User talk:EdJohnston

Arbitration CA notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#SECTIONTITLE and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

3RRNB

• Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, it appears you made an error here He was already given a notice by me, but continued reverting, then he was warned by an admin, and still continued reverting. So he was already warned, and now a block is called for. Otherwise, you're giving him a free pass and enabling him to edit-war again. A warning here means the process is a waste of time and, the next time he does it, it will be treated like a first offence, which it clearly won't be. If there was ever a glaring example of edit-warring and total dismissal of the rules, this was it. Please reconsider. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 19:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that he's been officially warned, it doesn't go back to zero. *Any* further revert is blockable. If the war continues, let me know or file a new 3RR complaint and link to the first one. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't take another revert. He should've been blocked when the report was filed, right after his 4th revert in as many minutes, the last one coming after a warning was posted to his talk page by an admin. You even edited the report shortly after it was filed, you could've, and should've, blocked him then, and you should be blocking him now. There is absolutely no reason to give this user a free pass, and expect other editors to have to monitor his behavior and go through the hassle of filing another report if/when he flagrantly defies the rules again. This is why you have these extra tools. Why is this user exempt from the rules here? - ^theWOLFchild 22:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Why should STKS91 have been the only one blocked when you broke 3RR as well? Each side appears to have a defensible case on the ship displacement, but it's undesirable when a person with 94 edits goes on a crusade to 'fix' something. Since you have more experience, I would hope you'd be the one to take the case to another forum before going past 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed this post. This is why I asked you (or any admin) to look at the article talk page. His first edit (and possibly his second) had no source. I was reverting him for removing sourced content for original research. When he finally added a source, it did not even support his edit, so again he was removing sourced content for original research. (acroterion only warned him, not me btw) It's not only disruptive, but tantamount to vandalism. Aren't we supposed to remove vandalism? Can we be blocked for protecting a page against an edit-warring vandal? That's news to me. It would be interesting to see how you would justify blocking me and not him, so why don't we dispense with the threats, go block the actual edit-warrior and put all this to rest? I just want to see that report actioned properly, the way it should've been. - ^theWOLFchild 03:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Doing this is a good way of getting yourself blocked for disruptive editing after Ed declined to also "enforce policy" against you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:52, 23, January 2018 (UTC)

Wow... so you're threatening me now? And where did "Ed decline to enforce policy against me? I'll need a diff for that. And what policy? Pfft!... unreaal. Blatant and unapologetic edit-warrior gets a free pass, and the editor that took the time to try and steer him right, patiently trying to engage him, giving him options, posting comments with links to policies, then finally spends the 15 minutes or so fill out the 3RR report, just so you, (and, yes... you too Neil, you were active on that board last night at the same time and did S.F.A.), and Ed here can give the guy the a free pass; "edit warring? No problem! Go tear up as many pages as you like! It's block-free-Sunday here on Wikipedia!". Of course I'm going to follow up on this ridiculous failure of administrative oversight, and when I do... you threaten to block me? Nice. You guys are doing a real bang-up job here. No wonder this project is slowly sinking into the toilet. If you aren't going to use the tools for the reasons they are meant to be used, the reasons they were given to you and you accepted them, then turn them in. Unbelievable... The edit-warrior gets a free pass and the guy who reported him gets threatened. What a fucking joke. - ^theWOLFchild 02:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild, you didn't notice that you broke 3RR yourself? What did you expect to happen? EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I only reverted STKS91 three times. Then another editor reverted him after that, and I was here filling out the report. What did I expect to happen? I expected you, or Neil, or any other admin that was here, (I know acroterion was watching) to see that the report was a straight-forward 4RR that even had the guy doing the 4th revert after being warned by an admin, and do what you're supposed to do... block him. Why is that so difficult? Why are we still belaboring this? Just block the guy and let's be done with this. - ^theWOLFchild 02:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You previously reverted an IP here about the same issue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, the ip user that was basically vandalizing the page. He switched a value in a convert template that had a source attached to it, trying to give the misleading impression that that the source supported his edit. Of course I'm going to revert that. You should want me to revert that, not be trying to use it days later as some tenuous basis to suddenly block me for... well, not edit warring. Because if you were to give out blocks for edit-warring, then STKS91 would be blocked already, like he's supposed to be. So that just leaves this here... my comments. You and Neil now threatening to block me because I dared to criticize you and your failure to act when you clearly should have. Seriously? Surely you guys are above that sort of abuse? Instead of, for some strange reason, trying to justify why you would block me, why don't you just acknowledge that you had no reason not to block STKS91, and just do it now? Why are we still going on about this? I'm the guy that filed the report. You're the admin. Neither of us should have to be dealing with this kind of grief. Just block the guy already and be done with it. I'm sure we all have better things to do. - ^theWOLFchild 03:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You are not exactly listening, and I have nothing further to add. Admins are not required to block when they think it's not the best action. If edit warring continues, you know how to report it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sosnowiec article fiction in administrators noticeboard

Now your blockade is reported in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sosnowiec_article_fiction --83.10.5.144 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Declined as a content dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#Sosnowiec article fiction. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting page protection

• Serbian army's retreat through Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• 91.148.77.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi EdJohnston,

Requesting page protection for Serbian army's retreat through Albania. In the space of a few hours IP 91.148.77.61 has been vandalising the page [1], [2], [3], [4].Resnjari (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotected, but you should be prepared to discuss the matter on the article talk if the IP does so. The term 'vandalism' seems incorrect. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the Semiprotection. With the IP other editors suggested that they take it to the talkpage [5] and they haven't, were warned via 3rr due to their edits [6], also they gave no reason for their repeated edits. Usually in those contexts such editing behavior meets criteria of WP:VD, and also breaking 3rr.Resnjari (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

He's not trying to make the encyclopedia worse and therefore it's not vandalism. Might be POV-pushing but it's too early to tell. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

He broke 3rr, other editors would not hesitate to refer editors in such instances for a sanction. I preferred this course of action. If the IP has concerns he should raise them in the edit summary or if they feel strongly about it further elaborate in the talkpage, as other editors do so to maintain good faith. Neither action has been done and the onus does not fall on other editors to guess their concerns or editing motivations. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic IP

May I ask you please to protect Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. IP-hopping revert warrior: 5.172.255.101 a.k.a. 5.172.255.250 disrupting multiple pages. Much appreciated. Poeticbent talk 08:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Another dynamic IP edit warring

Please semiprotect these articles. Yet another IP hopper is making life unbearable for a number of editors there: The Holocaust in Poland‎, Bełżec extermination camp‎, Treblinka extermination camp‎, and Blue Police (see his summary there [7]). Much appreciated. Poeticbent talk 15:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Abbatai 11:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)