Edits

Hello. I believe I'm under a Zionist ban. Can I ask for this to be lifted for editing on Elazar Shach? Chesdovi (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chesdovi, please link to where this ban was imposed. Also, if there have been any complaints about editing of Elazar Shach on the admin boards, or AE, can you link to those discussions? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
here. I am not aware of Elazar Shach at AE. I also ask for the Western Wall ban to be lifted. Chesdovi (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spartaz is the admin who imposed your 2016 topic ban from Zionism, which appears to still be in effect. Why not consult him? I don't have the authority to undo his action. Also, per this comment from a 2016 ARCA it seems you are still under an indefinite ban from WP:ARBPIA. There is material in the Elazar Shach article about the Arab-Israeli conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have made only 277 edits after returning from a 6m block for tban violations that expired in March. With respect you need to show that you can edit appropriately in less contentious areas before asking to amend any of your 3 topic bans. Indeed, I can't see how your existing edits to this article, which appears to be about a renowned antizionist is not already either a tban vio in some way but I'm happy to leave that with a reminder that you need to be cautious about your bans. Spartaz Humbug! 15:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz: My 6m block was implemented by an Admin who did not (as far as I can recall) have the courtesy to first discuss the issue with me. I was blocked for violating WP:ARBPIA for (among other innocuous edits) adding that David Ben Gurion ate pork. When I queried it, I was told to stop wikilawyering. So I left it. When I returned, I explained to the Admin how the original ban, as I was led to understand, did not preclude me from adding that DBG ate pork. He then justified the block saying DBG would have gotten the pork rashers from Christian Arabs.... (?!?) and eventually told me to find another Admin as my appeals were (again) becoming too "taxing" for him. So please take my edits from April 2020 onwards into account, as I believe the last block was unfairly implemented. Chesdovi (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not impose either of your bans and this page is not AE, so this discussion ought to be somewhere else. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Rollbackers Rights

@EdJohnston: Hi , Please give rollbackers right because i am remove vandalism on articles and userpage and talkpage i am already request on WP:PERM.Plase check me my contribution and gave me this right.Best Regards.Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 14:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lazy Maniik. Thanks for repairing the recent vandalism to my talk page. You have requested rollback and you seem to be on the right track. I would only hesitate with rollback because, when you work with other users, you should be leaving them messages in correct English. For example, here your English was not quite right. ("No indication of Notability, No Meets WP:NOLP". It should be "does not meet WP:NOLP"). If you are leaving instructions for new users you don't want them to be confused. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston Sir i don't know much english and only i can talk to anyone in english but i have a urge to understand english i only know simple english speaking i am indian i am proud of that yes i am wrong But I have given the link of the page correctly, doesn't any person make mistakes in your whole life? But I assure you that in future I will not make such mistake again. If I removed so much vandalism on Hindi wikipedia then I don't have to suffer so much, why am I asking you rollbacker because I edit on wikipedia from mobile, and twinkle and redwarn can be used only by destop site.Best Regards. Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 10:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hello, EdJohnston I never meant to revert your edit nor did I notice that I reverted your edit. I have just seen it when you restored it. I think I probably clicked it accidentally when I searched my watchlist, my deepest apologies for the mistake.— TheWikiholic (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about edits by User:Yusiffuctd

I am sure you are tired of me posting these, but user:Yusiffuctd has, since 8 October, been edit warring(about every 2-3 days) the term(s) "Political Muslim Victory as Muslims remain in control of Jerusalem" into the infobox of the Third Crusade. Yusiffuctd has been reverted 9 times by 4 different editors.

On the Bajaur Campaign, Yusiffuctd has been reverted, since 4 October, 3 times by 2 different editors.

On the Eighth Crusade, Yusiffuctd has been revert, since 9 October, 5 times by 2 different editors.

I am unsure what the issue is concerning Yusiffuctd, but the slow edit warring on Third Crusade is becoming somewhat disruptive.

