This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:EdJohnston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



User:Alhaqiha[edit]

This editor appears to have some sort of animosity against other ethnicities(Berbers, Iranians) and their inclusion in articles on Wikipedia.

On the Baghrir article, Alhaqiha [insisted I go to the article talk page], after responding to his comment, Alhaqiha removed mine! Alhaqiha even logs out to continue edit warring(Baghrir, North African Arabs, Berbers, Couscous, just to name a few). 25 May 2016 Diannaa (talk | contribs) blocked Alhaqiha (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite, unfortunately 5 June 2016 Diannaa (talk | contribs) unblocked Alhaqiha (talk | contribs). Since then Alhaqiha has edit warred, removed referenced information, deleted another editor's talk page comments and has clearly illustrated they are not here to build an encyclopedia.

Alhaqiha posted on my talk page concerning the Baghrir article, in which he alleges sockpuppets with POV pushing my response was[2]:

  • I have seen an IP making the exact same edits as yours over multiple articles. It is extremely clear you are here on a anti-Berber agenda. As for the Baghrir article, an IP made the removal[3], claiming "not sourced".[4],[5]
  • These appear to be the sources that do not exist. Is this IP you? Said IP has also, according to Kuru, used as a reference a site which is a Wikipedia mirror site and added it to North African Arabs.[6] AND, copy and pasted information from somewhere to Wikipedia, also according to Kuru.[7]
  • It would seem to me you are disruptive in your editing. Logging out to continue your edit warring, adding Wikipedia mirror sites as references, copy & pasting, just to name a few instances.

I have posted a concern on Alhaqiha's talk page,[8] but his usual modus operandi is simply to blank out comments from other editors,[9][10][11][12] so I do not expect any kind of response. Alhaqiha will simply log out or wait a few days and then start back his disruptive ways. Would you be interested in addressing this issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It would appear I was half-right. Alhaqiha responded, to which I asked why referenced information was removed from the lead and why he could not add his information to the article without changing referenced information(10,000 to 5,000).[13] In response Alhaqiha simply deleted the entire discussion.[14] No surprise there. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I have left a note for this editor (whose name i have trouble spelling). Certainly this will give him a chance to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello user:EdJohnston! Thank you for leaving a message behind on my talkpage about this discussion. Well first of all I want to make clear I have no animosity against other races. The pages about North Africa are very one sided and not neutral, and it looks like some ethnicities are dominating the information on those pages. Many of those pages include information about berbers which is false, based on nationalistic views or poorly sourced. I try to add or delete information that is one sided, not well sourced or false on those pages. The topics about North-Africa are topics I find my interest in, so me editing specifically those pages doesnt make me a vandaliser Kansas Bear. Just like how you are interested in Persian or History related topics, I find my interest in the North-African ones.

There are a few users, namely user:JovanAndreano, user:AyOuBoXe, user:DanaCastle, and user:Omartoons which are all blocked and keep returning with new ip adresses reverting or removing my edits on a daily basis. Everyday when I check my mail I will find another ip adress removing or reverting information about exactly the same things. It makes it look like im edit warring, but it is important to note that there are a few people following my contributions on a daily basis to revert whatever edit I have made. Based on this I have to keep reverting the edits which makes me look like im edit warring, but at the same time there is another user sockpuppeting with different accounts. A few administrators are already keeping an eye on the situation, and know why I make the edits. I have tried to explain this to Kansas Bear on his talkpage, but he ignored it. T hat explains the 'Edit warring'.

The claim of Kansas Bear that I have animosity against Iranians is incorrect. The two pages he linked in which I commented that a Iranian is vandalising the page happened only two times, and lucky enough it kept him away. He creates information in which he claims that the people of the middle east eat cow brains, sheep brains, locusts, cockroaches, lizards, snakes, camelurine and gives 30 or more non-evidence based sources like youtube 1 or pages that don't exist. He already has made 42 interuptive edits 1 as you can see. He kept coming back, but he has stopped now that I called him out for it. It indeed is not the best way to communicate, but he has already returned 42 times with his vandalising edits.

The page in which I removed "berber tribe" from the Article is because it was not sourced and not true, and there already was a request for citation since 2014, and the page also has a banner about the "neutrality of the article being disputed" link. Based on the information in the page without many sources it come of fake and nationalistic. Sahara culture dominantly shows sub-saharan in the south and arabian in the North characteristics when berbers are dominant in the mountain regions. The page seems to be written by someone with a non-neutral view.

On the Baghrir talk page, when Kansas Bear reverted my edits without explanation, he told me I should take "my concerns to the talk page". After that I requested him to discuss it with me, and the answer he gave was very rough and degrading, he even told me "learn how to sign a comment!". It is a talk page not a lash out on someone page, so I removed his comment so someone else could react in a normal manner. You can take a look at my explanation of "my concerns" and how he reacts on it link.

The logging out on the pages was because I first thought that the ip adress and the account were automatically linked to one another, at the end I found out they were not after it being explained to me by an administrator on my talk page. After being warned about this, I stopped. Now I am contacting administrators like Ponyo link to protect pages instead of editing or reverting them myself whether logged in or out. So Kansas Bear, you can stop acting as if it still happened or keeps happening.

