User talk:EdJohnston

Undid change

Done :)--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Naval Supply Systems Command

• Naval Supply Systems Command (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jan2929 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston, though you protected this article, the same promotional account has returned to edit, with much the same intent. I've requested a user block, but am also asking for assistance in reverting their edits again. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This should not be allowed to continue. I left a note for the editor, and am leaving a ping for User:Boing! said Zebedee who did the last unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I unblocked purely because it was a soft block and the editor had been given the option of just creating a new account. If there are ongoing promotional contributions, I'd certainly not object to a new block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism of another Malaysian page by Visnu92

Hey there. Regarding the edit warring case against Visnu92 (see [1]), that user has once again added a Tamil script in yet another Malaysian article, this time at the Eastern & Oriental Hotel. This is in violation of the dispute resolution that the next person who adds or removes Tamil script from the infobox of a Malaysian article may be blocked. What is the next course of action ? Vnonymous 09:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Let a note here. It is incorrect for you to refer to this edit as vandalism; it is a content dispute. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Wrong. I am saving reliable, sourced content. --Sheldonium (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your certainty that you are right doesn't protect you from being blocked for edit warring. It's your choice. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you all mad, what is wrong with you? --Sheldonium (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

these edirs look pretty pointy. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to give User:Sheldonium a way to avoid a block for the 3RR violation. But his new edits at List of English inventions and discoveries seem to be digging the hole deeper. Classic ethnic warring of the kind that several Arbcom decisions try to deal with. He seems to be editing to favor the Croatian side of every dispute. Already in June he could have been blocked for 1RR violation at Croatian language. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute at PKK

• Kurdistan Workers' Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed,

Can you check out this dispute over at the PKK article? I come to you because I know you're more or less familiar with matter related to Turkey. It appears that a user is adding repetitive information while deleting sources that I've added awhile ago ([2]). There's an ongoing dispute at the TP. Your input there would be invaluable. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider opening up a WP:RFC. If this were taken to a noticeboard the issues would be very confusing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Halimah Yacob article

Would you mind reverting it to before the edit war took place? Thanks. --202.172.56.4 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If you think a revert is needed, consider proposing it on the talk page and find out whether others agree. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Significant edit warring and talk page issues involving two editors

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.

---

• Original title was: "Significant edit warring and talk page issues involving two editors, one of whom you have previously blocked for 3RR"

• Talk:White House Press Secretary (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi EdJohnston. Having responded to an RfC yesterday, I've observed some troubling behaviours on the involved article. The situation has now escalated to disruption both on the article and the talk page, and since you were the last person to block one of the involved parties (for 3RR, which he has just violated again), I thought you might be in a position to advise; the editors involved were just booted from ANI, so I'm hesitant to take this to AN3. I'll give you a little bit of the backstory to the dispute, though I wasn't there for all of it. I'll try to keep it as brief as I can.

• On July 23, a content dispute broke out between User:Therequiembellshire and User:X4n6 at White House Press Secretary, about whether Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the current Press Secretary of the Trump administration (ugh, Trump articles...).
• The two engaged in a short edit war (both probably violated 3RR at this time, but I'll leave it to your analysis: [3]) and then the dispute moved to the talk page, where the two exchanged a couple dozen heated comments, ending in a string of blatant WP:personal attacks from both sides.
• X4n6 then opened up an ANI report against Therequiembellshire. Therequiembellishere made counter-accusations, but the thread was closed instantly, because the closer felt that no action was warranted before the parties had made any effort at standard WP:DR processes.
• Apparently taking the advice on board, Therequiembellishere opened up an RfC on the matter, but botched it horribly by not including a proper question.
• Yesterday, I arrived via a bot notice for the RfC as the first respondent, and found the two still locking horns. My observations as a third opinion were that A) Both could stand to turn down the heat a notch and B) both were relying on WP:SYNTHESIS arguments to try to force their point. But I also noted that there was a middle ground solution utilizing attribution that would allow them to sidestep their issues.
• Therequiembellishere seemed to grudgingly accept the analysis, but X4n6 was not happy (to put it mildly) with my "muddying the waters", and we went back and forth a few times about the meaning of WP:Synthesis on this project.
• Today, a second RfC respondent (User:Coretheapple) arrived and, like me, the subject of his first post was that the RfC is malformed. Because I realized that this was likely to be a theme for respondents, I responded to Core, who suggested a close, and created a new subsection for this separate procedural issue. X4n6 then began a series of reverts of the formatting, removing the subsection header because I was "misrepresenting" Core. (Here's the edit, so you can evaluate that claim: [4]; Core has no objection to it himself: [5]).
• I explained to x4n6 that WP:TPO allows for new sections to be added into an existing discussion if they improve organization and readability. He continued to revert, hitting WP:3RR almost immediately: [6], [7], [8].
• I reverted exactly twice: [9], [10], and also tried, in intervening edits, to assuage X4n6 by changing the title of the subsection to explicitly note that I was the one who added it: [11]. No dice: continued reverts.

