User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

User:Cathyoates and Possible CoI edits, again

Cathyoates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alex the Astronaut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Megan Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion on my talk in March, 2021

Refer to your own archive, here. The same editor has recently edited at Alex the Astronaut see diff and at Megan Washington (and associated album article), see diff. A person named Cathy Oates is owner/chief manager of Original Matters talent agency. Washington and Alex the Astronaut are clients. Since July 2021 that person is also Head of Marketing for Warner Music Australia.^[1] shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Cathy Oates joins Warner Music Australia"

User:Deb has left a COI warning at User talk:Cathyoates#Possible CoI edits, II. You also started a discussion at Talk:Megan Washington#Connected contributor that appears promising. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied a connected contributor template at Talk:Megan Washington as this appears to be the intention of the user. There has been no further response, for the moment. The user has a long history of intermittent editing, typically returning when clients have a new release sometimes more than a year later.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continued topic ban violation by USaamo

USaamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Two-nation theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As you are already aware, you had topic banned USaamo from "from the topic of wars between India and Pakistan".[1]

Until now he has violated it multiple times,[2][3] as recently as May 2022.

He just violated this topic ban again on Two-nation theory right here by removing content about "sub-nationalities of Pakistan, with Bengalis seceding from Pakistan after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971", the same page (Bangladesh Liberation War) about which he was warned back in 2020.[4]

Either a block or expansion of his topic ban is clearly warranted now per my explanation here about 2 weeks ago, as well as this recent topic ban violation. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving a note for USaamo. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to this editor about his accusations when he showed up at that report and my reply is still the same to that extent. [5]

As to this report, I don't understand how do a mere mention about a conflict and that too undue POV pushing and based on original research in an article make it India Pakistan war topic when it's actually an article about pre-independence phenomenon that was there before the existence of the states of India and Pakistan. At best it's the matter of clarification whether topic ban applies to it or not and as I've always abided by it, I intend to abide by it in future as well.

Having said this I have reservations over the behaviour of User:Aman.kumar.goel which is like WP:WIKIHOUNDING me everywhere on Wikipedia which needs to be stopped! USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply confirms that you violated the topic ban after you have been already told enough times that the topic ban is broadly construed. This is not even the first time that you have violated your topic ban. Your false accusation of wikihounding shows your own battleground mentality. I am editing this article for years, and that's how I observed your edits. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does User:USaamo's editing at Two-nation theory concern the wars between India and Pakistan? I assume that the two-nation theory is a political, not a military issue? EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His edit concerns it because with this edit he removed content about "sub-nationalities of Pakistan, with Bengalis seceding from Pakistan after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971". The edit concerns the same page (Bangladesh Liberation War) about which he was warned back in 2020.[6] WP:TBAN is clear that its a violation even if it concerns "parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do" with the topic banned area. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The line I removed was political aspect of that event, Secession of East Pakistan is not just Bangladesh Liberation War but as I said above this insertion itself was undue POV pushing. India-Pakistan only involved at the last stage of event making both belligerents. While this article is about something before the existence of states of India and Pakistan and wholly a political theory.

He may have edited this article before but it is unacceptable behaviour on his part to single me out everytime, showing up at a report to settle left over scores against me, this is what battleground mentality is. Not appealing my ban after more than two years shows my intention of not getting into this topic and abiding by my topic ban. I request this editor should be warned for Wikihounding me... USaamo ^(t@lk) 07:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply confirms that you don't understand your topic ban. You admit India-Pakistan only involved at the last stage of event making both belligerents and you are still falsely accusing me of wikihounding when I have already provided evidence that I am editing this article for years. I am in support of the extension of your topic ban because you have failed to stay away from this year these 2 years as evident from your frequent violations of your topic ban. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If everything has to be confirmed and decided by you then what good these admins on Wikipedia are for? You're not falsely accused of Wikihounding but coming after my edits and showing up on reports to settle scores suggest this behaviour.

Also you have reverted my edits even after EdJohnston differing with your allegations of violation above and that too with a misleading summary. [7] So it clearly shows malice on your part and battleground mentality which doesn't belong here. I request admins to take note of this and he should be warned of these shenanigans. USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Just because I stopped replying to USaamo because he was not getting it, he has again violated the topic ban here by restoring his edit that removed large chunk of sourced content and violated his topic ban by touching content about Bangladesh Liberation War. I don't think he should be let-off again, given this is yet another topic ban violation by him. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was reported here so I humbly presented my case about the edit being not in violation of topic ban and asked for further clarification. EdJohnston viewed above that it is political and not military issue so the thing should have been over for you. But then you went on to revert me with a misleading summary. I was not up for an edit war as are you so I brought that in EdJohnston's notice and waited for his response. Since no further response came on report so I thought his reply has probably come what he said above and I went ahead with reverting you but now you have started edit warring so I asked EdJohnston to kindly look into this and a stern warning atleast is needed for Aman.kumar.goel to stop his disruptive behaviour or else take proper action against him. Thanks! USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#USaamo where we can continue this discussion. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The never-ending saga of the Mosquito Coast guy

Whoforwho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mosquito Coast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed, hope you're doing well. I see that you've just recently (three hours ago) left a comment at TU-nor's talk page. I'm pretty sure the user Whoforwho that's been commenting there, and whose edits to the article page I've reverted as sockpuppetry, is the persistent Mosquito Coast sockmaster who's caused so much trouble and wasted so many editors' time. And now it appears that he may actually have his own article on WP? Oh, the irony.

Per your remark on 26 July 2022, I've assembled a list of the usernames and IP's used by this person (many descriptive adjectives come to mind).

