This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:EdJohnston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Possible Sockpuppet[edit]

Multiple accounts?

Pages under discussion:

SPI case:

Hey EdJohnston, I wanted to know whether or not Bbb23 had returned or not, since he has been blocking sockpuppets of User Tiseptiko the past 3 months. And I believe user Tiseptiko has just created a new account who has violated WP:3RR and many other violations. Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Please supply details. Was there ever an SPI case? Sadly, I don't believe User:Bbb23 is recently active. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey EdJohnston thanks for responding to me so quickly. Unfortunately, I don't think an SPI case was ever open. What we used to do is I would provide him the name of the user and the evidence or reason on why I believe he is a sock puppet. An either my evidence or him doing a check user would usually be enough to block him. Here's an example of what I am talking about [1]. The same user does everything that I explained two months ago and I also found it bit suspicious that this "new" user as soon as he creates this "new" account goes directly to the articles which I took out all factually incorrect information and puts everything back that the other user put 2 months ago. This is the user that I am talking about, the account was created one month ago the time that Bbb23 left [2]Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
You are asking about an account which is new since the last time you spoke to Bbb23? If so, please provide the user name of the new account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I have provided it to you. It was the last thing before I signed my post, I do apologize if I wasn't clear enough. Here is the link of his contributions [3] and his user name is Sentropeahlelele. Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I left a note for Sentropeahlele so that they can respond if they wish. But you have stated that they already broke 3RR. Where did this happen? Also, where are the examples of them restoring 'factually incorrect information'? EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind that you left a note, but if your expecting him to come out and say he is an actual sockpuppet of Tiseptiko, I don't think that will be happening anytime soon. Also he has many more sockpuppets, if your gathering them up, I believe that there is one more in the Yemeni Civil War article that was also blocked by @Bbb23: around early June. An another one that was actually blocked editing this article see here [4]. I think a check user is needed to be done for this matter. Furthermore, since this user is a repeat offender and continually opens up accounts I think an IP Block needs to be put in place. Now about the WP:3RR violation if you look at the time frame of August 14 - August 28 he edits the Abyan Article 43 TIMES and never once gives a description. See here two pages worth of edits [5] [6]. Now the factually inaccurate information that I am talking about is them continuing to reference the same twitter users which, include some that have less than 1500 followers to push their point of view. For all we know they could be those same twitter user they are referencing as actual information, that has happened. For some examples of what I am talking about, see the conversation that I had with Bbb23. Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
There was already an SPI case on User:Tiseptiko. In fact, User:KrakatoaKatie is currently active and she had previously run a check under this case. I have not yet reached my own conclusion on whether this is a probable sock on behavioral grounds. Will probably need to return to it later. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, but all I am saying is if you do a checkuser it will most likely show that he is a sock puppet of Tispetiko. An I don't understand if he is using the same IP address, why not just do an IP Block and be done with this matter. Furthermore, he is editing the same topics as his predecessors, using the same sources to add almost identical information, and his very first edits were to put back his predecessors edits that I had taken off because the sourcing and information at the very best were not credible. At the very least, this should be considered suspicious and receive a temporary block therefore minimizing anymore damage he can do to future articles and have him prove that he is innocent or while you can make your judgment. Even though Bbb23 thought this information was enough for him to receive a block. Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, sentropeahlele editing the same pages and adding the same sources gives someone probable cause to believe that you are a sock puppet on behavioral grounds. Furthermore, I am asking for the opinions of @GeneralizationsAreBad:@DoRD: since they have been monitoring sock puppets of Tiseptiko with Bbb23. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Response from Sentropeahlele:
Do a checkuser to confirm that i am not a sock. Adding same sources and editing same pages does not mean that i am a sock. I ediding those articles, because it seems that not too much people edit and create articles about one of the recent humanitarian catastrophes of our times, yemeni civil war. Thank you for your time reading my message. User:Sentropeahlelele (talk) 5:24, 12 September 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentropeahlelele (talkcontribs)
The SPI complaint is now closed, and the result was that User:Sentropeahlelele and an IP editor were blocked as socks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


hello, I'm new here. What does it mean to get consensus on wikipedia?? I know that consensus means we all have to agree. But I don't see a place to vote, how is it registered in the system? And how do we even know who is all agreeing because we're all just supposed to edit. I'm not sure how it works. Can you please explain it to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalding321 (talkcontribs)

