User talk:EdJohnston

Saffron terror

I posted in the Talk page for saffron terror but no one has replied. The articles needs drastic changes given new ruling on the court regarding the subject matter. It is now precisely verified that it is a conspiracy by UPA and is not a real thing. I have posted sources on the talk page and can also provide more sources given this new ruling. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC

By coincidence User:Kautilya3 has also perceived that the article has problems. I see you have already written to get his opinion. He made an alternative draft at User:Kautilya3/Hindutva terror. Perhaps this could be the beginning of a rewrite. I recommend that you don't get started unless you can find at least one other person to support your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Full protection needed at 1971 Bangladesh genocide

RFC is going on talk page. Instead of commenting at TP, this user (Towns Hill, previously named TalhaZubairButt) right after the protection expired, started blatantly pushing his POV, OR and Fringe theories. He is edit warring again (3RR vio if we count edits by his account and IP(s)). [1]. And now he is socking with IPs after his account edits were reverted by Volunteer Marek. Please full protect the page (to prevent further disruption) and issue some sort of blocks/t-ban to this user. He's doing the same on all 1971 related pages. here on this page, he pushed the 3RR rule right to the limit again. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I fully protected Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh for two weeks. 1971 Bangladesh genocide is semiprotected two years. If you are concerned that User:Towns Hill is socking with IPs, consider opening an SPI. I've topic banned User:Towns Hill from conflicts between India and Pakistan. Let me know if there are other 1971-related articles where you think IP socking is possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You're a great admin!!! Thank you very much for protecting these pages. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's like rain on your wedding day...

Irony. --Jayron32 19:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your administration is very bad

I'm very unhappy with your administration, I want complaint at You. Case is very simple, You removed my editing in permadeath theme and restore old without any arguments. By Your action I was blocked for 48h and I received many unnecessary warnings from user logged as guest without account etc, who restoring previous version, He was bad. I was marked as bad editor without discussion and arguments from You, simple You blocked my for 48h. You have no any arguments to defend You every thinks are or rather aren't in me talk page and talk page in Permadeath section. I attach my editing for anyone to can see it:

• Path of Exile has Hardcore separated worlds. A character killed in this mode cannot be accessed any more, there is no possibility to resurrect him, player lose everything with this character. This is very hard mode of permadeath where player lose a months of playing even years and every thing he reached , not only couple hours of playing, which can be reaped in next time. In Path of Exile exists special harder option called cutthroat .--Darek555 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

References

• In February you were blocked for edit warring per this thread, after a report at WP:AN3. If you are in a dispute, you need to work with others to get an agreement. Make your proposal at Talk:Permanent death and see if others will comment. If no agreement can be reached, the options of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thx for reply and like I say above in my opinion You have no arguments, links contained in your answer showing what I reproach You:
1. First I was reported by nobody user only with IP, it should be weird for you that, one of site was anonymous user, instead you blocked me.
2. Second about discussion, I start it and give one simple condition I quote this :
I have simple a serious suggestion to you prove me that you are a man and and kill a character in Hardcore League and resurrect him back in Hardcore League, prove my that ! If you are man and not a group of philosophers pests, disputing for ever. If you prove that I will never try add this game as game with permadeath. Simple deal !
No one answers for this simple condition today, then I had right , not mentioning that my edit was fully noted. You reproach me that I didn't discus but how discus if nobody answer, no one answer to this simple ask ?

You ignored that all and restore old edit and blocked me, why You do that ?!!--Darek555 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As an administrator, it is not my job to decide who is right when there is a content dispute. It is possible that your knowledge of English is not quite good enough to understand our dispute resolution methods. You shouldn't expect Wikipedia to suddenly change its policies to suit your wishes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank for reply, Yes I agree with you that Wikipedia should not fits its polices to someone, of course not suddenly, that is right. But why You blocked me on what conditions ?? You don't want say that someone without login, as a guest can report everyone and restore old edit many times and he will not blocked but blocked user made one new edit, and he is bad and this second is good ?? Then You should change Wikipedia policy howewer !--Darek555 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Permadeath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):

1. The original 3RR report lists four reverts, starting at 19:49 on February 6
2. I closed it with a warning to you not to change the article again unless you had a talk page consensus.
3. You then reverted one more time, which was the reason for the block. You made five reverts altogether, through 23:43 on 10 February. There was a previous edit war starting with this revert of February 4th where you also made four reverts. This makes a grand total of nine reverts by you from Feb 4 through 10. You still insist you were the innocent party? EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

First my edit was started at :

22 Dec 2015 where I add new content about Path of Exile
and now started:
18 Jan 2016 someone removed my edit from IP address not from account, no arguments and somting like this "as per commented-out warning"
4 Feb 2016 I undo as it was from anonymous account
4 Feb 2016 added note(quotation)
4 Feb 2016 minor change
5 Feb 2016 someone undo per IP not account, undermining not right contents of notes
5 Feb 2016 I undo, ignoring objection as wrong, Path of Exile is known permadeath game, from this time I suspect malicious action as someone acts from IP not account
5 Feb 2016 corrected notes(added more)
5 Feb 2016 added new section about implementation of permadeath as mode of game
5 Feb 2016 corrected spelling etc spell errors
5 Feb 2016 user NinjaRobotPirate remove my edit about modes of game as poorly sourced
5 Feb 2016 NinjaRobotPirate added new comment to my edit about modes
6 Feb 2016 someone from IP removed my edit about Path of Exile , giving as the cause improper notes reason,
6 Feb 2016 I added similar edit about Path of Exile , ignored previous undo as I suspect malicious action, notes was well and no user
6 Feb 2016 minor change spelling correction etc
6 Feb 2016 minor change spelling correction etc
6 Feb 2016 minor change spelling correction etc
6 Feb 2016 minor change spelling correction etc
6 Feb 2016 someone removed my edit the same complaints by no user from some IP
6 Feb 2016 I restore my good edit
6 Feb 2016 someone removed my edit from IP
6 Feb 2016 Peacemaker protect site but not restored my edit
...some edits
9 Feb 2016 removing protection
10 Feb 2016 I added my edit due before protection it was removed
10 Feb 2016 was removed by no user
10 Feb 2016 I restored it
10 Feb 2016 I added additional very well known game with permadeath mode
10 Feb 2016 added reliable intrview with Yury Lyashenko, Lead Game Designer of One Life
10 Feb 2016 added cite in form of move
10 Feb 2016 another movie showing permadeath mode in this game
10 Feb 2016 discussion in https://steamcommunity.com about PoE' permadeath
10 Feb 2016 another very clear movie
10 Feb 2016 someone removing all as anonymous
10 Feb 2016 You appears and make proposition to talk in talk page
10 Feb 2016 I recover my edit and made thread in talk page to others to prove that killed character in Hardcore PoE cane by restored in Hardcore. No one answers as today..., in addition added many notes and added coment about this in comment to edition.
10 Feb 2016 someone , no user, anonymously, has removed my edit ! without answer to my thread, without proof !
10 Feb 2016 Your edit about protection
10 Feb 2016 I restored my edit with comment: very well sourced, opponents don't make proof I requested in talk that character can be resurrected, see talk
11 Feb 2016 You removed my edit !!!

From now I had no strength to fight with such terrible malicious action from anonymous user and end my edition !

Why Did You blocked ME but not this malicious user !!!

More than 8 reverts from no user, no argument, no discus in talk page, no answer to my thread in talk page etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darek555 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC) I add that I'm good editor , through my actions the mine encyclopaedic word of this page has been changed to more common word to Permadeath 6 Feb 2016 from Permanent death, I edit in polish version Wikipedia and for example added new permadeath therm and made only good edition, like in simple wikipedia, never made bad edits always it was only good and right edits.--Darek555 (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please take this elsewhere. You are not currently blocked, and I can't force the editors at Permadeath to agree with you. The things you list above are not a case for any more action by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok Like I said I want report this, Wikipedia should be place for arguments talk and definition evidence-based not place for Vandals--Darek555 (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "report this", do you mean your block? If you want outside attention on this matter I can tell you now that EdJohnston acted correctly. We do not allow people to edit war to get their way. If you do seek a wider review of this you will likely be told the same thing by a bunch of other people.

If you are concerned about the behaviour of others please familiarize yourself with our polices and once you have figured out what is expected here you can report on my talk page if you think someone is violating those policies. Otherwise you will just have to accept whatever outcome the debate arrives at. HighInBC 14:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_Hopper_on_Social_work if you find my statement has validity kindly revert-back the edit that's been done since i don't have that privilege and move to semi-protection to complete protection to avoid further manipulation by registered editors, if it isnt an hassle removing the block is also appreciable. if you find this action:[2] unacceptable please provide why and the policy for understanding. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.239.32 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.62.212 (talk)

Topic ban violations notice

Hello Ed Johnston.

User:Gala19000, who you banned from all Turkish war/conflict and Armenia articles two days ago, violated this a day later in his first edit prior,[3], and hours ago went back to his usual edit warring and calling everything he doesn't like vandalism, no different from before the ban.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] --Oatitonimly (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ban Turkey related artıcles

• Gala19000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thank you for the ban. I would lıke to know why User:Oatitonimly doesn't get banned as he was the one who began the edıt war a week ago. I even asked hım a dozens of tıme to talk on the talk page wıch he fırst ıgnored and later ıgnored ıt agaın and began to edıt all those artıcles that I had reverted back to the rıght content. He doesn't even go to the taşk page and keeps edıtıng the same thıng over and over agaın. Gala19000 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The other party might not be blameless but for the moment, it's your behavior that is the subject of complaint. Your ban might be lifted if some time passes, and we see examples of you actually waiting to get consensus on talk pages, when there is a disagreement. In the meantime you might try working on something to do with Turkey that does not involve wars. You do appear to have some relevant knowledge, but it's hard to observe you actually negotiating. When you disagree, you just revert. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of blame to go around. I was put in a difficult spot, Gala was undoing my contributions because he doesn't like them and vandalizing articles, and yes actual vandalism not editing I don't like because he was filling articles with several copies even after he was told several times by several people what he was doing, or that he kept reverting me and telling me to "go to talk", unaware that I had already started a discussion section a week ago which he didn't touch, and continued to revert me and say "go to talk" as I kept explaining this.[14][15][16] A big problem is that admins had turned a complete blind eye to his vandalism since he made an account, it took 2 weeks for my enforcement request to even get an admin review when most got that within a day, and that was only after Tiptoethroughtheminefield pointed out edits that I had already included. Gala has done enough to warrant a block for life and yet all he has been getting are empty warnings (see my enforcement request), that's why he continues edit warring instinctively. He doesn't need any more empty warnings and doing so delegitimatizes the ban. May I restore the edits of mine he undid on a subject he's supposed to be topic banned from without being accused of edit warring? --Oatitonimly (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to restore your version, why not propose it first on the talk page. If there is no objection in a day or two, you might go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The thing is tho, that I have told him on the talk page about the edits but he didn't react after 2 comments he first made. After some time, he again edited the article without even discussing it on the talk page whole I asked him to do it many times. After that, I reverted the edits back to what it was before the edit war (made a mistake with the duplications edits) and thats it. I ain't vandalizing the articles with any kind of wrong content or anything like that. If I get a ban for edit warring, then he should get a ban as well. Had a similiar eeit war several months ago and everthing was fixed due to the talk page. While this user only commented 2-3 times and then he didn't react to it anymore. What realy makes me a bit iritating is that he keeps adding wrong content that has nothing to do with the article self. For example, the Turkish-Armenian war 1919 during the Turkish war of independence. Turkey/the Kemalist government was getting armament support (as stated in the source self). While he adds them as if the soviets sended troops to support them while thats not true. They had their own invasion of Armenia. This is jus one example I wanted to tell you. Thanks. Gala19000 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ed, you need to check the edits made by 2001:1C04:2905:7D00:E105:F7EC:898B:EF8D, which mirror the edits made by Gala19000. It would appear Gala19000 logged out to continue an edit war in an area they are banned from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverting back the edits made by the user above who still doesn't stop edit warring. Gala19000 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he still continiues edditing the same articles yet he doesn't get any warning or a ban? I know that there are rules here on the Wikipedia, but as far as I know, it includes that both sides either agree on a part or get both a ban for a period. Yet he is able to edit whatever he wants while I was edditing those same articles months before he even was there. Gala19000 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)