I was indeed blocked by Dianna because the information I used for a page was very similar to the original text, so I got blocked because of plagiarism. I waited a week with reacting because I had to focus on making my exams, but when I requested if the block could be removed with a valid explanatian about me reading the manual about using documents and articles without plagiarism, se deblocked me. The text I used were 3 articles about the genetic history of North-African ethnic groups. But as I said, When I put up the request, she directly deblocked me the same day. It was not intended as bad behavior or vandalism, and I think she understood that aswell.

The user Kansas Bear claims I am not here to build a encyclopedia? So what about these pages I created? Isn't that building up wikipedia? You wasnt to make me look like a vandaliser, but there is more to the story. These are pages that I created which is nothing wrong with 1, [[15]], or 3. It is quit strange that you claim that I dont react to your comments aswell, because I directly reacted to your comment today in which I gave you 4 sources to explain why I made the edits link, but just like with the Hammudid talkpage [[16]] you keep denying my requests for editing even when I give you sources and good reasons. You just keep making the discussiong bigger and bigger even though I have shown you proof. And obvisouly on the talkpages of [[Baghrir] and Hammudid dynasty I had conversations with you. So you are making up that I don't react on your messages.

And at last, your claim that I removed this conversation link is indeed true, because we were done with the discussion. Just like all the other discussion with you, you dont seem to care about what I tell you. I already told you that I removed the information from the lead because it was duplicate, and I changed 10.000 to 5.000 giving you 4 sources for why I did that!! And that page should have a "neutrality of the article being disputed" banner anyway, because some claims on the page are not true, not neutral, nationalistic or not sourced which you keep supporting. I hope I have made myself clear. Thank you. Alhaqiha (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to doubt the sincerity of Alhaqiha's edits:
It is quite clear Alhaqiha never even checked these sources. Alhaqiha has shown he thinks he can remove anything he does not like if he labels it "sockpuppet of user ....".
  • "I already told you that I removed the information from the lead because it was duplicate, and I changed 10.000 to 5.000 giving you 4 sources for why I did that!!"
And you still did not answer my question of why you removed referenced information(10,000), you did not answer why you could not simply ADD 5,000 to the article instead of removing 10,000. No, you do not answer questions, you remove questions you do not want to answer then feign being misrepresented or spin a fairy tale about how you have answered questions, when you clearly have not.
  • " I already told you that I removed the information from the lead because it was duplicate"
Which does not explain why you removed the reference since the supposed "duplicate information" within the article did not have a source. It is also common for something to be mentioned in the lead and the article, see Wikipedia:LEAD. Sounds like you just did not like it. And, so you ignore what you do not like, on your talk page, and go on about removing referenced information you do not like. Plain and simple. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this IP, Alhaqiha? After I removed unreliable sources and its information from an article, an IP re-adds the same information without a source! Where was Alhaqiha and his penchant for "sockpuppets"?? Oddly I see NO response to my discussion on the article's talk page![17][18] And here, Alhaqiha re-adds the same information without a source!!! Logging out to edit war??? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, When I checked the sources in the link he inserted at the reference section it took me to this page 1. It is indeed the same book, but it only shows the intro of the book and 5 pages which dont inlcude any information about the origin of the dynasty. So in that case, It was indeed a mistake! You stil cant take away that the same user made edits like 1, 2, 3, or removed a whole lot information with his other accounts. And you literally only show the 4 edits I made wrong, why dont you show the 30+ vandalist edits I actually reverted from his accounts.
And no, the Ip adress that you try to blame me for sockpuppeting is Not Mine, dont try to blame me for it without any evidence. And that I didnt react to your request on the talkpage is not odd at al, I didnt have anything to add to the page anymore because the origin of the dynasty was already mentioned in the first alinea with sources before I made the edit, 4, but you directy removed those aswell. Alhaqiha (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this IP you?. Seems like the so-called sockpuppetry is not one-sided.
  • "And you literally only show the 4 edits I made wrong"
So you admit to not checking the sources. No surprise there. Considering your sources on the Saadi dynasty page were shown to be unreliable on the talk page, undoubtedly you and 41.99.22.186 "missed" that. Need help finding that talk page?
Please, show me exactly where you posted on the Saadi dynasty talk page, since you re-added "Arab", without sources,[19] and did not seem overly concerned about it. Yet in contrast, someone adds Berber(with sources!) and you start making accusation of sockpuppetry and vandalism? Hardly a NPOV attitude, in fact it reeks of battleground behavior.
  • "And no, the Ip adress that you try to blame me for sockpuppeting is Not Mine, dont try to blame me for it without any evidence"
Still misconstruing what I said, again. I said, "Is this IP, Alhaqiha?" If you can not understand English then perhaps you should not be editing English Wikipedia. Oh, and FYI, there is a thing called "meat-puppetry" on Wikipedia, just so you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Question related to my topic ban[edit]

Dear User:EdJohnston, I've got a question related to my topic ban. I don't know where to go with it, if this is the wrong place please direct me to wherever the appropriate place is to ask this question.

