User talk:EdJohnston

Consultation

Ed, during that discussion, AGK expressed an opinion that a consultation with other administrators would be essential. Tim's response is found here. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how you would edit differently in the future? It would be good to see specifics. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarity this is the discussion (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#AgadaUrbanit) that resulted in my six-month topic ban by a wide consensus of uninvolved administrators. Honestly, it was silly on my side to miss the inbound consensus and to waste the community time. Consensus is consensus is consensus and it is a corner stone of this project community decision making mechanism. As for the future I guess the main point is keeping a cool head during heated discussions, this is the advice I give to my school aged kids and I would follow it myself rigorously. Usually it is better to sleep on it, not to rush. Bottom line I would keep my participation both serious and thoughtful. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You must be aware that your ban is not from articles on Israel and the Middle East, but only from I/P topics. Can you point to any especially good work you have done on I/P topics in the past? For instance contributing sourced content, or creating new articles. If we shorten your ban based solely on assurance of better behavior, every banned person may get the same idea. You have been blocked three times for your editing on Gaza War, and you were once banned from editing it for three months, so I would need more evidence to believe that the past problems will not recur. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification on limits of my restriction, Ed. I've started Yaron Zelicha Israeli biographical stub, Missing Kissinger by Etgar Keret book appears to be notable, I'm gathering sources for Missing Kissinger new article. Generally I made about 500 contributions since the restriction was applied. Outside Middle East topic, I've started Peter Nagy (artist) and Ginger Riley Munduwalawala, improved Let's Do It, Let's Fall in Love and Slapstick (novel). AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't favor shortening your six month I/P ban to three months. If you open an appeal thread at AE, I would participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I sanctioned one of my kids couple of days ago - no TV or Internet for one week. Let her read some books for a change - I thought about the purpose of my role as a parent. Regarding my previous topic ban, there were two performing the tango. And my last week long block - Tim was kind to block those socks. The topic is an arena of gaming, most serious editors can not stand it. Jimbo says, that there is a wide consensus that Wikipedia should be neutral. Am I allowed to continue carrots vs. bananas discussion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean that thread you started at WP:AE, it made no sense to me. It sounded like word soup. If you think you have grounds for any new request, start a thread at AE, and make it clear what it's about. Specify what action you want taken or what decision you want reviewed. Requests that don't satisfy the format may be removed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if I was unclear. I am worried that such a discussion could be seen as a violation of my topic ban and get me blocked, what do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You would not be blocked just for wanting your own sanction reviewed. You should also be able to respond whenever your own edits are mentioned. Except for that, it is wise for you to avoid joining in any I/P discussions at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Truefact1979 evading block

Hi, you blocked Truefact1979 a few hours ago for edit warring. I said in my report at AN3 that it seemed very likely that they had also been editing while logged out (assuming good faith that it was not a deliberate act). Soon after your block one of the two IPs I mentioned started up again - see Special:Contributions/64.105.174.210. I am sure that this is block evasion as the quacking is loud. Can anything be done regarding situations such as this? I am aware that checkuser will not connected IPs to usernames. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The 64.105 IP may deserve blocking for two weeks as a sock of Truefact1979. I am not sure about the second IP which is in a different part of California. Consider filing at WP:SPI. I don't have time to look into this now but I'll be back later today. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Truefact1979 has now been indef blocked as a sock of someone else, via an SPI raised by someone else. Since SPI's will not link IPs to usernames, it would appear to be wasting people's time opening a case for the IPs. Behaviourally, including the idiosyncratic pasting of GBooks links in edit summaries, article selection and general phrasing, the two IPs are the same person, perhaps posting from home and from a workplace. But it looks like we'll just have to live with it. Yadav is one of those articles that seems to attract such people, unfortunately. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The 64.105 IP is now blocked. See my update at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Truefact1979 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Indef). It is far from a waste of time to file SPI reports on IPs. Admins at that board can block on behavior, even though checkuser will usually not identify IPs with registered users. Although 8.18.192.2 (talk · contribs) is not currently blocked, if you perceive that he is creating any further problems let me know and I will check the behavioral evidence again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for your work regarding this issue - it is much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

