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.

• Courtier1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mikrobølgeovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks for your advisory Ed. This is going to be tricky, but there are some serious allegations involved, and yes I have a feeling that ARBMAC may need to be invoked. Once I figure out what I think should be done, I will discuss my proposed actions with you - two's far better than one in this situation!! Many thanks again for dropping by. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to consider an interaction ban may be wise for Ron1978 and Mikrobolgeovn, as well as a prohibition on editing certain pages. I would also like to list List of wars involving Cyprus for deletion, as it is a very short list better incorporated into textual articles that can include more context. Thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that one party in this dispute is more warlike than the others. But what do you think about issuing ARBMAC alerts to both Courtier1978 and Mikrobølgeovn? The connection of the Cyprus dispute to Greece (which falls under ARBMAC) seems to be well enough established by a reading of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 124#Talk:List of wars involving Cyprus. You and I previously discussed this at User talk:Buckshot06#Further comment about List of wars involving Cyprus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we can issue discretionary sanctions. The question is what sanctions should be imposed. As a start I will formally advise them both that ARBMAC applies and discretionary sanctions are allowable, whether or not they know that already; it'll serve as a warning. Happy to hear what sanctions you believe ought to be imposed, which should be placed where the blaim lies, not just blanket-equally. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARBMAC DS were dismissed as inapplicable in Cyprus-related topics by Sandstein during my AE report against now-blocked sock Alexyflemming. Dr. K. 02:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can still leave notices independent of these issues. Many of the Cyprus disputes involve mainland Greece. Enosis was asking for reunion with what country? EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was my opinion also if you recall. However, Sandstein's close looks pretty definite to me irrespective of the connections to Greece. Perhaps we need to consult him before issuing warnings only to be rebuffed at AE. Also there was the issue that Arbcom did not cover Cyprus under ARBMAC. Dr. K. 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's too soon to ask Arbcom to look at Cyprus again, especially in the waning days of 2015. But if you check the vote in 2012, some arbs were prepared to extend sanctions to Cyprus, and others would have considered it if either a full case or an abbreviated case were opened about specific misbehavior. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the timing. Perhaps a new Arbcom could address this problem through a case request either in general terms or specific to Cyprus. Dr. K. 04:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to let you know, that all three editors that we have been involved in this, we have finally agreed on the issues and that the dispute has been resolved.Ron1978 (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an agreement has been reached, can you link to where that has occurred? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has occurred here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cypriot_intercommunal_violence and verified again here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus#UnprotectRon1978 (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article was fully protected for a month on October 1 per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Sandra opposed to terrorism. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Libesruinssineced (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Libesruinssineced, ignoring your warnings, is once more back at "List of multiple discoveries" (please see [1] here).

Is there any way to definitively stop his wrongheaded tampering with the article?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for L. to respond to my latest warning before deciding what to do. He's made no edits since 29 October. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have made further edits today, 3 November 2015, as "78.149.192.253" (please see [2] here).

He has not reverted his objectionable edits of 29 October 2015. Nihil novi (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It doesn't matter much but:

• S’il y en a un de ceux mentionnés ci-dessus qui est à rapprocher de RodriguezWissam, c’est Anticyclone à banias ; même FAI, et certaines caractéristiques techniques en commun. Après, comme ce sont des plages dynamiques, difficile d’être formel. schlum =^.^= 30 octobre 2015 à 11:37 (CET)

means:

• If there is one of those mentioned here above who is to be linked to RodriguezWissam [a banned account], it is Anticyclone à banias ; same FAI and some other technical caracteristic in common. After, these are dynamic ranges [of IP], difficult to be sure. [signature]

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding WP:AE#Anticyclone à banias. There has been a discussion on Anticyclone's talk page which he has now blanked. A link was provided to a French Wikipedia checkuser case which to me seems inconclusive. The most they would say was the passage you quoted above. I guess FAI is the equivalent of our ISP. I'd probably need to see more edits here on the English Wikipedia by User:Anticyclone à banias before deciding what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston,

I understand. And wp:en is not wp:fr.

