Misplaced Pages

User talk:EdJohnston: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:48, 6 December 2020 editSaflieni (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users586 edits Questions← Previous edit Revision as of 21:52, 6 December 2020 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →In Praise of Blood: Could start with a simpler article and work upNext edit →
Line 104: Line 104:
:::I am working on a re-draft of the Content section, which should, I agree(!) be "short, but neutral". ] (]) 20:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC) :::I am working on a re-draft of the Content section, which should, I agree(!) be "short, but neutral". ] (]) 20:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
::::EdJohnston, you say on the Noticeboard you have some ideas. Please tell what they are. So far "neutral" has proved to be an elastic concept and my suggestions about due weight and to not include errors etc. were fought every inch of the way but never resolved (or addressed properly). The whole discussion with Buidhe started when I corrected an error with my first edit and tred to expand expert's views but, as you know, we never recovered from that. ] (]) 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC) ::::EdJohnston, you say on the Noticeboard you have some ideas. Please tell what they are. So far "neutral" has proved to be an elastic concept and my suggestions about due weight and to not include errors etc. were fought every inch of the way but never resolved (or addressed properly). The whole discussion with Buidhe started when I corrected an error with my first edit and tred to expand expert's views but, as you know, we never recovered from that. ] (]) 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
:::::Since there have been hot disputes, my guess is that we will need either a formal ] to settle the wording, or a series of talk page agreements in which several people give their explicit approval. One way to approach this is to start from a very simplified version of the article that doesn't say much as to who is right (or which group engaged in mass murder), and then expand it by a series of agreements. ] (]) 21:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:52, 6 December 2020

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48
Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51
Archive 52Archive 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Another Instance of Sockpuppetry Over at Spanish Colonization of the Americas

Hi EdJohnston, I'm Hobomok, and you previously intervened with some sockpuppetry over at Spanish colonization of the Americas r/t User:Php2000 and an anonymous ip. There's been some recent editing there by a couple recently created accounts (mainly User:Frijolesconqueso), which began editing over at the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples' page shortly after those two accounts were banned (in fact, the account was created the day the anonymous ip was banned). The edits in question there were related to the same edits at Spanish Colonization of the Americas and sources called into question by those two previously banned users. In short, I believe those previously banned accounts have reappeared and are working to undermine those pages again, which seems to be a persistent issue by one editor who has been banned multiple times and continues to make and remake sock puppet accounts after being banned. Would you mind stopping over there and taking a look at this issue? --Hobomok (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think you have enough for an SPI, you should go ahead and file. Your main evidence seems to be the account creation date and similar edits regarding subject matter. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you--I've done so here. --Hobomok (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Now handled at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Filologo2. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you so much for your time involved in finding and rooting out sock accounts. It really means a lot to me that someone cares enough to spend their time doing this, and it really helps me to continue adding and representing scholarship that I and others work so hard on relating to colonialism/the environment. You and your work are much appreciated. --Hobomok (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Nov 2020: Cardano

Hello, I'm an editor at IOHK. I've been commenting on Talk pages for the past 2 years to try to discover why the Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) page was deleted; as you know it was recently restored. However, you have now put it under an indefinite sanction. This raises some questions:

- Persistent disruptive editing: Where can I see this disruptive editing? And why was a sanction made against the page, rather than the disruptive editor?

- was there any discussion about this?

- Protected under WP:GS/CRYPTO per a complaint at WP:AN3. I can see no complaint referring to this page at WP:AN3. Where do I find this?

- How can this sanction be removed?

- How can people ask for changes?

