User talk:EdJohnston

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

Dispute Users Pincrete and UrbanVillager[edit]

With all due respect, your decision here:- [1] makes no distinction between reverts that remove refs to BLPs, or inserts prejudicial descriptions of BLPs, or which have the agreement of the majority, and mere blind 'making a point'. What is an editor to do when another editor does not engage in discussion, but then sails in and reverts, again and again and again, for many years and against the wishes of the majority? I accept a 'rap on the knuckles', but also did expect some credit for 'calling a truce' and repeatedly attempting to resolve the matter on talk. Should I post this? Probably not, but will do so anyway … … thanks for reading this. Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

When there is a huge list of reverts by the two parties which has been going on since June, you and the other party should both have expected a block. If you think there is a BLP concern, you can ask for advice at WP:BLPN. Even if you are right about the issue, you place yourself in the wrong by continuing the revert war. There is still time for you to self-revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry we seem to have an edit conflict, this is the text which I was writing at the same time as your reply: … … …Re:- your message on my talk page "Your are risking a block due to your edits", I beg to differ, the edit you refer to was YESTERDAY, 22 hours before your decision, and was part of the 'truce' between UrbanVillager and myself which I initiated, Here (edit at 16:10 4 September 2014). In the circumstances, do you still want me to demonstrate consensus? Pincrete (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, sorry for my mistake. You don't have to self-revert, but please be aware of the issue for the future. If you plan to make any controversial change again, you should get agreement for your change first on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Understood. And thanks for remedying so quickly.Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for going back on this subject, I cannot prove consensus for my many reverts, but I can prove that they were the majority wish of the editors currently - or previously - involved, (the principal other current editor having a long standing relationship with the page). I actually intended to add these proofs later today, not expecting that your decision would be so swift. Would such proofs make any difference to your decision? Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If you could obtain a clear consensus on the talk page for your desired change, that would make a difference. It requires that people actually come and give their agreement; it couldn't just be a resurvey of old history. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I understand the principle and have successfully, and cautiously applied it across almost all of the pages which I have edited. What you are effectively saying however, is that a single editor (if s/he so chooses), has an indefinite power of veto over 2, 3, 4, X others, all of whom may be operating closer to guidelines. I understand that you are implementing policy and thank you once again for the courtesy and clarity of your responses. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

UpDate: UrbanVillager has just made 3 consecutive edits on the previously disputed text, diffs here:[2]. The first diff which claims to be 'as per talk' is the most serious … the second and third are trivial concerning only an acceptable renaming of a section and a link to a newly created page concerning a sequel … for which not even a release date exists. They are here:-[3] and here:-[4].

That there is NOT consensus about changing 'Criticism', despite recent patient discussion by me is evidenced here:[5], here:-[6] and here:-[7] . Since the discussion is a long one, you might want to read the LAST link FIRST, as the last very explicitly states that I do not agree with these changes, this last was written this morning and both read and replied to by UrbanVillager prior to his making these changes. All these discussions are SINCE the warning from you.

I apologise for bothering you, and if I am posting in the wrong place please advise me.Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Further update, I notice that UrbanVillager has just restored the Pavlica, at the END of the criticism section. However the rest of the section is his own 'mangled' version as inserted this morning, which EXPLICITLY had no consensus (including a considerable amount of material copied direct from an 'ad' for the film).
UrbanVillager has done what you LITERALLY asked, but ignored its spirit entirely. I am prepared to revert to the text that existed this morning, but will not do so without your 'say so'.Pincrete (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Further complications, another editor has 'stepped in' and removed the most offensive/least consensual parts of UrbanVillager's edit. I shall 'tidy' in the understanding that my tidy will not leave the section substantially different from how it was this AM. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC) … … ps I have now restored the text to approx. this morning's state, I have retained parts of UVs text which would have been acceptable had he proposed them and corrected factual BLP issues. I cannot contact the other editor tonight, but have no reason to believe that the changes would be unacceptable to him. Thankyou for your efforts.Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies again for bothering you, UrbanVillager has just inserted two completely new 'reviews' in the disputed section of the article. Both are in Serbian and neither seem to be reviews at all, rather articles, one of the reviews is written by a (very small) magazine that the film maker himself works for.