Usernames:

IP addresses:

Doubtless there are more, but these are what I've found. Carlstak (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Tamzin who recently blocked Special:Contributions/Thecaribbeancoast (August 2022). There is an existing SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Themaker1 relating to the Mosquito Coast (though that case is inactive since Feb 2021). Should we add new behavioral information to Themaker1's sock case or start a new one? The article on George Henriquez may also be of interest. Henriquez is an activist who "is making history as he fights for the rights of marginalized Black and Indigenous populations of the Atlantic Coast", according to the Vice article cited on his page. Though this seems to be a worthwhile activity, there is a risk that our articles on this part of the world might be affected by partisan editing. Proponents may be suggesting that the Mosquito Coast has a noteworthy history and was taken over by neighboring countries in the 19th century only due to superior force. If our coverage of the history of the Mosquito Coast is to be expanded, it ought to be based on reliable sources. Anyone who edits in this domain should not be hiding behind multiple identities. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed. I emphatically agree. If this guy had been straightforward after he was called out the first time, a lot of this trouble could have been avoided, and perhaps that person could have contributed constructively and collaboratively, but I would never trust his edits or his motives again after the proliferation of all this unnecessary nonsense, and more of it still being added to WP. Carlstak (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So is anything going to happen? Carlstak (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. Have you run a check here? Looks likely at a glance; can do a deeper analysis if needed, but figured I'd first ask what CU has to say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checked per off-wiki ping from Tamzin. Whoforwho is

Confirmed to Thecaribbeancoast. I feel like there was a different SPI that this character belonged to, the Themaker1 case referenced above doesn't have as many accounts listed as I expected. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had to going this talk about this "Mosquito Coast Guy". Becasue I must assure everyone here, that this user is not related to me. I'm not from the "Mosquito Coast", nor from Central America. My edits that I'm currently making to the articles relating to the "Mosquito Coast" are base on information that I found on the internet relating to the same topic, and are even more accurate than most cited sources on this article. Our edits should not be bias, they should be neutral. I'm not supporting the Mosquito Coast, I'm supporting the neutrality of historical information. Whoforwho (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:DUCKTEST applies. Carlstak (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So now this account, Whoforwho, is blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. I think this tells us all we need to know about this user. Carlstak (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content at Monster (2022 film)

Nalina.E.Nalina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Monster (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I don't know where to report this, so putting it here. This person has been adding unsourced content in various articles and is continuing to do so despite multiple warnings in talk page. The user has no plans to change. The latest addition is [8] (premise for an unreleased film). 2409:4073:4E99:4FB4:98BB:14CF:C514:20B5 (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a warning here for User:Nalina.E.Nalina against further addition of unsourced content. Their block log shows they were previously blocked by Spencer (talk · contribs) last April for the same thing. Please let me know if the pattern continues. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering an indef block of this user. I have checked their talk page over the last few months. They are interested in film articles. In a typical month, dozens of their edits will be reverted by others, indicating that their edit was not helpful. (Not usually edit warring, just mistakes). They often get automated notices, such as a notice for adding links to DAB pages. But month after month, they continue to receive those notices. In my opinion their error rate is too high for them to be a net benefit. Plus they do not learn from experience. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I reverted a few edits and have been thinking of requesting a block for more than a week, but know it can be difficult because the account is not actually vandalizing anything. That said, their sheer determination to put messy fingerprints on a lot of articles ought to be reason enough. Little evidence that anything is improved by their efforts, and WP:CIR is aggravated, as you said, by disinterest in improving. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:A72E (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edit is representative of hundreds which preceded it [9]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:A72E (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I was on my much-needed break of Wikipedia, I have been scrolling through user's talk pages. I do agree that Nalina.E.Nalina needs an indef block, we've given them too many chances. I'm not sure if now's the time or we should wait a bit longer. I'll leave it to the more experienced editors though. Din oz1 (chat?) 17:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI [10]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:A72E (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nalina.E.Nalina has now been unsurprisingly blocked indef by User:Cullen328. The block message was Disruptive editing: Many warnings on their talk page, and many apologies. But the disruptive editing has continued. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping! I decided to participate in this conversation (reading talk pages) because other editors have to clean up their mess multiple times. Din oz1 (chat?) 12:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion on notability tag

Could I ask you to provide an outside opinion regarding the notability tag on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Indiana? User:FormalDude added the tag a few days ago. User:Rollidan and myself have added material to the article over the past couple days and identified a number of independent (none of the sources are from the LDS Church), reliable sources that, imo, have sufficient significant coverage to satisfy the presumed notability threshold of WP:GNG. I boldly removed the tag this afternoon but was quickly reverted by FormalDude, with an edit summary saying they didn't see independent significant coverage in the new sources. So I don't perpetuate a tagging edit war, I'd like to ask for an outside opinion. If you could take a look at the sources and provide feedback with respect to the sources and such, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV and propganda edits by user

(Advance sorry for my bad English)

Please stop this user @Toomanyyearskodakblack: He is involved in Pro-Imran Khan and PTI party POV & propaganda edits against the political opponent collision government of (Pakistan Democratic Movement) and also against the military Leadership.

For example see some of his edits:

Shahbaz Sharif:[11],

Maryam Nawaz: [12], [13], [14],

Nawaz Sharif: [15]

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari: [16], [17]

Fazal-ur-Rehman (politician): [18]

Asif Ali Zardari: [19]

Ishaq Dar: [20]

Against military

Qamar Javed Bajwa: [21]

Nadeem Anjum: [[22]]