User talk:EdJohnston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dailey78 (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 9 February 2017 (→‎Dailey78 topic ban review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Edit Warring

Village Pump discussion on counter-productive editor

Hi there,

I notice you recently left a warning at User talk:50.101.13.34 and thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion on this at the Village Pump.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough reason to issue a block if the user now continues in spite of warnings. It would be helpful if you would create a report about this editor somewhere other than WP:VPM, which is an unlikely venue. For example, make an entry on your user talk, or if you prefer, here on my user talk. Include all the IPs we should be aware of, and if you have the patience for it, summarize how you have tried to inform the user in the past. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:71.81.58.55

You may wish to disable this person's talk page; he's ranting about being blocked and removing the blocked message. I reverted him but he just puts it back; I'm not willing to battle with him over it. Home Lander (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is allowed to remove block notices. Try ignoring him for now. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just spotted his edits on recent change patrol; I have that function activated that crosses out blocked users so I knew he was altering a talk page after being blocked. Didn't know how far he would go so I figured I'd drop you a note. :) Home Lander (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but you two aren't being very nice to him. He was simply helping editing and you blocked him for it. You should be ashamed of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.129.220 (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's right. This editor, who you blocked, was trying to help. If you don't unblock him, you'll never get any help out of this guy. Think this through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.102 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

Hi, I saw you're down as an admin willing to make range blocks. Could you take a look at 103.239.175.110 (talk · contribs), who has been using multiple IPs to vandalise my talk page, and judge whether a range block is viable? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 103.239.175.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a week. The range seems to belong to a company, Creative Eye Software Solution. If he starts using more addresses a wider block might be considered. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respond

Hello how are you?, I added my comment now, I have no problem to remove the Randy Olson, Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello how are you?. Can you as an administrator, please kindly inform User:Xenophrenic that it is inappropriate to refactor my comments (for at least five times) and omit important information from them. This censors my perspective and does not give me opportunity to voice my concerns. I would be grateful for this gesture. And as you can see also a neutral user @Marcocapelle: told him it's an inappropriate action, yet User:Xenophrenic still inappropriate to refactor my comments. Thanks you and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping your fellow editors (e.g.; @Marcocapelle:) when discussing them, rather than talk about them behind their backs, Jobas. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ed. No need to "inform me", as I've opened an ANI report on the matter here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulated articles

Are Romania articles being manipulated? Your last block: Origin of the Romanians

We know it's happening for certain. I've been warning for years that the #1 problem WP will face in the long run isn't vandals, or its own internal squabbles among editors, or an administrative crisis (though that is #2), but well-organized, secretly funded, professional editing to programmatically distort the truth to advance socio-political agendas. Editors like Borsoka used their status with increasing impunity, and this will prove disastrous to the whole project if it is not rectified quickly, since it's obviously leading to root-level fractures in the enforceability of core policies like WP:Neutral point of view. Please see who erases and who adds references in blocked pages 79.112.107.44 (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ARBMAC topic area is troubled by nationalist editing and has problems with socks. You do not make a good beginning, even if you have a valid complaint, to make your post here with a single-use IP. Come here with your real account and we'll talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second chance

User talk:71.81.58.55 has learned his lesson. He's trying to apologize to you, but he can't because he's blocked. Couldn't you see it in your heart to open up to him and give him another chance. He promised it won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.114 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user's current block is due to this edit at Jason Bateman, which had the edit summary "Who gives a care about cites? Why doesn't anyone keep up here?", suggesting a lack of interest in Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. If that IP sincerely wants to be unblocked, they should restore all the messages they recently removed from their talk page (so that admins can see the recent events) and use the {{unblock}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He probably doesn't know how to use cites or he must have forgotten. He was confused and upset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.114 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to continue this. We will wait to see if the user appeals his block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, if this user wants to be unblocked, all he has to do is use the {{unblock}} template and explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.114 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There, he has the {{unblock}} template and his reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.114 (talk • contribs) 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The user has to appeal the block themselves. Others cannot do it for them. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 18:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This user has appealed the block themselves. He's really really sorry and he promises he won't do it again. Please unblock him and he'll do better next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B12F:E4E5:C9CF:8237:9E75:91D8 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has Dailey78's topic ban been lifted?

You imposed it at User talk:Dailey78#Mentioned and he's busy editing articles on the subject again. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dailey78 topic ban review

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by [dailey78]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
[[User:[dailey78]|[dailey78]]] ([[User talk:[dailey78]|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/[dailey78]|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/[dailey78]|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/[dailey78]|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/[dailey78]|block user]] · block log) – Rod (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles

Topic Ban from Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and Related Articles talk

Administrator imposing the sanction
[[User:[EdJohnston]|[EdJohnston]]] ([[User talk:[EdJohnston]|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/[EdJohnston]|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/[EdJohnston]|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/[EdJohnston]|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/[EdJohnston]|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/[EdJohnston]|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/[EdJohnston]|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/[EdJohnston]|RfA]])
Notification of that administrator
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by [dailey78]

I have made numerous useful contributions to the various articles regarding Ancient Egypt. They have enriched the site and made it more encyclopedic. Three years ago, I received a topic ban for editing a highly contentious and controversial article, which is guaranteed to produce disagreement (hence the controversy). After three years, it seems unreasonable and unfair that this ban is still being enforced. Is it a murder conviction? I would like the ban lifted, because my contributions have and continue to enrich the site. In fact, a lot of what you read in various articles on Ancient Egypt, I contributed.


Also, without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia.

Statement by [EdJohnston]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by [dailey78]

Result of the appeal by [dailey78]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=764573767"