| Revision as of 19:46, 6 September 2020 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,229 edits OneClickArchiver archived Swati (Pashtun tribe) talk page topics deleted by Haider khan10 to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 48← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2024 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,229 edits OneClickArchived "Is this an adequate source?" to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 53 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}} | {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}} | ||
| {{checkuser topicon|cat=yes}} | |||
| __FORCETOC__ | __FORCETOC__ | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 53 | ||
| |algo = old(10d) | |algo = old(10d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|search=yes}} | {{archives|search=yes|auto=yes}} | ||
| == Blocked on request by user Aviartm == | |||
| Hello, apparently I was blocked by you on request of Aviartm - he had reverted my edits for more than 3 times in a 24 hours period himself. Please also take action against his user account. Thank you. ] (]) 13:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Hounding == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Abbasquadir}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|HistoryofIran}} | |||
| *{{pagelinks|Yazid I}} | |||
| *{{pagelinks|Shaki Khanate}} | |||
| *] | |||
| Hi there. I started to revert some of this users edits (on articles that are on my watchlist), such as ] which ignored ] and ] (). Instead of taking my advice and reading the rules, he started hounding me, reverting two of my edits which I did a few days ago ( and ). --] (]) 13:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': Hey Ed, I saw your talk page notification . I had a run-in with Abbasquadir at ] and ] and ] and ]. | |||
| *#The initial interaction involved them violating copyrights by posting Jiah Khan's full suicide note at both of these talk pages. I and provided a clear explanation about why I redacted it (copyright violation), but Abba on one of the talk pages, somehow thinking he knew better about how you could only violate copyrights if the content was in the article. | |||
| *#After that, I had to remove potentially defamatory content at the Jiah Khan article, because (assuming the ''best'' of faith, and not just lousy English skills) Abbasquadir was trying to summarise a summary of a POOR source that misquoted the contents of Jiah Khan's suicide note. I don't know if it was a language barrier issue, but the fact that Abbasquadir couldn't figure out that the content was problematic was, in itself, problematic. The result of that, was that potentially defamatory content about Sooraj Pancholi was introduced into the article. You can see it here: It starts with a totally inappropriate section heading, and then just blossoms from there. | |||
| *#I reverted that first introduction . I then left a talk page comment . The user didn't respond, and then restored the content. I warned them not to do that , and explained again why the content was problematic, but the editor restored it again , at which point I went to BLPN, ''only'' because BLPs aren't exactly my specialty. I probably would have pulled his editing card at that point, otherwise. | |||
| *#Once at BLPN, which you can see in , the user misrepresented the details of this conflict alleging that I didn't provide an explanation, which is obviously untrue, since I provided two. | |||
| *#So summarising: Abbasquadir seems to edit per their whims, they don't seem to care about community standards, they think they know more about copyrights than others, and they don't seem to have compunctions about misrepresenting details. Also, they have been warned about ArbCom sanctions in the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan area , and for more perspective about their participation style, note how quickly their talk page comments get archived, manually or otherwise, and even note from their archive. I think you see where I'm going here. | |||
| :Thanks, ] (]) 05:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::], I read your report at ]. Your argument is that that Abbasquadir added material to ]'s article that is defamatory to ] and then made some reverts to keep the suicide note in the article. I hope that ] will respond to the concerns expressed. Fortunately Abbasquadir has not continued to revert at ] since 21 August. But the edit wars at ] and ] seem like they could be ongoing, since there were some reverts by Abbasquadir with a date of August 30. ] (]) 13:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't say it above, but I'm not seeking sanctions for this stuff. I'm providing you with supplementary info about the user in case it shapes an opinion about their editing behaviour as part of a community. Regards, ] (]) 14:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance == | |||
| == Paid advocacy accusations == | |||
| {{atop|1=] has been warned about ]. This thread should not become a catch-all for Balkan issues. ] (]) 19:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC) }} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Anastan}} | |||
| I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for ]. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. ] (]) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hey, Ed. Hope you're safe and well. So, there have been several move discussions in Kosovo-related articles. The better known in terms of daily readership are: ] and ]. There have been raised several concerns about canvassing attempts which affect the result. In fact, a similar editing pattern was observed at an AfD I filed a few weeks ago: ]. As a result, they have been relisted. Today, an editor ({{u|Anastan}}) who opposed all moves about a week ago, made a series of similar comments across three different discussions in which he accused {{tquote|Most of the Support users, including the one who opened this request and the one who attacked me just now, opened their account within days and one month to each other, at the end of 2019, during the Wiki Academy Kosovo event. The dates of duration of event lined with our "new neutral users" appearances on Misplaced Pages. It is '''obvious''' that Republic of Kosovo is using new editors '''again''', as we have witnessed several times in the past years they already did, as their national agenda pov pushers and fighters. We already know that they educate new users to use English Misplaced Pages as pro-Albanian propaganda advocacy tool, and that is strictly forbidden by ].}} and that {{tquote|Admins should be well aware that those requests are very much disputable, and therefor, consensus reached is actually not consensus, but organised and paid political advocacy.}} It's obvious that {{u|Mikola22}} who opened the discussion about the title of ] is not a paid advocacy account. Neither am I, nor is any of the ca. 25-30 editors across all articles - many of wildly different backgrounds - who have supported the moves paid by any government entity. Paid advocacy accusations which concern relations to government agencies are egregious and undermine the integrity of the project.