Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

About ANI topic bans generally

Robertinventor's topic ban was enacted at ANI, logged at WP:EDR, and is still in effect for six months. It doesn't need more discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi there, you closed a recent topic ban debate against me at ANI. I'm not appealing the decision which I assume was done correctly under current ANI rules. Indeed in some ways it is as relief to be banned, I feel I've done everything I could to try to improve the article, with no success, and reached a point where I just have to stop and forget it, which is a relief after struggling to try to get it fixed (in my view of course).

But I want to suggest a change for future ANI topic bans to deal with the overall problem of wikibullying and a tendency for editors to take other editors summarily to ANI without looking for other ways to resolve the problem.

To refresh your memory, in my case I was taken to ANI for issues with my talk page activity only. The original complaints were that I wrote talk page posts that were too long and that I made too many edits of my posts. These were mainly minor edits that I forgot to mark as minor - and editing my posts after they had been replied to, and these edits were due to attempts to make them shorter. No attempt was made to raise these issues with me before the ANI - nobody even mentioned the issue of too many edits or editing a post that had been answered to before the ANI started. The only issue mentioned in the talk page discussion was that my posts were too long, which lead to me doing many more minor edits to try to shorten them, with nobody commenting and saying I was making a mistake to try to fix my long posts issues in this way. The minor edits issues were mentioned previously in an inconclusive ANI a year earlier but a year is a long time during which I did almost no wikipedia talk page posts.

Then as the ANI progressed the other editors brought issue after issue to the debate, none of them ever mentioned to me before the ANI started, so that I was given no opportunity to address these issues beforehand, and attempting to answer them during the ANI lead to a more and more complex debate there. Throughout the whole thing I never had any intention of going against wikipedia guidelines, and the editors opposed to me agreed that I was "well meaning".

I have a simple suggestion, that I think would greatly reduce the stress for wikipedians in my situation, reduce opportunities for using ANI bans for wikibullying, and make wikipedia a friendlier place for people in a situation like me. There are two parts to it.

1. to require editors to first notify someone they want to take to ANI of what the issues are with their behaviour and of their intention to take them to ANI, say, a week before. Give them a week to modify their behaviour, and if there is no change they can then take them to ANI.

2. During the ANI, then only the original issues can be discussed. If editors have new issues, then they need to be raised in a separate ANI with notification beforehand.

(With the exception of course of obvious cases such as vandalism)

I think this would lead to a much more friendly atmosphere, greatly reduce wikibullying, and make it much clearer to relatively inexperienced editors what is going on. And make it very difficult for ANI to be used by editors as delaying tactics or to block other editors whose views they don't want to hear. It would also probably help with long complex debates there, make them much more focused. Mine went on for several weeks and I think probably took up more editor time overall than the original talk page discussion it was discussing. Though it couldn't be an enforced rule, you could also have a guideline that if you intend to take someone to ANI over their behaviour, that it's good to try to help them to solve the issues such as excessively long posts or too many minor edits, to try to help them to find a solution.

I have made this suggestion on the meta wiki. Since I'm not mentioning the topic at all, nor the particular ANI discussion nor asking for it to be reverted I think that hopefully this is not violating the topic ban. But I find wikipedia rules and customs very very strange at times. If I have violated the ban in some way in this post, just let me know and I'll revert it. I think it must be okay to post my suggestion to the meta wiki as that's a project particularly about topic banning and wiki bullying. My suggestion there is here: Grants:IdeaLab/Encourage editors to talk to other editors before banning them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs)

@Robert Walker: You were cautioned about FORUM-y posts "a week before" the ANI on you was filed. You did not modify your behavior then. Even after the ANI was filed, you did not "modify your behavior" as you imply through bolded proposal #1 above. This is therefore not a case of wiki-bullying. Your massive walls of post was a problem, so was your 500+ edits on that talk page in matter of days, and then your changing of your posts after someone had already replied, and the unfair characterization and repeated misrepresentation of @Joshua Jonathan, you repeatedly ignoring the scholarly WP:RS, your pushing your favored websites instead of mainstream scholarship, and so on. The wikipedia rules and admins ought to be fair to all editors, not just you. We should not exhaust, bully and destroy the productive contributors such as @Joshua Jonathan, in order to make disruptive editors, or well intentioned but inadvertently disruptive editors, feel better. We must slowly and steadily improve the quality of wikipedia articles, by ensuring a productive collaborative environment that serves that project, not layers of endless bureaucracy that exhausts everyone. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I have been warned on my talk page by @Ca2james: that the topic ban means that I am must not mention the talk page discussion or try to set the record straight about anything that happened during it, or I am likely to be taken back to ANI [1]. Indeed that edit, which he refers to, which I reverted right away as soon as he warned me, just talking on someone else's talk page and not mentioning the subject of the topic ban, which I immediately reverted when told I shouldn't do it, resulted in the ban being increased from six months to one year by @Coffee:. See [2] (for some reason he removed that comment from my talk page immediately, but the ban remains at the increased time period of one year).
So I won't respond to anything specific. This was not an attempt to go back and rehash old things. It's a suggestion which I think might help future editors in a similar situation to me. It is meant as a positive suggestion which I think would make ANI much easier for everyone concerned and also help with those long hard to follow discussions you get there so often in my experience. It is just a suggestion which I thought some admins might find interesting. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh and if I have done something wrong saying this, please everyone forgive me as I don't understand wikipedia well at all, especially disciplinary matters here. It continually surprises me, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if saying as much as I've said here would mean I'd be taken back to ANI. I'm fine with removing this discussion if I did something wrong here. I can see this might mean the topic ban is increased again! I am not trying to evade it in any way at all, I'm making a suggestion to try to help future editors other than myself. Robert Walker (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Glad to hear the ban was not increased to one year, thanks! Hope you understand that being topic banned doesn't change any of my views, which I expressed pretty strongly in the ANI itself, it just silences me here. I understand (if I got this right) that I can't discuss the ban or appeal the decision.
This is not about that. I just wanted to mention a suggestion I made in the meta wiki that I think would make it almost impossible to use ANI for wiki bullying (whether that happened in my own case or not). It would lead to a friendlier situation in the future where editors whose only wish is to improve wikipedia and follow the guidelines, like me, can participate in wikipedia without causing problems and without the need for other editors to take them to ANI so much, with much less stress all round. And I posted because I wondered if you have any thoughts on the suggestion or know of anywhere else on wikipedia I can post it without risking being topic banned again for making the suggestion.
Let me reassure you again. This is not an attempt to re-open the ANI discussion. The suggestion is here if you are interested: [3]. If not interested just ignore. Thanks Robert Walker (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, the ban was justified. The best long term solution is not for you to succeed in your reform of ANI, but to modify your own behavior on talk pages. That is something over which you have direct control, and in my opinion it would be a better use of your time. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the post to my talk page, so I now understand I can talk to you about the ban process. So - not sure if it is worth trying to appeal, but you might be interested in my side of the case? I did modify my talk page behaviour.
1. Before the ANI discussion started other editors in the discussion said my posts were too long on the talk page. I put a lot of work into shortening them, also telling the other editors that that's what I was doing. That is why there were so many edits in the edit history of the page - if you look at them, most of them are to do with rewriting and often shortening existing posts. Nobody told me this way of dealing with the issue was wrong before the ANI. And they didn't say that they thought the long posts were a banning offence before the ANI, and no mention that they planned to take me to ANI about them.
2. I learnt about the issue of too many edits for the first time in the ANI statement itself. I immediately greatly reduced the number of edits of my posts and marked all the minor edits as minor edits, which should be easy to check from my edit history.
3. One of the commentators in the discussion then said that I had an issue of putting too many blank lines in my posts and showed me how to rewrite one of my posts with the same number of words but fewer blank lines - after they posted that, I rewrote the post in the way suggested and since then I use much fewer blank lines. Using blank lines is a habit developed in other contexts like facebook and quora where the physical length of a post on the page doesn't matter as you only see a short snippet at the top.
4. later on as the ANI discussion continued, I was told not to edit posts after they were replied to unless I marked the changes with cross out etc. I immediately followed that advice too.
It's true that I was alerted to those issues of too many minor edits, not marking edits as minor, and editing posts after they are replied to in a previous ANI over a year ago. But a year is a long time when you are not a regular poster to wikipedia. I am a prolific writer off wiki - I write hundreds of thousands of words a year in places where those guidelines are not needed (including kindle books and booklets, blog posts, facebook and quora posts). Wikipedia is the only place where writing too much is an issue for me. When reminded of those issues here I immediately stopped doing them, as should be easy to check. And note that I was logged out of wikipedia for more than a week of the ANI and they continued the discussion and didn't seem to notice I was no longer posting at all to the talk page.
As for the content based discussion in the ANI, I don't think ANI is the proper place to try to resolve those issues and don't think I should be banned for having views different from the other editors. In my view, as a Buddhist, the article totally misrepresents what traditional Buddhist in the sutra traditions would consider to be the central teaching of Buddhism which is why it is a big deal for me. It's my view that books in English by Buddhist scholars in the sutra traditions themselves are surely the best sources for understanding what the core teachings of modern Buddhism are. The opposing editors think that rather obscure very technical papers by Western scholars (which are also hard to understand) should be used instead. If you accept that this is not what ANI should try to resolve, then most of the ANI discussion was irrelevant as that's what they were trying to persuade me to accept.
They don't even accurately represent the sources they do use. E.g. I was astonished that in a discussion with me on the talk page they attribute to Gombrich the idea that the four noble truths are a later development - when he is one of the top champions in Western academia of the authenticity of the sutras attributing them to the Buddha - I can't imagine how they can read Gombrich's writings and conclude that it supports what they say. So, in my view the current editors just aren't very good, don't understand even the material they use very well, have strange ideas about what count as valid sources, and the previous editors of the article were much better. They have some good ideas but if they listened more to other editors rather than just revert their edits the articles would be far better.
So that's the background and I am sure myself, if I can speak freely just here (won't say it anywhere else on wiki), that their only reason for taking me to ANI was to silence me. That's especially clear from the timing, right in the middle of an attempt at a very focused RfC trying to focus right down to a single word, a relatively minor point which I was hoping to settle quickly. Immediately after one strong oppose to the current usage in the article in the RfC the main editor of the article took me to ANI. The timing can't be accidental. I was hoping that this RfC could be a starting point for dealing with the many issues in the article slowly, one very small point at a time. This is now obviously impossible. Let me put it this way - if I were writing long posts in praise of their edits, with lots of minor edits and rewrites of my posts, I don't think it would bother them at all. And one of the other editors also writes very long talk page posts himself. That's how I see it, and what I say to anyone who asks me about it off wiki, where I can speak freely. Robert Walker (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like you are trying to continue the dispute on the article from which you are banned: "their only reason for taking me to ANI was to silence me". My talk page isn't a free speech zone for you. To avoid a block, I recommend you stop this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I didn't understand, I thought I'd be able to speak freely to you, it was not an attempt to dispute with the other editors. I now understand that this is not a free speech zone for me, and will not speak freely here any more. Should I delete that comment? Robert Walker (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Can I just check my understanding here. From what you just said I understand that:
1. in the topic ban statement, when it says "all talk pages" that includes discussion with the closing editor on their personal talk page.
2. When you have been topic banned, it is also not permitted to criticize the editors that took the action against you in discussion with the closing editor.
Also, I wonder, can I have permission to link to this discussion from the meta wiki - not as a way to try to evade the ban of course. It is just to illustrate the point. I say there that I think editors who have just been banned need a free speech area somewhere in wikipedia if just a single conversation somewhere. Can I link to this discussion as a clear example to show that they don't have such an area currently. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

We kept you busy last night with all that Yard work on AN3... thirsty business Muffled Pocketed 10:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Santa Teresa High School