Neither review has consensus, since neither has been submitted for discussion or evaluation (or translation). It is possible that parts of either COULD be used, but having engaged in completely DIFFERENT discussions on talk for the last week, these reviews suddenly appeared tonight. Neither I nor any editor even knew about them.

It is impossible for me to believe that UrbanVillager is doing anything other than intentionally acting in bad faith. … ps I'm not sure whether it is proper to tell you this, but the three principal editors connected with the page are currently at ANI:- [8]. Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Can you semi-protect En otra piel too, User:Damián80 was warring there too. Dswq78 (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Moon[edit]

That IP user is still causing issues over at Sailor Moon S: The Movie ([9]). Can you please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you start a discussion at Talk:Sailor Moon S: The Movie that explains what this is about? If you perceive that two IPs (from the same location) are editing the same way it could be worthwhile to open an SPI. Existence of an SPI could justify more admin actions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a run of the xtools rangecontribs tool (from wmflabs) on some IP edits that appear to be the same person. If this were a true pattern of abuse then a rangeblock might be considered. So far I don't see much beyond stubbornness, and that's not enough for a block. Things might be different if there were a pattern of long-term edit warring on a specific issue that could be documented. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Request Response[edit]


Thank you for responding on the the request page (penguin changes reviewer). I'll wait a bit longer to get more experience. In the meantime, I'll work on editing articles, reverting vandalism and spam, expanding articles, etc.

Batreeqah (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)



Someone made that for me. It's not taken exactly from the game Club Penguin, it was made by someone and given to me.

Batreeqah (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a derivative work from a copyrighted figure. As such it falls under the same copyright protection as the original. You can check at WP:Copyrights for the policy. If you want, ask for assistance at WP:Editor assistance/Requests. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Banned USer: Iaaasi use user "INeverCry" as his meta puppet[edit]

Dear administrator!

User:INeverCry act like a meta puppet of Banned user Iaaasi on Wikimedia Commons, and she deleted many old Hungarian historic photos and paintings from the medieval to pre ww1 era.

Banned Iaaasi is a well known chauvinist romanian troll, who is known for his anti-Hungarian sentiment.

Here is the meta puppet's wiki page:

Meta puppets must be deleted.

Bye!--Brelczer (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a concern about Wikipedia Commons you'll need to address it over there. Commons:User:INeverCry is a sysop on Commons. The term 'meta puppet' doesn't exist here. You would have more credibility in exposing sockpuppets if you had some previous Wikipedia edits yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


Yes indeed. Thanks for cleaning that up. Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Those sheep[edit]

Hi! Those sheep have been there for a couple of weeks now without opposition, or indeed any comment of any kind. Unless you, Anthony Appleyard or Jenks24 has any objection, I'd like to suggest that they now be moved back to WP:RMTR and dealt with by the ordinary process. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave it a relist yesterday (sorry it took so long, RM is pretty backlogged) and if it went another seven days without further comment I was going to move them. I won't move them earlier than that but if Ed or Anthony want to go for it now I won't object. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Jenks24 for doing the relist. I would be against restoring these to WP:RMTR, now that the formal discussion is in progress. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner's removal of sourced content[edit]

How would you describe this edit? Bobrayner shows up, doesn't write a word on the talk page and removes a well-sourced review by VICE (magazine). Do I have to ask for permission from anti-Malagurski and anti-Yugoslav editors to add well-sourced content to the website? Isn't he inciting another revert war? --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE much? If it's very important to you which reviews get included in The Weight of Chains article, consider opening a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. If your aim is to add reviews favorable to Malagurski's thinking and omit unfavorable ones you might be revealing bias. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
How is expanding negative criticism by relevant sources considered "omitting unfavorable" reviews? Please, could you explain this to me. Because it seems Pincrete and Bobrayner have manipulated you as well, since anyone who is not anti-Malagurski must be revealing bias, is that correct? I'm not about bias, just relevant sources, that's all. And because I'm not anti-Malagurski, I've been subjected to personal attacks and harassed for every edit I make that favors the quality and not anti-Malagurski POV the two above mentioned editors have pushed. OK, if they want to run the show with your blessing, let the article only have negative reviews (as is the state at the moment, the only positive review --from the reputable VICE magazine-- I added, was removed, to leave 2 blog posts, one by some guy who was kicked out of his blog and called an "idiot" by his own editor, one by some teaching assistant). --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I am sorely tempted to respond to UrbanVillager, but will resist. Thankyou EdJohnston, for your prompt, courteous and impartial involvement in this matter. I shall no longer 'watch' this page, so again thankyou. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Egyptian Hypothesis[edit]

Thanks. I need to find time to see if an SPI should be raised for the new account, just too busy, but given that it's basically the same content being added as by earlier socks... Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP / Philosophical Disagreement[edit]

Hi Ed,

You've helped out in the past when I found myself in incipient edit wars, and once again I find myself in a disagreement in which there is a lot of emotion and strong differences of opinion.