After just trying again to make a poor contribution at Talk:Yadav, the 8.x IP has now taken myself and MatthewVanitas to WP:ANI. Waste of time, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Now blocked for 3 months by MuZemike as a sock of the same user. Raising their head at ANI has boomeranged. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Jingiby

Hi Ed. Following up an email from Wisco2000 (I guess to me because I've blocked the above user before), I've just been looking at Revision history of National Liberation War of Macedonia and Talk:National_Liberation_War_of_Macedonia#Bulgaria_declares_war_on_Germany. I also see from Jingiby's talk page that there's been a recent AE case in which he promised to behave himself; the above links don't look too good in that light. Since you've been interacting with him I thought I'd ask if you don't mind taking a look yourself. My feeling is that Jingiby should be reblocked, but a second opinion from someone more familiar that I am with recent events would be welcome. Best, EyeSerene^talk 16:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Since he was at AE so recently, a one-month block would be justified if you want to do it. Short of that, my suggestion would be to apply an article-1RR restriction at National Liberation War of Macedonia. Though this spat looks bad, better articles sometimes get produced through such warfare, and this is a decent topic that could use improvement. (By Eastern European standards this is almost a friendly discussion). If you have no experience of placing 1RRs under ARBMAC, I can give you the steps. It can be done through WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions by a single admin. Log your action at WP:ARBMAC#Article Level Restrictions and place a notice on the article talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Jingiby's reply about National Liberation War of Macedonia

My edits on the article National Liberation War of Macedonia were restoration of the whole deleted from Wisc02000 chapter. When it has existed since two years and was deleted without any explanation, I have just restored it. By the way, Wisc02000 is not interested in any constructive discussions not since now. He has only maintained to make his disruptions everywhere on Macedonian-Bulgarian related articles since he has appeared on Wiki. He is not interested also in reliable references and sources, but only in POV-pushing. Sorry, but I really did not find any formula to communicate with such strange people. I am placing now the 1RR restriction to myself for this article for a period of two months. Also I did not broke the 3RR, and I hope never to do that. Regs. Jingby (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing sacred about the old version of the article. You don't get any special dispensation to restore it. You should wait for the outcome of a discussion. Wisco2000 is on thin ice as well, but I was hoping that your promise of 'better behavior' actually meant something. I have encouraged EyeSerene to make a decision on blocks or some other restriction for those who engaged in edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jingby (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I missed the discussion here, so let me state what changes were made and why:

1. The majority of the section was not pertinent to the article and there was a disproportionate amount of real-estate dedicated it. The fact that the Bulgarians went all the way to Hungary, that they took part in liberation of Belgrade, that they had negotiations in Turkey, all of that doesn't relate to what was going on in Macedonia. Jingiby can put them elsewhere. It is more appropriate for Bulgaria, Serbia, something else.

2. The section did not follow the chronological layout of the article and was repeating topics already covered in the next section. For instance, towards the end in the section "Bulgaria declares war on Germany" it said "... Wehrmacht was driven from the villages of Delchevo, Kocani, Stip, Strumica and Veles" and the fourth paragraph in "Final operations for the liberation of Macedonia" starts talking about the same thing. Towns/villages in Macedonia getting liberated doesn't seem to belong in a section called "Bulgaria declares war on Germany" when there is a section "Final operations for the liberation of Macedonia" that also happens to cover the events there.

3. A large portion of the references were moved down (not deleted) where I gave credit to Bulgaria's contribution, the sentence starting with "Despite Bulgaria's significant involvement on the side of the Allies at the end of the war ..."

4. Jingiby adds statements (in the article, as well as on the talkpage with me and other users) like "There were only Bulgarian soldiers in Macedonia at that time, no partisans" yet, the whole article somehow doesn't speak to him otherwise. My thought was that based on WP:YESPOV 'Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts' and WP:UNDUE (If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.) saying things like "there were no partisans" falls in that category the NPOV conflict.

5. Jingiby's comments and labels/threats like "politically motivated" "disruptive" "nationalistic" "vandalism" "if you are continuing you disruptive edits I am going to ..." etc. on the talk page don't help the discussion.

