User talk:EdJohnston

User:Asilah1981

• Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• History of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

At the end of last month month you blocked User:Asilah1981 for casting aspersions at Talk:Gibraltar.

He/she went on holiday for a few weeks and is now back at Talk:History of Gibraltar. In this context I would like to ask you to review the following comments:

• "I am convinced you edit war with me out of total paranoia as of my intentions. It is not all about this stupid territorial dispute!!!!!!"
• Accusation of sockpuppetry
• Just the entire post

and take a look at the talk page of Talk:History of Gibraltar generally.

Note that I have not been involved in the dispute at History of Gibraltar in any way until this evening and have never expressed any view on the subject other than that there ought to be consensus before there is change, and that no such consensus currently exists. So far as I can recall this user has never assumed my good faith - in fact in our first interaction (before your initial block) he accused me of "hyper-nationalistic (to put it mildly) POV pushing".

Thanks for your attention, Kahastok talk 20:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kahastok. Very much expected of you. I'm not going to engage in this childish go-and-tell behavior. If you don't want me to express my opinion of what you and your partner are engaging in, don't come to bait me on my talk page. Asilah1981 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981, you've been accused of disrupting the talk page by casting aspersions. Is the above response the best you can do? You consider yourself free to use any insults whatever so long as they are on a user talk page? For example, "I am convinced you edit war with me out of total paranoia as of my intentions. It is not all about this stupid territorial dispute!!!!!!" If you don't agree to stop these attacks, a new block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree to stop but they are the product of exasperation. I am used to rational content-based discussion in wikipedia. There can be heated debate but its always related to the actual content of the article. I cannot be asked anymore to assume good faith. I think that policy applies to when you first engage with a user and you have to assume that he/she honestly believes that his position is the correct one. When users flat out refuse to give any reason why they think a certain version of an article is correct, on what rational basis, how can I react? How can I engage them?

Maybe its casting aspersions but both users seem interested in issues related to British territorial disputes. Is it casting aspersions to try to explain to them that this topic is unrelated to (a rather stale and outdated) British-Hispanic conflict that they are so interested in? For me it was simply a way of trying to engage emotionally with them, seeing that they are viewing this topic solely from that perspective i.e. what they believe to be a "Spanish" or "Hispanic" user trying to make Spain look "less bad" in a article related to a British colony. Its not the case. Is this, which they have expressed repeatedly, not casting aspersions?

All I ask is for Wee Curry Monster (in this case) to engage me on Talk Pages saying something on the lines of: Look, I think you are wrong because X,Y or Z as supported by Source A, B and C. On that basis I would not get annoyed.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Help requested with IP editor you previously banned

• Meelanasah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 151.30.108.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Order of the Stick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. An IP editor you previously banned (151.30.108.20) has made an account (Meelanasah) and returned to editing. I believe they intend to engage in the same edit warring on The Order of the Stick they were initially sanctioned for. In addition to this, they have engaged in WP:OUTING behaviour here, by linking to a blog post from roughly a year ago that discusses me. Help would be appreciated. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I believe (PeterTheFourth) is trying to make wrong assumptions. Being my ban expired I did an account in order to improve the section i've written. He deleted a bit of the section without any actual consent from any of the editors that are agreeing with me (Amatulic) and (Diego Moya), because he claimed that bit was "not encyclopedical. So i've added back the bit of the section with some corrections in order to avoid "not encyclopedical" expressions, then i've added another bit about an official commentary from the author, stating in the talk page that i was fine with removing it if provided with actual reasons. Then, user (Eladynnus) reverted the entire section and i've re-added just my correction, avoiding to do the same with the official commentary (with a proposal on the talk page to discuss about it). (PeterTheFourth) and (Eladynnus) are not actively trying to reach WP:CONSENSUS; (PeterTheFourth) is trying to convince you to ban me by manipulating you into believe that i want to start an edit warring (which i won't. look at talk page talk).

The only thing I wish is being able to discuss the section without (PeterTheFourth) and (Eladynnus) acting as myself, (Amatulic) and (Diego Moya) are not discussing about the issue.