Anyway the background is, I developed a proposal for support for topic banned editors on meta, as part of the recent Inspire initiative, which got 12 endorsements, and came 13th out of 279 ideas created proposals in a robot generated leaderboard there. As a result, we are going to try to see if we can start a pilot scheme. We plan to do an RfC on meta on possible ways to implement the proposal as a pilot, one of which is to do the pilot itself on meta. We will want to publicize that RfC on wikipedia, for instance at the Village Pump.

Anyway I understood from the guidelines on meta, that my topic ban is localized to wikipedia and as a result I've been talking about my banned topic on the talk page for the proposal, just by way of examples when discussing how the suggested board might work and the types of problems we might run into. So my question is,

"Is it okay for me to post to wikipedia about a RfC on meta about a proposal on meta when in the talk page for the proposal on meta I mention my banned topic?"

It's obviously not intended in any way to get around my topic ban. But I know these bans are taken very strictly, so felt I needed to ask this question before going ahead. I am fine with going through the meta talk page and removing all mentions of my banned topic if that is what is needed. Of course, I can't remeove it from the history of the talk page on meta.

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You must be referring to this thread at meta. It is likely there must be at least one participant in the meta thread who is not banned here on English Wikipedia, so that person could post a link to it here if they want to. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes that's the one. Yes probably there are some who endorsed it who are not topic banned. I don't know for sure, some said explicitly that they were topic banned, and none have actually said that they are not topic banned yet, I could ping them all, we would do anyway when publicizing the RfC on meta. But the discussion on the talk page has been mainly between myself and User:Darkfrog24 with brief comments from a couple of others, so if we get someone to do it they won't have been involved in the long discussions about how we could set up the board and about the board mockup. It would be especially tricky if there were questions for them to answer after they post to the Village Pump on Wikipedia, because if they ask us, I'd be commenting on the Village pump about the proposal by proxy. I'll discuss it with User:Darkfrog24, but my first thought is that I'd be inclined in that situation to just wait until my topic ban expires in November.
Can I ask this question in the other direction, from what you say, it sounds as if I would get in trouble if I posted a link to it for as long as I am topic banned, and that removing mention of my topic from the talk page (but not from its history) would not be enough to make that okay. Can I confirm if that is correct?
If you don't know the answer for sure, also, do say too, I expect it is a rarely encountered situation that someone here wants to publicize a proposal on meta so it might easily not have much by way of precedent. And I'd like to know if there is anyone else here, or some forum here where I can ask.
Also, once my ban expires, will I be free to post here about the proposal? Is that true? Also would me posting a link to the proposal after my ban expires cause any problems for User:Darkfrog24 if they are still banned or blocked at that point, and would it help if they remove all their mentions of the banned topic at that stage? Thanks for your help! Robert Walker (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You can post about this in November after your ban expires. I don't wish to continue here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

University of Oslo edit warring[edit]

Hi Ed,

I see that you've tried to address the warring on the University of Oslo article. Thanks for that. Thanks also for the semi-protection. Though I do have concerns that the non-responsive newbie will not care any more about your warnings than he did mine. It's not that he disagreed on the article's talk page, it's that he refused to even respond on or even acknowledge the talk page. Also, isn't it customary when issuing warnings to both sides, to revert the article to the version that existed before the warring? Otherwise, you unfairly advantage one side over the other. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

At first sight it is your edit which looks promotional. "The university is widely recognized as one of Northern Europe's most prestigious universities." It sounds like this might have come directly from an advertisement. You may be able to reach agreement with the other party if you can find some way to reword your sentence so it is clearly linked to a reliable source. Though you used the talk page, you didn't clearly explain the reasoning for your sentence. You merely asserted that the university appeared high in certain rankings. It is better if you can source the exact sentence you use, otherwise it could be WP:Synthesis. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Well that's where I have to correct you, Ed. That sentence is not mine. It originally came from here. I interpreted it as a relatively harmless copyedit which was based upon the high rankings for the university, which were also already sourced in the article by other editors. So when I read comments like this in the edit log, I reasonably assumed it was just POV pushing and I reverted it. Now you've left it up (or more accurately, you've removed it) - which is exactly what that editor wanted. This is, by the way, the same ST newbie editor, who, as I said, has steadfastly refused to use the talk page at all. So how does telling me to use the talk page help? That's why I said I'm not sure this is the right lesson we want to be teaching our newbies. That they can edit war, use IP socks, refuse to participate in discussion at talk, and still get what they want anyway - even after an admin reviews their behavior? Hope you see my point. X4n6 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This isn't up to admins to decide. It needs plain old editor consensus. See WP:Dispute resolution for steps you can follow. You hurt your own position in the dispute by making four reverts in 24 hours, so both you and the other party could have been blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Now Ed, you made a false claim. You accused me of writing text I didn't write. I've since learned that this kerfluffle goes back even further than I realized. But if you can't apologize, can't you even acknowledge you were wrong? If not, don't double-down with the finger pointing and now accuse me of hurting my position by reverting. I was dealing with an unresponsive pov pusher who wouldn't engage on the talk page, despite being asked twice. We can always improve. But at least I can acknowledge when I'm wrong. X4n6 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

EW closing[edit]