Thanks for your time. IOHKwriter (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the relevant WP:AN3 report at this link. (There was a problem with the archive but I fixed it). If you read WP:GS/CRYPTO you'll see some of the background for establishing sanctions. Mostly, it's in response to promotional editing by cryptocurrency enthusiasts. Read some of the editor comments in this AN thread which is what decided on the crypto sanctions. Though some of Misplaced Pages's countermeasures may appear vigorous, they are in proportion to the amount of pressure that we have received from those who want to include material favorable to their own project. Feel free to use {{Edit extended-protected}} on Talk:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) to request any changes to the article which have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello @EdJohnston:, it's me again. I have to say just like @IOHKwriter: I find it very saddening that I and others are unable to contribute for close to a month now. I have placed a "Minor Edits" section on the talk page and not a single point was addressed or discussed despite following your suggestion of asking for others to help out. Simple things like the name of the founders has not been addressed. It is exactly what I feared would happen: the page has already (after only 1-2 months) fallen into a state of stagnation as the edit sanctions are simply too prohibitive for many. For example pre-edit ban there were close to 100-200 edits in a months time period (also due to the page being rather new), in the subsequent month since protection levels increase it was 19 edits. As it is an incredibly niche topic there will be very few individuals who have the required wiki clout/interest to make changes that may help the page/ improve wording that isn't objective (puffery). The funny thing is that the original complaint was about individuals deleting content some of whom have 500+ edits and are consequently still able to delete content. Sadly have now become a casual observer of the page rather than being able to help... Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Blockchainus Maximus. Use {{edit extended-protected}} on the article talk page to ask for any changes to be made on Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) that have consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:... I have. However as I stated in the comment above even minor edits are ignored for over a month... Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Why warned ?

You warned me at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:KIENGIR_reported_by_User:Rsk6400_(Result:_Both_warned). My understanding of a warning is that I broke some rule or did something wrong or behaved unconstructively. If that understanding is correct, I'd like to know where my fault was, since I really took some pains reading the guidelines. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Rsk6400. I saw reverts by you on the lead of Germans on November 21, 22 and 25 following your original bold change of the short description on Nov. 19. Your statements on talk didn't give any indication that you would be stopping soon. I would welcome an assurance that you will make no more reverts of the lead until consensus is reached on the talk page. Slow edit warring is still edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Although I don't like your decision, I respect it because I totally agree that admins have to decide in a case where two users say there was consensus and two say there wasn't. I didn't revert after I took it to AN3 and I assure you that I will make no more reverts of the lede until a solution is reached. I wrote "solution" because I have despaired of reaching a consensus. The central issue was not the short description, as you said, but the first sentence of the lede. That's why I think it is too complex for RfC. I'm now planning to seek a solution at DRN. Do you think that might be a good idea ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Bengal Sultanate

Hi EdJohnston. This IP is trying to force a journalist source (Scroll.in) onto the Bengal Sultanate, even though it is clearly not reliable, at least in this area. He edit warred the source onto the article without any form of WP:CONSENSUS, and when I tried to discuss this with him, it was completely fruitless. Instead of focusing on the subject, he chose to go after me, accusing me of stuff and whatnot . He failed to explain why the source is reliable, other than the unhelpful "because it is" argument. I did restore the original revision once more, only to be reverted by him. This is clearly disruptive behaviour imo. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Bengal Sultanate two months. Questions about sourcing can be raised at WP:RSN. The IP has also been triggering the edit filter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NATIONALIST edits by a group of editors extending to over 21 articles

Hey Ed. Its the second time I am coming to you in less than a month and the situation is deteriorating already. I am particularly disturbed as I am witnessing a group of editors resorting to WP:NATIONALIST edits for a while now, (their contribution logs can provide several such examples) and the disruption extends to a very large number of articles (I counted 21 articles where editors promoted either Albanian or Illyrian identity of locations and people and demoted the Greek one). The town article of Parga is being already the subject of a large dispute and RfC due to irreconcilable differences between this group of pro-Albanian and pro-Illyrian editors and the rest of us, and the disruption also extends to the rest of the 20 articles, with the most recent ones being the tribal articles of Atintanians and Amantes (tribe), and today the city of Ohrid. These editors are engaging in large-scale disruptions where they either cited certain sources promoting Illyrian/Albanian POV and/or are using ethnic Template: Cham Albanians for purposes other than what is the common practice in Misplaced Pages. The aim in both cases are to promote/emphasize/wp:coatrack certain ethnic groups: Illyrians/Albanians at the expense of another group, the Greeks. These editors' nationalist edits affected these and the rest of articles as well despite a lack of WP:CONSENSUS. Today, I have spotted similar nationalist edits at Ohrid, and I attempted to restore the article back to the last stable version but I got reverted immediately. Their numbers as editors are also their strength, and for this reason, edit warring is their preferred way of impose their edits. Knowing from experience that edit warring is very likely had I reattempted restoration of last stable version, I decided to just throw warnings at their user talk pages and: and there: before coming to you. The problem isn't limited to edit warring; the Talk Pages in some of the articles already became cases of WP:STONEWALLing such as Atintanians and Parga. If nothing is done to constraint the disruption, I can predict this extending someday even to articles with high visibility that have been relatively peaceful, such as the Oracle of Dodona, whose the history log already has one nationalist-oriented edit by user Iaof, back at September: . Your attention is urgently needed as my pleas were ignored in the past, and the problem escalated further ever since I came to you earlier this month: , about the edit warring at Parga, (which resulting in the admin User:Johnuniq's intervention to resolve the dispute there). But Parga is just one of the 21 articles and not the only. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Recurring problem