6. It's always the same two editors that pop up on the same articles, and they have to put Bulgaria into something about Macedonia: Jingiby and Laveol. Seems to me like meatpuppetry.

7. I would advise someone to also check from time-to-time the references he actually adds that they are verifiable, unbiased and that back up his claims. Most of the time, they don't, and I have seen where he even completely misrepresents them. For instance, in a similar situation with the article on Skopje, he added a sentence:

During the occupation, Bulgaria endowed Skopje with a national theatre, a library, a museum and for higher education the King Boris University

When you opened the reference, it said: Bulgarian rule of Macedonia used every pressure to convince or coerce the inhabitants into thinking they were Bulgars and, for most Macedonians, the experience ended any with to be ruled from Sofia. Bulgaria opened as many as 800 schools in Yugoslav Macedonia and sent teachers and priests to ‘Bulgarise’ the people. Bulgaria also endowed Skopje with a national theatre, a library, a museum and for higher education the King Boris University. The general policy of the Bulgarian occupation authorities was to win over the inhabitants … with generous treatment… This evidently failed.

First, he copied the sentence verbatim from the reference (third sentence above), constituting clear plagiarism. Second, the spirit of the reference (when read in full) is that Bulgaria wasn't opening schools out of generosity, but it was a repressive measure that backlashed. The way the sentence was in the Wiki article missed the entire point of the reference.

So all I am trying to do is to clean up some of those things.

Hope this helps.

Wisco2000 (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For instance Wisco2000, I never have added the sentence: During the occupation, Bulgaria endowed Skopje with a national theatre, a library, a museum and for higher education the King Boris University. Could you provide this edit? If no, this is fabrication. However, this statement is undisputable, reliable fact. You can check it:[1] Jingby (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You claim: ...Jingiby adds statements (in the article, as well as on the talkpage with me and other users) like "There were only Bulgarian soldiers in Macedonia at that time, no partisans". Second manipulation, out of the context. Of course, I never added such statement in the article and my opinion on the talk page is clear:[2]. Can you explain please, why are you insisting to deny the presence of 200,000 Bulgarian soldiers in Macedonia at that time. If I know the number of the Yugoslav partisans in the area in September 1944 was around 15,000 man ant this topic is taboo in your country. Jingby (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, Jingiby has 2,257 contributions in 2011 alone. That's an average of 262 per month. The articles he focuses on exclusively are the hit parade of subjects that Macedonian and Bulgarian historians have been arguing over for years. His edits boil down to making pro-Bulgarian statements and reverting/deleting/removing anything that doesn't add a Bulgarian character to Macedonia and the Macedonians. Given the sensitivity of the articles, is it a surprise that at a rate of 262 contributions per month someone will find his contributions offensive? How much regard has Jingiby shown for that? How many times has he gotten support from the others before doing such an overhaul on the whole issue?

His idea of discussion: add the most POV possible, find references from google books by searching for the article name and Bulgarian (ideally Bulgarian sources so no admin can verify them), then when someone changes it, scream 'edit war' 3rr, similar Wikispeak, call the person 'nationalist', 'spreading propaganda', 'get some glasses', and have the meatpupped Laveol do some of the reverts so they don't get blocked. That's not an honest discussion. Nobody can change his edits that way.

I don't think that's what anyone should be allowed to do, definitely not someone with 15 blocks. I don't think he has learned much about behaving well. He's just gaming the system.

Wisco2000 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any proofs in support of your statements and my two questions above, but only new ridiculous accusations. Does that mean both your claims were pure fabrications? Jingby (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Pike on CT

I took your previous advice and have done an RFC, would you be so kind as to ensure I have done it correctly, thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems OK, but why not include your proposed new wording in the RfC? At present, the Communist terrorism article says: 'Douglas Pike has called the Massacre at Huế <such and such>', which might be OK as it is, for some people. Do you want to change it to 'Historian Douglas Pike..' ? Consider if that change would be of great importance to you, because the RfC could lead to a long debate. (I take no position on whether 'historian' is the best single word, just that you will encounter a range of views on it). EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the person who has been described as the greatest scholar in the field should at least be called an historian, and not a government flunky :o) I am worried that Igny will put his version back in, I hope to garner a consensus for "as is" or "historian". Thanks for looking at it for me. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone following this issue, TLAM has created his RfC on how to describe Douglas Pike at Talk:Communist terrorism#Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

