User talk:EdJohnston

AN/I discussion maybe of interest

You previously blocked User:Wilkja19 for refusing to communicate. I have raised this issue again at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_refuses_to_communicate,_adds_unverifiable_information,_falsely_marks_all_edits_as_minor. Andesitic (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Andesitic (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of WP:BKFIP so my response is no longer needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible COI

Cathyoates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Cathyoates a person named Cathy Oates is owner/chief manager of Original Matters talent agency.source. The same Cathy Oates is a former head of marketing at EMI.source. As a check user could you (or someone else) investigate their editing for possible CoI issues.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What article do you think has been affected by COI editing? Can you supply any diffs? And have you expressed your concern yet to User:Cathyoates? I don't see any COI notices on Cathy's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Nearly all the edits by the named user appear to be for clients or relatives (or both). I provided the following query: Conflict of interest? back in December 2012. The subject(s), Angus & Julia Stone, are referred to in the EMI source above and that same source was in my query at the user's page. There was no reply from the user.

Other clients with only one diff supplied but some of these have numerous edits by this user with some substantial content added/subtracted but described as minor edit in summary.

1. Megan Washington: diff 1
2. Kira Puru: diff 2
3. Alex the Astronaut: diff 3
4. Dean Lewis: diff 4
5. The Walking Who: started article here 1. Association: here 2
6. Mt Warning (band): started article here 3. Association: here 4

As far as I can tell the user has not provided any response to concerns about their COI editing. Do you think I should provide another query regarding COI but with an actual COI template?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added a CoI template to the user's talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For the Attention of EdJohnston (talk

Good afternoon @EdJohnston I took up your suggestion and have posted a Draft:Theatro Technis on my user page for your attention. Thank you {Panayotmarkou (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)}

Edit war puppets

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

Hi Ed, hope you are doing well! There is a problem on the Croatisation. Now there is an edit war there. The banned puppet account added pov content and as you can see here they have an agenda against Croats. Your inout on this situation would be welcomed. I usually see the same editors defending puppet edits mass wipe edits by other sock accounts that get blocked ignore whatever the content is. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:John L. Booth is now indef blocked by the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnGotten sock case. Croatisation has been fully protected for a week by another admin. Some negotiation is needed on whether all the changes to that article by John L. Booth need to be reverted. The talk page is the best place for that issue. Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor coming off block and edit warring re the Khazars

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

If you have the time, I'd appreciate you glancing over this, where I note the same editor is restoring garbled text whose utility under dispute on the talk page. I think you blocked him for disruption on that page just a few weeks ago. Perhaps an avuncular reminder to pull their socks up might be needed to avoid drastic measures in the future.Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears some progress is being made over at Talk:Khazars. Let me know if not. I have not been able to figure out what text you are referring to as 'garbled text'. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing on GetJet Airlines

• GetJet Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Admin, since I have a history in aviation as well as I've been working in Lithuanian aviation companies, I can tell that there is currently a fake news wave going through the country. The current situation was that someone added Aviatic MRO as a sister company to Getjet Airlines, which is legally wrong as both companied have totally different shareholders. Second of all, the claims were made in a fake news manner, where facts were mixed. Let me know if you need more information on the Lithuanian aviation scene to get a clearer view. AviationLogger (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The article was protected for a week per the AN3 report, through 18 March. The material about the supposed sister company Aviatic MRO has been removed, due to BLP concerns. If you have more information about the 'fake news wave' perhaps you can comment at Talk:GetJet Airlines. Mention of 'bribery allegations' appears to be nonsense, at least from the sources provided so far. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ascribe4 still undoing edits, refusing to use article talk page

• Ascribe4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Operation: Doomsday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Original 3RR complaint from 26 February
• User talk:Ascribe4#Edit warring at Operation: Doomsday

Hello. I had previously reported user Ascribe4 for breaking 3RR on the article Operation: Doomsday back in late February 2021, and you gave them a warning in response. You had told me to let you know if they continued to undo other users' edits without gaining prior consensus on the talk page, which they have indeed continued to do. I have told them time and time again to use the article talk page but they have refused every time. I'm letting you know of this as you asked me to and also because I'm really, honestly just not sure what to do here. Maybe getting WP:3O is in order? I just want this ridiculous situation to be over. They've been complaining to random editors about me for weeks. --Hostagecat (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Ascribe4#Complaint about you on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

IP disruption

• Battle of Pločnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Battle of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Humska zemlja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Ed, I hope this message finds you in good health. I would like to ask if you could check something related to a upsurge in IP contribution, more a disruption really. At first I overheard about it from editors (most recently at Enforcement - Sadko's case), but these last few days I noticed it myself:

• 93.86.237.154 and 212.200.206.143, almost certainly one and a same editor from, as it seems, from Novi Sad, Serbia. They not only removing RS-ed content at personal whim, they also editing with these different IP's on the same articles;

and another:

• 109.165.153.124 is on one particular article, attempting to inject some info, for which they include entire bunch of refs, but misrepresents what these refed sources claim - I mean, completely.

I guess, the first two, most likely one and the same person, IP's could be someone who is recently banned (it (maybe) could even be a blocked sock from three yrs.ago), but whoever is they potentially IP-socking via contributing at the same article(s) (right? that's possibility?), and they certainly removing info which is refed with RS. The second, 109.xxx, is almost certainly (and I am saying this with 99% of ceratinty) editor and admin from bs.wiki, who did same thing regarding the same topic and same article, with identical refs and its identical misrepresentation on bs.wiki. Please, Ed, if you are free from other matters and willing, check this out, and if you need any more information on both cases, please ping me. Thanks - stay safe and take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the IP editor may have some historical knowledge but they aren't using talk pages. If you think that 109.165.153.124 (talk · contribs) is an editor from the Bosnian Wikipedia, you should be willing to provide his name. This issue is getting into SPI territory, though you might be right in your suspicions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have never filed SPI report, and as you can attest I was not sure if I should post bs.wiki suspected user's name - 109.165.153.124 (talk · contribs) could be AnToni - while the first two IP's, 212.200.206.143 (talk · contribs) and 93.86.237.154 (talk · contribs), which both come from Novi Sad in Serbia, and, as you could see, edits from those IP's are concentrated on just few articles where they both appeared and edited, may or may not have some knowledge in history, but they are removing information validated by RS in apparently "I don't like it" style, I could even say sanitizing these few articles from inclusion of non-Serb, that is Bosnian and Albanian, historical actors in the articles' narratives. They had no reason for that, as those are mainstream academically verified information for which RS exist. Besides, they appeared together on the same articles, which means, and if they are indeed one person, that IP's are socks (I guess?).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Battle of Pločnik, Battle of Kosovo and Humska zemlja in response to this complaint. I don't see anything else to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

More than enough to bring any party to the TP if there are any problems with RS and/or prose. Thank you.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Some remark

When I posted the relevant data, they deleted it and said there were no marked pages, when I posted the marked pages (per-review) they said it was misinterpretation. This is chauvinistic terminology used on the Croatian Wikipedia. When they have no arguments, then they start with such disqualifications.

More information at the following links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Humska_zemlja#%22Humska_zemlja_/_Zahumlje%22_and_%22Duchy_of_St._Sava%22_should_be_separated

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BOSNIA.htm#_Toc359577451