User talk:EdJohnston

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--

Apologies if that was too undetailed. EdJohnston's involvement was purely helpful and useful in an earlier ANI, now being mentioned at this recent ANI. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:HouseOfChange. It's not clear whether my further participation on the issue of In Praise of Blood would help. I am more likely to participate further if someone (anyone) would open an WP:RFC. In a pinch a WP:DRN might be sufficient, but DRNs are fragile and can go off the track if some editors won't cooperate. If a real RFC is opened and it gets participation, anyone who behaves badly there can be sanctioned by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a disputed sentence I'd like an RfC about: "The book describes the RPF crimes against Hutu civilians during the 1990s as a genocide comparable in scale and cruelty to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi." IMO, the problem with combining "scale and cruelty" in a way the book never does is that it gives fuel to the charge that Rever is trying to downplay the genocide against Tutsis. IMO this is SYNTH because 1) Nowhere does the book describe the two genocides as "comparable in scale and cruelty." 2) Nowhere does the book compare the estimated numbers of Hutus killed by the RPF to the estimated number of Tutsis killed in the 1994 genocide. Saflieni justifies the two components "cruelty" and "scale" separately, because 1) the book compares the cruelty suffered by Hutus to the cruelty suffered by Tutsis during the genocide, 2) when Rever quotes her informants guessing at 500,000 Hutus killed, she is giving a number "comparable" to the number of Tutsis killed during the genocide. By putting both ideas togeher in one sentence, he says I've summarized a main theme of the book in a few words. But I have no idea how to turn this into a "neutral" RfC. (Longer discussion here.) HouseOfChange (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Enforcement notice

Hello, thank you for providing a conclusion. In regards to your warning, can I still add new information to COVID-19 vaccines, such as updating results (i.e. increase in production of a vaccine, or new country approval), without it counting as a reversion and requiring first through the talk page? Thanks, Albertaont (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If it undoes or replaces any material currently in the article, it still counts as a revert. (The only thing that is clearly not a revert is pure addition of new material that has never been in the article). If your changes are important to include, it is worth proposing them on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats fair, should I assume that even if I self-revert, (I seem to be updating my own edits for sections of the article), I should still go to talk page? Thanks, Albertaont (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A pure self-revert would be OK (if nobody else has changed the same material since) but use of the talk page would help avoid misunderstandings of your edits. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

IP block evasion

Hello! Thank you so much for banning 93.164.22.202 yesterday following their edit-warring behavior. However after about 3 hours later, another IP (192.38.140.42) went and reverted one of the pages again. This was the same IP that I suspected to be the same person in the report as they have been editing and reverting the same information as 93. Here are some of their past reverts that exhibit the same behavior: [1] [2] [3] They all follow the trend of adding fake Denmark positions and reverting whenever someone reverts their fake positions. It is also almost always accompanied by "(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit, Manual revert)" and nothing else in the edit summary.

But that's not all! After I reverted 192's edit and fixed the rest of the vandalized articles, a second IP (192.38.136.10 - note the last two numbers are different from the first one) appeared and reverted the same exact things as the first two. If you look at their contributions, you will find that it's a new account that only reverts the same things on the exact same pages. Here are their reverts: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] I'm pretty positive they are all the same person.

Not only is this a form of IP block evasion, but they clearly have not learned their lesson on edit warring and have continued to do so. I'm hoping something can be done about this. Thank you! T  CloseDatMouf 16:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/192.38.128.0/20 for a month. Hope that helps. Let me know if further IPs appear doing the same things. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll be sure to let you know if they come back. Cheers! T  CloseDatMouf 18:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Box-Office bombs

I have articles that show Justice League was able to break even after release like Waterworld was. Zomgrose (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zomgrose: - you should be posting to Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs to discuss issues regarding that article, not people's user-pages. FYI - wolf 03:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Anorther long Balkan discussion

I am coming here due to your experience with this kind of stuff. There is an ANI discussion that has basically attracted half of Balkan editors. They are accusing each other and proposing sanctions against others involved. Maybe you are willing to take a look, and maybe act or close the discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That complaint should be at WP:AE. An admin who tried to take action based on a thread like this would risk making a mistake, since the evidence is not well organized and is not easy to digest. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, AE is much better place. However, Balkan editors rarely are willing to go there, as reports there are more likely to end with both sides sanctioned :P If nobody closes the report without action, I assume it will be automatically archived after a few days. It is sad so much energy is wasted while it could be used to improve content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

AN3 Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

• The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wanted to think you fro responding so quickly on my report of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I was trying, and it looks like some other people were also, to credit cast members for guest appearances. In the history, it looks like the user keeps arguing with people about it. I know IMDB links were sourced, but user kept deleting and saying this isn't IMDB. Is that no longer a valid source for media pages here, and is there anywhere I can go from here to correct this? Thanks! Ev Thom (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Try asking at WT:TV. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Block-evading sock