Re[20]. I don’t really see what I could have done different in that situation (other than simply accepted that sourced content I like to keep, was removed without consensus). Can you clarify what you believe I did wrong? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There's enough people on the talk page that a consensus should be achievable about the timeline. The vote so far appears to be running against you. You are in an awkward position if you keep restoring material that the others are opposed to. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Ed, I will remove the timeline myself, if the RfC is closed that way. It's not about that. It's about removing sourced content without consensus, and at the time I reported the user the RfC wasn't even started. I haven't reverted after the RfC was started, so why did you warn me? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks like you reverted to expand the template three times beginning at 22:24 on 25 July. At that moment the RfC was already in progress. I hope you are not planning to continue that. 'Removing sourced content without consensus' is not a phrasing that is found in the edit warring policy. You are not immune to 3RR enforcement simply by making your content be sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes I did. After I filled the report, User:Timothyjosephwood readded the timeline and started an RfC. User:Mathsci then found another way to "hide" the content. I did not like that, so I reverted to the state the timline had prior to the bold edit. Later Timothyjosephwood reverted me. I have not reverted after that, since that revert probably means they have consensus for the colapsed state. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
And, I know I am not "immune to 3RR enforcement". What I don’t like is to be formally warned when I have done what I could do to follow our policies.Erlbaeko (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, since I was pinged here, I agree with the warning, and a block without further notice if war-like behavior continues. As pointed out in the thread, WP:CON is not an exemption to 3RR. TimothyJosephWood 17:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I know WP:CON is not an exemption to 3RR and I am not planning to break the bright line known as the three-revert rule. I don't need a formal warning to tell me that. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What I do need is an admin to tell the user that removes sourced content without consensus, to stop. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Duplication of content in two articles[edit]

Hi EdJohnston, I'd like to point out that WP has two articles where there should be only one. You moved the page "Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83)" to "Spain in the American Revolutionary War" on 2 December 2015, and AvicBot moved it to "Spain and the American Revolutionary War" on 21 July 2016, but I've just discovered that the former article still exists under the old name, and that an IP editor copied the content from the new location and moved it to the old version, so that we had the same article under two names. I've reverted their edits to get that page you moved back to the state the the bot left it in.

I've spent a good bit of time today editing the changes made to "Spain and the American Revolutionary War" by the IP who appears to use different IP addresses in Brazil, and whose edits mostly actually improved the article. I don't know why this person thought it was appropriate to copy the content into the old location, and I'm not sure what should be done to rectify this confusing (at least to me) situation. Carlstak (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83) since it is unclear how to get in touch with the IP-hopper who is trying to recreate the article in place of the redirect. Why not leave a note on Talk:Spain and the American Revolutionary War and try to explain the situation there. If the IP objects to the current article title and prefers the old one, they should open a WP:Requested move. Possibly they are unaware of our process for moving articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I will leave a note on the talk page for this editor, who obviously has a more than casual acquaintance with editing on WP, but seems unsophisticated about certain aspects of formatting. Carlstak (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Given I have never repeated the behaviour that lead to the arbcom case, that everyone involved agreed that my behaviour was uncharacteristic, it was acknowledged that I was going through a period of personal stress with two elderly parents who were very ill and I was having a mini-meltdown with PTSD. Can I ask why it seems you find every opportunity to bring it up a stale and long expired issue again? Do I have to wear the mark of Cain forever and no matter how hard I try to edit in line with policy will never be allowed to forget it? WCMemail 21:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

How should we fit together your three reverts at Gibraltar on July 25 with your above remarks about a 'stale and long expired issue'? And if you are really trying to edit in line with policy, why not open an RfC on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
May I suggest you look at History of Gibraltar you'll find I did start an RFC on a previous issue with this editor; which remains unresolved and currently they've successfully forced their changes into the article. So we now have Spanish Jews happily converting to Roman Catholicism and not facing oppression by the inquisition, fewer muslims expelled from Spain (but they weren't really expelled anyway) and the Jews were no longer evicted from Gibraltar; on a formerly GA class article. Now Llanito isn't a language unique to Gibraltar, its really just Andalusian Spanish. Really would appreciate some indication of how you are supposed to deal with an editor who until he had the scrutiny of a 3RR report resolutely refused to discuss any matter, calling anyone who questioned him ignorant and asserting you could only know the truth if you spoke Spanish.
Since you asked about why I reverted 3 times. My first edit of 25 July was about removing nationalist vandalism that claimed the conversos were muslim (they were of Jewish origin) and changed the capital to London (fairly typical Spanish nationalism). The editor I reported reverted this back into the article 3 times in spite of my edit summary indicating I was removing vandalism, the 3rd occasion after I explicitly warned them they were restoring vandalism. Do we need an RfC to remove vandalism? WCMemail 07:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Nice attack[edit]

You recently issued warnings to two editors involved in warring on this page. You may want to pop in and give her a look see. It's not a full-on war, like it was prior to the AN3 report, and I'm not sure that a new one is necessary. Unfortunately, I've already issued multiple warnings to both users on multiple grounds (NPA, 3RR COPYVIO, improper templating, name it...), and I don't think a warning from my lips is going to mean anything. Just a heads-up that there's still some battleground behavior going on. TimothyJosephWood 21:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see any reason for action at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Gibraltar[edit]

