User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 37

Niki Romijn voice acting
Hi, and now I have solid proof that Niki voice it Winx and Totally Spies. Seee the link: It's a news paper of Amersfoort, and here mention it her work for winx and totally spies. Can I make now please the articel? Please translate it.http://eempodium.nl/amersfoort/ik-heb-iets-met-vrouwen-die-hun-eigen-ding-doen/ --Maxie1hoi (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That link gets "Since 1993 I earn my money as a voice actress for animation, commercials, do some directing, coaching..." This doesn't specify any particular role. But I suppose it is a reference. If you check out http://www.nikiromijn.nl/media.html and search for any linked newspaper articles that might still be online you might find something more definite. She has a lengthy page on the Dutch Wikipedia but I don't see any confirmation for any of the roles included in her list. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But can I start it the articel? And you have not good read it! This people of Amersfoort say it: And with main role's in serie's like Totally spies and winx. And her work for voice over and singer mention it.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider making a new draft at User:Maxie1hoi/Niki Romijn. But I recommend you only include roles that can be confirmed from published sources. I think the Amersfoort newspaper article is OK, but it doesn't give many details. Don't exceed what the sources say. She has a CD called BIRD but it appears to be self-published. If there was an article about her in Het Parool maybe you can find the text somewhere? EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Using a site search, the only mention of her in Het Parool appears to be this link to a review of Totally Spies! The Movie. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, now i have make it that page. Control my articel and say it of is this solid proof for you.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your draft at User:Maxie1hoi/Niki Romijn still has no references, so it can't become an article yet. The English is very awkward. "She worked as a dubbing translator to include Free Willy" is really baffling. What does it mean? EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with English wiki is difficult? I will be let seen source but how I can make citation refrences link template?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it will be too difficult for you to develop the article in English, since your ability in English is too limited. You've already participated at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niki_Romijn. Why not keep working on the Dutch article? You can add the references there. There must be people who can give you help in the Dutch language on the issue of formatting references. After the Dutch article is sufficiently developed, the time may come to consider creating an article here. At present your English draft is both unreferenced and incomprehensible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can ask it to her. This is her email: Nikiromijn@hetnet.nl it is mention it on her site. Ask it and then you can see I have right it!--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

One-year semiprotection

 * I've semiprotected Agata for one year since it would be impractical to block a lot of IPs. If you see other articles being targeted, consider reporting at WP:RFPP.

I've been trying to get long-term semi-protection on Abby Martin for some time now with no results. I'm curious why admins would favor protecting disambiguation pages over biographies. The article has been under constant attack since it was created. Just the other day, this attack was made by a SPA. Not only does that require oversighting, but we still need semi-protection of the biography. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At Abby Martin, I see there have been some revdels and there has been editing from open proxies, so I've semiprotected the article for six months. There is no special reason for protecting DAB pages over others. It happened that the spammer was targetting the DAB page at Agata. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I greatly appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Account creator rights
This isn't a big deal, Ed, but I noticed User:Girlstothefront has account creator rights but they has just made 3 edits four months ago and didn't even have any user page until now when I created their user talk page. I know giving an inactive editor a right they are not using isn't causing any problems but it also doesn't make a lot of sense. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/Girlstothefront current rights]. She created three accounts as an editathon volunteer in June. Ask User:Pharos if he thinks the rights are still needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't view Special:UserRights/Girlstothefront but I will ask Pharos what he thinks. Thanks for looking into this, Ed. Liz  Read! Talk! 10:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=rights&page=User:Girlstothefront This link] should allow you to display their rights history. Sorry the one I gave above is admin-only. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin
Hi Ed, I would request you to consider giving your opinion, as an uninvolved Admin, on an ARCA discussion featuring me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Being mocked by an established editor over comments left on a hotly debated topic's talk page
Dear EdJohnston,

Taking heed of your advice to contact you if there's any questions, I would like to ask of you to review the last changes to the talk page regarding Planned Parenthood and please review when editor "Uncle Milty" mocked me for being new. Editor "BullRangifer" has warned me several times that I am "hasty" and "will lose this battle" if I keep posting. I believe there is not a battlefield mentality here but I, a non-registered long-time user, has had deleted comments without so much as any message by editor "Uncle Milty" over what I have perceived his non-neutral POV (see his past behaviour as called out on his talk page by other users in the past - this is not the first time he deletes comments and reverts edits that go against his personal opinions)

I do not know all the intricacies that seem to be making Wikipedia editing very non-conducive to the uninitiated but I feel very much coerced into not speaking/writing anything more just for being new. Please serve as a neutral arbiter in this, reviews what I have posted whenever you have time, and let me know if I am the only one in the wrong in this situation.

PS

I'd like to quote Wikipedia's Statement of Principles regarding this issue : "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." 200.42.237.185 (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a completely uninvolved administrator. I think you're in the wrong here. Read Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines and follow them. The talk page is intended for discussing specific suggestions for improving the article, not belly-aching that your previous comments have been removed. Follow the guidelines and you shouldn't have any problems. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You have been advised not to attack other editors; that the page protection is proper because of edit warring; to follow the talk page guidelines; to be patient and not be hasty; to provide suggested improvements which could be discussed; to use the page protected template when making such a suggestion; and that the matter will end up being mentioned in the article. Just be patient.
 * Instead of following that advice, you are forum shopping and making false accusations, calling good advice "mocking". That's not good. I wrote that "You WILL lose this one because you don't understand our policies.", not because you're posting. It's the manner of your posting that's the problem. It's not constructive and violates talk page guidelines.
 * I still think the basic idea of including content on this matter is good, but wording must be suggested and a consensus version worked out, without it being a battlefield with you making accusations against other editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . I agree with what others have said. Wikipedia does not have a duty to add your opinions to articles. The best we we can do is offer you the opportunity for discussion, but even then there are limits to what will be accepted on talk pages. If you're in a big hurry to get our articles changed, that makes us wonder why. Wikipedia is not in a hurry. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you to all and your suggestions are indeed taken. One last question that feels unanswered, when an editor mocked me (which was not BullRangifer but Uncle Milty and by the tone of the post above we can see how BullRangifer took it; please see the revision history of Planned Parenthood) and deleted 3 comments of mine without any explanation, should I just assume no explanation is needed? 200.42.237.185 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Without any explanation"? Did you read the edit summary? He only deleted two of your spammed comments, and he left an accurate edit summary. Then he immediately commented on he talk page. Use the edit history and read the edit summaries. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

More edit warring??
You recently closed semiprotected some articles with your closure at WP:AN3 referring to my issue with a series of anon IPs - see my talk page. Today, I find from my watchlist that another IP - 114.178.174.209 - has worked their way up the list of articles I have created and has marked dozens as non-notable and/or needing improved refs. They have made no other edits, other than to pages I created, totalling 75 edits in 49 minutes. This is a clear case of stalking. Now, in some cases, these were justifiable (the majority were translated as is from French Wikipedia) but that is not the case with all and I made edits to either revert or to highlight refs where possible. Now I find that yet another IP, 153.206.14.192 with 17 edits in, has begun to revert my edits. I'm worried. Can anything be done? Emeraude (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, I've just noticed 153.206.30.151 is also in, with 15 edits in 16 minutes. None of these IPS has made anay other edits ever. Emeraude (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If they are only adding proper tags and not warring then the behavior is fishy but not disruptive. What is unusual is that these IPs only deal with your articles, no one else's. Consider attaching a template to the article's talk page to show it's been translated from the French Wikipedia. For example, . That will make people aware that the article is at least considered notable in its original home. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think they all have that note anyway, or most do. It's clear that this is a personal attack. I've no objection to tagging articles as needing refs etc, but when I remove them with a reason and they are immediately reverted it becomes disruptive. Consider, for example, Edward Hain, which was tagged for refimprpove. The article is fully referenced, and I removed the tag with that reason. I was reverted. The article is STILL fully referenced! (though I'm about to remove the tag again) Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to bother you again, but this is still continuing and is clearly a sustained attempt to pick on me. Please look at the following articles and their edit histories - in each case, unnecessary tags (refimprove, notability) have been added. In each case, I have reverted and explained why the tags are unnecessary, but to no avail as a series of IPs - presumably all the same person - continue to simply revert with no explanation given and taking no notice of my comments. The articles are:


 * Edward Hain - 100% referenced
 * Johnny Howard - rugby player at top level in bothe England and France
 * Fort de Valros - French historic mounment, article fully sourced and source stated
 * Alexandra Leclère - French film director, notable as festival prize winner

Perhaps it is time to block these IPs?

Many thanks. Emeraude (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The IPs who are reverting you seem to come from the Japan Tokyo Open Computer Network. Few of them appear to lie in a reasonable subrange so I haven't noticed any rangeblocks that would be reasonable. If you can provide a short list of articles that deserve semiprotection I could consider that. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Short list? You're joking. Since posting the above they have gone through the rest of my list of created pages - 301 edits in total and 296 of them in 1h32m! That's industrial scale editing by 153.228.200.182! Again, some may be justified, but the four I mentioned above are not and have been reverted again. Also, tags have been placed on Groupe de Barbezieux which was deleted by an admin, reinstated at my request and objections sorted by me, so perhaps those articles could be protected. However, it's a clear personal attack and I don't have time to go through every single edit to sort them out, especially as anything I do will be reverted regardless. How many rules are broken here?- sockpuppetry, trolling, vandalism and general disruption! I've never heard of the Japan Tokyo Open Computer Network, but I presume they have reasonable conditions of use and would not be happy to receive news that their members/users were behaving in this way. I would also guess that their logs would show who was using which IP when and could take action. I know this has happened in the past with university IT centres. Emeraude (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want admins to take action against these IPs as a group, you'll need to collect some data. This may be tedious, but it's the only way a large number of blocks or semiprotections could be justified. Sending abuse reports to an ISP is unlikely to get any result. Especially for this IP who is mostly adding refimprove templates, so is not committing obvious vandalism. And to add to the problem, the Xtools rangecontribs tool is not working again. But the CIDR tool is working, and so far I've checked out 153.206.* and 153.228.*. In those two ranges, the only IPs that seem to be him are:   and . There is some chance this is the same person who wrote on your talk page from two 153.* addresses in User talk:Emeraude. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So, basically he gets away with it. Emeraude (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * And continues: 153.229.225.169, 153.206.97.217, 153.203.111.206, 153.229.189.75.
 * Can you protect the following from IPs: Groupe de Barbezieux, Alexandra Leclère, Johnny Howard?
 * Emeraude (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This must be a continuation of Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive286, a 3RR report from June 2015. All these IPs come from the Open Computer Network in Japan. A deliberate attempt to undo the work of one editor, User:Emeraude, would be considered harassment. The IPs give their attention to articles where Emeraude has worked. The IP edits might be revenge for Emeraude tagging some music articles for notability. I've semiprotected Groupe de Barbezieux, Alexandra Leclère and Johnny Howard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Can you do the same for Shane Overton? Emeraude (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
I restored an earlier version to revert two edits which appeared to be vandalism, and your closing of the VQuakr got caught up in it. Sorry. Didn't know how to revert the vandalism without using the restore option.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just repeated the closure. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Didn't think it would be, just thought it polite to mention it to you.  Take it easy.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

AE statements
Hi, typically I am quite convinced that statements I make at AE are ignored, if I am not the filer. Recently at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive176 I mentioned that I never heard of a topic ban being reinstated for a shorter period of time, or given a narrower scope, when there is similar problematic behavior after a topic ban has been lifted. The point was contemptuously or obliviously discarded by the closer, who closed with a three-month, narrower topic ban despite the previous one being indefinite and wider. As a result one can confidently predict there will be more time-soaking AE requests in the future ("So we let it ride, and hope for things to cool down, and come back later. OK?").

You weren't planning on dismissing the boomerang evidence presented in the NAEG case, were you? The alternative would be to copy others' statements to a new AE request, which also seems improper. Manul ~ talk 20:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The topic ban of AQFK you speak of was lifted by an Arbcom motion in 2012. Nothing requires us to reinstate the previous ban in the same terms. If a new 'boomerang' AE is filed, we may pay close attention to the ARBCC background of the filer, and reflect on how neutrally they have behaved up till now. Neither side of this dispute is setting an example by their good behavior, and at some point admins may need to give out sanctions rather widely, given the low standard of discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems contemptuous to dismiss the extensive evidence that editors submitted, and then assume they have to time and inclination to re-submit statements to another case, assuming they become aware that their work was discarded in the first place.


 * I also see a considerable problem with boomerangs not being handled in the self-same case. I know of at least one AE request backed by strong evidence that was quickly and contemptuously dismissed as retaliatory because of the timing, where it could just as well have been included as boomerang evidence in a prior case.


 * There appears to be a procedural problem here. Submit boomerang evidence and it's dismissed as requiring a separate AE request. Submit a separate AE request and it's dismissed as retaliatory. Manul ~ talk 03:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're not happy with how AE has dealt with a complaint, you can appeal to Arbcom. We now see rather hot rhetoric coming from both sides of the ARBCC dispute, and your tone here reflects a sense of grievance. If the current problems are mostly to do with Anthony Watts and his opinions, maybe fully protecting some articles would spare many of us some effort. It might save admins from slogging through thousands of words of talk discussions to see who is behaving the most unreasonably. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ed, I am pretty surprised at your response. We have always seen eye to eye, and I am not aware of any grievances or even a single minor disagreement with you. You've read a whole lot of negativity from what I said that was not intended on my part.


 * It's not at all clear how AE processes work, and it's not spelled out by arbcom. I thought it was appropriate to ask you about it. Perhaps it was not. It's not at all clear how boomerangs work, how retaliatory filings are decided, how appropriate or customary it is to close a case while expecting editors to copy statements to a new case, and so forth. I've seen many AE cases, and I'm still baffled. Now more than ever.


 * I apologize for coming off hot or grieved, that was not the message I was trying to send. I'll take my questions to arbcom else I'll drop it. Manul ~ talk 04:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * One source of misunderstanding was that my concern was about AE generally, not climate change in particular. The dismissed AE case to which I referred was not related to climate change (it was Landmark), and I haven't been very active on the topic of climate change (nor Landmark). General questions on procedure should go to arbcom, sorry to bother you. Manul ~ talk 05:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Signpost paid editing
Do you have any interest in writing two paragraphs about paid editing for the SignPost?

I offered to help put something together that's a collection of two-paragraph viewpoints that answer two questions: What is the overall effect of paid editing on the project and what can be done to handle it better.

The idea is that a lot of the Signpost stories on paid editing are written by editors with strong opinions, extreme views, or financial interests, and I wanted something a little more balanced and reasonable. Editors with strong views are never ideal in article-space either!

What I've started on is located here if you have the time/interest. CorporateM (Talk) 15:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Walashma dynasty
I saw that you protected Walashma dynasty. I opened an rfc few weeks ago and not many people seem to be interested on the topic. I have reliable sources to proceed but there is an editor hindering any progress. What do I do now? Zekenyan (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What you refer to as 'an editor hindering any progress' looks to me like a plain old content dispute between you and User:AcidSnow, and possibly others. Keep in mind the verdicts at the 3RR board 1 and 2. Since User:SilkTork appears to have some knowledge why not ask him for his recommendation. He hasn't yet commented in the RfC at Talk:Walashma dynasty. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Final Destination 2
Unlock the Final Destination 2 page, there's a bunch of grammatical errors. Dghvok (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply to "Warning"
Your "warning" here results in the actual result - intended or not - that the other editors have the freedom to arbitrarily remove reliably sourced information introduced by me or others (because their POV disagrees with it) as long as they do their edit warring with a strength of numbers and refrain from explicitly agreeing with it on the talk page. To ask for "consensus" for every change on the talk page (because they disagree with it) is a favourite tactic of hounds and tagteams which they use to justify their reverting. Exactly which fringe or small-minority viewpoint did I defend? Furthermore, how did I violate WP:ARBEE? None of the information I have introduced conflicts with the mainstream scholarly view. Zozs (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no substitute for persuading the other editors. All that admins can do here is observe that nobody agrees with you. Often, editors who are in the minority will perceive that the majority constitutes a 'tag team'. The impression of sock puppetry in your case doesn't help. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The "impression of sock puppetry" may not help, but I have not actually made these IP edits, and the notion that I had made these IP edits was only concluded based on "behaviour similarity", and the possibility of actual investigation, requested by me, was rejected. I asked what chance do I have of a "fair trial", and the clerk said that he (a) will not change his conclusion no matter what (b) I have no means at all to refute the accusations,.


 * There may be no "substitute for persuading other editors", but you may very well say that to the other editors, who are relying on a strength of numbers rather than actual persuading in order to push their POV through, which in the current case are merely TIAYN and M.Altenmann. M.Altenmann reverted what I had wrote based on his opinion that "The text is a non-neutral spinning with biased wording", then, after I proved him wrong on the talk page referencing reliable sources, he proceeded to revert himself saying "Whatever" and exited the discussion. Now TIAYN also attempts to do edit warring in order to push an older version of the article which he agreed through, even though that version was ultimately displaced as a result of arguments occurring on the talk page in dates spanning the time surrounding December 2014. From December 2014 to several months later there was practically no dispute in content, then the same individuals who failed pushing their version through in the debates of December 2014 once again are now trying to edit warr to push that version through in spite of reliable sources.