SPI on an IP whose unblock you declined

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC. You declined to unblock 76.31.236.91 (talk · contribs) and I believe you were correct. Toddst1 (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the user links for the IP:

• 76.31.236.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Toddst1, it was helpful that you restored the RfC from the deleted talk page. Regarding the wisdom of unblocking the IP, wait a couple of days to see how that goes. User:DragonflySixtyseven disagrees with you at the moment. If the IP turns out to be unwilling to follow Wikipedia policies in the ensuing discussions, he is likely to lose any remaining sympathy. There don't seem to be any problems with your actions. It appears that the IP is following the deal he made with DragonflySixtyseven to limit his edits to Talk:Least I Could Do, his own talk page and that of DS67. There is not much justification for the IP's colorful remarks about you at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven but your reply was rather indignant. You should not be too worried.

There are other relevant links at User talk:Elizium23#WP:ANI and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#coordinated attack from Dragoncon. What a mess!

If your view is that the IP should be reblocked as a meatpuppet you could start a thread at ANI, but I would suggest waiting a bit. The passage of time may show that you were correct. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about reverts

I've got involved in the editing of the page which is under 1RR restrictions, so I should be extremely cautious. Could you (as admin involved in decisions on edit warring/3RR disputes) advise if 2 subsequent edits of mine, each of which is a (partial) revert, would count as one revert or two reverts? I mean that if I'd noticed both deficiencies before, I'd make only one single edit, changing the page in two places, but now after I've fixed one issue, am I allowed to fix another one without being blocked for violating 1RR? Ipsign (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If no-one else has edited the page since your first revert, then adding a second revert would still count as being one revert together. As I understand it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what Demiurge1000 said. The policy at WP:Edit warring is hopefully clear about this. Search for the word 'consecutive'. If your concern is about Thread (computer science), I think you've done the right thing by posting about this on the article talk page, and by notifying the editor directly. If he restores his material again you should consider making a report at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying it (somehow I've missed sentence about consecutive edits when I've read 3RR policy, sigh). Ipsign (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong

Could you please warn user:Dalai lama ding dong of WP:ARBPIA sanctions as he edit warred [3] and I think he broke 1RR

1.[4]

2.[5]

though I am not sure about that. Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Notified the editor of the discretionary sanctions and placed an ARBPIA template on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed are we talking about the 16th Sept? If so, then I could just as easily have made my changes in one edit. But I made two as the article contains a clear breach of NPOV. I understand the point of the 1RR sanction, but it does seem to prevent the correction of an article which is marked as being possibly unbalanced or inaccurate. The article needs a complete re write, as it is basically a cut and paste from one report. IRR could mean that it all has to be done at once. Thanks for the warning. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Page: Textbooks in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Editor being discussed Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recent edits at Textbooks in Israel
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
21:13, 13 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Analysis of Israeli textbooks */") 21:16, 13 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conflicting findings */") 19:11, 14 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Analysis of Israeli textbooks */ Restored reference to make clear the extent of the review. Since most of this article is word for word from the report, this should not be removed.") 19:16, 14 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conflicting findings */ This section helps to preserve NPOV and balance the undue weight given to what is otherwise the CMIP report. Without due weight given to all points of view, this will have to be retitled CMIP report into Israeli textbook") 19:18, 14 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2001 update */ Reference to Israeli Palestinian relations is not relevant. This is extraneous information.") 08:35, 16 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2001 update */ Stop the edit warring. Relations between Israel and Palestine are irrelevant to the CMIP findings.") 08:38, 16 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conflicting findings */ Stop the edit warring. The term activist is non NPOV, and irrelevant to the findings. Do not revert without discussion first. This section restores balance to an article that is just a cut and paste from a CMIP report.") 16:32, 16 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conflicting findings */ Added in section on Arabic textbooks, as this is missing.") 10:59, 17 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 450829320 by Brewcrewer (talk) The word activist is clearly not NPOV. Stop the edit warring please.")