Thank you for your patience in this matter. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note for Yusiffuctd. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draw broader attention to a move request

Hello Ed, may I ask for your advice? Is there any way to draw more third party attention to a Move Request I have initiated, and which appears to be far more controversial than I have imagined. A third-party input from the broader Wikipedia community will very much be needed here to make sure that the Move Request doesn't reflect strictly the usual local Balkan topic area consensus but a broader consensus. Any ideas where can I ask for such third-party attention? A particular noticeboard? And how to notify them? Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 09:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are speaking about Talk:Imia/Kardak#Requested move 17 October 2021. I am unsure if that issue is crying out for more publicity. (The talk page has been viewed 819 times in the past week). The tone of the move discussion is unfortunately reminiscent of the bad old days of WP:BALKANS. I hope that the parties will stay away from any possibility of canvassing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I had 2 options; either move the article myself, or, if I believe it is controversial, to initiate a move request. I chose the 2nd option for obvious reasons and seek WP:CONSENSUS. I was hopeful that the editors would follow the guidelines and support re-titling the only article in the Disputed Islands/Territories topic area with a double name into a single name, just like every other of the 200+ articles in the Disputed Territories already do. But like you said, it is just the bad old days of WP:BALKANS all over again and needlessly more controversial than I expected, and the reason I would REALLY appreciate some more independent third party opinions. A broader consensus is welcome and may help. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were wise to open an RM instead of trying to move the article yourself. If there were a genuine wide-scale issue about WP:SLASH affecting several articles then I could see trying to get MOS regulars involved. Or, if there was offsite forum activity causing new people to show up then we could alert the admins generally. But as it is, Imia/Kardak is a small issue visible only to a few, that won't make a huge amount of difference whichever way it comes out. Having a redirect from Imia to Imia/Kardak or vice versa seems to be the most that could be at stake. (If it were totally up to me I would pick Imia, even though the slash rule is only a guideline). After the move has been open for the usual time, you could request an admin closer rather than a regular move closer. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK noted. Thanks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

0"cleopatra"0

Ed, I was about to block the user as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xavier 500.30.10. Any objections?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead. And it would be helpful if you could reopen the sock case so I can add some findings (if I can get them figured out). EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I can do that myself once I'm ready. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm a bit confused. Are you going to do it all?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found enough so I can do it all. It seems this guy has been very busy. Any behavioral evidence (of prior socks) would be welcome. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your first two sentences, but then it sounds like you do want me to do something. In case you've forgotten, I'm a very literal fellow. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're still here, this guy might have had a prior account, User:MohammedShanooj03, which was CU-blocked back in July but without a sock case. So it's unclear if that leads to anything worth following up. That account may have done some personal self-promotion but the new guy looks more like an industry. Especially interesting that on his user page he takes credit for some articles created by User:Xavier 500.30.10, such as Ganeshamangalam. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think it's obvious that everyone is the same person regardless of the "expansion" by the new socks, which in my view is not uncommon at all. To make it easier on you, I suggest you file your findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xavier 500.30.10 and ask a clerk to move it to MohammedShanooj03--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now updated the case and done an SPI block of 0"cleopatra"0. Leaving out a mention of the prior account due to a possibly-unnecessary privacy concern. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding the privacy concern, but I can't see what you can.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The prior name is possibly the editor's real name, based on some off-wiki research. And for whatever reason, the prior account's sandbox has been deleted, which included some personal details. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If he wants to disclose personal details about himself, that's his business. You do know that cleopatra recreated Draft:Mohammed Shanooj, originally created by UnknownEditor1234567890, who looks like the same person and judging by the block log comment broadens this still further?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact User:UnknownEditor1234567890 is  Confirmed to User:Xavier 500.30.10. And, now that you noticed the recent creation of Draft:Mohammed Shanooj I would support the renaming of the case to User:MohammedShanooj03. Is it too late to unclose the case and make that request? In User:MER-C's block notice for User:UnknownEditor1234567890, I also see mentions of User:AlamanKlm, User:Al aman kollam and User:Muhammed fairoos. They are all blocked, but are not stale and it might be worth tagging them. With some more work I might be able to confirm them to Xavier 500.30.10. Will be taking a break for a few hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More