User talk:EdJohnston

Sockpuppeteer disruption

• Wildhorse3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhorse3

Hi, a sockpuppeteer whom you had blocked in the past and confirmed by CU is active again with his disruptive behavior (for which he got blocked). Was unfortunately handed a light block by another admin, considering his sock (User:Sitush7) was impersonating a venerable editor (User:Sitush) among other things. Should be mentioned that the same user has also uploaded a boatload of copyrighted images on Commons falsely claiming them as his own (see here), which he has linked quite extensively here on enwiki articles. The user now impersonates another person, by using a copyvio image on his userpage (caption: "This is my picture from 14th August, 2021 (Pakistan's Independence Day)"); which is of a popular actress Pakistani actress (Nazish Jahangir).

Clearly the user's intention is not to contribute and build an encyclopedia, made clear by the disruptive edits, copyvio images with false claims on them, and the impersonation of others. This is unlikely to stop, especially considering that he continues with the same behavior even after the three-month block. Please see if the block can be made permanent in light of this. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Wildhorse3 indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts, after noticing User:Tamzin's 'last chance' message to the editor here. Regarding the image fakery at Commons, you could try posting on the Commons equivalent of ANI or you could try finding an enwiki admin who is also a Commons admin. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

You might notice an admin you know in the category Category:Wikimedia Commons administrators. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I had already started a thread at the Commons ANI (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Wildhorse3, extensive copyvio by sockpuppeteer, as linked above), that should probably be sufficient right? Gotitbro (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's hope that Commons will also consider a block of this editor. I see you also filed a Commons request for checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Wildhorse3 is now indef blocked on Commons as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem

• Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello EdJohnston can you remove the lock on the Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem it's been a month I'm new on Wikipedia it's very hard for me to find sources other than government sources I did find news articles and allegedly copyrighted. Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem is like a vice mayor of a city I used the same sources things on the Los Angeles County chair article you already locked my editing access for 1 month so can you please remove the locked on the Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:2902:64F4:6099:43C0:F052:6E5B (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The draft is semiprotected until 22 August due to a repeated problem with copyright violations by IPs. (Other admins have used revision-deletion to remove these violations). Please become familiar with our copyright rules. Though it is not compulsory to register an account, anyone with an account would be able to edit the article (after four days and ten edits). If you have no idea how to reword your material to avoid the copyright problems, it's better for you to work on something else. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

first the copyright problem is invalid I do not make any copyright violations on the last few edit they've actually and didn't finish because you locked it I was working on rewarding it and i'm following all copyright laws in america. 2603:8001:2902:64F4:A836:5401:E3A5:F1E4 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Two admins have felt that rev-del was justified, which is evidence that they believed it really was a copyright violation. You must not leave such violations in place even temporarily. You have also been removing tags from the article related to the violations. The next time this happens you may be blocked. Your personal opinion of what is copyrighted does not take precedence over Wikipedia's copyright policy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone's singing your praise

On my talk page, see[1] Doug Weller talk 09:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's invidious to particularize, when there are so many great administrators who herd the cats and keep the site usable for folks who show up in all good will with the intention only to contribute to Jimbo's beautiful creation & wonderfully strange encyclopedic playground here. But you'll have seen my kudos and thanks to Doug by now, I expect? ( I thought about LYK, but I knew *he* would, mensch that he is. ) So although there are many dozens of admins I could include under the moniker I hereby bestow on Doug, via the following link, you, too, are One Righteous Dude! Thanks so much for your many years of outstanding service to the project, and there by to the entire world, Ed. I couldn't be more sincerely grateful to you, just as to Doug..."He's a Righteous Dude!"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEGMse-VCgs

With great appreciation and esteem,

--OhioStandard (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ohiostandard, thanks much for the kind words. I hope you yourself will consider coming back to Wikipedia and becoming active as before. You and I may have run into each other at AE. I hope your experience in conflicted areas hasn't discouraged you. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed! I appreciate that very much. I actually don't recall any specific interaction we might have had; I just noticed, and so valued, that you - like Doug - just never took personally any of the ubiquitous b.s. that naturally arrives here. A social psychologist would say you & Doug had no "ego involvement" in any of it, i.e. no ego identification with any of your contributions or actions. Nothing to prove, you never needed to be the baddest cat in the jungle, and the only "skin in the game" y'all ever showed was that you wanted people to contribute - and to be free to contribute - here in a positive, and (ideally) mutually respectful way. You, along with Doug, always used the authority the community here entrusted you with for *service*, and at no time in your long career for self-aggrandizement. A simpler way to say all this is that you, Doug, and many other admins I could name, always exhibited an admirable emotional maturity that has contributed to the project, and continues to do so, in the best, invariably constructive, and most exemplary way imaginable. If no one's said that to y'all before, well, it's about time: Thank you most sincerely for your many years of extraordinary service here.

Best regards,

--OhioStandard (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)