--] (]) 11:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I think we all have a common goal and that is to improve Misplaced Pages articles. If editor Anastan have a problem with that it is not in good faith to go around and accuse editors without evidence. It would be good that such behavior is sanctioned. All of us who have a different opinion about some techniques are probably prepared from ''"the Albanian secret service"''? Such promotion of conspiracy theories only bring nervousness to the editing of Misplaced Pages articles which is probable the main goal of these false accusations. I expect a clear and concrete move from the Misplaced Pages authorities that such accusations do not happen again. ] (]) 12:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Leaving a ping for ] in case they want to respond. This is not the first time that Misplaced Pages has had to deal with difficult Balkan-related move discussions. Experienced closers should be able to detect and appropriately respond to any genuine canvassing. The advice in ] is still good. ] (]) 14:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I'm also certain about that - so far all of these discussions have been relisted. The larger problem is not the "canvassing" accusation, because any admin can discern the extent at which this has actually happened or if someone just raised an irrelevant grievance. The problem is that now we have accusations of paid advocacy and relations to a government agency. Honestly, I would prefer these edits to be deleted. Editors can't put forward something that serious without any accountability. I thought that ] pinged editors in the same way as !ping.--] (]) 15:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *It is so sad to see that move discussions keep being redirected to accusations and conspiracies. I do not want to get involved in such a pointless mess, however, I would like to bring some history to your attention. In 2018 Anastan got blocked for a week for off-Wiki coordination. In a separate case in 2013, some accounts (Psladja1402, Sermonija, Srbin100%, Stublinac) were created the same day, and a few days later Anastan created their userpages(!); one could go on and follow Anastan's example, and say that there was again off-Wiki stuff involved. I agree with EdJohnston that such Balkan issues are messy, and if this round of accusations persists, AE would be the right place. Another admin, {{ping|Peacemaker67}} has recently made good use of AE to deal with Balkan disruption. Others might find that path useful. However, the hope is that good faith will prevail here, and unproven accusations will stop. ] (]) 15:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **The problem is that Anastan's false accusations remain on the page where important things are discussed. It’s actually throwing dust in the eyes of other editors who would like to give their opinion in this and other case. First I was a Croatian Nazi, now I am Albanian mercenary. Where have I come? I'm just waiting to become a Russian spy. Sorry EdJohnston for reply on this page, I know you have a smarter job to do than dealing with us ''"spies"''.] (]) 16:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::]s against Mikola22 are getting worse at ] so I understand their frustration. --] (]) 16:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::If anyone thinks that some comments by ] should be struck out of move discussions, can you provide a list of diffs here? ] (]) 16:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::.--] (]) 17:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I don’t think anyone is paid, that’s insane to me. Editors sometimes approach too emotionally. I have tried several times to point out the polarized and very tense atmosphere on Balkan topics. It was wrong to launch several similar RfCs and RMs at the same time, until at least one situation is resolved and tensions calm down. Quality and productive discussion cannot be conducted in these conditions. Bias and canvasing on both sides were obvious. Personally, I am already used to being declared both a “Serbian traitor” and a “Serbian ultranationalist” because I try to balance and add parts that criticize all nationalisms and authoritarian regimes. Admins persistently ignore a lot of my reports for serious offenses that could even endanger me. Only editors who were characterized as pro-Serbian were sanctioned, although much more serious policies violations from the “opposite side” were ignored, including threats, long term abuse, publication of private information, etc. {{ping|Maleschreiber}} Please stop dragging me into this story. I didn't accuse anyone of anything.--] (]) 16:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :You put forward some heavy stuff about Mikola22 - regardless of the paid advocacy which I never linked you to - and I notified you that if you have evidence/diffs against Mikola22, you can always report them and both you and they will be scrutinized at AE. But ]s are not acceptable in a cooperative environment.--] (]) 17:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is not true either. I mentioned Mikola22 in just one sentence. It was more a question than claim or accusation. The rest of the message quoted by you was general, it did not refer to any specific editor. You know that very well.--] (]) 17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regardless of whether there is paid editing happening or not, the fact that Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912 registered and started editing minutes apart is unsettling to say the least, and should be swiftly investigated. ] (]) 19:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You "investigated" it with a SPI report, and the conclusion of the admins there was that there is no connection between Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912. ] (]) 19:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The conclusion was that Crazydude1912 wasn't a sock of Maleschreiber (and vice versa). That doesn't rule out meatpuppetry and off-site coordination. For the record, I don't think there's any paid editing happening, but the WikiAcademy Kosovo connection is certainly interesting and I'm grateful to Anastan for bringing it up. ] (]) 19:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::SPIs do not work that way. They do not deal with "pure" socking only, but with meatpuppetry and off-Wiki coordination too. Anastan was reported for socking a few years ago, and they got blocked for off-Wiki coordination. In another case, two accounts concerned with ] were reported for socking, and got blocked for off-Wiki coordination. Hence, the result of the SPI report you filed was that Mal and CD1912 are '''unrelated'''. If you still do not understand it, you might ask the closing admin for further clarification. In any case, do not say again that Mal and CD1912 have off-Wiki connections without evidence at a SPI, as it all could go to AE for aspersions. ] (]) 19:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
Latest revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2024
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance
I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for Hideki Tojo. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)