern science and obvious that one of the first government in Belarus lands is Polotsk principally, so I added a map. Often not me starting some subject but I developing it, adding visual or more deep explanations.. So I make not only edits with quotes from the 19 century books. But all this edits then deleted indiscriminately and in bias by Sabbatino. It's awful and disrespectful by him. Regarding not only me but all users which face the lack of quality in articles. Sabbatino explanations seems not reasonable or logical. If discussion will continue in such tone we will lead to nothing, Ed, and it's already obvious. Craft37by (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Jankowiak's source, which you showed, is nothing more than a personal opinion of a person who does not really know what he is talking about. And as EdJohnston said – calling someone a vandal when there is no vandalism is unacceptable. Repeating yourself and showing sources from only two people who are not really aware of the subject is absurd. Show at least 20 different scholars that would justify the claims and then we can discuss further. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

IP Editor

68.129.15.71 (talk · contribs)
Previous discussion with Andrzejbanas

Hi Ed, it's a difficult situation to acertain. The editor is sort of progressing at a very slow pace. And sort of ignores issues with their own editing. The editor has claimed to have been editing for over ten years, but their actual editing from this IP doesn't match it. All suggestions of asking other the wiki projects for help are ignored and the user does not really seem to want to learn how to create citations properly and their writing style is a bit strange. I don't think it's intentional vandalism, but this user is rarely ever checking out the rules (I've provided them several rules dozens of times) and gets agitated whenever I try to make suggestions to improve their editing but I feel like I'm just babysitting a user, which is frustrating. Maybe not banworthy. Long story short, this user needs to take the time to learn the rules of Wikipedia more before making the grander edits to improve article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You are the main person who is inconvenienced, but my own opinion is that this editor has exceeded what the community should put up with. If a user just can't manage to come up the learning curve, they fall under WP:CIR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that may be for best. I've asked the user several times if they could quote their sources (as they have misattributed information before) and as far as I can tell, they've read MOS:FILM once since their ban, and admitted what I was trying to convince him or her was correct. Nothing really seems to be moving forward and from recent edits, he seems to be ignoring my queries on their talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So...just curious on whats the next step from here? Is there anything required from me? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

68.129.15.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Andrzejbanas, you are the main person who has been working with this IP to try to get them to follow our standards. So, you are saying now that this isn't going to work, and it's time to reimpose a WP:CIR block? Some prior discussion can be seen at User_talk:68.129.15.71#May 2018 and below. The user's last six month block (for adding unsourced information) expired on 28 May, 2018. There was a thread at ANI in October 2017 and a block issued per AN3 later that month. This link shows that User:Kuru and User:Anthony.bradbury participated in the unblock discussion and declined to lift the block. Unless there is well-founded objection, I'm thinking of issuing a new block of the IP for one year. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Ed & Andrze, please don't block me. I put the angelfire ref on the page in error. If you look back at what i've done over the last 2 weeks editing the Jerry Warren pages and others, you'll see I made dozens if not hundreds of additions to the pages and I only made that one error this week with angelfire. When I saw it was corrected, I omitted it and didn't reuse it. I've been trying so hard to improve the site, and I only made that one error this whole week, which I tried to correct. I suppose if you just want me gone from wikipedia, there's nothing I can do. But all i'm asking is, PLEASE don't block me. The angelfire site was an honest mistake. Please just give me one more chance? Look over what I've done on the Jerry Warren pages and you'll see I really improved them a lot. I made one mistake this whole week out of hundreds of edits. Please don't block me?68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

How about if I take time off from editing ( a few weeks maybe?) and use the time to go back over all the rules? It will allow me to really familiarize myself with them without editing for awhile? I have been so busy editing the Jerry Warren pages, and trying so hard not to use unreliable sources. Please consider giving me a chance to go over all of the material Andrze's sent me (it's a lot of material). I thought I was doing so well this past week. Andrze didn't revert anything I did all week! I really thought he liked what I was contributing. You know I am not purposely trying to break the rules. I want so badly to be involved with wikipedia, and you have to admit I'm improving. Please don't block me now that I'm finally getting the hang of it?68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You aren't trying to break the rules, but you keep not taking time to learn how things can be fixed. I'd be more tolerant if you were a new editor, but you have claimed you are a not a new editor but one who has done things for years. Its not that your content is bad, but its that you don't seem to learn how to format things or learn the rules or how wikipedia works or ask how to figure things out. Its the same stuff all the time. I guess its up to Ed.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, I did not try to use the angelfire link as a reference source on the page I was editing. I only put it at the bottom of the page under "EXTERNAL LINKS" with the imdb/com link that was already there. I thought you told me it was ok to put sources like imdb or angelfire under "EXTERNAL LINKS", didn't you? You just told me not to ever use links like those as reference sources in the body of an article, and I didn't do that. If angelfire can't be used even as an external link, then once I am told that, I won't repeat the mistake. It's not like I'm purposely trying to get blocked. I really love contributing to wikipedia. I only put the angelfire link down as an external link, but now I know not to use it at all. I'm still learning the rules, and I assure you I will follow them to the letter.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

See, I've linked to you MOS:FILM quite a few times for the past few months, you even told me that you had read it recently. Its very clear on what should and should not be in external links in this section. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#External_links. Not sure what else to add to that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

When I realized angelfire was a problem, I left it off the page. It was only on the page for a few minutes as far as I can tell. I just made a mistake, that's all.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

See this is part of the problem, you are predominantly ignoring parts of conversation. It's not just the Angelfire link, its the fact you aren't familiar with the rules after your own suggestion of having edited wikipedia for years. I've linked you to rules, I've suggested places for you to ask for help, I've suggested areas you can practice how to make edits better. Good intentions are not enough. You are better at getting reliable sources, but even when you came back you still used about a dozen sources that were not reliable. When I asked you why it was reliable you could only state that you saw it elsewhere. If you have doubts ask a other users, talk pages, etc. But you don't try to learn, you just do things and wait for other users to clean-up your edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Torah28

Torah28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
46.7.77.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, after you protected Saoirse Ronan's page for edit-warring, the IP who was warring over this edit is now using his original account to do the same thing. There was an investigation against the user, but nothing came of it. Also pinging NeilN who had previously blocked the IP and editor for edit-warring on the same page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Both blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What I believe you failed to notice

Bellshook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[31] - this is where they place a comment to a discussion that pre-dates me which mislead you to think I have been warring with them for a long time.
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] - notice how they change my comments to mispell words I never mispelled.

You have been misled by a very intelligent WP:SPA who feigns ignorance.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Replied at the noticeboard. It is not against the rules to be an WP:SPA but that person needs to be careful. If they continue to edit others' comment it is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion of ANI complaint

People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. With all due respect I was amazed with your conclusion of the ANI complaint here. Both in the past and present complaints I had provided evidence of Stefka's disruptive editing against consensus. How can the complaint end without even a mild warning to the disruptive editor and instead a warning to me simply because I was calling a spade a spade with regards to MKO? --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Editing against consensus might be demonstrated by the result of formal dispute resolution, such as an WP:RFC. When there is no visible consensus, there is not much to go on. EdJohnston (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

New article

Hi EdJohnston. This article was created today, by the same editor who created it before (it was deleted for notability issues [36]. Should this article be nominated for deletion again? The said editor edits only about Phoca, might be same kind of COI? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I deleted as G4 and salted Phoca Cart since it's the second recreation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Single-purpose account deleting content at Bernardo de Gálvez

Granitery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bernardo de Gálvez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Ed. I'm having trouble with a single-purpose account removing content from the article, as well as replacing English WP wikilinks with links to articles on Spanish WP, as you can see from the article history. He refuses to leave an edit summary explaining these repeated removals, which as far as I can see are unnecessary anyway. Carlstak (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts about this? Carlstak (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I notified User:Granitery of your complaint and invited them to respond. They may be well-intentioned but they do need to follow our local policies. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed, I just saw your notice at Granitery's talk page. I've also left a comment on the article talk page. Carlstak (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Souliotes

Skylax30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi EdJohnston, I am pinging @NeilN: although they are on holiday until July 29. After the latest block expired, Skylax 30 created a new article with content that he did not manage to add to Souliotes. This makes the creation of it to practically be a continuation of Skylax30's warring on Souliotes. This is dishonest because community consensus is to not present some 19th century books as reliable sources about the Souliotes, and everyone except of Skylax30 has respected the agreement. During his block, the Souliotes topic was very stable, without disagreements or warring. Now that Skylax30's block expired, once again community consensus is disrespected. I do not plan to try to improve Souliotes anymore, because that topic is once again victim of stubborn disruption by only one editor. Two editors have already expressed their concern with the new article [37], [38]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Skylax30 has created List of 18th - early 19th century sources on Souli and Souliotes. If you think it's a content fork of Souliotes you could make that observation. Perhaps the right thing is to nominate the new article for deletion. From a reading of User:Skylax30's comments at Talk:Souliotes#Request for comment on displaying 19th century sources he really wants to put the content *somewhere*. (Can we add limited material (few lines) from early 19th century sources? The text will not be commented or interpreted. Alternatively, if those sources are not accepted here, in which Wiki can they be included? It might take more experienced editors to remind him that sources are added to support statements that are to be included in articles. (User:NeilN closed the RfC as invalidly formed). If Skylax30 can come up with an assertion that he thinks is established by these sources, we could have an RfC on whether to include that assertion in the Souliotes article. Of course, the underlying problem is that the ethnic origin of the Souliotes is murky. If we are to come up with an appropriate compromise statement on their origins, it should be based on what current scholarly sources say, not the old ones from the 19th century. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not expecting that I have to apologize for creating articles for WP. I thought this is my duty as wikipedian. Also, I am not aware of any category of knowledge (including bibliography) that is blacklisted from WP. Seriously now, I am not the only person around that likes to read the oldest sources available on any subject. This is the purpose of this article. If you find that that the list of sources contains any statement that should not be there, please commend in the talk page. The article is not done, and is open to all for corrections. Finally, I don't take as a personal attack the characterizations "dishonest" and "stuborn" above by Ktrimi. He probably thinks that he is the owner or guardian of the articles related to Souli. --Skylax30 (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem of Skylax30 practically is that they are giving too much importance to some 19th century accounts. The consensus is to use for the Souliotes only recent publications (20th and 21th century reliable sources). The Souliotes were a small and unimportant tribe, and they did nothing special. Nowadays they are used by Albanian and Greek nationalists for propaganda purposes, for asserting kind of "superiority" over each other. Hence, the history of Souliotes shows that many editors were blocked in the past due to disruptive editing on that article. The Souliotes article is a mess, and is far from having encyclopedic standards. On List of 18th - early 19th century sources on Souli and Souliotes, yes, I think I will open a deletion discussion in the few coming hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that you spend your time on articles on an "unimportant tribe" ? --Skylax30 (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I have some doubts about the notability of "19th century accounts on Souliotes", a topic of very little relevance to the modern world. I seriously doubt this page will be visited by anyone who isn't following Greek/Albanian controversies, of which this is not a very major one, i.e. the only reason it's relevant nowadays is there are some Albanians (the predictable types) who like to point out that some Greek national heroes (Markos Botzaris) might have some Albanian roots, and of course some Greeks (not all by any means, the predictable types, really) find this horrifying. Of course, this also raises questions about WP:POVFORK, which are very unfortunately not helped by the history between certain users involved...--Calthinus (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. After Skylax30 agreed on the stable version of the article, another editor emerged on the discussion, and is insisting to add content without consensus, based on their interpretation of some policies. What should we do now to avoid further conflicts on that article. I would say openening a RfC for a stable solution for the article is needed. If a RfC is opened, will someone neutral/uninvolved/admin close it? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not agree on the "stable version" of the article Souliotes, as it has many problems (synth, unveriable claims etc). Simply, I was blocked while I was trying to improve it.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that the discussion at Talk:Souliotes has reached a conclusion, why not state what you think it is? See the language of WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Has anyone listed the modern scholarly sources which give an opinion on this matter? EdJohnston (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The stable version informs on the lede that the Souliotes were bilingual, had Albanian origin and Greek identity. There is a "Historiography" sub-section that presents the views of several modern academics on the Souliotes. The majority of the sources there say that the Souliotes were an Albanian tribe and some others mixed one with mostly Greek identity. The matter is very difficult to be solved because academics are divided. Perhaps the most viable solution is to present the Souliotes as a tribe with mixed identity, and both "Greeks" and "Albanians" infoboxed be placed on the article or just keep the current consensus version and only "Greeks" infobox. I am open to suggestions via a RfC. All in all I think that the article should focus more on the culture and wars of the Souliotes than to their origin and ethnic identity. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You say The matter is very difficult to be solved because academics are divided.. Why you do not allow me to have this different view added to the article as well? Due to your reverts of my edits, the article now maintains only one academic view on the issue. I recommend you self-revert your actions otherwise I will have no option but bring this to NPOV noticeboard and add NPOV tag to the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I do no understand why you felt the need to send me that notification on ARMBAC sactions but not to Ktrimi as well. To warn me for trying to restore NPOV content on the article, but leave out the editor who wants to maintain one-sided POV, gives me a real sour impression that you are picking sides on the dispute. I am dismayed. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

