User talk:EdJohnston

Ascribe4 still undoing edits, refusing to use article talk page

• Ascribe4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Operation: Doomsday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Original 3RR complaint from 26 February
• User talk:Ascribe4#Edit warring at Operation: Doomsday

Hello. I had previously reported user Ascribe4 for breaking 3RR on the article Operation: Doomsday back in late February 2021, and you gave them a warning in response. You had told me to let you know if they continued to undo other users' edits without gaining prior consensus on the talk page, which they have indeed continued to do. I have told them time and time again to use the article talk page but they have refused every time. I'm letting you know of this as you asked me to and also because I'm really, honestly just not sure what to do here. Maybe getting WP:3O is in order? I just want this ridiculous situation to be over. They've been complaining to random editors about me for weeks. --Hostagecat (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Ascribe4#Complaint about you on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: My apologies for not responding earlier. Had things going on with family. Right, so I will once again begin by providing some obscured key details.

It is not simply that I "refused" to use the aritcle talk page. I merely, and quite politely, requested that we utilize user talk pages, and offered to continue on my user talk page if they do not want the text on theirs. Aside from personal preference, the issues that User:Hostagecat raised, specifically regarding AllMusic's reliability, go beyond the scope of that particular article. A primary reason I have been at this is because they have circumvented addressing their claims regarding AllMusic being unreliable this entire time. While I understand Hostagecat does "only edit Wikipedia for fun", I hope they are aware claims that they make have meaning. I hope they do not use desire to use user talk page to once again evade the AllMusic concern, seeing as they have had no problem with touching on so many other subjects on the user talk page.

As I told Hostagecat, if one inspects my edit history, you will notice I have a focus on removing unreliable sources from articles, particularly those that are music-related. I also routinely alert other users when they are using sites deemed generally unreliable, namely user-generated sites like WhoSampled and Genius.com. Hence why I have been at this so much, it falls under a purview of mine. Among other things, Hostagecat repeatedly claimed that AllMusic is an unreliable source. To clarify, as of right now, RhythmOne websites are listed under "No consensus" on WP:RSPS and AllMusic is listed under "Generally reliable sources" on WP:RSMUSIC. Based on what Hostagecat has claimed, there may need to be another Wikipedia discussion to contend whether or not RhythmOne websites such as AllMusic should continue to be designated a reliable source. I believe this goes well beyond the given article, which is why I did not want the locale to be that article's talk page. That's all. Moreover, ◢  Ganbaruby!  the editor who gave Hostagecat their 3RR warning has stated user talk pages are sufficient. Like I said, I would be more than welcome to continue our discussion on my page. I would really like to address this once and for all and move on to regular routine, I am sure we all would. --Ascribe4 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Dispute about Humska zemlja

/* original section header was: Some remark */

• Humska zemlja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sorabino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.152.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 93.86.237.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 212.200.206.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When I posted the relevant data, they deleted it and said there were no marked pages, when I posted the marked pages (per-review) they said it was misinterpretation. This is chauvinistic terminology used on the Croatian Wikipedia. When they have no arguments, then they start with such disqualifications.

More information at the following links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Humska_zemlja#%22Humska_zemlja_/_Zahumlje%22_and_%22Duchy_of_St._Sava%22_should_be_separated

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BOSNIA.htm#_Toc359577451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.152.93 (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Humska zemlja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

G'day Ed, I have accidentally removed your protection at Humska zemlja, but the reason is more problematic than that. I have moved the page with substantive elaboration at its TP few weeks ago - the article had unsustainable title, and I provided arguments with sources, and proceeded moving the page to its proper title, with some prose being replace to befit the new RS reality. However, and I alerted you few hours ago, some IP disrupted the page, and now User:Sorabino moved the page without any discussion to its old and unsourced title. I reverted them and referred them to TP, however I removed your recent protection. I think that, and if you have time and energy, you should check this IP's tone and Sorabino's conduct. I am really sorry.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)c

