User talk:EdJohnston


Unresponsive editor edit-warring to retain apparent LLM-generated nonsense with sources that don't remotely support the content

Olubadan0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, we're having a problem with a new (since November) editor, who is edit-warring to retain his revisions to many articles by removal or replacement of longstanding sourced info with what is often utter nonsense not remotely supported by the sources they add or are already present. They appear to possibly be using a LLM to generate this crap. This editor appears to be pushing a revisionist history of African American history. See what they did to Blues with this edit, to Banjo with this edit or to Hoodoo (spirituality) with this one, just as examples They have not responded to notices on their talk page, such as this or this or on any other. Carlstak (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the user and invited them to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What sources don't agree with the information i'm adding? I'm directly quoting the quran over on hoodoo, which explicitly outlaws all forms of magic yet you continue to vandalize my edit while the unsourced jargon like "However, Black Hoodoo practitioners in the Chesapeake region have pushed back on the misinterpretation of that finding...." remains while having no source and no issue on your behalf. Over on Banjo i've added FIVE different sources related to the Banjos antecedents in West Africa while also adding the majority of the information related to the earliest known banjo instrument in the Americas, yet my entire edit gets vandalized because one source specifically related to a antecedent to the banjo "doesn't even nmention the "banjo"". Olubadan0 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Olubadan0 made an edit to the Banjo article stating that the instrument was used in 'Foundational black American' traditional music rather than black American traditional music. Some background on that terminology can be seen in Tariq Nasheed#Views and reception. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going through the revisions made by this editor and just a few minutes worth of fact-checking has shown, for example, at Hoodoo (spirituality), to support their text: "Despite the fact that Islam prohibits all forms of magic including practices akin to "hoodoo", they cited this which does not refer to hoodoo, only to "magic" or "black magic", not the same thing.
At Goje, to support their version of the text, "The goje (the Hausa name for the instrument) is one of the many names for a variety of one or one-stringed fiddles from West Africa, predominantly played by various Nigerian ethnic groups such as the Yoruba in Sakara music as well as other West African groups that inhabit the Sahel", they cite this source, which says only "1. Nigerian spike fiddle. 2. one string fiddle from northern Ghana. A snakeskin covers a gourd bowl, horsehair is suspended on the bridge. It is played with a bow string."
As another example at Goje, a source the editor added to support their text: "The instrument is associated with pre-Islamic rituals, such as Bori spirit possession ceremonies which are still common among the Maguzawa Hausa", doesn't even mention the goje.
Just as a first example at Banjo, the editor added content unsupported by the already-present source here, which doesn't even mention "African diaspora" or "West Africa".
At Gris-gris (talisman) they cited a blog, which says, "Allegedly, it was also used in the Islamic faith as protection against evil spirits called Djinn", to support "Many later Non-Muslims in animist-majority areas adopted these gris-gris containing Islamic Verses", as well as adding a cite of a travel site which says only "Both Christianity and Islam offer Africans an afterlife". Blogs and travel sites are not reliable sources, but these don't support the content at all, anyway. This editor is doing a lot damage to WP articles. Carlstak (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hoodoo as a tradition doesn't even date back 500 years. How is a book that is atleast 1000 years older than any "Hoodoo" practicr going to mention the words Hoodoo? How does that even make sense? Why are you not editing Islam or Quran with sources that support your belief that Islam allows practices of magic?
At Goje, you're reverting my edit back to "The instrument is tied to various pre-Islamic Sahelian rituals around jinn possession, such as the Bori and Hauka traditions of the Maguzawa Hausa, Zarma, Bororo Fulbe, and Songhay." Yet it has NO SOURCE.
On Banjo the source that you take issue with quite literally says in the very first paragraph "In fact, SLAVES FROM AFRICA BROUGHT THE DESIGN IDEA FOR THE BANJO--an instrument now integral to the bluegrass sound." What region of Africa bring these designs to America from? Where did American enslaved people come from?
How is anything you're complaining about even logical?
You're ridiculous Olubadan0 (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Besides all of which, the WP policy page Verifiability says, per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Carlstak (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ABC News recently referred to black Americans as "Foundational black Americans"; if this is a suitable term for a global broadcasting network to use, why isn't it a proper one for Wikipedia?[1] Olubadan0 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This user Olubadan0 is obviously using AI tools to write their text and cite sources which is why we are seeing citations that do not support the text, and text that does not represent an accurate summary of the topic. Besides the details listed by Carlstak, the wording chosen by AI includes the very strange concept of the banjo being "tethered", whatever that means. The number of musicologists describing the banjo as tethered is zero. The citation supposedly supporting "tethered" does not mention that word at all.[2] I don't think Olubadan0 should be allowed to edit in mainspace until they understand the damage that they are introducing to the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every source I've included confirms the Banjo's origins in West Africa, with Suriname marking its first appearance in the Americas. Just because you dislike something does not make it false, nor does it give you the right to vandalise that information. Another example of coordinated vandalism of my edits is Yoruba religion. If the Yoruba religion is not an ethnic religion in the same sense that Judaism or Samaritanism are, what is it? Olubadan0 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Olubadan0. It looks like you are WP:edit warring at Yoruba religion over the past ten days, by constantly restoring the term 'ethnic religion'. Per WP:ONUS you are expected to get consensus for this type of change. If you continue to revert your preferred stuff into articles (without getting any support from others) you are risking admin action. Referring to others' edits as 'vandalism' suggests you don't understand how Wikipedia works. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting my edits with no logical explanation apart from the fact that it's me providing the edits is vandalism . The Yoruba religion belongs to the Yoruba people, why would a census be needed for something that is simply a fact? How is this even being debated? Olubadan0 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Olubadan0 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about edits by User:BasedBossx