The quote about "hundreds and hundreds" was re-added by you after being removed by another editor, and that looks to be edit warring. I do not see anywhere on the talk page where you got consensus for the change. The job of fixing POV articles belongs to all editors collectively. You don't get carte blanche to revert war just because you think an article is unbalanced. You continued to revert after getting an ARBPIA warning, which puts you in an awkward spot. It would be sensible to take a break from editing the article, since other editors are likely to ask for enforcement of the rules. A WP:Request for comment can be used to seek consensus on a disputed matter. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess we are discussing the Revision as of 08:38, 16 September 2011? I did add the term hundreds and hundreds, this phrase comes from the education in israel page, and as of yesterday had caused no problem there. I also removed the term 'activist' at the same time, arguing that it is not neutral, this change has been made at other articles, and it has been accepted there. The note changing it refers to well poisoning, I can find it if you wish. I though that the 1RR was concerned with reverting more than once in twenty four hours, and not to do with the content of the revert. It is not me who is claiming that the article is unbalanced, I am referring to the article itself, which is marked as 'may be unbalanced or inaccurate.' I would appreciate a link to how I can mark the article as being largely from one source, as it needs to be re written to precis the report that it is copied it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)

You can ask this type of question on the article talk. It was probably not an actual 1RR violation; the list of reverts is above. The quick restoration of the same material without getting consensus shows that it was edit warring. I notice that you were among those involved in a revert war at Itamar attack which led to that article being fully protected on 5 September. You are now constantly removing the same passage from the lead of the article, waiting at least 24 hours between removals. This is getting close to the point where admin action is needed. Your edit summary "I have not quite waited twenty four hours, so I will wait and do this later" will be perceived by some admins as gaming the restriction. There is no evidence that the editors on talk support your action; you are not even discussing it there. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. In that case please remove the 1RR warning, as it is 'probably not justified'. With regard to itamar attack, the reference to 24 hours is genuine, as otherwise I would have just left it there. I am one of the editors at this article, and I not the only one involved in this edit war. The individual who added the contentious material did not discuss the addition, and it resulted in a passage that stated that those convicted had confessed being repeated twice. I do not believe that the claim that one of those convicted stated that they did not regret their actions belongs in the lead, as it seems to me to be detail. In these circumstances why is not up to those adding the material to seek concensus? Otherwise we end up with a situation where anyone can add anything, and someone else has to seek concensus to remove it.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the claim on your talk page that you made a 1RR violation. Bad behavior by others (even if real) does not give you any extra license to revert stuff. "I am not the only one involved in this edit war." Should we give out awards for not being the only one? See WP:3RR for the list of exceptions that allow reverts to be made without penalty. This is not one of of the exceptions. If a dispute is continuing, consider a WP:Request for comment. This is more notice than we usually give people that they are close to the line; please pay attention. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia, continued from above

Hello Jingiby and Wisco2000. Here are some thoughts in response to your statements. See the discussion above at #Jingiby and #Jingiby's reply about National Liberation War of Macedonia. Some of the data you provided might be useful in improving the National Liberation War article. The edit war makes it seem unlikely that you will pause long enough before reverting one another to actually have a discussion. It would be great if you could have a source-based discussion at Talk:National Liberation War of Macedonia. You could also make a list of proposed sources on the talk page. If this hope is in vain, and if the war spreads out to other articles, admins may throw up their hands and just hand out a bunch of WP:ARBMAC sanctions, so please demonstrate some patience. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello,sorry to disturb with a question as this is not something wich has to see with the wiki.en. And very sorry about my english too. I'm sysop on a little wiki and faced with an user who ist cutting article's text to put them on another page just to avoid other noticing his dids and to write them as he wants, destroying like that he page history. I was wondering wich would be done on a big wiki, knowing he is not at his first wrongdoing. --Kadwalan (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This must be about the Breton Wikipedia. Do you have the equivalent of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? You could ask the question there. I assume you've already discussed this with the user but didn't get a satisfactory response. If there is no ANI, find some other admin who works on br.wikipedia.org to talk it over with. What you've presented above sounds like a case of WP:Disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ezra Nawi

