User talk:EdJohnston

UST Global Now Again Removing The Documented Founder from The Wikipedia Site

• UST Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Esvobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Ed. I hope you are doing well. After just a few weeks of the 'Edit Protection' being lifted - we have now reverted back to an individual making multiple edits to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross.

Thanks for considering what you had done the last 3 times of placing a restriction on edits for a period of XX days.

I am grateful to you Ed for this. Thanks & Regards, SteveJRoss Stevejross (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Stevejross (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have left a note at User talk:Esvobo. In the mean time, have you come across any other reliable sources which discuss the founding of the company, which might be helpful? Any press coverage which is not already mentioned in the article? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your note to Esvobo. He will not be able to provide a citation for Menon as founder because it was me who Brought Mr. Menon into the business (who I consider a dear friend) 1 year after I started the business. Thank you for watching to see if you receive a response (or no response) from this individual. We need this site to go back to a) being factual and b) so UST Global responsible individuals can go back to making accurate edits about their business.

Here is a citation about the founding of the business:

http://www.hklaw.com/news/Holland-Knight-Secures-75-Million-Award-in-Arbitration-Over-Interest-in-IT-Outsourcing-Company-01-15-2008/

I will send other citations to you as I find them.

Thank you Ed.

Sincerely,

Steve Ross Stevejross (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ed,

We have noticed that over a week has gone by, and user User talk:Esvobo has not responded to your note.

Can we put the site back to where it was before this user removed the factual citations. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Steve Ross Stevejross (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Steve. I can't stop you from changing the article if you want to do so but you will be on safer ground if you first make a proposal on the talk page for the change and then wait another 24 hours. If there is an edit war and you haven't participated on Talk it won't look so good. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ed,

I noticed that the UST Page is now 'Semi-Protected.' Can I ask you what does this mean. Am I able to make changes to the site while it is semi-protected ?

If the individual User talk:Esvobo continues to remove our documented edits, without responding to either you or me (and without any citations of backup) - will you then consider putting back the block on edits for a period of time ?

I do appreciate your suggestions and guidance. I will post to the talk page of User talk:Esvobo as you suggested.

Thanks for your reply to my questions when you have a chance.

Best Regards,

Steve Stevejross (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration

Hello EdJohnston,

I'd like to request you to check out my response here and reconsider your decision. You can also look at [this article where people keep adding fixtures where it was meant to be just Draw. And I've to undo these types of edits so that I can help keep the articles according to their purpose. So if I'll have rollback right I can do it with ease. Ashesh 01:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asheshneupane95 (talk • contribs)

Replied at WP:PERM/R. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal opinion

I'm new here and I do appreciate input -- esp. when the person giving it actually reads the material (e.g. "Kingsindian appears to be saying that the reasoning for your revert is poor") and asking questions to understand what I am saying. The issue (I believe) is over but perhaps a sanity check is in order. In your opinion, was it poor judgement to note that a statement from a bomb disposal official from the police force is not the same as "Ministry of Interior said"? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Address your concern to the other editors on the article talk page. Some of your statements suggest a WP:Battleground attitude: "Do the project a favor and don't post these as a means of silencing people you argue with. Fascist behavior is uncool." This was your response to being given a routine ARBPIA notice. If you intend to work on WP:ARBPIA articles you should not expect sweetness and light. Too much complaining to admins will hurt your credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I will try to keep your advice to heart. Don't worry about my sanity-check question. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you. I would have placed another request for guidance by now but you've made it clear that I should just roll with the punches. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you for efforts to direct me in the right path. I have, for example, opened a dispute at WP:RSN and there appears to be clear consensus against using a comic-book in neutral voice of history. I am very new to English Wikipedia and have had another issue, which is more troubling, and I would appreciate your insightful comments on best ways of handling this complex issue. I am noting a couple admins so they see my attempts to improve future collaboration. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The complexity involved here is that people jump to the wrong conclusions based on shallow understanding of the material and bad faith (no offense intended). I had linked to the discussion part, my diff above includes a link where I add the full explanation to my userpage. Thank you for your consideration. I am very much open to suggestions on improving this, in hopes that no one will assume I think one side or the other is evil. It is merely a longstanding dispute over self determination in the same territory. That people on both sides do terrible things cannot be disputed. That I have bad intentions and have called someone an antisemite, is wholly incorrect. Thanks in advance. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