*Original title was: A concern

I recently stumbled upon edits by user:BasedBossx. Said user has systematically went through and added unsourced information to the infoboxes of numerous(possibly one hundred) sieges, battles, and wars. In turn they have been warned by:

Even after these three(Jingiby's was after the discussion) sets of warning (1:23, 15 February 2026), user:BasedBossx continued to edit 19 battle/siege articles.

Then the discussion devolved into flag usage in infoboxes which is probably just a diversion to keep from repairing the WP:OR user:BasedBossx added to those articles. At which point I posted, "either they revert their unconstructive editing or I'd notify an admin."(4:02, 15 February 2026) To which BasedBossx states, "I am a historian, whats wrong with chatting with you, i will go revert them do not worry."(4:03, 15 February 2026) To which at 05:18, 15 February 2026, user:Jingiby posted a warning on user:BasedBossx's talk page.

As of this post on your talk page, user:BasedBossx had made zero reverts. Instead restoring their edit on battle of Ongal, which removes referenced information from the infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited BasedBossx to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I'm not sure user:BasedBossx will respond. I, unfortunately, have to work on a wedding(youngest son) and divorce(oldest son), so I will not be available for response(s) to user:BasedBossx. Hopefully, I should be back sometime in April after everything calms down. Take care. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


FYI: Strangely enough an anonymous user (Special:Contributions/~2026-11852-84) is changing the same articles (three up to now) in question to the version by BasedBossx's with the edit summary Reverted to original. One article, I understand, two articles, I get suspicious, three articles form a pattern. Anyhow I reverted all three, but here are the diffs of the user:

After another look at relevant articles I found another anonymous user doing the same thing (not revert yet), note the same edit summary Battle of Southern Buh:

If only a small set of articles are affected I could try semiprotecting them. I am unsure if these edits are attempting to push some kind of nationalist POV. If so the WP:CT/EE Balkan sanctions might be relevant. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what is the best of action (no admin experience nor I want to be any time soon), but I suspect that if left unchecked it will spread to all articles affected by BasedBossx. I just wanted you to be aware that this story has not ended. It looks more like a flagspam problem than anything else, but I cannot say for sure. In my limited experience I have seen anonymous inoocent-looking edits that aimed (as I fail to see any other possible reason) to make WP less accurate. I will keep an eye and I will let you know if the problem persists. A.Cython(talk) 00:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In case this issue has to be reviewed at any noticeboards, can you briefly tell me what sort of issues are raised in this change by an IP editor at List of wars involving Bulgaria? EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of an expert on Bulgarian history, as I am catching up with the Byzantine history myself these days, and some of these articles are not in great shape so I will summarize the best I can (relying on WP articles as sources).
In the change that you mentioned,
  1. Some references related to a Bulgarian defeat in Bulgarian-Serbian conflict ("Invasion of the Principality of Serbia...") were removed.
  2. A sentence that had negative connotation for Bulgaria was removed:
  3. Sentences were added to show Bulgaria as the victor. Reading through the Siege of Zadar (998) and Croatian–Bulgarian wars, these two additions are reasonable:
    • Tsar Samuil conquered the entirety of Dalmatia and half of Croatia
    • Croatian King Svetoslav Suronja is deposed through Bulgaria's backing
    • Also changed from the outcome of the war from defeat to victory. Despite having lost the last siege (siege of Zadar), the Bulgarian king did conquered much of land and eventually the Croatian king was deposed. So it might be reasonable to argue as a victory. Nevertheless, a few years later, Bulgaria became vassal to Byzantium, see Croatian–Bulgarian_wars#Third_war. Note that Croatians had an alliance with Byzantium, so it could be argued that Third Bulgarian-Croatian War ended as a defeat since the First Bulgarian Empire ended. Here, it depends when one defines when the war ended.
  4. Changed the war outcome of the First Bulgarian–Ottoman War from defeat to victory, which is direct contradiction to article's intro The wars resulted in the collapse and subordination of the Bulgarian Empire. so hardly a victory by any measure.
  5. Changed the war outcome of Macedonian Struggle (second phase) from draw to victory. This topic is related to the first and second Balkan wars. In the first phase, Bulgaria, allied with Greece and Serbia, defeated the Ottoman Empire. However, in the second war, Greece and Serbia defeated Bulgaria, which lost much of the territorial gains from the first war. I cannot see this as victory. Some could even see this as defeat, but draw is more reasonable.
I hope I was helpful here. I might have missed something. A.Cython(talk) 05:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. The TAs seem to have a pattern of pro-Bulgarian edits. Which could be viewed as nationalist edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston