Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:45, 1 March 2020

Archives

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

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

Disruptive editor you blocked

• Special:Contributions/85.140.0.0/21
• Special:Contributions/2A00:1FA1:86CD:9F22:E99C:19C:D0A3:42C0
• Special:Contributions/2a00:1fa1:826d:af92:7cdb:3187:1b41:efb2
• Special:Contributions/2A00:1FA1:826D:0:0:0:0:0/48 (not yet blocked)

Hi Ed. I noticed you blocked IP85.140.1.148 here for the exact same thing this IP is doing now. I can't seem to find the archived discussion at ANI to refer to but could see here that a thread was created that I assume you responded to. They keep adding completely false info as can be seen here, here & here. Could you take a look or point me in the right direction please. Robvanvee 13:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The original ANI thread was at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#Russian vandal adding Saibogu Drakon to credits. This was the guy adding 'Saibogu/Drakon' to articles. I've blocked the single IP for a month. If you see more like this, we might have to widen the block to a /64. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. If I see more I'll be in touch. Robvanvee 14:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Look at Special:Contributions/2a00:1fa1:826d:af92:7cdb:3187:1b41:efb2 also. Adding 'Saibogu'. Unfortunately not in the same /64. Would be included in Special:Contributions/2A00:1FA1:826D:0:0:0:0:0/48 but no other IPs yet in that range, so a single block is enough. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks Ed. Robvanvee 16:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: Also this edit of 10 February by Special:Contributions/2a00:1fa1:8408:8b8:787f:8d6a:613e:7d81. It would be included in Special:Contributions/2A00:1FA1:8000::/37. This is a large range, but nearly its whole activity is adding music genres. Somebody who knows this topic might be able to tell if all of these edits are vandalism. A one-month rangeblock could be imposed if so. The /48 rangeblock mentioned above would not cover all these genre changes, or even the new Saibogu edit of 10 February. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey Ed, the ranges would be more your area of expertise than mine but so far as the genre's go, while not vandalism, as long as they keep breaking the V policy they will be warned and eventually blocked once I report them to ANI or AIV. This is the bulk of what my editing consists of (though I must admit I love it) and I'm not taking enough notice necessarily of the IP ranges while this is all happening. I really appreciate your help with this and am wondering if there is anything more I can do to help from my side? Robvanvee 17:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Just looking at this now and the range and unsourced edits are extensive! Do you suspect this is all the same person? Most likely. A range block may help but this will probably continue somewhere along the line. Robvanvee 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Internet Society

• Internet Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive400#User:Ferdeline reported by User:Wwwhatsup (Result: Page protected)
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 153#Internet Society

Since your reversion earlier in Jan, there has been one edit. If I were free to intercede I'd roll it back as a) not necessarily true, b) unreffed, and c) insignificant in that what matters is the result not the process. Would you deal with it? Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have access to any sources which discuss this period? Feel free to contact other editors who participated in the RfC to see if they want to do more editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The only discussion I have seen of this is on mailing lists. I've never seen it said that Afilias were the prime mover of ISOC's bid for .org, but it could be true. My point is, and it does not need an expert to discern this, is that this item of info, in the context of this article, is not notable, as well as being unreffed. The only thing that really matters is that the bid was successful. As to rousing other editors. I wish! It's a pain being hamstrung. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Consider making an WP:edit request on the talk page. For example, if you consider the most recent edit to Internet Society to be unsourced you can ask for it to be undone. Luckily, The Register publishes about the Internet Society from time to time, and in spite of their quirkiness they are considered a reliable source for tech issues. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing EdJohnston a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Bobherry Talk Edits 00:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU 07:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel a need to say...

I am looking through your remarks and a couple of things really seem to need saying:

• Your remarks are clearly intended to be patronizing to me especially, by mentioning my previous explanations and making a point of NOT taking them seriously. (The theme is "well then, if that is true, then you should have no problem with...")
• Honestly, knowing the case, having looked at the new diffs, and how long you took, I think that despite feeling you should be patronizing, you probably did NOT look at the details at all. That is in a sense understandable.
• I do understand. We have all been there: you find it annoying and you want to say "both of you are the same to me", and make your point. The posts of Krakkos can't be that dishonest right?
• I think you still do a lot of article work? But in any case all of us can end up having a difficult situation to resolve, and asking others for advice. Concerning my request for advice you did not respond at all. That seems wrong too.

Honestly, you should have answered my question. And you should have forced yourself to look at the diffs and at least cross check a bit. I say this to you because it is what I would say to myself. Of course your situation is also understandable, and I appreciate that. Probably a bad idea to express these thoughts, but anyway...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Being on a roll, I might as well add some chronology notes, There were no edits by me on the article to trigger events. Here is how it went, after Krakkos asked me to stop working on the TALK page (! not the article !)...