EdJohnston I have been trying to engage productively on the article to no avail. Have started an RFC but I am not sure if reasonable discussion or editing is actually possible. I have done as much as possible, but the article and now all related articles are, in my opinion, effectively owned by one highly aggressive editor. Any thoughts appreciated.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Creating the RfC at Talk:Gibraltar was a good idea. It might be improved if you would propose actual wording for your two options, so people can vote about which text should be added to the article. An RfC should pose a clear question and not just ask for comments generally. The fact that the title of the RfC is so long suggests it is not quite clear what it is asking. Both sides seem to be treating the language question as a proxy for some kind of nationality question. Dragging in nationality could be unwise, since data may be hard to get. There is probably something very exact that can be said about the language that won't create any difficulties. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Well this is not the case on my side. I am indeed interested in Spanish language and 15th to 18th century Spanish (and Jewish) history but as I have explained to the editor in question I am very much pro-UK in terms of this particular territorial dispute. This is simply an awful mistake on this article. I have been to Gibraltar numerous times and have known quite a few Gibraltarians and, despite their aversion for the Spanish government, they would all find the idea that they speak a separate language laughable. I will try to edit the RfC as per your suggestion.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok I fixed the RFC EdJohnston. Hope this makes it easier to comment. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Complaint about Alhaqiha[edit]

Part 1[edit]

This user destroys this site
Just check his contributions
He remove any information related to berbers and puts in place arabs
If you create some contributions that he don't like he will immediately revert it, claiming that you are sock-puppet of "someone"
Just check this template he put in it every tribe in morocco using this poor source
Make this site such as the Arabic version
Check this and this ans this unsourced page and this using bad sources and this vandalism and this using bad sources and this unreliable source and this vandalism and this vandalism and this vandalism ans this just because he don't want anything about berbers and adding this template in every user or ip talk page which he don't like this and this and this and 10 others ip talk pages !!! and claiming that it's a Persistent vandalism by sock-puppet "x" in this page without giving any sources about this scientists and using an infected source in this and claiming that all moroccan couisine is from arabia and this vandalism and this vandalism and this adding what he want and removing ancient contribution and claiming that i'ts a vandalism just check this source Folklore Society volume 16 you will not find his claiming because he think that this is an old source and no one have this book and if you search jbala in the book you will find that jbala are berbers!! and removing 4 sources in this and some old vandalism and this and claiming tha it's Vandalims Vandalism Some Iranian messing up things with nonsense information. and racism in this and in this page he removed the berber language and he vandalized some artcles with his suckpuppet like thisand this and this and this etc
So please do something if you cant
My greetings 105.156.224.28 (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You are taking this play way to far user:JovanAndreano. With over 50 different accounts you keep vandalising pages on a daily basis, and now you blame me for it. Let's take a look at all the pages in which you removed arabs, categories with arabs in it, or vandalised sourced information.

1
2
3
4
5
6Why did you remove this scholars?
6
7
8Why did you replace sources to prove your own story?
9 Why did you remove this, you dont like it?
10Why you removed this?
11Why did you remove this alinea?
12 You dont want it to be large?
13 Why did you remove this category?
14 Why did you remove it being arab?
15 You claimed the name originates in Berber language, without source!
16 Why did you remove arab?
17Why did you remove this source, it is not dead, it just mentions arabs!
17Why did you remove this? You dont like arabs being from the Maghreb?
18Why did you remove this category?
19 Why did you remove arab related info?
20 Why did you remove arabs in North Africa category?

These are JUST 20 pages I have shown from 4 different accounts of yours. These are the accounts which are your sock-puppets and there are more out there which need to be checked aswell, link and link.

And why do you call people terrorist on wikipedia, you are starting to behave like a total lunatic, and you call me a racist?source.source. And you want to claim I made a racist comment about the persian (which is totally not), take a look at your own comments source. And why do you remove important comments from the Arbitruary commitee?link Im not the only user who has found your editing disturbing, user:Hebel, user:Sro23, user:Nableezy, and user:Ponyo have their hands full with you IP hopping sock-puppet. On this account of yours I found the reason of your IP hopping, You are using a proxy server from Maroc Telecom aren't you, link. So you are starting to feel really comfortable now that you have user:KansasBear trying to defend you, but your edits and your Ip hopping behavior reeks of the vandalism, nationalism and hate you try to spread. Stop going around on peoples talkpages trying to get them on your side, . And I will keep saying that you are the sock-puppet of JovanAndreano on the edit summaries so people will actually understand what is going on. Im pretty sure you have left many editors in confussion with your edits. And the whole story you put up to claim im vandalising is just lame! I use sources and explain why I make certain edits. Not everything on wikipedia is about berbers. You want to change everything into berber, and remove all the arab related information. And I only shown 20 editos form 4 of your sock pages, you have over 50 accounts. Alhaqiha (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I have watched edits by 105.156.224.28 with some worry because a lot of them seem to be about randomly de-emphasizing the Arab aspect while highlighting the Berber aspect of any given situation without much of a real explanation. That makes these edits hard to evaluate, but questions can be asked about the motivation of these edits. Why, for instance, remove the mention of the contribution of the Arab League, from a fragment about an energy plant in Ouerzazate for instance. Or why remove an Arab language template while keeping the Berber one? There are some worrisome aspect about this edit behavior, I think. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Alhaqiha and IP105's edits are more than worrisome (see my concerns in the Alhaqiha section). Both remove what they do not like without checking sources, both label edits as vandalism, while Alhaqiha labels any edits that add "Berber" as sockpuppet of user X. Both need to be banned from these articles(in the IP's case page protection). Neither is here to build an encyclopedia, but to make ethnic POV edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I would argue JovanAndreano is the far worse user. Alhaqiha has a lot of crap to deal with, being falsely accused of vandalism for example. I know what it's like to have all your recent edits mass reverted indiscriminately, it's not fun. This is happening to Alhaqiha by JovanAdreano on a daily basis. Alhaqiha does not sock and has kept to their promise of not editing while logged out anymore, but JovanAdreano constantly socks and IP hops to evade their block. Technically Alhaqiha has the right to undo JovanAdreano's IPsock edits because they are made by a blocked user in violation of a block, not to mention a lot of the edits from JovanAdreano are plain disruptive I think we can all agree (example). Sro23 (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with Kansas Bear. Both of these editors appear to have an agenda and to be pushing their own POV. Carlstak (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you claiming this based on the edits of the page chiadma Carlstak? I have left you a message on the talkpage link, none of his sources state the origin he wants them to be, they only state the opposite. Alhaqiha (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Au contraire, Alhaqiha, the first given source Villes et Tribus du Maroc; Documents et Renseignements Volume 11, says: "Les Chtouka et les Chiadma, Berbères arabisés, ont perdu l'usage de la langue tamazight et parlent l'arabe. Quelques mots berbères ont été conservés;" Translation: "The Chtouka and Chiadma, Arabized Berbers, have lost the use of the Tamazight language and speak Arabic. Some Berber words have been preserved;"
The second given source Le Maroc, says: "Dans l'arrière-pays de Mogador, les Chiadma parlent arabe : ils sont pourtant les frères des Haha berbérophones, qui habitent près d'eux sur le premier gradin du Haut Atlas." Translation: "In the hinterland of Mogador, the Chiadma speak Arabic yet they are the brothers of the Berber-speaking Haha, who live near them on the foothills of the High Atlas".
And the third given source, Anthropologie et groupes sanguins des populations du Maroc, says: "Nous présentons ici le graphique comparatif de la taille des trois tribus : Chaouïa, Doukkala et Chiadma." Translation: "We present here the comparative graph of the size of three tribes: Chaouia, Doukkala and Chiadma." These are treated as Berber tribes.
Some sources do treat the Chiadma as having a mixed Arab and Berber composition. One source I've consulted, Le peuple marocain: l'e bloc berbère says: "On trouve, aux environs de Mogador, l'importante tribu des Chiadma, qui sont complètement arabisés et mélangés d'éléments étrangers et maraboutiques ; pourtant, ils se distinguent "encore par leurs qualities de guerriers". Translation: "We find, in the environs of Mogador, an important tribe, the Chiadma, which are completely Arabized and of mixed foreign and marabout elements; they are still distinguished "by the qualities of their warriors." Carlstak (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:Kansas Bear, User:Hebel, User:Sro23, User:Alhaqiha and User:Carlstak. Since I don't understand this, I'm unlikely to take admin action any time soon. If you want me to do something specific, please give an article name, a list of diffs, and say what policy you think has been violated. I can see there is a sock case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JovanAndreano/Archive. The person JovanAndreano (talk · contribs) was interested in Berbers and was running some socks. Do you think some of the IPs mentioned above are him? If we can find IPs and accounts who we are sure are JovanAndreano we can block them and revert their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The 105.* IP commenting at the top of Part 1 (above) is presumably JovanAndreano. What I am learning is that he wants proper recognition of Berbers, while User:Alhaqiha is busy removing what he considers to be unsubstantiated credit to Berbers from historical articles. To limit the activities of User:JovanAndreano (who is indef blocked) I've semiprotected some articles: Chiad, Jews in Morocco, List of Arab scientists and scholars. Let me know of other articles that may also need protection. I asked Alhaqiha if he wants to reply here to the comments of User:Kansas Bear (see his statement below). EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]

Alhaqiha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • "Since I don't understand this, I'm unlikely to take admin action any time soon."