Please advise on how to handle recent edits to Santa Teresa High School. Users under multiple names (2001:558:6022:3b:4579:e915:dde9:57e5 (talk · contribs) and 128.249.96.13 (talk · contribs)) have added and/or reverted to the same information multiple times with myself and Amccann421 (talk · contribs) attempting to remove this content. Both accounts have been given warnings, one account with multiple warnings. I've never butted up against WP:3RR and would be curious as to how to best handle the situation. Thanks! GauchoDude (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@GauchoDude: 2001:558:6022:3b:4579:e915:dde9:57e5 (talk · contribs) has only made one improper edit – nothing needs to be done unless more disruption occurs. I've given 128.249.96.13 (talk · contribs) a final warning. Any more disruption from that IP will result in it being taken to WP:AIV, at which point an administrator will likely apply a short block to the IP range. I have also requested that the article in question receive temporary semi-protection, which, if accepted, will stop all IP vandalism for some time. Amccann421 (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Amccann421: Thank you for this. While I realize that both accounts are different, it struck me as odd that both added the same information within days of each other. I appreciate your help with this! GauchoDude (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Capital punishment issue continues

I'm not sure of the process to follow, but please take a look at the Capital Punishment page again. Urutine32 deleted a large portion; AugustinMa objected to major deletion without consensus on Talk Page and restored; on the Talk page AugustinMa gave lengthy explanation why that material was relevant to article; Urutine32 disagreed and again deleted. I've restored it, because I did not agree with Urutine32's explanation and agreed with AugustinMa. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In the May 24 report at AN3 the dispute was about botched executions. This time, it's about whether to include the Tang dynasty material. You should consider participating on talk at Talk:Capital punishment#Tang Dynasty. If no agreement is reached there, consider an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I waited that the discussion become dormant and that nobody replied to me four days before restoring the deletion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz deleted the deletion less than 10 hours after, without participating in the discussion and with an inacurrate edit summary: I never said that the section discredits China, but Wikipedia. Urutine32 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No result on 3RR reports

Hi,

just wanted to ask this 3RR Report has not been addressed despite being there a number of days. I also noticed the last report against the user, now archived, was also not dealt with, though the editor reverted. I am wondering at the time frame as all other editors have stopped editing the page whereas the reported user has continued to do so. Cheers Faendalimas talk 16:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:WelcometoJurassicPark is now warned per this message on their talk. Their last edit of Saltwater crocodile was three days ago, so a block might not be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your action and also for today's action. With hope maybe this userr can get the point soon. Cheers Faendalimas talk 19:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Imeldific

See my note on his TP here, and my 'Thanks' log- he's completely overdoing it, and, with the best will in the world, I believe deliberately. This is still due, of course, to his attempts to insert his PoV into the Imelda Marcos article; his recent posts seem to threaten something, in a mild way. Anyway, hopefully that warning will work, but if you could look in on the article TP at your leisure. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 16:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I promise not to do it again. Geez. I was just trying to get your attention. You don't reply sometimes. Apologies. Imeldific (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, one of the participants in Talk:Imelda Marcos#Request for comment might try to summarize what the consensus is so far. Imeldific should listen to the feedback. They should back off on the items where it is clear they won't get any support. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: apologies, forgot to say 'thanks!' for your interjection there. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 13:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User:HappyWaldo

You blocked User:HappyWaldo and myself for 24 hours for edit warring. The very edit User:HappyWaldo made after coming back from suspension was to continue edit warring without any discussion whatsoever he is cleary WP:NOTHERE Michael Ronson (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I did respond on the Ned Kelly talk page. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin article

Hello, I noticed that you left a message on my talk page regarding discretionary sanctions. I was wondering if this was a generic message or if there was some editing/reverting done by me that you had some concerns about? Can you please let me know as I do not want to contravene any Wikipedia norms. Can you please also refer to the Mufaddal Saifuddin Talk Page for some discussion on this matter that may have necessitated some of the reverts I have made. Thank you and look forward to your comments. Juzarbhai (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you and User:Muffizainu have been reverting one another at Mufaddal Saifuddin. This risks getting both of you in trouble with the WP:Edit warring policy. It is worth trying some of the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to avoid further reverting. And if any admin becomes convinced that one of you can't edit neutrally about the Dawoodi Bohra, a topic ban is possible. Some of the points you have mentioned on Talk sound important. If you notice that material about Female genital mutilation is being systematically removed from the article contrary to reliable sources, such removals could lead to action by admins if they became generally known. Be aware that User:Summichum has some knowledge of the Dawoodi Bohra topic and his opinions may be worth getting. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, for your suggestion, actually I had already asked User:Summichum for some help to review the article even before I got your message on my talk page, please refer to Summichum's talk page for more details. Juzarbhai (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

An issue

Kansas tear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this user appears to be user:Dengesizz(z). Same exact edit.

Dengesizzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of Dengesizz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 is very quick; he got to both of them first. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
What's the matter, Kansas Bear, aren't you flattered by the mongrelization of your username?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I was quite touched, but was hoping for a little more creativity. What is even more amusing is that particular user thinks I am located in Iran. LOL. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A concern

I noticed the article, Battle of Marj Dabiq, has massive sections plagiarized from The Mameluke; Or, Slave Dynasty of Egypt, 1260–1517, A. D., William Muir, 1896 [4]. I tagged the article and posted my concern on the talk page. User:Ibadibam, removes said tag, stating, "plagiarized source is public domain..". I was unaware that a source in "public domain" is allowed to be plagiarized.

Would you, or anyone else, be able to give some insight into this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the copied content is correctly attributed. But the article would be better quality if it were summarized rather than quoted straight. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That's what I am asking, even if the book is in public domain, that does not mean we can plagiarize it, does it? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
See WP:Plagiarism. With proper attribution, copying of free content is not plagiarism. Our guideline allows verbatim copying but it is not enthusiastic. In the Battle article, see the disclaimer for footnote 1, "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain." EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Human rights in Ukraine

Hi, Thank you for protecting the article Human rights in Ukraine. I've been away a few days and I see there's been an edit war going on about my edit. User Iyna Harpy even went as far as saying that I am a puppet of user Usr lI, or vice versa,[[5]] in clear violation of WP:AGF. Her only argument for deleting the information is "WP:NOTNEWS content", which clearly doesn't apply. She was supported by user My very best wishes who argued that "we need good sourcing here". Apparently, The Times, NY Times, Newsweek and the UN are not good enough sources for him. On the other hand, users Usr lI, Jadeslair and A D Monroe III supported my edit. You even said that "the UN suspending a visit by its torture inspectors is hard to overlook" and indeed it is! Protecting the Ukrainian Government from criticism seems to be Iryna Harpy's only concern. I will therefore restore my edit. If she wants to remove it, let her present valid arguments. I will be very busy in the next few days and I hope you will protect the article again if a new edit war erupts. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Théophile de Viau, you are risking a block yourself by continuing to revert, after the article was already reported at AN3. I urge you to undo your last revert. There is no emergency that keeps you from waiting for the result of a discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
As I told you, I restored my edit pending the end of the discussion, since I think user Iryna Harpy should not have deleted it before discussing on the talk page. Now, Lute 88, an editor who never took part in the discussion, reverted me without any explanation. IMO, he should be blocked. Could you not just prolong the protection? You see, those against the inclusion have no incentive to discuss while the edit is erased. After checking, I noticed that both Iryna Harpy and Lute 88 are native speakers of Ukrainian, which might explain their knee-jerk reactions. I also think that Lute 88 should also receive a warning not to revert. I will not revert any more but I urge you not to let the others revert as they please. Thank you. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy just reverted my edit again, claiming that it is "Undue". I will not do anything since I said so. However, could you please tell Iryna Harpy to undo her revert and stop reverting until the discussion is closed? Thank you. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Now, this is taking a very strange and disturbing turn. It was not enough for Iryna Harpy to accuse me of being a puppet of Usr II, now she has managed to have our two accounts merged. I don't know how she could do that, but I am not taking it lightly. I want to lodge a formal complaint and I hope you will tell me how to proceed. Could you also explain to me how she could do that? Thank you. --Théophile de Viau (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
??? What are you referring to? EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see. I left a question for the person who redirected User:Usr lI's page. He has now undone the redirect, since there is no sock complaint filed. But people will probably wonder if you have any off-wiki connection to them, since both of you look like single-purpose accounts and are very new. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I think these both accounts are socks of this user, the only one who previously created the trouble on the same page about Human rights in Ukraine, however that does requires filing an SPI request, unless someone can block them simply per WP:DUCK. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
My very best wishes, What "trouble" exactly am I creating on the page about Human rights in Ukraine? The only thing I did was to publish an information that has appeared in The Times, NYT, Newsweek and a UN report. Maybe they are also puppets of Usr II? As a matter of fact, I have no particular interest in the situation in Ukraine, I just realized that an information that anyone can find everywhere in the press was not mentioned in Wikipedia and I thought it would be a good idea to fill the gap. Now that I spent a few hours reading the history of the article, as well as yours and Iryna Harpy's, I can see a disturbing pattern emerging. Iryna Harpy and you have systematically suppressed any fact that could, even in the slightest way, damage the Ukrainian government's public image. You also seem to be both of Ukrainian descent and to edit as a tag team, probably a coincidence. It is also clear that you are extremely influential and I don't want to die for the truth. So, have it your way, the hell with the UN inspectors.
You tell: "What "trouble" exactly am I creating on the page about Human rights in Ukraine?. I did not tell that you created the trouble. I said that sockmaster ("this user") created the trouble. Does not it mean that you are actually him? My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for undoing that very uncivil and unjustified redirect. I think it was done in violation of all Wikipedia rules. At the same time, it made very clear to me that the people I have inadvertently angered have a very long arm and I understand that it would be futile to push the matter further. May I add that the discretionary sanctions warning that you left on my talk page somewhat surprised me? I did not make any change to the article, and told you that I wouldn't: "I will not revert any more" (see above). --Théophile de Viau (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Re to this. This is definitely a sock of this user based on similar behavior, in addition to editing the same page with the same POV. These accounts are clearly WP:NOTHERE, with almost no productive edits. Here is their "algorithm" (this is obvious after looking at the edit history of the latest account). #1. Create an editorial conflict by making edits that are clearly POVish for someone familiar with the subject, but looks legitimate for someone unfamiliar with the subject. #2. Do not try to improve their edit(s), but immediately ask for assistance against "perpetrators" (who reverted his edit) from other users and especially admins. First time he tried to exploit Drmies. Now, this is you. Speaking about 2nd similar account, I am not sure, although it clearly behave as another sock/meatpuppet account.My very best wishes (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the resolution of my inquiry on the admin noticeboard

I have seen now that my inquiry [6] has resulted in page protection and a recommendation of WP:Dispute resolution. This is very confusing to me because this is not a case of a clash of subjective opinions that are open to debate. This is simply an example of distorting the truth and making claims with no sources and scientific facts. Can you please enlighten me why it has been categorised as a mutual dispute? Berkserker (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Most people who show up at WP:AN3 sincerely believe they are right; you are no exception. It looks to me like a content dispute. Your charges about "simply an example of distorting the truth and making claims with no sources and scientific facts" looks to be way over the top. See the advice I left in the report. I am not familiar with either of you but User:B137 has been around for many years and has 21,000 edits, so he probably has some abilities. If you don't think you can reach agreement with him, WP:DR gives ways you can bring in other people to join the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well you don't need to be familiar with any of us, and the number of edits wouldn't matter when you clearly have all the sources stating the facts. I guess you were pretty busy, which I would understand, to review the sources of that article as well as the ones on the Köppen climate classification article, but the truth is, there is not a single source that backs up his claims. Ability and number of edits are irrelevant when there is an intention based problem. After all there are the sources vs the claims, it is all out in the open. Berkserker (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You will not get admins to review sources for the Köppen climate classification. That is not our mandate. You need to persuade regular editors to agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but the only way you can make the judgement "Your charges about ... looks to be way over the top" is by reviewing the facts right? Then how can you come to a conclusion as an admin? Also I made the inquiry only not to violate the 3RR, and the other user had already violated it, and evading the discussion between each revert. Berkserker (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It is also very amusing to see you choose the adjective "able" to describe a user who says "What makes Koppen so scholarly and what makes them (or you) the final word?", when he himself has no sources, blatantly having the arrogance to value his personal opinions more and seeing himself more credible than the most widespread climatological system used in the world. All due respect, but if this kind of a mentality or mindset has its place in Wikipedia, then I have learnt nothing in the past ten years of being an editor here, otherwise I wouldn't have reported this activity. Berkserker (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I have been fairly busy in real life but let me just break the fourth wall here and say this is a ridiculous overreaction. The article starts out with and only includes that is is a tropical climate according to Koppen in the first paragraph. But to say a place that has recorded snow flurries and has had multiple instances of freezing weather, as well as weather that kills tropical flora and fauna, and then you add to that that it is literally outside the tropics and is also landlocked to the north, allowing occasional cold fronts that align just right to have little modification from water as Key West sees and even Miami Beach sees, enough for their all time record low to be five degrees Fahrenheit over Miami's. And when I say the data has recently changed. I mean that Miami (and much of the United States) moved up a half step in plant hardiness rating for the 2012 update, so if anything climate chage/AGW is now relevant to the discussion. The monthly averages chart has increased over the past five years as well.