FYI: he has just been blocked as sock of a banned user. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Original WP:AN/EW discussion is likely to be archived to 298 or 299 soon.

Begin text copied from WP:AN/EW[3]

Is there anything I should have done differently?

What is the best way to attract other editors to this page to discuss what this article should include (specifically, what is the consensus opinion of the practical definitions of accredited and diploma mill and what does it "take" for an institution that was rightfully put on either list in the past to be removed?). Of course this editor - whether registered or not - would be welcome to participate in such a discussion (however - any editor with any WP:Conflict of interest would of course be expected to declare such a conflict - this especially includes editors who have connections to accreditation agencies or government agencies whose "approval" is relevant to the definitions of these terms).

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a couple of ideas but would prefer if you would open a section on my User talk and ask the question there. I'd start by asking people who participated in the two AfDs of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, even though the AfDs are in the past. If memory serves, User:DGG and User:John Vandenberg have had some thoughts about this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End copied text

Okay, I've opened the discussion here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view:

Diploma mill is a subset of unaccredited; the two should not be confused.

In my opinion a list of unaccredited institutions divided by country would be more useful if it includes both those unaccredited in their own country. and those in that country that have been explicitly refused accreditation elsewhere. The problem of course is that most institutions do not apply for accreditation in every possible country, and therefore such a list would need to be selective, and include those for which there are references that they have been explicitly refused accreditation in a major country, or that have been so reported in very reliable 3rd party sources. They have to be indicated separately to avoid confusion. To make the scope manageable that aspect could reasonably be mainly concerned with those schools refused accreditation by any of the major English speaking countries.

A list of diploma mills would be those so considered by reliable 3rd party authorities in any country. We do not currently have so a list. It could reasonably be written & I think it should. The country -by-country descriptions in the Diploma mill article are bad in several respects: first, they confuse unaccredited with diploma mill--the list of hwat each country counts as an accredited institution belongs in an article on that topic. Most countries do not define Diploma mill exactly, so a list of those definitions would be appropriate, but it would be much shorter. Second, the inclusion of institutions here is erratic and arbitrary, and gives excessive weight to the onres that are included. that information belongs in a List of Diploma mills/List of unaccredited, depending on what they say.

In general, ambiguous or disputed situations for a particular school need to be explained--they can not always be summarized in word or two. Th efull description belongsi nthe article on the institution. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sound like good ideas. Any objection to linking to this discussion from Talk:Diploma mill and Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education?

Also, in some if not most disputed cases where the article doesn't clearly show that the institution meets WP:CORP (absent the "nearly free pass" that is given to meaningfully-accredited schools as described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), there will be no article about the institution because it will be PRODded away or will fall to RfA AfD (sidebar: whether a "disputed case" school's article falls to RfA AfD or not may depend more on the RfA AfD participants than the content of the article and its references or the reputation of the school). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to making links. Not sure what you mean by 'RfA.' Did you mean to say AfD? EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been preoccupied with that AfD RfA reform proposal (that, and getting ready to celebrate the 5 Millions article). Thanks for the catch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very broadly agree with DGG's summary and suggestions on future improvement of this topical area.

I'm still trying to work out the specifics of this 'edit war'; is this about the 11 institutions in Mexico? If so, which ones specifically are being contested? If not, please help me out and give specific names for the contested institutions so I can familiarise myself with them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are 3 schools that are contested: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Atlantic International University and Alliant International University. The Atlantic international University article was deleted although it would seem to pass the AfD criteria referred to earlier, specifically: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools 73.49.178.221 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've slept since the last time I had the answer to that question so I don't have it in my head anymore. I'll have to re-read it in order to answer your question, and I'll need to sleep again before I do that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 10:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The List of unaccredited institutions of higher education needs to be updated and the schools mentioned below needs to be removed

Akamai University accredited by International Accrediting Body-http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/Accreditation Service for International Colleges see Chea's international accreditor--》http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c164

Atlantic International University accredited by International Accrediting Body-http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/Accreditation Service for International Colleges see Chea's international accreditor--》http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c164

Delta International University of New Orleans accredited by International Accrediting Body-http://www.asicuk.com/international-directory/Accreditation Service for International Colleges see Chea's international accreditor--》http://cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c1642605:E000:6009:9700:C03B:642B:A7BB:5228 (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, any discussion about the inclusion of Delta International University of New Orleans should be held on the talk page at List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. In the normal sense of accreditation of degree programs, I can't find any evidence that Delta is accredited. It is on the list of institutions recognized by ASIC but it seems they don't accredit degrees. Plus, how significant is it for Delta to be recognized by a UK organization when it is based in the USA. Our article on Delta says that the State of Louisiana expected them to apply to apply to ACICS by 2012 but that organization's web site says nothing about Delta. The page at http://www.delta-university.org/?P=accreditation says that Delta are a member of CHEA but the CHEA list that they link to does not include their name. The wording of Delta's accreditation page seems to studiously avoid the issues. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok EdJohnston, just an FYI, there are two different accrediting agencies. One accredits the institution and the other accredits the program which is called "programmic accreditation" also known as specialized or professional accreditation. Its designed for specialized departments, programs, schools or colleges within and institution (e.g., School of Law, School of Business, School of Engineering etc..) Programmic accreditation looks for specific aspects of a department to which the institution that has accreditation, it's an extra accreditation. There is no such accreditation agency that accredits the actual "Degree" hence the reason for the institutions being accredited. Here's reference. See Q and A's regarding accreditation. See this. 2605:E000:6009:9700:C03B:642B:A7BB:5228 (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My role in this was only to handle the edit warring complaint. Any content discussion should take place at Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education or other suitable venue. If agreement can't be found, consider a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Yesterday, you semi-protected Warith Deen Umar. Today, a new account was created, TruthNeverLies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 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)[reply]

Correction: Four days ago, the account was created. The account was created 13 minutes after 41.151.92.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) edited the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So you plan to leave the article with incorrect information? And a lack of information? Shouldn't it be reverted to before any of the recent edits were made to the infobox? WikIan -(talk) 03:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not propose your version on the talk page? Start an RfC if you wish. Over the last month more than a dozen people have edited the article. If your version gets general support, someone else will make the edit. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Onefortyone is active again and engaged in similar behavior to what has gotten him sanctioned numerous times. I've taken a deeper look into his edits—he is quite intent on introducing poorly sourced gossip about Elvis Presley and related subjects into various articles. His edits generally pass WP:V (although I've found page number mismatches) but the source material is very poor (second and third-hand gossip and theories) and certainly has significant issues with WP:RS and WP:PROFRINGE. I've avoided dealing with him as an admin because I've had conflict with him in the past as FAC Coordinator when I nearly had to have him banned from participating at FAC. But, this will almost certainly end up AN/I again. Someone is socking to edit war with him, which will likely become a red herring when dealing with Onefortyone's behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the articles now in question are

• Graceland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
• Personal relationships of Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Memphis Mafia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Toilet-related injuries and deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The other editor you're talking about must be Excelse (talk · contribs). At first glance I've no idea who is more likely to be right about including this material. There is also a thread at WP:RSN about the Presley articles that was just opened by User:Hoary.