First update here. Probably far from perfect, but I think it makes progress. Let me know where else you I can improve it to reduce (and/or quickly diffuse) bad-faith allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

arbcom question

I really don't want to get involved in another arbcom case, but I wanted to point out something relevant to one of the cases. Specifically it's about Neotarf on the AE page and comments they made on another arbcom post. Am I able to just mention it to an arbiter like you on your talk page? Or do I need to file it on the AE page? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Filing it at AE won't do any good since he hasn't been notified of the discretionary sanctions. Maybe you're referring to the issue already mentioned by User:Callanecc in the AE complaint. Unless something that happens on an Arbcom case page is really awful I think the Arbcom clerks can handle it. By the way I'm not an arbitrator. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were an arbiter for some reason, but ok. The statement I'm referring to is this (factually incorrect) statement: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Neotarf. I did warn Neotarf about that statement and mentioned the discretionary sanctions here, but no templated warning. Neotarf was clearly aware of the Manning Dispute and its resolution, so the only issue is that they weren't formally templates (which to me doesn't seem like a big deal, but it might be to the arbcom). If this info should be added to the AE, let me know. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are confident that Neotarf is aware of the Manning sanctions per his page here why don't you add that information to the AE. This might change the thinking of the admins. The statement you quote above by Neotarf doesn't seem very incriminating, though. He is making that statement to Arbcom. If Arbcom believes Neotarf is out of line by making that statement they can take the appropriate action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring evidence gathering

Hi, could you show me how to get evidence for edit warring reports so I can use them for the future? If you can please leave the message on my talk page. Thanks! - Theironminer (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

AE Comments

If you took just a few minutes you could easily find evidence that Neotarf is intimately familiar with these cases [[1]] and even more telling [[2]]. I do not expect you to go back n my talkpage archives but when it's at the top of the page I'm reporting it's a little frustrating that requests are declined. Maybe I wasn't clear enough but either way they are aware and have been for some time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparent COI Editing

Hi EdJohnston. I misunderstood at first the WP:COI and the WP:Lead sections. I now understand them and there should be no additional need for action. I am clear as to how Wikipedia works now and am willing to work with other editors who are also willing to work with me to make factual corrections to articles. Thank you for reaching out to me.

One note regarding the statement but you removed most of the other information from the lead about her albums and other matters.: my edits will show that I removed sections which did not have proper citations and reworded existing content to match WP:Style. Ssilvers is upset because I did not understand about WP:COI and is understandably over-reacting slightly with some mild hyperbole. I'm not upset by it, Ssilvers was simply trying to make a point. I have no intention of rewording the lede at this point unless there is a relevant event, there are grammatical or spelling errors.

Loudersoft (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation

As always, I appreciate your calm and wise approach at 3RR. I just disagree that BLPNAME allows for what you suggest, and what others are suggesting. Nonetheless, you are one of the admins I respect and have high regard for. Even when we disagree. Cheers, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Systemic Bias Tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just to clarify regarding your previous decision, am I permitted to replace the Systemic Bias tag at American-led intervention in Iraq to continue solicitation of discussion or was it your feeling 6 hours was enough of a discussion on that? As I am the subject of active block-shopping by a tightly coordinated group of editors interfacing on IRC and elsewhere ([3]), I want to proceed with an over-abundance of caution in all my edits. Sorry for the hassle of this direct request and thanks, in advance. DocumentError (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind your direct request, but a distant view of your activities suggests you are at the center of a disagreement. You are a sort of whirling dervish of discontent, portraying the others who disagree with you as members of a conspiracy. While this may sometimes happen, it seems unlikely. It is rather more common to see an editor with distinctive views who has trouble persuading his colleagues on the talk page, and reacts to that by seeking help from administrators. The fact that you have used multiple venues adds to that impression. Since I have no time today to get to the bottom of this, any further adventures you have will be on our own. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly understand. I would just note that at least one case of meatpuppetry has been uncovered: [4]. Given the colorful block history of the other participants supporting the meatmaster, I would suspect there is a lot more going on here than I am able to uncover being only a single editor with no special insight, but I do appreciate that it's sometimes more trouble to look into or lend some help than the article or editor is worth. Thanks for listening and I'll take your advice to disengage and let this group and/or individual do what they/he likes in these articles without further objections. DocumentError (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is only the latest in a string of promises to disengage, each broken. He is heaping ridicule on insult on false accusation against any editor that does not see things his way. I was once blocked for a year on BLP for saying somethings about another edit that were very mild (I learned my lesson) compared to the nonsense this editor is spreading. I'm not an expert in Admin processes - I just like to write - but I'd appreciate you looking into his recent history when you get a chance. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You said you were "once blocked for a year" and yet your block log is clean ([5]). Can you understand how this, coupled with the meatpuppetry (whether intentional or not), uncovered above, and the tightly coordinated edits (among a dozen other things too numerous to mention) creates a frustrating degree of suspicion for those on the other side of the edit discussion as you?