A third party needed

Hello,

For a while I have been having a content dispute with another editor on Aristo. To avoid repetition, I made this complaint at ANI earlier here. The article was protected, but afterwards, the editor started once again. Here is an extensive and cyclical discussion at the talkpage that is not heading anywhere. My major problem with this editor is he/she is unwilling to compromise. They want the entire definition out of the page and that is final. I will appreciate if you can look into the dispute and help in resolving it. If for any reasons, you can't get involved, kindly refer me to any other administrator who would be willing to. I think I'd most probably be comfortable with a rational/guideline based decision of any fair administrator. Thanks.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Request from User:Woodland001

Dear EdJohnson, can you make contact with 'woodland001'username on wikipedia or 'pwoodland@hotmail.co.uk', I am not sure how to get a message to you, so trying this. You have blocked a page that is changed by 'the madras' which is factually incorrect, I want it changed, can you please contact me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodland001 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please specify the page that concerns you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The page is 'Luke Woodland'. I am parent, he is a footballer and I update his page if he plays games. The issue is the player is unattached and looking for a club. The Madras also makes changes to page from 'footballer' to 'Filipino footballer'. Any club looking and searching for a player may not proceed further as may assume he will require a work permit to play in England if he is from the Philippines. This is in fact not the case as he is a dual national and has a British passport and therefore does not require a work permit as he has lived in England since two years old after being born in the UAE. Therefore I change the term 'Filipino footballer' back to 'footballer' for that reason only. The 'The Madras' changes again and then I am blocked. He is also not contracted or playing for a club. Another user amends his page stating he plays for a club. This is also incorrect.

You are not blocked, but as a person with a WP:Conflict of interest you should not edit this article directly. Please make your argument at Talk:Luke Woodland and try to persuade the other editors to make whatever change you think is needed. This article was semiprotected due to a report of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like this clarification by User:Nthep should address what was bothering you. It makes clear he was born in Abu Dhabi. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Capital punishment

Signedzzz, who brought a complain against me and has himself a lenghty blocking history, deleted many of my contributions on the grounds that they were "unilateral deletions", but to the contrary:

  • He completely undid the changes, that included much new text and references, I made about contemporary era, non-painful methods and modern-day public opinion and gave no reason at all for that.
  • He restored the Tang Dynasty section without participating in the discussion already open about it in the talk page.
  • He completely deleted the new section I added about deterrence and gave no reason also.
  • He might have acted in a fit of anger and without method since he even restored a spelling mistake that was recently corrected by Richwales.

Urutine32 (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Your intervention in the capital punishment article become very necessary, since Signedzzz made a blanket deletion of all the aforementionned contributions (except the spelling mistake) and some others in a single edit (including some uncontroversial changes from User:Skynden and User:Motivação), while we were discussing of only some of them, on the grounds of an optional method of reaching consensus. And he said personnal attack against me, accusing me two times to "troll". Urutine32 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your edit per BRD and no one else's, as you are well aware, since I made it perfectly clear in my edit summary. Uruutine32, do not edit my user talk page again unless required to do so. You were not required to notify me of this, for example. zzz (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I brought the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Respectfully. Urutine32 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagreement at Kitarahu

Hello EdJohnston. Thank you for your message. I'll be glad to explain the changes I've made to all the parties involved in editing the article as well as WP administrators. I'm sure we'll reach an agreement in benefit of English Wikipedia readers.Frank R 1981 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Re the British Order of St.John incorrect redirect of post nominal

Many thanks for your message on this on the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) Talk page. Please go to Ivison Macadam page (Sir Ivison Stevenson Macadam KCVO CBE CStJ FRSE FKC) and you will see what I am talking about. The CStJ links incorrectly to the Rome lay Catholic Order and not the British Order of Saint John (sovereign head Queen Elizabeth II, responsible for the all volunteer St John's Ambulance Brigade etc internationally and you will see the problem. Google has it right and takes it CStJ to the right order. Wikipedia headed Order of Saint John (chartered 1888).

I took it out of the post nominals earlier today because of the wrong re-direct but have reinstated it so you can see the problem.

Would much appreciate it if you can help sort it.

Many thanks,

William Macadam (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Order of Saint John (chartered 1888). EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Noor

Hi Ed, thanks for your note at User talk:Noor rahim bro. I was about to file an SPI on him (more for procedural purposes) because I assume he's Harirajmohanhrm continuing the same crap, but one edit here, where he puts Mohanlal at the front of the list was odd enough to cast doubt. I am about one edit away from indeffing this guy though because reordering cast seems to be his only interest at Wikipedia. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Biryani Origin

Hey! I don't see how a fact is a POV in the case of Biryani? All the origins of Biryani are, guess what, Muslim. The Indian Muslim community has seen an ethnic turn, they tend to share many similar cultural practices. It would be a shame to discredit the creators of the dish. And I'm intending on changing it to, "Found among the Muslims of South Asia." Hammad.511234 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please mention a WP:Reliable source which says this food was invented by Muslims. Or is distinctive to Muslims rather than (say) Hindus. Pushing an ethnic POV is not attractive and can lead to discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
There was a reliable source on the page, but the user removed it, unjustifiably. It's not a POV, it's a fact. But thank you anyways.Hammad.511234 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you say what the source was? EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

https://books.google.ca/books?id=cZe-r38DYjcC&pg=PT5&dq=history+of+biryani&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5u6me4sHNAhWE7IMKHT2_CugQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20biryani&f=false It's also sourced many times in the page. I also have websites if you want. http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/rude-hotels/2009/02/01/where-does-biryani-come-from/ "And how did it spread all over India to become the defining dish of nearly every Muslim community?" http://www.dailyo.in/politics/biryani-muslims-racism-stereotyping/story/1/2681.html "Biryani has always been synonymous with the Muslim community in India just as vada pao is to the Marathi cuisine, or idli sambar to the Tamil community, or sarson da saag and makki di roti to the Jat and butter chicken to the Punjabi." http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/everything-you-want-to-know-about-biryani/story-YTHNsrnZm2cQyviBzBLKkJ.html "Nearly everywhere in India, wherever there is a Muslim community, there is a biryani." In fact, I actually put 4 sources once, but for some reason it was removed. Hammad.511234 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

http://food.ndtv.com/lists/10-best-biryani-recipes-696324 Hammad.511234 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Did you check out the sources? Hammad.511234 (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

Just...you know...dropping this here for casual reading. Cheers. TimothyJosephWood 15:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about, but if it's the one I remember, then it's a required warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It was, and I accept the warning. That said, Timothy's behavior has been far from acceptable in this matter. Thanks for weighing in, Ed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ban User

Hey, excuse me, but can you ban User:Keenanthedogg please? He was adding false information without sources to the article Major Key (album) and User:JustDoItFettyg had asked me to deal with him. You can check the history of that article for proof. Can you please give him a ban? Thank you. EDIT: Ban User:50.53.5.194 too. I'm pretty sure they are the same person Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not post at Talk:Major Key (album) and explain what you think is wrong. You have not notified User:Keenanthedogg. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Because you will see what is wrong in the view history for Major Key (album). @Keenanthedogg: @JustDoItFettyg: @50.53.5.194: Xboxmanwar (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you banned the user 50.53.5.194 he keeps putting random track names for Major Key thats not even out yet or can you just protect the page?? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I've semiprotected the page and notified Keenanthedogg of this discussion. Let me know if you see him adding more unsourced material to articles. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Banned users at AE

(Also pinging @User:Seraphimblade) Regarding this AE case against User:Aaabbb11, I'm wondering if you could address the concerns raised by User:Rhoark and myself. The filer of the complaint, as well as one of the people speaking in favor of it, are both indefinitely banned from the topic area (and another was quite possibly canvassed offline). WP:BANEX does not allow users to violate their topic bans for the purpose of filing arbitration complaints against other users. And for good reason: we don't want topic banned editors—who by definition have unclean hands, yet have nothing left to lose—to be able to continue pursuing ideological battles at AE.

On the other hand, if there is merit in the case they bring, then maybe the editor in question should be sanctioned. I actually forgot about Aaabbb11's conduct on the organ harvesting DYK process, and it was certainly disruptive (and frankly perplexing). I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is, but if you do take action to topic ban this user, it may be worth adding a caveat that this is not intended to set a precedent to allow topic banned users to file further complaints at AE.TheBlueCanoe 03:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Coffee has already taken action on the request. You could ask him what is best to do. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee: @EdJohnston: This issue really needs to be re-examined with due care. It's been said several times that Ab was disruptive at some point in the past. I don't know, because the filing is just stuffed with diffs just showing that Ab made statements that the Chinese government would consider embarrassing or disputed. That's not a wiki violation. Most of the diffs are a year old anyway. Even if we take it as a given though that Ab is on thin ice, what is the new infraction? EdJohnston linked to a page wherein Ab's only edit this year was, In my opinion the Kilgour Matas report is in a poor state (some people find it hard to believe of course so its not always easy to put the truth on a wiki article). But its not super important now due to the existence of the Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China article, which should cover the whole topic rather the first of 3 books about the topic. But I don't think the Kilgour Matas Report should be deleted because there is a genocide happening in china as discussed at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong#Genocide. I think an article about the 2nd organ harvesting book, State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China, is justified because a number of medical professionals wrote articles for it, so its a very significant book when a genocide is occurring. Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing what the problem is. Add on top that this is driven mainly by banned and canvassed editors, and it seems clear it never should have gone this far. Rhoark (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I made a response in the case page. I should point out that STSC was topic banned by The Wordsmith over a statement he made which apparently supported the PRC government's elimination of FLG, which The Wordsmith stated as "incompatible with the fundamentals of WP". Considering that Aaabbb11 is one of the parties involved in constant edit warring with STSC, I felt it is only fair that similar sanctions be applied to Aaabbb11. WP is built on the grounds of NPOV and civility, and Aaabbb11's pro-FLG diatribes and desire to "embarrass the PRC government" is no more compatible with the fundamentals of building an encyclopedia.--PCPP (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Seraphimblade has now reclosed the AE request without a ban of Aaabbb11. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has issued a 48-hour block of PCPP for filing an AE that was in violation of their ban. I agree this is a correct result, but is mostly procedural. There has been no official decision that Aaabbb11's behavior. was OK. I don't feel strongly enough to re-file on my own (which I could do) by making a new ban request at AE. But the way is open for anyone who isn't banned from Falun Gong to open a new request. If you do so, be sure to read over all the comments that are now on the board to be sure you have an adequate case. In particular, you should be able to supply diffs from 2016 to show there is a serious ongoing problem. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to all involved. For what it's worth, if any further disruptive behavior by Aaabbb11 comes to my attention in the future, I will gladly file an AE case myself. This user has had plenty of time to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policies and standards—let's see if he can follow them.TheBlueCanoe 16:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's nothing personal but I would like to point out user Future Perfect at Sunrise should not have claimed to be "uninvolved admin" in this case, please look at this:[7]. STSC (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Company of One Hundred Associates

Hello,

We have seen you have protected the page of Company of 100 Associates as you think that a hoax is happening on this page. 1985 my grandfather purchased the title of the company and since then the company is working as a contractor company in France, Italy, Australia & Canada.

If you want we can share a copy of the letter of incorporation with you regarding the tittle purchase. Kindly allow the required edits as its spoiling the name of the company as the company with the purchased tittle is working.

Note: For source we can provide the title purchase proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.52.21.78 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to provide published sources. For example, newspapers, magazines or books. See WP:V. EdJohnston (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
If I may comment here, it seems quite clear there is hoaxing going on. Several statements about the alleged company in the expanded article were clearly copied over blindly from elsewhere, for example the alleged list of managers, who are all apprently real-life persons associated with the company Raytheon, and the statement about "non-Indian" employees, which was copied over from Tata Consultancy Services. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
FP, thanks for your note and for the blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Irregular chess opening

More edit warring: [8] [9]. Removing all refs as user believes article deserves deletion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Look would you consider protecting it or something? This is getting seriously out of hand. I can't turn my back but I'm being reverted. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Prussian orders

Hello User:EdJohnston. Thanks for your action here. I will refrain from making changes to the article Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) for now, as I don't want to get involved in a 4rr myself about this. I will restore the "original" infobox tomorrow or later this week however, after having informed the user involved in the original revert of the initial IP action back in March. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Montesquieu

Thanks for the gnoming and the suggestions on sources. I'm not sure how you found me while I was working on an extremely obscure book written 300 years ago (specifically so that I wouldn't have to deal with other people :P), but I appreciate it nonetheless. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I was checking your contributions regarding some admin issue. Imagine my surprise to see you working on content. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I know, needed a change of pace. New articles on obscure topics don't threaten my safety, argue with me or try to have me desysopped. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on the League of Militant Atheists

Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

I have provided sources and I have even attempted to get other academia to work on this article. This article appears to attract people whom do not like that this organization existed and they do not want to let it stand that this article exists. This is the same type of wild and irrational type of arguing that was allowed here on wikipedia about the use of the term militant atheist. Even with ample secondary sources editors are allowed to make argument like.....

No. You can't "force" someone to not believe in gods. You can certainly discuss, debate and lecture about beliefs versus rationalism, but non-belief in something can't be forced. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

and

There is no way to physically "force" a person to "become atheist", so that assertion is nonsensical. The League was created by the Communist Party to broadcast Marxism-Leninism, so when the article is tagged with a Category saying "Persecution by ...", we need to be accurate as to the source of any "persecution" going on. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Here for example is Paul Kengor saying exactly the opposite of what this editor is saying..[10] and this is not allowed to be exhibited here as according to the irrational posting and pedantic word meanderings of battle ground editors everything Professor Paul Kengor says must be suspect. Wikipedia blames its contributors while censoring or misrepresenting history in order to appease anonymous editors over credentialed sources. Editors are allowed to source beg and argue over details at a level that is not and would not be allowed in academic circles. What recourse do editors have against this? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor Xenophrenic appears to be edit warring across multiple articles they appear to be engaging in edit warring in order to prompt a pro-atheist agenda. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Editor Xenophrenic is also modifying my comments on the article talkpage. [11] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Howdy, Ed. A few quick points of interest regarding the above comment:
  • I see my username linked above, but I was not pinged about this discussion. It's probably a deficiency in the "userlinks" template. I did, however, have Jobas' Talk page watch-listed, so I caught your note there.
  • While LoveMonkey's assertion about people whom do not like that this organization existed and they do not want to let it stand that this article exists may or may not be true (I haven't looked into it), I'm not one of those people. I am not concerned with whether the article should exist or not (my first impression is that it should); my only concern is with the addition of a problematic WP:Category created by Jobas: Category:Persecution by atheists. He inserted this category, I removed it, and we have been politely discussing its applicability for the past several days (the antithesis of "Edit Warring"). Jobas' position is best conveyed by this edit, which makes clear that he is apparently unconcerned if our readers are mislead by his new Category into thinking atheism is the causal source of persecution, rather than the Marxist-Leninist ideology variant being the cause.
  • As for the assertion by LoveMonkey that according to the irrational posting and pedantic word meanderings of battle ground editors everything Professor Paul Kengor says must be suspect, I just want to clarify that I've never commented on that source, nor have I even seen that source before now, but if such discussions exist, I would certainly like a link to them if only to see what those other editors might have said to provoke such strong verbiage from LoveMonkey.
  • Regarding LoveMonkey's concerns about sources in general, I can't speak about other editors LoveMonkey is engaged with; speaking for myself, I've given careful consideration to all sources raised, even the obviously non-reliable ones, in an effort to move the discussion along.
  • Xenophrenic appears to be edit warring across multiple articles they appear to be engaging is edit warring in order to prompt a pro-atheist agenda. Of course not (and I've no idea what a "pro-atheist" agenda would look like). But it would be fair to say that I've removed the problematic category created by Jobas from several articles, and after recent input from other editors, I am seriously considering whether the Cat itself should be deleted as problematic and misleading.
With those clarifications out of the way, I'll leave you to tend to LoveMonkey's complaint. If, however, you decide to get involved in the actual content discussions (warning: there is a strong and controversial religionist vs non-religionist component to the subject and sources which cover it), your input would be valued and (in my personal opinion, anyway) likely well-considered. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
You would think that Xenophrenic would see my contributions to the article before misrepresenting them. That would be sources and contributions I made awhile back not things I just said today. Example my first edit to the article was in 2010 and it was adding a link to the article Bezbozhnik. Which according to Xenophrenic's own comments was not promoting atheism was not trying to convert people to the non-belief of atheism and was not using force and violence nor encouraging force, intimidation and violence to further its previously indicated aim. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
You would think that Xenophrenic would see my contributions to the article before misrepresenting them. --LoveMonkey
I've said nothing about your contributions to the article, thank you. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: do you believe any edit wars are happening on atheism-related articles? If so, where? Though LM is the one who reported this, I don't believe he is part of any edit wars, though he has expressed strong views on Talk. It's possible that you and User:Jobas are having a disagreement at the League of Militant Atheists article and at Forced conversion. What would you think of an admin full-protecting a bunch of articles? EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Under the definition that "An edit war is any edit to any existing article content that anyone objects to", then sure, we're all warring. But practically speaking, no, admin intervention isn't needed yet. As you've noted, LM has made just a single article edit in months, and I have no objection at all to strong views being expressed on Talk, as long as they stay focused on the content and sources. Jobas has reverted my edits initially (and I, in turn, reverted some of his), but to his credit he has generally ceased edit-warring once a Talk page dialog was initiated, and has entered into discussions. If you'd like to keep an eye on the current disputes, just watch the two articles you just linked, and perhaps also Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. Jobas and I traded arguments on several more articles recently, but since those discussions became repetitive, I figured I'd limit my griping to just these few articles for now until some issues are resolved. A new editor has joined at Forced conversion and invoked WP:BRD, suggesting that we go back to before I deleted the out-of-scope (in my opinion) content while we discuss, and I'm fine with doing that. But if the discussion stalls and editors fall silent for a prolonged period, happy with the status quo, I'll likely resume editing of the article. I can ping you if it comes to that, if you'd like. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually there been some edit war, you revert my edit, then you revrted the edit of user TheTimesAreAChanging, and again you revert the edit of user TheTimesAreAChanging, in less than 24 hours.
The Category:Persecution by atheists in the articles that been added is not mislead, It was persecution by an atheist states that one of their goal was to promoted atheism by argue or by force, all religions been banned, and the governments sponsored program of ″forced conversion″ to Marxist–Leninist atheism (that advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism), and by creating organizations as League of Militant Atheists for that purpose. here user:TheTimesAreAChanging i Cambodian genocide talk page, telling you that the category is (justifiably) applied, and if you have problem with the category it self nominate it for deletion, insted removing it, were is (justifiably) applied. And in the article of League of Militant Atheists, user @LoveMonkey: made the same point that the category is (justifiably) applied. In the article Forced conversion you removed the whole section, I revert your edit twice then you revet my edit twice, then @Anupam: revert your edit and restoring the section per WP:BRD.
I don't understand why my personal talk page is among your watch-listed, when I don't stalked you or your talk page. Regards.--Jobas (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Per the above, Xenophrenic has agreed not to be part of ongoing wars. Categories called 'Persecution by XXX' can be surprising and may sometimes be in need of justification from sources. Since the WP:CFD board is available for such discussions, I'll assume this matter doesn't need my continued attention. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering the misrepresentation of Communism here, in that the League of Militant Atheists did what they did because of Communism. Well there are Communists theist and there was oppression committed in the name of Communism that has no religion component (useful idiots). Even the most powerful Gennady Zyuganov admits to as much. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Unclear which side you are taking. This thread is a complaint about edit warring. If the participants are willing to follow consensus, then the thread can be closed. Adding your content arguments here won't advance the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh Sorry I would not have added if I had seen your comment 1st which posted at almost the same time as mine. I will comply with your request to post at WP:CFD. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bongaosl

You did everything but block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Now fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Signedzzz and Elizabeth Dilling

Hi EdJohnston. I don't know if you've seen but I added an update over at noticeboard post, pointing out that Signedzzz has continued edit warring despite your threat of a ban. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring chivalric order IP hopper is back

Hello EdJohnston, remember this matter of a few days ago? He's back now edit warring and IP hopping on this page, where the conflict has a somewhat more complicated history. Same subject and according to User:DrKay a predescessor making the same point could be also a sock of banned user User:Qais13. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Juliana of the Netherlands due to the IP-hopping edit warrior. Consider opening a new report under the previous 82.232. SPI. A review of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Qais13/Archive suggests there was some disagreement whether the 82.* IPs were actually Qais13, the last time around. EdJohnston (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This is definitely Qais13. It is the correct IP range. There has never been any doubt about that. I archived the sock puppet investigation that you refer to because User:Adys16 is not related. Unfortunately, because User:Bbb23 has a personal vendetta against me, he sabotaged my actions and instead chose to fuel his petty dispute with me instead of recording Adys16's innocence or simply archiving the case as moot. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/82.132.228.210 should be filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qais13/Archive. DrKay (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Mike V has just done a rangeblock of a /18 for one month. That should be useful. Anyone who has sufficient patience might try to prove a connection to the other accounts named (but not yet blocked) in the Qais13 SPI. Another option is to create a WP:Long-term abuse entry, since the chivalry/royalty connection might be usable as a criterion when future problems arise. Other admins who have issued this rangeblock in the past are User:Yaris678 and User:BethNaught. They might be able to think of something else to do on this problem. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Mike V, who issued the rangeblock, has also comented at ANI in a recent thread. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I've seen it! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Dear User:EdJohnston, thank you for your message on my talk page. It seems that I'm a bit to late to that discussion to comment there. I personally, have had only a short discussion with User:Xenophrenic on the talk page of the article about Forced conversion. Upon checking his/her reply to me there, it seems that User:Xenophrenic did not take kindly to me informing him that a discussion was occurring at your talk page (Exhibit A). To me, it doesn't seem that User:Xenophrenic acknowledges consensus on articles related to similar content (Exhibit B, Exhibit C) and instead attempts to display ownership of these articles despite the fact that others disagree with him. I see that others have suggested sanctions on WP:AN3 but will leave it up to you to determine what is appropriate. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Meanwhile, another admin closed the 3RR report so I'm not going to follow up at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Users Hebel and Sabbatino suspected in posting POV and unsourced information

Hello, Ed

I suspect users Hebel, Sabbatino in sabotage to neutral position in many pages regarding Eastern Europe. They are deleting huge parts of commits without any discussion or argumentation, for example on Grand Duchy of Lithuania page.

Please check their own actions for posting POV content, there is many complaints on talking pages of them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craft37by (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Accusing me and other user of something that we didn't do is a personal attack. You're the one that should discuss before making any additions, because your additions are controversial and if 3–4 users disagree with you then your additions don't belong in certain articles. You're the only one who posts POV content and try to claim things which are not true and aren't supported by anyone else, but you. Furthermore, there are no complaints about me or Hebel as far as I know and you again spread false information. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not personal attack. Tell me please why you deleted original map recently without any clue, for example? There is no one in article. Map was referenced and even linked to full version. I can only describe it as sabotage. Link to case: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=730303670 . Talk page full of arguments and references that article not neutral. For example, language discussion. Article based on some 3-rd party pop historical book, not on officials quotes, original documents and comments from users Лобачев Владимир , Xx236, CityElefant. And after that you saying like this idea of you iniquity comes only from me?.. Seems you mislead people like breathing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craft37by (talk • contribs)
User:Craft37by, if you find yourself in disagreement with the others at Grand Duchy of Lithuania you are expected to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. If you show yourself unwilling or unable to negotiate on these pages you are risking a topic ban under WP:ARBEE. The question of Ruthenian vs. Lithuanian language should be resolvable by a WP:Request for comment. If your position does not find consensus you are expected to let it go. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston Okay, I got it. Thanks. But you know, it's suprisingly that I should make WP:Request for comment while some users not. That leads to cases when their edits contradicts the article itself. For example, recent edits of GDL "Today part of" list, when Latvia was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=730362369 But when we are open the maps directly on article page -- voila! Some part of Latvia obviously was territorially situated in GLD and was as fief of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#/media/File:Rzeczpospolita_voivodships.png , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#/media/File:Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania_1430.png And you know, I might me little impressive or my english not perfect. But I don't understand the logic in posting just evidently wrong statements and edits.

see this message on the talkpage of the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

University of Oslo edit warring

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)

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)

User:Alhaqiha

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[13]:

  • 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[14], claiming "not sourced".[15],[16]
  • 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.[17] AND, copy and pasted information from somewhere to Wikipedia, also according to Kuru.[18]
  • 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,[19] but his usual modus operandi is simply to blank out comments from other editors,[20][21][22][23] 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).[24] In response Alhaqiha simply deleted the entire discussion.[25] 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, [[26]], 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 [[27]] 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![28][29] 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,[30] 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)

EW closing

Re[31]. 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

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)

2016 Nice attack

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)

Question

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)

Gibraltar

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

Hopefully the discussion here has given the participants some ideas of how to present their arguments elsewhere. If you disagree with how a person has been interpreting sources, you can open an WP:RFC on a talk page or use WP:RSN. If you want to request a topic ban for someone, you need to use WP:AN unless the page falls under discretionary sanctions. If you see more sockpuppeting by a banned editor, try WP:RFPP or add the data to their existing WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Part 1

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

Alhaqiha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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",[32]), removes referenced information and when confronted simply removes the other editor's comment from his talk page([33]). 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)
Another IP, which responded on this talk page.
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[34], 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.[35] 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,[36][37] which was edit warring. Are you taking claim of the IP's edits?[38]
  • " 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)

Oh yeah really, I should be the one to refrain from personal attacking and racial comments! The one who has been attack me all along and claims I have animosity against berbers and persians feels attacked now?? haha you almost got me there!
You stil need tho answer these ones which you accused me of.

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 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.
Alhaqiha (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This is tedious, but I'm reposting here what I wrote on the talkpage of Chiadma.
I have noticed, Alhaqiha, that you have a habit of distorting and misrepresenting not only other editors' edits, but also the text of given sources. Here you have copy-and-pasted raw Google translate translations, which are unreliable representations of the intended meaning of the referenced texts, and thus more subject to misinterpretation.
It is clear to any native English speaker that the first text, Le peuple marocain: l'e bloc berbère, when its says (in your translation, the English of which I've corrected): "The Djebel Hadid belong to the tribe of Chiadma, which are Arabized Berbers", the subordinate clause, "which are Arabized Berbers" modifies "the tribe of Chiadma", not "The Djebel Hadid". I realize that English is not your native tongue, but you understand it well enough that you should get this. The text clearly says the Chiadma are Arabized Berbers.
Regardless of your equivocations, the text I quoted from Villes et Tribus du Maroc; Documents et Renseignements, unambiguously says that the Chtouka and Chiadma are Arabized Berbers: (translation) "The Chtouka and Chiadma, Arabized Berbers, have lost the use of the Tamazight language and speak Arabic."
The properly translated (i.e., not a copy-and-pasted machine translation) text of Le Maroc says, "In the hinterland of Mogador, the Chiadma speak Arabic yet they are the brothers of the Berber-speaking Haha." The word "brothers" surely indicates that they are blood relatives, and it inconceivable that the author would refer to Arabs as "brothers" of a Berber tribe or sub-tribe.
These examples directly contradict your assertion elsewhere in reference to the IP user, 105.156.224.28, that "none of his sources state the origin he wants them to be, they only state the opposite."
The text of your first source, the Africana Bulletin, is inaccessible to me, so I won't speak to that.
Your second source, Essaouira: la ville de mon père (Essaouira: My father's city) states (English paraprase): that the Chiadma are of Arab origin, with an admixture of Berber." The source is not an academic one, and appears to be a personal memoir, so it is certainly not authoritative regarding the ethnic origins of different tribes.
And your third source, De l'extrême occident : tapis et textiles du Maroc, is about Moroccan textiles, hardly the first source to look for authoritative information about the ethnicity of Arab or Berber tribes. Even so, it says that "in this recent Chiadma slit tapestry weaving there are many motifs used by other peoples. Motif: 1. Is used by rural Arab groups in Jordan. 2. Is used throughout the Mediterranean area including Tunisia. 3. This tree of life symbol is used by many Arab groups". It plainly says (in English) that the motifs of the Chiadma slit tapestry weaving are used by other peoples, which would indicate the Chiadma are a separate people from "Arab groups". Consequently, this source doesn't support your contention at all.
This edit of yours, where you removed the reference to the Berber language in the statement " Arabic, along with Berber, is one of two Morocco's official languages", and changed it to "Arabic, is one of two Morocco's official languages" shows that you seem to be promoting an Arabist agenda at the expense of the rightful inclusion of the contributions of Berber culture. Carlstak (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Email message about genre disputes

I have followed that for months. It leads to more flame wars. I think it's time to try something else. I think it's best you recommend me somebody who has a history of resolving disputes. I will see what I can find.--Taeyebar 04:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are not satisfied with my answer, ask someone else at WP:List of administrators. When there has been adequate discussion and you are outvoted, you could just let the matter go. That would probably bring the flame wars to an end. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Ed, this topic involves you. OP has already been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wallace Huo

I just noticed that I was being reported of 3RR. If I had, so had the other IP user and at least, I left an edit summary each time and referred to the talk page during the last two reverts. I was only frustrated on why materials with source were removed without any reason. The IP user never left a summary. Those were not all my edits. As for user:Andrewbubba, that was purely vandalism. The subject's nationality was changed. That is why I reverted that edit. I might not have done my best. Please notify me on how to improve. Thanks! Jessicat830 (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. If the IP-hopper will not use the talk page then semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. The IP user has responded to the talk page once and it seems we have disagreement on editing. I have put this on WP:BLPN and stopped editing. I have also notify him/her on his/her talk page but I wondered if it would be noticed. Is this correct? I'm still a new user here. Please give me some advice. Thanks! Jessicat830 (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and other bad behaviour at Elizabeth Dilling

Hi Ed. Given that you were involved in warning User:Signedzzz about their edit warring on Elizabeth Dilling last month, you may want to check out a debate on the incident noticeboard concerning their continuation of this behaviour. If you are interested in taking a look, it can be found here. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Urgent request

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)
User:NeilN has applied move protection though he chose not to block the two participants for move warring, which he could easily have done. China-related naming is fragile but I thought there had been a truce. Though Taiwanese (or Taiwan) is the demonym of Taiwan, we do have an article on Government of the Republic of China. Would you say that Taiwanese elections are held to fill RoC offices? This needs a move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ed. A move discussion has been opened and has been progressing smoothly so far. --NeilN talk to me 03:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you closed the moved request and suggest that someone list all the other articles to be changed. However, I do not intend to move some articles you mentioned:President of the Republic of China, Government of the Republic of China, Administrative divisions of the Republic of China, because they contain information before 1949 when the ROC goverment retreated to Taiwan. I only wanted to move the elections held only in the current territory under control of the ROC government. In the discussion, we can see that RGloucester is the only one who prefers the current title, who argues that the entity of Taiwan does not exist, but he has already accepted that the entity there is commonly called Taiwan. I want to know that what more is required than the current discussion to reach a consensus, and how should I contiunue to get those articles moved? Thanks!--Coco977 (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You could open an RfC in some more visible place and try to bring in *all* the articles that are really in the same boat. But you might be disappointed with the results. Taiwan versus China has led to edit wars in the past; my guess is that probably some people are indefinitely blocked due to that dispute. It would be hard to open a larger discussion without things going off the track quickly. Another idea is to try to persuade one of the participants in the current move discussion to change their minds. One way to do that would be to find sources. You could start with Government of the Republic of China, go to the subarticles and see which ones have recent references to the work of scholars who are outside the affected countries. FInd out how they refer to these elections. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

semi-protect request

Hi Ed, could you please semi Shakshouka for a few days? I really do not want to get hit by 3RR and will refrain from editing it, but there is a sustained attempt to remove sourced material without discussion going on. There appears to be a POV denialism going on that the dish has some Jewish roots. Sad that such bitterness spreads to even food subjects. Any help appreciated. Simon Irondome (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I dunno. The edit appears to have two sets of NPOV problems; one group claiming that -all- the variants most Westerners are familiar with came through Jewish sources, and the other downplaying it completely. I'd bet a mortgage payment that both of these are wrong. France and Italy, countries not unknown for gastronomy, both had considerable contact with Moslem North Africa. Anmccaff (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
No, my source is more nuanced than that, in that it claims that the vegetable variant has some Jewish influence, not the meat version. This would ring true with Jewish dietary laws. Also it's growth in popularity would seem to be contemporaneous with the mass Jewish expulsions from Visigothic France and the Iberian peninsular. The "opposing" POV appears intent on removing any Jewish mention whatsoever, which is far more extreme and almost sinister i.m.o. It was certainly a mainstay of Jewish Shephardic cuisine for centuries, perhaps over a millenia, another point some appear intent on removing. Regards Irondome (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you on this Ed, but this [[39]] indicates a far more troubling issue. This edit clearly indicates an attempt to erase even any contemporary connection with Israel, and by extension becomes almost racist - and appears to be a blatant attempt to delegitimise Israel - not to mention the flagrant removal of R/S. It would be almost comic if it were not so extreme. Please can you block this user? Simon Irondome (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead with semiprotection. There are some foods whose national origin is in dispute. They can give rise to nationalist edit wars. People may not realize that you have to patiently follow the sources if you want the real answer to an origin question. In some cases our articles will need to be agnostic on the origin of a food, either because sources can't be found in a reasonable time, or the answers we need are not recorded anywhere. In WP:LAME it is observed that "The article Hummus, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies". EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I certainly hear you on that Ed. I am aware that foodway origins can be the most elusive and difficult of historical subjects to source. However this is extreme, in that it is attempting to remove an entire nation from the article, as my above diff illustrates. I would quite rightly expect to be sanctioned if I waded into Palestinian cuisine with wholesale deletions based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A little note from you on the I.P.'s talkpage I think would do the trick. In your own time of course. The problem is the I.P's blind persistence. Others appear to be watching it in addition to yourself Ed now, thank heavens. I know you can't be everywhere 24/7. Regards Ed for taking the time on this. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

About the edit warring blocks

I can actually see why you would hand a 24-hour block to me (I was even bracing for something along those lines), but I kinda question why Spshu was given the same amount of time. That was the seventh time he was blocked for the same offense, as his block log indicates. I think that a lengthy and troubling block log like that should be worthy of an indefinite block. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

See a note which I left for User:Darkwind, the last blocking administrator. I might issue a long block myself if I was quite familiar with the user, but I'm not, so any request needs go either to a noticeboard or to an admin who knows more about past disputes involving this editor. In any case, User:Spshu has only been blocked one other time in 2016 so it's not exactly a crisis. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
To save you some time -- Darkwind specifically said at the last block: " I will even note here for that hypothetical admin that I am not strongly invested in this either way, should they choose to shorten the block I issued in this case." Spshu (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, in the previous block, I was using the edit summaries for the other editor to join the talk page & to stop reverting what even that editor considered the better source. I was also a technical block as my four edit was not to frustrate the editor but was done early on an unrelated issue in the same article.
I specific had edited Newquay to get away from other current discussion with Electricburst -- assuming good faith that he would not follow me out of our overlapping articles of interest (as he has in the past User talk:Spshu/Archive 2#False claim of improper refactoring). Ed, you were warned about Electricburst's harassing me in April 2016. Darkwind was warned in the previous AN3 notice board: "He has become a stalker of sort. He has made previous EW reports with any attempt to join discussion to resolve the issue and has been fixated on getting be permanently blocked. " So, why not Electricburst, you hold both Ed and Darkwind responsible for this edit war, too. I get an extended block, as they both could have head this off early and basic have passively approved of Eburst continued harassment of me. He has just reverted the renaming of a section and removal of a BracketBot notice. He is now harrassing further over this edit. EdJohnston, you just gave Eburst a warning in June 2016. Note his MO of lack of discussion. Spshu (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Spshu: If you want the admins to deal with me, take it to WP:ANI. Might WP:BOOMERANG on you, though. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

UK Le Guin's cat

Assuming you 're a fan, you might like http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2016/05/02/my-life-so-far-by-pard-i/ -- which is UKL on her cat Pard (writing as Pard). Cute photos too, http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2016/03/28/the-annals-of-pard-photos/ . Best, --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Staafros1

Could I bother you from some additional explanation in this case? I don't understand how you can dismiss the recreations, and you didn't address the issue your analysis. Farmnation recreated 14 articles (listed in the SPI) representing a majority of the articles deleted per G5 after the last round of Staafros1-socks were blocked. The recreations, as far as I can tell, are not substantially different than originals and some of them, like Indira Gandhi Stadium, Solapur, use a non-standard naming convention preferred by previous socks. (A MOS-compliant title would be Indira Gandhi Stadium (Solapur)). Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • The SPI was quickly closed before I could add a response to your existing comment: "User:Sir Sputnik points out some articles re-created by Farmnation after previous creation by User:Hittentit, a confirmed sock. (Hittentit was only active on July 13, 2015 and was blocked by a checkuser in September, 2015). This recreation is actually a concern, but the articles mentioned by Sir Sputnik seem to still be in existence, suggesting they pass some threshold for being kept."
  • If you want any of the article titles fixed, that is easy to do per WP:RMTR. Or let me know and I can act on them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't really address my questions. My concern here isn't disruptive editing, but block evasion. I'm largely indifferent to the existence of these articles, though existence should not be taken as sign of notability considering how little traffic they've gotten. However, seeing as how these articles were recreated systematically (11 of the 14 were recreated in the span of only two days), I don't see how there can any doubt as to Farmnation and Staafros1 being same person. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
If Farmnation is a reincarnation of Staafros1, that would be a concern, but available evidence is not decisive. So long as Farmnation doesn't edit disruptively or engage in new socking, we might let the matter go. You're aware that Staafros1 and the original socks are all indef blocked. It doesn't shock me that the stadium articles were created systematically, since someone was referencing an online database. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
That argument ignores two things. It ignores just how niche these subjects actually are, and it ignores the two Dutchmen. Notice how no one else has recreated any of the G5-deleted articles for example. Also note few edits the recreated article have received from other editors, and that all of these edits are routine maintenance. This should give you an idea as to how little interest there is in these subjects. Having another editor with an interest in minor Indian sports stadiums as confirmed sockpuppeteer register only a month after the latter was blocked is already very unlikely, but adding to that an overlapping interest in PSV Eindhoven as well and that likelihood becomes basically zero. If Farmnation were merely working from the same source as the Staafros1-sock, you would not expect them to have recreated articles on Laros Duarte and Yanick van Osch, and yet they did. Sockpuppetry is the much more plausible explanation here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Check the edit history of Laros Duarte. This article must be one of the victims of Farmnation according to your view. (Originally created by User:Hittentit and then deleted by User:Bbb23 as G5 in September 2015 due to creation by a sock). Since his creation (or recreation) of the article in December, 2015 Farmnation has make no more edits, while others have made a series of improvements. The player has appeared for a fully professional team, so the article satisfies notability. What more would you do with this article? We could block User:Farmnation if we accept your reasoning, but what benefit to articles would it accomplish? EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Since User:Fcqpr is the same person and is still actively socking this now appears to settle the issue. I was working on the assumption that User:Farmnation had decided to go straight and was no longer disrupting. The checkuser finding resolves the question, and the blocks look correct to me. Thanks Bbb23, EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

3RR

I usually try to ignore ANI but saw the report about moving a hidden message from one place (hidden text) to a better place (edit notice), and fighting over that. The whole thing seems just a misunderstanding. The hidden messages are also the topic of arbcom clarification, but that has nothing to do with moving it (not removing it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

From the point of view of AN3, this is a 3RR violation. A piece of text is being repeatedly taken out of the article text and put somewhere else. I don't see any talk page consensus to do that. There is nothing in WP:3RRNO that makes this acceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It is not from the article text, but from hidden text, meant to be seen as a warning in edit mode. An edit notice performs that warning much better. (But I fear that it was not understood. If it had been understood as an improvement, not as a removal, the fight would probably not have happened.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The 'improvement' is in the eye of the beholder, and is seen as such (apparently) by people who have taken a position in the infobox wars. From the point of view of how WP:3RR is written, it is just a violation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that is correct, but claim the eye of the beholder also ;) - Any hidden message is what the name says: a hiddden message. An edit notice jumps at the eye of the editor. Bender235 actually helped to make the message more visible, they should thank him, but all they seem to have seen is that it was removed from the article. When you now edit, you have both. As I said already on ANI, expect any absurdity when infoboxes come into play, - even if it's not removing an infobox but moving a hidden message. An admin was desysopped for protecting an article because of edit-war over the hidden message. RIP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
ps: absurdity comes often with irony: now in your protected state: what editors see clearly is the edit notice ;) - consider unprotecting. Simply watching should be enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for your action on this report. Unfortunately, addressing this issue in a single article is tantamount to plugging holes in a leaking dike. This cast of characters is litigating two related disputes (whether or not to place infoboxes and, failing that, whether or not to place hidden text or edit notices about said infoboxes) all over the site currently. I've asked ArbCom to authorize DS for this area (see [40] and I'm hoping they will act. --Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see the advantages of discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Double Standard on punishment?

I'm talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:151.30.108.20_reported_by_User:PeterTheFourth_.28Result:_Two_articles_semied.29.

As I've written there, i'd like to add that both PeterTheFourth and Eladynnus infranged the 3RR rule [41][42][43][44][45][46] with several more two days ago, over a section that is still under discussion, with several editors on each side. I do not think those two users should suffer no consequences.

Punishing only "me" accusing me by vandalism and other things i didn't do calling me an "Ip-hopping warrior" is really unjust. You should look to the talk page of the article i was trying to write (which was, by no means, offensive/not compliant with wikipedia rules); there were several editors on each side.

Both parts: "IP-hopping" and "edit warrior" appear to be fully justified. Are you arguing that (a) the set of IPs is not you, or (b) you didn't break 3RR yourself? EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm claiming that i was forced to do many reverts mainly because both PeterTheFourth and Eladynnus infranged the 3RR rule [47][48][49][50][51][52] by doing many edits where there was a discussion with several editor on each side under discussion, i've wrote this fact on the admin page and on this very one but you seem to be ignoring this fact. I call it "double standard", because you're tring to blame me by being a "ip-hopping edit warrior", implying that i was changing ip to find a way to somehow vandalize something (which i didn't, my edits were legit, albeit maybe inadequate but i was trying to compensate in the moment some experienced users were trying to point me in the right direction rather than reverting the discussion for no reasons". I'm starting to suspect you've seen only the Rich Burlew page and not the Order of the Stick page (with the relative talk page under discussion) and your "sentence" appears to be the result of a shallow analysis of what really happened in this matter.
Thanks for proving my point by ignoring what i've wrote as a whole. I guess you've got no choice other than doing this, otherwise you should have to admit that your call is entirely wrong on the matter. Again: why ignoring infringment of the 3RR rule by both users PeterTheFourth and Eladynnus [53][54][55][56][57][58] while there was a there was a discussion with several editor on each side under discussion? It doesn't change anything to me that some random moderator of Wikipedia, who is displaying lazyness and practicing double standards, recognizes his mistakes but.. do you really think your behavior is correct? You're contributing about all is wrong with this system.
Your defence of your position uses arguments that are not backed by Wikipedia policy. So this leaves me reluctant to minutely examine the history of all your accounts to see who has been reverting most. For example, you use the phrase 'forced to do many reverts' which is not found in WP:Edit warring. Everybody is responsible their own reverts, and for staying under the limit regardless of what others do. If you had been using an account, it would have ben blocked for edit warring at this point. Since you seem to be violating our SOCK policy I'm not willing to do as much analysis as if you were a good-faith editor. Whether to use an account is your choice, but if you decline to, you will be at a disadvantage in any conflict situations. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you kidding? I've pasted you PROOFS ([59][60][61][62][63][64]) that shows two other users infringed the 3RR rule. How come THIS cannot be backed by Wikipedia policy? If you punish me for the 3RR rule you should also punish those users, because they are responsible too! Again, I did not do any vandalism and there was a talk page under discussion when they did those reverts! Also I DIDN'T VIOLATE ANY sock policy. Those three IP's are in the same range: it's called dynamic IP; your ISP changes your ip within a range from one connection to another. Seriously, are you claiming that if someone connects from a dynamic ip he's violating the SOCK policy? Are you saying that i cannot edit a single article if i'm using a dynamic ip ISP and i have to make an account? I'm dumbfounded, at least, to read something like this. Woah, the internet :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.224.135 (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's be clear, you don't want to assume my good faith not because i've violated SOCK policies (because I didn't) but for lazyness. Using a dynamic ip range does not violate any policy otherwise 60% of wikipedia users would be considered violators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.224.135 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
If you disagree with my close of the AN3 report, you can ask another administrator. I'm not going to continue the discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not a problem, i've already opened an issue exposing your incorrect behavior. At this point is clear to me that you're acting in bad faith and you want to operate double standards. You're not continuing this discussion simply because you know i'm not violating any policy, otherwise you'd explain why you claim i'm violating sock policies while i'm not. You're just some random wikipedia moderator that is using his little powers as an advantage to operate double standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.224.135 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hi Ed, I just noticed a post at WP:AN about you, and it doesn't look like you got properly notified (unless you count this). It's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Moderator not acting in good faith. — Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied at AN. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Asilah1981

Hello,

At the end of last month month you blocked User:Asilah1981 for casting aspersions at Talk:Gibraltar.

