Misplaced Pages

User talk:EdJohnston: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 20:32, 25 October 2019 editMy very best wishes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,579 edits →Gas van← Previous edit Revision as of 21:17, 25 October 2019 edit undoMy very best wishes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,579 edits →Gas vanNext edit →
Line 104: Line 104:
:I think Paul is making a significant effort to discredit WP:RS-compliant sources he does not like on this page, from arguing to use a blog (which has nothing to do with improving the sourcing), to this suggestion. Also note that at least a part of ] page is arguably covered by his topic ban , just as his RSNB posting because they are both related to/about gas vans that were used by Nazi at the occupied Soviet territory. ] (]) 19:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC) :I think Paul is making a significant effort to discredit WP:RS-compliant sources he does not like on this page, from arguing to use a blog (which has nothing to do with improving the sourcing), to this suggestion. Also note that at least a part of ] page is arguably covered by his topic ban , just as his RSNB posting because they are both related to/about gas vans that were used by Nazi at the occupied Soviet territory. ] (]) 19:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
:Per Sandstein's explanations, 1937 events, as well as Holocaust denial (in general), are definitely not covered by a EF related topic ban. The whole edit war (I was not a part thereof, by the way) was caused by extensive usage of primary and questionable sources related to 1937 events in Moscow, which definitely do not belong to Eastern Front. Application of restrictions on source usage (we have several good quality English sources that cover this subject) will eliminate the very roots of the conflict, and it will cease quickly.--] (]) 20:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC) :Per Sandstein's explanations, 1937 events, as well as Holocaust denial (in general), are definitely not covered by a EF related topic ban. The whole edit war (I was not a part thereof, by the way) was caused by extensive usage of primary and questionable sources related to 1937 events in Moscow, which definitely do not belong to Eastern Front. Application of restrictions on source usage (we have several good quality English sources that cover this subject) will eliminate the very roots of the conflict, and it will cease quickly.--] (]) 20:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
::Such sanctions will only force admins to rule on the content and decide to infinity who misrepresented the sources and if certain sources were "academic". For example, these guys will argue that if a historian published several books, but did not receive a PhD degree specifically in history and does not work in a University, then his publications would not "qualify", etc. Such arguments have nothing to do with enforcing the WP:RS, just as the posting about the blog. ] (]) 20:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC) ::Such sanctions will only force admins to rule on the content and decide to infinity who misrepresented the sources and if certain sources were "academic". For example, these guys will argue that if a historian published several books, but did not receive a PhD degree specifically in history and does not work in a University, then his publications would not "qualify", etc. Such arguments have nothing to do with enforcing the WP:RS, just as the posting about the blog.
::The limiting types of sources can work just fine with subjects that are widely known and widely covered in the scientific literature. In other cases, such as news, politics, or cases when there are simply not enough data (because KGB did not open its archives and destroyed the evidence, for example), limiting the types of sources defeats the purpose of the WP and WP:NPOV by effectively censuring information, even such that was published in WP:RS. ] (]) 20:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:17, 25 October 2019


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.

Suspected sockpuppetry

Hi Ed. Thanks again for stepping in with User:68.129.15.71. However, I believe this account is using sock puppets to avoid the block. User:69.114.123.212 has just re-added material in a similar sourcing form as 68.129.15.71 used to do and follows the same habit of long ref's without formatting and creating see also pages that don't link to anything. I'm fairly confident the account User:EuroHorrorGuy is also related, but that could take more time and clarification. What do you think? Is there anything further I should do with this potential sockpuppetry? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be better to have a smoking gun. Have you noticed the two of them ever editing the same article? I see that both of them have entries in the edit filter log. The first IP was well-known for adding unsourced material. Do you notice the second one having the same problem? EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ban evasion of recently blocked user