There was an arb case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone back in 2005. Per this remedy he was placed on probation regarding biographies of celebrities. "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." It seems that provision is still in effect and so an AE complaint is theoretically possible. The data would need to be very clear. I'll watch for now but am not planning on taking any action myself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to this matter. I responded to the RS/N thread to demonstrate that this is an example of the exact behavior Onefortyone is on probation to prevent. He deliberately misinterpreted and combined sources in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to write that Elvis died on the toilet, and then edit warred to keep it in when it was challenged. I don't have a POV about Elvis (Onefortyone frequently claims he is targeted by "Elvis fans") and I don't have a horse in this race other than the general interest in keeping poorly sourced and fringe theories out of Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are not well informed about my "probation". It is true that in 2005 I was taken to arbitration because some of my contributions were not in line with the opinion of one or two other editors. However, my opponents in this case were later banned from the related articles because of their false accusations. Here is what the arbcom says: "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." See [4]. Therefore, my opponent Lochdale, who had shown "evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" and "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley," was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." It could well be that Excelse and his sockpuppets are identical with Lochdale or another editor who attacked me some years ago in a similar way. Interestingly, Excelse and his sockpuppets have only removed Elvis-related paragraphs that are not in line with their personal opinion, among them quotations from reliable sources. See [5], [6], [7], [8]. Interestingly, the consensus for allowing many of those sources now in question in the articles' texts has stood for many years. As Excelse says in one of his edit summaries, "Six years passed, only second self published forums cite these gossips other than this page" (see [9]), it could well be that he was deeply involved in the former edit wars, for which he was banned from Elvis-related articles. Onefortyone (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your pointer to the second arb case. Per the terms of the 2006 decision, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis#Onefortyone on probation, your probation on 'articles which concern celebrities' is reaffirmed. If you continue to edit war about Elvis material, any admin can choose to invoke the sanctions and ban you from editing Elvis-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I do not understand why my probation is still in effect, as all of my edits are well sourced. Concerning the death of Elvis, according to many independent sources there can be no doubt that the singer died on the toilet. Here is a clear statement by Greil Marcus from his study, Dead Elvis: A Chronicle of a Cultural Obsession (Harvard University Press 1991): "Elvis died on the toilet" (p.154). Some other sources:

Having edits that you consider well-sourced is not enough. You need to convince the other participants on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached, you can open an WP:RFC or use the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I do not understand why I need to convince other editors, if studies from university presses and other reliable sources are cited in order to support my edits. Onefortyone (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is basic on Wikipedia. See WP:CON. Stuff does not get in merely by being sourced, it gets in through the agreement of editors that it belongs. If you and User:Excelse continue to revert each other on Elvis articles, admin action is likely. You should wait for a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fear it will not be possible to reach consensus here, as the other user is simply removing well-sourced content. You should also take into account that Excelse and his sockpuppets are new users whose edits are nothing more than an attempt to remove content from Elvis-related pages that is not in line with their personal opinion, but was part of these articles for many years. Onefortyone (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laser Brain and User:Onefortyone, do you think that this static IP was me? Obviously it was not me. I have told before too, that I had one of these articles on my watchlist and when I saw that Onefortyone has been indeed trolling by calling fair edits a vandalism,[10] now at this situation any editor would want to look up the recent contribution history of such editor. That's what I did and reverted him. When I made this edit, I had actually found out that Onefortyone has been the only editor who makes these edits and these edits have no confirmation since his insertions[11] outside wikipedia than gossip forums. While other editors always removes such content,[12][13] Onefortyone inserts back,[14][15] despite no consensus on talk page.[16]

For deeper analysis of his edits, read this discussion. I made discussion on his talk page, because he was floating same material on at least five articles and making discussion on each article talk page is only repetitive. He has not discussed about content, and only made attacks.

I am editing for 2 years, and I edited Elvis article[17] before too.

What I have seen about Onefortyone is:-

• He canvasses.[18][19]
• He misrepresent and make false sources :- Once again he has tendentiously reinserted this material, even though I had told[20] him that the source [21] is from 1995, and it is not even mentioning Graceland or saying that Biltmore is 2nd most visited.
• Edit wars. Like explained above.
• He don't discuss content, he only make personal attacks[22] and call fair edits a vandalism.[23][24][25][26]

This all comes from last 5 days, if we make a list of his last 10 years of disruption, it would be huge.

I have already noted about this recent edit, now talking about other one, he use a source[27] that regard it as "plausible theory" and not "authentic theory", and treats it as similar as other theory that Elvis died from Bone Cancer. These edits came after you had warned him not to make any more controversial edits.[28]

Onefortyone has already proven that he is not going to consider any warnings and he is not going to give up disrupting these articles. If it is possible to ban or block him for stopping this disturbance, then it should be done. Even if he gives up making these edits he will return after a few weeks and create this drama again. Excelse (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are not disruptive, as I am citing many reliable sources, among them commentaries by eye-witnesses, mainstream biographies of Elvis and academic studies. Query: did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments for his massive removals of content? No, he didn't. Where are his reliable sources contradicting my edits? To my mind, this case is an exercise in WP:I just don't like it. I have cited many independent sources supporting my contributions. And this is what counts on Wikipedia, not the personal opinions of some Elvis fans. So the material removed by Excelse without obvious justification should be reincluded in the Elvis-related articles. See also this discussion. Onefortyone (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Medieval Bulgarian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston. I saw that you protected Medieval Bulgarian Army. I am wondering if you might take a look at WT:AN#BulgariaSources because I think the "MBA" IP edits may possibly be related in some way to the edits discussed in the linked ANI thread based upon [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], and [35], etc. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an SPI case this wouldn't be very exciting, since semiprotection is already applied. You may have a valid complaint about long-term edit warring if this keeps up. It appears that User:BulgariaSources wants to add some tables to the article but others disagree. If you desire admin action it would be good to see some discussion on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback EdJohnston. I did open a thread about BulgariaSources on ANI for disruptive editing on some other Bulgaria national football team and some other Bulgaria-related articles, but it was archived twice with any comments received from an administrator. So, I'm not sure if that means what they are doing is generally not considered disruptive, there was a technical problem with the way I posted, or simply that the admins were just busy dealing with other things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things often get archived at ANI with no action, and you shouldn't take that as being an admin verdict. My point is that there is a content issue at Bulgaria national football team that nobody has considered important enough to bring to the talk page. Though I share your concern about this editor, we often try to engage them first on their content issue before talking about blocks. The article talk page is the place for content issues. I will leave a note for User:BulgariaSources. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again EdJohnston. Just for reference, I have made a number of attempts to engage BulgariaSources in discussion about the issues mentioned in the ANI thread in edit sums, and on both the article's talk page and their usertalk a number of times. There have also been numerous user warnings placed on their talk by other editors, including blocks for edit warring and using mutlitple accounts, and they have never responded to any of them as well. I posted at ANI because all attempts made to engage them in dicscussion had failed, and they seem to have no interest in discussing things since their only response is to blank their talk page and return to making the edits in question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going to ANI was fine, I'm just advising you on the steps that may be needed if you think an edit warring block is justified. In a long-term edit war, we usually give the person a last chance and try to persuade them to justify their position. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I believe that quite a few good faith attempts were made to engage them, but to date no response has been received from them other than to blank their user talk. I saw your post on their talk page, so perhaps this time they will choose respond and things can be worked out. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to do that and thanks for you advice on how to best proceed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

guy night mare here have a look some kind of POV bulgaria push, also deleting talkpage contents to avoid other's seeing warnings Shrikanthv (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikanthv, this is not new behavior since the last warning. He has made no edits since 4 November. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copied some threads to my talk page for ready access to the history of events, anticipating that the other editor will continue his interventions.

Where may I find instructions on how to archive?

Many thanks!

Nihil novi (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can archive that specific thread using the OneClickArchiver if you want. To set up normal bot archiving, you could add this to your talk:

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 250K 

|counter = 1 

|algo = old(10d) 

|archive = User talk:Nihil novi/Archive %(counter)d 

}}

The most convenient archive box is this one:

{{archives|search=yes}}

This style of archive box doesn't have to be updated when more archives are created. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I've found "Wikipedia:Archiving" and have archived my talk page.

It was about time to do it !

Kindly let me know, should there be anything else I ought to do.

Thanks again !