I'm going to let that last matter rest at two reverts (I should have let it go at one, but I thought quoting him the relevant policy would cause X4n6 to check himself), and I don't want help with the matter, because I want to wash my hands of the affair after this message. But I do think that the article itself desperately needs admin eyes on it. Page protection may be necessary, as edits to the disputed content have continued while the RfC is still going on ([12]). My (admittedly non-admin) opinion is that shortterm page protection may suffice without the need for blocks, since the sourcing should resolve the content dispute shortly. But without protection, or at least warnings, I think these two are likely to continue edit warring in the meantime; neither has shown a willingness to give way and both have multiple blocks for edit warring in their logs.

I know there's always WP:AN3 or WP:RfPP, but these two have already been bounced from ANI once this week, and I don't want to be the one to bring the mess back. Besides, I just don't want to get any deeper involved; I figured the best person to approach before I bowed out of the situation was the last admin who took a firm line with one of the two. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This story is too long. If you believe there is talk page edit warring at Talk:White House Press Secretary why not file it at WP:AN3 and notify the parties. Though I did block one of these editors previously, it was a very long time ago. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, Ed. I can't fault you for not wanting to dig into it; it is very involved. I'm not taking the matter to AN3 because these two were just removed from ANI; there doesn't seem to be community interest in refereeing/sanctioning either, but I thought page protection might be in order for the article itself, since edit warring persists even as an RfC is active. Either way, I'm not going to be the one to take it to a noticeboard. I've put in my day of work on the issue (and it was more work than I expected when answering an RfC, let me tell you) and I'm not diving in deeper. Thank you for your time. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've spent a bit of time reading this over. You arrived at the RfC and were trying to be helpful, but clashed with one of the disputants about the formatting of the RfC. You may be correct that it was a bad RfC, but be aware of WP:REFACTOR: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." If, instead of trying to move comments, you had opened a brand new section at the bottom of the talk page and proposed a change in the RfC then surely few people would have objected. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ed, that was in fact exactly what I tried to do. I didn't move anyone's post, not really; I created a subsection header above Core's one-line comment. Nor was the close of the RfC my idea (or an objective that I tried to promote with the edit); it was Core's suggestion and my change was nothing more than a trivial housekeeping edit. The difference is literally no more than this: [13] --> [14] (whether or not the subsection appears above Core's message or below, nothing more). And I'm sorry, but in that context, X4n6 repeatedly insisting that I was "misrepresenting" Coretheapple with that edit (when core himself didn't object to the change, and the new section changed the tone of his comments not a wit) is just too much to swallow under WP:AGF.

