User talk:EdJohnston

I feel a need to say...

I am looking through your remarks and a couple of things really seem to need saying:

• Your remarks are clearly intended to be patronizing to me especially, by mentioning my previous explanations and making a point of NOT taking them seriously. (The theme is "well then, if that is true, then you should have no problem with...")
• Honestly, knowing the case, having looked at the new diffs, and how long you took, I think that despite feeling you should be patronizing, you probably did NOT look at the details at all. That is in a sense understandable.
• I do understand. We have all been there: you find it annoying and you want to say "both of you are the same to me", and make your point. The posts of Krakkos can't be that dishonest right?
• I think you still do a lot of article work? But in any case all of us can end up having a difficult situation to resolve, and asking others for advice. Concerning my request for advice you did not respond at all. That seems wrong too.

Honestly, you should have answered my question. And you should have forced yourself to look at the diffs and at least cross check a bit. I say this to you because it is what I would say to myself. Of course your situation is also understandable, and I appreciate that. Probably a bad idea to express these thoughts, but anyway...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Being on a roll, I might as well add some chronology notes, There were no edits by me on the article to trigger events. Here is how it went, after Krakkos asked me to stop working on the TALK page (! not the article !)...

• Andrew to Krakkos on talk page in 1 discussion section [1] 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC):

You should have learned by now NOT to continually twist the words of others, including other Wikipedians, sources, policies etc. This might feel like it is working when you are laying low and working on unknown articles and categories, but this is not something you should keep taking for granted now. I have indeed been trying to mainly post my concerns on this talk page, rather than editing, giving you a chance to show good faith. Having made that major concession your edits and talk page posts show absolutely no concern at all for such concerns. I have limited myself to commenting a small % of the mass of POV edits you are making, and you are seeing that as a signal to do even more. This is highly problematic because it is very difficult to come back later and retrace all the source distortions for example. So your bad faith behavior is where the problem is. If you just accepted to fix some of the obvious problems I point to instead of throwing up surreal smoke screens and parent-shopping all the time, imagine what that would be like...--Andrew Lancaster (talk)

• Andrew to Krakkos on talk page in another discussion section, [2] 15:18, 28 February 2020:

Krakkos so do I take it you are adamantly refusing to make any sorts of edits to correct the obvious problems shown above? I am still hoping YOU will CHOOSE to fix them, but let me know if this is a foolish hope.

• Krakkos does to noticeboard with long post (20 minute minimum writeup?) 14:31, 28 February 2020[3]
• EdJohnston responds 15:23, 28 February 2020

Please do consider though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A 3RR closure is intended to put a stop to an edit war in progress, by any method that seems likely to work. A closure should not specifically inconvenience others through a long protection when it appears that one or two people are at the center of the war. The closure may not have the effect of doing justice between the participants if one person is usually a better editor, but it expects diplomacy for sure. When two people both seem equally angry and neither of them will step forward with a plan for resolving the dispute, the closing admin doesn't have much leeway. Also I preferred not to block either of you, since you both appeared to be content creators and neither of you was blocked before. If you are accusing Krakkos of being dishonest you should watch out for casting WP:ASPERSIONS which is blockable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)"

You really don't want to go through any of the diffs for me, as requested it seems. Doesn't that way of handling this type of case expose the noticeboard to a danger of being manipulated?

In this case there is an editor who has gone through the same pattern of actions to block editing on several occasions, involving different articles, and on at least some occasions in the past, being told that their claims have no grounds: first posting to admin @Doug Weller:, and then trying to claim an edit war at the noticeboard.

As I have mentioned on the noticeboard, the diffs posted by that editor mainly show minor edits such as word changes. The diffs given to show discussions and warnings about edit warring were filled in with diffs involving events from a month earlier on another article! A striking number of the diffs within the comments also lead to things which don't match their description. But no one wants to check that or comment. When I mention it, I am told to be careful of casting aspersions.

Not only was there no formal warning. Strikingly, the talk pages were busy with disagreements about lots of things, but not anything to do with edit warring. This however seems not to be seen as concerning? The edit war claim was a surprise to me.