As for disengagement, I unilaterally retracted my 1RR complaint against you in hope of disengagement. At that point you began block-shopping me and triumphantly declaring you had "won" the argument and my attempt to disengage was proof of my "guilt" - a display of a type I've never seen on WP ever. At that point I reintroduced the 1RR against you - as I noted, to disabuse you of the notion that I was admitting "guilt" (whatever that means) - which the admin chose not to act upon, as is his right.

Each of my attempts at disengagement has been met with similar hounding. But don't worry, your trio won. This is something I've never experience on WP and is way too much. It's just not worth it to me. I'm retiring so you can do what you like with the ISIS articles. Best - DocumentError (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: Edit Warring

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Johnmoor's talk page.
Message added 16:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BKWSU

Ed,

Where has this result been discussed and decided and by who? If you look at the edits they were both gradual and incorporated others neutral edits.

The reverting going on is by a group of individuals all connected to the religion, reverting back work to their chosen version which reads like an advert. It is impossible to justify it as it contains many errors or mistakes which Wikipedians are clear encouraged to act upon, e.g. unreferenced, out of date references, blogs references, self-published references etc etc etc.

Members of this group appear to be doing little more than filing complaints against others, and reverting their article.

In addition, why did only I get a warning when this group is clearly revert back any chances?

Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As I predicted, despite another editor editing, the first thing that happened in the lead BK editor reverted back the page to their preferred revision, deleting not just some but basically all of the development.

I suspect the reason for this is a gamble, a provocation to see if I would continue editing it after which they would report me in order to try and remove me from the process.

As I have pointed out, it is impossible for me to discuss, and I have documented the reasons for my changes as I went along, if they refuse to answer.

Your warning says, "may". I think that you need to look a little closer at what is going on here. They are not even attempting to "talk out" any changes, like politicians, it has just been one identical revert after another.

I am not skilled in Wikipedian language and game playing, and do not have the time to construct endless reports, but it seems to be clear what is going on.

Would you ask them if Danh108 if BKs are being centrally coordinate/supported/tutored by other BK adherents to control their religion's topic page? They won't answer me. Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins are aware that adherents might be trying to influence the page. At the moment we are discussing your behavior, not theirs. If you try to be a good participant in the discussion there is hope for the future. See my comment on your talk page for some ways of doing that. I linked you to some talk threads where your participation would be welcome. If you continue to make a lot of reverts without waiting for support, things won't look so good. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My behaviour has included taking a page that was littered with problematic content, cleaning up and rationalising why. No one appears to have taken that into consideration and judging it.

Personally, I thought that was what the Wikipedia was all about, not war gaming to block others from "your" pages? I am at a loss because I am only one person and I don't have the time and energy to invest learning the game. Nor is it my personality type to play it.

I wish some neutral others would look at the actual content and accept that I have actually done a half decent job at starting to clean up a page which was a mess for the lack of any discussing or questioning what the BKs were up to. Thanks. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Most people who revert an article think that they have good reasons for reverting. But they can't all be right. You can't just appoint yourself to be the keeper of the article and decide that everyone else is wrong. "I am only one person and I don't have the time and energy to invest learning the game". This makes it sound like you don't have the patience to wait for a discussion. But that's how we do things here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, I would just like to inform that after starting this conversation, and therefore evidently being aware of the warning you gave, the User:Truth is the only religion already made another identical revert of 15,000 bytes. [6] GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ed and sorry to butt in. About a year ago I fully protected Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) following an edit war. I've been fairly inactive since then so I was a tad surprised to see the page pop up on my watchlist with essentially the same edit war still ongoing. User:Truth is the only religion is, I have no doubt whatsoever, the latest incarnation of Januarythe18th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same combative approach, same arguments, reverting to a version written originally by said user. See also the SPI archive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Januarythe18th/Archive. User:Nyttend made the original block, however, rather than myself. If I had seen the account back when it started editing, I would have just blocked it but things have moved on since then. CIreland (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User:CIreland, please consider adding this information to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Januarythe18th. If a long block turns out to be needed then an SPI filing is good to have as a record of the issues. I'm also leaving a ping for User:Adjwilley who participated in the same SPI earlier. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Truth is the only religion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In spite of his discussion with me above, and a warning not to do so, Truth has gone ahead with his program of revising the BKWSU article to his preferred version so I've issued a one-week block. Two other threads on the socking issue are these comments by User:JamesBWatson:

• Comment by JamesB on Truth's talk page (12 August 2014)
• Comment by JamesB to User:GreyWinterOwl on the existing sock data.