 * You may say that "editors who are in the minority will perceive that the majority constitutes a tag team", but I will reference the fact that this "majority" includes editors who simply engaged in edit warring such as Spumuq and Bobrayner. Spumuq is a hound who used to revert every single edit I made, and he was blocked by the admin "Swarm" for a period of two weeks. Spumuq was blocked for "a period of 2 weeks for edit-warring, disruptive editing, wikihounding and exercising a battlefield mentality." Furthermore, the administrator Swarm concluded that "and I think there's serious cause for concern with Spumuq's behavior here. It is evident that the above assertion of hounding on the part of spumuq is indeed accurate; they've reverted Zozs on a wide variety of different articles over a continuing period, with either no explanation or with an edit summary such as "Zozs must stop." For the most part Zozs appears to have refrained from responding to these incidents with similar behavior. This is in my view a disruptive and highly-unproductive behavior that is not tolerated here. As far as I can tell Zozs is an established editor in good standing and thus not subject to the supervision of a user with an apparent battleground mentality.". Spumuq never stopped hounding and edit warring, he continued reverting every single edit I made even after this block, so recently he was blocked again for another 2 weeks.


 * Furthermore, Bobrayner is another user who has made dozens of reverts against me without any edit summary or with the edit summary explicitly specifying: "post-Zozs cleanup" (admitting that he reverts it only because it is me!) with no discussion on talk page, sometimes eliminating every single of my edits in an article.


 * User:TIAYN, the user who is now edit warring in the article Marxism-Leninism to push his version through and I have also had experiences in other articles. For example, Talk:South_Yemen, TIAYN made these claims against me: "Go and fuck up this WP", "You're stupidity surprises", "But fine, stupidity wins". On the edit history summaries he stated: "This discussion does not make any fucking sense; its just four users who pretend they know something about something they clearly don't know anything about... Playing with words...) " and "wikipedia is not a democracy. Do whatever you want, but you stupid *****hole. Don't vote over nothing; just add the factual inaccurate statement in the article if you're stupid enough (you clearly are)". On User_talk:Trust_Is_All_You_Need/Archive_10, TIAYN stated: "Fuck you Zozs, I don't give fucking shit about what you think is true. You're wrong, you're adding info on WP which you think make sense, but doesn't.. Marxist-Leninist state, what? Does a liberal state exist? Nope, Conservative state? Nope, but yes, a Marxist-Leninist state exists. Wow, who would have thought. Well fuck you . You're probably one of the dummest people I've met on this site. Fuck you, fuck you fuck you. Do I sound like an idiot? I don't care, why? I'm retiring (at least a very long "extended vacation")."


 * That is merely a very small sample of all the personal attacks I have received from TIAYN, to which I only responded with civility. As a matter of fact, as a result of my attitude in that discussion I was awarded the The Barnstar of Diplomacy by User:JamesBay.


 * So the only thing happening in the Marxism-Leninism article now is that TIAYN and his troll friends (such as M.Altenmann who has been following me through several articles), not being happy with having lost the debates of December 2014 and the version I prefer of the article becoming the final version, have re-started edit warring in order to attempt to put their version through. But M.Altenman has already given up so it is actually only TIAYN remaining, and from the talk page it is obvious that all he does is edit warring to push his POV through.


 * All I am saying here is that you have a wrong impression of the situation and have not reviewed all of the data pertaining to this situation. I have been subject to facing illegitimate behaviour from other editors at articles such as "Marxism-Leninism", and a wider investigation of the situation will prove that it is these few editors who have engaged in tagteaming, hounding and edit-warring to push their version through even though it does not agree with these sources.


 * In this context, your warning that I may be blocked as a result of any edit that I make that the trolls do not explicitly fully agree with on the talk page and if they follow-up by reverting me is a give-away to these trolls. I ask you to re-consider it after seriously reviewing the whole situation and not only a small part. I have no problem with another version becoming the final version as a result of actual debate over reliable sources with the majority of editors siding against me. What I have a problem with is tagteaming, hounding, edit-warring, etc. Zozs (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's possible that your above post may be cited in the future (as an example of your style of discussion) if there are more admin proceedings and if people are trying to judge your credibility and reasonableness. It would be in your interest to go though it and remove any personal attacks, such as "TIAYN and his troll friends". It seems that you've been the target of personal attacks yourself, but when the attacks are on both sides, people may throw up their hands. You still have a chance to clean up your own language. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "TIAYN and his troll friends" is not a personal attack. It is an objective assessment based on TIAYN and related user's involvement on tag-teaming, hounding and edit-warring through several articles. That behaviour, as a whole, constitutes what is typically known in Wikipedia as 'trolling', and 'friends' merely refers to the users related to TIAYN who have been involved, in cooperation with him and united against certain users (e.g. myself), in these harassment actions through several articles. Zozs (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sock
Hello EdJohnston, User:Juliette Wenst is an evident sock of User:Danelia.ekaterine just got registered to "save" one deletion-nominated article. Please address this problem as soon as you can. Thanks. Jaqeli 07:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you please address it? Katerina dunaway is another sock. Jaqeli 13:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

AE
G'day Ed, given your experience at WP:AE, I wondered if you might give me a steer regarding the Citadel48 report I've lodged there? There seems to be a fair amount of activity on the board, but other than a reinforcement of the notification I made, so far, nada. Is there something wrong with the report, or am I being impatient? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up. That's not an area I usually dive into. I was only attracted by the recent media attention. I'll keep the 1RR in mind. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The dispute about Valencian article.


Hello ! -- I will stop the editions on the Valencian article. I'm tired of it. I'm making editions to get back the article from the last consesual edit, but I see that I can't. Joshua Jonathan made 10 consecutive edits and no one has warned him, he changed the article to his own preferences but I'm the only one here who got 48h banned. Thanks, so I'm off. I don't want to keep this, I prefer to keep my wikipedia account and keep editing further articles so I'm out from that article. I put the truth because i'm the only valencian here, I've put all the things that I edit with sources but I see that it still the same... You agree with Joshua Jonathan... and his only basis is that "I've got blocked for 48h recently" "so I'm mading an edit war" and that lets him to do all the changes he wants and revert my changes because if I revert him he will report me for "edit warring" while he made 10 consecutive edits without the permission or without asking anyone...

So I will forgive about that article. Regards --HardstyleGB (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I DID NOT change anything because I wanted! did !!! I will explain it here calmly because this time he is wrong.

This was the last stable and consensual introduction in the Valencian language article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&diff=667207894&oldid=667205082 And I only returned to this intro. This intro was the stable introduction until Joshua Johnson arrived the "edit war day" of 25 July and he instead of reverting my changes he made 10 followed changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&action=history and in one of them he changed the introduction without asking anyone and without discussing it in the talk page. He is the only one making editions with no support from other users because several users edited the article from the last stable edition (667205082) and then Joshua Johnson did change it without the support from any other user here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&oldid=672980621

Yes, I've made editions who cost me the block of 48h, but those ones were saying:

Valencian ( or ; endonym: valencià, valenciano, llengua valenciana, or idioma valencià) is the language spoken in the Valencian Community in Spain and the name used to refer to the own language of the Valencian Community ; although it can be also used to name the Catalan language in that area. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish. A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect.

While the consensued and the actual edition I've made (according to the last stable edit before the editions of Joshua is) :

Valencian' ( or ; endonym: valencià, valenciano, llengua valenciana, or idioma valencià) is the variety of Catalan as spoken in the Valencian Community, Spain. It is often considered a distinct language from Catalan by people from the Valencian Community; however, linguists consider it a dialect of Catalan, because it is mostly identical to Catalan's other dialects, which generates some political controversy. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish. A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect.

Which is quite different from the one that costed me the 48h block and this edition was supported by a lot of users because it remained untouched until this edition of Joshua made 3 days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&oldid=672980621 --HardstyleGB (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

'''I've reported him in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page because he is edit warring and taking advantage of my situation. He changed on 25th July the last stable edit with the data he wanted without asking anyone and now he accuses me for my tituation...''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardstyleGB (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Question at Help desk about revision history of Mercury (element)
Hi Ed, thanks for letting me know. I've replied there. Graham 87 01:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Religiously Neutral
Ed Johnston. I am not "religiously neutral" as you have advised me to be. I am simply a Christian. Yes I am here to "right great wrongs" as you so rudely stated. Do what you wish. If WIKIPEDIA insists on publishing atheist material that is your business...HOWEVER, I was under the impressions that you folks were intent on truth. It seems not. PLEASE.........delete my account ASAP as I have no wish to be associated with a media that lies. Good day sir.2600:100E:B112:2767:34DD:F87D:6E9E:755B (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment must be intended as part of the conversation that began at User talk:ChristianRand. Accounts can't be deleted, but there is no obligation for you to do anything more. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban
Hi,

I appealed my topic ban (diff). Taking in consideration that we were involved in disputes in past and that you supported my ban and/or was against its lifting I would like to inform you that I appealed my ban so you could again present your opinion. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing the name of Persecution of Falun Gong article to Genocide of Falun Gong
There has been a discussion about this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Genocide The discussion about Genocide of Falun Gong was notified at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:China#Genocide and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Genocide on 4 July. It its not clear to me whether I have a consensus for changing the name of this article to Genocide of Falun Gong. Could you please read the discussion and tell me if I have a consensus for a name change. If I don't have a consensus for a name change, I would like to take this to arbitration as I think this is a very very important issue. Thank you. Aaabbb11 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are asking to change the name of an article. This is normally handled by the WP:Requested moves process. This article is under Arbcom sanctions so any name change ought to be approved by a clear consensus. I'm reluctant to draw any conclusion from the limited discussion that has already occurred at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong. Arbcom probably won't take the issue unless you have already followed the usual steps for resolving a content dispute. See WP:RM for what to do next. I can assist with the technical steps if needed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted request
Hi EdJohnston, could you point me into the right direction how to proceed after you deleted my request. Thanks,  R fassbind  -talk   20:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I originally referred your request for a move discussion, but after further study, I am just going to do it. 'Thin film', when used as an adjective on Wikipedia, is usually hyphenated.EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Book of Genesis
This article has been plagued for a few days by a rather persistent IP who keeps changing address, inserting unsupported POV. The community keeps reverting it, but the disruption is continual. Any chance of a protective action? Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected two months. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A complete calque-up
A question, inspired by the above question on renaming articles. A German editor recently created a short article, based on a good deal of wishful thinking and unfamiliarity with English, I would bet; he, or others, then translated it into the German Wiki. All of the more glaring errors are now corrected or identified on the English version, but the German still contains them all. Is there any mechanism for this situation? (See jeepomotive and its follow-ons for the whole picture.) I dunno where to bring this. 23:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)
 * Dunno what happened there; either a shortage or surfeit of tildes. Anmccaff (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider posting at de:Talk:Jeepomotive. Not sure what problems you see with their article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nearly every fact in it is wrong, often in direct, and obvious contradiction of the sources cited...or, at least they would be to an english speaker. The writer presumed that what is mostly journalistic wordplay was a proper English word, and it went downhill from there. For example, a use of a jeep as a makeshift locomotive in the Philippines is dated by the officer in charge's college year, a stretched passenger jeep, used for Coast Guard beach patrols, is re-imagined as a locomotive, the invasion of north Borneo is moved to 1943, Americans become Australians... Anmccaff (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would help if you added these specific criticisms to the German talk page. What you [//de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion%3AJeepomotive&type=revision&diff=144693521&oldid=144113017 just posted there] is vague. Also, if the errors are in one version of the English article, specify which one. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, and generating response. Who would I see about moving the media on wikicommons to a better-named category?  Anmccaff (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not leave a message for commons:User talk:Rcbutcher. He has categorized some related photos on Commons. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Again, thanks.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to locate bilingual admins? I have a situation on the German Wiki which is headed toward a simple edit war, and a fork in the path the two versions, English and German, take. Anmccaff (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You could view WP:WikiProject Germany/Members and look for people in the list who are admins. Or, if you see the name of someone you know well (even if they are not an admin) you could ask them to post on a German admin board for you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"List of multiple discoveries"

 * Thanks for your note in the matter of "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Nihil novi and User:Libesruinssineced reported by User:Mfb (Result: Libesruinssineced blocked)."
 * Two days ago, on 5 August 2015, I requested temporary semi-protection for the article, but NeilN determined that "semi-protection will do nothing, as all parties are autoconfirmed."
 * I did not know where else to turn. (By the way, User:Libesruinssineced actually first began his ill-conceived interventions on 14 July 2015—some 24 days ago.)
 * I owe a great debt of gratitude to User:Mfb, who brought the matter to the Administrators' noticeboard, and to you and your colleagues.
 * Thanks! Nihil novi (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Invisalign
Hi Ed. Under normal circumstances, I would be edit-warring over these edits that re-structure the article in a way that editors have not been supportive of on Talk. The discussion has been leaning against the editor's preferred version of the article, but they continue to insist on their version.(my comments here and the complete discussion here and here)

I was hoping you might have some advice on how to break the deadlock. Because I have a COI, I can't edit-war and escalate to the edit-warring board as I would do normally. The editor seems unresponsive to reason, compromise or feedback from un-involved editors and it's almost impossible to get a clear, unambiguous consensus for every little edit. Most RFCs for company articles end up expiring without a formal close and rarely get very much participation from un-involved editors on their own. It also seems unlikely a random disinterested editor will take enough of a sustained interest for things to settle out through bold editing. There are also other problems with the editor's recent changes to the article that will likely result in a similar resistance to changing their preferred version. I don't see how I can get the article GAN-ready while following WP:COI while this editing behavior is ongoing. CorporateM (Talk) 16:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The pagelinks for this article are at:
 * In a quick look, I can't see that the edits by Doc James made much difference to the content of the article. My own opinion on the article as a whole is that it's easy to understand. You can get the drift of what this invention is. It might be informative if the article would compare the current stock price (on NASDAQ) of Align Technology to the IPO price of 2001. If you do propose this article for GA review and any commenters mention the issues you are disputing here, that might give you more backup for your position. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments about other editors
Hello,

I need your advice. Are speculations about whether other editors are "marginally sentient being"s, "dumb" and "stupid" allowed at wikipedia?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Niki Romijn
Hi, today Niki Romijn have a fanpage. That page mention it here roles and her site more refrence?https://www.facebook.com/pages/Niki-Romijn-4dubfans/955545107800482 and you can mail it her on Nikiroijn@hetnet.nl. see her site and then contact. Succes.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Satyananda Saraswati's article
Paragraph regarding Akhandananda and Shishy is not relevant in Satyananda Saraswati's article in Wikipedia!

That paragraph regarding allegations against Akhandananda Saraswati has nothing to do with Satyananda Saraswati's article in wikipedia. It only refers to allegations against Akhandananda Saraswati. So should somebody want to write an article about Akhandananda and his actions that's where this information belongs and not in Satyananda's article. In referance to Shishy's personal opinion regarding the whole issue, I believe that the correct way to go is to write an article about Shishy herself as well as what she thinks Satyananda might have said or done, as no proof exists whatsoever on what she claims to have happened. I am astonished that Wikipedia allows the publishing of unsubstantiated claims placed on irrelevant articles....

It wasn't my intention to start an editing war(thank you for informing me regarding this issue by the way), but i would have never imagined that there are people publishing irrelevant information on articles without any proof whatsoever! Viennabe (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible 'War of the Pacific' issue......again


It has come to my attention that a 'random' IP user recently asked the editor Marshaln20 who incidentally is banned from editing Latin American history articles to somehow request an edit to the WoTp article. MarshalN20 directed the IP to user Dentren (who claims to be a friend) for the request. This might be a harmless request but mind you User MarshalN20 has a history of 'gaming' the system for his/her pleasure (which explains the edit ban on latAM articles). My suspicion is to think the latter. I've noticed recently that user Dentren has been on an edit war with Keysanger over an issue with the WoTP and now all of the sudden I see MarshalN20 come into the picture. As a keen follower of latin american history articles I just thought to put the recent developments into your attention as you been the only admin to have dealt with issues with the WoTP of late. I think Marshaln20 might be up to some mischief again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.185.165 (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see an IP offering to work on a translation from the Spanish Wikipedia. That seems useful, and User:MarshalN20 wants to direct the IP to someone who is in a position to advise him on that. No harm done, I think. If you are actually someone who has previously worked in this area it would be helpful if you would log in before commenting. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Ed. I find it interesting that this IP editor is from Australia. It was not long ago that Wee Curry Monster investigated a sockpuppet relationship between Keysanger and an editor from Australia (Chelios123). The duck test was strong on this one, but it was declined on a technicality (they edit from continents apart). I think that WCM was on the right track, but consider that the situation here is a very serious case of meatpuppetry...but no administrator has been able to put a stop to it.-- MarshalN20 T al k 04:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just only to say that, I would like to be in Australia, long beaches with fine white sand and palms, but unfortunately, I'm not and I never have been in Australia. -- Keysanger (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for taking the time to look into my concern. The reasoning for reporting my concern to you in the first place is that the WoTP article has a history of delinquent editors trying to add their influence to the article. The most recent one being darkness_shines who evidently is linked to the editor I mentioned before (also a delinquent). In the end i'm glad someone of authority is watching over important LatAm history articles.58.179.158.219 (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 58.179, you're welcome. But once again, your use of a throwaway IP to comment here takes away from the credibility of your case. Surely you must have contributed to this topic with other identities. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it very suggestive that an Australian IP reverted me and sided with Keysanger in the edit war he started on Economic history of Chile in February see diff and IP number here. Since this happened during the most heated part of the war I interpret this as of Keysanger forgetting to log in (or tried to avoid the WP:3RR). Thus I tend to believe Keysager uses Australian IPs or alternatevely has an inadequate relationship with them. Dentren  |  Ta lk  09:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok,, you find it very suggestive, right. Now tell us why have been deleted so many of your uploads in the English Wikipedia
 * Have you told a lie about your rights over the images?, for example, Lanin Epulafquen.jpg ("created this work entirely by myself") or Location Chile Capitania2.JPG ("Source=self-made)" or Valdivia de noche.JPG ("I took this photo"), Huilo-Huilo.gif ("I took this photo with my own camera.")?
 * Have you told another lies to Wikipedia?
 * Are you liying now?
 * Thanks for your sincerity, if any.
 * -- Keysanger (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you comments seems more of a personal attack than a serious investigation about my past misbehavior (5+ years ago). You are of course free to investigate my uploads but please stay on topic. Essentially I see this as Keysanger diverting attention from from the investigations of sockpuppetry and meatsockpuppetry involving me, Keysanger, Marshal and the Australian IPs, that is what concerns here.  Dentren  |  Ta lk  13:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@dentren Your recent addition to the post is incorrect and it unnecessarily involves another editor. At best i'm just a petty bystander with a keen eye on certain topics that include LatAm articles which is why I was concerned about the recent conduct of a known delinquent and yourself regarding the WoTP article. If you took exception to my concern (that was later judged to be benign) it wasn't meant to be directed at you personally. If you still feel strongly about it then I'll just feel sorry for you. I hope you and keysanger resolve your difference of opinions the right way via constructive dialogue and mediation if required. good luck to you. 58.179.158.219 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you have lied Wikipedia once and you are lying it now again because I am not the socketpuppet nor the meatpuppet of anyone, and I never was the socketpuppet nor the meatpuppet of anyone.
 * I have my own style, I don't need puppets like, a puppet of the people like marshalN20, darkness shines or dentren, who always see black/white, foe/friend, and never see gray tones nor nouances. Take a look to Special:Contributions/Eduardo_Eddy_Ramirez. His account was opened for and only for the discussion in the article War of the Pacific. He was guided by someone to disturb and to make trouble and then he disappered for ever. Such are the people working with them.
 * by the way, I have been accused of puppetry but the claimers had to show the white feather. If you want to repeat it, do it, go to WP:SPI and show your credentials:, good luck!. -- Keysanger (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

request block on IP 71.96.48.136 at Flat Earth
Repeat unsupported promotion of POV and edit warring. Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done by another. Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring with Philip J Fry
I think you made a mistake on the kind of messages I left on Philip J Fry's talk page.I barely understood the guy.I wish you should please quote one message I sent to him that was incomprehensible.Thank you. nyanchy 22:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyanchoka (talk • contribs)
 * This edit is the one I was thinking of. Were you proposing that he should 'execute himself?' That wouldn't be logical. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cydevil38
I don't know if you've been following this, but : the resolution of his ANI case seems to have had some effect on him: he made a new account,, and is using a range of IPs and refuses to log in. You can see his discussion on my talkpage. I'm really not trying to dog him, but I really don't see that we should let editors throw tantrums like this. This is his third username, and I don't think he "legally" changed any of them using the processes here at Wikipedia. Ogress smash! 02:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you see him editing any contested articles with more than one identity. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Full protection of Greeks
Hi Ed. I pinged you from 3RRN but I just wanted to make sure that you get my message. Please see my comments at 3RRN regarding the 3RR report against SilentResident and my opinion that full protection is not necessary as the only dispute is with the IP and not between registered editors. Thanks. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 02:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't find your objection convincing. It is best if everyone will use the talk page to sort out the differences in the population estimates, during the three days of protection. Most likely one party is way off base but merely from looking at the edits (and without getting any clear explanations from anyone) I can't tell who. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you don't see my point Ed. I have nothing to discuss with SilentResident. The only one edit-warring against established consensus is the IP and the IP is not discussing anything but simply reverting. There is no need for full protection since there are no registered editors edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 02:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So far there is nothing about this on the talk page. I was at first going to semiprotect, but then I saw that some registered editors had also gone over 3RR. The permitted exclusions under WP:3RRNO don't cover what you are asking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no risk for any registered editor to perform any more reverts once the article gets semiprotected. The IP was performing controversial edits, as for example reducing the Greek population of Albania to 27,000 from 200,000. SilentResident mistakenly reverted one of my edits but we talked about it on my talkpage and resolved it. There are no remaining issues between registered editors any longer so no discussion can take place between that group. The other revert of SR was to revert an edit by KazekageTR that raised the population of Greeks in Turkey from 4,000 to 300,000. Kazekage had been reverted since 2014 multiple times by different editors because this is a very controversial edit as I am sure you can understand. SR's revert of Kazekage is not controversial. In any case Kazekage has not edited since 2 August. So again, there is nothing to discuss between active registered editors. In any case, this is my best and last shot. You have the final say in this. I'm not in any hurry to edit the article but it was an interesting exercise in page protection philosophy. Thank you regardless. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 03:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The question of which numbers are correct can just as easily be discussed on the article talk page. If it turns out that most people are in agreement that could be a reason to lift the protection early. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a not very likely scenario that KazekageTR who has not edited in the past two weeks comes in within the next three days and reverts SilentResident. Then SilentResident reverts Kazekage and the edit-war starts anew. I doubt that Kazekage will suddenly appear in the next three days to start reverting. I also doubt even more that SR will revert again any time soon. Even if SR starts a thread to discuss with Kazekage I don't think it likely that KZ is going to discuss anything within the next three days. The only likely edit-warring actor here is the dynamic IP. But as I said above, this is just my analysis. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 03:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Winx Club
Hello.

I saw that you protected the List of Winx Club characters page because of my edits.

I usually try my best not to add unsourced material or remove sourced material when I edit, and none of my edits were unsourced. A new season of Winx Club is airing and new information has surfaced because of that, and I edited that page to reflect what we now know thanks to the new season (such as the Fairy Animals, and Daphne not being a member of the Winx).

I also edited characters' paragraphs to make them more ordered and consistent, and because some user (whose previous account and IP's have been blocked, I believe) had been tampering with the page by adding superfluous flowery language to the pages, such as adding " almighty and limitless power of the Great Dragon" instead of "the power of the Great Dragon", replacing "Winx" with "Winx Club" everywhere (although the term "the Winx" is often used in the show) and so on, and it only added way too much unnecessary wording to the paragraphs.

The minor character's sections had not been much tampered with, so I didn't edit them.

I hope you understand.

197.225.93.88 (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you intend to make large changes like this one you should use the talk page to get support for your plans. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll be more careful in the future, and I'll be less... extreme while editing.
 * Even in this edit, most of what I did was removing the poetic flowery language used by that other user and the way too many minor details added by them, and replacing it by simpler wording and rearranging some paragraphs they were too much of an incomprehensible mess. I didn't remove any substantial information.
 * That said, can you unlock the page? The new season is airing and there are new episodes airing weekly, so the new information does need to be added. When my edits were undone, all season 7 information was removed from the page.


 * 197.225.95.192 (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Though the article is semied, the talk page is still open to you. Is there any reason you can't use an account? Your above posts come from two different IPs, which is confusing if anyone wants to respond to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I used to have an account, but my computer crashed earlier this year and I lost access to it and to the email address I used for it. I'll try making a new account. :/ 197.225.95.192 (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your message
I apologize to my harsh tone, but I'd rather be blocked than to give in to Zanhe's threats, harassment and his continuous biased edits on the subject of Korean history. As for the edit warring, I believe the one making the bold change should first attempt a discussion instead of edit warring with multiple users. Zanhe's been edit warring with multiple users on the matter of controversy for the last six months. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, FYI, the admin you contacted banned me for "edit-warring" with a sockpuppet. Check these IPs for yourself.

219.111.108.28

133.236.57.143

220.100.223.245

219.111.108.168

133.236.57.143

133.236.112.95

This sock is also active in the article in question.

Sockpuppet investigation: Cydevil38 (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Cydevil38, if this is the best response you can provide, I am planning to go ahead with a one-month block of your account. You've been edit warring for as much as a year about old events in Korean history. We need you to agree to wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to Gojoseon and the Template of Korean History, the users severely disrupted the BOLD-REVERSE-DISCUSS cycle. One time I got blocked was for "edit warring" by a series of IPs that are likely to be sockpuppets(investigation pending). And there are at least two parties to edit warring, and it seems I'm the only one getting accused. If you think that BRD cycle should be ignored and let editors make bold edits without waiting for consensus, I ask that you go right ahead and block me. That being said, as long as a pre-bold edit version of an article is kept, I agree that one should discuss and endeavor to make consensus, which is what was done at the last controversy over the Gojoseon article and History of Korea template. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've also noticed your talk with HJ Mitchell. I believe his ban was unjustifiable, such as that Zanhe was also involved in this long-term edit war along with long-term sockpuppets. The stalemated dispute with Zanhe was resolved by my initiation, and it was a series of anon IPs, which I believe to be sockpuppets, that pro-longed the edit warring. After the conclusion of the current sockpuppet investigation, I will make an appeal for Mitchell's ban. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

cydevil38: I'm getting impatient with this indecision(And I'm sober). I've given this some thought. I'll agree that for next three months I get to have one revert in one page per month that informs breach of BRD Cycle or breach of a standing consensus in talks. I keep my rights to insert dispute tags(e.g. NPOV tags) infinite times, which disruptive users like Zanhe kept reverting in the past at Gojoseon. Edit warring sock puppets are also to be reverted infinite times, as along as they are against hard-reached consensus and do not partake in discussions at all. If there are alternative ways to deal with socks, please inform me. I'll keep up to these restrictions for the next six months. This is largely motivated in part on my actions to Ogress, for which I have apologized with sincerity over "gaslighting". I sincerely regret over that event. Also, Hopefully, you could warn Zanhe as well for long-term edit warring, and tell him about the BRD cycle. Like I said, there are at least two parties to edit warring. I'm Cydevil38, I currently scrambled my password so I can chill down and get sober for that matter, and hopefully involved editors won't hold as much grudge and can engage in talks without hostility in the near future. 121.161.79.71 (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The AN3 complaint about User:Cydevil38 is now closed with a warning. If he makes further reverts about the history of Korea that don't clearly have a talk page consensus he may be blocked without additional notice. His 24 reverts at Template:History of Korea since mid-2014 show that others disagree with his changes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After reviewing WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Collision787 I've semiprotected Timeline of Korean history and Template:History of Korea for one year. Gojoseon is already semiprotected three months by another admin. Let me know of any other Korean history articles that appear to be targeted by socks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I still want my right to make a single edit as to inform breach of BRD or consensus, and infinite edits and reverts regarding informative tags like NPOV or Citation Needed. Both Gojoseon and teamplate:History of Korea have active socks currently under investigation. And so what? I can't even add NPOV tags now when the article is under dispute? I can't inform users that they are violating BRD and consensus? As for Korean history articles targeted socks, you can start with Gojoseon and template:History of Korea. 121.161.79.71 (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody has an infinite right to keep reverting articles. As an IP you can still post your concerns on the talk pages. You aren't the only judge of NPOV. Neutrality is established by agreement among editors. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your time. I have a lot of questions and doubts, and I thank you for making informative responses. So let me get some of this straight.
 * I still need to make at least one edit to inform other editors of the relevant policies and invite them to the talk page.
 * I need to be able to add appropriate tags like NPOV on long-term disputed articles to let readers know that the article is in dispute. Disruptive users may remove them. In this case, what do I do?
 * As for articles targeted by socks, I'll inform you of the articles affected by them as you have suggested.
 * Do you think evidence for my edit warring over template:History of Korea is strong and wrongful, in light of extensive edit warring by a couple of users, including Zanhe(with whom I have reached consensus), and a sockpuppet? Thank you for your consideration. 121.161.79.71 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

(Cydevil38) You ban me over edit warring with a sockpuppet, despite my efforts to establish a consensus in the talks. It seems I won't be able to work with Wikipedia under these harsh conditions against disruptive editors who go unpunished continue their work. I ask for a 6 month ban. Those Chinese editors can mess up Korean articles as much as they want, I won't care. 121.161.79.71 (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

in Zambia 2. can't be arsed to log in to make a radical request like this 3. wouldn't just walk away instead of demanding to be banned via IP. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 07:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Apparently I misread the range and it's South Korea and he's used it before. *shrug* Okay, people are even stranger than I thought they were. Why does he say he's been blocked for edit-warring with an IP vandal when he's not blocked at all? Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 08:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cydevil38 Please ban me I cannot bide by your terms, and I'd like to be banned for six months or more if you please, under the same given reason, my 24 reverts at template:History of Korea. I'm sick of half-measures and users like Zanhe threatening me with AN moves like this. So please ban me for whatever amount of time you deem fit for making 24 reverts at template:History of Korea. 121.161.79.71 (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Strange? Did it ever occur to you that AN actions like 3RR creates hostilities and severely disrupt consensus making? Zanhe did even worse; he made an ANI report during a dispute resolution process. I was banned for edit-warring with IP socks by HJ Mitchell, and now again I am reprimanded(warned) for edit-warring with the same socks at the same article. The same article where I and Zanhe with much edit warring eventually reached a compromise and made consensus. I'm just sick of people who use ANI processes without making any effort for discussion, or do so during a dispute resolution process. In any case, I want to be banned for the same reason I was warned - making 24 edits to template:History of Korea. Be it a month, 6 months or even a year. Please make it happen. 121.161.79.71 (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are Cydevil38 and you've lost your password, you are not blocked. If necessary you can create a new account and start again. But admins are not going to put up with any more bad behavior about the history of Korea, from whatever source. Edits have to be made with consensus, and anybody who is here on a long-term crusade (who can't persuade the others) is not going to be welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I know I can revive my username. What I want is a lengthy block based on the same reason that you have warned me - 24 edits on Template:History of Korea. One months, three months, nine months, I don't care. Just ban me. 121.161.79.71 (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't you ban yourself? How about six months? EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I can't ban or block myself. So please ban/block me for six months as you suggested, for making 24 edits on template:History of Korea. 14:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.161.79.71 (talk)
 * If you still had a working account, that might be blocked for six months. But it's not worth it to block a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I promise you I'll be back to my account, and no longer use this IP connection. So please ban that account for the reason given. 121.161.79.71 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Under normal admin authority I can't ban any accounts. The most I can do is block something. If you have a working account, ask me again. Leave me a message when logged in to the account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had more trouble getting my password than I'd thought. I'm using this account from now on. Now, please block is for whatever duration you see fit for making 24 edits on template:History of Korea. And if possible, can you please transfer HJ Mitchell's block history to this account as well? Cydevil3800 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I was considering an indef block of your account. The problem was not just the 24 edits, it was the apparent belief you were entitled to keep reverting forever. (You were never going to accept an WP:RFC). If you go back to editing the history of Korea, admins will be watching. I think you know what is necessary to stay out of trouble there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of misunderstanding here. I know I'm not entitled to keep reverting forever. And what do you mean I'll never accept a WP:RFC? I've been in multiple WP:RFCs and Third Opinions, many by my initiation. I'm quite experienced with the dispute resolution process. I know what is necessary, but this "no revert rule" just wasn't it. Cydevil3800 (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to remind you, I'm not going to heed to your warning to keep your "no revert rule". You can block me indef at this point if you find this disagreeable. Nonetheless, I'll be more mindful of reverts from next time on, including notifying you of sock puppets and edit warriors. Also, next time, please contact User:Nlu if you find my behavior disruptive. He has much more experience with me and I respect him a lot as an admin(not HJ Mitchell). Cydevil3800 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My warning still stands, even if you plan to ignore it. You may be blocked by any administrator the next time you revert about the history of Korea unless your change is supported by a talk page consensus. You seem to find it to be too much trouble to negotiate for your changes. I'm pinging User:Nlu and User:HJ Mitchell in case they have any comment. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Indef block me. I won't be back by another account or IP, I promise. Cydevil3800 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made a revert. Now you have full reason to block me indefinitely, and please do. Cydevil3800 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic banned user wants to edit war
I'm not gonna go back and forth with him. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_M._Waugaman&action=history. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ed, did you do any investigation of this accusation, or are you following the usual wikipedia editor's practice of believing a crank like Tom Reedy just because he confirms your own deeply held prejudices? Do you even know who Tom Reedy is, or who I am? Not really. Think about it. You are in for a surprise. America deserves a better Wikipedia than this. You guys are out of control and will be stopped. --BenJonson (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Here we are witnessing a classic case of WP:NOTLISTENING. See and . Tom Reedy (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Question
Your comment on the 3RR noticeboard was to seek a mediation or some other mean to a dispute resolution (the article and the issue in question is one sentence on the page Serbs of Croatia) but I am not sure how to proceed here when the user "disputing" it outright refuses discussion, says I shouldn't edit the article since he basically knows better, logs of and posts as an anon to enforce his POV (IMO) and even basically called me insane in his last edit. I am not complaining about the user himself (yet at least) however if you do go look at his edits this seems to be his Modus operandi and he usually reverts people without proper explanation and generic summary that they "should stop edit warring" and go somewhere else. What exactly am I suppose to do there? Shokatz (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you help again?
You may remember that I was harrassed last month by an IP editor who was reverting my edits as an act of revenge (see: More edit warring??). It seems he's back - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.158.133.31 - with 28 reverts in 7 minutes, none justified or explained. Something must be possible. Cann this IP be banned? I suspect tha he will then reappera with another IP, that can also be banned??? Emeraude (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now blocking and  for disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to look at this immediately emerging situation
Issue: User completely reverting Talk comments of one User: A User that was in a recent edit war/block situation has taken it upon himself to completely blank out the Talk comments of this editor, see last two Talk entries here Talk as it should be versus The world according to… DePiep. See also here the edit history, where you see I had to experiment with his reversion, to believe my eyes, that he had actually reverted my entries. (Note, I do not know technically what he did, as the first violating edit of his, at 22:45, 18 August 2015‎ (DePiep, +4,687)‎, appears to be an addition. I simply know the result was to delete all my Talk entries of today.]

Please have a look, and restore the Talk to where it was before this problem editor did his erasure? It is urgent because others have been pinged to reply to the latest discussion (i.e., he needs to be reverted, and stopped from re-deleting Talk, before others begin to edit the wrong page.) Thank you for your attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. Initial matter settled—Talk page restored—but not before the fellow let Doc and I have it, mdr. See closing Talk section here, . Perhaps look in here  to make sure Bagumba's reversion stands, if your time permits. Cheers, Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do hope this is resolved. It's better not to use bold text to highlight your remarks on talk pages, because that can annoy people. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

RM Bongbong Marcos back to Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.
Hello, I noticed you participated in the 2012/13 discussion to move to Bongbong Marcos, which ended in "not moved". Someone started a new discussion a few months ago with barely any participation, not even taking in the factors mentioned in the initial RM and they moved it anyways. Perhaps you'd be interested to voice your opinion in the new RM I just started. Thanks. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk ) 09:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A new full-length move discussion appears justified. Up till now, I have participated only as a closer and I don't plan to offer an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction warnings
Golly, one editor says this to another editor at Talk:Planned Parenthood. . "(1) Go fuck yourself. (2) Then, go actually read the article here. (3) Then, you can come back and apologize for making a complete fool of yourself and wasting my time with this idiotic blather on an article that you haven't actually bothered to read." --User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL 00:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC). . and you then issue a warning message not to him but to some other editor working on the article. Could you explain this please. Motsebboh (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Joel B. Lewis is already alerted under WP:ARBAB. You too can issue the alerts if you wish. See WP:AC/DS. Nobody should be notified twice within the same year. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. However, the warning doesn't seem to be taking hold with him. What would be the next logical step? Motsebboh (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can notify him of this discussion, and invite him to participate here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * His strong language response to personal attacks just needs to be toned down. I can understand his irritation with the IDHT behavior by this very disruptive IP hopping editor. My section above is about this IP hopping editor who keeps attacking other editors. They have already received a DS warning, so their IPs need blocks now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, looking over the talk page, that this probably stems not from the quoted comment but from an earlier comment on the same page in which I was rude to User:Motsebboh. Having now figured that out: I apologize to Motsebboh for my remarks and am willing to try to figure out how to strike part of them, if that would be appreciated. --JBL (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. I do not have this page on my watch list but feel free to ping in response. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What you've said here, JBL, is apology enough for me, though you might want to contact Elizium23 to whom you were rather caustic. In my opinion the main thing you should do is to strike the G..F..Yourself comment to the IP editor, but, again, that's just my opinion. Motsebboh (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes JBL, it's probably a good idea to take the high road and strike that comment. If you don't do that and apologize, this will haunt you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're an hour or two late ;). --JBL (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

IP hopper whom you have warned makes personal attacks
You have warned this editor, and there are other warnings, advice, and instructions on their talk page, but they continue to attack other editors on articles related to Planned Parenthood:


 * User_talk:200.42.237.185

Other IPs used:



I just warned them one more time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There may not be much for admins to do. If Talk:Planned Parenthood degenerates too far then we might consider semiprotecting the talk page. There is an IP-hopper from Santo Domingo but Planned Parenthood is currently semied so they can't do anything there. It might be worth setting up an RfC on the talk page. The IP's comments at on their talk page do suggest a strong POV on their part. But if we begin to sanction based on strength of POV then we need to identify everyone who is in the same boat. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another admin has just fully protected Planned Parenthood for a week. This would allow time for RfCs to be set up, for those who are so inclined. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that we shouldn't censor people based on their POV. We'd all have to step down as editors! No, this is a case of someone who is very strongly opinionated attacking others because they hold an opposing POV. That's absurd. They must stop attacking others.
 * My message to them, also linked above, focuses on the absurdity of their actions (because of an edit conflict, I also restored their comment in that same edit). They need to be warned that personal attacks will not be tolerated. Since you have already warned them, a block, with that justification, is in order. If no action is taken, then your DS warning to them was meaningless and did more harm than good. They must learn that ignoring such a warning has consequences. The semi-protection is good, but since their disruption is primarily on talk pages, that's where they need to be met and stopped, even if only for a week or so. If they then IP hop and evade their block, then block them for evasion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:200.42.237.185&diff=prev&oldid=677677855 left a note] for the same IP that I previously alerted to the abortion discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now his 186 IP (see link above) is active and making multiple attempts (forum shopping?) to get others to see himself as a victim, instead of the attacker. His complaints of a liberal bias here are backed by many extremely partisan sources. His personal opinions and POV don't bother me, but his attacks on others because of their perceived bias is a direct violation of NPA. I have already warned him about it with this message:
 * "BTW, you need to stop these personal attacks on other editors because of their personal beliefs. It's a serious breach of policy. Look at "What is considered to be a personal attack?": "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Constantly bringing up other editors' POV as an argument to dismiss them is blockable, so stop it."
 * That message hasn't helped much. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP is now reverting my edits on my own talk page. --JBL (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ... which is not new: . --JBL (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive user
Greetings, Edjohnston. A long while ago you blocked this disruptive user for move-warring (of an obviously POV nature). That user is back, and is being highly disruptive here and here. Their contributions will give you a good idea of the behavior. Since this is an area with active discretionary sanctions, would you mind taking a look? If you find nothing problematic I will respectfully leave it at that, but uninvolved admin eyes are needed, and I'd rather not go to AE unless absolutely required. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You've alerted User:Unbiasedpov to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. That's a reasonable step. It does seem that he is unusually devoted to a particular POV. I'm not yet clear on whether admin action is needed. The 2009 block that you cite was based on a clear violation of WP:EW. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification from User:Unbiasedpov:-
 * Move-warring was in 2009 about article name.Proposed name was in compliance with Wikipedia article naming policy & I was not aware of WP:EW. In 2014, User:Vanamode93 was also blocked for edit-warring: [] Unbiasedpov (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Vanamonde93 provides talk page link here to prove disruptive behavior charge. Please click it. You won't find anything except solitary RfC link to sister article. I think that solitary link fully complies with Requests_for_comment." Is this disruptive?
 * User:Vanamonde93 provides talk page link here as disruptive behavior. Please click it. I have started RfC and I am trying to find a middle-path which would satisfy all parties.
 * I have not done any recent major editing except adding multiple-issue tag on article (Placing Multiple-Issue tag is in full compliance with wikipedia policy) and removing 2 citations,like Book on Urban India, which does not meet WP:RS policy. All 3 edits were promptly reversed without any discussion on talk-page. Multiple-Issue tag was promptly removed by User:Vanamonde93.

Disruptive_user is defined as "making false accusations", "leaving hostile messages on a user's talk page", "calling user names and threatening sanctions". User:Vanamonde93 has done all three? Please take a look. Unbiasedpov (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please link to where this is happening. If you think that a specific edit is incorrect, provide a diff. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Links:-
 * Check for Tags in Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots.
 * Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots
 * Diff [] & Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots Unbiasedpov (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject on open proxies/Requests
Thanks for following up and pinging me. This is interesting. It's a bit too clever for me, but I'm trying to learn. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Zzuuzz can explain this stuff. My patience does not quite extend to some of these cases, but the ones that appear in published lists of open proxies on the internet tend to give themselves away (so long as the listing is current). Also webhosts are usually obvious. There is a tedious but effective way to check a particular IP for proxy status, by changing the proxy settings in your own browser. (Though if it fails, it's not decisive. You might have used the wrong port). EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Follow up on your identification of the IP-hopping editor
Hi EdJohnston; Thanks for your backing up the other admin yesterday on page protecting Birdman (film) against the IP-hopping editor. There remain some previous edit consequences left over from the IP-hopping editor on other articles which were not cleaned up following the page protection for which I prepared the following report, I'm just not sure if this should be reported as a false copyright problem correction (vandalism page) or if it should go to the regular ANI page. If you could tell me the correct page for filing this report in order to complete the clean-up of the trail of disruptive editing made by that IP-hopping editor. MusicAngels (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Reporting WP:HOAX by disruptive IP-hopping editor following report by EdJohnston and other admin regarding the disruptive editor for IP-hopping and trolling

Recently some articles at Wikipedia went through rapid RfD deletion following false reports from IP-hopping editor(s) who have since been blocked and identified for repeat trolling and vandalism. Originally, admin had given the then new IP-hopping editor false reports credence following good faith assumption for new IP-editors. The false compyright complaints were then actioned by other Admins for rapid RfD and deleted. Following these article deletions, the IP-Hopping editor appears to have felt empowered to then initiate a trolling campaign on another page for Birdman (film), where the IP-editor was blocked and the Talk page there is now page protected. The IP-hopping editor is now blocked and the false report concerning copyright violations of material outside Wikipedia is now discredited. There are no copyright violations in the article deleted for "Poetry in the early 21st century" which is in agreement with all policies stated in WP:CWW and which is rated as an article of "High Importance" by WikiProjects.

The false copyright reports from the now blocked IP-hopping editor should now be corrected and the page for "Poetry in the early 21st century" should be restored along with its sibling articles. Now that the disruptive IP-editor has been identified by separate administrators, then there is no reason to support their past false reports and the article for "Poetry in the early 21st century" should be restored. MusicAngels (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links? This is a large problem and it's hard to sort out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes it does take a few links to do this. This is the main link where the IP-hopping editors were finally fully identified for disruption by admin: . The RfD deleted pages due to the false reports from the IP-hopping editor were at Poetry in the early 21st century, Poetry in the early 20th century, and Poetry in the early 19th century which should come up as redlinks following their being deleted although you should have access to them from your account. I am doing this extra effort since the "Poetry in the early 21st century" article was rated as "High importance" and the sibling pages are already reviewed by WikiProjects and WikiPatrol as useful to readers and editors. If you need more links for this large problem (the IP-hopping editor has gotten away with it for several weeks), then I did keep track of even more of the links if you need them and just let me know and I'll provide whatever I have available. Let me know what you need and I'll try to get it to you for trying to complete the repair. MusicAngels (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The three 'Poetry' redlinks were deleted by User:Nyttend as G12 copyright violations. The articles were previously discussed at ANI (permalink). You could post at User talk:Nyttend and ask him to reconsider his deletion. If you can't reach agreement with him, you can raise the matter at WP:Deletion review. People may be reluctant to bring back a copyright mess. Sorting it out properly would require an investment of time which someone would need to devote. When umbrella articles are created on Wikipedia it is common to use WP:Summary style. This leads to creation of main articles and sub-articles. Wholesale copying is not one of our usual methods for creating umbrella articles, since shared material can get out of sync. I think you would have an uphill battle to have these articles created in the way you prefer.  EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As the WP:TNT essay notes, deletion of a page on copyright grounds is basically a situation of "blow it up and start over". Unlike deletion for most other common reasons, a copyright-related deletion makes no statement about whether the topic itself is suitable for an article, or whether it's a good idea, or anything else.  Anyone is free to recreate new pages on these topics, but one may not use copyrighted text of any sort without complying with the text's license(s).  Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Recently, I was preparing to re-write some sections of WP:Copyvio and WP:CWW concerning emphasis being placed on copying outside of Wikipedia on the one hand, and on the other hand copying within Wikipedia. My examination of the various Noticeboards was that many editors and administrators were using the term "copyvio" interchangably to apply to both. I read the following text in WP:Copyvio: Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part. In these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page. This seems to suggest that there is an exclusion for re-using old Wikipedia material in new Wikipedia articles from the use of the "copyright" phrase at it is largely applied at Wikipedia. My question is, is "copyvio" being used as a term-of-art at Wikipiedia to describe the re-use or forking of old Wikipedia articles into new Wikipedia articles, or is this a misapplication of the legal code understanding of the phrase which recurs in the day-to-day usage of the term among many Wikipedia editors and administrators? (I am asking this about the Wikipedia side of things and not the legal code side of this question.) Cheers. MusicAngels (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I've been busy off-wiki. I don't think that re-using parts of old articles into new ones is at all a copyvio.  However, it's good practice to use the edit summary to say what one is doing.  For example, write "copying some text from Leprosy to Leviticus". Bearian (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (Reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC))


 * Thanks to User:Bearian for this, which now makes the other discussion above make more sense to me about unraveling what the WP:HOAX by the IP-hopping editor has caused following his false report of copyright violations. My understanding is that before we found out about the IP-hopping editor Hoax, that User:Nyttend took a "better safe than sorry" approach and when the articles were deleted User:Nyttend then automatically marked them as G12 based only on the false report of the IP-hopping editor which was credited then but is fully discredited now as a WP:Hoax . There was never one single sentence of the article which was quoted as causing a G12 problem, not a single one, and it was only the false claim from the IP-hopping editor (before he was discovered) which was believed prior to discovering the WP:Hoax only after the event. Since I am a meticulous author and editor who abhors any type of copyright violation, the personal insults made by the identified IP-hopping editor should no longer be perpetuated. Following the comment from User:Bearian above, an authority in this field, the articles should be restored as having no violations. They are not dudds to be TNT'd, and "Poetry in the 21st century" has been rated as being of "High Importance" to Wikipedia readers and editors by WikiProjects and WikiPatrol editors, and are worth restoring. The WP:Hoax of the discredited IP-hopping editor against 6 administrators should not prevail. My assurance to all 6 administrators that I have followed Wikipedia policies for WP:CWW fully and I am acknowledging fully the assistance from User:Bearian in offering his clarifications that there are no copyright issues "at all". MusicAngels (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:MusicAngels, I advise you to open a WP:DRV before going any further with this plan. If you create another copyright mess it is going to test the patience of admins. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Cydevil38(00) is clearly back
Cydevil38(00) is back as User:Stevenloveswaffles15. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 04:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Woooooooo, I'm BACK. I said there will be consequences, and some of it is already here. 59.7.207.43 (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ogress, I remember semiprotecting some articles, such as Timeline of Korean history, to restrain this editor from making POV changes while logged out. He is also mentioned in Sockpuppet investigations/Collision787/Archive. If you perceive that he is still editing against consensus on Korean history articles, provide their names and I'll investigate. Thanks, 00:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a bunch up at Sockpuppet_investigations/Cydevil38. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 00:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In my absence, this will be the first in a series of evidence of Ogress's and Zanhe's disruptive, anti-consensus editing in pages related to Korea, and their use of technical violations and administrations to intimidate editors that are against their POV. And to go further it has also become evident that you are a biased administrator, still blaming me of "anti-consensus" and POV editing while you do not consider at all of the accusers' own anti-consensus and POV editing and one more victim of their use of intimidation than consensus-building. Cydevil38 59.7.207.43 (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've been pursuing the same crusade since 2007, beginning as User:Cydevil, another account [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cydevil for which you have lost the password]. This is a long-running war with many socks. The solution may be to apply indefinite full protection to pages concerning Goguryeo and only permit changes supported by talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, only if the article is reverted to the page prior to the current edit war between Ogress and Stevenloveswaffles15. Ogress's flurry of anti-consensus and POV editing should not be rewarded. And really, you give me yet another accusation, that I have been abusing Wikipedia with sockpuppets? One further step towards bias. I won't be doing any editing again, thanks to you. Like I said, I'll just wait and see as Ogress and Zanhe's disruptive and anti-consensus editing accumulate to a ridiculously biased point and over time spark edit wars by parties other than myself. 59.7.207.43 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cydevil38 you claim not to be editing ("out of good will, I make no edits, despite the distrust I have been given"). yet you are editing at Goguryeo as User:Stevenloveswaffles15. If this is account is not a sock, how would you describe it exactly?  I'm not sure how we can take anything you say seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You just couldn't wait until the SPI is over to call User:Stevenloveswaffles15 as a sock of mine? One further step towards bias. I've already written this in my defense on the SPI page. User:Stevenloveswaffles15 has an opposing view over Shinsi. And see this discussion.  And see the main theme of User:Stevenloveswaffles15's edits on Goguryeo. The evidence is explicit that I am not this individual. 59.7.207.43 (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How about making a bet? If this SPI is confirmed, well, I am not to be taken seriously. If this SPI is rejected or not confirmed, I will be taken seriously, and you will, as you said as a resolution to this edit warring, indefinitely protect Goguryeo and revert it back to the page before edit warring involving Ogress and Stevenloveswaffles15. That is one step towards neutrality. 59.7.207.43 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know who belongs to whose sockfarm at this point and I don't care, the only thing that matters is consensus, which I tried with editor and got no result except more weird edits. He and a bunch of IPs have been edit-warring your specific topic of interest and all you are showing is that you are using this to try to get yourself back on Wikipedia and "punish" those who disagreed with you. For all I know, he's a meatpuppet friend you have or you're using an IP-hopper. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash!  05:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The IP 59.7.207.43 is apparently an indef-blocked Cydevil3800, The IP should also be blocked although the "user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Ogress, it looks like some admin action may be justified based on the long-term pattern of editing. Edits as far back as 2007 are worth considering, though you don't have to review the whole history. Since you've already reopened WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cydevil38 can you explain why the single editor behind all of these accounts ought to be indef blocked, based on the merits? So far nobody is technically banned, but one could make an argument for that. When an SPI contains such a long history, and the user claims to have periodically lost their password, the regular SPI admins may not see a pattern of abusive socking and may let it go. But if you review the merits, it may be treated as an edit warring case and justify action on that basis. If there is not a good enough case for an indef block, one that would hold up at SPI, I'd be inclined to go forward with a number of full protections. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and his aliases are indefinitely blocked at his request after his shrieking fit about how he couldn't edit if he couldn't edit war. Now he's back on IPs, in the range he's used before, taunting and harassing users (including me).


 * I don't know his relationship to the farm of IPs and, but the latter is certainly single-handedly engaged in an edit war on the exact same obsessive site of Goguryeo and its kings and divine figures, including Shinshi, going against consensus despite my repeat attempts to get him to discuss the issue, including referring him to the Teahouse and pointing out WP:RS and other policies as well as discussion on my talk page as well as warnings on his talk page: User talk:Ogress, User talk:Ogress.  has also been a side party to this, see User talk:Ogress.


 * After these discussions began here:, the user just went ahead and changed "Monarch" to "Taewang" and other material blitzed across every page he could find related to Goguryeo. Two reverts on nearly every article about a King of Goguryeo as well as on Goguryeo itself. Sample action by SLW that wasn't actually about royalty: Talk page edit in response to a revert, then his next edit is just changing it anyway.


 * Is SLW a meatpuppet? Is he a sockpuppet through a proxy? I don't know. But it's super suspicious that his interests are exactly what Cydevil obsesses over, it happens a week or so after Cydevil "resigns", and - most notably - Cydevil "lost" all his passwords and yet somehow magically knew there was an investigation into socks about him. It's these things that make me question what is going on, because while SLW edits acts like a noob and might be a friend overseas, there's no way there's no connection to the longstanding edit war going on with Cydevil that predated my first interactions with him by about eight years. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 18:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On another note, I'm frankly baffled by Cydevil's hatred of me and claims I am making radical changes to his precious pages without consensus, as I was merely objecting to his insistence that his personal religious beliefs were historical fact. What radical changes am I making, exactly? I'd like diffs of where I broke with consensus as well as a link to consensus. He can't do it, of course, because doing so is what got him in trouble in the first place. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 19:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Does my "religious belief" really have to do with edits like this? "Zero need for Hangul" in an article and a myth that holds much significance to Korea. You butchered contents that were there as far back as 2006. It wasn't even disputed in multiple edit wars as far back as I can remember. And my religion isn't something about Dangun, don't mock my religious beliefs over this. And can you in good conscience continuously claim that SLW is an "obvious sockpoppet"? See this talk page, just above your first accusation. I was talking about removing contents related to Hwandangogi, and by extent Baedalkguk, which SLW is trying to add. These are my repeated attempts to remove them in the article. And please see this talk page archive on Goguryeo. I opposed defining Goguryeo leaders as emperors, which is exactly opposite of what SLW was "obsessed" over. I am confident that checkuser in this SPI will turn up against your accusation, because I didn't do it, honestly. To that extent, what you have left is the option of accusing me over my behavior, which is meatpuppetry. Can you, in good conscience, still accuse me of sockpupettry or meatpuppetry over an account that edits against my own POV? 59.7.207.43 (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd like to bury the hatchet and keep good faith, make a new account(clearly linked to my previous accounts), and go for a mediation over the concerned articles. I will not edit articles, but only talk pages and others related to consensus-building. I hope User:Nlu, User:Lantrithor, User:Caspian Blue and WP:Korea get involved. What do you think? 59.7.207.43 (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Dispute between BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, re: article Proportional representation
Thank you for informing me of the complaint filed against me at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I understand users are required to notify other users if they file a complaint against them. This was not done by BalCoder as the complaint was filed in bad faith. This user has engaged in unacceptable conduct such as vandalism, incivility, personal attacks, and harassment in violation of WP's conduct policy List of policies. Thank you again for informing me of this egregious behaviour. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

good faith edits undone multiple times
Hey Ed, I noticed the article on Intelligent design is highly biased, and does not meet the wiki standards

there are numerous statments such as that ID is "psuedoscience" which not verifiable, and others which violate the wiki norms to "do not give undue weight"

I am new to editing, but the edits preserved all the original citations, and merely moved "pseudoscience" to a contentious section in the first paragraph, near where it originally was, except clarifying the known fact that not all scientists (most of them) do not consider ID "pseudoscience". To have "pseudoscience" in the very first sentence, and throughout, makes this article highly biased.

I am not hiding behind any IP--I just do not have an account set up yet, and my edits are important enough to be posted right now.

If you feel people must have "accounts" to post valid contributions, then could you go ahead and remedy the article yourself, particularly to remind readers that ID is a "view", not a "pseudoscience"?

I trust you would see this is a reasonable request that would remedy some of the clear bias throughout that key and important article

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.106.84 (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, where opinions sometimes differ! IPs were reverting the article while making no contribution to the talk page. You do have the option of creating an account. When I'm acting as an admin on a certain article I don't edit the article or participate in content discussions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but what did you do to this article? since you said: Changed protection level of Intelligent design: Persistent disruptive editing Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users (expires 22:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)) / Move=Allow only administrators / (indefinite)))"

Isn't it true that wiki still allows IP's to contribute "verifiable" insights into any article? So regardless of your proposal to dis-allow IP's, wikipedia's policy still says IP's are allowed to join in the discussion, even before they created an account. So how is it that you are able to block IP's (if that's what you are doing?)

Also, how is it that "IPs (mine) were reverting the article while making no contribution to the talk page."? Isn't it true that wiki does not require any "talk" step before making edits? I think the idea is that wikipedia assumes most edits to be in good faith, and therefore would not wish to hamper the valid (and verifiable) insights of good IP contributors--especially since that would delay things. My edits were all fair, and did not erase any of the original citations...it only clarified the (verifiable) fact that there are contentions between both sides of the article. So can you show me where Wikipedia itself mandates all contributions to go through a "talk" page first? It seems that would make wikipedia be "controlled" by an arbitrary group of people seeking to impose their views via talk pages, while suppressing any "minority" opinion, and this goes directly against the spirit of wikipedia, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.106.84 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW: How long does it take to create an account? Thanks!
 * About five minutes if you hit all the buttons in the right order. But a newly-created account still can't edit a semiprotected article until it has made 10 edits and been on Wikipedia for four days. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks. But isn't it true that wiki does not require any "talk" step before making edits?  Pls clarify, so we can be of more value as a community working together!  :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.106.84 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You might consider discussing the changes you wish made at Talk:Intelligent design. You can do that now, rather than constantly reverting. Cheers! --<font color="#666666">‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State  ‖ 23:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, will do. Just want to keep things fair for everyone.  However, will someone please answer: wiki does not require any "talk" step before making edits?  Yes?  No?
 * You can find answers at the Teahouse to your questions. I have put a link on your current IP page. The fourth pillar gives guidelines about discussions. Also, please sign your comments as described on your talk page already. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 00:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnson, I reviewed this policy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection I can see that this page keeps reverting against people who have IP's only and no account. Hence, I will set up an account. However, you also must assume good faith in editors. Mine was good faith, as it did not delete anything, and merely kept all citations near their place, with minor moving around. Yet, your "page protection" seems to put an unreasonable ban upon my IP until at least September. Again, my edits were in good faith, and will not be added again until we've discussed more in Talk, and I've gotten an account. As such, your block seems heavy-handed. Can you please remove the block? In return, I will go through the protocols you suggested via setting an account and discussing on Talk. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.106.84 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The semiprotection was justified. Whether you have an account or not, you still need to get agreement with others. If not, your changes will most likely be reverted. Intelligent design is a highly controversial article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Final Destination 3
Can you unlock the Final Destination 3 page, there are grammatical errors in the alternate versions section. Thanks bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.152.99 (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article needs to remain semiprotected due to the active edit war, though it's not your fault. Why not describe the grammatical correction on Talk:Final Destination 3 and someone else will make it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that I have created an account will I have the privilege to edit locked pages, or is this something that is granted over time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.152.99 (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please add your posts to the *bottom* of the talk page. You should be able to edit that article when you become autoconfirmed, which takes four days and ten edits. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

User:SyriaWarLato
Following the expiry of your block User:SyriaWarLato is now doing drive-by disruptive editting of pages I follow, see here: and. What remedies are available? kind regards Mztourist (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * wow. i feel i just got told on by a child. really? that's disruptive? SyriaWarLato (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * and this and this  Mztourist (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Colleen Evans semi-protection
Since the protection was removed, the article has been getting IP vandalism as well as good-faith IP edits that make changes against Talk page consensus. Can you put the semi-protection back for a few more months? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So now we have a war over her middle name, her last name, and whether to have an infobox. And this is a BLP article! I'm putting on six more months of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  My understanding is that she intends to eventually change the names of her social media accounts so that everything will say "Colleen Evans", and the warring about that should eventually be put to rest.  I am quite sure that there is no WP:RS existing in the world (except her birth certificate, if someone has access to that) that gives her middle name, and she does not use it professionally.  Some day, she may say it in an interview, but I don't think we can give it simply because her husband said it in a YouTube video.  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Asking for quick intervention
Normally I would be happy to let this user hang himself but in this case I think getting called out (along with a few other users) on a non-wiki site calls for a quick perma-ban. I've notified but he is unlikely to check his account until the evening. The issue is described on Ricky's talk page [] and the ANI is here []. I linked to a subsection but some relevant material is just above. I ask that the user be totally blocked until this is sorted out. Attacking the integrity of wiki editors on external sites seems to be very disruptive. (Springee) SpringALT (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Springee, the ANI thread about this is still open. If you think VeritasVincitUSA should be blocked, make your argument at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've asked in the thread. One admin seems to agree with the need for a block.  I've put together a justification but perhaps it isn't strong enough?  Given that the user has taken to attacking several editors on another forum I'm surprised that no action has been taken thus far.  Please let me know if you have any suggestions.  Thanks Springee (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

thank you
I want to thank you for your result ( I would have preferred something stronger for CFCF however your comments about him are clear ) thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your block of 114.158.133.31 and 153.163.72.121 (User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 37). I'm afraid I've been away travelling for the last fortnight, so I don't know whether this will be effective, but I'll let you know. Again, thanks. Emeraude (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. Now, how about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/180.47.245.138 reverting 21 edits of mine this morning? Emeraude (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And having put those articles back, we now have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.210.101.106 immediately reverting them again. Emeraude (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Followed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.158.130.143 Emeraude (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.177.123.156 Emeraude (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/180.2.244.246 Emeraude (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He doesn't seem to reuse any IPs. He just moves from one to the next. This would limit the effect of any blocks. It's hard to find articles worth semiprotecting because you work on so many different ones. Maybe you could ask a checkuser if they have any ideas? EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How do I do that, and will it be effective? I've got a list of at least 21 IP addresses so far, with all edits only on my created pages or reverts to my edits and nothing else. He is reverting every edit I make, even when I have edited without logging on, so it's clearly a case of harassment. Emeraude (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm out of ideas on this one. You might conceivably open an SPI to get more opinions, though there is no obvious reason to use the checkuser tool. However, checkusers might have some experience in dealing with similar abuse. Another thought would be to open an WP:LTA case to help in documenting the problem. People who are familiar with the edit filter could have some thoughts. The problem always involves IPs from the Japan Open Computer Network and always involves articles you have edited. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you form a technical request?
Hi, I recently tried to post a technical move request but the template asked for. What does this mean? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Instructions are visible if you open up WP:RMTR in the editor. Edit the section called 'Uncontroversial technical requests.' Type in the appropriate place. Replace 'OldPageName' etc. with whatever you are requesting. Use Preview to verify that this template expands into a normal-looking move request. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did and it was "malformed" like another request that was put in earlier. I can't remember which article it was that I was going to move now though (I was editing yesterday) and I tried looking through the page history but couldn't find anything. Where would I be able to find the page history just so I can check which article I was going to rename? Sorry for the hassle, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you check your own Special:Contributions/Drcrazy102 you'll find your post at WP:RMTR at 12:40 on 13 September. Unfortunately you can't see what you actually typed. But I tried entering this request just now at RMTR: and it worked. I hit Preview and saw it expand correctly, but I did not save. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh, thank you very much for that. I will put it up now. All the help has been very appreciated, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of vote and comment of opposing party by the WP:RM edit warrior
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Namur,_Belgium&diff=next&oldid=681035484 Domlesch (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the second time today you use someone elses talkpage to call me an ‘edit warrior’ without trying to communicate with me. Please stop this disruptive behavior. Tridek Sep (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Domlesch posted here because he was looking for help from an administrator (i.e. me). You seem to have been giving him a hard time recently, so I understand his concern. After all, you did remove his valid comment from a move discussion, as shown by the link he provided above. If there is something you two disagree about, we have methods of WP:Dispute resolution that you may consider using. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

An ANI Edit War question
Recently one of the usual suspects plastered my talk page with an edit-warring template while reverting a page without participating in a discussion. Says I, "what the Hell, he thinks it's edit warring, they have a page for that...". So I fills out the page then and there, I does. It's closed as "stale." Within how many seconds does this stuff have to get reported? Anmccaff (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You reported the wrong article. You said there was a war at Scarsdale diet but your diffs point to Pritikin diet. Why not leave a message for User:Bbb23 and see if he will take another look. Also, your report should link to diffs and not versions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That explains a lot. Thanks.  Anmccaff (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Socking


Hello. , who you blocked for edit-warring on Berbers, is per WP:DUCK with all probability a sock of indefinitely blocked user. I noticed them yesterday on Swedes (see page history) and intended to file an SPI today, but noticed that you had blocked them for edit-warring. Thomas.W talk 15:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes please, file an SPI. You might also notify User:Favonian. He is the admin who blocked JitsuFighter in June 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Need input
I would like to invite you to comment on Talk:Monadnock. Lappspira (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks like a hard question (whether monadnock or inselberg is better) and I don't have a comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the protection of Elvin Ng


Hi, why did you protect the page 'Elvin Ng'? What we did? He is a singapore actor.. Why can't we update his things? So from now on, we can't update his wikipedia? Then who is going update his wikipedia? We are his managers from singapore! Jaslynnng (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Semiprotection was requested at WP:RFPP. The Elvin Ng page has no shortage of editors. Per WP:COI, if you are affiliated with Elvin Ng you should not be updating his page anyway. Feel free to propose any changes you think desirable at Talk:Elvin Ng and others will consider them. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't get it? If you don't let us to updates his recent news on his page, then who else going to update it? U??? Do you know him well? Or you mean just leave his page blanks? Jaslynnng (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You've previously been warned by administrator Krakatoa Katie for your edits at Elvin Ng. You removed that post from your talk page, so I'm not sure why you are bothering to have this conversation with me. Why not ask KrakatoaKatie for her advice about your future editing? EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, EdJohnston, for not simply opening an SPI, but it looks likely that this account was opened after Jaslynnng received a final warning, just to perpetuate this slop. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Got some problems between two users on Talk:Proportional_representation


Hi Ed, I was wondering if you know of any Admins who are interested in Politics/Voting Systems who would be able to help mediate and settle the dispute. The two users are reverting each other and I have attempted some basic mediation without much effect. Any help appreciated (even suggestions), Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I left a note at User talk:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. If you have time to do so, it would be helpful if someone (anyone) could list out on the talk page what some of the questions are that are in dispute. Eventually someone could open an WP:RFC for one or more disputed items. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would appear that they have deleted the note. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston ,

I recently added a table explaining the three electoral systems as: Proportional Representation Systems, Mixed Member Systems, and Plurality/Majority Systems.

These systems already existed in the Proportional Representation article prior to my contributions. I have also added a plethora of sources substantiating this information. User:BalCoder is the only editor who has disagreed with my contributions. Additionally, he/she has refused to provide any sourced information to substantiate his/her opinions. I would welcome a mediation process. I would also welcome any editor who is willing to put the time and effort into providing sourced contributions to the article. In the mean time, I would appreciate it if Balcoder would leave the article alone while awaiting an Admin. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Ontario Teacher. It's good that you want to make contributions. It's bad that you appear to see the other contributors as a mere annoyance in your path. There is no substitute for getting WP:CONSENSUS. If you are all well-intentioned, that should be doable. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston, I welcome and appreciate the feedback and contributions from other editors. This is why I have, in good faith, sought and continue to seek a WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk:Proportional representation page. However, there is one specific editor who has chosen to arbitrarily reverted any and all of the content I have posted, regardless of how noncontroversial it is. Updates to the article in regards to which nations currently use PR have been reverted. For instance, Russia switched from List PR to MMP in 2014. This sourced update was reverted without explanation. In particular, minor edits Help:Minor edit that I have made that only pertain to spelling and grammar errors and the addition of Wiki-links Help:Link to the appropriate articles have also been reverted without explanation. Thank you for your assistance in the mediation process. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I encourage both you and the party you are referring to (User:BalCoder?) to get consensus before making further changes. In any event, User:Abecedare has put Proportional representation under full protection until 1 October, so no progress will occur unless you are willing to discuss. While we are here, I hope that this Toronto-based IP 24.114.70.23 is not you editing the page while logged out, because that would be a policy violation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

CFD
See WP:DEFINING. People imagined that they'd restrict categorisation by saying "don't have categories for things that aren't defining", but instead of arguing over whether categories are relevant, they now argue over whether they're defining. I don't subscribe to the concept as a whole, especially because the professionals don't make such strict standards, allowing topics to be categorised on grounds still relevant but not as precisely tied to the subject of the article. Imagine a category for "Marriage with deceased wife's sister"; it would be deleted here because it could only be applied to Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907, but with LCSH we can (and do) apply it to a work mentioning the subject even if it's only a side topic and not the core subject of the work. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * PS, in case you're not familiar with it: LCSH = Library of Congress Subject Headings. I didn't have a cataloging class in library school, but I spent the first half of this year on a 1300-item cataloging project, so I have a little experience with the concept.  Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester
Thanks for the ping. Cut a long story short - RGloucester didn't get his own way, threw all toys out of pram, went on a talk page move rampage and is now indeffed. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy moly, what a mess. I think Favonian's "or something" captures it nicely. Shame. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If history repeats itself, RGloucester may return one day. Though he is testing people's patience. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Question
Hi Ed, this is a procedural question: once an appeal has been declined at WP:AE is it permissible to appeal against WP:AE's decision at WP:ARCA? Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. See WP:AC/DS for your options. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So where did it go?
Hi. I saw your note on the Classical project page about the Catullus bibliography. The link you gave is now suddenly a redlink, so, having noted with great pleasure that such a bibliography page exists, I now can't find it! Can you tell me where it moved to? Thanks -- Andrew Dalby 16:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Catullus/References/talk. Always tricky when an RM discussion disappears due to the move. I left a note back at the WikiProject. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ARCA appeal
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Soham321 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Some messed up moves
I'm not sure what the intent is (else I'd move them myself), but Talk:Bell (disambiguation)/Agusta Aerospace Company didn't seem to end up in the right place, nor did Talk:Bell (disambiguation)/Agusta BA609, Talk:Bell (disambiguation)/Agusta BA609/Comments. It looks like you moved with all subpages moved also. Can you get them to the right place? --Izno (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not clear why those pages are here. The ones that are only redirects can probably be deleted by G6. If there are any comments posted they could be moved to the respective talk pages of the live articles. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I just happened to have one of the pages on my watchlist. --Izno (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They got caught up in the recent move of Bell to Bell (disambiguation) because Wikipedia's software assumes Talk:Bell/whatever is a subpage of Talk:Bell. I've deleted a couple and moved one back, think it should be alright now. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * After a little research I figured the same and moved a few of them on my own. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the tricky slash-named articles. Topics with embedded slash can sometimes be named in equally acceptable ways that are minus the slash. I looked into the Bell/Agusta company and it seems it has been renamed to drop the 'Bell': see press release which says that these aircraft are now made by AgustaWestland. Probably there should be an RM at Talk:Bell/Agusta Aerospace Company to get some publicity, because aircraft such as BA609 will now be AW-something, and this may require changes in article text.


 * The first paragraph of the article suggests an acceptable name for what we are calling Bell/Agusta Aerospace Company could be AgustaWestland Tilt-Rotor Company, though the cascade of corporate name changes may not be over. User:Huntster has some time ago renamed Bell/Agusta BA609 to AgustaWestland AW609, so that one is taken care of. See a recent corporate update. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Assuming that Bell/Agusta Aerospace Company is still correct at least as a piece of history and doesn't require merging, or renaming as the Tilt-Rotor Company I'd suggest moving it to Bell Agusta Aerospace Company to get rid of the slash. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did the move to Bell Agusta Aerospace Company. No objection if anyone wants to reorganize this material, which is now only historical. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this a possibility
Back again. After our earlier correspondence (see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 37 and earlier) I wnet to sockpuppet investifations (see Sockpuppet investigations/114.167.178.175) but to no avail. Not that I expected much. I can now add to the list of IPs 153.202.189.1, who yesterday reverted a whole bunch of my edits - ones that as another IP he had previously reverted twice or more. But, some of my edits were also reverted by Special:Contributions/Walter_Görlitz. This user's contributions record shows he was editing from 13:22 until 13:27, when he edited some of the articles concerned, largely by replacing what the IPs wanted. Then there is a break in his editing between 13:55 and 14:05. Between 13:54 and 14:15 the IP did his stuff. Is there a connection or a fantastic coincidence? Emeraude (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Connah's Quay F.C.
Hi, I'm Scope creep. EdJohnston, thanks for creating Connah's Quay F.C.!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hope about linking to George Smith (footballer, born 1910)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. scope_creep 18:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:Kivo, who is the person who added the new material about the old Connah's Quay club, the one from the turn of the 20th century. You are suggesting a link to George Smith (footballer, born 1910), who was a player for the team. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Request
I have filed a request for arbitration over my last block:

Arbitration/Requests/Case.

jps (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Renewed warring at Walashma dynasty
I see you protected Walashma dynasty previously. A new editor is adding unsourced material as well as edit warring. He does not seem to get the hint after I have tried talking to him on his talk page . Zekenyan (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:WilinWili is now blocked 24 hours for warring to add unsourced material. He had been sufficiently warned, but continued regardless. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Finishing my job for me
Thanks for the notification at User talk:Hawljo. I was in a hurry and forgot - I apologize and appreciate the help. JohnInDC (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Ooops, sorry. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Poetry in the early 21st century
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Poetry in the early 21st century. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MusicAngels (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Drv looks like it is duplicated now after your edit there. I thought you had requested I repost the matter there, otherwise I would have indicated that it was repost as I did in the text for User:Bear above on your Talk page. MusicAngels (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WIth your permission, I'll remove the material you copied from the DRV and replace it with a link to a section of my user talk. My user talk is not the proper place to get consensus to overturn a deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi EdJohnston; I am following your lead in this, since my original thought was to file this a WP:Vand which you corrected. I am much moved by the comment of User:DGG this morning who is apparently trying to prepare a more detailed Drv comment. We appear to have a full id on the editor who started the hoax in case anyone is still watching this, who is User:JR[...] and who has self-identified on his user page as a high school poetry teacher preparing to save his school from articles that do not mention his favorite poets Cordelia Ray and Allson Whitman. His addition came late last week on the Drv page and his concerns of being a poetry teacher and an admirer of these 2 poets match fully with the edits made on the Talk page and the article which he was making as an IP-hopping editor last week, and which resulted in the article's eventual deletion. Drmies has counted, I think, 8 disruptive IP-hopping attempts with blocks and the following words: "that IP, or those IPs (there's probably three or four distinctly different sets), are trolling the hell out of my talk page." Possibly the two of you can decide on the best message to send him. MusicAngels (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * MusicAngels, are we talking about the deletion or about the troll? The two have nothing to do with each other in the sense that nothing in that deletion or DRV process affects what should be done to the troll, and vice versa. Are you saying knows the account name of the troll? Drmies (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Drmies, regarding the Drv, the comments from DGG seemed very useful and his follow-up on the specifics once he looks at them might be pertinent. Separately, regarding the troll identification, it is here: . Apparently your multiple blocks on the various IP-hopping addresses has caused him to finally sign in and inadventently self-identify himself (which you can see by looking at that editor's User page where he identifies himself as a high school teacher who is out to protect his students from articles he does not like, and he names his favorite poets which are the same as the claims from the IP-hopping addresses). The self-descriptions we have from the IP-editor on the deleted article Talk page matches with the self-description of the logged-in User account I just provided in the link. MusicAngels (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , please give me a few of those diffs, where the IPs and the account profess the same interests etc. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Section break for access
Regarding the requested diffs you just made above and which are available, they are in 4 parts, identifying the troll as follows:
 * (1) Both the IP-hopping troll and the identified user have self-identified as a poetry teacher with "academic" concerns having the same favorite poets.
 * (a) The identified user indicates this on their User page here.
 * (b) The IP-hopping troll identifies "academic" concerns on your Talk page here: and also on the article Talk page which currently cannot be linked since it was deleted.


 * (2) Both the IP-hopping troll and the identified user have identified the same favorite poets Cordelia Ray and Allson Whitman (links:H. Cordelia Ray or Albery Allson Whitman).
 * (a) The identified user indicates this on the current Drv page here:
 * (b) The IP-hopping troll indicated the same favorite poets by edits made to the article now deleted ("Poetry in the early 20th century"), which I cannot link here, but which you should have access to from your account. Note that the edits on the article pages themselves were typically done on weekends and then removed after the weekend, back-and-forth).


 * (3) Both the IP-hopping troll and the identified user have used by list of contributions History page in order to identify pages which I edit and which they both zero in on.
 * (a) The identified user used my list-of-contribs History to locate and comment on the Drv in progress now
 * (b) The IP-hopping troll used my list-of-conribs History to locate and troll on the Talk:Birdman page (otherwise these two pages, the Birdman (film) page and the Drv page, are random and unrelated pages) which was done here, and here , and here.


 * (4) Both the IP-hopping troll and the identified user are chronologically linked after the needed sequence of blocks you have executed from your account to control the IP-hopping which then, and only then, caused the identified user to use his password account in order to be able to sign-in (do we have the IP-address of this sign-in) and to try to prevail again on Drv now that so many of those IP-hopping accounts have been blocked.

The appearance is that it was only your making those needed blocks which caused him to finally sign-in to be able to continue editing, or otherwise the IP-hopping and trolling would extend indefinitely. What is the best message to send him. MusicAngels (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * MusicAngles, the Cordelia and Albery items would have been some evidence, but I cannot find them mentioned in the article (and I looked at many versions) or the talk page (ditto). That they may have found your edits in the same way, that's not much, and that they signed in after a bunch of IPs were blocked isn't much either--after all, the DRV wasn't semi-protected. So, I'm sorry, but I don't see it, and given that many of the IPs geolocate elsewhere (though there were a few in Texas) I can't really use that either. Ed, can you give it a go? Drmies (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets I can leave for both of you to decide, but the IP-hopping troll is now fully joined with the registered account mentioned above here, and ready for more test edits on the Cordelia Ray, James Corrothers, and Albery pages together. On the related articles for Cordelia Ray and James D. Corrothers, their last edits were to start to republish their favorite long poem at length on the article page itself here . I assume their next test editing targets shall be the FA article for W. E. B. Du Bois and the sibling article on Paul Laurence Dunbar. MusicAngels (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston and IP-hopping troll is back again apparently to continue what appears to be another sockpuppet of meatpuppet hoax. The recent edits by the sign-in name JRW... appear to have no verification on the Wikipedia sibling pages for Du Bois and Dunbar which he is claiming as "general knowledge". I am out of good-faith reverts on this and either have to report him for edit warring, or report the IP-hopping account for vandalism or another hoax. Let me know if you have a better solution since the IP-hopping troll is still out there with no one else investigating. Here are two of the apparent further IP-hopping troll accounts bolded:

(cur | Prev) 192.12.13.14 (talk)‎. . (6,292 bytes) (+282)‎. . (→‎Stop making serial reverts against Wikipedia policy) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:34, 4 September 2015‎ Neuroxic (talk | contribs)‎. . (6,010 bytes) (-376)‎. . (tidying) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 11:10, 1 September 2015‎ Neuroxic (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (6,386 bytes) (+1)‎. . (sp.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 11:06, 1 September 2015‎ Neuroxic (talk | contribs)‎. . (6,385 bytes) (+6)‎. . (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 04:19, 1 September 2015‎ Neuroxic (talk | contribs)‎. . (6,379 bytes) (+87)‎. . (vacation time...) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 15:35, 31 August 2015‎ EdJohnston (talk | contribs)‎. . (6,292 bytes) (+300)‎. . (→‎Stop making serial reverts against Wikipedia policy: Attribute an unsigned comment) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 11:27, 30 August 2015‎ 199.48.243.168 (talk)‎. .


 * I now notice that the IP-hopping account has filed an ANI on my account if one of you could look at this. MusicAngels (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

IP-hopping editor is back again, 3 new IP-hopps in last 24 hrs
@EdJohnston and Thanks to both of you for the blocks you have placed and the page protects. No sooner than the blocks expired than the IP-hopping troll has returned in the last 24hrs for 3 more IP-addresses. That's a total of 17 addresses so far. In case one of you might be able to look at this, here are the most recent IP-hopping addresses for what you have both been calling trolling and probable sock activity, now taking place at another admin page at DGG:

(cur | prev) 22:31, 17 September 2015‎ 128.90.95.145 (talk)‎. . (499,294 bytes) (+578)‎. . (→‎Your useful comments) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:15, 17 September 2015‎ 128.90.39.243 (talk)‎. . (490,184 bytes) (+9)‎. . (→‎Your useful comments) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:14, 17 September 2015‎ 128.90.39.243 (talk)‎. . (490,175 bytes) (+1)‎. . (→‎Your useful comments) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:13, 17 September 2015‎ 128.90.39.243 (talk)‎. . (490,174 bytes) (+916)‎. . (→‎Your useful comments) (undo)

(cur | prev) 01:25, 16 September 2015‎ 128.90.91.69 (talk)‎. . (474,294 bytes) (+7)‎. . (→‎Your useful comments) (undo)

(cur | prev) 01:24, 16 September 2015‎ 128.90.91.69 (talk)‎. . (474,287 bytes) (+477)‎. . (→‎Your useful comments) (undo)

Posssibly you could glance at IP128.90[large range of block evasion accounts] for that editor. MusicAngels (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A check of range contributions from 128.90.0.0/16 suggests that a rangeblock would not be worthwhile. The IP editor was posting at User talk:DGG and at Talk:Birdman (film) but I don't see enough abuse to justify semiprotecting any talk pages. At least not yet. User:Drmies collapsed one of the sections at Talk:Birdman (film). If you think that some previous blocks ought to be renewed, let me know which ones. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not a troll! I can't help the change in IP addresses and I object only to the bullying tactic of User:MusicAngels who has refused to acknowledge the rights of IPs to edit. If my system gives me a new address every time I log on, what can I do?  Hopping implies I am hopping.  I'm sitting in one place.  128.90.95.215 (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My problem isn't the hopping; it's the disruptive nature of some of your edits. Plus, there are some concerns about whether you're editing while logged out, which, depending on the circumstances, can be a violation of policy. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I just place page protection on  Cordelia Ray and James D. Corrothers for edit warring. Bgwhite (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Troll is back again, possible reconsider
Hi EdJohnston; Thanks for the explanation on the range block for IP=128[...]. I read through all of the many accounts there and it does not seem that any large scale or even medium scale Wikipedia contributor would be badly incovenienced by a range block. The IP-troll is back again here and there does not appear to be any end in sight for him (apparently he feels empowered at the Poetry page deletion caused by his WP:Hoax). I am requesting that the range block be re-considered, and if needed individual IP-accounts be restored upon request only. Otherwise I am in the position of having to request up to 22 selective blocks on the IP-range, and more as needed, since this IP-troll is now at it for 3 full months and seems to have more than a simple fixation at this point, possibly behavioral or maladjustment issues for all we know. Anyway, I will continue to support you in your decision either way, and will continue collecting the now very long list IP-hopps by that editor. We now have a drop-in editor from one of the IP-account ranges indicating that it is Univ of Maryland; does that match with your previous investigation anywhere? MusicAngels (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:MusicAngels, can you make a list of the IP addresses from the 128.90.* range you think to be this guy? That would allow a better estimate of the collateral damage from a rangeblock. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can do my best. The most recent one is: 128.90.91.240. My effort today will be to collect these and add them one-by-one here, since this has been a deceptive IP-troll who apparently has access to a very broad range of IP-accounts. There are several of this range account that are already collected in this Talk section here previously for convenience in the above subsections. Plus 3 more:

(cur | prev) 22:31, 17 September 2015‎ 128.90.95.145 (talk)‎. . (499,294 bytes) (+578)‎. . (→‎Your useful comments) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:15, 17 September 2015‎ 128.90.39.243 (talk)‎. . (490,184 bytes) (+9)‎. . (→‎Your useful comments) (undo)

(cur | prev) 01:24, 16 September 2015‎ 128.90.91.69 (talk)‎. . (474,287 bytes) (+477)‎. . (→‎Your useful comments) (undo)

and another one: 128.90.95.215 (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

and another one: 128.90.35.134 (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

More: 14:29, 17 August 2015 (diff | hist). . (+297)‎ . . N User talk:128.90.94.229 ‎ (New to Wikipedia.) (current)

(cur | prev) 10:18, 12 September 2015‎ 128.90.95.63 (talk)‎. . (62,924 bytes) (+431)‎. . (undo)

(cur | prev) 03:14, 12 September 2015‎ 128.90.39.238 (talk)‎. . (62,493 bytes) (+208)‎. . (→‎Disruptive IP-editor refusing to identify their sign-in account name) (undo)

(cur | prev) 01:52, 30 August 2015‎ 128.90.34.191 (talk)‎. . (48,669 bytes) (+731)‎. . (Undid revision 678544450 by Drmies (talk) please keep history) (undo)

(cur | prev) 01:02, 27 August 2015‎ 128.90.39.137 (talk)‎. . (12,318 bytes) (+158)‎. . (→‎Stop adding improper hat notes) (undo)