In that editor's own postings on the noticeboard, you only have to click on the diffs, or just read the explanations, to see that the editor was mainly concerned about other things, not my article editing as such. Most important, is clearly the talk pages. That is where the activity was also. In particular:

• The trigger for the opening of the claim was when I started a talk page section noting that there seemed to be a pattern of fake publication years. Even now, this section has not been answered and those dates remain, and the way I see it the noticeboard was the tool used to achieve this.
• The trigger for the renewal of the claim (Andrew Lancaster is back at it with his reverting) was even more clearly not even presented as based on article editing. I had started a detailed analysis of source distortion in a small number of paragraphs. The whole discussion, even on the noticeboard is about "hounding" on the TALK page. Also on the talk page, immediately before that posting, this editor demanded I should stop all activity related to that article because they have been editing it longer. [4][5]. This aim of being able to work alone is not really a hidden motive but "hiding in plain sight" and completely consistent with everything posted on the noticeboard also.

It is obvious that Wikipedians should care about the possibility of editors being able to use the noticeboard like an automatic no-questions-asked way to block other editors. There should be some concern about making sure the diffs match the descriptions and so on?

In such a case, I think that my repeated question to you, asking whether the diffs really do show an edit war, seems very fair?

The tone of your warning on my talk page were a shock to me. It makes it more important to me, that the facts of the case do actually get discussed. As you made those posts, I feel you should also have some sense of concern to respond to me in good faith? If I made the wrong types of edits I could make them again and I do not want to! Please help me avoid that??

Concerning "aspersions", such problems, or the impression that there are such problems, can I think result from exactly this type of situation I feel your refusal to comment on the details is creating. My accusations or concerns are clear, but then there is no discussion of the evidence - although I want that discussion, and the diffs are sitting in front of us. Of course I see that looks bad! That is why I am now concerned, given your way of describing the case in public, which makes my accusations look unfounded. If my accusations were unfounded, then please help me see it, so that I do not get things wrong now??

I am asking for discussion about whether there was an edit war and saying, clearly, that I can not see it, but I can't get that discussion going for some reason. This makes me look bad, and given the past pattern of events, this will surely encourage future repeats, so even in terms of cold calculation about what is best for WP in the future, the way of describing the case in public so far seems to me like it should have been done better.

To be clear: I may very well be making mistakes. I would be happy to learn that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is not clear to you, so I will point it out separately: The aim (not hidden) of Krakkos is that I should not edit the article at all, or even the talk page. Just read the comments on the noticeboard, or the talk page comments linked to above. The precedent now set by you in effect (not deliberately) is that if I edit the article at all, Krakkos can get me sanctioned (e.g. edit war warnings, with no edit war required). That precedent is what now worries me, not anger or whatever. The wording of the successful claim, when compared to diffs, was already successfully and openly using the reasoning that any editing by me is a problem. In effect, that reasoning was accepted. In any case, this is clearly the aim, and as strange as that may seem it is how it will be understood if left as it is presented now. You can also compare to how Krakkos choose to interpret previous cases as precedents. A key turning point (it seems to me) is the methodology of accepting that evidence of me having edited at all is enough to justify treating both editors equally, without checking the details.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe I have looked into the matter as thoroughly as policy requires. You are eager to be judged as having the better position, but you won't take the WP:Dispute resolution steps that I suggested. You need to make your content arguments to regular editors, not the closing admin. At a point where it is evident that there is a talk page consensus for your view and the other party appears to be reverting against it, admins are more free to resolve matters in your favor. But if you continue to make thousand-word arguments you may not get much sympathy. EdJohnston (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the length, but indeed the whole point is that a quick summary and quick decision is not always the best option. Your decision "obey's" Krakkos, but Krakkos says "Andrew Lancaster is back at it with his reverting". Problem: there was no revert, and he links to no revert, and when I point this out.... I am casting aspersions?

My practical concern is that Krakkos wanted a precedent that could be cited, which "accepts" his post's way of writing. That post insinuates I should never have been editing at all. Why accept (as it will be portrayed) that Krakkos writes as if I was not allowed to edit at all? So yes, a more questioning and careful approach would have been better for the future of the articles etc.

I also saw no remark about the other aspersions, and indeed the private mail scans (apparently) that were posted.

Also: I have refused no dispute resolution steps? Why do you write that? Please remind me what you are referring to. RFCs? I only said I had no obvious RFC to make at the time. Basically: every edit or talk page proposal I make is opposed, but...

Of course if we can gel any into clear questions they can be brought to a bigger group, and I already mentioned that I think WP:RSN will be one of the first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

In the above you state you have refused no dispute resolution steps. Yet in the 3RR closure I said I would particularly like to see an RfC on the issue of source dating, since changes of source publication date were made in three of the diffs cited above (#2, 4 and 7). Why won't you consider an RfC on source dating, since you appear to think the evidence strongly favors your view? EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know you proposed using RfCs but my response was not a refusal?? Anyway, you raise a good point about the publication year issue which is already a bit thematic. (Honestly I had simply thought this problem would have disappeared quietly by now. It is stunning that it has not.) I have thought about whether an article RfC would be appropriate given that this is such a basic thing. (We would not want one little-known WP article suddenly declaring a weird policy of its own saying google books summary pages are the ultimate arbiter of publication information, trumping publisher websites, title page info etc? 2ndly, the article clearly has few experienced and currently active editors, or else we would not have all these problems. I 3rdly don't want to be blamed for starting 20 RFCs for every little problem.) I had recently already been searching for a more specialized forum. Any ideas?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I made my suggestion for an RfC, you don't want to take it, so let's both move on to something else. You are unlikely to be criticized for opening too many RfCs at Talk:Goths. (There are no RfCs at all on the page, by anyone). EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No you are reading me wrongly there again I think. Concerning the publication year subject, I mentioned an article RfC as an option I was considering already. Not going to rush today though. Thanks for the advice so far.

The "3rdly" point, OTOH, was considering the fact that there are a lot more topics to cover, and frankly, the talk page is getting used, and Krakkos is (in case you did not notice) using that as one of the main reasons for declaring there was an edit war. The fact is that Krakkos clearly thinks that worked well this time, and that almost any activity at all can now be a reason to complain about an "edit war". See this talk page post today, which hints at more such rhetoric to come: [6]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please continue your efforts at Talk:Goths especially if you have any proposals or RfCs you want to post there. I think I am done now. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you have to please look at this situation and explain how your decision concerning Goths is supposed to work. Krakkos is showing the limits of the approach. If a lot of article changing is being done by Krakkos, then how can you ever define whether someone had a clear consensus? Who is supposed to check that, or is it your belief that Wikipedians should spend all their effort in formal procedures instead of editing? I don't know what you envisioned, but I guess it is not what is happening. Krakkos is posting edit proposals presented as compromises to me, and then takes positive responses, as signals to do many vaguely similar things in giant edits that go far beyond the talk page discussions. This means for Krakkos the talk page is now an elbowing contest, in order for Krakkos to get responses, and then edit, and make sure no one answers me on anything. (I have just been asking other people to edit.) What is the benefit of this situation compared to any other option including nothing? What was your longer run vision? Is Krakkos working as you envisioned? Am I? It makes no sense to me. How should I work correctly now? To be honest it feels a bit like you just wanted to make things unpleasant, but that isn't going to make better articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: is Krakkos working according to your ruling? As far as I see it, Krakkos is editing without consensus. I think there have been two clear cases of large multi-section edits which I had objected to, and only one other editor had given vague positive remarks about. I don't see any way that anyone could have predicted the edits which then occurred? I understand the case is awkward, but I would like guidelines on how I may edit please. I am concerned that your approach demands that editors must wikilawyer and parent-shop like Krakkos in order to work on content, and how does this end? (To be complete also I must remind: the whole situation is inappropriate; there never was an edit war, only a demand for article ownership posted with diffs that showed no warnings or talk page discussion, and no edit war. It never should have been posted on AN3. I had nothing to answer for, and you have refused to discuss that. With no admin intervention the article would be far better by now, and the editing environment far less toxic. In context, this ruling always has been effectively AN3 taking a side in a content disagreement.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please consider, just to try to avoid any misunderstanding: IMHO, this all starts with Krakkos reporting me to AN3 for normal copyedits, claiming in an extra explanation that I should not be editing on that article. I asked you to show me otherwise. You refused. Right now, what Krakkos is doing as edits are, to say the least, far more controversial than those of mine which you accepted to be an "edit war". If we are back to normal editing, that is great, but I need to be careful: The history is clearly telling me that if I do so much as change a comma, based on that history, anything might happen, and your response is absolutely unpredictable to me. That is the honest truth. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hounding, continued bullying and severe personal attacks by Andrew Lancaster

Background information (conclusive evidence of edit warring and hounding)

17.01.20-20.01.20 Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos are warned twice for edit warring.[7][8] 12.12.19 Krakkos nominates the article Goths for WP:GA.[9] 03.02.20 Jens Lallensack begins the GA review at Goths, stating that it's "great to see this important article in such a good shape."[10] A notification of the review is posted on my talk page.[11] 04.02.20 Andrew Lancaster starts to complain about the quality of Goths.[12] 15.02.20-17.02.20 Andrew Lancaster begins drastic edits to Goths.[13][14] He had never edited Goths prior to this.[15] 21.02.20 Category:Romance-speaking countries and territories, created by Krakkos, is nominated for deletion, and a notification of the discussion is added at the talk page of Krakkos.[16] 21.02.20 Andrew Lancaster votes in support of deleting Category:Romance-speaking countries and territories.[17] Like at Goths, he had never edited anything of relevance to that category before. 21.02.20 Andrew Lancaster complains at Talk:Early Germanic culture that the article is "problematic",[18] and makes an initial edit stating that he will "fix the rest of the article also".[19] That article is also largely written by Krakkos, and Andrew Lancaster has never edited it before.[20] A pattern of WP:HOUNDING is clear. 24.02.20 Krakkos begins improving Goths in accordance with the recommendations of Jens Lallensack.[21] 24.02.20-26.02.20 Andrew Lancaster begins rewriting and reverting Krakkos' improvements at Goths. His edits generally consist of rewriting content in the lead regardless of what the sources say.[22][23] 26.02.20 Krakkos files a complaint at WP:AN3.[24] 27.02.20 At WP:AN3, EdJohnston warns Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos against attacking one another and further edit warring.[25] 27.02.20 The GA reviewer Jens Lallensack presents a compromise solution for Krakkos and Andrew Lancaster, whereby Andrew Lancaster will refrain from further edit warring while the GA reviewer promises to take his concerns into account.[26] 27.02.20 Krakkos expresses willingness to comply with Jens Lallensack's solution.[27] 28.02.20 Andrew Lancaster ignores Jens Lallensack's suggestion, and proceeds with edit warring as soon as his 3RR limitation has expired.[28] 28.02.20 EdJohnston closes the 3RR complaint, and threatens both Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos with a block if any of them edits Goths without consensus.[29]

Hi, EdJohnston. As you're already aware of, Andrew Lancaster has been making personal attacks against me. He has accused me of being "shamelessly misleading",[30] of "hypocritical abuse",[31] called me a "sycophantic bully boy" who "listens to no one",[32] accused me of "deliberate distortion", being "deliberately fraudulent", "ignoring and working against the community", called me a "nonsensical" "bully", and said that i "need to accept that a lot of the work you are doing will not last (on ANY article)".[33] For this you have already warned him several times.[34][35]

In the aftermath of your resolution at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: Both warned), Andrew Lancaster posted another threatening and defamatory message at my talk page.[36] I believe this message is a clear violation of WP:BULLYING, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. Considering Andrew Lancaster's long experience as a Wikipedian, the repeated warnings against personal attacks he has received, and the complete lack of evidence accompanied by his accusations, i believe this message is concerning. It is quoted in full below (with my emphasis):

"Krakkos, as I was allowing you to edit at will when you pulled this off (and don't worry, the shameless dishonesty of what you've done will eventually become clear) I really wonder what you think happens next. On Germanic peoples you did the same thing, and it created a situation where you felt there was no point even trying to edit any more. It seems you can only work alone and this is going to lead to your exit from Wikipedia and the removal of all your edits eventually? To be clear:

• I can now start making drafts of how the article should look. When the block stops, work starts again, and I will of course take note of the history of how you lie and screw others. Of course I'd be happy to work with you if you DON't do that, but I will, in any case, work. I will call in the community quicker also whenever you so much as post a single lie about a word in a footnote, and believe me I was avoiding doing that until now, and could have been MUCH harder. I see myself as a rare case of someone who has worked with you, but still wants to give you a chance. But...
• The talk page is still no problem and I can keep posting problems and proposals there, in order to keep a clear record of a path for work when the block stops. My concern is not you, but the article, and this block is therefore no real problem to me. You can contribute, but you won't/can't I guess, except in the sense of trying to disrupt and make things less clear, but this will be easy to ignore now, because drafting can happen elsewhere. It looks like Germanic peoples again.
• Obviously my good faith acceptance of the idea of keeping off the main page now looks very naive. As usual, you do not seem to care a bit how you look to the people you should be trying to work with. Working within WP policies is the opposite of your aim. I predict that is not going to last long now you've taken things to this level.

In summary, you seem unable to work honestly and with others, but I would still like that to change. It is surreal sometimes. For a couple of short moments I really hoped/thought you were not going to do a repeat, and you were really going to try to make a real article according to WP policy, where you would actually compromise and work with other editors, and learn from them about how we work. I would still like you to learn how to do that, but it seems that was not possible? Now is the time to decide?

My question to you: do you have a non-BS proposal about how to work together now? Please understand I'd be very happy to see any kind of honest proposal from you, but I do have a very sensitive BS detector and really I am calm person but I hate lies and dishonesty. (It is a good combination on Wikipedia.) If you include one more lie or twisted reference in your reply to this, then I know where to file it. Perhaps take some time before answering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As Andrew Lancaster admits above, your sanction is "no real problem" for him. It is a major problem for me however, as it is now impossible for me to work with Jens Lallensack on completing the GA review. Meanwhile, Andrew Lancaster has now made a draft with the idea of rewriting Goths, while I'm not permitted to edit the article at all. I'm basically the only person being punished for a situation which i am certainly not the person most responsible.

The behavior described above has already successfully driven productive editors from the subject area.[37] Additional editors who have been driven away have contacted me privately, but won't do it openly, because they fear they will become the next target. Even the GA reviewer who was once very enthusiastic at building Goths has now abandoned the idea, because of Andrew Lancaster's continued personal attacks and the failure of the community to deal with it.[38][39]

As long as Wikipedia fails to respond decisively to this, the problem will become even worse. If sanctions are still off the table, I believe some sort of WP:IBAN could be helpful. Given the fact that I have not been carrying out such hounding or personal attacks, a one-way IBAN would be fair in my opinion. I’m still willing to accept a two-way ban however. This relentless hounding and bullying is extremely frustrating and is making it very hard for me to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You probably have a case under WP:ASPERSIONS but my energy for resolving this has been used up. But I would suggest you consider filing at ANI. In the meantime, do you have an idea of a proposal you could make for updating the Goths article, via WP:RFC? I tried to interest User:Andrew Lancaster in making an RfC about the issue of dating sources, but he didn't take it up. (See discussion above). I would make the same proposal to you. If you are not familiar with RfC, I can give you the steps for opening one. So far there have been no RfCs at all at Talk:Goths. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, unfortunately that is an inaccurate description of our conversation. Only a few hours ago I wrote to you that [40]: "No you are reading me wrongly there again I think. Concerning the publication year subject, I mentioned an article RfC as an option I was considering already. Not going to rush today though. Thanks for the advice so far." (That was not the first time I had to correct you about this specific point.)

I think one thing you can't accuse me of is trying hard to get things working on Goths. Indeed, I have already made it clear (before this post by Krakkos above) to Krakkos that I aim to get community feedback and I want to make sure of his position statements before posting RFCs.

I should point out that if you follow the links of Krakkos posted above, most do not at all match the description given to them. Should Krakkos be warned about constantly doing that? Krakkos wants to use admins to achieve specific content aims, and appeals to Doug Weller have not worked in the past. You already know that I am honestly concerned that the recent "win" at the edit warring noticeboard is going to make Krakkos a worse editor, at least for a while. I register the warning on my talk page, which is apparently linked to your suggestion to Krakkos that he should go to ANI, so that is another "win". Krakkos will file that as a diff to post in future attacks on me, but not want their own history looked at in detail. That is just my honest judgement.

Obviously you have picked the stronger words out of the context, but it is true such words might be picked out and used against me. So your message is reasonable. If people are willing to take things out of context to attack me then we already know there is not much anyone can do about it. Still, probably I should have not posted that one message in that form.

Really though, my aim was to get a message across to Krakkos. It is asking Krakkos how to work now, and my actions show that is NOT sarcastic. It is trying to say that the "win" is not a real win. It is pointing out that I was trying to help Krakkos, and I am still open to ways forward, despite the attack on me. I want Krakkos to realize I could quit Wikipedia totally, and the problems Krakkos creates for their own editing would continue. What I keep saying to Krakkos about how the POV content can't last on WP is meant to be honest advice. Without my efforts the removal of such material will just take longer.

The "tough" parts of the message say that I have to be far stricter and less trusting of Krakkos. But this has to be seen in the context that when this successful personal attack on me was done (using you, in effect), I was ironically basically leaving almost all editing to Krakkos. Krakkos successfully used this against me by saying I was editing warring just by editing at all. I want Krakkos to see that trying to use admins is going to cause more problems for Krakkos than anyone else. It mentions that it is still my preference that Krakkos really does find a way to work with others better, and edit in a more policy-consistent way, but that it will now be more difficult for me to support that. Quite honestly I have been trying to support Krakkos on Goths, because the article does need work, and Krakkos should have been able to do it.

Sorry for the long post, but sometimes a long post is appropriate IMHO. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I look forward to someone opening an actual WP:RfC at Talk:Goths. So far there are none. If either you or User:Krakkos have further requests for admin help I'd appreciate if you take the requests elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ed's suggestion about an RfC. @Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos: it's either that or ANI I think. As I've said, it's not an area I am familiar with and frankly I don't have time to look into it. But an RfC should draw interested editors, and, well, ANI might do anything. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it will help. Nobody does have "time to look into it" and Krakkos will fill it with thick smokescreens of verbiage in his normal style, to which AL will respond. I doubt there are many editors interested in the Goths; an Rfc would bring a bunch of editors who like having opinions, and will find it difficult to work out which opinion to have. ANI might be better, while they are in the mood to exile long-term problem editors with a relatively brisk process. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks and my apologies. And for now my idea is that this will take a couple of RfCs and a couple of RSN discussions to start with, possibly starting today. I am never a fan of "surprise" rushed RfCs like Krakkos does, so I have (already before Krakkos posted here above) asked for final comments from Krakkos on the questions which are already clear enough. Response or none, I am going to do my best to write neutral short questions. I honestly just want non-POV-pushing reasonable articles.

@Doug Weller: I appreciate your responses and understand. Your talk page got used a bit for some reason. Possibly because Krakkos knows you from some other types of areas, and several people who watch your page were interested? I hope that has not been too annoying.

@Johnbod: We can only do our best can't we? If lots of people suddenly arrive that don't normally edit in that area then I think/hope this will be relatively obvious on this type of article.

@Krakkos: Concerning ANI (and even admin noticeboards) generally I have always made it a motto not to be an initiator of wikidrama if I can avoid it. Life is too short, and this is not why I do Wikipedia. I would be so much more happy to just work with you. But my approach has been used against me in the recent cases where you edit-warred alone, and then acted outraged. I feel a bit naive, and since then your efforts to misrepresent facts have not stopped. I will at least be making efforts (as I remarked) to more quickly get ALL misrepresentations you make, on ANY talk page or edsum, seen to quickly in ways which seem appropriate. Your past misrepresentations are also still there on record to be looked as needed. The idea of getting the patterns in your real editing history looked at by the community in a thorough way has its appeals, but I prefer to work on Wikipedia content. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dougweller: My experience tells me that RfC's are unhelpful in solving this particular dispute. Andrew Lancaster has previously accused me of being "disruptive",[41] "pointless",[42] and of not being "appropriate"[43] for making RfC's. He has even been reverting me when i try to make RfC's.[44] One RfC at one point went through, and the consensus was clear,[45] but Andrew Lancaster nevertheless proceeded to rewrite the article in question entirely, despite the outcome of that RfC.[46]

Despite repeated warnings,[47][48][49][50] his personal attacks have still not ceased. He's still baselessly accusing me of "trying to work against WP policy",[51] not being "a normal editor",[52] and of having "a systematic tendency to try to make false claims"[53]. He's also threatening future WP:BATTLEGROUND concerns, stating that he will "have to be far stricter and less trusting of Krakkos", that this "is going to make Krakkos a worse editor", and that "the "win" is not a real win".[54] As repeated appeals to admins and complaints at administrator's noticeboards has so far been unable to stop the attacks, I have filed a request for an WP:IBAN or some other remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, as this seems to be the only way to make an end to this. Krakkos (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems you blocked me or not.

• Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems that I was blocked by you? Maybe a fake account, using your name?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr.User200#Blocked
Mr.User200 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the impersonating account EdJohnsto (talk · contribs) and removed the notice from your page. Hope this was OK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but he have returned with a new account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HarimauFury
he keeps saying Iam blocked here
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&diff=prev&oldid=943900405. Mr.User200 (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaving the computer now but you should ask another admin for any needed block. It looks like you've been bothered by a series of IPs posting on your talk page who are now blocked. Possibly it's the same person. One of those IPs was blocked by User:TonyBallioni for block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential issue...

It seems as if a user is constantly reverting my edits. What should I do? I apologize IDK how to make these links below hyperlinks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marj_Al-Ghazal&action=history

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An-Nuway%27imah&action=history

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fasayil&action=history

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jit,_Qalqilya&action=history

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/944289685 Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User “Huldra” Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Any further discussion of this dispute should take place at WP:AE#Zarcademan123456. I recomment you stop all editing of WP:ARBPIA articles until the AE reaches a conclusion. You give the impression of being a bull in a china shop, not because of any malice, but because you seem unaware of the subtleties and of the intense arguments that have occurred previously on many of these articles. If you are not very familiar with Wikipedia, articles that are part of the Arab-Israeli conflict are not a good area to get started in. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi EdJohnston, can you protect the Berry Events Center page? Thanks-KH-1 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Kupal123 and McGill University

• McGill University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi EdJohnston, I am asking if you, as an administrator, could please look over the edit history for McGill University and the situation that is ongoing regarding the Lead. I am currently preparing to leave the UK to return to Canada due to coronavirus and do not have time to be fully involved in this matter, however I do not want to sit back and let the article for McGill sit in the state it is currently in after Kupal123's ridiculous edit to the Lead. I fear that if I undo his edit again (a third time) it will constitute an edit war on my part and I do not want to suffer any negative repercussions because of it. Respected user, Magnolia677 agrees that the edit of Kupal123 is disruptive and unconstructive (see talk). Please have a look for yourself, the edit is quite ridiculous and does not belong in the Lead for an article with GA status... Please let me know if you disagree. Thank you. Jonahrapp (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please open a discussion at Talk:McGill University on what should be in the lead. If consensus can be found on talk, and someone else reverts against the consensus, admins can take some action. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have since opened a discussion on the article's talk page and outlined my proposal for the lead there. Can you have a look, please? I would certainly appreciate it. It is approaching 5AM where I am.Jonahrapp (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the issue at Talk:McGill University#Please fix the lead.. Let's hope that others are willing to comment. The page at WP:Dispute resolution has a number of suggestions of what to do if it appears that a discussion is not getting enough participation. One idea is an WP:RFC. But it is a good idea to wait a couple of days before getting worried. EdJohnston (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Billy Bob Joe 222290990

Did you mean to block this account indefinitely as a vandalism-only account? I saw that you applied only a 48-hour block, and I just wanted to let you know in case this wasn't intended... As always, it's a pleasure to talk to you once again, and I hope you have a great day. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston - I went ahead and updated this block to be indefinite. There's a near-zero chance that a temporary block will result in correcting this user's behavior, and is much more likely to result in more disruption being caused when it expires. If you object to my modification of the block, you have my permission to modify it and change the expiration back to the original duration that you set - you do not need my approval or my input in advance to do so. Just let me know that you did so, and why (ping me so that I'm notified), so that I understand - it's possible that I may have missed something. :-) Knowing you as well as I do, I doubt that you'll mind - I'm just giving you the due courtesy of letting you know just in case. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Please revert

You protected two pages where a COI exists. Thomas A. McKean and Jonathan Shestack. User Ylevental is lying. He has a COI with both of them and the template needs to be restored. He has confessed to knowing Jill Escher and Escher has had a relationship with Shestack since she met him and his wife Portia Iverson at an IACC meeting in 2013 (see here for proof of attendance for Escher and Iverson). The matter is being discussed at COI/N. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)