Was wondering if you could join us over at and provide a little neutral oversight of what is shaping up to be a difficult discussion.

Much appreciated. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of unpleasant stuff in the Tyrone Hayes article. Neither side of the real-world dispute has behaved optimally. My instincts are to *not* quote the primary material on the view that we don't have to make the article more icky than it already is. Whether policy requires that the material be omitted is another matter. I hope you guys make a good decision. If Hayes is right about the dangers of atrazine then we should indeed be worried. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I agree with your statement about the level of "icky stuff" in the article. I've placed a proposed compromise on the BLP page that we balance the article by cutting a lot of this stuff out rather than by adding the primary reference or any of the more inflammatory secondary references that quote it. Thus far it has not gained any traction.
But I wasn't hoping for you to take sides in the content dispute so much as to remind everyone to seek consensus, and avoid edit warring. As we speak, all of my edits to the article (including additional amphibian studies, information that some studies were peformed at unrealistically high atrazine concntrations, and all mention of Hayes harrassment of Syngenta employees) have been reverted with no detailed explanation provided ("reverting per BRD, discuss before editing"). As there are comments on the BLP page suggesting that these were "tit-for-tat" reversions taken in retaliation for my reversion of changes that were made while the discussion was still ongoing, it seems that we are headed into a full on edit war and I was hoping to bring a referee on the field in order to avoid that.
I have no idea whether Hayes is right. Its unfortunate that the discussion has to rely on primary sources, as there are not really any secondary ones. Currently the argument about amphibian feminization seems to boil down to Hayes, who seems to have lost his objectivity, vs. a bunch of other scientists, many but not all of whom were funded by Syngenta. I think the article should reflect this ambiguity.
It sounds like you don't want to get involved here, so I'll thank you for your time and for your past help and move on. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion doesn't have to rely on primary sources. Ref 1 (Mother Jones) and Ref 6 (Nature) discuss the unusual emails sent by Hayes to company people. We have a separate article on endocrine disruptors which reveals some of the uncertainty in this kind of study. If there are disagreements about using primary sources you might consider WP:RSN. 'We are headed into a full on edit war' -- I think you know how to avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. I apologize for the phrase "we are headed into a full on edit war", which of course we are not, because that requires the participation of at least 2 people, and I have no intention of doing that.
  • I think I have shown good faith here by requesting assistance (requesting oversight by an admin is one of the recommended options on one of the policy pages, but I can't find it right now) rather than counter-reverting.
  • I am fine with using the secondary references but even these have been deleted with no explanation that is sufficiently detailed to allow me to respond
  • As I understand it, since we are already on a general request for input board (BLP), moving to another board might be seen as forum shopping.
  • I think I"ve done my best here to obey the rules, avoid edit warring, and seek compromise. I do not feel the other party's behavior, which includes massive reversions performed with no detailed explanation that I can respond to is in the same spirit.
  • Given that it takes two to compromise, and two to edit war, and the other party currently seems disinclined to do to the former, I will walk away from this dispute. it is difficut to see how to proceed.
Formerly 98 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thank you for your posting regarding the Edit Warring Noticeboard. I very much appreciated the request and clarification that you provided. Hopefully what I responded with is sufficient to understand the overall situation. Best regards, Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

History of User talk:Notwillywanka in wrong place[edit]

Currently the talk page history is associated with the archive, not the talk page. Would you please fix this? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi Ed. I would like to let you know that another SPA is making fringe edits and edit-warring on Ioannis Kapodistrias adding fringe information about alleged Albanian relatives of Kapodistrias. They also left a nasty PA on my talk. This is while I am in the middle of the latest SPI regarding similar disruption in other Balkan-related articles such as Ancient Macedonians. I would appreciate any help/advice. Thank you and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ed for your professional response. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)