• Baby Esther (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 197.89.10.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 197.86.195.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. You recently blocked 197.89.10.25, now IP 197.86.195.162 has appeared to take their place editing Baby Esther.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Baby Esther due to the IP-hopping edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ilirida article

• Ilirida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has been disrupted by two IPs trying to add a country infobox, although the subject was never a country [10]. Since persistent socking took place in the past to add the same infobox, maybe a short semi-protection would be of help. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Due to the long history of trouble at this article while it was named Republic of Ilirida, I've applied indefinite semi. This protection can be lifted if the problem goes away. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Since the article has a very low traffic with minor edits once in a few months, indefinite semi-protection is a good idea. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Apollonia

There has been no opposition about the use of the Greek name as the talkpage topic reveals Talk:Apollonia_(Illyria)#Alternative_names (since 11 Jan.). Nevertheless Iaof decided once again to resort in revert warring without slightest talkpage page participation. Definitely a page protection is thnot the most appropriate way to deal with this kind of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It is the easiest way to always blame someone else. Anyways danke EdJohnston for the protection, it is definitely of help.--Lorik17 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Iaof: endless revert warring without taking time to discuss the issue is not cool. Page protection is not enough for this kind of disruption.Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Warring about a map of the Republic of Mahabad

Original title was: Disruption (again..)

• Mahammad tt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Republic of Mahabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Azerbaijan People's Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Iran crisis of 1946 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Ed, you might remember this user [11] - he has been more or less disruptive in all his edits. His edits mainly include attempts to remove this map of the Republic of Mahabad from articles and replace it with an altered much smaller version of [12] and even [13], which is not even a map of Mahabad, but the Kurdistan province. He has been reverted multiple times, yet he occasionally comes back and tries his luck again [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Seems like WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(The capital of the Republic of Mahabad was the city of Mahabad, in northwestern Iran. The state encompassed a small territory, including Mahabad and the adjacent cities of Piranshahr and Naghadeh.[7] The republic's foundation and demise was a part of the Iran crisis during the opening stages of the Cold War.)Please read the text of this article here is for by Mahabad and the surrounding cities, but in the map of Urmia, Salmas, Mako, Khoy, Shut, etc., it is part of the Republic of Mahabad. Mahammad tt (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(From Sardasht to Mahabad and Buchan and Saqqez, the republic stretched)source:https://www.dana.ir/news/1285607.html/واکاوی-یک-واقعه-تاریخی--جمهوری-مهاباد-از-ظهور-تا-سقوط,Historians Ehsan Hooshmand and Abdolaziz Moloudi Mahammad tt (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, these are Armenians and anti-Turkish Kurds, and they spread hatred against the Turks without any source.I hope you judge fairly Mahammad tt (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Who exactly are the 'Armenians and anti-Turkish Kurds'? When you answer, be careful about WP:ASPERSIONS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am careful not to slander anyone, I mean these are the people who spread hatred without a source(sumsuri,luckie luck,historyofiran) Mahammad tt (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

My other sources:http://wikifeqh.ir/حزب_دموکرات_آذربایجان ، http://www.ensafnews.com/203165/در-مورد-قاضی-محمد-و-حکومت-جمهوری-مهاباد/ Mahammad tt (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Mahammad tt, since you have accused User:HistoryofIran of 'spreading hatred without a source' I've indefinitely blocked your account. See WP:GAB for your appeal options. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Season of the Witch (song)

• Season of the Witch (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AN3 complaint, 10 January
• ThereWillBeTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ss112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You closed a recent 3RR discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive424#User:ThereWillBeTime reported by User:Ss112 (Result: Page protected) about some reversions at Season of the Witch (song). I came across the article through an orphaned fair use file and reverted the section deletion, not knowing there was a talk page discussion at Talk:Season of the Witch (song)#Lana Del Rey Section (which the two editors involved did heed your instructions to use the talk page). I added my thoughts to the discussion and explained how the article should be taken back to the pre-BOLD edit per WP:BRD with an ongoing discussion and no consensus for the change. I then reverted the section deletion, which User:ThereWillBeTime reverted five minutes later telling me to use the talk page while they did not do the same. I feel that ThereWillBeTime is edit warring and I would appreciate it if you could at least explain to them the concept of WP:BRD, which both @Ss112: and I tried to do unsuccessfully. Aspects (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I left a note for User:ThereWillBeTime. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbidden History arbitration enforcement sanction

Hi EdJohnston, I've been notified about the sanction, but I didn't found any summary that explains my faulty behavior that led to this sanction. So, I would like to understand what I did wrong (so, I don't repeat them in the future (Except the 3RR-which I explained why I did it)), to get this sanction. Thanks, --Forbidden History (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)