Ed. I've just tried to overhaul that article that caused quite a bit of a ruckus back in August, esp. of WP:BLP. I think one cannot exclude a summary of the details, and I think the best neutral report was provided by McDonald of the Irish Times. I know a lot of editors would prefer this not to be mentioned, while others might be tempted to jump at it for tabloid expansion. I'd appreciate if you gave it a lookover, to see if it strikes the right balance. It is the section most liable to POV-warring for point-scoring in the I/P area. And I hope the compromise I have tried to write covers both sides. Let me know if I've either overstepped or understepped the mark. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ezra Nawi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your recent changes are so extensive that it would be hard for me to review them. Maybe you could add a summary on the talk page of the issues that your changes are hoping to fix. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The new version reads well. Good luck on the talk page in persuading the others, and I hope there are no new edit wars. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

An IP is now carrying on the edit war at Lodhi

Posted an update at 3RR: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur_reported_by_User:Sitush_.28Result:_48h.29 MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And another update: the original problematic contributor is now making legal threats. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if he answers the request to withdraw the legal threat. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Another admin has now blocked indef for the legal threat. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit restrictions

[6] This again appears to be Esoglou posting the Eastern Orthodox position outside of being from a Roman Catholic perspective. That would again be Esoglou violating edit restrictions. Look if you have time on Esoglou's talkpage (and in this posted edit/diff summary), you can see that he is edit warring again. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note for Esoglou. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

MY EDIT WHITE BRAZILLIAN

Hello EdJohnston

As you requested i have explained my reasons for my edit on Talk:White Brazilian I have included the quotes i dont not belive are supported in the source provided, and included an example of a criticism made by Sergio Pena.

--E22megan (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AgadaUrbanit AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In a related matter

Hi again Ed, you are currently dealing with an issue I raised here which follows on from this discussion here. Having filed a report for engaging in personal attacks, this editor despite the ongoing discussion is still making unfound and unsupported accusations, which can only be viewed as personal attacks. The other editor who I cite in my Enforcement Report and has been turning article talk pages into battlegrounds is the one filing this Disruptive behaviour. Could you possibly ask that this stop now, and that any future reports/accusations be supported by diff's. Thanks,--Domer48_'fenian' 14:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In support of my statement above, here are a number of examples were article talk pages are being undermined because of this battleground mentality, [7][8][9][10][11][12].--Domer48_'fenian' 14:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a case of canvassing?

Out of curiousity Domer48, shouldn't you out of civility notify editors when making allegations about them so they can answer them? Whilst your comments towards Jonchapple may have validity to some degree, in regards to me they do not. The examples you provide for alleged "battleground" behaviour in regards to me i find very ironic when i've presented valid arguements where as you've contributed only dismissive comments or fail to answer questions asked of you and i've been forced to report you to AN/I for this disruptive behaviour.

1. [13] - There was no battlefield mentatlity about my responses here, i made comments (which several editors agreed to), and asked Scolaire very valid questions which they didn't answer. Yes it got heated at times but it was a very cool heat if not luke warm and it got resolved.
2. [14] - Where is the battleground behaviour from me?.
3. [15] - How is this battleground behaviour? I raised valid points and then belatedly realised that a previous discussion had already taken place where an editor had provided evidence which i assumed good faith with and dropped my opposition. I would say thats colloborative. Scolaire's responses however were more battleground behaviour but i didn't report them for it.
4. [16] - I accused Domer48 of wikilawyering which i feel is vindicated as they are WP:Policy shopping without providing any evidence as to how exactly the policies are violated. My statement at the end is validated by their responses in that discussion and several editors also have voiced the same or similar responses towards Domer48 and his fellow objectors on the talk page.
5. [17] - Where is the battleground behaviour? You fail to answer my question about the relevance of the section and my request for sources to backup your opinion. This talk page is where you disruptive behaviour is most evident.