ARMBAC alert is not a warning. I am aware of it as i have placed that template on the talk page of several esitors lately, so EdJohnston does not need to notify me. I would suggest to you and myself to not redirect the discussion from the content dispute. You think that the view that the Souliotes had Greek origin does not need consensus and the view that they had Albanian identity does need consensus? You said on the talk page of the article that "Albanian" infobox should not be added without consensus and your content does not need consensus. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, you are asking that on the lead, only the one view is present, the view which you support. The other view is completely absent from the same section even though among the world's academics, there are different views on this matter. How is that NPOV? Currently, the article article welcomes the readers with a very particular academic POV, that the Souliotes might have been Albanians, before the readers are sent further down the article just to find out that they might also been Greeks. To maintain a select POV on the Lead, even though you have yourself acknowledged to EdJonhston the difficult background regarding these people's ethnicity, to me stinks as a attempt to keep a certain POV on the lead, which is the most important section in an article and through which the first impressions are given to the readers. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I said on the talk page that there is a consensus to keep on the lede only "Greeks" infobox, and that the Souliotes had Albanian origin and Greek identity, as previous discussions determined that this is the mainstream view of scholars. If you need to add alternative views to the lede, you must add all of them, not only what to do like the most. I told you you can freely add your content, provided that you add "Albanians" infobox as well. To sum up, either the lede should mention the most accepted view or it should mention all of them. Try to not modify your comments after you post them , as EdJohnston is receiving many talk page notifications. Sorry Ed :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Souliotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If reverting continues at Souliotes it may be necessary to put the article under full protection. The editors who have reverted more than once in the past week include User:Ktrimi991 and User:SilentResident. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that there will be more reverting on the article. I surely will not revert anymore. I just want the article to be in line with consensus, and everyone feel that their contribution is properly respected. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ed -- it will be better for all involved if you put the article under full protection for a bit (maybe a week) anyways. Nothing productive is happening there. The current discord between SR and Ktrimi has little to do with the Souliotes page -- it need not be a casualty. Some people can take offense at words, and talking about sensitive matters in English (a second language for all involved) can have bad side effects. I am not familiar with wiki policy on article locks but my common sense says this is an article of little importance to most readers (hence, no collateral damage), while locking it can help contain their current dispute. --Calthinus (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Too much fuss about an "unimportant tribe", isn't it Ed? Now the protectors of certain POV want to delete the article with the 19th century sources on Souliotes. Good material for a case study.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi EdJohsnton. Calthinus seems to be right. It seems the disputes on Souliotes yesterday and today is unrelated to Souliotes. After an editor was warned by me on 3RR, they added content to the lede of Souliotes, countering with the consensus they reached three years ago with other editors. They claim that the scholarship disputes the Souliotes' origin amd ethnicity, and still they insist that only "Greeks" infobox should be on the article. Since their ethnicity is disputed, why should only "Greeks" infobox should be on the article? This EdJohnston is a breach of rules, much stronger that the case of Skylax30. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The origin of the Souliotes remains disputed (there is not only the purely Albanian view) as new reference provided by third parties. I won't object an Albanians infobox as soon as Ktrimi provides evidence that they identified/or are classified as Albanians in contemporary times (Ottoman era/19th century).13:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You added content that their ethnicity is disputed among scholars. Hence, it is disputed that they self-identified as Greeks. "Identity" is part of "Ethnicity" in English. I was OK with first position that a Greek identity is undisputed, but your recent addition shows that their Greek identity is not a general view of scholars. Either both infoboxes stay on the article, or both of them need to be removed. Alternatively, just revert yourself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok without any iboxes in lede, however a Greeks box can stay in the after independence section, since they became Greek nationals that time.Alexikoua (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, because many sources listed at the Historiography section say that the Souliotes were an Albanian tribe, without saying that after Independence they became ethnically Greeks. The article after your change shows that that the Souliotes gained a Greek ethnicity is just a theory. Infobox "Greeks" is about ethnic Greeks, not about Greek citizens no matter their ethnicity. Otherwise Turks, Albanians, Pakistanis, Arabs etc would be there. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop playing with "theories" about "Albanian tribes", and go to the discussion of the article to see what Souliotes said and signed about themselves. As for the Albanian "nation" of the 1800, you have to prove that existed.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Concerned with edits made by other user

Craft37by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. I am concerned with the edits made by this user. There were many run-ins with this user in the past by me and other editors due to the addition of fringe theories by him and his unwillingness to discuss the matter, which resulted in a block for edit warring. Since then this user pops up once in a while by trying to add the same or almost the same (mainly rephrased) content with the addition of new fringe theories. I am not sure what to do next, because I do not have time for any altercations with him, but I know that he would just continue to go the same path. Any advice would be appreciated since dealing with him is tiring. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added a link for the person you are discussing. The User:Craft37by has only made about 20 edits since becoming active again on 2 June 2018 so you should be able to mention some edits that concern you. Their WP:ARBEE alert has expired so I'm issuing a new one. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Those claims would be that Belarus it the "real Lithuania", Belarusians are "real Lithuanians", Lithuania is "Samogitia", Lithuanians are "Samogitians", Belarusian language is the "real Lithuanian language" among others. These POV views are approved by a very small number of scholars, which is know as Litvinism. I have reverted all such additions, but I believe there will be a new edit war (given the past altercations). In addition, the grammar is very poor and some of the translated statements are different from the original due to user's poor English understanding. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I absolutly opened to discuss the matter and complained edits SPECIFICALLY. I sub-cline edits with references. I understand that it might be sensitive for some nationalists but I believe that Wikipedia is about sharing all aspects of subject. (talk) Craft37by (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Craft37by: Wikipedia is about what the majority scholars say/write about the subject and not what the minority thinks about it. This is not about nationalism at all, but about historical accuracy. Very few scholars acknowledge the statements that you are trying to add or keep re-adding. On top of that this is not the place to try and force some fringe theories on everyone. Misinterpretations is another concern. This is not the map of Samogitia as you are trying to claim. The Diocese of Samogitia is completely different from Samogitia just like the New York metropolitan area is completely different from New York City or New York. In addition, adding maps that do not improve the page is bad practice. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just want to point out that that content in the Vilna Governorate page was restored by the user in question and I again reverted it. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

About page Samogitia - this page struggled without any colorful info and I added those maps from another Wiki pages, f.e. Samogitian uprisings. But I see that you deleting only mine edits. I suppose it's not about accuracy but about vandalism and chasing me personally.

About Vilna Governorate page - how can you mention majority when just added the original historical documents and maps? Add something else if it's exist! Just added the original quote from 1835 book of M. Ross (of Durham.) which is in open source in Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=fqxDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA41 I only can understand you deletion as prejudice. You dislike that in 19 century historic wrote phrases like 'The province of Wilna contains the north part of Lithuania' ? Please found some info where they wrote something different. I believe that Wikipedia is about sharing ORIGINAL documents and primary sources - not about deleting everything that not fits into a certain dogma. I forced to start the complain on you, Sabbatino. Craft37by (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Craft37by, if modern scholars agree with you, this is something you should be able to prove by citations. Your own personal opinion as to which of the 19th-century publications are relevant should not control the article content. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnson, I don't agree that it's about sharing my personal opinon. Only added original maps and quotes from proven authors of contemporaries, including from existing articles on wikipedia to which there were no questions.. If we want to talk about modern time - proven specialist of Eastern Europe history Norman Davies released the book about Grand Duchy of Lithuania few years ago and this book totally dedicated to the history of Belarus. Please check the examples in open access, I mean this one https://www.amazon.com/Litva-Lithuania-Selection-Vanished-Kingdoms-ebook/dp/B00BCUJ1XE Craft37by (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You still fail to understand what is written to you. A user needs to be competent in order to edit English Wikipedia, which is not the case with your edits. Most of the text in English added by yourself is hard to understand or is incomprehensible. Personal synthesis is another concern. You cannot just mix 3 sources and create some theory, which is not supported by neither of them. I can understand that you are trying to add something in good faith, but most of the time it is just a personal opinion or an opinion from some relatively unknown publisher who satisfies only a small amount of people. The content of the page is based on what most scholars say about the subject and now what very few people think. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Аgain I am convincing of your bias and lies. Previously you expressed a claim to the content - now you are expressing a claim to the grammar of content. However, in deleted content there are also the original fragments and maps - the PRIMARY SOURCES of CONTEMPORARIES and NATIVE SPEAKERS (examples above). Removing it absolutely unjust and harmful. You are just desperately looking for reasons for censorship - but all your arguments are illogical. You do not seek to fix the content if even somewhere mistake made but delete whole fragments of article entirely. According to your edits, I realized that you are deleting everything that contradicts Soviet historiography. Seems you are just a liar in service of Moscow propaganda. Wikipedia should be protected from harmful activities which you do! Craft37by (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Craft37by: First of all, I am not Russian and I do not approve with their or Soviet historiographical views. Secondly, you should refrain from making personal attacks, which you are making by calling me a vandal and troll among others. I already wrote that an editor needs to be competent in order to edit in English Wikipedia (or any other Wikipedia), which is not the case in your situation. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It appears that this user started editing, while logged out (restored content in Belarus page). And it appears that instead of trying to discuss and understand what is written to him, he turned to personal attacks, accusations and just wants to make a point in any way possible, which implies that he is in the wrong place. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Just want to inform you that this user again started adding unsourced, WP:POV and WP:OR content, which looks more like his own opinion and is also blog-like, to pages regarding Lithuania and Belarus. For example, this addition, where he again tries to claim that Lithuanian language is not Lithuanian language. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Craft37by has made no more edits with their account since 19 July. There have been no IP edits at Belarus since 11 July. Let me know if you see any continuing problem. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I will inform you if this continues. On a side note, it appears that the user in question has moved to other language Wikipedias and started adding exactly the same content, but most of his edits were instantly reverted. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Just want to inform you that the user in question is back and keeps adding the same content again. The Belarus page was protected due to that user's actions and only administrators can edit it at this point. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked editor back editing as an IP

Hi EdJohnston. It would seem that User:Zaner25 (the "RelayBall" editor), whom you recently blocked, is evading the block by editing under the IP address 96.61.0.66 - see contribs. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Two pages are now semiprotected per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaner25. This may be sufficient. Let me know if the problem continues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

He's back: [39] DH85868993 (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

ZanerG20 is now blocked indef by User:Edgar181 as a sock of User:Zaner25. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Concerned with edits made by user Sabbatino

Sabbatino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Greetings, EdJohnston. I want to report systematic unreasonable deletion of the content I added. I forced to seek for administration protection and support to avoid edit wars in providing wide coverage of the history of the Eastern Europe region. I believe that with you help situation will be improved.