(talk page stalker) @Spalding321: Hi. The answers you are looking for can be found at WP:CONSENSUS. However, the gist of it is this: consensus does not need to be unanimous; it just needs to be a general agreement among participants. The consensus-building process typically takes place as a discussion on the talk page of the article you're looking at. For example, consensus for a change to the page Test would take place at Talk:Test. Someone would start a discussion on that page, and then other people would chime in to voice their agreement or disagreement and propose new ideas. It's not extremely formal. Consensus can also be requested from a broad audience using the process found in WP:RFC. If you have a specific issue for which you need help establishing consensus, I'd be happy to help. AlexEng(TALK) 20:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to User:AlexEng for the response. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive user returns[edit]

You were one of three admins who have previously blocked Neve-selbert. He was unblocked the last time in 2016 with a promise to undergo mentorship for his edits. I thought it would be helpful to notice you that that mentorship has apparently failed and he's back to massive, tool-assisted disruptive editing on a number of high-traffic political articles.

See this discussion.

Thank you. (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears that a reasonable discussion is taking place at Talk:Colin Powell#politician or statesman. I trust that User:Neve-selbert will accept any consensus reached. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I am indeed prepared to accept any consensus (per WP:DTS). That being said, the IP's revert here was utterly uncivil.--Nevéselbert 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
If there is dispute on whether to refer to certain well-known figures as 'statesmen' rather than 'politicians' that change is subject to consensus. Anybody who engages in mass changes (in either direction) needs to get support for it. The IP's edit summary, "rv to version with no tag. There is no meaningful dispute. One random user does not get to plaster his bullshit to thousands of pages without prior discussion with projects" looks like it is tempting fate. As yet I don't see anyone doing this for 'thousands of pages'. There is a good discussion (opened by Neve-selbert) at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Should we refer to living former politicians as statesmen?. Looks to be a spinoff of Talk:Colin Powell#politician or statesman. It appears that the IP who opened this thread, (talk · contribs), is one who favors 'statesman' for these political figures. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


This is not about you but there is a IP address user that is vandalizing the Prashant Raj and Ive warned them twice and they still are doing it and I have no idea on how to block the person and since you are the most recent person that has blocked I thought I would give you the heads up on it. And maybe a heads up to me on the process after the warning part would be nice. Dw122339 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article on Prashant Raj for two months. If you think a problem like this one might occur again in the future and you want to know the usual process, you should ask at WP:Requests for page protection. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk)

polices and peoples' backgrounds[edit]

Extended discussion. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You know, I've been thinking about various policies involving admin and user interactions in terms of sanctions and authority. I think about how I've always felt about Americans, given the reasons why I've always had feelings of mistrust or what not towards them. However a policy requires me to listen to the authority of administrators on Wikipedia, including Americans. i won't go overly into details about why I have such feelings towards Americans, but i will say that Americans are the reason why I never grew up in the beautiful city I was born in (Ankara). I grew up in Aberdeen with two kind foster parents, but Americans did something to my family because of their deep opposition to president George H W Bush SR. I don't know all the details myself, and I won't tell you what exactly happened, but Americans basically are what took my life with my original family away from me by force. Hence why I have a deep mistrust of any authority figure that was born and raised in the United States. Now of course I follow the law when I visit the US, and I have American friends in D.C. and Virginia (amazing people and good friends to have). However my hatred of authority imposed by Americans still stands. however, I always have and always will do my best to prevent myself from losing it with American administrators on Wikipedia.