I will continue to supplement as needed, and there are also some to be recorded from the Talk page for the Poetry article which were deleted (Poetry in the early 20th century) which I cannot link to though it should be available from your account. MusicAngels (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding yet another IP-hopp to the list. If there is some threshold on the number of IP-hopps needed for the range block against the IP-troll then please let me know. If you need one dozen, or one hundred such IP-hopps before the range block can be reconsidered. Could it be done as a time limited 30-day block to see if the IP-troll can settle down. MusicAngels (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ed, please see the note by on the editor's talk page. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Drmies and User:MelanieN. I'm starting to lose the plot of this story. I had just figured out a /18 rangeblock that might work, but now you are telling me the IP is a good guy after all (or at least, not a bad guy). EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that MusicAngels may not be the most reliable source for who is and is not a troll. I personally don't see the alleged trollishness, and the examples given here don't support it. Something like "IP editor refusing to identify their sign-in account name" is not disruptive behavior; on the contrary, it may be considered disruptive for MA to ask such a question. (In fact check out these demands from MA: "you need to identify yourself promptly by simply typing in your user account name manually at this time. No further edits are to be made until you identify your account name which you have identified yourself as having on your IP-account Talk page, and identify it prior to further edits on this article." "You are required by Wikipedia policy and procedures to identify yourself with your sign-in name prior to further edits here and to follow well established Talk page procedures." This is an additional example of MA misquoting or even inventing "Wikipedia policy".) I checked several of the IPs identified in this list. I notice one was blocked for edit warring, but overall their contributions (often a single contribution) have not been disruptive or deceptive; at User:DGG they admitted being the same person and said they couldn't help it if their IP kept changing. I'm not calling for a WP:BOOMERANG but just suggesting that we not act on MA's suggestion alone. Another reason to be cautious in accepting what MusicAngels says: the latest IP said "this is the IP address of the guest sign-in of a Maryland-area university". So here we have MA asserting, above, that the IP is from the University of Maryland. But at my talk page MA asserted with equal confidence that it is from Johns Hopkins University. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston and ; The source for identifying those editors as disruptive was User:Neuroxic and User:Drmies, which you appear not to have seen and which I am reposting in the section directly below since its the only way I know how to link to Drmies archive page which is where they are archived. My reports have been fully consistent with those original comments made by User:Neuroxic and User:Drmies. @EdJohnston; If there is any way you could place your range block on the IP128 range above then please follow up on it; I have labored intensively all week-end to obtain the long IP-list for you as faithfully as was possible for me to do over the entire weekend. It is as accurate and verified a list as I could compile. @MelanieN; Thanks for your comments which I will fully follow, and I hope you can glance at the full report and interchange between Drmies and the IPs which I am including below. There is also the exchange between Drmies and Neuroxic which appears on the Birdman (film) Talk page which further identifies those disruptive IP editors and what they are doing. The IP192.12.13.14 you mention above is only one IP for another range-of-IP-accounts which I discovered for Johns Hopkins University (originally, that IP-editor had tried to create a smoke-screen by refering to it as a university somewhere in Maryland) as follows: 192.12.13.14, 192.12.13.5, 192.12.13.14, 192.12.13.7, 192.12.13.2, 192,12,13.1, 192.12.13.32, 192.12.13.3, 192.12.13.13, which give evidence of multiple warnings and multiple blocks to the point that Previous other editors at Wikipedia identified the Johns Hopkins I.T. Security Office by street address and zip code, which was originally done by previous Wikipedia editors before I found them on the new range-of-IP-accounts. My report to you was conistent with all this information as it is presented here and in the subsection below. @EdJohnston; If you have a working solution for the range block on the IP128 addresses, then please by all means place them as being well-researched and done in the best intentions of locating those editors previously identified to me by User:Drmies (see below) and User:Neuroxic as disruptive editors (see Talk page for Birdman(film)). MusicAngels (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston: Could you please leave an update note for who is trying to read the record of this sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation in reverse chronological order. In her text above, because she is reading the historical record in reverse chronological order, she is quoting IP-editors whom you have already investigated and blocked! The one she seems to be especially moved by was the one who claimed to be sitting in a hotel room which was not allowing the IP-user to sign-in to their own account. I said fine and asked that they simply manually indicate who they were so that they would not look like a sock. They refused, you investigated and then you blocked them as a sock . Please bring MelanieN up to date on this, and I have left her the spi template she requested on my Talk page. Once again, I am very grateful for your effort in creating a working solution concerning the IP-range block which I hope you can place as quickly as possible. MusicAngels (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

They refused, you investigated and then you blocked them as a sock Actually, that's not correct. EdJohnston blocked them for a week for disruptive editing - not as a sock. You should read your own links so that you don't misquote them. But let's get to the bottom line here, and take a look at the new "range of IP accounts which I discovered," that you think need to be investigated, or better yet, range-blocked. Your list is:
 * 192.12.13.5 hasn't edited since 2013, so irrelevant now
 * 192.12.13.7 hasn't edited since 2014, so irrelevant now
 * 192.12.13.2 hasn't edited since 2014, so irrelevant now
 * 192.12.13.1 hasn't edited since 2014, so irrelevant now
 * 192.12.13.32 hasn't edited since 2010!
 * 192.12.13.3 hasn't edited since 2014, so irrelevant now
 * 192.12.13.13 is the only one who has edited in 2015, most recently in July, and their articles edited do not overlap at all with 192.12.13.14
 * and that brings us to 192.12.13.14 (you listed it twice), whom you have repeatedly called an "IP-hopping troll". And yet there is no evidence at all to connect them with any of the other 192 IPs you listed, and nothing to connect them to the 128 range. I think you owe 192.12.13.14 an apology - and maybe also an apology to EdJohnston, for wasting his time with this "range-of-IP-accounts" which is clearly not a sock farm. MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . My hope is to fully defend the edit and block made by EdJohnston even though he is more than capable of speaking for himself with his own words; "Eight reverts at Birdman (film) on September 11. Probable socking. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)". Please read the post by EdJohnston as he wrote it for the benefit of everyone. I notice today that EdJohnston is continuing his investigation this very day of this larger sock puppet investigation and I must await his results prior to me making any further contact with any of the sockpuppets/meatpuppets. Since you have only joined this discussion yesterday, I ask that you join us in this investigation rather than seeking a super-fast closure prematurely. Your skills would be much appreciated. My providing the SPI information for IP192.12.13 was completely different than my reason for providing the SPI information for IP128. The range block for IP128 which EdJohnston has prepared to counter the disruptive editing from the IP128 range was fully researched and should be applied as fully worthy of EdJohnston's diligent effort to further the investigation of that account. If EdJohnston has a working solution for the IP128 block then by all means please implement it as thoroughly researched. @MelanieN; The mode of attack by the repeated disruptive IP editors against my account has, over the past 3 months become highly predictable and they are not from fresh and new IP-users whom all of us greet with happy welcome messages. The predicatble pattern, which repeats over and over again, is that (a) they track my account contributions for any contact with other editors and (b) after noticing a new contact they construct a "wrecking ball" edit condemning me of everything under the sun, usually directed at an unsuspecting adminstrator such as User:DGG and others; then (c) the administrator receiving the "wrecking ball" message attacking me for everything under the sun is halted in their tracks from providing any further assistance. By the time I straighten this out with the administrator involved that this was a false report and another WP:HOAX, the experienced ip-editor making the attacks simply disappears or IP-hopps to another account. You are the fourth or fifth administrator who has been misled by this repeated pattern of disruptive IP-activity. Only User:EdJohnston and User:Drmies have so far been immune to the false reports and both of them have issues multiple blocks against the offending IP-editors. Please help EdJohnston in continuing this investigation until these disruptive editors are brought under some type of reasonable control. I am awaiting the results of the investigation currently conducted by EdJohnston and will follow his instructions. @EdJohnston; if you have a working solution for the IP128 block, then please go ahead with that fully researched block. It is still too early for me to request any block on IP192.12.13 even though they are following the same (a)-(b)-(c) pattern I have just outlined above, but the IP128 range block which you have already fully researched should be placed as quickly as possible. MusicAngels (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * MusicAngel, my only involvement with this case, or with you, involves your interaction with 192.12.13.14. I was invited to look at that interaction by both the IP and you. First the IP pinged me, saying they had interacted with me previously, although I don't recognize them; I saw that ping but did not respond. Then you posted a message at my talk page, inviting me to take a look at the situation, so I began to look at the interaction between the two of you. What I found was that you were repeatedly calling them an IP-hopping troll, restoring that insult to their talk page each time they removed it, in violation of WP:NOBAN as well as WP:NPA. I warned you to stop doing that, and fortunately you did stop. I also noticed and commented on your habit of ordering people to do things by misquoting Wikipedia policy to them. In response you offered me a string of 192 IPs, apparently trying to demonstrate that 192.12.13.14 was in fact an IP-hopping troll. But that claim collapsed when I looked at the details; there was nothing to connect the various 192 IPs to each other, as they were widely separated by time as well as editing habits. I still think you owe 192.12.13.14 an apology, or at least to stop harassing them or accusing them of things. As far as your issues with the 128 range, that's between you and EdJohnston. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I posted this after EdJohnston closed the discussion, so I don't know if he will see it or not. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * no problem. Thanks for the update. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you glance at the talk page for Birdman (film): Repost of original identification of problem editors
Thanks for your comments at the recent review of the poetry pages. Recently, the various IP-editors from there appear to have started some sort of retribution for my edits outside of the normal edit process as they have done on the Talk page for Birdman (film). I would like to prepare that page for renomination to GA status and possibly you have better ways to address retribution edits from the IP-editors. Perhaps you could glance at the Talk page there. MusicAngels (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC) User:MusicAngels has a bias against editors who use IP addresses and this bias colors all of his disruptive edits. Please tell him/her that we are equal citizens. In the case of the poetry pages there was strenuous scholarly consensus against the existence of those pages. Now he is using his bias against IP editors in other pages. This needs to stop.199.48.243.7 (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Again, if that wasn't clear, it pains me that those articles had to be deleted. Come to think of it, maybe you should have a look at WikiProject Outlines; I think it's run by, and it's information done in a way that might appeal to you. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC) (reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC))
 * I think they know that. As for you, please see WP:NPA. Take your little feud elsewhere please. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC))

[I am posting this here so you can see it. Please no that these are not "petty feuds" I could care less about User:MusicAngels. I speak for IP editors.] Dear  User:Neuroxic thank you for your efforts re: Birdman (film) which, like the thankfully deleted (and woefully bad) poetry pages created by User:MusicAngels have a great deal of scholarly interest. Unfortunately User:Drmies is not unbiased. Many scholar-editors at universities have stopped using accounts (and edit with IPs) because of institutional scrutiny of wikipedia activity. Nobody is completely anonymous with a Wikipedia account and it could be uncomfortable to have one's edit history scrutinized by a dean or a group of students, frankly. So many scholar-editors use IPs. However, IP users are still considered by many to be second-class Wikipedia citizens. unsigned comment added by 199.48.243.168 (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IP (well, IPs--there's three or four of you by now?), you're a complete idiot. If you knew anything about me at all you'd know that you couldn't be more wrong about my position on IP editors. You also completely bypass the fact that you and your cohorts are violating WP:NPA. Personal attacks on an editor are simply not allowed. In other words, I wonder how much you really know about Wikipedia, since what I'm doing is follow our policies. Has nothing to do with you being a half dozen IP editors. You don't really sound like an academic editor, by the way; that MusicAngels's articles were deleted did not raise any academic dust. You're just whistling Dixie. And you don't seem to realize that I was one of the ones advocating deletion of those articles. Finally, this academic scrutiny business, that's highly overrated. There is one more thing you don't seem to realize: if you have an account, your IP information isn't out on the street for everyone to see. Now, if you got something meaningful to say, if you're not just some dumb high-school kid with a personal grudge against an editor who's trolling Wikipedia pulling arguments out of their ass, feel free to email me. Use a real name if you do. Then we'll talk. Drmies (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC))

Delayed reply
Greetings User:EdJohnston! Sorry for my delayed reply, it seems that the discussion at John's Talk Page already got archived. Well, whereas the incident I reported no longer needs any further attention, I think, I just wanted shortly to make clarify some of the points I was making (I hope you don't mind) So, misleading the on-going Talk Page discussion is what I find problematic. And when it comes to user behaviour, I think the user Talk Page is the only right forum to discuss that. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know your comments on the 3RR case were about the user activities on *article Talk Page* rather than *user Talk Page*.
 * The discussion that took place was about the user's behaviour, and I think the user Talk Page is the right place to discuss it.
 * Whereas nobody owns the section headers, I think the problem was that he misleadingly renamed them to refer something they never did refer to. For example, from the very section dealing with Talk:Electronic cigarette to Chiropractic, even though it wasn't about the article Chiropractic at all. Indeed, the complaints aroused were about the user behaviour.
 * I was not the only one who reacted to user QuackGuru's behaviour. For example, user BullRangifer reverted his edits:
 * with an Edit Summary: "Undid revision 682484055 by QuackGuru (talk) QG, just stop it! JS placed his comment in the section most relevant so don't mess with it."
 * and a Talk Page comment: "''QG, you have no policy basis for your constant refactoring of the placement of another editor's comment, especially when Jayaguru-Shishya has made it so plain that they wished to place it where they did. Ownership behavior has its limits, even on your own talk page. Stop edit warring and being such a jerk. If you're not going to be collaborative, then leave. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * To keep the policy quotations short, according to WP:TPO,:
 * "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page."


 * or per WP:OWNTALK:
 * "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user."


 * Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your follow-up. I gather that no further action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about page protection policy
Curious about why the page Birdman (film) was protected and could not be edited or tweaked in any way I started to read the history. Almost all of the "controversy" and bickering about the page (some of which is silly but some quite valid, IMHO) has its roots in a single editor's provocations against IP users. Then I began to read the shenanigans of this particular editor (who knew that the contributions key link led to such high drama?) and saw how a single mean-spirited figure can undermine the work of so many good people. After about an hour of reading I decided to post here. Is there really a reason for Birdman (film) to be page-protected or is it just a casualty of MusicAngels's provocations? Was there really a need to protect Cordelia Ray or was it just a casualty of MusicAngels's provocations? (I see that this was a different administrator, BGwhite) I was fascinated by the deletion of his poetry pages and saw how often he pounced on the talk pages of anyone involved (such as User:DennisBrown), invading their space to ask them to weigh in on a controversy he seemed to have a personal stake in.

So: is it simply on the basis of this one editor (MusicAngels) that Birdman is protect and could you please reconsider? Respectfully, 64.9.157.120 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The rationale for my protection of Birdman (film) was given at this edit of WP:RFPP. Semiprotection is often used when there is a confusing edit war involving IPs. Protection can be lifted if we are sure that all parties will wait for consensus. I gather that you have never edited that article or its talk page using your current IP.  Feel free to point to any contributions to Birdman (film) you could have made using other identities. If you disagree with the current contents of Birdman (film) why not use the talk page to propose changes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear EdJ, the link you provide above confirms IP 64.9's position that MusicAngels insults IP's, demands that they sign in, reverts their edits, purports to cite Wiki rules that don't exist, provokes responses, and then seeks administrator support for page protections. As MelanieN has iterated in detail on MusicAngels's talk page, this is MA's standard MO. In short, without MusicAngels's disruptions, there would be no need for protection of Birdman (film).  So can it be lifted please?  PJ.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.175.183 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A single edit here complaining about someone else doesn't weigh very heavily in determining if the troubles at Birdman (film) are now over. Do you wish to be known as PJ? EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban Dawoodi Bohra
Topic ban was imposed for using the term 'acknowledged' for Mufaddal Saifuddin as the leader of the community. Intention was that various groups and prominent institutions have acknowledged his position as the accepted leader of the Dawoodi Bohra. Such as the following: Syedna elected chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, April 2015. Karachi University honours Syedna with Doctorate in Spetember 2015. Global Peace Award given to Syedna, September 2015. Please rescind the ban.Noughtnotout (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point to any evidence that you can edit neutrally on topics where you have a strong personal opinion? Would you be patient enough to search for references that are on the opposite side from your own views? Our article on 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) does not yet state that a final decision has been made by either the Bombay High Court or the Gujarat High Court. Whether someone is elected a university chancellor or not doesn't speak to the succession controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about Report
I am sorry if I have written to the wrong person, but I have seen that you have resolved an report on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, I have reported two users there and the issue is still not resolved. Can I maybe know when it will be resolved. I am somewhat new to all of this, so I don't know a lot about the procedure. But that two users are just sabotaging the articles in question, and any reasonable discussion with them is really impossible. They are just pushing their own edits and ignoring the talk pages, which is horrible. Again, sorry if I have bothered you. Thanks in advance. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Re User talk:Gerorge1237
I realize it's a child, but don't we usually indef when there's nothing but vandalism? Don't you think it would be better for him to create a new clean account without a block history, if against all the odds he should want to "make useful contributions" later? Bishonen &#124; talk 14:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Feel free to increase the block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Criminal Code (Canada)
Thanks for moving the article to the new name; much appreciated! I'm now in the process of going through articles using the old name and updating them; a massive task, I find, and will take a while. Could I suggest a follow-up move? There is one entry on the Talk Page for the old "Canadian Criminal Code" article. The article itself now is just a re-direct. Could that one Talk Page entry be moved to the Talk page for Criminal Code (Canada), and then the old Talk page be deleted? Thanks for your help! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have copied the talk comment from 2006 over to Talk:Criminal Code (Canada) and replaced Talk:Canadian Criminal Code with a redirect. We normally use redirects for old talk pages after a move takes place. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been working my way through the "What Links Here" for Criminal Code (Canada), and changing the links for Canadian Criminal Code. The thing that is odd is that the resulting list of "What Links Here" is not alphabetical.  I can't see any rhyme or reason to the orer the articles are being listed.  Is that normal?Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not ask at WP:VPT to see if there is any way to get a sorted list. Of course you could cut and paste the names from the screen and sort them on your own computer. In practice, you can cut down the size of the list by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Criminal+Code+%28Canada%29&namespace=0 limiting the search to article space] . EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for better understanding
User:EdJohnston, can you please make the suggestion that the ARBPIA template, "Warning: Active Arbitration Remedies," be amended to read that "articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). This restriction applies to a literal 24-hour period, counting from that person's very last revert." Had I known this, I would not have faltered.Davidbena (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Davidbena. This is explained at WP:1RR, which is a section of our edit warring policy. Interpreting 1RR as applying per calendar day (which you might be thinking of) would be unworkable due to the variety of time zones. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:EdJohnston.Davidbena (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

AE
Hi Ed, if you have a spare half an hour or so to read through the thread, the AE report on VictorD7 could really do with another pair of uninvolved eyes. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to post something within 24 hours if the report is still open then. At first sight I'm not happy with the behavior of either party and see the proposed restrictions as the minimum necessary. Editors should have the wisdom and the negotiating skills to handle their own dispute resolution. If they are constantly posting on admin boards it's a sign they have failed in their editing of the topic area - unless it is one of the rare cases of truly one-sided misbehavior. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that the admins in the AE are almost resolved on a three-month topic ban of both parties, while giving an exception for mediation. I took a long time to study this, but I believe the complaint is too badly framed to take any proper AE action. So rather than add my opinion to the thread, I'll stay here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about resolving edit dispute
User:EdJohnston, is there a way to resolve an edit dispute (see: talk page of Bayt Nattif, sub-section: "Unbalanced, 1948 section"), by asking an administrator to intervene and without having to go through the regular channel of Arbitration? Just wondering. If not, would you be willing to personally get-involved in the edit dispute between me and my co-editor? See dispute.Davidbena (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll find that Benny Morris is widely used as a source in our articles. He is an Israeli historian. Do you have some reason to distrust his findings about Bayt Nattif? If so do you have another source you prefer that specifically talks about Bayt Nattif? EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have given a precise excerpt from Benny Morris showing where he quotes from a Palmah officer in 1948 who gave his professional opinion that abandoned villages in the Jerusalem Corridor, those known for their hostility towards Israel, should be demolished. For the quote, see my last response on the Talk-Page Bayt Nattif. Our co-editor wishes to expunge this fact, insisting, in her own way, to paint a very negative picture of IDF intentions in that war. I have other proof besides this one, where in her edits on articles related to Arab-villages where they (the villages) also had a vibrant "Jewish history," she prefers not to mention these facts. A case in point is the article Az-Zakariyya and my edits there, all of which were expunged (see history). This happens to be a recurring theme with our co-editor.Davidbena (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem that anyone agrees with you at Talk:Bayt Nattif, and some of the people on that page are very experienced. The options of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. It would be helpful if you would propose a rewording of the article section you're talking about, and quote the exact passages from refererences that you think support it. People are implying that you are quoting from books that don't mention Bayt Nattif and that you are trying to push your own POV. If you try to use further steps of dispute resolution when there is nobody who agrees with you on the talk page, you will be starting out under a disadvantage. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:EdJohnston, I have just revised the section "1948 war, and depopulation," adding "abandoned Arab villages," instead of "conquered Arab villages." (Look there). I have also added in the same section an anecdote about the Palmah officer who advised destroying houses in abandoned villages that were known to be hostile. (Look there). In addition, in the history section, I have mentioned the early Israelite history (in brief) of the region. (Look there). By the way: The previous disputes with the other editors that you've alluded to were different issues altogether, and they have already been resolved. This current issue is still ongoing between me and only one other editor.Davidbena (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One more thing: I wish to call your attention to the fact that when our co-editor, my disputant in this case, first started editing Bayt Nattif, she complained that the article was "unbalanced," in that it initially portrayed only the Jewish history of the village. See complaint. I then made every effort to give the article more balance by researching its Arab history. Most of the Arab history entries in that article were made by me, as the history will prove. I have taken every effort to meet the demands of balance, just as she called-out for. Now, it seems that the tide has changed. She does not seem to be comfortable when mentioning Israelite history. I have noticed that this seems to be the case in other articles as well. See edit (delete), where she claimed that the particular sentence mentioning Israelite history for the town was "unsourced." After I had put the source in, she decided to let it stand.Davidbena (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you can see, Ed, the edits that were made by me this evening were undone by her. deletion of edits. See our continued discussion on this subject at the very bottom of the Talk Page.Davidbena (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please use WP:Dispute resolution if you can't reach agreement on Talk. You don't seem to be addressing User:Huldra's objections. I'm not sure whether you were actually intending to do so. And now we have the Book of Joshua being pressed into service as a reliable source about history. Our own article on the Book of Joshua casts doubt on such a usage. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will most-likely refer the dispute to WP:Dispute resolution, as you suggested User:EdJohnston. In response to your last comment about the Book of Joshua not being a reliable source about history, here, in Israel, it is generally agreed by the academic circles that it is, indeed, a reliable source of early Israelite history. Although the author referred to in the WP article Book of Joshua does indeed cast doubt on the "single exodus" theory (from Egypt), Ann E. Killebrew (footnote # 4 in reference), she does, however, agree that there was an "Egyptian occupation of Canaan" in the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BCE, which dates - mind you - I have also mentioned corresponding with the Israelite settlement in the region. See: Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, p. 152. She also mentions in her own footnote no. 15, in that same chapter (Early Israel: A "Mixed Multitude" - p. 187), that Kitchen 1998 supports the historicity of the account in Joshua. It is therefore my view that, as a source, the Book of Joshua can be used as a reliable source to the extent that all authors agree that there was a massive new settlement of immigrants to the land of Canaan during the late Bronze Age Canaan.Davidbena (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: Will you be able to participate in the resolution of this dispute?Davidbena (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, if I might ask your indulgence for just this once, please, if you can interject here, God bless you. As you can see by the source, in chapter 6 ("Blocking a Return") of the book, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited", p. 341, where Benny Morris writes: "These processes were the gradual destruction of the abandoned Arab villages, the cultivation or destruction of Arab fields and the share-out of Arab lands to Jewish settlements, the establishment of new settlements, on abandoned lands and sites and the settlement of Jewish immigrants in empty Arab housing in the countryside and in urban neighborhoods. Taken together, they assured that the refugees would have nowhere, and nothing to return to" (end quote), it is clear by these presents that he is referring to abandoned Arab villages that were destroyed. So, it is important to use the words "abandoned Arab villages" in the article Bayt Nattif, instead of "conquered Arab villages" as used by our co-editor, for the simple reason that the words, "conquered Arab villages," leave the reader with the impression that the towns' inhabitants were still present in the towns when their houses were destroyed. Can you make the desired change in the edit for the sake of accuracy?Davidbena (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When acting as an admin I should not be engaged in content discussions (unless as a pure mediator, which I am not planning to do here). I plan to archive this thread. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

List of wars involving Cyprus
Following up your conversation with user Mikrobølgeovn, I need to inform you that what he is accusing everyone else to be, is just a portrait of himself. You can check for how long is edit warring the article. It is more than a year now. You can also check the rest of his accusations, and you will find that what he is accusing others for, is exactly what he is doing. Nationalism on the ones that are adding both sides victories in an NPOV manner, and are adding what the two sides have in common, such as in the culture of Cyprus, while he is deleting all the victories of the one side for a whole year now in this and other articles, and reporting the ones that are adding the NPOV version on false charges after trying to push then to edit warring, a game of win, to the ones that are not changing the NPOV versions in almost all articles edited after them, while he is edit warring the article for a year with POV now, accusations that they don't discuss to the ones that they have the whole talk page full of their discussions, and discussed even long time before, they have ever touched an article, while he had no discussion on what so ever, when he made the accusation in the talk page, while he is edit warring the article for a year now e.t.c

You can also check my own history on articles and my cooperation with other users to add NPOV versions, and how many times I have left unchanged NPOV versions after me, or how long before I start editing I have talked in the talk pages of the articles. My understanding is that user Mikrobølgeovn is a threat to other users, adding NPOV versions on articles that he is constantly trying to push POV, since if they disagree with his POV pushing, that it can go for more than a year, he is constantly trying to block them on false charges, and he is also trying to do it with the cooperation of other users, pushing them to edit warring and then go around accusing them to administrators on false charges. He seems to think that it is a game of taking other users out, users that are contributing well to Wikipedia adding NPOV versions, while he is constantly pushing POV. Anyone that he is adding NPOV versions, in articles that he is trying to push POV, seems to be for him a target for blocking. You can check this on the history, as well as his non-reliability on what he is saying.Ron1978 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm definitely a threat to other editors. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

List of monarchs of Korea
I'm cydevil38. Please take a look at List of monarchs of Korea, where an IP sockpuppet is waging an edit war.(Same sockpuppet from Template:History of Korea). Please take note of Sockpuppet_investigations/Collision787/Archive. 121.161.79.248 (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Caste articles at AE
Hi, Ed. I'm sorry to bug you, but I think Lowercase SigmaBot may eat the caste article request at WP:AE again in a day or two. Do you see any substantive objections? Bishonen &#124; talk 10:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
 * (Added: Oh, no, I see Liz posted there about something else some hours ago, thus delaying the bot. But still, it's been dragging on a bit. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC).)

User:Firefox
Does it appear to you that Firefox 1ani is doing the same edit as the IP you just blocked for edit warring? I have noticed that both the IP and Firefox 1ani have done the same edits over numerous articles Battle of Callinicum and articles including Illyrians. IF the IP and Firefox 1ani are indeed one and the same person shouldn't the ArbMAC warning you posted on the IP's talk page, be applied to both? Is not Firefox's latest edit simply a continuation of the IP's edit war? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've blocked User:Firefox lani for abuse of multiple accounts. You had previously shown a relationship between the IP and the account in this AN3 report from August 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh damn. I had forgotten about that. Thanks Ed! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Linda Amos Skirton page move (2013)
Hi, Ed. I just came across the Linda Skirton article as I was cleaning up Olympic swimmers of Great Britain, and manually moving Persondata information, including name variants, to Wikidata. All of the Olympic and competitive swimming references list her by her maiden name, Linda Amos, and that was the original article title. There are about ten times as many Google hits for Linda Amos as Linda Skirton, which strongly suggests that the WP:COMMONNAME is Amos. You moved the page pursuant to a requested move, but I can't find anything in the WP:RM page history to explain why it was moved. Do you remember, or can you find some history? I almost moved it back myself before I went digging through the edit history and found you. . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The original request at WP:RMTR was here. If you don't find this convincing, you can use Template:Requested move to get it moved back. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, no need. I'm confident enough of the situation to move it myself.  The IP was either unaware of or misunderstands WP:COMMONNAME.  Most female Olympic athletes are/were notable under their maiden names, not their married names.  I try to include both name forms in the lead when we know the later married names, but that can get challenging if they have been married more than once or twice.  A good example is Tracy Caulkins, who was a three-time Olympic gold medalist and multiple world record-holder under her maiden name, and her maiden name should be the article title per COMMONNAME.  That said, she now uses her married name professionally, and has even received Australian post-nominals under her married name, so the first statement of her name in the lead is her married name, followed by a née statement of her full maiden name.  I can't tell if there are even any independent, reliable sources for Amos-Skirton's married name.  Thanks for the follow-up, Ed.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

List of multiple discoveries
On 8 August 2015 you were so good as to notify me that User:Libesruinssineced had been blocked for 24 hours due to edit-warring conducted by him to restore his ill-conceived edits to the "List of multiple discoveries" which showed him to "seem not to understand the concept of a 'multiple discovery', one that is made by more than one person independently."

Two months later, on 6 October 2015 (please see here ), Libesruinssineced resumed his misguided edits. A few examples: He added a section heading, "15th century", placing in it Galileo Galilei and Simon Stevin, both born in the 16th century. In the "17th century" section he placed "link between arteries and veins—Marcello Malpighi"—with no other, independent discoverer mentioned (as required by the article's definition). In the "18th century" section he entered "Methane (1778)—Alessandro Volta"—again, with no other discoverer mentioned.

Under "19th century", he placed "Avogadro's law—molecular theory of Amedeo Avogadro"—once more, with no other, independent discoverer. In the same "19th century" section, he changed "In 1876 Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell filed a patent on discovery of the telephone" to "In 1871, Antonio Meucci and Alexander Graham Bell filed a patent on discovery of the telephone."

Under "20th century", he placed "Nerve growth factor (1950)... discovered by Rita Levi-Montalcini and Stanley Cohen"—an ineligible entry, since they made this discovery together, not independently of each other. In the same "20th century" section, he entered "Technetium of Emilio G. Segrè and Carlo Perriero [sic], an essential material used for the nuclear weapon"—ineligible on two scores: technetium is not used in "the nuclear weapon", and the mineralogist Carlo Perrier (not "Perriero"), according to Wikipedia, "discovered the element technetium along with his colleague, Emilio Segrè..."

Libesruinssineced is single-handedly making a hash of the "List of multiple discoveries". How can the article be protected from him?

Could you please advise me which would be the appropriate Wikipedia administrative forum in which to raise this matter?

Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Warned Libesruinssineced. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. This should avert further confusion and misinformation for readers of the "List of multiple discoveries".  Nihil novi (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:LLArrow
Hello. I'm coming to you first as you are the blocking admin of this user for the last time they were edit warring. I've seen many instances of edit warring since this block but this time I'm paying close attention and it's clear none of the blocks have worked to prevent them from edit warring. It's currently happening at List of American Horror Story episodes and while they've yet to pass 3 reverts yet, they are currently at 3 and I see no signs of the edit warring ending. Would you agree another block is in order? Or would it be best I fill out a new report at the edit warring noticeboard?  G loss  02:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Notified the editor of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly beside myself with these constant attacks by Gloss. They have a vendetta against me and always report my behaviour, when I'm attempting to do the right thing in accordance to regulation, while the true culprits get off scot free. I will not agree to only make edits when consensus is reached on any article on Wikipedia because I only make maintenance edits or add properly sourced info. Yes, I can get into wars with other editors, but that's due to my passion for what I'm contributing to. I would be reporting over half the editors I deal with if I had the time to do so. I'm feeling bogged down and ineffective. I plead that you look into the extensive antagonistic editing history of Gloss, Israeldmo, and Kworbi, all editors who have it in for me. Please don't punish one of the few editors that has great respect and appreciation for this site. Thank you, LLArrow (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User/Talk Page
Hello, there. I'm not sure if you remember me—I was known as Eugene Krabs the last time we even had contact with each other, I'm pretty sure—but you indefinitely protected my user and talk pages and only allowed system operators to move them because I inappropriate moved them at the time when I was still relatively new to Wikipedia. I was wondering if that protection could be removed now? Not that it hurts anything to have it there, but at the same time, yeah.

Let me know. Thanks. (Also, you can check my talk page archives for the particular discussion if need be. It should be in my January 2009 archive as that's when I was blocked for it.) Amaury (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your recent editing looks OK. User talk:Amaury is only move protected at this time, it has no semiprotection. If the move protection is lifted what would you be planning to do? My own user page and talk page are protected the same way as yours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm no longer a "bad boy." ;) But yeah, it's not a big deal either way. I wasn't planning on doing anything, but protection of any page is only meant to keep vandalism or disruptive editing away for a certain or indefinite time from what I've read—the latter for more serious issues. However, thinking about it, this is still good as it keeps vandals away. I figured it couldn't hurt to ask, though, and I hope I didn't bother you.


 * Actually, is there any chance my user page could receive the same protection? Amaury (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At present your user page has move protection as well as semiprotection. Do you want to change that? EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gah. Sorry. I thought it didn't have move protection. I misread your previous message. Amaury (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gah. Sorry. I thought it didn't have move protection. I misread your previous message. Amaury (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Recommend declining this appeal."
I know the appeal is withdrawn and all so this is kind of pointless, but why would you have recommended declining it? It was based on a single edit Kyohyi made, which while not ideal, wasn't horrendous either. In the past year their edits have been within policy and if anything far too BLP policy cautious. Am I missing something here that everyone else is seeing? Kyohyi did some good work keeping BLP violations out of the articles of generally unlikeable people. Unlike a lot of SPA's that take that role on Wikipedia, they did it in a calm and productive fashion. While I disagree with them on a huge array of topics, it's a pity to seem them gone. Brustopher (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Admins have been ultra-sensitive to any alleged BLP violations on Gamergate-related articles. If it had been up to me, I'm not sure i'd have issued the ban, but the edit does suggest a lack of judgment. The standard for appeals is whether the original ban was within the admin's discretion, and it surely is. Hence my advice to decline the appeal.  It's better to spare the editor the possible embarrassment of a full-scale review of his change, now he is no longer appealing the topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the appeal comments the admin was leaning towards unbanning if it was a one off. But you're right, there's not really a point of discussing this much further. But it's still a pity that Kyohyi seems to have left.Brustopher (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you
I'm trying my best to avoid reporting an editor. He doesn't believe me when I claim/assert/state that he has broken the IR rule. See User:Debresser here, who has a long history of being warned this,this this for the most recent examples). On reflection I always require a tutor to clarify this to me when the charge is laid against myself. To avoid AE or some other forum, and the inevitable to-and-fro of argufying from interested parties, and also punitive measures, I wonder if you could do me the courtesy of glancing over the diffs there, and either advising me I am wrong, or informing Dovid that the rule has been broken, as the case may be?. Sorry for the bother. Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not take this to User:NeilN. He is the admin who most recently applied full protection to Jewish Israeli stone throwing. I can see arguments both ways, so I don't know about the 1RR violation. But there is clearly a dispute. If somebody took this to WP:AN3 the article would most likely get protected again, unless we had an offer from each party to pursue dispute resolution before reverting. (Or, as an alternative, a different admin might say it really is a 1RR violation). EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do, thank Ed.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Relisting Process for Page Moves
Ed, since you have participated in discussions regarding Page Moves and the relisting process, I invite you to share your own comments over at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - there is an existing discussion regarding formally banning relisters from voting. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Commented at WT:RM. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Warith Deen Umar and User:TruthNeverLies
Greetings! Yesterday, you semi-protected Warith Deen Umar. Today, a new account was created,. That account immediately started editing Umar's article: moving it to a new title, removing sourced paragraphs, and adding unsourced paragraphs. He also claimed to be a relative of Umar, although he later recanted that statement.

Since you handled the protection yesterday, would you care to opine on whether this account is continuing in the same vein as yesterday's disruption, or is this likely a new editor? —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Four days ago, the account was created. The account was created 13 minutes after edited the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to block User:TruthNeverLies one month for abusing multiple accounts, that would be logical. The block could be lifted as soon as he agreed to start following Wikipedia policy. If more registered accounts get created with the same pattern then an SPI could be filed. In case it's relevant, the reverting IPs that I checked were all from South Africa. The biographical details for Warith Deen Umar can be attested from places such as the New York Times. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Administrator action requested
See talk page of 2015 Thalys train attack and see the RFC. It has been weeks. Please incorporate the RFC results in the article. This requires administrative action because non admins can't do it. Thanks. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was fully protected for a month on October 1 per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900. At present there is no open RfC on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack and no edit request. If you have a specific idea of what to do, why not ask User:HighinBC, who indicated on talk that he was prepared to help. Anyway the protection expires in two days. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you see that there is a concluded rfc where the decision was to use the compromise? (About the train crew running away) Would you make the edit to enforce the decision. This would avoid an edit war since you are a neutral admin. Thank you. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The result of the RfC was general and open-ended. Better for someone familiar with the issues to carry it out. Anyway, protection has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)