User:CIreland, if you are confident about the sock matter then you should proceed with whatever action you think best. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read this section and read through the archived SPI, but I have no memory whatsoever of the situation. Looking at the account's edits and block log, I expect that January outed someone at Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University on 8 October last year (several edits there have been oversighted, and that's two days before I blocked him), but that's literally all I can tell you. I'm happy to help with the situation if anyone would like me to, but please don't expect me to be able to do anything that requires prior familiarity with this user. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:CIreland. I am the editor who was outed and the same guy is back. I find SPI's are hard because like Nyttend states, not many people engage enough with the blocked editor to recognise their new account....I smelt a rat very early on but it blew up in my face and got used to paint me as the religious nut trying to control the article. I can definitely contribute some diff's to an SPI. User:Januarythe18th's talk page pumps out the same conspiracy theory rhetoric being used on the article talk page against any editors who disagree with his POV. Plus this hive mind comment got used a few times by the past account - I can track back to find it. User:GraemeLeggett was also a neutral observer of the previous account - I would be interested to get his opinion (I will ping him re this convo) CheersDanh108 (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping EdJohnston, and sorry for my slow response. I have been editing the article itself, trying to hammer out some of the problems, and I appreciate your intervention, as that users edits were quite disruptive to the editing process. (It's a bit discouraging to spend a couple of hours on a few paragraphs only to have everything wiped out every day in mass reverts to some old revision.) Anyway, I have been participating as an editor rather than an admin, as I tend to do around religious-themed articles. I had been meaning to file an AN3 report, but hadn't found the time to actually sit down and gather diffs.

  Regarding the SPI, I looked into that a week or two ago but hadn't found enough diffs for a really convincing report, though the MO is a match, as is the apparent inability to collaborate. I remember there being very suspicions that the old (Januarythe18th) account was a sock of someone else, but it was kind of the same deal where nobody could prove anything. In the end, it was the outing that led to the indef block, combined, if I recall correctly, with an obvious sock-puppet of either Januarythe18th or (as he claimed) someone trying to impersonate him. Anyway, I think the block was appropriate, and wanted to say thanks for the effort you put into resolving this. I also thought the warning you gave was an appropriate and creative approach :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year block topic ban due to my nomination of American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, "getting" a page locked from IP editing, and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here: ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.) DocumentError (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

May I comment here without running afoul of my restrictions? I wish to make a comment in support (ironically) of the person against whom the filing was made. Imo, the original comment that led to this filing was completely tendentious. diff An editor with an axe to grind against both parties thought they saw an opportunity for a two-fer and they took it. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed comment as a sign of good faith. - Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, though whatever action is taken at AE is likely to be based only on the evidence presented there. Ret. Prof, you must be referring to your recent edit, but there are no Ebionites in that ANI discussion. If you want to refer at ANI to a 'group of user accounts working together' you would normally be expected to say who your are referring to and give evidence, or withdraw your statement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What about the interaction ban? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Two parties can be in the same thread so long as they don't interact. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, then I will strike. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Request

You semi-protected the Ephesians article, after a report that after only two edits I was accused of both sock puppet and edit warring. I request that you rescind your blocking as I have been unfairly accused and now blocked for an entire month from editing this article. I was an IP when I made one revert, and right after created an account. Then I made one more revert. So only two. Now I've created an account and would like to edit, but cannot. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page to explain the change that you favor. That's the best way to establish your good faith. Neither you nor the IP has any editing record, which is a handicap if you are hoping to be taken seriously. Starting an account and using it to make an edit, while giving the other editors no indication that you are the same person as the IP, is questionable under the WP:SOCK policy. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the sock puppet article, and what I did is not even close to abuse. 1 edit is not abuse. I think you are over-reaching and over-reacting. Don't you think? I ask you again to revert your protection. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain (a) why you still haven't used the article talk page? (b) why you are still using the IP even after the 3RR report was closed? Are you planning to use both identities on a continuing basis? If so you should read WP:SCRUTINY. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I used ip as a response because that's where the user left me a message, simple. And why did you delete my comment on the trial board? Am I not allowed even one single comment in defense? This is quite concerning Tikki-Tembo (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If you believe I deleted your comment, please provide a diff. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I click on the link you provided and I don't see my comment anymore. I give up. Trying is just too hard. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, the user is violating WP:MOS/WTW and is refusing to read the policy as this edit shows in this other article: [7]. What will the user do once you removed the protection? Already, this user has made this new account to send this request, and hasn't informed me yet. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII, please use Talk:Book of Lamentations to explain your concern. It's hard to be sympathetic when two editors are in a dispute and neither one will use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Umm... What's wrong with my other edit now? It's neutral and sourced. Please use talk page of article to interact with me, and my edits.Tikki-Tembo (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)