Hi, I'm not that familiar with the English banning policies, but I noticed that User:JeBonSer created a new account to keep editing Electronic harassment during the ban: Version history. User:VQuakr reported the user originally. --mfb (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New account blocked. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
And another one, blocked by User:ST47 this time. --mfb (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Acroterion has now put semiprotection on Electronic harassment which ought to help. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@VQuakr, Mfb, ST47, and Acroterion: Before believing and accusing my account, those new user accounts are just repeating what I contribute in order to dupe the other editors that the owner of the account is the same. I'm a Targeted Individual (TI). You can easily spot that the first new created account (Basilvera (talk · contribs)) repeats what I previously contribute and he/she even paraphrased my edit summary. And the second new created account (Peleswift (talk · contribs)) is doing the same and my account was accused of sock puppetry for this account. How can I sacrifice my account to be stained if I knew the sock puppetry rules. I'm a long time editor. Only 3RR was my mistake because I didn't notice that I exceed four reversion because at that time, many editors editing on the Electronic harassment page and I can't easily noticed that my contributions had exceeded four reverts. The question here is that am I that so stupid? You can easily spot that these new user accounts are created by the groups who persecutes me. They made tactics to stain my account and to be easily suspected by the users, administrators and checkusers. JeBonSer 20:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

See the comment at User talk:ST47#User:JeBonSer complains of being impersonated, where User:ST47 provides his own analysis of the situation. My original 3RR block of JeBonSer was per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive397#User:JeBonSer reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked). From his comments above, JeBonSer appears to believe he is a Targeted individual, i.e, that he is personally being subjected to electronic harassment. Our article on Electronic harassment defines it as a conspiracy theory involving government agents. If JeBonSer sincerely believes that government agents are targeting him with electromagnetic radiation, I hope that won't affect the neutrality of his editing here, whether or not the original sockpuppet charges are correct. JeBonSer's claim 'You can easily spot that these new user accounts are created by the groups who perpetrate me' does not sound very convincing. Be aware of the rules about WP:ASPERSIONS. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Socking

Accounts
Pages

Hi EdJohnston, how have you been? Stevanpesic was blocked back in August because of the disruption regarding Kosovo's legal status they were involved in. StevanM.Pešić, obviously linked with that account, is editing the same topic with apparently the same way of viewing things. Another meaningful detail is that the latter was created a day after the former. Can you block StevanM.Pešic for patent socking? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Both of them have used several times as edit summary the article's content and links to other Misplaced Pages articles or news sites. DavideSpielberg was created the same day as StevanM.Pešic and has edited the same topic with the same way of writing edit summaries. I think a SPI with a CU request might be warranted now that there are more than 2 accounts concerned but I will open one only if the unblocked accounts continue editing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Ktrimi991: why are you not filing this at WP:SPI? Ivanvector (/Edits) 13:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Ivanvector:, I originally considered the case to be an easy one that did not need a SPI. I posted here because EdJohnston is a very experienced admin in Balkan matters and has blocked many socks in the past. Now that I noticed that StevanM.Pešić might not be the only sock, I think that a CU can help to clarify whether these accounts are socks or friends editing together. I will try to find the time to prepare a SPI report and file it in the few coming hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
All the accounts listed above are now blocked. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevanpesic/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Revoke?

Could you revoke talk page access for the IP 190.238.29.214? Vandalizing his talk page. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 16:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. People are allowed to remove block notices. The guy is just supplying more evidence that he shouldn't return to editing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Religion numbers vandal

Hi, it looks like an IP editor from Greece is continuing to vandalize statistics numbers in articles about religious and LGBT topics. I March, I made this ANI report: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Persistent false information/changes to religion demographics by dynamic IP editor. You blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5500::/44 and said to let you know if I saw anything else. In May, the block was extended and Special:Contributions/94.69.63.0/24 was also blocked, see: User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46#Religious statistics IP vandal has returned.

Recently there have been more edits from 2A02:587:5500::/44 that look like the same person, and from Special:Contributions/94.68.254.127/24 as well as Special:Contributions/2A02:587:6003:7F00:389B:4349:A9CC:6D0B/64. They've been repeating the same edits in LGBT rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, since May - I checked the sources and their numbers are false.