And by the way I have no idea what's your issue with the blog reference, i was just curious and i've asked if they were talking about you. Is there any rule that prohibites linking in discussions? If so, i'm sorry, i should have linked that blog in private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but your ban expiring doesn't mean that you should suddenly start engaging in the same behaviors again. As far as I can tell, that page was protected to stop you specifically from editing it, since you didn't have an account until four days ago. It isn't unfair to assume that you plan to edit war again, since you are engaging in many of the same behaviors: piecemeal "restoration", accusing other editors of willfully violating whichever policy had been most recently mentioned, and failing to identify yourself until you're called on it, which verges on sockpuppetry at times. Eladynnus (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You're trying to manipulate the discussion as i'm trying to get into an edit warring. This is not going to work: i'm not actually doing any edit warring nor i've got any absolute intention to.

check my edits and my contributions to the talk page:

First Addition - corrections + Second Addition - official commentary: with the First Addition i've restored the bit that petertheforth deleted by removing non-encyclopedical references; i've also re-added, with the Second Addition, the only official commentary reference adapting it in order to not be too preachy. While doing that, i've opened a talk discussion asking if it was fine with the editors, otherwise i would have been fine to delete it again: talk.

Then you outright ignored the talk page by openly provoking me, implying i was hiding the fact i was the previosuly banned user: talk - provocation while doing an entire revert of my section without providing any actual explanation in the talk page - revert.

Therefore i've reverted to the last version which we were all OK with, and that would be Amatulic's version, with just the bit of correction i've made for encyclopedical form: this. I've also added, in the talk page, that i'd be interested to discuss about the possibility of inserting the official commentary from the book (which you deleted without providing any actual reason) talk.

Now, i'm really trying hard to have a civil discussion, but it appears than you and peterthefort are trying to "team up" to having the section deleted pretending that there are not people, other than me, that wants it. In the talk page you tried to imply that i was the only one who wanted to reach consensus answer from petertheforth to diego moya explanation.

I believe your behaviour is higly destructive. You're not trying to reach WP:CONSENSUS at all. Instead, you and peter are trying to imply that i want to do edit warring (which i won't; last time i was forced because you did edit warring too), and trying to manipulate the administrator that previously banned me into banning me again, because you think it's easy to convince him that i'm "bad" and i want to do edit warring even if i didn't and i WON'T. I'm trying to have a discussion, you're trying to delete me from the discussion. If i get banned then we have a clear evidence that there is no justice in this kind of system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs)

P.s: sorry about the unsigned comments. I'm still new to the system and i've thougth the bot does the sign always. And one more thing: it seems that (PeterTheFourth) and (Eladynnus) always acting togheter trying to undermine me, while ignoring the users who are supporting the section (Amatulic) and (Diego Moya). I won't make false accusations like they are doing (likely, that i'm going to start edit warring) but considering they're bot, somehow, connected to troubles in the gamergate page... well, it would be strange if they weren't, at least, friends or people with shared interests. They even resorted to contact you in the chance to hoping that you'd be somehow inclined to ban me again with no grounds because you would think "oh, that's that ip editor, i need to ban him again!". I seriously hope something subtle like this won't work otherwise, well, i'll just surrender to this. I'll forget writing my section and about Wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs)

I have not collaborated with PeterTheFourth on anything. The only time we've ever actually spoken to each other was on the OotS talk page, when I told him that only your IPs had been banned. Everyone is free to check my edit history to confirm that. I also deny communicating with him off-site. The only reason I know that he made a complaint about you here is that you brought it up on the OotS talk page. I have not been involved in any Gamergate "controversies", either - I proposed on the talk page that a section regarding the Hugo Awards be changed, and my proposal was rejected. It was not brought up on my talk page because anyone had a problem with it.