He/she went on holiday for a few weeks and is now back at Talk:History of Gibraltar. In this context I would like to ask you to review the following comments:

and take a look at the talk page of Talk:History of Gibraltar generally.

Note that I have not been involved in the dispute at History of Gibraltar in any way until this evening and have never expressed any view on the subject other than that there ought to be consensus before there is change, and that no such consensus currently exists. So far as I can recall this user has never assumed my good faith - in fact in our first interaction (before your initial block) he accused me of "hyper-nationalistic (to put it mildly) POV pushing".

Thanks for your attention, Kahastok talk 20:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kahastok. Very much expected of you. I'm not going to engage in this childish go-and-tell behavior. If you don't want me to express my opinion of what you and your partner are engaging in, don't come to bait me on my talk page. Asilah1981 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Asilah1981, you've been accused of disrupting the talk page by casting aspersions. Is the above response the best you can do? You consider yourself free to use any insults whatever so long as they are on a user talk page? For example, "I am convinced you edit war with me out of total paranoia as of my intentions. It is not all about this stupid territorial dispute!!!!!!" If you don't agree to stop these attacks, a new block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree to stop but they are the product of exasperation. I am used to rational content-based discussion in wikipedia. There can be heated debate but its always related to the actual content of the article. I cannot be asked anymore to assume good faith. I think that policy applies to when you first engage with a user and you have to assume that he/she honestly believes that his position is the correct one. When users flat out refuse to give any reason why they think a certain version of an article is correct, on what rational basis, how can I react? How can I engage them?
Maybe its casting aspersions but both users seem interested in issues related to British territorial disputes. Is it casting aspersions to try to explain to them that this topic is unrelated to (a rather stale and outdated) British-Hispanic conflict that they are so interested in? For me it was simply a way of trying to engage emotionally with them, seeing that they are viewing this topic solely from that perspective i.e. what they believe to be a "Spanish" or "Hispanic" user trying to make Spain look "less bad" in a article related to a British colony. Its not the case. Is this, which they have expressed repeatedly, not casting aspersions?
All I ask is for Wee Curry Monster (in this case) to engage me on Talk Pages saying something on the lines of: Look, I think you are wrong because X,Y or Z as supported by Source A, B and C. On that basis I would not get annoyed.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Help requested with IP editor you previously banned

Hi. An IP editor you previously banned (151.30.108.20) has made an account (Meelanasah) and returned to editing. I believe they intend to engage in the same edit warring on The Order of the Stick they were initially sanctioned for. In addition to this, they have engaged in WP:OUTING behaviour here, by linking to a blog post from roughly a year ago that discusses me. Help would be appreciated. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I believe (PeterTheFourth) is trying to make wrong assumptions. Being my ban expired I did an account in order to improve the section i've written. He deleted a bit of the section without any actual consent from any of the editors that are agreeing with me (Amatulic) and (Diego Moya), because he claimed that bit was "not encyclopedical. So i've added back the bit of the section with some corrections in order to avoid "not encyclopedical" expressions, then i've added another bit about an official commentary from the author, stating in the talk page that i was fine with removing it if provided with actual reasons. Then, user (Eladynnus) reverted the entire section and i've re-added just my correction, avoiding to do the same with the official commentary (with a proposal on the talk page to discuss about it). (PeterTheFourth) and (Eladynnus) are not actively trying to reach WP:CONSENSUS; (PeterTheFourth) is trying to convince you to ban me by manipulating you into believe that i want to start an edit warring (which i won't. look at talk page talk).
The only thing I wish is being able to discuss the section without (PeterTheFourth) and (Eladynnus) acting as myself, (Amatulic) and (Diego Moya) are not discussing about the issue.
And by the way I have no idea what's your issue with the blog reference, i was just curious and i've asked if they were talking about you. Is there any rule that prohibites linking in discussions? If so, i'm sorry, i should have linked that blog in private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry, but your ban expiring doesn't mean that you should suddenly start engaging in the same behaviors again. As far as I can tell, that page was protected to stop you specifically from editing it, since you didn't have an account until four days ago. It isn't unfair to assume that you plan to edit war again, since you are engaging in many of the same behaviors: piecemeal "restoration", accusing other editors of willfully violating whichever policy had been most recently mentioned, and failing to identify yourself until you're called on it, which verges on sockpuppetry at times. Eladynnus (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You're trying to manipulate the discussion as i'm trying to get into an edit warring. This is not going to work: i'm not actually doing any edit warring nor i've got any absolute intention to.
check my edits and my contributions to the talk page:
First Addition - corrections + Second Addition - official commentary: with the First Addition i've restored the bit that petertheforth deleted by removing non-encyclopedical references; i've also re-added, with the Second Addition, the only official commentary reference adapting it in order to not be too preachy. While doing that, i've opened a talk discussion asking if it was fine with the editors, otherwise i would have been fine to delete it again: talk.
Then you outright ignored the talk page by openly provoking me, implying i was hiding the fact i was the previosuly banned user: talk - provocation while doing an entire revert of my section without providing any actual explanation in the talk page - revert.
Therefore i've reverted to the last version which we were all OK with, and that would be Amatulic's version, with just the bit of correction i've made for encyclopedical form: this. I've also added, in the talk page, that i'd be interested to discuss about the possibility of inserting the official commentary from the book (which you deleted without providing any actual reason) talk.
Now, i'm really trying hard to have a civil discussion, but it appears than you and peterthefort are trying to "team up" to having the section deleted pretending that there are not people, other than me, that wants it. In the talk page you tried to imply that i was the only one who wanted to reach consensus answer from petertheforth to diego moya explanation.
I believe your behaviour is higly destructive. You're not trying to reach WP:CONSENSUS at all. Instead, you and peter are trying to imply that i want to do edit warring (which i won't; last time i was forced because you did edit warring too), and trying to manipulate the administrator that previously banned me into banning me again, because you think it's easy to convince him that i'm "bad" and i want to do edit warring even if i didn't and i WON'T. I'm trying to have a discussion, you're trying to delete me from the discussion. If i get banned then we have a clear evidence that there is no justice in this kind of system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs)
P.s: sorry about the unsigned comments. I'm still new to the system and i've thougth the bot does the sign always. And one more thing: it seems that (PeterTheFourth) and (Eladynnus) always acting togheter trying to undermine me, while ignoring the users who are supporting the section (Amatulic) and (Diego Moya). I won't make false accusations like they are doing (likely, that i'm going to start edit warring) but considering they're bot, somehow, connected to troubles in the gamergate page... well, it would be strange if they weren't, at least, friends or people with shared interests. They even resorted to contact you in the chance to hoping that you'd be somehow inclined to ban me again with no grounds because you would think "oh, that's that ip editor, i need to ban him again!". I seriously hope something subtle like this won't work otherwise, well, i'll just surrender to this. I'll forget writing my section and about Wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs)
I have not collaborated with PeterTheFourth on anything. The only time we've ever actually spoken to each other was on the OotS talk page, when I told him that only your IPs had been banned. Everyone is free to check my edit history to confirm that. I also deny communicating with him off-site. The only reason I know that he made a complaint about you here is that you brought it up on the OotS talk page. I have not been involved in any Gamergate "controversies", either - I proposed on the talk page that a section regarding the Hugo Awards be changed, and my proposal was rejected. It was not brought up on my talk page because anyone had a problem with it.
As for you, I'm surprised that you would deny posing as multiple IP editors and then write this comment on the OotS talk page. I don't think I need to reply to any of the rest, since you have written similar things in the past and don't want to write the same replies again. Eladynnus (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just woke up and i'm going to my job now, I didn't write the thing you quoted (which I'll read later), so stop making false accusations trying to derailing the discussion. Luckily, i had the time to explain myself in the course of this discussion. Again: i've absolutely no idea to start an edit warring, so stop trying to imply i'll do that. You, instead, should try to have a civil discussion about the section rather trying to have it removed piece by piece and trying to get editors banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I just want to point out that the entire talk section of OotS became the section where "users are claiming that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.33.204.85 is Meelanasah sockpuppet" see here. Other than pointing out that this behavior towards me is highly toxic (with the sole purpose of having me banned again) i'm asking to help about knowing the exact procedure about whom to "engage" for proving that i'm not that user, so, at least, one problem would be "solved". I'm starting to really, really get tired: i want to have a civil discussion about the section and that's all. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Axact semi protection

You semi protected Axact last year. I am a new user who does not have the "auto confirmed" tag at the moment, but I would like to add some material to the article. I would like to add two new sections. One will deal with social media reaction as given in This New York Times article and the other section will deal with individual cases that have been brought to light. The second section will use sources from reputable Pakistani newspapers as well as This and This NY times source among others. Can you please upgrade my account for a couple of days (this should not take more than 48 hours) or lower the protection level for a bit? TouristerMan (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

TouristerMan, you are autoconfirmed so you should already be able to edit the article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh. Where exactly does one find out his tags? Like if I want to know if I am autoconfirmed or other things, is there a list etc? TouristerMan (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
You should see it at the top of Special:Preferences below your user name. There will be a list of all the groups you belong to which (in your case) should include Autoconfirmed users. EdJohnston (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich talk page BLP issue

I noticed you over at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and I need an Admin. This section of the talk page [65], [66] probably has little relevance and is probably a BLP violation. Well, at least the first one or two sentences. Thanks.Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The talk post you mention is marginally within the realm of fair comment, but feel free to ask a different admin. He calls the article creator an internet troll, but in fact that person has been indef blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Maybe you think the person leaving the comment should be warned? You can leave {{subst:ds/alert|topic=ap}} on the talk page of an editor who you think should be alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this and thanks for the options. After reading this a second time, I agree with your assessment that it is within the realm of fair comment. And I now agree with much of what this person has written. I gotta admit this person has a very good point about the article's creator - because look what has happened (I'm chuckling right now). And this person makes some other good points. So, I actually came back here to rescind my request, but I see that is not necessary. And, thanks again. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I will also warn this person of discretionary sanctions for this person's benefit. Good suggestion!---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Luisito Pie

This article is currently protected because the RR about his alleged Haitian nationality. If the highest institution about it have already spoken about it, adding speculations is clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. This edit and the subsequent ones, should be reverted. Edits saying see image in a wikipedia article? Is this a forum? Thanks for paying attention to this. --Osplace 19:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What policy do you think is violated? The discussion at Talk:Luisito Pié is hard to understand. I gather this is a rather famous sportsman. That means there should be a lot of reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, good-quality websites) that have written about him. FInd whatever sources you can, and try to get consensus on the article talk page. You can ask for help at WP:BLP/N if you think that wrong statements are being made about him. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Saint-Peterburg at Binding energy again

Hi Ed, re this, you might like to know that this same person 91.122.0.253 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (compare with 91.122.11.68 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) ) has now re-emerged with a string of similar edits at Binding energy. I have reverted the edits ([67]) and left a pointer to User talk:91.122.11.68 at User talk:91.122.0.253. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As you might be on a leave, I have ANI'd at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Saint-Peterburg at Binding energy again. - DVdm (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
DVdm, see the following links:
@DVdm: @NeilN: A permanent link to the closed ANI is here. I have semiprotected Binding energy for six months due to abuse of multiple accounts. The sockmaster is presumably User:Antichristos. It is easier to do semiprotection than rangeblocks so if you know of other physics-related articles that need the same protection, let me know. It is reasonable to guess that any IPs with addresses like 91.122.* who are editing physics articles could be him. It would be nice if the rangecontribs tool would stay up and continue to work from one year to the next. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Ed, thanks for all this. Nice piece of work. Nasty case, this. I'll keep an eye on things and will let you know when I see something fishy again. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the range contribs for 91.122.0.0/21, whose year-long block expired in March 2016. The other previously blocked range is 89.110.0.0/19. The editor is also interested in religion and telling the wiki-world about his prophecies, e.g., "On 2 November 2016 AD, Messiah the Prince becomes the King of the Universe."[68] I saw that kind of thing at Terence McKenna. Manul ~ talk 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have semiprotected four articles and have renewed the mentioned range blocks for two years each. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