Hi, see these user contributions ], a freshly iterated SPA, abusing the same way similar topic articles, quick reverts - already 3 in the Origin of the Romanians, but as well the other articles, talk page ignorance. The user quickly found my talk page (), where another (sleeping?) SPA account with a very few edits abused the same part (), and now again this new account abusing that part () which has been already regulated by other pages the two "famous" RFC-s.

Please also note () "more to summary" edit logs (bottom 6), as this user used already six times did that identical part of edit logs () - (the majority of the first edits)

Also all the three users recurrently use the word "bias", () - ("editorial bias", "Hungarian bias",), as did the other users in an identical way in the edit logs earlier (), as originally (), ()...

I have a bad feeling about this, and I don't wish to live that moments again...so I decided to inform/warn you in time, since everyting so apparent...(KIENGIR (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

And fresh new revert () again with ("Hungarian bias")...oh my goodness, not again...(KIENGIR (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
Feel free to alert any new accounts that cause you concern regarding their POV on Eastern Europe matters with {{subst:alert|topic=e-e}} on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, will do in case, but I tell you these issues are really unwelcome, I am sorry for our precious editing time as well :( (KIENGIR (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

Advice

Since you warned me for edit warring, and since Misplaced Pages editors are more litigious than I thought, I want to ask you whether a proposed revert would be counted as edit warring. Here is the talk page discussion: Talk:Solomon's Temple#Zhomrom's_additions. Zhomrom has not responded to my comment from December 2 but he has edited other Misplaced Pages pages after that. I have already reverted Zhomrom's additions twice; on November 30 and on December 2. If I revert again, would that be counted as edit warring? ImTheIP (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I find your arguments convincing, as you gave them at Talk:Solomon's Temple#Zhomrom's additions. Yet the word 'rarely' was put back in the article by User:Zhomron. You could ask the other party if there will be a need for formal dispute resolution. If so you could either open an WP:RFC or try WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In Praise of Blood

In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front is a 2018 non-fiction book by Canadian journalist Judi Rever and published by Random House of Canada;

This ia a section for continuing a certain debate at ANI, if anyone wants to. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have read the book, and I believe we could create a good NPOV article instead of a jumbled mess. I would welcome advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you want to propose something in your sandbox? I could certainly see the advantages of something short, but neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I am working on a re-draft of the Content section, which should, I agree(!) be "short, but neutral". HouseOfChange (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston, you say on the Noticeboard you have some ideas. Please tell what they are. So far "neutral" has proved to be an elastic concept and my suggestions about due weight and to not include errors etc. were fought every inch of the way but never resolved (or addressed properly). The whole discussion with Buidhe started when I corrected an error with my first edit and tred to expand expert's views but, as you know, we never recovered from that. Saflieni (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Since there have been hot disputes, my guess is that we will need either a formal WP:RFC to settle the wording, or a series of talk page agreements in which several people give their explicit approval. One way to approach this is to start from a very simplified version of the article that doesn't say much as to who is right (or which group engaged in mass murder), and then expand it by a series of agreements. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)