Then explain to me what action should be taken against an editor that is misrepresenting sources(evidence presented by myself and Carlstak), removing sources stating, "Source doesn't state anything about berbers"(which was a lie), logging out to edit war(IP82.171.219.101, per my comment of 16 July), removing referenced information under false edit summary("Duplicate text information, Inofrmation is already mentioned troughout the page",[21]), removes referenced information and when confronted simply removes the other editor's comment from his talk page([22]). Alhaqiha is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to remove Berber whenever he feels like it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Here, Alhaqiha removes " is an Arabic-speaking tribe of Berber descent ", replacing it with, "is an Arabian tribe of the larger Maqil tribe". No sources, no explanation, nothing. Looks like POV editing to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

To give a perfect example of Alhaqiha's disruptive editing; on the Baghrir article Alhaqiha told me to "take a look at the talk page" and when I responded on the Baghrir talk page, Alhaqiha deleted my comment! Another example how this editor will remove what he does not like, whether it be the comments of other editors or simply information concerning Berbers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
This is not an easy situation to evaluate. I understand however EdJohnston's caution. Also because I haven't encountered Alhaqiha, which makes it hard for me to evaluate his edits at this point. But I also understand how the situation that Kansas Bear describes can be a problem that damages articles on Wikipedia. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to delve too far into this matter, but I will say that based on my own minimal encounters with Alhaqiha's edits, I would not assume that all his edits are necessarily POV-pushing. For example, when I saw this edit he made at Taifa of Zaragoza, I assumed that it was a vandalization by a POV warrior, but when I checked his sources, I found, to my surprise, that he was correct: the Andalusi families who seized control of the Taifa of Zaragoza in the early 11th century were indeed Arabs.
However, I certainly agree that an energetic POV warrior can wreak havoc on Wikipedia, and given his blatantly false assertions here vis-à-vis edits made to the Chiadma page, I will continue to regard Alhaqiha's editing on WP with suspicion. Carlstak (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


@Carslstak: Well I think there is a misunderstanding when it comes to the use sources. This is what I found at the 4 sources that he inserted.

1.Le Maroc dans la tourmente: 1902-1903 Page 52:

“Les Djebal Hadid appartient a la tribu des chiadma, qui sont des berberes arabises”. 

Translation: “The Djebel Hadid belongs to the tribe of Chiadma, which are Arabized Berbers.” So that means that the Djebel Hadid are part of the Chiadma tribe, because the chiadma exist of many fractions, it doesn’t mean that the chiadma as a whole is arabised. That is what it says on page 52.

2.Le Maroc (in French). p. 81.

“l'arierre du Mogador, les chiadma parlent arabe. Il sont pourtant les freres du Haha berberophones, qui habitent pres deux sur le premier gradin du haut atlas. Aux chiadma succedent, vers le nord, le abda du safi sont Arabes Maqil, transformes, par le virtu des tirs, en excellents agricultures.”

Translation: `the arierre of Mogador, the Chiadma speak Arabic. They are however the brothers of the Berber Haha, who live near two on the first bench of the High Atlas. Chiadma to follow one another, to the north, the Abda of Safi are Maqil Arabs, transformed by the virtu of shots, excellent in agriculture.

So it only states that they speak arabic, it doesn´t say they are actually arabised. And the Abda tribe in the North are originally of the arab Maqil tribe, which chiadma belongs to aswell.

3.  Villes et Tribus du Maroc; Documents et Renseignements . p. 172.

 "Les Chtouka et les Chiadma, Berbères arabisés, ont perdu l'usage de la langue tamazight et parlent l'arabe. Quelques mots berbères ont été conservés;"

Translation "The Chtouka and Chiadma, Arabized Berbers, have lost the use of the Tamazight language and speak Arabic. Some Berber words have been preserved;"

This part is very confusing, because he also writes these parts in his book aswell.

`Il resulte du ce passage que Leon African considere les chiadma comme des Arabes Hilaliens.` page 187

Translation: "It follows from this passage that the Leon African Chiadma regarded them as Arab Hilaliens."

De ce passage on pourrait induire que les chiadma sont probablement un branche qui a subsiste du Kelabia. Il est assez vraisemblable du imaginer que quelques groupes de ces turbelent Arabes Hilaliens campes en pays haha. Page 188

Translation: From this passage we could induce the Chiadma are probably a branch that remains of Kelabia. It is quite likely that some groups of these turbelent Hilali Arabs encamped in the country of haha. It talks about the Hilali tribes camping there. Chiadma is of Maqil origin, and the Maqil is originally a fraction of the Hilali tribes. It also only talks about encamping in the land of HaHa, where were the chiadma tribes at those times, because today they both live in Essaouira.

4. Anthropologie et groupes sanguins des populations du Maroc

"Nous présentons ici le graphique comparatif de la taille des trois tribus : Chaouïa, Doukkala et Chiadma."

Translation: "We present here the comparative graph of the size of three tribes: Chaouia, Doukkala and Chiadma."

So that means that the size of the three tribes are comparable. You said after this "These are treated as Berber tribes". I didnt find that anywhere in the text, it only states that those three tribes are comparable in size, because they are all three small tribes which is stated in this other book, link. "Les notables du chtouka et chiadma, deux tribes miniscule". Translation: The chtouka and chiadma, two miniscule tribes.

And why are the sources I inserted about the origin not taken in consideration. And I found other sources aswell.

Africana Bulletin, Volumes 10-13. page 43. link

Essaouira: la ville de mon père. Pagina 136.link Le cote du Nord, les chiadmas du origine arabe, impregnes du berberes. Translation: The coast of the North, Chiadmas of Arab origin, with Berbers impregnated.

De l'extrême occident : tapis et textiles du Maroc.link Les ouled bousbaa, les chiadma, les rehamna, les ahmar. Bien qu´il y ait eu des marriages entre les groupes arabes et berberes, leur histoire et leur langue revelant la predominance du l´heritage arabe.