New message

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Coconutporkpie's talk page.
Message added 02:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit warring noticeboard

Greetings. You recently commented at an administrator's noticeboard that "User:Coconutporkpie . . . appears to believe that it is fine to move material to talk archives against the wishes of of the other participants" In my opinion, it is neither respectful, nor polite, nor reasonable, to base comments on a user's assumed state of mind, while at the same time closing the discussion as you did so that they have no chance to respond. I don't see how my beliefs, whatever they may be, are pertinent here, and I am surprised at such a comment coming from an administrator, whom I thought were expected to be very scrupulous about being neutral and civil; however, my last edit to Talk:Ajax (play) was in fact at 00:37, 2 September 2016, before the matter was brought up at WP:AN3. So I don't see how it's justified to assume anything about my "beliefs" based on activity on that page. —Coconutporkpie (talk) —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if I didn't correctly assess your beliefs. But as a closer all I need to do is check if the person reported has agreed to stop. Closers make this judgment, because a block is not usually issued if there is evidence the problem won't continue. I didn't see your statements at AN3 as a promise to stop warring on the archive matter. You had previously made a complaint at ANI about behavior on this talk page where it seemed you didn't get any traction. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard (British railway)

Hello there,

Do you agree with my latest message at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gravuritas? If so, it would perhaps be appropriate to publicly recognize that I did only two reverts and did not cross the threshold of the three-reverts rule.--Mathmensch (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like only two reverts on your part. I would advise both of you to take a break from this, because one additional revert from either party is risking a block. See WP:EW for details. (Blocks can be issued for less than 4 reverts if there are clear signs of edit warring). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I will indeed break from this, but there is some confusion here. Either the edit war threshold is at four (which it isn't) and thus, if Gravuritas edits once more, there will be a probable block, but NOT if I edit once more, OR the threshold is at three (which it is), and I would only risk a block IF I edited once more and Gravuritas would already run the risk of being blocked (and since this is not the first time, it would probably be adequate to block that user).--Mathmensch (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The point is that edit warring blocks are discretionary. When people start to insist on how few reverts they have made, that may suggest they are already in he middle of a war. After all, you did report Gravuritas at ANI for 3RR violation when he had not actually done so. (He had made only three reverts not four). When anyone opens a complaint at ANI about another person, it means that both parties' behavior will be scrutinized, and, any diplomacy on your part will be appreciated. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah I see. Being a mathematician, I read as .--Mathmensch (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic talk page

Hi. Is the protection really necessary? The editor who was disruptive got blocked for socking [69] while the ip got blocked for edit warring [70].I don't think they would repeat such behavior, and now I an other ips are unable to post. Anyways that protection is aimed against ip's while that disruptive user just got what he wanted, to be left alone to disrupt the page like this [71] [72]. Kavonder 16:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.35.142 (talk)

The blocks aren't very long. It seems to me that two weeks of semi is reasonable. If you like the name Kavonder, why not register it as an account? EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for answer. As I agree with the consensus, I was trying to leave the discussion and let those who disagree talk to themselves, but then they become disruptive by deleting/crossing out comments, accusing the closing admin that he's biased and pointing to "trolls". I guess this block will help me leave and them to drop the stick. Farewell. I'll consider making an account, but for now I don't see the benefit. Kavonder 17:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.35.142 (talk)
The talk page should not be debating Djokovic's nationality forever after a decision has been reached, and it should not become a forum for nationality questions. Enough is enough. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ARBIPA warning to a user

Dear Ed, roughly a year ago, you gave an ARBIPA warning and a 1-week block to a a user. The user resurfaced today, and went back to tendentious complaints as well as canvassing. Given that the old warning is more than a year old, it would be advisable to give a fresh ARBIPA warning. I would have given one myself but, given how violently he/she reacted to my last post, I would rather keep off his/her talk page. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I left a DS alert for User:ABEditWiki. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Replied, and won't you get any clue from the allegations of 'tendentuous complaints' , 'canavassing'? I mean why is it that the user above could say anything and I can not even raise a legitimate question/suspicion ? All I want is some serious attention to this article by some new group of admins so that anyone could work for the improvement of article wihtout fearing POV pushing. Cheers! ABTalk 05:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Your complaint on the talk page violates WP:AGF and persisting with it even after RegentsPark fixed the problem displays tendentiousness. Getting in touch with a friendly editor after a long break is perfectly fine, but your attempt to practically drag him to the disputed page shows battleground behaviour. These are small and not cause for a great deal of concern yet, but they are bad portents. If you want your present session of Wikipedia editing to be more successful than the last one, I would encourage you to focus on sources, both your own favourite ones and the others that other editors have brought to the table, and read all of them and cover all of them with an open mind. Please read WP:NPOV very carefully. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Stop advising ( apparently I can see threats, insinuations and veiled blaming in the para above here) and do a favour yourself - do not bother on how I say hi to others. As far as your concern about maintaining Wikipedia in good stead, I guess it's as much as me as an editor as you. Quoting a lot of policies ( rather, adding hyperlinks) won't by itself make it relevant or a proof that I have done as you alleged. Sorry Ed for the talk page mess. But I request some attention rather than going by the words of user above. Cheers. ABTalk 10:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I would encourage User:ABEditWiki to withdraw his suggestion that the non-archiving of the RSS entry is due to a conspiracy on Wikipedia, when it appears to be due to the talk poster not leaving a dated signature. It looks like you are determined to 'smell a rat' even when one is absent. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
'Conspiracy on Wikipedia'? One may not find a better example than this for straw man fallacy. I suggested that, there are people who deliberately missed noting the error in archiving ( technical issue, as you say)for more than an year and over a dozen or so times of archiving. I am not suggesting all of you WP editors ( active in that page) conspired for it, but rather, I am suggesting that Assumption of Good Faith has been grossly misused and there were certainly some people who would have wanted that to stay there in the talk page. That is what I am suggesting, nothing more nothing less. ABTalk 04:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit war at History of syphilis

I have lost patience with this. Please continue whatever you want to do elsewhere. While at first I thought Xenophrenic was being more stubborn, lately it is hard to tell the parties apart. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi, it's happening again, albeit at History of syphilis.

Compare this edit's mention of the first theory [73] with the current. I also noted some of my reasons at Talk:History of syphilis. I forgot to mention that the opposing pre-Columbian theory has large amounts of the supporting researchers' opinion noted. The two quotes from the scientists I added tried to replicate that without removing anything from the opposing side. The other editor just removes my edits. I also forgot to point out that the newly added Science Daily (just republished study report by the university press too) also doesn't cover the bit it's supposed to. It's just one another misuse of sources among many. Etsybetsy (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have fully protected the History of syphilis article for two weeks. This kind of dispute could use an RfC. Neither of you is setting a good example with your recent behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules state that criticism of personal behavior isn't a personal attack if you explain why. I'm trying to follow the rules here... He has a strong history of edit warring, and I can't understand why his behavior is accepted. It's clearly a matter that is asking for a sysop. I'm not removing any of his edits, I'm adding sourced criticism. He keeps removing that, referring to unreliable sources. But I use his sources? I'm not used to RfCs, could you explain them and help out? Etsybetsy (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell me if you disagree with this edit by User:Xenophrenic? If you do, that might give me a hint of how an RfC should be phrased. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems mostly correct. The modified theory is notable in its own subsection. The Austrian edit is a bit faulty with the year. CatPath seemed to also disagree with the study's notability and a magazine being quoted. I looked into its notability and found one cite in some Romanian dental study, I believe. Magazines being quoted is a bit iffy always. This is my stance on it. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Would you be satisfied if Cari Romm's Atlantic article were not quoted directly, but we only used the actual scientific papers mentioned in the Atlantic? EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I guess that works, if each study is given weight to how peer-reviewed it is. I had to think about this for a while, but I guess we'll see at the RfC what you meant. Etsybetsy (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
He has a strong history of edit warring, and I can't understand why his behavior is accepted. --Etsybetsy
Incorrect. The reason you can't understand it is because that is a false premise. What I have is a strong history of editing in highly controversial subject matter, so I frequently encounter editors who are driven more by their own ideological passions instead of what the aggregate of existing reliable sources say. After tens of thousands of edits over a decade in such an environment, collateral damage is to be expected regardless of good behavior (Admins are only human). If you'd like to discuss my history in more detail, including why I'm still here when each of those who blemished my history are now indefinitely banned, we can do that on your talk page; we've cluttered up Ed's page enough.
Ed asked about an old edit of mine, and Etsy agrees it is "mostly correct", except for a date issue on the Austrian research, but that was corrected in a later edit (2014 changed to 2015). Oh, and Etsy thinks the modified theory content should be in its own subsection. I used to think so too (my edit shows it separated), until CatPath moved it to join its parent theory, in chronological order -- and I realized it made more sense that way. So my subsequent edits have kept it there, but Etsy really wants to separate it again, for reasons I do not understand. As for quoting The Atlantic, all of the science claims cited to it have since been removed in later edits. The only quote remaining in our article from The Atlantic is "another wrinkle to a debate that doesn’t seem likely to be resolved any time soon", which is an uncontroversial and accurate general assessment of the general status of the debate, and doesn't make any science claims. That is exactly the kind of summary information for which we turn to reliable secondary and tertiary sources.
... if each study is given weight to how peer-reviewed it is. --Etsybetsy
How do you propose we gauge that? I hope you are aware that citations in Google Scholar search results ≠ "peer review". And the Italian study you've been panning, by the way, was published in the very selective Journal of Biological Research, which is very peer-reviewed. As for your attempt to add quotations to one theory "to replicate" the opposing theory, are you aware that the theory you are adding to already has 101 quoted words of opinion compared to only 58 quoted words of opinion in the "opposing theory"? And worse, the quotes you proposed adding were redundant. May I suggest, Etsy, we pick one concern of yours at a time and resolve them individually? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring is still edit warring even if the matter is controversial. I personally avoid removing any of your material. But on the other hand that seems to be your first and foremost reaction to not just my edits but to OoflyoO's and RockyMtnGuy's edits as well among the numerous others in your history.
And that's not the only problem I had with the edit. I along with CatPath had issues with the study's notability and the magazine being quoted. And you didn't have the modified theory as a sublisting. You had it completely detached from the theories at the bottom of the theory section for some reason. Currently we have it listed twice, as it's mentioned at the bottom as well. You're really repeating that same information listed at the bottom already. And chronological order makes absolutely no sense. Do you explain physics in chronological order? The Atlantic quote is just cherry-picked and there exist other articles which state completely opposite but apparently quoting them isn't fine and now isn't the time for chronological quotes.
We measure studies by how cited and peer-reviewed they are. Peer-reviewing is simply subjecting the research to reviewing by colleagues. The 2011 is both reviewed this way by multiple publications and also cited heavily, 60 times. The Italian study is again two pages long, mostly images and tables and only really posits findings. It's been cited zero times. It was published in a self-reportedly peer-reviewed online-only Italian journal, which on the other hand is published by biomedcentral.com. The study's credentials are flimsy to say the least. Etsybetsy (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course edit warring is edit warring, and I never said otherwise. Perhaps there is a language barrier. You've removed some of my material, and I've kept some of yours, so let's please quit with the embellishments. As for the rest of your unsubstantiated accusations, there is nothing to which I can respond until you substantiate them. I suggested we work through your concerns one at a time, and in response you've filed another admin noticeboard report? That's telling. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I have removed nothing of yours. The Guyana bit wasn't even yours, it was CatPath's addition: [74].
I have substantiated with diffs in the above section and at the noticeboard. This also isn't about 3RR but general behavior, so no, it's not just another noticeboard report. Etsybetsy (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_40&oldid=1206394264"