Not some, the IP - 109.165.153.124 (talk · contribs), 109.165.152.93 (talk · contribs)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that user Santasa99 is trying to disrupt or compromise this article, by summary removals of referenced contents and constant changes of its title. This article was created and defined in order to present contents on the well attested medieval title "Duke of Saint Sava" and its historical scope (15th century). We also have a more general article, on the region of "Humska zemlja", that has a common English title: Zachlumia. As I noted on the talk page, there is no need to confuse those too subjects, or to corrupt this article, that has its distinctive theme. This article is well defined, by the historical scope of this 15th century feudal title (Duke of Saint Sava), while the general regional history of "Humska zemlja" is covered in the Zachlumia article. Same order is observed in other Wikipedia projects. Sorabino (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

G'day Ed, Sorabino is very likely, sock of the above IP's 93.86.237.154 (talk · contribs) and 212.200.206.143 (talk · contribs), and they again moved (re-titled) this article (Humska zemlja into "Duchy of Saint Sava" without consensus, and more importantly without sources, and I mean any sources. However, they did completely buried the TP with sources with page numbers, but non speak about the thing they are injecting into the article title and prose, notably completely invented "duchy" used to construct a name for the piece of medieval land in worst OR I have ever seen in my time on the project.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, this is getting really odd. Please, can you ask someone to investigate if I am a sock? Lets do that, and get over with this. And regarding the article on the Duchy of Saint Sava, I just restored that article to its stable form, that existed for years before that user started to move it few weeks ago, and I added referenced content. Unfortunately, it is that user who is removing referenced content and corrupting that article. And please, take a look at the talk page of that article. Historicity of the feudal title (Duke of Saint Sava) is not disputed. Sorabino (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

And regarding the sources, for the term in English historiography, here are just two selected references: The Cambridge Medieval History, t. 4 (1923): Duchy of St Sava and Encyclopædia Britannica, t. 15 (1953): "Duchy of St Sava". I really wonder, what is that user trying to achieve by corrupting this article. Sorabino (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

And please note, when it comes to the term "Humska zemlja" both Serbian Wikipedia and Croatian Wikipedia are in full accord (yes, its a miracle): on Croatian Wikipedia, article Humska zemlja covers the entire history of that region, thus corresponding to the scope of the article Zachlumia on English Wikipedia and to the scope of the article Захумље (Zahumlje) on Serbian Wikipedia (there "Humska zemlja" is a redirect to Zahumlje). Those are all synonyms: Humska zemlja = Land of Hum = Zahumlje = (English via Latin) Zachlumia. Therefore, here on English Wikipedia, Humska zemlja should be a redirect to Zachlumia because those are synonymous terms. Sorabino (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

G'day Ed, I said I won't be posting about this on your TP anymore, but things have really escalated with Sorabino after IP's were repelled with your semi-PP, so, in a desperate hope that you will decide to step in, I am going to post few more words, focusing on the essence. There are other violations at this point, regarding OR and RS, but the most important issue is that Soarbion has moved the page and then even its redirect without reaching a consensus on TP with three involved editors, all whom objected his position on the matter. Sorabino also misrepresents his intention regarding article's topic and scope, and uses sources in such a way to achieve this little ploy - he switches his position between intention for article to be on noble title vs. land/country (political entity), where as article is obviously on "country" with particular name derived by editor from one man noble title. The page is obviously categorized as a country, it uses country infobox, myriad of navboxex refer to it as a country, even greater number of link are used toward the page connecting it as country, so whole story how article is about noble title does not holds water - by the way, article on this noble title would most certainly fail notability threshold. I f you are interested in further info I will provide answers on any question, if you say that we stop using your TP, I am apologizing in advance and will desist.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Inserted remark) I have just realized, and it is important: when Soarbino realized that I am (or anyone else) able to undo their move reverts to reinstate an old unsustainable name "Duchy of Saint Sava", they came up with an idea to change the name completely, to rename it as "Duchy of St. Sava", but since such name with this "Saint" abbreviation "St." is in existence, they tweaked abbreviation by removing a full stop (dot, point) from its abbreviation "St"! Now we have this article with a title using improper English language against MOS:TITLE, "Duchy of St Sava".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Parallel vandalism on BW: Recent actions of user Santasa99 were so strange that I had to take a look at what is happening with similar article on Bosnian Wikipedia. And of course, everything became clear. Please, take a look at the recent edit history of this article: Vojvodstvo Svetog Save (Duchy of Saint Sava). Few days ago, BW administrator "AnToni" had to protect that article in order to prevent further vandalism, performed by the same users that are targeting English article Duchy of Saint Sava. It seems that no further comment is needed. Sorabino (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone interested in Saint Sava. I think you are all experienced editors (except possibly for the IPs) so I think you know how to pursue dispute resolution on this topic. If you do not, let me know. To settle an article name, the WP:RM procedure works very well. If anyone believes User:Sorabino is a sock, WP:SPI is open to receive your evidence. Since there is no obvious admin action for me to take, I don't see a need to continue the discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

G'day, Ed, it can't be settled because three of four editors involved in TP objected Sorabino's move, and flip-flop on what should be the scope, which Sorabino used to justify moves, yet they moved it anyway. (At this point title abbreviation is without the dot that goes behind abbreviated Saint.) Now, Sorabion has created series of redirect, directing these new redirect pages to unrelated article, and all that just to obstruct possible move proper or at least something closely resembling proper name for the article. Since they moved the page yesterday, they reverted twice yesterday and three times today. So, they didn't followed WP:RM and when three editors objected their position they didn't care. I will try to put something together for SPI and also 3RR. But what they are doing is not OK.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by blocked user

Sir, User:Johnblaze editor, whom you blocked at AN3 here has resorted to sockpuppetry. I have opened an SPI case here. Please see the case. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The new account TheriPandi (talk · contribs) is now blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnblaze editor. Let me know if you see any others. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CentOS

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I really don’t want to go to dispute resolution because I don’t think that’s necessary for now. I also read the message you left for the other party and it conveyed what l've been telling him since the start of this.

With that said, I request your permission to revert the other party's edits and continue discussing the matter on the CentOS talk page. I have the intention of telling him about them. Quetstar (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not first describe the change you want to make, in a post at Talk:CentOS, and allow time for responses. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

All good Quetstar (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked me

Hi! You blocked me a year ago because of edit warring on the awards page of Beyonce. This is my nth time to convince you to lift the blocked since the page is literally in chaos right now. Random users are deleting valid awards, such as MTV Video Music Awards which is obviously valid. Let me regain access on the page and I will fix it as what I use to do before. I promise that an edit warring wont occur this time. Thank you Beyhiveboys (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are relieved from the partial block, it seems likely you will once again fill up the page with low-quality awards, in the effort to burnish the reputation of Beyonce and establish she is more awarded than other artists. (Surely a person at her level doesn't benefit from an endless list of low-quality awards). See WP:Indiscriminate. Others have recently commented on your judgment regarding awards on your own talk page but you don't appear to listen. If you want to propose specific changes, you can write something on the talk page at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Language tone

I can only hope you won't hate me. Here we go - 109.165.152.93 (talk · contribs) practically spamming the TP with photo-links with irrelevant sources per RS (whole shebang related to policy), and that's OK, or maybe it's not. However, that's not my main concern - here's some quotes from their discussion directed at me (there is no one else at that point, and it's my edits that provoked such outbursts):

• Possible vandalism. The reasons for removing the text are probably chauvinistic. [1]
• Despite this, the title of article "Duchy of Saint Sava" was changed to "Humska zemlja" for non-scientific reasons. [2]
• This often happens to those who deal with history recreationally or for nationalist reasons. Relevant sources are usually ignored or such people do not know the historical sources at all. [3]
• In any case, everything is easy to check in the above literature (L. Nakaš) unless you have a chauvinistic odium towards the Cyrillic alphabet. [4]
• I have to notice an identical and simultaneous change on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedia. Croatian Wikipedia has the lowest rating and is marked as extremely chauvinistic.
• This is chauvinistic terminology used on the Croatian Wikipedia. When they have no arguments, then they start with such disqualifications. [5]
• In 2021 the Wikimedia Foundation posted a job ad for a Disinformation evaluator position, with the aim to further examine disputed content on the Croatian Wikipedia. - these diatribes come from this one huge post;

followed by:

• All detachments are Western (predominantly Catholic) sources. In order to fight against false information that usually comes from right-wingers and ignoramuses [6]
• *IMPORTANT NOTE: On this occasion, I once again draw attention to the infiltration of right-wing editors from the Croatian Wikipedia, which is qualified as chauvinistic garbage: [7]
• The abundance of historical sources as well as relevant literature here is deliberately ignored or ignorance is involved. In any case, the tendency to edit as on the Croatian Wikipedia has been very noticeable lately [8]
• Along with all the other listed sources, I do not see what is disputable here. Unless there is some vile and chauvinistic intent. [9];

if you missed this one [10].

How they interpret sources they present, and how they understand our policies and guidelines is entirely secondary matter in this case, but if read in full these diatribes provide complete misunderstanding of both. Maybe IP should be blocked.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Just that you know, this just keeps coming: User Santasa99 deleted this article from the Croatian Wikipedia and tried to deleted it from the Bosnian Wikipedia. It is more than obvious here that this user approaches the editing of Wikipedia in accordance with his CHAUVINISTIC beliefs. ([11]) Cut me some slack, Ed, I have been abused there for two days now, all the while I tried to navigate this situation with Sorbainos non-consensus approach.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Then: SPECIAL ATTENTION should be paid to users under the nicknames Santasa99, Mikola22 and Tezwoo. There is a high probability that some (or all) of them are trying to apply practices from the notorious Croatian Wikipedia. It is also necessary to consider the possibility of an organized group of Croatian right-wingers. ([12])--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Issue

Mahammad tt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston, this banned user has now begun to disrupt Wikipedia articles across several languages, attempting to a force the very (fictitious) map [13] he attempted to add here. This is problematic (and honestly very low). I know this is beyond the English Wikipedia, but is there a way to deal with this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The person is indef blocked on enwiki, so that is a start. Consider reporting at m:SRG and try to get a steward to lock their account globally. It is done very often for socks, but for other accounts I'm not quite sure how much evidence they need. Do you know any stewards, or any SPI clerks? They would know the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster and Goths

• Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Goths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear EdJohnston, I noticed this post on his talkpage. I have seen him in action several times and I am starting to doubt that his agenda is for the benefit of this project. Here are some edits that may be violations of your warning: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. I would do something about this myself, but I have edited this article many years ago and could be accused of being an involved admin.--Berig (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!--Berig (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Berig, you should explain your accusation? What "agenda" are you talking about? I have not been editing much lately, so it kind of looks like this is a reaction to me telling you that Germanic peoples was not an article about linguistics recently, because that's almost the only interaction we've had? Or maybe you are worried about the old debate because you've started editing on Goths? Whatever your concern is, why did you not write to me about it first?

EdJohnston, as I explained at the time, your intervention into the Goths article was not easy for me to interpret in the examples which were really happening. So I think I am also in the category of not knowing the status. I noted to you quite early that Krakkos continued editing without anything I could define as pre-agreed consensus. I understood that you accepted that? Between the lines I understand you felt the red lines should be fuzzy and "common sense"? In any case, over the long period since then I've been more careful than Krakkos and only do minor edits without the artificial pre-discussions that have frustrated other editors as much as me. Any edits I've done should be uncontroversially in line with the consensuses which were arrived at in the past. FWIW I see that in some cases I've made such minor edits to that article, which is normally triggered by a one-off editor changing a few words, and me tweaking them, Krakkos has thanked me. But OTOH Krakkos recently wrote to Berig to say he has been the main editor of the Goths article. That's correct.

I notice Krakkos and Berig are active on the article in recent days, which is probably why Berig is now writing? Is that based on "consensus" because Berig agrees with the edits? It is not difficult to see that they are proponents of the idea that Goths came from Scandinavia, (which is one well-known proposal) and that they are emphasizing that. This would not normally be a concern to me, as long as discussion channels are open and we are all able to work together. But at first sight it does not match your ruling of working only by pre-agreed consensus. Note though: I've also never been the one asking for intervention, and I am certainly not now. I'd rather that we talk about sources and style and balance and so on, which was made more difficult in the situation we've had, not easier.

So is there any problem which needs fixing here? Concerning the past intervention, can I suggest you "officially" cancel it now? I presume the aim was to slow things down, which it did. The Goths article slowly got to a more stable version that reflects the real sources better, but had poor copy editing because of the difficult situation. (Other articles where there was similar debate about what scholars have published concerning Germanic peoples came to stable versions without these problems.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. Also, the post above is so full of allegations, that all I can say is that I rest my case.--Berig (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the case then? What is the problem which has arisen which needs discussion and/or action? Krakkos has been editing more or less at will for a long time, and EdJohnston is aware of that, because I informed him. I am not complaining about that, and why would I, unless there was a return of the controversies from the past? I am not seeing that. I think the editing restrictions Krakkos caused to come into effect on both of us should be ended. On my side though, I have historically stuck mainly to talk page discussion on the Goths article anyway, even before the strange edit war accusations, and am not editing much at all in recent months. I own copies of many of the relevant sources, and my quotations of them have, I think, helped resolve a lot of issues over a long stretch of time. So, I think it should be easy to understand that it feels a little odd to suddenly see a strong complaint being made to an admin about my "agenda"! What agenda? I honestly can't follow. You now say this agenda is not to do with content disputes, which makes it even harder to follow. Please spell out your allegations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding my thoughts here since my name is mentioned. EdJohnston's warning disallowed both me and Andrew Lancaster from making any edits at all to Goths without prior consensus. I have consistently abided by these restrictions the whole time. Berig is correct in pointing out that Andrew Lancaster has not done so. As recently as 5 March 2021 he made a major edit at Goths without any prior talk page consensus.[19] In his edit summary he claims to be reverting this IP edit,[20] but in reality he also making the same reverts which resulted in the restrictions being imposed in the first place. See how his 5 March 2021 edit removes the phrase "eventually came to live outside of Germania",[21] just like one his reverts from 15 February 2020.[22] The question of whether the Goths ever lived in Germania is at the very center of the editing dispute.

I think the WP:CRP restrictions imposed by EdJohnston at Goths have stimulated consensus building and article development. I believe these restrictions should remain in place, and strongly recommend it as a way of preventing edit warring on Wikipedia in general.

A problem is that Andrew Lancaster has a habit of posting numerous long and confusing comments at talk pages. Many editors have complained about this and charged it with being a deliberate attempt to create confusion and obstruct consensus building.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] If the WP:CRP violations are to have any consequences, i would recommend putting some limitations on the ability to post such repeated and confusing walls of text. Krakkos (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Krakkos the "major" edit you mention was indeed clearly a minor revert on an IP editor who was editing against an old consensus. (I don't agree that these words which I replaced are at the centre of any editing dispute between us. Where is this dispute? I have received several thank yous from you in recent months but no notes about concerns. As the self-proclaimed main editor of this article you've left this text in for a very long time until the IP changed it.) In the meantime, the article remains largely edited by you, and you have continuously edited at will, even when I've clearly disagreed, though apparently now taking more care not to mis-state what our sources really say. I've helped this article by making sure of this on the talk page, but never been the main editor.

The insinuation that my posts on talk pages should be penalized is very surprising! That would mainly stop me from quoting the sources which sometimes get cited wrongly. Why would you want that? However, since the beginning, your complaints to "wikiauthorities" against me have had this characteristic of moving around the accusations and trying to find some kind of vague combination of technicalities to get me eliminated. As I've pointed out to you before, this way of working is unlikely to ever be as successful as just trying to work in a normal way with me. What we are all supposed to be doing is making a encyclopedia. The intervention of EJohnston was only supposed to be justified because of supposed edit warring. Admins are not meant to block editing because of normal content discussions on talk pages. I have a reasonable long-term working relationship with most of the editors you've cited complaining about long posts. Each of those has a story. The period of trying to work on Goths under the special rule of having to post on the talk page instead of editing, was made very stressful for all involved editors. You were, keeping it simple, not just a bystander in these stressful discussions.

Anyway, I thought we'd gotten to a less worse relationship by the end and I am disappointed to see you trying to pump up the drama again. Can't you try a different approach based on citing sources and consensus building discussion? That is my proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Update.

• Berig has refused to define my "agenda" which is against the interests of Wikipedia (mentioned above), but subsequent posts make it clear that Berig's was in fact a content dispute he was foreseeing, which I was not yet clearly aware of, although it was one of the ones I suggested with a question mark above: the claim that the Goths migrated from Scandinavia. New aspersion casting makes it clear that this is a big issue: [31]. Note that Berig's username comes from the one early medieval source (Jordanes) which claimed this migration. Berig, in that story, led the migration. I think it is obvious Berig is constantly casting wp:aspersions about me in order to get his way in a content disagreement. It is not subtle at all. The accusation made to start this thread was a serious attack on a fellow editor. Who does that?
• Krakkos and Berig have continued re-writing the article in ways which unsubtly misrepresent what the field says, and ignore all previously negotiated consensus which involved quite a few editors. Today I finally found time to post some first careful problem descriptions of the big edits they made which went together with this thread. Please look at these: [32], [33], [34]. Instead of properly replying, they have begun new edits immediately, which double down and ignore the problems I described. After Berig agreed with Krakkos's proposal the edit went ahead minutes later, although one strong objection (mine) was already posted [35]. (Berig approval: 12:53, 27 March 2021; final edit: 13:06, 27 March 2021‎).

I am asking you once more for clarity about this special regime. Is this really consensus editing that Krakkos is doing? I don't see it. There seem to be no rules, no common sense. And if it this is what you intended, then how is this helping us make a better encyclopedia? This is just "who dares wins"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The above post is gaming the system, and this is beginning to look ridiculous. Andrew Lancaster is trying to use WP:CONSENSUS as a tool to fight the introduction of an excellent text referenced to a very notable book by Michel Kazanski. WP:CONSENSUS is not intended to stop the improvement of wikipedia articles per WP:RS and WP:DUE. I vouch that the information inserted is important to the article, mainstream, balanced and verifiable and in agreement with Wikipedia policy.--Berig (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

IPBE extension

Hi! You helpfully made an IPBE entry for me in October 2020, which will expire shortly. Any chance you would be able extend it? I will likely edit wikipedia via VPNs / VPSes indefinitely. -- pde (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I asked another checkuser who has more experience than me with granting WP:IPBE, and am waiting to hear back. The desire to use a VPN is often not considered a sufficient justification. Your editing record looks good, and if that were the only criterion I would probably go ahead. For some of the grounds that have recently been accepted to justify IPBE, you could look at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption/log. You can send me email if you have additional reasons that you don't want to share publicly. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Bishop Walsh Catholic School

Hi, Our page keeps getting vandalised please could I have an IP trace on user James witkinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWSIT (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Another admin has put the article under WP:Pending Changes and has blocked a couple of vandal accounts. Let's hope that will be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Having trouble with student editor who insists on adding content not conforming to WP:MEDRS policy

• Psilocybin mushroom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jmorales96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, hope all is well with you. We're having trouble with an edit-warring student editor at Psilocybin mushroom who insists on adding cites of primary research rather than published reviews of such research as required by WP:MEDRS. Another editor has left messages at the student's talk page, but he persists. Carlstak (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ed, and Edjohnston, I am sorry if it seems I was in an edit war. This was not my intention, before undoing the edit, I revised said edit. It was to my belief that revision of my own edit would satisfy the necessary requirements to be a part of the article. I took out the information I provided from the journal that conveyed use in medicine and therapy for humans. I simply wanted to add under the title Research the research that has been done using psilocybin. I apologize if this irritated anyone.Jmorales96 (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)