If i am guilty of anything it's assuming bad faith with Domer48 and sometimes being a little rash in my responses, as their behaviour style in regards to discussions only creates bad faith and leads to tension, hence his many quarrels with Jonchapple. Do i dare suggest you compare our block logs for a quick character assessment or is that treading into the mirky realm of ad hominem myself?

If Domer48 would simply collaborate and provide evidence to backup his claims when asked - things would be sorted out a lot quicker and quieter. Thus i wouldn't be surprised if this highlights a blatant case of WP:BOOMERANG in regards to Domer48. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Metal Gear

Currently the article's move has not been reverted depite the user's contributions. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested the account creation tool

Here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Account creation tool

Hello Stifle. I seem to have a login for this tool but I can't use it because I was suspended for inactivity. Can I be reinstated? Since I started handling some cases at unblock-en-l I realize I should be able to create accounts properly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been suspended too I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:DeltaQuad was able to fix this for me. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at CimanyD's talk page.
Message added 00:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 00:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A/E case

Hi Ed, hope you're having a good evening. I've left one last statement here. Hope you'll reconsider. Best, 90.203.29.146 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That was me. For some reason it logged me out. JonC^Talk 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you, Ed. You won't regret it. JonC^Talk 18:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Ed it’s about a month (I think) since we last spoke. I’m already half way into my extended 2-month topic ban which you imposed, with about a month left to go. Add this to the six months that I’ve already served and it equals seven consecutive months of near scrupulous adherence to the provisions of the topic ban. Since I’ve got only one month left to go and I’ve made substantive contributions to other topic areas, I was wondering if you can give me a reprieve and lift the ban. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See two previous discussions in User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 23, both within the past month. I would not support lifting your restriction at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Despite the warning template saying "No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits... have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus", there appear to be edits that fail this requirement. Are you still following the article or should the issue by returned to AE? TFD (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD elises the extensive discussions, and the unfortunate fact that his claim of "fringe" has now been definitively been shown to apply to the position that only a few million (one editor's position) or only "tens of millions" of "excess deaths" (a nice euphemism) occurred under communist regimes. We now have a strong mainstream consensus shown (including from a PRC official) that the number of 85 - 100 million is "mainstream." cheers - but it is TFD and Paul Siebert who are "editing against talk page consensus" . And against Wikipedia policy which requires at least some sort of reliable source for their vastly lower numbers, which has thus far not been provided. Collect (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect has misrepresented what I wrote which is clear from reading the discussion page. TFD (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As Ed can certainly read the extensive discussion and see the vast array of sources presented for the larger number, and the vaccuum for the sources for the lower number, I think your charge of "misrepresentation" is almost joci causa. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I would welcome Ed Johnston reading through the talk page discussion and asking you not to misrepresent me. TFD (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be TFD trolling for blocks. I invite you to examine Paul Siebert's characterization of a "controversial" edit (citing a diff of an edit by myself) and his threats to act to ban editors (thread here). Please let me know if you believe I misconstrued his intent. I would respectfully suggest that holier-than-thou threats and trolling for blocks be dealt with as the disruptions that they are, these only take attention away from content and fuel acrimony. But perhaps I simply have not had enough coffee today owing to a plethora of meetings. Do let me know if I'm being overly sensitive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "trolling for blocks" and what that has to do with Paul Siebert's comments. TFD (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello to all the 'mass killings' editors. I love that editing restriction -- it should go on more pages. Someone has posted a draft AE request at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. It would be sensible for TLAM, Collect, Smallbones and Vecrumba to take a short break from editing the article itself. There surely must be a way to summarize the sourcing very tersely (within 500 words) to show the pros and cons of various death figures. Please try to do your best on the talk page so that outsiders can come in and figure out what it's about. If you guys can't apply yourselves to the job, unless some admin has a lot of time I guess there will be more full protection on this article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My activity hardly counted as anything other than a minor edit, for which a 1 year ban is proposed. Unfortunately, between the #'s and their representation in the article, it appears to me that one group of editors generally argues to exclude certain numbers and the other argues for a more inclusive view, properly sourced. Were it only as simply as you propose. Unfortunately, more is being written to elevate acrimony than is being written to elevate content quality. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If all parties named in the draft AE will devote themselves to having a successful talk page discussion, and do not obstruct progress, I see no reason for sanctions. If consensus is reached on the casualty totals, all will be expected to follow the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, how does one judge consensus, does it mean all unanimously agree? I see five agreeing with a particular edit (including myself) and one who disagrees drafting an AE report. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that the discussion required by Sandstein's editing restriction has taken place yet. Until then, it is premature to ask whether consensus has been reached. (Open up the box marked 'Procedural details' in the editing restriction and look at item #2). EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ACC mailing list