But look, it's a tertiary issue at best. I didn't come here to seek that that one particular editor be sanctioned for those needless reversions (nor for any of his behaviour, though I do think he is highly WP:BATTLEGROUND on that page). Nor do I want my changes restored; it's a trivial edit and not worth the drama. I only mentioned it in the spirit of full disclosure. I'm just an RfC respondent and I don't have "skin in the game" where it comes to the article's content. But I'm telling you, the article itself really could use page protection. As of today, the edit war continues, with a new editor joining the fray: [15]. It's going to continue until page protection is implemented or at least until an admin warns the editors involved to stop edit warring. That's honestly all I came to tell you, and all the administrative action I think is worthwhile here. I could have gone to WP:AN3 if I just wanted my edits on the talk page restored. I don't care about that, but I do think someone with privileges should be considering page protection for the article itself (where I have never edited and have no interest in editing). Snow ^{let's rap} 17:46, 27 July 2017 (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.

Erion Veliaj article

• Erion Veliaj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there! I noticed the article of this Albanian politican had repeated unexplained removals by some suspicious new users. Would you mind to take a look and if possible see to have it semi-protected or protected so prevent that in the future? Thank you! Vargmali (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've applied three months of semiprotection. But I notice you have been making edits to keep certain negative information in the article. People might well be raising questions about the quality of sourcing for this information, and be asking if it is WP:UNDUE. This usually needs a wider audience to decide, so at a minimum, you should be explaining your edits on the article's talk page. If Albanian-language sources are not available in English, you could use the talk page to summarize what they say. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response! I will do some edits to keep it more in line with NPOV and do some explanation in the Talk page. The problem is that shape of the article when I found it was almost promotional [16] so I tried to add some balance. Vargmali (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please come to Galkayo talk page

Some user is claiming false information but he keeps on using outdated sources and proved him wrong multiple times, thank you.(User talk:Mohamed958543) 11:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Be aware that you were previously warned by User:Nihonjoe for edit warring at Galkayo on 22 July. You have made a few comments at Talk:Galkayo but they are not very informative. For instance, the following sentence is almost useless as an explanation: "Few things in the page are not true so I changed as it was supposed to be." This is something that any edit warrior could say because everyone believes their own edits are correct. You should explain what WP:Reliable sources led you to that conclusion. If unexplained edits continue, admins may impose a stronger form of protection that will mean nobody can update Galkayo. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________

Respectable EdJohnston. Please check how the user Mohamed58543. Removed an English UN source and he replaced it with a somali language source that is not verifiable. He removed the English source and he replaced it with non-English source . The english source he removed is from a UN organization. And he replaced it with a somali language website that is not well known. It is biased source. Please check how replaced it. [[17]] . He removed true facts that is supported by UN organization article and he replace with false information that is sourced by unreliable somali language website that is not even English article. 174.21.116.65 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to engage with a hotly-disputed article, I suggest you register an account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I did register now. Please can you verify what he wrote is true? The truth is Puntland controls neighborhoods of Garsoor, Israac, and Horumar.

. The source I used is a reliable and not biased source because it is from a UN organization of ReliefWeb . His claim of Galmudug controlling parts of Garsoor and Horumar is not reliable sourced, he is just using unreliable somali language article that is posted by Galmudug supporting website. Please check the article and see the false information he put there. Thank you Faarax200 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for registering. Admins do not serve as deciders of content questions, so you need to try to reach agreement with others on a talk page, such as Talk:Galkayo. If no progress can be made there, consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Mohamed958543 and 174.21.116.65 have both been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring extensively immediately after the previous page protection expired. I changed your protection to full protection (keeping the same expiration). Once that 31 hours is up, they can discuss things on Talk:Galkayo. I'm getting really sick of this (not you, Ed, you did a good job). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, @Faarax200:, if you were the IP, I suggest not doing anything for 31 hours. This nonsense needs to stop. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

References

________________________________________________________

This dispute is about reliable source vs unreliable source. That is it. I thought wikipedia Admins enforce the use of reliable sources Faarax200 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

would be nice if you took your time to help me

Hi you could help me on the page list of turkic dynasty someone is not willing to cooperate user beshogur Have also tried but no solution, Feels so unnecessary to discuss with this person because he does not approve of anythin and this person change ip adress istead of logg in Joohnny braavoo1 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)