Nihil novi (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well the user seems not to adhering to consensus and his aggressive spamming of quotation is becoming lengthy now since they are cherry picking, not to mention edit warring that I pointed once. Above you have told that you "so an AE complaint is theoretically possible. The data would need to be very clear. I'll watch for now but am not planning on taking any action myself", what it means? You are not going to take action but what is "AE complaint"? Excelse (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In principle his behavior can be reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement. I'm waiting to see if he continues to restore material to Elvis articles that is disputed by others. If that happens I'll decide whether a block is necessary. He has been sufficiently warned, but it's not 100% clear what would be a violation. The original complaint by User:Laser brain (above) was that "he is quite intent on introducing poorly sourced gossip about Elvis Presley and related subjects into various articles.." If you think Onefortyone has resumed adding the kind of material that others have disputed in the past, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see that Excelse is one of those POV warriors who are here to remove well-sourced content from articles that is not in line with their fan view? In the past, some Elvis fans even took me to arbitration for only this reason. However, as I am always citing reliable sources in order to support my edits, these fans were banned from Elvis-related articles. In my opinion, the Wikipedia articles dealing with Elvis Presley should not be dominated by fans who only support 'favorable' views of the singer and endeavor to suppress any critical or unpleasant remark published in primary and secondary sources. In an article by Professor Wall there is an interesting discussion of radical policing strategies implemented over the years by Elvis fan clubs and organisations. The article clearly states that one of these strategies is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance and typically effected through the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong. ... Policing by mobilising the organic ‘Elvis community’ – the fan and fan club networks – has been achieved in a number of different ways ..." See David S. Wall, "Policing Elvis: Legal Action and the Shaping of Post-Mortem Celebrity Culture as Contested Space". Removing content from Wikipedia articles is part of this strategy. Onefortyone (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read AE now and I would rather report to AE then, because you seem to have commented on many reports there. I have opened one there now about Onefortyone. Excelse (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I see that you created an RM on The Lawsuit. This is fine, but it needs to be moved back to its original title first - I had put in a technical request to revert an undiscussed move, which is required before starting up an RM in that situation - otherwise it can get messy for the closer of the discussion. I appreciate your work, and your attention to this! Dohn joe (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is too confusing for a simple revert of the original move. Please wait for the outcome of the discussion. There is no written policy for how to handle the 'Requests to revert undiscussed moves' section. Whatever admins do with that is just a local practice and ought to be subject to common sense. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of that section is to facilitate the WP:BRD process. Most BOLD edits can simply be reverted - including to article titles. Sometimes, though, there is a procedural obstacle, so regular editors like myself cannot simply revert. That section is meant to be automatic - otherwise the system can be gamed by intentionally throwing up obstacles to routine reverting of titles. It should be up to the BOLD editor to justify making a change, not the other way around. Dohn joe (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion :-). If you think there's a policy against my action, please link to it. WP:BRD is an essay. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the policy comes at the other end, as I was hinting at above. WP:RM/CI requires that an RM that closes with no consensus be returned to the previous title if it was recently moved with no consensus. For our purposes, the most relevant sentence is "Therefore, if a page has been moved from a longstanding title, and it is not possible to move the page back to its original title during the discussion, the default title will be the title prior to the contested move." Since it's not possible for me to move it, but it is for an admin, most admins I've asked in this situation have agreed to perform the revert, and let the RM proceed from the "natural" direction. It's just cleaner at the closing end of things. But it's fine - the discussion will say whatever it says, and the closer will only have to take the above into account if there's no consensus one way or the other. Dohn joe (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EdJohnston, may I have your attention for a minute? There seems to be a case of a planned campaign to reduce my and other user's reputation and stir bad rumors about us due to our work in articles related to the Balkans (which fall under discretionary sanctions and are of high political debate). More specifically, an anonymous user with the IP 45.33.130.46 is accusing me (User:SilentResident) for being sockpuppet of the User:Athenean. This incident happened today the morning, at the following talk page: User talk:Edvini (Date: 11 November 2015, section title: Possible). I suspect this accident may be related to another similar accident that took place, 2 months ago, at my own talk page: User talk:SilentResident (Date: 2 September 2015, section title: Canvassing, Breaking the spirit of the 3rr). I don't think all this is a mere coincidence. Can this be looked at by you or by other administrators, please? The User:Evensteven has suggested your attention in the first incident, and now I really need the administrator's attention this time, because another such a case happened again right now. I suspect there must be a link between these two accidents, it is way too coincidental for this to be unrelated to each other. I do not know who else to ask, or which is the most appropriate option to take when such suspicious suggestions target me or aim to reduce my and other people's reputations. --SilentResident (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]