Translation: The ouled Bousbaa the Chiadma, Rehamna them, Ahmar. Although there have been marriages between Arab and Berber groups, their history and their language revealing the predominance of the Arab heritage.

Maghreb & [i.e. et] Sahara: études géographiques offertes à Jean Despois. Page 256.link

Ou des groupes arabo-berbers come les doukkala, Abda, chiadma, ahmar et sraghna. Il faut noter que l´introduction du les arabes en ces regions est relativement recent.

Translation:Or Arab-Berber groups such as doukkala, Abda, Chiadma, Ahmar and sraghna. Note that the introduction of the Arabs in these regions is relatively recent.

Alhaqiha (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: It is unbelievable how a discussion with you is never finished. On all those talkpages you need to get explanations a hundred times. Many of the things you repeated I already have explained! This looks more like a personal vendetta, because I made the comment about the persian that probably set you of to wanting me to get blocked right?

linkWell that person made 42 disruptive edits on the same page.

The sources I removed on the Taifa’s didn’t mention anything about their origin when I looked at the pages it took me. I couldnt see all the pages, because it only showed a few pages. When you sended me the pages I saw what you meant, and indeed mentioned it. I already admitted that it was my fault! What do you want, you want me to forever leave this planet now? You made mistakes aswell, like when you removed my edits while I used sourceslink, and when someone said the same thing about my edit on the talkpagelink, you moved the information back.

And the Ip logging out, I already explained that to you. So take a look at the first comment of yours and read clearly. And that already stopped on 10 juli 3 weeks ago after I found out that the user account and IP adress are not automatically linked to each other!(See first comment). And what do you think if I have a maniac which reverts my contributions everyday. Even if I did it on purpose, in my situation it would not be a strange thing to use a ip adress, so that people just like you cant blame me for edit warring.

The reason why I removed your comment is also explained in your first comment. You find it very hard to have normal discussions with editors. You are very degrading, dominant, and you attack editors, and want the discussion to go on forever. Why did you comment that I had to learn how to sign my comments?!! You think that makes me comfortable? This way of talking to people is obviously rude, I dont need those type of reactions on the talkpages. So I removed that for a very good reason!link

And the pages chiadma already had Arab tribe in it since 19 august 2015.link and link

But than Omar-toons which is blocked link removed this without explanation. link. So I put it back.

So are we done yet? Is there something else you want me to explain, because luckily I have all the time of the world. Alhaqiha (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  • "The reason why I removed your comment is also explained in your first comment. You find it very hard to have normal discussions with editors. You are very degrading, dominant, and you attack editors, and want the discussion to go on forever."
No, I expect a discussion, not someone that removes other editors talk page comments without explanation[23], which makes it appear you don't like what they said. You seem to be here to right great wrongs. Also, you should refrain from personal attacks.
  • "The reason why I removed your comment is also explained in your first comment."
No, you gave an excuse of " It is a talk page not a lash out on someone page, so I removed his comment so someone else could react in a normal manner.", which is not an explanation at all.[24] I asked for you to learn to sign your comments, which in no way is "lashing out" at anyone, and mentioned the IP that was removing Berber from articles. The rest of the post clearly dealt with the unreliability of the sources. As usual, misrepresenting what was posted to give the impression you're being victimized.
  • "On the Baghrir talk page, when Kansas Bear reverted my edits without explanation, he told me I should take "my concerns to the talk page"."
At NO time on the Baghrir article did I revert you. I reverted an IP,[25][26] which was edit warring. Are you taking claim of the IP's edits?[27]
  • " I made the comment about the persian that probably set you of to wanting me to get blocked right?"
LMAO, nice racial comment there. Thank you for show us just exactly what kind of editor you really are. :)
Judging from the most recent illustration of Alhaqiha's combative nature(ie.personal attacks, attributing a particular ethnicity to another editor), I believe a ban from all articles concerning Berbers & Al-Andalus would be appropriate. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Urgent request[edit]

If you happen to be around, could potentially help address a mess at Republic of China general election, 2016 by move-protecting it, and by explaining to the relevant editor that when one wants to make a bold move and is reverted, one doesn't make a crazy mess, but instead discusses it on the talk page? I made a request at RPP, but no one is answering. RGloucester 18:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The person that wants to change the stable title is the one who should makes the requested move. The stable title was Taiwanese until RGloucester moved it in May and deliberately make a meaningless edit on the other title and prevent others to revert. WP:NC-GAL says to use the format "Demonym type election/referendum, date". The common Demonym of ROC is Taiwanese.--Coco977 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
How many times do I have to refute your nonsense, and on how many pages? What is so hard to understand about WP:BRD? And now, you're following me around after making a mess across tens of pages for no reason other than that you cannot understand the principle of discussion? Stop it! Open a damn requested move if you really have a constructive goal. Otherwise, you're clearly WP:NOTHERE and need to STOP. RGloucester 18:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The article was created in June 2014 under Republic of China general election, 2016 and stayed that way until move warring late last year and this year. Please open a WP:RM. --NeilN talk to me 18:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)