As for you, I'm surprised that you would deny posing as multiple IP editors and then write this comment on the OotS talk page. I don't think I need to reply to any of the rest, since you have written similar things in the past and don't want to write the same replies again. Eladynnus (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just woke up and i'm going to my job now, I didn't write the thing you quoted (which I'll read later), so stop making false accusations trying to derailing the discussion. Luckily, i had the time to explain myself in the course of this discussion. Again: i've absolutely no idea to start an edit warring, so stop trying to imply i'll do that. You, instead, should try to have a civil discussion about the section rather trying to have it removed piece by piece and trying to get editors banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the entire talk section of OotS became the section where "users are claiming that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.33.204.85 is Meelanasah sockpuppet" see here. Other than pointing out that this behavior towards me is highly toxic (with the sole purpose of having me banned again) i'm asking to help about knowing the exact procedure about whom to "engage" for proving that i'm not that user, so, at least, one problem would be "solved". I'm starting to really, really get tired: i want to have a civil discussion about the section and that's all. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelanasah (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Axact semi protection

• Axact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TouristerMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You semi protected Axact last year. I am a new user who does not have the "auto confirmed" tag at the moment, but I would like to add some material to the article. I would like to add two new sections. One will deal with social media reaction as given in This New York Times article and the other section will deal with individual cases that have been brought to light. The second section will use sources from reputable Pakistani newspapers as well as This and This NY times source among others. Can you please upgrade my account for a couple of days (this should not take more than 48 hours) or lower the protection level for a bit? TouristerMan (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

TouristerMan, you are autoconfirmed so you should already be able to edit the article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Where exactly does one find out his tags? Like if I want to know if I am autoconfirmed or other things, is there a list etc? TouristerMan (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You should see it at the top of Special:Preferences below your user name. There will be a list of all the groups you belong to which (in your case) should include Autoconfirmed users. EdJohnston (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich talk page BLP issue

I noticed you over at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and I need an Admin. This section of the talk page [1], [2] probably has little relevance and is probably a BLP violation. Well, at least the first one or two sentences. Thanks.Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The talk post you mention is marginally within the realm of fair comment, but feel free to ask a different admin. He calls the article creator an internet troll, but in fact that person has been indef blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Maybe you think the person leaving the comment should be warned? You can leave {{subst:ds/alert|topic=ap}} on the talk page of an editor who you think should be alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this and thanks for the options. After reading this a second time, I agree with your assessment that it is within the realm of fair comment. And I now agree with much of what this person has written. I gotta admit this person has a very good point about the article's creator - because look what has happened (I'm chuckling right now). And this person makes some other good points. So, I actually came back here to rescind my request, but I see that is not necessary. And, thanks again. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I will also warn this person of discretionary sanctions for this person's benefit. Good suggestion!---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Luisito Pie

This article is currently protected because the RR about his alleged Haitian nationality. If the highest institution about it have already spoken about it, adding speculations is clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. This edit and the subsequent ones, should be reverted. Edits saying see image in a wikipedia article? Is this a forum? Thanks for paying attention to this. --Osplace 19:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What policy do you think is violated? The discussion at Talk:Luisito Pié is hard to understand. I gather this is a rather famous sportsman. That means there should be a lot of reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, good-quality websites) that have written about him. FInd whatever sources you can, and try to get consensus on the article talk page. You can ask for help at WP:BLP/N if you think that wrong statements are being made about him. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Saint-Peterburg at Binding energy again

Hi Ed, re this, you might like to know that this same person 91.122.0.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (compare with 91.122.11.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) ) has now re-emerged with a string of similar edits at Binding energy. I have reverted the edits ([3]) and left a pointer to User talk:91.122.11.68 at User talk:91.122.0.253. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As you might be on a leave, I have ANI'd at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Saint-Peterburg at Binding energy again. - DVdm (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

DVdm, see the following links:

• Binding energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 91.122.2.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked 2 weeks by NeilN)
• Recent 3RR complaint closed by NeilN (permalink)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive281#User:91.122.11.68 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked) (May 2015 3RR report)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antichristos/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Systemizer/Archive