However, I bring this up because I really think there should be something in the policy that allows for someone to ask for a different administrator handle their case. Now this doesn't mean that "i want so and so because they are nice", but more like "i'm not comfortable with Americans pushing authority over me, can you please get a non-american admin to handle my case".

The policies don't take into account people that may not be comfortable with let's say Americans imposing authority over them because of something in their background. how I think it should go is that if I am getting contacted by an Administrator, and let's say I check their page, see they are from the US, and I say, "i'd like a non-american administrator to handle my case please." I shouldn't get, "well i'm handling it, and you will do as I tell you!" Basically the policy should allow users (both IP and registered) to interact with authority figures on the site that they are more comfortable working with. i.e., I'm most comfortable with a Turkish or a UK based administrator, and I'm least comfortable with an American administrator. Why? because administrators are there to help and resolve problems. It's really hard to work with someone with authority over you when you don't feel comfortable with their authority. Now this doesn't mean that I can avoid sanctions, it just means that I'd be having someone dealing with me that I'm more comfortable with their authority. It will allow problems to be solved with much less conflict, than if it was just 'you deal with me, I call the shots, regardless if I'm American or Turkish.". It's important that users do feel welcome, anf when in conflict, the moderator be someone they can work with, rather than just a police officer that punishes them.

Who would I talk to to get this maybe put in or some how workedin? Given my backstory it's heavily important to me. pluss not to mentino ot every user grew up like your average family, where they lived wit htheir birth parents all their life and didn't end up in a circumstance where a certain group caused them to be forced to leave the city where they were born in. policies should make a little bit of wiggle room for peoples' backgrounds, especially if they apply accross international boundaries. Wikipedia is world wide, not just US remember.

what do you think ed? if I ask to nto have an American admin work on my case with me, why should i be forced to work with the American or face punishment?

Andrew Nichols (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum. If you are not here to improve articles, your musings on the nationalities of admins that you may trust or not trust are unnecessary and not helpful. You can publish these thoughts on your own website if you desire. If you will only work with other editors of whose nationalities you approve, you are coming near one of our criteria for blocking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that i have to work with an admin that's American despite what i said above? and no I'm not treatig this as a forum. I'm saying that policies shouldn't assume things about people.

Andrew Nichols (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC) I'm also trying to help make problem resolutions easer here on Wikipedia, this way more constructive edits can be made. and a big problem is admins or users forcing themselves on people when they've asked the admin or use rto leave them alone. if an admin issue comes up then I get handing it off to another admin. this is an issue regarding Wikipedia policies that will lead for a better experience in terms of helping editors improve articles without putting them in situations that will escalate things to where blocks are needed. I'm sure you don't like blocking people at all, nobody likes punishing people. I'm putting forward a suggestion to help resolve possible conflicts. Not everybody is comfortable with Americans you know. Andrew Nichols (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


The question seems to be answered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
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.

Adamstom.97 and AnonWikiEditor: is there a wiki tool that shows how much these two have interacted? I find it damned odd that a.w.e. never maked any appearance in a noticeboard in almost 4 years and then magically pops in to defend Adam from a block. Maybe its nothing, but it seems pretty damned coincidental, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

An AN3 case involving two stubborn people was just closed. That's an everyday occurrence and doesn't ring any alarm bells. Still, if you perceive abuse you should file at WP:SPI. AWE was active on the article talk page as early as July, so he had every right to be there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The article is one of the pages on my watchlist. Also, Jack, your contribution history is public. Anyone can see where you post or go to complain about other editors. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are implying, anon. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't implying anything. Merely stating that all edit histories are easily viewable public record so it doesn't take some conspiracy theory to explain how I was able to notice you reported another editor in a rather public dispute on an article I follow. The same way I noticed that when you couldn't get your block, you came directly here to the admin's talk page to whine about it. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:55, 20 September 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.