• Andrew to Krakkos on talk page in 1 discussion section 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC):

You should have learned by now NOT to continually twist the words of others, including other Wikipedians, sources, policies etc. This might feel like it is working when you are laying low and working on unknown articles and categories, but this is not something you should keep taking for granted now. I have indeed been trying to mainly post my concerns on this talk page, rather than editing, giving you a chance to show good faith. Having made that major concession your edits and talk page posts show absolutely no concern at all for such concerns. I have limited myself to commenting a small % of the mass of POV edits you are making, and you are seeing that as a signal to do even more. This is highly problematic because it is very difficult to come back later and retrace all the source distortions for example. So your bad faith behavior is where the problem is. If you just accepted to fix some of the obvious problems I point to instead of throwing up surreal smoke screens and parent-shopping all the time, imagine what that would be like...--Andrew Lancaster (talk)

• Andrew to Krakkos on talk page in another discussion section, 15:18, 28 February 2020:

Krakkos so do I take it you are adamantly refusing to make any sorts of edits to correct the obvious problems shown above? I am still hoping YOU will CHOOSE to fix them, but let me know if this is a foolish hope.

• Krakkos does to noticeboard with long post (20 minute minimum writeup?) 14:31, 28 February 2020
• EdJohnston responds 15:23, 28 February 2020

Please do consider though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A 3RR closure is intended to put a stop to an edit war in progress, by any method that seems likely to work. A closure should not specifically inconvenience others through a long protection when it appears that one or two people are at the center of the war. The closure may not have the effect of doing justice between the participants if one person is usually a better editor, but it expects diplomacy for sure. When two people both seem equally angry and neither of them will step forward with a plan for resolving the dispute, the closing admin doesn't have much leeway. Also I preferred not to block either of you, since you both appeared to be content creators and neither of you was blocked before. If you are accusing Krakkos of being dishonest you should watch out for casting WP:ASPERSIONS which is blockable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)"

You really don't want to go through any of the diffs for me, as requested it seems. Doesn't that way of handling this type of case expose the noticeboard to a danger of being manipulated?

In this case there is an editor who has gone through the same pattern of actions to block editing on several occasions, involving different articles, and on at least some occasions in the past, being told that their claims have no grounds: first posting to admin @Doug Weller:, and then trying to claim an edit war at the noticeboard.

As I have mentioned on the noticeboard, the diffs posted by that editor mainly show minor edits such as word changes. The diffs given to show discussions and warnings about edit warring were filled in with diffs involving events from a month earlier on another article! A striking number of the diffs within the comments also lead to things which don't match their description. But no one wants to check that or comment. When I mention it, I am told to be careful of casting aspersions.

Not only was there no formal warning. Strikingly, the talk pages were busy with disagreements about lots of things, but not anything to do with edit warring. This however seems not to be seen as concerning? The edit war claim was a surprise to me.

In that editor's own postings on the noticeboard, you only have to click on the diffs, or just read the explanations, to see that the editor was mainly concerned about other things, not my article editing as such. Most important, is clearly the talk pages. That is where the activity was also. In particular:

• The trigger for the opening of the claim was when I started a talk page section noting that there seemed to be a pattern of fake publication years. Even now, this section has not been answered and those dates remain, and the way I see it the noticeboard was the tool used to achieve this.
• The trigger for the renewal of the claim (Andrew Lancaster is back at it with his reverting) was even more clearly not even presented as based on article editing. I had started a detailed analysis of source distortion in a small number of paragraphs. The whole discussion, even on the noticeboard is about "hounding" on the TALK page. Also on the talk page, immediately before that posting, this editor demanded I should stop all activity related to that article because they have been editing it longer. . This aim of being able to work alone is not really a hidden motive but "hiding in plain sight" and completely consistent with everything posted on the noticeboard also.

It is obvious that Wikipedians should care about the possibility of editors being able to use the noticeboard like an automatic no-questions-asked way to block other editors. There should be some concern about making sure the diffs match the descriptions and so on?

In such a case, I think that my repeated question to you, asking whether the diffs really do show an edit war, seems very fair?

The tone of your warning on my talk page were a shock to me. It makes it more important to me, that the facts of the case do actually get discussed. As you made those posts, I feel you should also have some sense of concern to respond to me in good faith? If I made the wrong types of edits I could make them again and I do not want to! Please help me avoid that??

Concerning "aspersions", such problems, or the impression that there are such problems, can I think result from exactly this type of situation I feel your refusal to comment on the details is creating. My accusations or concerns are clear, but then there is no discussion of the evidence - although I want that discussion, and the diffs are sitting in front of us. Of course I see that looks bad! That is why I am now concerned, given your way of describing the case in public, which makes my accusations look unfounded. If my accusations were unfounded, then please help me see it, so that I do not get things wrong now??

I am asking for discussion about whether there was an edit war and saying, clearly, that I can not see it, but I can't get that discussion going for some reason. This makes me look bad, and given the past pattern of events, this will surely encourage future repeats, so even in terms of cold calculation about what is best for WP in the future, the way of describing the case in public so far seems to me like it should have been done better.

To be clear: I may very well be making mistakes. I would be happy to learn that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is not clear to you, so I will point it out separately: The aim (not hidden) of Krakkos is that I should not edit the article at all, or even the talk page. Just read the comments on the noticeboard, or the talk page comments linked to above. The precedent now set by you in effect (not deliberately) is that if I edit the article at all, Krakkos can get me sanctioned (e.g. edit war warnings, with no edit war required). That precedent is what now worries me, not anger or whatever. The wording of the successful claim, when compared to diffs, was already successfully and openly using the reasoning that any editing by me is a problem. In effect, that reasoning was accepted. In any case, this is clearly the aim, and as strange as that may seem it is how it will be understood if left as it is presented now. You can also compare to how Krakkos choose to interpret previous cases as precedents. A key turning point (it seems to me) is the methodology of accepting that evidence of me having edited at all is enough to justify treating both editors equally, without checking the details.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe I have looked into the matter as thoroughly as policy requires. You are eager to be judged as having the better position, but you won't take the WP:Dispute resolution steps that I suggested. You need to make your content arguments to regular editors, not the closing admin. At a point where it is evident that there is a talk page consensus for your view and the other party appears to be reverting against it, admins are more free to resolve matters in your favor. But if you continue to make thousand-word arguments you may not get much sympathy. EdJohnston (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the length, but indeed the whole point is that a quick summary and quick decision is not always the best option. Your decision "obey's" Krakkos, but Krakkos says "Andrew Lancaster is back at it with his reverting". Problem: there was no revert, and he links to no revert, and when I point this out.... I am casting aspersions?

My practical concern is that Krakkos wanted a precedent that could be cited, which "accepts" his post's way of writing. That post insinuates I should never have been editing at all. Why accept (as it will be portrayed) that Krakkos writes as if I was not allowed to edit at all? So yes, a more questioning and careful approach would have been better for the future of the articles etc.

I also saw no remark about the other aspersions, and indeed the private mail scans (apparently) that were posted.

Also: I have refused no dispute resolution steps? Why do you write that? Please remind me what you are referring to. RFCs? I only said I had no obvious RFC to make at the time. Basically: every edit or talk page proposal I make is opposed, but...

Of course if we can gel any into clear questions they can be brought to a bigger group, and I already mentioned that I think WP:RSN will be one of the first.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

In the above you state you have refused no dispute resolution steps. Yet in the 3RR closure I said I would particularly like to see an RfC on the issue of source dating, since changes of source publication date were made in three of the diffs cited above (#2, 4 and 7). Why won't you consider an RfC on source dating, since you appear to think the evidence strongly favors your view? EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know you proposed using RfCs but my response was not a refusal?? Anyway, you raise a good point about the publication year issue which is already a bit thematic. (Honestly I had simply thought this problem would have disappeared quietly by now. It is stunning that it has not.) I have thought about whether an article RfC would be appropriate given that this is such a basic thing. (We would not want one little-known WP article suddenly declaring a weird policy of its own saying google books summary pages are the ultimate arbiter of publication information, trumping publisher websites, title page info etc? 2ndly, the article clearly has few experienced and currently active editors, or else we would not have all these problems. I 3rdly don't want to be blamed for starting 20 RFCs for every little problem.) I had recently already been searching for a more specialized forum. Any ideas?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I made my suggestion for an RfC, you don't want to take it, so let's both move on to something else. You are unlikely to be criticized for opening too many RfCs at Talk:Goths. (There are no RfCs at all on the page, by anyone). EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No you are reading me wrongly there again I think. Concerning the publication year subject, I mentioned an article RfC as an option I was considering already. Not going to rush today though. Thanks for the advice so far.

The "3rdly" point, OTOH, was considering the fact that there are a lot more topics to cover, and frankly, the talk page is getting used, and Krakkos is (in case you did not notice) using that as one of the main reasons for declaring there was an edit war. The fact is that Krakkos clearly thinks that worked well this time, and that almost any activity at all can now be a reason to complain about an "edit war". See this talk page post today, which hints at more such rhetoric to come: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please continue your efforts at Talk:Goths especially if you have any proposals or RfCs you want to post there. I think I am done now. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia

• Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sir, would you be kind to check this edit by editor on Turkish Croatia article - you are well-acquainted with the history of dispute there, and this +1,711 bytes of nothing but "in-line message templates", inserted more-less behind every other word, in what is appear as sheer disruption of its readability, and in spite of obvious fact that article was and still is already appropriately tagged with "multiple template massages". As soon as you lifted protection of that piece, same editing practice continued.--౪ Santa ౪ 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hounding, continued bullying and severe personal attacks by Andrew Lancaster

Hi, EdJohnston. As you're already aware of, Andrew Lancaster has been making personal attacks against me. He has accused me of being "shamelessly misleading", of "hypocritical abuse", called me a "sycophantic bully boy" who "listens to no one", accused me of "deliberate distortion", being "deliberately fraudulent", "ignoring and working against the community", called me a "nonsensical" "bully", and said that i "need to accept that a lot of the work you are doing will not last (on ANY article)". For this you have already warned him several times.

In the aftermath of your resolution at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: Both warned), Andrew Lancaster posted another threatening and defamatory message at my talk page. I believe this message is a clear violation of WP:BULLYING, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. Considering Andrew Lancaster's long experience as a Wikipedian, the repeated warnings against personal attacks he has received, and the complete lack of evidence accompanied by his accusations, i believe this message is concerning. It is quoted in full below (with my emphasis):

"Krakkos, as I was allowing you to edit at will when you pulled this off (and don't worry, the shameless dishonesty of what you've done will eventually become clear) I really wonder what you think happens next. On Germanic peoples you did the same thing, and it created a situation where you felt there was no point even trying to edit any more. It seems you can only work alone and this is going to lead to your exit from Misplaced Pages and the removal of all your edits eventually? To be clear:

• I can now start making drafts of how the article should look. When the block stops, work starts again, and I will of course take note of the history of how you lie and screw others. Of course I'd be happy to work with you if you DON't do that, but I will, in any case, work. I will call in the community quicker also whenever you so much as post a single lie about a word in a footnote, and believe me I was avoiding doing that until now, and could have been MUCH harder. I see myself as a rare case of someone who has worked with you, but still wants to give you a chance. But...
• The talk page is still no problem and I can keep posting problems and proposals there, in order to keep a clear record of a path for work when the block stops. My concern is not you, but the article, and this block is therefore no real problem to me. You can contribute, but you won't/can't I guess, except in the sense of trying to disrupt and make things less clear, but this will be easy to ignore now, because drafting can happen elsewhere. It looks like Germanic peoples again.
• Obviously my good faith acceptance of the idea of keeping off the main page now looks very naive. As usual, you do not seem to care a bit how you look to the people you should be trying to work with. Working within WP policies is the opposite of your aim. I predict that is not going to last long now you've taken things to this level.

In summary, you seem unable to work honestly and with others, but I would still like that to change. It is surreal sometimes. For a couple of short moments I really hoped/thought you were not going to do a repeat, and you were really going to try to make a real article according to WP policy, where you would actually compromise and work with other editors, and learn from them about how we work. I would still like you to learn how to do that, but it seems that was not possible? Now is the time to decide?

My question to you: do you have a non-BS proposal about how to work together now? Please understand I'd be very happy to see any kind of honest proposal from you, but I do have a very sensitive BS detector and really I am calm person but I hate lies and dishonesty. (It is a good combination on Misplaced Pages.) If you include one more lie or twisted reference in your reply to this, then I know where to file it. Perhaps take some time before answering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As Andrew Lancaster admits above, your sanction is "no real problem" for him. It is a major problem for me however, as it is now impossible for me to work with Jens Lallensack on completing the GA review. Meanwhile, Andrew Lancaster has now made a draft with the idea of rewriting Goths, while I'm not permitted to edit the article at all. I'm basically the only person being punished for a situation which i am certainly not the person most responsible.

The behavior described above has already successfully driven productive editors from the subject area. Additional editors who have been driven away have contacted me privately, but won't do it openly, because they fear they will become the next target. Even the GA reviewer who was once very enthusiastic at building Goths has now abandoned the idea, because of Andrew Lancaster's continued personal attacks and the failure of the community to deal with it.

As long as Misplaced Pages fails to respond decisively to this, the problem will become even worse. If sanctions are still off the table, I believe some sort of WP:IBAN could be helpful. Given the fact that I have not been carrying out such hounding or personal attacks, a one-way IBAN would be fair in my opinion. I’m still willing to accept a two-way ban however. This relentless hounding and bullying is extremely frustrating and is making it very hard for me to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Krakkos (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You probably have a case under WP:ASPERSIONS but my energy for resolving this has been used up. But I would suggest you consider filing at ANI. In the meantime, do you have an idea of a proposal you could make for updating the Goths article, via WP:RFC? I tried to interest User:Andrew Lancaster in making an RfC about the issue of dating sources, but he didn't take it up. (See discussion above). I would make the same proposal to you. If you are not familiar with RfC, I can give you the steps for opening one. So far there have been no RfCs at all at Talk:Goths. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)