User Sabbatino creates a self-centered point of view around many articles according to him only a known pattern, removing any information that contradicts the occupational ideology of pan-Russism around Belarus state - without arguments or even trying to start any discussion in talk page. He deliberately belittles the role of the Belarusian ethnos and all that concerns the modern territory of Belarus, which was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for centuries.

His regular complains for "litvinism additions" which is very similar to the Kremlin experts vocabulary, for which I have a bright example.

In 2016 Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies retired Lt. Gen. Reshetnikov said to belarusian Radio Liberty literally this: "... At independence, do not declare themselves as part of "litvinsky" history. (in belarusian: ня трэба аб’яўляць сябе часткаю «ліцьвінскай» гісторыі.) You do not want to be proud of Dostoevsky and Pushkin, and you want to be proud of Mickiewicz? It's just awful ...". Link is: https://www.svaboda.org/a/raszetnikau-havoryc/28192683.html .

Later this interview released the scandal at the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: https://www.svaboda.org/a/28190866.html (Belarusian Foreign Ministry expressed protest to Russia in connection with the statement by the Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies).

So I have some reasons to suspect user Sabbatino in cooperating with ideological department of russian special agencies.

Ed, please let me have this tread for possible feature updates because this situation continues to happen again.. Thank you. Craft37by (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

List of ungrounded removings (constantly replenishing)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Belarus&diff=852628632&oldid=852359929 - removed detailed caption for map placed by third party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania&diff=853390605&oldid=853379007 - removed photo of Saint Sophia Cathedral in Polotsk. Before my addition there were no mention of Vilnius Baroque style in article, but then niche was "occupied" quickly and the article gives the impression that all churches of Duchy were built only in Vilnius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania&diff=852628383&oldid=852367198 - just deleted info with unknown criteria of 'good article'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilnius_Region&diff=853390826&oldid=853296030 - uknnown criteria of 'nonsense'
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski&diff=853390272&oldid=853295433 - unknown criteria of 'reliable source'. Link is about 25 anniversary of sharing this widely known fact with scans of 1991 and 1993 newspapers.

Craft37by (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Craft37by, you are not listening to any advice. You continue to revert and to push WP:FRINGE ideas even though nobody agrees with you. Unless you promise to voluntarily stop editing Wikipedia on the topic of Lithuania I will pursue other remedies, such as a block for disruption or a report to WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, that's probably not advice but sign of censorship. Still no grounded examples of any WP:FRINGE ideas in my additions. Adding a photo of church is fringe idea, are you serious? I promise that I will find the truth, wikipedia is not privatised yet but community-driven. Craft37by (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: After all the accusations and personal attacks towards me and other editors (he called another user being a chauvinist and called you being a Russian special agent), I feel that 1 month's "vacation" for the blocked person will not be enough since this user shows clear signs of being in the wrong place. He constantly misinterprets sources or adds silly and fringe theories from unreliable sources, and if someone disagrees with him (even if the majority disagrees) then he turns to personal attacks or calls everyone a Russian troll. Now moving on to the "Litvinist" ideas – these ideas were created by Belarusian nationalists who claim that:

Lithuania is Samogitia, while Belarus is the "real" Lithuania (the majority of scholars completely disagree with this theory);
Lithuanian language is Samogitian language, while the Belarusian language is the "real" Lithuanian language (same goes for this fringe theory);
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state (the same applies for this fringe theory) when it is the opposite, because it was created by the Balts (Lithuanians being the biggest trive) and they later conquered the Ruthenian lands (formerly of Kievan Rus'), which meant that the majority of the residents were of Slavic origin;
None of the rulers of the GDL were Lithuanians, because they were Ruthenian (this is beyond stupid and just shows what this user tries to claim).

To sum this all up, according to "Litvinist" ideas, Lithuanians did not exist until the 19th century and they "stole" all the history from Belarusians. These are prime examples that show why this user is in the wrong place (this applies to other language Wikipedias since most of his edits are almost always reverted), and that he quite clearly lacks competence to be here (fringe theories, broken to horrible English, edit wars, personal attacks, etc). It might look like I am trying to get this user blocked for a very long time, but the examples that I gave just show that I might be right. Of course there is a Arbitration Committee, but the main question would be if it would stop the user from making such edits. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sabbatino, do you know of published sources (especially scholarly ones) that explain the term 'Litvinist'? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I will look into it, but I know it will not be easy since this a relatively new concept (about 30 years old) and very few English language sources exist. There is this mention or this source (read from page 14 of the pdf file; this was written by people of Lithuanian heritage and this might be considered as POV source, but the whole concept is explained quite clearly). Of course there are articles about this concept in the Belarusian or Lithuanian nationalist websites or forums, but they cannot be taken seriously since people write whatever they want with no sources to back it up. Belarusian historians like Mikola Yermalovich and Paviel Urban among others (there are some more such "historians" in Belarus, but I cannot remember them at the moment), tried to push the "Litvinist" ideas in their books, but such claims were instantly rejected by the more established and more reliable scholars (this goes to Belarusian, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, German and historians of other nations). – Sabbatino (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that Google Books search. Here is the same search in English. I can now see how people might be nostalgically appealing to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Tatiana Zhurzhenko says:

"Litvinism as a supranational regional patriotism was an ideology widespread among the Polish and Polonized regional elites in the end of 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, and died only after the World War II. The Belarusian version reinvented at the end of the 1980s considers the Grand Duchy of Lithuania a de facto Belarusian state, which was destroyed by Russian imperial aggression."

I see also that the Tatiana Zhurzhenko book cites Timothy Snyder, “The reconstructions of nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1669-1999", Yale University Press 2003. Snyder’s work is cited elsewhere on Wikipedia and I'm guessing that whatever he has to say will be reliable. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

ANEW close

Regarding [40], you did not comment on the actual original target of the report. Without disputing whether you made the right call in regard to the IP's behavior, could you please add a comment to the closure regarding whatever (in)action you made? Otherwise there seems to be no actual "closure" of the issue as reported. DMacks (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If semiprotection stops the warring by the reported IP, it ought to be sufficient, no? If a given IP is warring at more than one article then further study should be done. It is common to avoid doing both semi and block if one of them is enough. There is possible socking on this article though I didn't carefully study it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I'm not disputing your judgement (I'm on the fence about whether sock or not), just seemed unusual the closing comment that did cite a different editor but not that one. The usual plain "article protected" closes I see are when filer and filee are both warring, or when lots of accounts are warring and no other one is specifically mentioned. DMacks (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

OK I'll fix that in a minute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I updated the close. My guess is that you are not involved, so you could take action on this dispute yourself? For example block the IP if necessary? Feel free to close other 3RRs if you have the time, everyone seems to be on vacation :-). EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look if I get a chance. Is there a .js tool useful on 3RR, or should I just follow the template-use and boilerplate patterns of others? DMacks (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed a few admins using a script called User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper though I'm not familiar with it. The edit history of AN3 shows when it is used. User:Abecedare may be one admin who uses it and my guess is you could ask MusikAnimal if you have questions on how it works. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have the script installed, but haven't really figured how to use it. So I too try to just "follow the template-use and boilerplate patterns of others". Will watch this discussion for other admins to chime in, which could be of use to me too. Abecedare (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

After intense study, I can report that the script works, at least it present some closure options in the left sidebar. Go to any report currently visible at WP:AN3 (even a closed one) and click the 'edit' button at top of the report. You will then see some options at your left. There are 15 options in parentheses, such as (Blocked), {Nom. blocked) etc. I hope it's not like Twinkle ARV where you don't get a chance to review your report before it's submitted. Will try later on a real example. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Left menu. Didn't think I even looked there. Will need to close some ANEW reports over the weekend to give it a try. Thanks Ed. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Caucher Birkar

Hi EdJohnston, just a little message in order to thank you warmly with my own words for the protection of Caucher Birkar. This should lower the massive disruption of this page by anonymous POV warriors. Thanks. Take care.---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Knson3

There is a new User:Steedhals who appears to be the same as the recently blocked User:Knson3. He's now bordering on edit warring at Rosaceae. Given the behaviour of User:Knson3 I suspect that there are older nyms. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Steedhals is now blocked as a sock after being reported in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knson. Curiously, Steedhals is an unrelated mischief-maker (imitating the actions of Knson3). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Son of Kolachi

I was about to ask NeilN but he is offline. Since you had protected the article for which this account was created for edit warring, I believe he has been given chances to contribute constructively but he just can't stop making himself look like a disruptive sock of someone who is here for POV. What action do you suggest? His contributions are now disrupting even Wikipedia space. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to some of his recent edits that you think are disruptive? EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued edit warring on Human rights abuses in Kashmir [41] and making no discussion[42] even after coming off from a block for edit warring there.[43] Alleging other editor of Wikihounding,[44] Participating in a page move war.[45] Opposing siteban on NadirAli by providing a misleading comment which shows that he knows NadirAli very deeply,[46] however his own account was registered 8 days after NadirAli stopped editing outside his user_talk space. These diffs comes from 10 August - 13 August. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the AE block appeal was declined because the block had expired by the time. How is Accesscrawl saying, "this account was created for edit warring" and "a disruptive sock of someone" any different from my "Alleging other editor of Wikihounding"? It's interesting to see that DBigXray was only warned for the same offence for which I was later blocked for 72 hours. I don't know why Accesscrawl is adamant on getting me blocked for one reason or the other. First through a Sockpuppet investigation, then the 1RR report and now this. I only smell bad faith. This guy reverted me multiple times on Human rights abuses in Kashmir and never participated in a discussion on Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir and now falsely accuses me of the same. There was no page move war. Jibran1998 gave no reason to move the article back to older title, so I moved it again. Adamgerber80 (never having edited the article before) moves it back while leaving a warning on my talkpage. This feels like a setup. Maybe he doesn't like my opposing a siteban proposal for NadirAli, whom he wants sitebanned. Ed, what action do you suggest to stop this harassment? Son of Kolachi (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the article's protection log, there have been concerns about sockpuppetry at Human rights abuses in Kashmir as long ago as 2012. I've applied indefinite WP:ECP to the article and logged it in WP:DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Dahyan Airstrike

Dahyan air strike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not complaining about the semi-protect, but the vandalism was all from one obvious vandal account which was blocked, so it may not ultimately be necessary. Again, I'm fine with protecting the article a bit, just noticed that the request cited multiple IPs vandalizing when what I saw was like... one guy... Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You might be speaking about 155.93.255.162 (talk · contribs). In addition to that person, there's a large number of IP edits in the past two days and for some reason a lot of the changes are conventional vandalism. For example this one. Also some POV pushing of a more traditional kind. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Totally fair. :) Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan Infobox

Hello EdJohnston,

The Arabic language was deleted in the Infobox of the country Pakistan.

I understand that many Pakistanis don`t like Arabs or the Arab language because many Arabs in countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council don`t treat Pakistanis in an appropriate manner and don`t show respect for Pakistanis. However, this should not be a reason for deleting the Arabic language in the Infobox. It is true that the Arabic language is not spoken in Pakistan (it didn`t say in the Infobox that Arabic is a spoken language in Pakistan). Nevertheless, the Arabic language is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan. The source for this information was mentioned.

So, it doesn`t matter if Arabic is spoken in Pakistan or not. It only matters if the Arabic language is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan or not.

Maybe you know that 48% of the people in Pakistan speak Punjabi as a first language and only 8% speak Urdu as a first language. But it doesn't make sense to delete Urdu and to mention Punjabi as the official language of Pakistan on Wikipedia. Because it only matters what is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan and according to the constitution of Pakistan only Urdu and English are the official languages of Pakistan.

The majority in South Sudan still speak Juba Arabic but the government of South Sudan deleted the Arabic language as an official language in 2011. In addition, the Arabs in Israel speak Arabic as their first language but the government of Israel deleted the Arabic language as an official language in 2018. These things are facts no matter if we like it or not.

Wikipedia should be based on facts and it is important to indicate always reliable sources for all information. Wikipedia should not be based on opinions. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

I would be very happy if you let me know how do you think about this issue.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a content question which ought to be settled at Talk:Pakistan. As an administrator I don't have the power to decide whether Arabic should go in the infobox. It is up to the consensus of regular editors. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston,

Thank you very much for your reply.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

AE, IP Address, Shebaa Farms West Bank

Hi, nothing to do with the meat of your comments but just to let you know Shebaa Farms is not in the West Bank. It's on the border of Lebanon and Israel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Cerf (school administrator)

Christopher Cerf (school administrator) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous AN3 report

Kindly please review this reversion.[47] I bring it to your attention since you are familiar with the case. As I suspected, we have the return of Bellshook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There has been no discussion on the talk page since you put full protection on the article. I do not mean that as "I told you so." My childish outburst at WP:RPP was stupid and unnecessary. I've taken your criticism that I did not behave any better to heart and I'm trying to practice WP:ONLYREVERT. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There have been several mentions of your deletion of the existing article on the talk page for the Cerf article. Please read and respond there. Bellshook (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

At first glance the Cerf article looks like a hit piece against the subject. In my opinion the article violates WP:UNDUE, though that is a matter for consensus. A lot of the wording isn't neutral. It seems to me that User:Bellshook didn't make much effort to find any material that would be favorable to Cerf. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston I welcome changes to make the wording more "neutral" and to ensure compliance with WP:UNDUE. In fact, several edits were made by other uses in the prior version in those regards. However, deleting the entire article, which included more than 80 citations, is not the way to handle these issues. Gaining consensus and working methodically are ways to proceed. I plan to (again) revert to the version before the entire deletion. As a matter of good faith, I will not revert or change INSERTIONS by Coffeeandcrumbs or any other contributor. But broad deletions by Coffeeandcrumbs of cited facts (that follow WP rules) should not be permitted without consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellshook (talk • contribs)

@EdJohnston Also, wouldn't it be better to have this discussion on the talk page for Christopher Cerf (school administrator)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellshook (talk • contribs)

If you go forward with your plan to "to (again) revert to the version before the entire deletion" it is likely I will block you for continued edit warring. It is common for people named at AN3 to lecture others on the duty to get consensus even while they intend to keep reverting the article themselves. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston Why didn't Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) need consensus before deleting the existing page that several people had created? Bellshook (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The page at Talk:Christopher Cerf (school administrator) is open for your further suggestions of how to improve the page. If you encounter disagreement, which seems likely, you could opt for a structured approach such as an WP:RFC in which people could go over individual points to add to the article. An RFC can bring in people new to the dispute. An RfC requires you to propose specific changes such as 'Change X to Y in the article,' and then ask for support or oppose opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

72 bikers

I provided this link [[48]] from April.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yadavas are kshatriya

Why dont you reply johnson Manoj Ranjan Yadav (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You can contact me on [email protected]

Manoj Ranjan Yadav (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Edjohnston It's a warm request from you pls don't disillusioned the great history of yadav.You can contact me directly on +919304686596 I will make you understand everything clearly regarding the subject matter. Manoj Ranjan Yadav (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Block evading?

Craft37by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
86.57.247.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
46.53.178.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I fear that Craft37by is evading his block by editing with this and this IPs. They pop up now and then, but looking at the nature of those IPs' edits it is obvious that it is the same person. This edit and its edit summary sums it all up quite nicely. Looking at Craft37by's latest unblock request it is evident that this user will not change his stance and the same POV pushing with personal attacks or insults will be continued. Either indefinite block or WP:ARBEE should be enforced (if his block will not be extended). – Sabbatino (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Craft37by has already been alerted to WP:ARBEE. I had previously semiprotected Belarus, right after this suspicious edit by 46.52.178.122 restoring the same text as Craft37by. Just now I semiprotected Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Let me know if you see more IP edits. If Craft37by continues in the same style when his block ends, he may not be here long. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Džordanas Brunas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is possibly Craft37by's sockpuppet account since this user edits the same pages and continues to add or restore grammatically poor and/or POV content. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

Dealt with Account blocked, master extended to 3 months. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Kirylpl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – from the additions it is evident that Craft37by has created a new sockpuppet account. Also pinging DeltaQuad, who extended the block of the master account. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: He also edited from the 86.57.247.119 IP and added POV content as he did with his master account. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I've now indef blocked User:Kirylpl and blocked User:86.57.247.119 three months for evasion. If this continues, we should look again at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Craft37by which has had no updates since 2016. Somebody should also write down some of the 'signature' views of Craft37by since they may help in recognizing any future edits. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that case should be revisited. In addition, new IP has just been used – 109.126.131.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I will also try to see what I can do about Craft37by's "signature" views. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

So far all the IPs geolocate to Minsk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Knson block evasion

User:Knson seems to be back, as IP 86.148.0.80

I reverted a batch of unsourced and otherwise questionable changes at List of the largest genera of flowering plants after he ignored my request for a source at the talk page for User:Knson3. These changes have apparently been reintroduced, in the process wiping out a sourced modification. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A checkuser reverted this IP's last change at List of the largest genera of flowering plants, on 27 August. Nothing more to do at the moment. But if this continues please let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

About User-4488 (UserDe)

User-4488 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please forgive me for using google translation to talk to you.

His rewriting of my user page in Chinese Wikipedia has offended me and he broke the cross-wiki. So I decided to hunt him. Most importantly, his actions are easy to predict. He mainly uses the Australian IP. Sometimes he may use Chinese IP because he is returning to his hometown. Sometimes he uses Proxy to use IP from other countries. I have seen him use Proxy on Chinese Wikipedia. Other traits are like the page activity he has been editing himself. So just monitor the page he edited and you can find his trace. But sometimes you can catch him by using keywords on google, because he has the habit of putting drafts on the sandbox, and it is ignoring the rules across the wiki.Like putting a draft his talk page.--Tr56tr (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the time to follow up on this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Following on AE

You closed the AE thread, and then: [49]. I'm not asking you to do anything about it, but I do rather think that this vindicates my point. I'll make a new filing if it proves difficult to resolve. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've fully protected Political views of American academics for three days. I hope that anyone who has preferences for what should go in the article will open a thread on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Faith Goldy

Faith Goldy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Grayfell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cllgbksr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Skingski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have a problem with a new editor to the Faith Goldy page, Grayfell, engaging in an edit war as can be seen in recent edit history. The specific conflict can be seen on Talk page section Life and career and lede. He has made this personal, used the Talk page to engage in diatribes and imo, is using strong personal bias to drive/block edits to suit a narrative for the article with little to no research into the topic. While his last answer is easy to refute, I feel my, Ivanvector's or other editors' further engagement will only cause him to escalate the situation further. Admin moderation may be necessary. This instance to my mind underlines the need for edit protection you instituted recently, especially given the topic is currently running for office.

A quick search of Grayfell's contributions suggests this is not an isolated instance; he has engaged in at least one other edit war as complained by Cllgbksr here (Caveat: I did not research the complaint).

I know this is not a topic you manage, however I believe the changes I am promoting now and in the near future appropriately improve the article in neutrality and substance with better sourcing. I proceeded in good faith to invite all suggestions, discuss and be open to amendments prior to editing as I expect all editors should on such a polarising page. Indeed, Ivanvector and I successfully made article improvements previous to Grayfell's sudden involvement after well-reasoned, dispassionate discussions here), in sharp contrast to Grayfell. I value any questions/concerns/advice you have regarding this, my positions, etc. Thank you in advance, Skingski (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look it over. I see how you think everything was not settled. Perhaps I got the wrong impression from his silence on my rebuttals. I want to state here to avoid an argument with Grayfell on the Talk page, the contentions were more than just over self-description (which I respond to in the Talk page). His near-blanket reversion included other changes. He restarts an argument against one change, while deleting the others without explanation (he did inexplicably keep one which is now a duplicate). One item we did agree on IMO was that the term "reporter" be retained. The original version before the edit war had it:

"Faith Julia Goldy is a Canadian political commentator and reporter.[1]"

Grayfell claimed she was not a reporter based on inferences (not facts) from 2 op-eds that he said shouldn't be used anyway. When I pointed out for the 2nd time that our primary source for her as reporter is Ref. 1 (added by Jane955), he said he had overlooked that and conceded saying, "If nobody else sees this as a problem I'll drop it." No one did. However, in his "reversion", he removed the term "reporter". I will point this out on the Talk page - I am certain he will not like it.

My concern about his subjectivity and pejoratives remain. Impugning my motives by alleging I "whitewash the article" is not part of a robust discussion. Perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but compare it to your well thought-out comment.

He is uninterested in researching the topic (which is OK if like Ivanvector and you, his comments are constructive, instead of condescending and vindictive), argues for inclusion of inferences in the article, is conveniently inconsistent in his understanding of Wiki rules, freely tosses invectives about the topic and a peripheral topic without citing sources, etc. - OK, that's my rant; I feel better now. I will re-engage, but please check in from time to time. I do not wish to this to descend into a flame war about who is more righteous about Wikipedia rules. Skingski (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the discussion at Talk:Faith Goldy#Life and career and lede, and I'm not seeing an edit war. I would tell you to try an WP:RFC but it's not clear why you would even need that, since there is no large disagreement visible. User:Grayfell has plenty of Wikipedia experience and his comments are, at most, frank rather than hostile. In particular this sentence captures one of the truisms of Wikipedia, regarding controversial people: Since Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or public relations it is totally inappropriate to use extremely obscure primary sources to whitewash the article to present her beliefs in the way she would most prefer them to be presented. When we write an article we are not usually bound to go along with the subject's wishes, and we expect that editors will treat primary sources with a lot of care. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again. Clearly no need for RFC. The quote on advertising Grayfell raises I feel is wholly inappropriate. She is a minor celebrity and therefore has almost no coverage by major news outlets, not even Breitbart lol. Aside from a couple, the few sources we have are opinion pieces, not articles. She is so obscure, we've even been unable to prove she graduated college. So we are left with obscure sources like Right Wing Watch. This is why I am lobbying for a much shorter article - abbreviating arguments, shortening her background, etc. We should not elevate her more than she merits. Anyway, I'll take this to the Talk page. Skingski (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: Lutheran West

Please see the Fonz's unblock request which contains a blatantly false personal attack on myself. (This is my edit history on the article. See any unsourced addition? Me either.)

Further, this guy is nothing but a troll. See this edit summary where he invokes a "higher power" to justify his edit warring. I'll file an SPI if you want, but both the impersonation account in the history and the last red letter editor seem pretty ducky to me. I got hooked into this from a post at WT:WPSCH from JonRidinger, an editor who deserves considerable respect as the creator of much of the GA and FA content in the school project. I'm sorry, but I don't see one single piece of work from the Fonz that isn't trollish. I'm asking you revoke TPA for the PA, and convert the block to Indeff per NOTHERE. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

School articles are not fun in September. Too many problems. Thanks for making this one go away. Not quite as easy as the last one, but then again, that jerk hit on a female administrator...kids are wonderful. Thanks for your help. John from Idegon (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Quick question

Matt14451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
77.100.241.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Matt14451

Hello if you don't mind me asking, why was no action taken at the very least against Matt14451 for using his IP to edit Wikipedia in a deceptive manner? Two such reports about his behavior and not one notice on his page that the IP is infact his sock is very disappointing. Since when are users allowed to behave that way on here? Esuka323 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Any further problems will be highly visible, and I think that should serve as a deterrent. You can post here if you see anything amiss. I see enough weaknesses in the original sock complaint to cause skepticism -- for example, the user who first opened the report was asking for CU to compare an IP against an account. That's not going to happen. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou, I respect your decision and I'll leave it there. Esuka323 (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston - not sure if this is where I need to ask a question? The claim on page Tanya Ekanayaka 'This article or section may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please review https://www.naxos.com/person/Tanya_Ekanayaka/232400.htm (DupDet · CopyVios) and remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror. (September 2018)' is no longer relevant as the page and potential sentence in concern (first sentence of page) has been edited. Therefore the tag should be removed.

Re: Special:Contributions/2601:243:903:3F5B:1000:4DF4:BABA:DE06

Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2601:243:903:3F5B:1000:4DF4:BABA:DE06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
98.227.186.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After years of discussions, sock-puppeting and within less than a month after closing the RfC, above IPv6 user (using the range so far: 2601:243:903:3F5B:1000:4DF4:BABA:DE06 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 2601:243:903:3F5B:1D28:70B2:3ED9:B79E (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 2601:243:903:3F5B:C40C:2837:ED73:51F5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), who seems to be an experienced and old Wikipedia user, suddenly shows up and starts editing Al-Ahbash corroborating with the user who started the RfC over the very same sentence but with a new twist that now the sentence should be moved from the lead to somewhere else. Please, feel welcome to review the matter at your convenience. Thank you. McKhan ^(talk) 06:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

An excellent example of poisoning the well. 2601:243:903:3F5B:1000:4DF4:BABA:DE06 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've now semiprotected Al Ahbash. Use the talk page for any disputed issues. The /64 range from which the IP is hopping is Special:Contributions/2601:243:903:3F5B::/64. So far they have used seven distinct IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. McKhan ^(talk) 16:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Mistaken warning

Hurricane Maria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3RR complaint closed on 20 September

Responding to your comment on my talk page:

You don't seem to understand the context here. I will consider the warning ignored because the changes were reverted several days ago and the edit warring page was withdrawn. Please pay better attention to what occurred. (And no I was not insisting to put "(28 August estimate)" on the page. And no "most people" were not disagreeing. Some were disagreeing, but certainly not all or most. Ergzay (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Your statement doesn't make sense. Who 'withdrew' the edit warring page? The original AN3 complaint was closed on 20 September with a warning to you and it is now in the archives. I am glad to see you opened a thread at Talk:Hurricane Maria/Archive 1#Proposed edit for estimated death toll. However I don't see any conclusion there. If this matter is important to you consider opening a WP:Request for comment, which can reach a binding result. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ed, to clarify, he did self-revert, but yes, his behavior was clearly edit warring. Of the editors who were discussing in that thread up to that time, only him and one other editor supported his version while myself and three others opposed it. He tried to cite other folks who had inserted the same changes to the article, but I discounted them because they did not partake in the discussion itself. I reported him because he does not seem to understand how consensus or BRD works. When I "withdrew" the complaint, it was because I was no longer seeking a block. However, a warning is completely fair. For now, I suggest to User:Ergzay to stop beating this old issue and try to resist the urge to reinsert disputed material.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Now do you see what Borsoka does?

Thank you for protecting the Timeline of Romanian History article.

I gave up editing Wikipedia for a while due to Borsoka. His behaviour is not at all encouraging other users like me to contribute.

And for the record I deleted his comment from the edits dispute page due to believing that he had deleted my initial comment on that submission, but I discovered that it was the template for the actual complaint itself that deleted my initial description of the problem, rather than Borsoka himself.

However, now you have seen what he has done to that article. I am the main anon contributor to that article, and, before Feb/March 2017 when I started editing from the US there was barely anything in that article.

Now he's deleted it all. Simply just deleted all of it.

Please report this user to whoever looks after this stuff. I don't care about Wikipedia anymore, it is impossible to manage or to get rid of users like Borsoka. Don't even get me started on how discouraging it is for users like me to contribute. If he knows so much why doesn't he just rephrase stuff in a better way rather than delete everything?

See for yourself what kind of a person he is and how many complaints have been raised about him in the past if you do a search for his username.

I think he should just be permanently banned from Wikipedia but then he will just edit as an anon, so, in that case, articles such as the Timeline of Romanian History articles should be protected from editing by users only, with anons allowed to submit contributing edits. This way at least there is some protection against vandalism.

Precisely what I reported about him has happened again. And again, and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.35.79 (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say, Borsoka is Hungarian, so of course he's annoyed by anything to do with Romanian history so he just deletes everything. Just have a look at the stuff he's deleting. Perfectly fine sourced stuff. Since you can clearly see what he does, please report him again since you know Wikipedia better than I do. I'm done editing Wikipedia, it's not worth the time spent since one's year's worth of work goes up in a moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.35.79 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you have a look at the articles he's done disruptive edits on and that people have reported him about, it's usually articles about Romanian history. So, he's naturally biased due to being Hungarian, and goes around and deletes stuff off of articles that have anything to do with Romanian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.35.79 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP is WP:LTA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Protection increased

List of wars involving the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just to let you know, I've protected List of wars involving the United States further. I hope that's okay. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. But it's my guess that the page may still need semiprotection after your full protection expires. Somebody Mediawiki will let us have both semi and full on an article at the same time, with different expiries. Just like you can have both Pending Changes and semi. Why not? EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd better read up on this. :) Would it permit some and prevent others from editing it? I ask because this is a content disputed between the very new and the very experienced, I think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a type of dispute that occurs where people disagree on how to describe the outcome of a war (victory, defeat or other). Such verdicts should not be 'Wikipedia-only'; they ought to be sourced in some way. How best to do this is murky and admins may not be in a position to correct others. At most we may have to enforce a proper disussion somewhere. Some of the people now working at List of wars involving the United States may be reverting more than is desirable. You have quite reasonably left messages for three of the more active reverters. I have occasionally thought about the idea of proposing questions for an RfC on the talk page. This might help when the talk discussion is random or ineffective, which sometimes happens. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Okay, ummmm, I am not sure exactly what questions to suggest. The subject of war is something I know little about. Plus, I did not read that much about who is claiming what in this dispute. When I see everyone just reverting one another like that, I try to not get involved and instead just protect the thing and see if they can work it out. When the protection expires, we will see what they do. Thanks, Ed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Albania

Hi EdJohnston. I asked Khirurg to provide a rationale for the change they insist on making to Albania. They rv again and I placed a comment on the talk page. If they do not respond, what steps should be taken to reach an agreement on the matter? Maybe RfC? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note, Ktrimi has racked up 3 quick reverts on that page already. Khirurg (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You have not respected the rules of using the talk page when you want to change an article. I asked you to provide an explanation on the talk page. You refused. I started a talk page discussion. Show more respect to the community and its rules. That behaviour only takes precious time that can be used for improving the general content of the encyclopedia, and creates confusion. After you insisted on not explaining your rationale, I did not know what to do and asked EdJohnston as an experienced admin on the Balkan area. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears there is a talk section for discussing this at Talk:Albania#Diaspora. Please use it. The Albania page is in the domain of WP:ARBEE so admins can easily increase the difficulty of editing this article by applying restrictions. This surely isn't in the interest of anyone working there. When there are long-running disagreements it may be time to start opening WP:RFCs. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Boundless (technology company)

Hello Beland. I've been looking around for anyone who has edited US immigration topics, and I saw your name in the history of Immigration to the United States. Would you be willing to take a quick look at User talk:EdJohnston#Request for another look at Boundless Immigration draft and see if you think the proposed article at Draft:Boundless (technology company) might be notable enough for an article? The company is very new, has raised about $3 million dollars but one of the founders of the company was a civil servant under Obama, so they have inside knowledge of immigration rules. I'm thinking that the current form of the article might have promise, based on quotes of their founders by NPR, Forbes etc. Do you have any thoughts? My previous comment to the article creator (back in May) was negative here. In terms of normal AfC standards, my guess is that the article is right on the edge. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, there has been some direct coverage by Geekwire and Washington Business, which are pretty specialized. I'm guessing any local tech startup will get that level of coverage just by existing? Certainly working on immigration gets it even more attention. WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND seem to indicate this type of coverage can be discounted. The mentions in Forbes and NPR are not really about the company, but concerning a press release the company made on an immigration issue..that sort of thing where a company will have a blog or take surveys and hope to get picked up by the press is a common way to try to get attention. Given the only Wikipedia author contributing to the article is a founder of the company, this seems like more of an attempt to get attention than an organic recognition of a notable organization. I'd be inclined to reject a second time as not notable. That may change if the company grows or gets more coverage. -- Beland (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for another look at Boundless Immigration draft

Hello EdJohnston! This is Doug from Boundless Immigration. The article I initially wrote about the company was deleted for failure to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. On May 30, 2018, you posted a note on my talk page that you would take another look if there were new and reliable sources. Since then, the company has received a fair amount of new coverage from such sources, so I have created a new draft of the article for your review. What is the best way for me to share this new draft with you? (The earlier one appears to have disappeared.) Thanks! Messier6 (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted page at Draft:Boundless (technology company). Be aware that it ought to satisfy the concerns of the AfC reviewers before being moved to main space. If you have changes to make and references to add, edit the existing draft and if you wish, you can ping me when you are done to take another look. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, EdJohnston. I just made the edits and added the new references (everything since late April 2018 in the reference section). I truly appreciate your willingness to take another look and provide me with feedback! Messier6 (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Messier6. Please see the comments by me and by User:Beland in the section below. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem source

Please could you look at this page Tim Omotoso which is just in the news. I was trying to improve it but when I clicked on a link to a source in the section Career I was confronted with what I thought might be some blackmail attempt. Please take a careful look.SovalValtos (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to fix this by removing the link. If you want to go through the history to find out who added the possibly malicious link, I might look into this further. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not something I have confidence in doing without exposing myself further to the possible threat. A scary moment. Maybe another editor could help?SovalValtos (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: It was most likely a hijacked link to an expired domain. They happen all the time. I clicked on it and it told me I "won $120". It was also likely a legitimate link to a cite when it was added. If you have decent anti-virus software, I would not worry about this. If you don't, I still wouldn't worry, but would recommend you get some. (AVG at least... its free). Cheers - wolf 23:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

{{cite web|url=http://www.gospelcitynaija.com/2012/11/event-hype-rev-tim-omotoso-simply.html |title=EVENT HYPE: Rev. Tim Omotoso, Simply Chrysolite and set to arrive Nigeria for HOUSE OF JACOB |website=GospelCityNaija |archivedate=2014-04-10 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140410105919/http://www.gospelcitynaija.com/2012/11/event-hype-rev-tim-omotoso-simply.html |deadurl=usurped}}

, which outputs "EVENT HYPE: Rev. Tim Omotoso, Simply Chrysolite and set to arrive Nigeria for HOUSE OF JACOB". GospelCityNaija. Archived from the original on 2014-04-10. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help), is generally the best if a webpage is needed for verifiability. --Izno (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Edit warring report (26 October)

About The Partner, no... I have no "intention to continue reverting that page" should the protection be lifted. That is reason why I filed the 3RRNB report (what editors usually do, instead of edit-warring). Given the fact that report was filed, protecting that page was both needless and a little silly. The plot section was removed months ago, leaving the page as basically a blank stub. The editor who removed the section, made no effort to improve the page after that. I recently re-added the plot, with an improvement tag. The plot section was blanked again. I removed the parts of the plot the other editor complained about, and then removed additional parts beyond that to improve it, and re-added. The plot section was blanked again. Then a ridiculous blurb was added as a "plot section place holder", ostensibly until an improvement plot could be added. It was then stated on the talk page that per BRD, I needed consensus (!?) to try to add an improved plot, indicating that this editor intended to continue removing additions I made. Hence the report. I have since posted a request at Project Novels for someone to add an improved plot. I'm going to leave the page be in hopes that another editor will be able to improve the plot without any further interference. (and hopefully this saves you the trouble of posting a bunch of questions on my talk page) - wolf 23:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, it did save me the trouble of posting a bunch of questions to you :-). But I did see the impasse as being what in computer science is called a deadlock. The two of you were prepared to wait forever for the other party to budge. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. No, Ed, once I decided to leave it, that was it. That is why I posted the request at the books project. I have just a couple of quick questions. The first, about the RPA template, should I replace it, or do think it better that you do it, and I leave the report alone? As for the outcome of the report, just for my own edification, do you consider it a 4RR vio? Either way, this isn't criticism. I ask because filling out these reports are a bit of a pain in the ass, and if there is no chance of them being actioned, I'd like to know, to spare myself, and everyone involved, the hassle. So any insight would be appreciated. Thank you - wolf 05:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack from the noticeboard and blocked User:Amisom because they insisted on restoring it after a previous removal. The AN3 report was (in my mind) a case of long-term warring so checking whether it was three or four recent reverts might not have been done. Another closer could have done it differently. It is not easy to predict how a case of long-term warring will be handled at a noticeboard. When I rechecked the talk page just now, I noticed that the other party had opened an RfC so instead of reporting an edit war it might have been simpler for you just to follow through with the RfC, even if it took some time. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing problem with Amsgearing

Ed, I'm frustrated with trying to work things out with this guy. See Talk:Ron Stallworth#Explicitly biased canvassing for his latest attempt to subvert Randy Kryn's RFC in which we're trying to work things out. He has also removed some of my own attempts to help there by addressing a specific complaint about high contrast. So I seek your input on what we can try next, while your 2-week pause to work it out is still in effect. Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

On the whole, it seems the discussion at Talk:Ron Stallworth is leaning toward inclusion of the photo. But it would have to run longer before you could ask for closure at WP:AN/RFC. I notice that there is no RfC template; if you added one, you might get more participants. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I had added an RFC tag already. Let me know if I didn't do it right. Dicklyon (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've advertised at at WT:WikiProject Biography#RFC on the use of a photo from a high-school yearbook on a bio article and at WT:MOS, too. Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see now that you had the 'rfc' template and you chose to have the thread listed under 'biography'. That seems good. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm doing some more neutral advertising. Advise if you see a way to do better: WT:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement#RFC on the use of a photo from a high-school yearbook, WT:WikiProject Photography#RFC on the use of a photo from a high-school yearbook. Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ed, thanks for understanding my case [50] earlier. I have requested for lifting my ban, this is for your information any necessary further actions required if any.Md iet (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to your ban appeal at WP:AN. Thanks for the notice, EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Equating me with muffi seems unfair. Whitewashing is not at all my aim. I feel that SV has understood my intentions but I am never against framing law on FGM, but some mechanism is to be developed such that cases like of Australia is not repeated, innocents are not convicted. Ceremonial FGC to be identified. Practise of FGM is definitely to be totally abolished, person doing that are to be punished, let it be Dawoodi Bohra who has done it accidently using wrong means. SV is totally right that in the name of ceremonial FGC, due to procedural mistakes FGM I is done and that becomes a major problem. If it is done properly by medical practitioner who certify the same would benefit millions of people who are forced to go to middle women in the name of religion and it is very difficult to curtail that practice as explained by me in earlier discussion I had during earlier ban.

Wikipedia is a platform where fair discussion can be done and some solution may possible. Restricting the same, imposing total ban on the fairly published material giving threats seems unfair here. I would further comply to RS guidelines. All my contributions after the ban indicates improvements. There is not even one disagreement with other editors and friendly atmosphere maintained by me are only proofs I could suggest. Thanking again, Md iet (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Advice

Briarcliff Manor, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Geobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Howdy! I wanted to see if you might be willing to give me some advice. Your insight on the Brandon issue makes me interested in your take on a situation I'm involved in. I'm trying to make sure I avoid WP:CANVAS so let me be clear, not looking for someone to just pat me on the back and agree with me... I'm turning to you because you are an admin who's opinion I value. I'm hoping that you will give a neutral opinion on the matter including pointing out areas where I am in the wrong.

The issue stems from converting Briarcliff Manor, New York to use {{Infobox settlement}} over {{Geobox}}. Currently that page is the only settlement page to use the Geobox. Every other page has been converted. There is a user who has worked hard to make that article a FA. They feel strongly that the page should keep the Geobox. I obviously disagree. This has led to a WP:AIV report by me and the page being protected. I would like to get your advice on the matter on what the best way forward is. If you could, please read this thread for some insight. I'll hold off on saying more on the matter for now. If this isn't an issue you are interested in getting involved with, just let me know. I'll understand that. But if you have the time, would greatly appreciate your advice! Thanks in advance. (Full disclosure I've also left this message on Primefac's page. I'm interested in their opinion/advice as well.) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The thread at User talk:Zackmann08#Geobox suggests to me that people are reverting rather than discussing. I agree with User:Ivanvector's conclusion in the recent edit warring case about Briarcliff Manor that it's a 'pure content dispute'. Your argument would be more persuasive if you can link to where deprecation of the {{Geobox}} was discussed in the past. The only solution for Briarcliff Manor is to find an appropriate consensus, which could take some work to find because the past discussions about the templates are so scattered. I assume you didn't actually file this at WP:AIV: you meant to say WP:AN3, right? EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I meant WP:AN3 you are correct. Doesn't the documentation on the Geobox page (Template:Geobox#Other_guidelines) along with the very existence of Category:Geobox usage tracking for settlement type indicate the page should be converted? I've restarted a dialogue with the user to try to sort this out. But seems to me their argument is that that there are parameters they want to see added to the {{Infobox settlement}}. What I don't get is if that template is fine for over 400,000 pages, why does it need to be refactored for one user and one page? I felt that from the beginning this user was violating WP:OWN. All their comments were about how they had spent so much time on this page and I shouldn't change it without consulting with him. The overwhelming consensus is to switch to another template. I felt I was in the right (which I guess everyone does and that is what leads to WP:3RR in the first place). Anyway, I do own the fact that I didn't do enough discussing upfront. Just curious how best to resolve it now. I did consider opening a new WP:TFD but there is 1 page using {{Geobox}} for a settlement and 485,478 using {{Infobox settlement}}. Do you thinking a new TFD would help resolve this? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid your recent edit on the Geobox template doc looks like a unilateral decision. Why not ask User:Frietjes or anyone who has a long history with these templates what they recommend? EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:TFD is the way to go, which has already started at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 3#Template:Geobox. I agree the pre-emptively redirecting the doc is not necessary. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think redirecting an unused documentation page is a unilateral decision... I'm simply updating it to be consistent with other documentation that was edited by other users. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

BDMKK and Lecen

Jair Bolsonaro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Lecen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You blocked BDMKK for 48 hours for making two personal attacks, and you noted his POV pushing. In the last few weeks, Lecen has been making personal attacks, WP:FOC violations, and maybe some POV pushing at Talk:Jair Bolsonaro, and has made 3 reverts in 4 hours at Jair Bolsonaro on October 30. They were participating in the edit war with Coltsfan, who was warned after a AN3 thread. wumbolo ^^^ 18:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the three reverts of which you speak, and in general, the article and its talk page are doing fairly well, by edit warring standards. Lecen hasn't touched the article itself since 30 October. Lecen has shared his opinion on the talk page that the article is badly written. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

These three are reverts: first, second, third. Yes, he shares his opinion of the article and its editors on the talk page every time he points out a problem. It's disruptive to alienate editors while trying to point out what's wrong. Of the last 500 edits by him, from January 2016 to today, half of mainspace edits are reverts. In the last year, he made about 90 reverts/content removals on mainspace, and less than a dozen of content additions/changes of content. wumbolo ^^^ 19:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. If you think there were personal attacks, can you link to them? EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jair Bolsonaro/Archive1#Heavily biased article is a rant thread that was started without identifying any specific problem in the article.

10 September 2018 – Coltsfan is clearly on a political activism track here.

10 September 2018 – Even less a few editors who seem to be carried away by their own personal political opinions.

28 September 2018 – It’s very hard to even get near this page, because the editors seem to be the most incompetent people around. Does anyone here actually has any real world experience on writing, doing research, etc?

Today – I’m astonished by how some editors have placed themselves as owners of this article and have turned it into a page of misinformation. [...] (I pointed out above and despite support to my arguments, ONE editor has prevented anyone from improving the aticle).

An hour ago – What is wrong with you?

wumbolo ^^^ 22:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll inform User:Lecen that he's being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I’m a experienced editor on Wikipedia and the only editor on Jair Bolsonaro who is Brazilian and, thus, speaks Portuguese fluently. I have brought to everyone’s attention that the article has serious issues, quotes that are either taken out of context or badly translated. I also pointed out that a few editors have monopolized the article, preventing anyone from addressing these issues, going as far as to engange on edit war and to ERASE complaints on the talk page (see its history log). Now, they seem to be involved on a tactic of harassement in order to shun away anyone who disagrees, which I find troublesome, at least. I have avoided editing the article, for the reasons stated above, and I see as problematic when a experienced editor is asked to be blocked for merely stating an opinion on talk page, by someone whom I never even talked or interacted. I believe this is old gang tactics, in which editors are helped by others who pretend to be neutral in order to impose their views on an article. EdJohnston, my suggestion is to keep an eye on the article and, perhaps, even propose arbitration in order to resolve the matter. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: The reason why my history log shows that I haven’t added content in years and that my edits are mostly reversions is because I stopped improving articles. Years ago, I used to spend my time bringing articles pertaining to the history of Brazil to Featured Article standard. Precisely because of behavior such as the ones I’m seeing on Bolsonaro is that I stopped actually trying to improve anything. Editors like them force seasoned and knowledgeable editors to depart. I only started caring for the article during the campaign, when I noticed it had become an anti-Bolsonaro piece, when it was supposed to be an encyclopedic article.. --Lecen (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Lecen, you may be unhappy about the state of the Jair Bolsonaro article. For all I know your complaints may be justified, but you need to keep a civil tone in your comments. See above, "the editors seem to be the most incompetent people around." If you can't keep these remarks to yourself you should probably stay away from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I said they were incompetent, since they admitted themselves that they don’t speak Portuguese and were nonetheless translating full quotes, losing the context, tone and meaning. If someone lacks competence to do something, have no competence in a particular assignment, then, it’s understandable to point out their incompetence. I didn’t say it as an insult, but to point out that they lack the credentials to translate quotes in a language they don’t understand. Nevertheless, don’t worry, I’ll avoid the article. --Lecen (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sodormaniac continuing to mark all edits as minor

Sodormaniac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He's at it again today. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Now blocked. Thanks for your report. This is a follow-up to a complaint at WP:AIV that I handled. Though marking edits as minor isn't vandalism, contantly making unsourced changes (with no communication) is disruptive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Re

Hi, Ed. It wasn't my intention to preempt any action by protecting the article; I apologize if I got in the way. I was communicating with one of the principals before the ANEW report was filed and neither would stop and talk. I felt myself getting too invested to act upon the ANEW report and wanted other eyes on the situation. That's why I left the note regarding altering the protection. As always, if an action of mine complicates what might be a simple situation please let me know. Thanks for all your work at ANEW. Tiderolls 21:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The end result was fine. Thanks for the follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The map of Lithuania

Hi, friend. Do you have any arguments why my map is incorrect? Or you can only write about my problem, when i didn't know the laws of wiki? Now i know and my opinion i did the correct map. I will edit back again, if you haven't more intellegent answer last 12-16 hours LandRussia (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe it's some different mentality. I wrote (there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ke_an#The_map_of_Lithuania) the arguments. I proved everything - my map have more options of density, the source and the more late data (2016 vs 2007(!!!)). And when i did it, you either writing like "Since your disruptive behaviour is known already" or "created by yourself to various pages looks like self-promotion or spam". Are you serious? It's the best your arguments? And it's only you and other man. Why i should persuading others, if i have problems only with you? This map using russian, spanish and lithuanian wikipedians. And after that should I do something? And you are threaten me. No, absolutly. I give up. If you a agonist of progress, i lost before start the dispute. I'm contine making maps for wikipedia LandRussia (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If your maps are truly better then you shouldn't have a problem persuading the other editors on the talk page. If they agree with you, there is no problem. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary block caused by Muse (disambiguation) content dispute and User:Jytdog's harrassment

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

I've had to report you to ANI/Incidents until you can explain good reason of your reckless blocking action without regarding the core of content dispute and blocking policy WP:BLOCKNO. You can reply on that page with your reasoning. - MusenInvincible (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Replied at ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ARBCOM?

Hi Ed, I'm wondering if you have considered running for ArbCom. We need good candidates, and you are always neutral, calm, and carefully analytical. The deadline is in a few days. Please think about it and consider serving in this way. Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. It has not escaped my notice that Arbcom is a lot of work. Every year I think I'll run if there aren't enough good people for me to vote for. It has been fortunate that there are usually enough candidates. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

RAF Museum

Royal Air Force Museum London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been told not to make any further edits without agreement from editors. However, my recent suggestions to correct certain inaccuracies and improve the article are being ignored. --Krishendrix78 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this about Royal Air Force Museum London? Can you say where you have posted your suggestions? There are no posts by you on the article talk page since 17 October. If this is about your suggestions at your own talk page I suggest that you copy those ideas over to Talk:Royal Air Force Museum London. But in their present form, these ideas are quite vague. You will have more success if you say 'Please replace text X with text Y', where you spell out the words to be used. So (a) make your suggestions precise, and (b) make them on the *article* talk page not your own personal talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

My watchlist

Hey EdJohnston, hope everything is going well for you. I'm currently watching your page (just like other high profile users' talk) in order to revert vandalism. Please let me know if you want me to remove you from my watchlist. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Media coverage question

Draft:Boundless (technology company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello again EdJohnston and Beland, I really appreciate both of your help on the draft article Draft:Boundless (technology company) (prior discussion here), including your caution about approving articles about relatively young companies. In case this is helpful as context on the media coverage, I'd like to note that far from "any local tech startup" gets covered in Washington Business (which covers all companies statewide) or Geekwire (which covers companies nationally, with an emphasis on the Pacific Northwest region). The NBC News story and others that cite Boundless's impact assessment of the "public charge rule" stemmed from the fact that this was novel research, not from a press release. I'm eager to understand what type of coverage you believe would more firmly establish Boundless's notability, as I respect your opinion and experience. For instance, last week there was a new profile of the company in Fast Company, which is a national publication, and it included some facts that I added to the draft article. Does that help meet the standard you're looking for? Messier6 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

These recent changes are helpful but they mostly show Boundless making use of their own business data to comment on US immigration topics. My opinion is still the same as the one I expressed on this talk thread and the other one. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston -- I continue to appreciate your help in understanding how to make the best contributions to Wikipedia. I'd expected that the recent Fast Company article would be more relevant, since it focuses almost exclusively on the company's practical successes (e.g. "On Boundless’s website, about 7,000 people a month begin their applications, and so far the company has a 100% success rate once applicants reach the interview stage of the process"). In particular, this article (among others) helps address your original questions about notability: "Have they started? Have they helped people actually get their visas approved? Have the company's practical successes been the subject of comment in reliable sources?" I believe that as of now, the answer to all of these questions is yes. Please let me know your thoughts! As part of my learning process I may reach out to some other immigration-focused editors for more feedback as well. Thanks again. Messier6 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The 7,000 people a month is surely the company's self-report, and not something checked by the reporter. 100% success rate is good, but how many people have so far reached the interview stage? And the articles published so far usually have the reporter talking to Xiao Wang himself and hardly anyone else. (Though I think this one may have talked to some other founders or investors). EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

IPs

Hi, EdJohnston. Sorry to disturb you, but i'm here to get your attention to this matter. I'm afraid User BDMKK is still doing PUSH POV in the talk page of the article about Jair Bolsonaro. I tracked their IPs and they are editing from the same region of from the same country, using similar language. I think he is trying to use different IPs in order to give an impression of multiple opinions to support the push pov and disruptive editing that got him the blocked in the first place. He has done this in portuguese wikipedia too, if i'm not mistaken and i think he is trying to wrongfully influence this discussion as well by faking diologues. He has been known for evading blocks. I'd like to know what to do, or maybe you can take some action. Awaiting on your answer. Thanks! Coltsfan (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I looked over the Jair Bolsonaro article and talk page, but the problem seems to be under control. The IP you linked above, 49.181.226.226 (talk · contribs), made only a single edit. If there is more of a pattern and you can list some related IPs, let me know. The article itself is still semiprotected and a checkuser has blocked BDMKK (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Greetings from the Arbcom Recruitment Kittens!

We've got some former arbs in the mix for WP:ACE2018, but we need more ~~fresh blood~~ bright-eyed and bushy-tailed first-time candidates! Don't you want to be on the other side of the fence in ARCA threads? It's greener, you know... Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! But not this time. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Problematic user

Hello EdJohnston, I am bringing to your attention User:BrownstoneKnockn, an apparently longstanding editor who twice made BLP vandalism edits to an article of a controversial political figure.[51][52] When I warned him the first time, he claimed it was not intentional and implied he wouldn't do it again, before doing it again a few days later. I recommend some sort of action be taken based on his behavior. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have watchlisted User talk:BrownstoneKnockn. If he makes any more bad edits at the Steve King article a block for vandalism might be considered. Thanks for your note, EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

World War Two Talk page

Hi, EdJohnston. Six years ago you were an administrator working in this topic area. We met in the context of one or two users who were at war, and eventually banned from Wikipedia. I recall your good sense and objectivity. I recently joined discussions at the World War Two Talk page. I have just suspended my involvement there for the foreseeable future. Please review the whole page. All the best, -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You've been vague, perhaps in the effort not to bias my response. But this leaves me too little to go on. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hi, since you had addressed my last report regarding Stefka Bulgaria, would you mind give us your insight in it? Saff V. (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, You gave me some advice as to this RfC about 'violent' that I opened on 14 October. Would you explain about " a more targeted rewording that would enlist support from the other side " and how should I conduct it? Regards!Saff V. (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You could add a comment at the bottom of the RfC saying that you propose to list it at WP:AN/RFC for formal closure. The way the RfC stands now, opinion seems to favor removing 'violent' though a more careful study might or might not see a consensus. Another possibility is to qualify the 'violent overthrow' language to indicate *when* they were making those kinds of statements. Perhaps they haven't used the words 'violent overthrow' in any recent pronouncements. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing Northern Cyprus

Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This page is protected so that only users with extended confirmed rights can make edits." is displayed on the Northern Cyprus page.

May I be granted these rights to make the following edit:

The proposed edit. Click to view

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Edit Summary: I'd like to expand it to include a more robust description of events, where applicable, and change suggestive or manipulative language i.e. subtle POV pushing, by including said events.

Edit:

Northern Cyprus (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs), officially the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC; Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti), is a de facto state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Internationally recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the Republic of Cyprus and the rest of the international community to be a part of the Republic of Cyprus. Northern Cyprus and Turkey do not recognise these claims.

changed to reflect the fact it is a state with limited recognition, as is the Republic of Cyprus. See: List of states with limited recognition

Northern Cyprus extends from the tip of the Karpass Peninsula in the northeast to Morphou Bay, Cape Kormakitis and its westernmost point, the Kokkina exclave in the west. Its southernmost point is the village of Louroujina. A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island and divides Nicosia, the island's largest city and capital of both sides.

A coup d'état in 1974, orchestrated by EOKA-B and the Greek military junta as part of an attempt to annex the island to Greece and displace the Turkish Cypriot diaspora, prompted the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. This resulted in an end to the intercommunal violence, the collapse of the Greek military junta, the eviction of much of the north's Greek Cypriot population, the flight of Turkish Cypriots from the south, and the partitioning of the island. The Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus was proclaimed in 1975. Eight years after this, after espousing human rights and a desire to live side-by-side with the Greek Cypriots, and citing the legitimacy granted to the Greek Cypriot government by the international community as the only legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus, as well as their being sidelined from it, and their own right to security and self determination, the North made a unilateral declaration of independence in 1983. This was rejected by the UN and the Republic of Cyprus. Due to the subsequent embargo and lack of international recognition thereof, Northern Cyprus is heavily dependent on Turkey for economic, political and military support.^[1]^[2]^[3]

changed to reflect on the coup's orchestrators and purpose, Turkey's response to that, what that immediately resulted in, the formation of the Turkish Federated State of North Cyprus (1975) as the first direct response, the precursor and cited cause(s) of the following declaration of independence (1983), the subsequent lack of recognition from the Republic of Cyprus and the international community, the subsequent embargo that was placed on Northern Cyprus which explains why it is heavily dependent on Turkey for economic, political and military support.

Attempts to reach a solution to the Cyprus dispute have been unsuccessful. The most recent attempt, the Annan Plan, was approved by Turkish Cypriots but declined by Greek Cypriots. The Turkish Army maintains a large force in Northern Cyprus. While its presence is supported and approved by the TRNC government, where it is seen as necessary to ensure its security, the Republic of Cyprus and the international community regard it as an occupation force, and its presence has been denounced in several United Nations Security Council resolutions.^[4]

changed to include the most recent example of attempts to reach a solution, which also provides background to the following sentence, and added an often cited reason for the TRNC's support for Turkey's military presence. Also see: the cited purpose of the Declaration of Independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which emphasises "independence, freedom, and sovereignty of Turkish Cypriots, and realizing self-determination of the nation".

Thank you. Nargothronde (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Central Intelligence Agency (8 October 2013). "Northern Cyprus". The CIA World Factbook 2014. Skyhorse Publishing. p. 691. ISBN 978-1-62873-451-5. The Turkish Cypriots are heavily dependent on transfers from the Turkish Government. Ankara directly finances about one-third of the Turkish Cypriot "administration's" budget. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
^ Gideon Boas (1 January 2012). Public International Law: Contemporary Principles and Perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 177. ISBN 978-0-85793-956-2. For example, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, located in the northern portion of the island of Cyprus, came about through ... from only one state — Turkey, upon which it is entirely dependent for economic, political and military support.
^ Yael Navaro-Yashin (12 March 2012). The Make-Believe Space: Affective Geography in a Postwar Polity. Duke University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-8223-5204-4. Economic embargoes have been imposed on the TRNC, making northern Cyprus almost completely dependent on Turkey.
^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Why not make this proposal at Talk:Northern Cyprus and see if you can persuade the other editors. You actually are extended confirmed so you have the ability to edit the article directly. But getting some feedback first would be safer. You may find that this is a controversial topic. You have already mentioned 'suggestive or manipulative language' and 'subtle POV pushing' in this proposal, which may indicate you are expecting some bad behavior from others. These differences ought to be worked out frankly using good references. When you post on the talk page you should identify whatever 'subtle POV pushing' you are criticizing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston. I'll post something similar on the Talk Page then and see what reactions and feedback I can get. Any feedback or criticism will be 100% welcome. Nargothronde (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

New Account

Hi, i recently created the account, and unfortunately forgot the password. Is there a way to either delete that account so i can change the username or to move all content, contribs and commons pictures to this account. MTA Bus enthusiast (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @MTA Bus enthusiast: User accounts can not be deleted. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:MTA Bus enthusiast. You didn't tell us the name of your previous account. How many contributions are we talking about? If it was only used briefly, you might just abandon it. If there was a lot of stuff there, other options may exist. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pinging me at User talk:Zackmann08#Closure of your ANI complaint. I had not yet even seen the comment user Zackmann08 made regarding me at Infobox River talk! If you had any advice to offer trying to resolve the situation there, or at the request I made on how to proceed with a dispute resolution, I would appreciate it. --papageno (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I became aware of the Geobox issue by seeing a complaint at WP:AN3 on 2 November. When User:Ivanvector closed this report by protecting the article he said "If Geobox is deprecated then work together to replace it with infobox. Work together to preserve info in the geobox which can't be displayed in infobox, if that's what needs to happen. Both of you are experienced enough here that you should be able to work together on this. If not, well, you know what happens next." This seems to be the best advice to all parties. Later I closed a related ANI complaint. Regarding how to go from here, somebody should consider documenting the issues where people still disagree. It appears the matter has been going for years in various forums. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Part of the problem seems to be that the various infoboxes and geoboxes are not directly parameter-compatible, so there's a ton of work to do each time one is replaced with the other. I really don't know anything about the history of the two templates or the disputes over which to use, but I think that's a good place to start. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Newbie

Ζάχος77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi EdJohnston. Ζάχος77 is a newbie who has made several unconstructive edits. It would be of great help if you keep an eye on the editor. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I left a note for the editor. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

More trouble at the Farouk page

Nukleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hexesikon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear EdJohnston, thank you for your patience, which is much appreciated. I'm afraid that Nukleon has gotten around the block imposed on him by creating another account, User:Hexesikon. Just check out the edit summary left by Hexesikon, who only appeared tonight, on the Farouk page, which accused me of having him blocked instead of trying to talk out with him. Given that Hexesikon is only concerned with the Farouk article, deleting everything I put into that article, and that edit summary, I think is is pretty clear that Nukleon is Hexesikon. I've asked for sock puppet investigation, but I'm not certain it is entirely necessary, given what Hexesikon has just written. I've just leaving this here to let you know that Nukleon is trying to evade the 48 hour block. Thank you for your time and help, which are much appreciated! Cheers!--A.S. Brown 06:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Now blocked. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

StarQuake edits - again

Hi Ed.

Would you mind having a look over at Starquake_(video_game), and comments made by a supposedly brand new editor at Talk:Starquake_(video_game)#"Misc"_entries?

Things went quiet for a few days after you warned Galahad here, but now a new editor has popped up with some knowledge of Wikipedia and reverted back the prior contentious version twice here and here, wiping out undeniably good edits as they did so.

Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Putting signatures on DS notices on article talk

This is a continuation of a discussion that began at WP:AN#Rogue civility sanctions in edit notices; non-admins adding AC/DS sanction templates to talk pages; permission needed to clean up this mess. The thread was started by User:Awilley. User:Winged Blades of Godric left a suggestion in that thread:

Starting from this post at WP:AN:

..try substituting Template:ZHYXCBG onto any talk-page and check the result. (Input {{subst:ZHYXCBG}} ) It notes down the signature of the user, (who installs the template), within a comment (which is prepended/appended to the template-code) but the main notice is directly transcluded onto the t/p, as we do now:-)

See this edit of mine, for an example.∯WBG^converse 12:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the experiment. I'm not sure this is the best way to do it, since this diff doesn't display your signature visibly in the ARBAPDS notice. A person who sees the DS notice and wonders who left it on article talk has to go into edit mode and look at the hidden text to find the signature. For general use, the name of the person who left the notice should be visible to all. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with possible sockpuppet

Eimukas22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Eimukas22/Archive

I need help with two editors (one registered and one IP). I suspect that both belong to the account, which was banned multiple times for abusing multiple accounts. I thought about opening an SPI, but I do not know how to add it to the banned account's investigation. Can you help me? – Sabbatino (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

At WP:SPI, you would re-open the old investigation with the new information. If you post your concerns here I might be able to advise how best to handle it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Here we go. Eimukas22 (talk · contribs) was banned in January 2017. Since then multiple accounts that belonged to him were banned (I am not even counting the IPs as I lost count of them). I have been looking at Radom1967 (talk · contribs) and 217.147.38.35 (talk · contribs) for quite some time and it appears that both of them are editing the same pages as the banned user and his other accounts. The Editor Interaction Analyser shows that both registered accounts edited almost all the same pages, while the IP editor appears in about half of them. In addition, Radom1967 and the IP editor both added or edited the same image at Lithuania and Economy of Lithuania pages. The prior image was created and added by Eimukas22, while the most recent image was created and added by Radom1967 with IP adding a source to the caption. It is a big coincidence that all these editors edit primarily the same subjects. I also look at List of European countries by average wage and List of European countries by minimum wage pages from time to time and there are many IPs at these pages that might possibly link to the master account, but I would have to take a closer look at them. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You might be right, though it's not open-and-shut. Your best evidence might be from the Editor Interaction Analyser. There might be a case for semiprotection of List of European countries by average wage. It is not obvious that there is any registered account for a checkuser to compare against. Consider submitting your data at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Click the 'show' button on 'How to open an investigation', then type in the name of the prior case. It should walk you through the steps. I see that User:Materialscientist worked on the Eimukas22 case, and he commented in the SPI with a date of February 2017. There was a later submission at the end of December 2017 which did not go anywhere because there wasn't enough evidence. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have re-opened the case. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit war on Albania–Greece relations

Hey Ed, can you please look at Albania–Greece relations? Suggested to the Greek and Albanian editors who are editwarring with each other that the article covers both side's national minorities per WP:NPOV, but the Albanian editors didn't consent on having the Greek minority included in the article, and when I tried to remove the minorities alltogether, they reverted my edits as well, which I believe was done as they want to maintain a certain POV on the article. I am adding a POV tag and going to take the matter to the NPOV noticeboard but I feel that you should lock the article for a couple of days, at least until the matter is resolved. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

From a quick look, the two sides appear to be equally at fault. I've fully protected the current version of Albania–Greece relations for five days. Please discuss. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I made a request almost an hour ago [53]. A page protection or sth similar should be done. @SilentResident:, "The Albanian" editors? Firstly, do not divide editors into nationalities. Not everyone who has opposed you there is an Albanian. Right? And no, "Albanian editors" agree on the addition of content on the Greek minority. The wording is the problem to be solved. To end this, do not revert again without placing a comment on the talk page before. Calm down, and as I asked you several times, tell us whether you agree or not with my proposal. Lets forget the dispute for a few hours and return to it later today or tomorrow. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks EdJohnston and sorry for the mess. You know how stubborn we Balkan people are.

Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, I wasn't referring to birth idendities but political idendities, and I was briefing the administrator about the political POV nature of the dispute. Simple as that. This message here was meant for Ed, not you. Don't expect any replies here, I wont respond. Have a good day. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The full-protection expires today but the dispute has not been solved yet and the discussion is rather heated. Would you consider extending the length of the full-protection? Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

[Agency2013-1] Central Intelligence Agency (8 October 2013). "Northern Cyprus". The CIA World Factbook 2014. Skyhorse Publishing. p. 691. ISBN 978-1-62873-451-5. The Turkish Cypriots are heavily dependent on transfers from the Turkish Government. Ankara directly finances about one-third of the Turkish Cypriot "administration's" budget. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

[Boas2012-2] Gideon Boas (1 January 2012). Public International Law: Contemporary Principles and Perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 177. ISBN 978-0-85793-956-2. For example, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, located in the northern portion of the island of Cyprus, came about through ... from only one state — Turkey, upon which it is entirely dependent for economic, political and military support.

[Navaro-Yashin2012-3] Yael Navaro-Yashin (12 March 2012). The Make-Believe Space: Affective Geography in a Postwar Polity. Duke University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-8223-5204-4. Economic embargoes have been imposed on the TRNC, making northern Cyprus almost completely dependent on Turkey.

[autogenerated2-4] Cite error: The named reference autogenerated2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]