Lucid dream[edit]

Lucid dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) As all the involved editors are, I believe autoconfirmed, I don't think semi would have any effect. No discussion seems forthcoming. I filed a 3RRN Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

See my warning to User:Mr. bobby. The semi was intended to deal with some unrelated vandalism, and was not in response to the reported war. Let me know if there are any more reverts. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Only blocking one user for 3RR?[edit]

You blocked User:NightShadow23 but not User:ViperSnake151 for violating WP:3RR on Discovery Family, even though both clearly did so. I do not understand how this can possibly be justified, particularly considering the latter user is a habitual edit warrior and regularly files reports like this to win disputes.

From Wikipedia:Edit warring#Administrator guidance: Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues. Having been on the receiving end of such treatment myself before, I do not want others to go through the same thing. Modernponderer (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It seemed to me that NightShadow23 was changing the long-standing founding date of the channel, while literally nobody agreed with them. In one of his edit summaries he cited Facebook as a source, obviously not ideal. You are right that the ViperSnake151 did not behave optimally either, though he had no previous blocks. To some extent it will always be a judgment call as to who is behaving worse. In the early days of Wikipedia, somebody wanted 3RR blocks to be compulsory (admins would have no discretion). That's not likely to be a better system. EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Given the blatantly false information against consensus, I was treating it as vandalism (which is exempted from 3RR). Children's channels always seem to attract these kind of disputes and wars. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi Ed, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Willard84's conduct[edit]

You had warned him 2 months ago[7] after he had broken WP:3RR rule on a different article, that if he edit warred again he will risk a topic ban. It seems that the warning had no long lasting effect because @Willard84: has continued not only edit warring, but also bludgeoning, use of talk page as forum and general disruptive editing. Very recent examples:

1)he removed mention of Devanagari[8], despite on-going discussion he removed it again[9] On other edits he removes information that the Devanagari script came into vogue in India in the 1970s along with the reference, he reverted this again[10] after being reverted, he reverted the editor. On the talk page, Willard describes that he took the lengths of trying to contact Ethnologue to question their article about the Balti language.. He continues to call a highly reliable publisher Walter de Gruyter an unreliable source.[11]
2) he went to bludgeon a page move request that was already closed 3 weeks ago[12], adding nearly 2,000 bytes to a closed discussion, Kautilya3 happened to make reply of his one comment, alleging him of "cherry picked information to suit your POV,"[13] which is Willard84's modus operandi.
3) he has been wikihounding my edits, he reverted my edits on Template:History of Pakistan,[14] without edit summary, restoring version of an editor blocked for WP:NOTHERE and he soon he reverted[15] other editor by telling him Don't make changes before discussing in talk section, while himself reverting without gaining consensus. After that he turned the talk page into WP:FORUM, by initiating discussion about Shina[16][17], a completely irrelevant article where his edits have been accepted and I was the one to initiate them.[18] But now he believes that because his edits were accepted on Shina, they should be accepted anywhere, and further asking me irrelevant questions,[19] in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. He claims that Pakistan was never a part of Pala Empire, which is contrary to the article of Pala Empire, after I showed him the source,[20] he asks "elaborate on how this empire has played a significant role in the history of Pakistan before making grandiose statements."[21] Despite I never made a grandiose statement. Such battleground and didn't hear attitude has already wasted a lot of time.

His violation of talk page guidelines doesn't stops here. He changes his comments even after they have been already replied[22][23] and you can look at the talk page only 10 of the last 50 edits are made by other editors,[24] while 40 of them are from Willard84. It seems he doesn't think before replying. Capitals00 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) I've seen (and participated in) the talk page discussions for Shina language and Balti language, that largely went back and forth between Capitals00 and Willard84. Fwiw, I haven't noticed any behavioural problems on either side of the debate. On the contrary, the discussions have been of a higher standard of civility and openness than I'm used to seeing on India-Pakistan topics. – Uanfala 16:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I informed Willard84 that there has been a complaint here. Perhaps he will come and give his side of the story. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)