@DVdm: @NeilN: A permanent link to the closed ANI is here. I have semiprotected Binding energy for six months due to abuse of multiple accounts. The sockmaster is presumably User:Antichristos. It is easier to do semiprotection than rangeblocks so if you know of other physics-related articles that need the same protection, let me know. It is reasonable to guess that any IPs with addresses like 91.122.* who are editing physics articles could be him. It would be nice if the rangecontribs tool would stay up and continue to work from one year to the next. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for all this. Nice piece of work. Nasty case, this. I'll keep an eye on things and will let you know when I see something fishy again. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the range contribs for 91.122.0.0/21, whose year-long block expired in March 2016. The other previously blocked range is 89.110.0.0/19. The editor is also interested in religion and telling the wiki-world about his prophecies, e.g., "On 2 November 2016 AD, Messiah the Prince becomes the King of the Universe."[4] I saw that kind of thing at Terence McKenna. Manul ~ talk 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have semiprotected four articles and have renewed the mentioned range blocks for two years each. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Result of your complaint at WP:AN3

• Etsybetsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Edit warring report about Genocides in history

Why am I being warned for his actions? I already had the consensus, the sources and I changed my edits to comply with his wishes instead of just reverting with little reason like he? Is it because I'm a new registrant? I'm only that because I were discriminated against as an IP editor. Now I get the same as a new registrant? Why does the number of edits matter so much? I also noticed he went and edited Columbian Exchange after I had linked it at the noticeboard. He completely misquoted an article and tried to morph it to say what he wants. The content there is a massive fork anyways, for there is History of syphilis, which is patrolled by a scientist whose field this is; so troublemakers can't ruin that article however they want. The scientist seems to hold the 2011 big study most credible with its 60 scholarly cites and it's the study that majorly supports Columbian origin. It seems the scientist patrolling that page ranks studies by how peer-reviewed they are and the 2015 Austrian one doesn't seem to be very, being cited only once. Etsybetsy (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You might have the better side of this argument, but the only way to find out is to have a proper discussion. You've never posted to an article talk page. If you are actually the same person as 93.106.50.229 (talk · contribs) you would get credit for acknowledging that. In general it is a good thing to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I now understand that from your perspective it might not have been that clear. It was my mistake not to manifest that. Etsybetsy (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ed & Etsy. I'd like to comment on some of the assertions made above:

All of my interactions with Etsybetsy have pre-assumed that he/she is also 83.145.195.17 (talk · contribs), 93.106.32.38 (talk · contribs), 93.106.236.105 (talk · contribs) and 93.106.50.229 (talk · contribs). They all geolocate to the same area. Under each IP or account, Etsy has attempted to insert the same inappropriate syphilis content into genocide articles. The problematic addition has been removed (not always by me), and since June I've repeatedly asked what that syphilis content has to do with those genocide articles - I have yet to receive a response. Even in your solitary Talk page comment as an IP, you evaded explaining what possible relevance your edits have to the article subject. I think it is great that you've finally decided to register an account, but I disagree with Ed that acknowledging your past IP editing will work in your favor. It will make even more evident your persistent content pushing in contrast to your almost complete lack of collaboration on Talk pages.

Regarding your assertion, that you "changed my edits to comply with his wishes" - no, you did not. My concerns are expressed in great detail on the Talk page, and you've not addressed a single one of them.

Regarding "your" consensus, I see where RockyMtnGuy says ...introducing syphilis to the human race. This is all very interesting, but has little to do with genocide. I see where I then responded, I agree with much of what RockyMtnGuy just said..., and I see where OoflyoO said, Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy.... What I'm not seeing is a consensus to add your syphilis content.

He completely misquoted an article and tried to morph it to say what he wants. --Etsybetsy

That is a serious accusation against a fellow editor, and is a gross violation of WP:Civil and WP:NPA policies. And no diffs or details to substantiate? Ed, can you address that please? I would normally let that kind of BS slide, but I just noticed his most recent comments here which also make uncivil accusations of "belligerence", "bad behavior", accusations that I'm "attacking" him/her, misattributes edits to me that I've never made, and ultimately avoids responding to my concerns about his proposed content yet again. It's not developing into a good situation at all, and your guidance would be appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)