Earlier there was also Special:Contributions/94.68.190.0/24, Special:Contributions/94.69.72.230, Special:Contributions/94.69.229.1, and a few others, but I guess those are old now. Maybe you have time to take a look? Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I had previously blocked Special:Contributions/2a02:587:5500::/44. That block was for one month; later, User:Ponyo issued a 3-month block of the same range. They are free to edit now. Recent edits (since September 2019) are not obvious vandalism though sourcing is not 100% clear.
  • I tried looking at a /36 range, Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5000:0:0:0:0:0/36 which could be a superset of one or two of the above ranges, but ran out of time. This might reveal /64 ranges that need attention, even if the whole /36 isn't blockable. After checking out this range I put semiprotection on Iridology, which was being vandalized by another IP in the above range. At this point maybe my search is just picking up random vandalism and not more occurrences of the religion-numbers guy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks... I had also mentioned Special:Contributions/94.68.254.127 above being active vandalizing in the past few weeks, latest the 18th, did you see that? There had also been Special:Contributions/94.68.254.182 back in January/February, but nothing in between. There haven't been any other edits in the range Special:Contributions/94.68.254.0/24 since 2015. So a block of the IP or range could be ok, unless it's too late already.
You're right that the latest edits from Special:Contributions/2a02:587:5500::/44 after the block aren't obviously vandalism, though the articles/topics seem suspiciously the same - probably it's just a matter of time, I'll try to keep an eye on it.
I cleaned up Sarakatsani, but it doesn't strike me as the same person (and not necessarily vandalism). Maybe Special:Contributions/2A02:587:6003:7F00::/64 would be enough instead of Special:Contributions/2a02:587:6000::/44?
Special:Contributions/94.69.229.0/24 mostly looks like a different person I think, who does a large number of sports article edits. The most recent religion vandalism is in August, some earlier ones include .46, .27, .252, .228, .58, .159, .231, .125, .93, and .12, but even within those there is some crossover, e.g. in .27 it's only the one edit in July, the rest in March are sports, similarly with .12 in December. Doesn't seem like anything can be done here in terms of blocking.
I started looking through the whole Special:Contributions/2A02:587::/32 for the past couple of months, but it would take me a bit longer to make sense of it... --IamNotU (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the new data. I undid the /44 block of the 6000 range as you suggested and have replaced it with a block of Special:Contributions/2A02:587:6003:7F00::/64. The Sept 15 edit from the 6003 range at Religion in Lebanon is the trademark action of the person we call the 'religion numbers vandal'. The '5500' range at 2a02:587:5500::/44 is not behaving badly at the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
As I suspected, it didn't take long for Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5500::/44 to start behaving badly, in this edit: they've changed the number to 30%, but I checked the source and it does say 70%. There haven't been any more edits in Special:Contributions/94.68.254.0/24 since Friday, so I guess I can just keep checking back in case there are. --IamNotU (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Based on your new finding, the IP range at Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5500::/44 is being operated by the same editor to do the same vandalism, so I've applied a six-month block, which is twice the previous length. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks for taking care of it! I'll let you know if I see anything else... --IamNotU (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Gas van

Taking into account that there are already long (I would say, redundantly long) discussions on the talk page, RSN and NPOVN, your proposal to discuss it does not seem wise: a discussion has already made several full rounds, mostly due to a resistance of one of the participants of that edit war. This article is covered by WP:ARBEE, so you have a right to impose some DS upon it. I suggest you to do this. If only good scholarly sources are allowed in this article, that solves 90% of all problems. There will be no reason in article's protection. Think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Paul is making a significant effort to discredit WP:RS-compliant sources he does not like on this page, from arguing to use a blog (which has nothing to do with improving the sourcing), to this suggestion. Also note that at least a part of Gas van page is arguably covered by his topic ban , just as his RSNB posting because they are both related to/about gas vans that were used by Nazi at the occupied Soviet territory. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Per Sandstein's explanations, 1937 events, as well as Holocaust denial (in general), are definitely not covered by a EF related topic ban. The whole edit war (I was not a part thereof, by the way) was caused by extensive usage of primary and questionable sources related to 1937 events in Moscow, which definitely do not belong to Eastern Front. Application of restrictions on source usage (we have several good quality English sources that cover this subject) will eliminate the very roots of the conflict, and it will cease quickly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Such sanctions will only force admins to rule on the content and decide to infinity who misrepresented the sources and if certain sources were "academic". For example, these guys will argue that if a historian published several books, but did not receive a PhD degree specifically in history and does not work in a University, then his publications would not "qualify", etc. Such arguments have nothing to do with enforcing the WP:RS, just as the posting about the blog.
The limiting types of sources can work just fine with subjects that are widely known and widely covered in the scientific literature. In other cases, such as news, politics, or cases when there are simply not enough data (because KGB did not open its archives and destroyed the evidence, for example), limiting the types of sources defeats the purpose of the WP and WP:NPOV by effectively censuring information, even such that was published in WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
User talk:EdJohnston: Difference between revisions Add topic