User talk:EdJohnston

IP block evasion

Hello! Thank you so much for banning 93.164.22.202 yesterday following their edit-warring behavior. However after about 3 hours later, another IP (192.38.140.42) went and reverted one of the pages again. This was the same IP that I suspected to be the same person in the report as they have been editing and reverting the same information as 93. Here are some of their past reverts that exhibit the same behavior: [1] [2] [3] They all follow the trend of adding fake Denmark positions and reverting whenever someone reverts their fake positions. It is also almost always accompanied by "(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit, Manual revert)" and nothing else in the edit summary.

But that's not all! After I reverted 192's edit and fixed the rest of the vandalized articles, a second IP (192.38.136.10 - note the last two numbers are different from the first one) appeared and reverted the same exact things as the first two. If you look at their contributions, you will find that it's a new account that only reverts the same things on the exact same pages. Here are their reverts: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] I'm pretty positive they are all the same person.

Not only is this a form of IP block evasion, but they clearly have not learned their lesson on edit warring and have continued to do so. I'm hoping something can be done about this. Thank you! T  CloseDatMouf 16:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/192.38.128.0/20 for a month. Hope that helps. Let me know if further IPs appear doing the same things. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll be sure to let you know if they come back. Cheers! T  CloseDatMouf 18:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Box-Office bombs

I have articles that show Justice League was able to break even after release like Waterworld was. Zomgrose (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zomgrose: - you should be posting to Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs to discuss issues regarding that article, not people's user-pages. FYI - wolf 03:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Anorther long Balkan discussion

I am coming here due to your experience with this kind of stuff. There is an ANI discussion that has basically attracted half of Balkan editors. They are accusing each other and proposing sanctions against others involved. Maybe you are willing to take a look, and maybe act or close the discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That complaint should be at WP:AE. An admin who tried to take action based on a thread like this would risk making a mistake, since the evidence is not well organized and is not easy to digest. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, AE is much better place. However, Balkan editors rarely are willing to go there, as reports there are more likely to end with both sides sanctioned :P If nobody closes the report without action, I assume it will be automatically archived after a few days. It is sad so much energy is wasted while it could be used to improve content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

AN3 Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

• The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wanted to think you fro responding so quickly on my report of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I was trying, and it looks like some other people were also, to credit cast members for guest appearances. In the history, it looks like the user keeps arguing with people about it. I know IMDB links were sourced, but user kept deleting and saying this isn't IMDB. Is that no longer a valid source for media pages here, and is there anywhere I can go from here to correct this? Thanks! Ev Thom (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Try asking at WT:TV. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Block-evading sock

• Baby Esther (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 197.89.10.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 197.86.195.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. You recently blocked 197.89.10.25, now IP 197.86.195.162 has appeared to take their place editing Baby Esther.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Baby Esther due to the IP-hopping edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ilirida article

• Ilirida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has been disrupted by two IPs trying to add a country infobox, although the subject was never a country [10]. Since persistent socking took place in the past to add the same infobox, maybe a short semi-protection would be of help. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Due to the long history of trouble at this article while it was named Republic of Ilirida, I've applied indefinite semi. This protection can be lifted if the problem goes away. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Since the article has a very low traffic with minor edits once in a few months, indefinite semi-protection is a good idea. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Apollonia

There has been no opposition about the use of the Greek name as the talkpage topic reveals Talk:Apollonia_(Illyria)#Alternative_names (since 11 Jan.). Nevertheless Iaof decided once again to resort in revert warring without slightest talkpage page participation. Definitely a page protection is thnot the most appropriate way to deal with this kind of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It is the easiest way to always blame someone else. Anyways danke EdJohnston for the protection, it is definitely of help.--Lorik17 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Iaof: endless revert warring without taking time to discuss the issue is not cool. Page protection is not enough for this kind of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Warring about a map of the Republic of Mahabad

Original title was: Disruption (again..)

• Mahammad tt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Republic of Mahabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Azerbaijan People's Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Iran crisis of 1946 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed, you might remember this user [11] - he has been more or less disruptive in all his edits. His edits mainly include attempts to remove this map of the Republic of Mahabad from articles and replace it with an altered much smaller version of [12] and even [13], which is not even a map of Mahabad, but the Kurdistan province. He has been reverted multiple times, yet he occasionally comes back and tries his luck again [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Seems like WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(The capital of the Republic of Mahabad was the city of Mahabad, in northwestern Iran. The state encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the adjacent cities of Piranshahr and Naghadeh.[7] The republic's foundation and demise was a part of the Iran crisis during the opening stages of the Cold War.)Please read the text of this article here is for by Mahabad and the surrounding cities, but in the map of Urmia, Salmas, Mako, Khoy, Shut, etc., it is part of the Republic of Mahabad. Mahammad tt (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(From Sardasht to Mahabad and Buchan and Saqqez, the republic stretched)source:https://www.dana.ir/news/1285607.html/واکاوی-یک-واقعه-تاریخی--جمهوری-مهاباد-از-ظهور-تا-سقوط,Historians Ehsan Hooshmand and Abdolaziz Moloudi Mahammad tt (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, these are Armenians and anti-Turkish Kurds, and they spread hatred against the Turks without any source.I hope you judge fairly Mahammad tt (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Who exactly are the 'Armenians and anti-Turkish Kurds'? When you answer, be careful about WP:ASPERSIONS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am careful not to slander anyone, I mean these are the people who spread hatred without a source(sumsuri,luckie luck,historyofiran) Mahammad tt (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My other sources:http://wikifeqh.ir/حزب_دموکرات_آذربایجان ، http://www.ensafnews.com/203165/در-مورد-قاضی-محمد-و-حکومت-جمهوری-مهاباد/ Mahammad tt (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Mahammad tt, since you have accused User:HistoryofIran of 'spreading hatred without a source' I've indefinitely blocked your account. See WP:GAB for your appeal options. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Season of the Witch (song)

• Season of the Witch (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AN3 complaint, 10 January
• ThereWillBeTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ss112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You closed a recent 3RR discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive424#User:ThereWillBeTime reported by User:Ss112 (Result: Page protected) about some reversions at Season of the Witch (song). I came across the article through an orphaned fair use file and reverted the section deletion, not knowing there was a talk page discussion at Talk:Season of the Witch (song)#Lana Del Rey Section (which the two editors involved did heed your instructions to use the talk page). I added my thoughts to the discussion and explained how the article should be taken back to the pre-BOLD edit per WP:BRD with an ongoing discussion and no consensus for the change. I then reverted the section deletion, which User:ThereWillBeTime reverted five minutes later telling me to use the talk page while they did not do the same. I feel that ThereWillBeTime is edit warring and I would appreciate it if you could at least explain to them the concept of WP:BRD, which both @Ss112: and I tried to do unsuccessfully. Aspects (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I left a note for User:ThereWillBeTime. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ed, I just emailed Primefac after remembering this article, looking at the talk page again and finding a completely new editor named Mataytay has now contributed to back ThereWillBeTime up, and an editor who appears to have only edited one other page months ago, Kelseytron, to also back ThereWillBeTime up. On its face, this looks very fishy. Not only does the continued edit warring from ThereWillBeTime not help, but this looks like classic sockpuppetry to back themselves up in a discussion to me. I'd go out on a limb and say that the editor Jeckylback may be another sock of ThereWillBeTime, as TWBT contributed to There Goes the Neighborhood (album) yesterday and Jeckylback extensively edited the same article late last month, and left similar blocks of text to TWBT on the talk page of Richard3120. The whole situation involving ThereWillBeTime didn't look good from the outset. Ss112 18:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me Ss112 – I won't make any comment on the current investigation as I have assumed good faith on the part of TWBT, but will just note that there is a discussion between them and me on the talk page of Talk:There Goes the Neighborhood (album), which I think is worth leaving there regardless of the outcome of the investigation, as it explains why the recent edits over the album's release date have taken place, with sources to back up the current version... these would be useful for any future editors of that article. Richard3120 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I am just going to comment here that this accusation of sockpuppetry is completely out of line and baseless. Ss112 appears to be making irresponsible accusations regarding me and other accounts. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody even pinged you to this discussion and you had not contributed before I did. How did you find this thread? Were you waiting for replies to it, or are you stalking my edits to see if I've edited anything related to Season of the Witch lately? What kind of obsession do you still have with this topic? 10 days later and it's basically the only thing on Wikipedia you've edited, and two editors have either registered solely to comment or have not edited in months then suddenly chime in at Talk:Season of the Witch (song) to agree with you when before this, you had nobody else agreeing with you. That is incredibly suspicious, and it's not baseless nor irresponsible to observe that new editors have appeared out of thin air to agree with you. Also, from where I'm sitting, writing on their talk pages only after you notice my reply here does not make you look any less suspicious and does not mean you aren't the same person, sorry.

@EdJohnston and Primefac:, can either of you please run a CheckUser on this editor? Surely I am not the only experienced editor who would think that on the face of this issue, it looks very suspicious on ThereWillBeTime's part to have two new editors pop out of nowhere to agree with them when nobody else previously had. It was already suspicious that this editor looks very much a single-purpose account and was still brazen enough to be reverting another editor on Season of the Witch (song) after the full protection expired, which is definitely WP:OWN behaviour. Please do something about this. If you run a CU and I'm wrong about this, then fine, I'll eat my words. But it doesn't hurt to check. Ss112 03:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I found this thread because the user Aspects reported their encounter with me to this admin. The admin reached out to me for my comments about it and I have kept my eye on it since then as it clearly does impact me. I do not have an 'obsession' with this topic, and am only hoping to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. I cannot speak for other editors and their actions, but I will add that I feel you have been uncivil towards me and you suggested I might be a sock puppet in our initial conversation over a week ago. I am going to bow out of this conversation here. I dunno if it this is the appropriate place for this conversation, but it certainly does not feel right to me.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would hope you have the manners to apologize to me after eating those words. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Even if I'm wrong, I will not be apologising to you. You broke 3RR, are still editing from your IP address even after saying you would try not to, have repeatedly reverted both me and another editor—which is uncivil behaviour—and you're still obsessing over this topic 10 days later, writing paragraph upon paragraph at nobody on the talk page, then trying to obfuscate any kind of investigation into these new editors agreeing with you by interacting with them on their talk pages. That behaviour is still very suspicious. As I see it, you don't deserve an apology. Ss112 03:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No offense, but you seem a bit paranoid. I am interacting with editors whom I cross paths with on Wikipedia. No one has claimed these interactions as any sort of proof against your claims, you are however, assuming bad faith and claiming these completely normal actions of an editort are attempts to 'obfuscate' an investigation. I fear the only one obsessing over a situation here is you. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a very sensible conclusion. Compare: I have now only left four messages here (three of which are replies to you), and I haven't edited anything related to the topic in 10 days. On the other hand, there's you, who has: kept editing the topic; engaged in an edit war with another user (@Aspects:) on the article; been threatened with a block by EdJohnston for doing so; notified WikiProjects of the talk page discussion over a week after starting it; and repeatedly left messages for other editors on their talk pages and on the article talk page about this one article that you can't move past. But yes, I am the one obsessing. Please make it make sense. I thought you were bowing out of the conversation. Looks like you can't leave something well enough alone even after insisting you will, but I think we knew that already. This remains entirely a pitiable affair for you. Ed, Primefac, if neither of you will take action in either running a CheckUser for these new accounts agreeing with ThereWillBeTime or per Ed's comments on ThereWillBeTime's talk page (User talk:ThereWillBeTime#Complaint about you on my talk page), blocking them for continuing to edit war, I'm really going to be quite astonished. Something needs to be done to prevent this editor from continuing to revert editors and edit to exert ownership over the article in question. Ss112 04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

(outdent)I have been away from editing for two days and two new(ish) editors joined the discussion agreeing with ThereWillBeTime, a brand new editor, Mataytay, and another editor with two previous edits, Kelseytron. This was suspicious to me, especially since this is a non-advertised discussion and I first thought these were WP:MEATPUPPETS from an off-Wiki pro-Donovan (original singer of the song) fan site or group. But with a couple of edits from ThereWillBeTime's IP address indicating logging in and out makes me think that these two users are WP:SOCKPUPPETS.

• ThereWillBeTime edit at 19:25, January 17 [19]
• Mataytay edit at 19:57, January 17 [20]
• 173.88.250.97 edit at 20:06, January 17 [21]
• ThereWillBeTime edit at 20:46, January 17 [22]

• ThereWillBeTime edit at 21:30, January 17 [23]
• Kelseytron edit at 23:45, January 17 [24]
• ThereWillBeTime edit at 23:48, January 17 [25]
• ThereWillBeTime edit at 23:49, January 17 [26]
• Kelseytron edit at 23:51, January 17 [27]
• 173.88.150.97 edit at 3:18, January 18 [28]
• ThereWillBeTime edit at 3:29, January 18 [29]

The only two times the IP address edited since ThereWillBeTime started their account was right after Mataytay and Kelseytron edited. This to me rings of them starting new accounts, joining the discussion, logging out of the new account and meaning to log back into ThereWillBeTime's account, but forgetting to. Even if I did not think these were sockpuppets, I do not feel ThereWillBeTime's actions so far would lead them to work well with others and be able to contribute to Wikipedia. They edit war and when another user points out their edit war, they accuse that person of edit warring. They edit in bad faith and when another user points out their bad faith, they accuse that person of editing in bad faith. They go against WP:BRD and revert without discussion and when another user points this out, they accuse that person of reverting without discussion. They fail to take responsibility for any of their actions and instead accuse other of what they themselves are doing. Aspects (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I highly encourage you to make a formal complaint about this so my name can be cleared. Best ThereWillBeTime (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbidden History arbitration enforcement sanction

Hi EdJohnston, I've been notified about the sanction, but I didn't found any summary that explains my faulty behavior that led to this sanction. So, I would like to understand what I did wrong (so, I don't repeat them in the future (Except the 3RR-which I explained why I did it)), to get this sanction. Thanks, --Forbidden History (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The problems were explained at ANI, prompted by a dispute which began on 9 January at Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour. The rest of the story is in the AE thread which is linked from your ban notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, on that ANI explanation, there are my concerns about the user Jingiby as well, but I don't see that he was sanctioned or warned about his WP:BITE. Initially this started as 3RR-not respected by my side (and I explained why and how it happened). So, limitless topic ban for 3RR, I think it's way to rigorous sanction. That's why I'm asking to give me a summary of my violated rules per Wikipedia, so I don't do them in the future, or to appeal. Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been watching disputes about Macedonia for some time, and I was even here for the original WP:ARBMAC case in 2007. You are relatively new and need to learn a lot if you intend to participate in a hotly-disputed area. It is not up to admins to educate people in these areas; you need to hang around and learn. There are many much quieter areas of the encyclopedia for you to consider. With a name like 'Forbidden History' it does suggest that you arrived on WP with some issues that you wanted to have addressed. You do have appeal options that are explained at WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I guess you cannot provide me with answer for the sanctions-I didn't ask for you to teach me how to work on WIki, but what I'm accused for. Even the massive killers are receiving summary why they are sentenced, at the end. But, obviously there is another background here. My name actually proves what it stands for. I'm forbidden to talk my own history and I need to watch and read how Bulgars are presenting it to the world. I'm not sure how will I learn a lot, If I cannot edit an article or Talk page. But as I said previously I will respect your decision and stay silent, doing my sanction. Thanks, --Forbidden History (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

About my restriction

Hey, in regards to my temporary ban on editing articles on American politics post-1932, would articles like the Abraham Accords, Israel–Sudan normalization agreement and Israel–Morocco normalization agreement count towards this? Just wanted to double check since I'd assume not as they are not to do with American politics per say but America had a minor role as a mediary for some of these agreements between other countries. Like, how big is the scope in regards to "American" politics? Is anything not US-internalised or US-centered fair game or is anything that has had any involvement with America whatsoever off limits no matter how minor like say a UN resolution article that's not US focused at all but was signed by 50 countries with one of them happening to be the US? Davefelmer (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the United States was involved in arranging those agreements, so unfortunately those fall under your American politics ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)