My apologizes for the delay in approving you account, (Technical difficulties). You should have a conformation email in your box. Cheers Mlpearc powwow 14:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP problem with article

Regarding this, I am not a native English speaker, how would one word it without violating BLP ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

First, find the source and see what they say exactly. Then propose on the article talk page how it should be worded. Before I removed it the material was unsourced. It didn't sound like a neutral description; it sounded like an accusation being made in Wikipedia's own voice. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

These are the sources Sri Lanka Guardian a Sri Lanka based newspaper and Asian Human Rights Comission, an accredited Asian Human Rights Organization like Amnesty International. The wording in the setence attributed it to Asian Human Rights Commission, did not make as if Wikipedia was accusing him. I am a little bit confused. Can you help and clarify this situation ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This was the sourced section that was removed as un sourced According Asian Human Rights Commission, Chandre Dharma-Wardene maintains false, defamatory and a potential death list of alleged former rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam supporters.Kanatonian (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This link is simply the reprinting in the Sri Lanka Guardian, without any comment by the reporter, of a letter written by people who describe themselves as a human rights group. To save me going through all the references, can you tell me if any reporter or commentator (who is not a party to the dispute) has presented his own conclusions about this? I see there was a kind of apology from Chandre Dharma-Wardana. Also the article I read did not give the name of the web site where the 'death list' was said to be published. The account in our article would probably need to be greatly expanded to ensure it gives a balanced report, and it is hard to know if that would be too much for a very short article on Chandre Dharma-wardana. Dharma-Wardana seems to live in Canada. Has anything been written about this in the Western press? Possibly the right thing is to open a question at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be continuing at Talk:Chandre Dharma-wardana#Moved from above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess who

HelloRohil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Gone already. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

King Cobra

Hey Ed, I see that you blocked Fearingpredators for edit warring in the king cobra article. I have repeatedly tried to discuss the article with him, but he would never reply to me (check out his talk page). He would always just clear his talk page. He really has basically held the king cobra article hostage. Much of the material (specifically under the "Venom" section) is either completely untrue or very misleading. He has admitted to being an amateur in the subject, while I have a relevant degree. I just wanted to ask you if I can clean up the "Venom" section of the king cobra article to a more objective/factual version. Bastian (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is best if you propose something on the article talk page, and give him a chance to comment after he returns from this block. In the mean time, if you have changes to make that are not controversial, you should go ahead and make them. The beef against Fearingpredators was that he was ignoring the talk page, and just going ahead regardless. Others should demonstrate their good faith by showing that they want to reach a conclusion on talk if they can. If Fearingpredators is truly ultra-stubborn and will not listen to others' opinions, the system will probably take appropriate action in due time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with him is that he has a more subjective or mythical view of the King cobra than an objective one. He wants it to be the biggest, baddest snake out there and that is just not the case (for example, it's not even part of the Big Four Asian Snakes). It is the largest venomous snake in the world, but that is all that is distinct about it. It's bites deliver a massive quantity of a weak venom, but because of the quantity it delivers in a bite, it can kill a human being in a single bite and it most definitely can kill it's prey. So it evolved as a "quantity over toxicity" type of snake. It's bites were enough to kill its prey, so it didn't require an highly toxic venom, unlike many smaller species which can't deliver the same amount of venom that the KC can. These snakes would evolve to have more toxic venoms than a KC. I mean this is basic stuff, but his refusal to communicate with me and his refusal to write an objective and factual article is just beyond me. I am going to go ahead and edit a few things which are misleading or untrue. I just hope it's not going to be considered edit warring. Bastian (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If, after his block expires, you perceive that Fearingpredators continues to make the same kind of reverts that were mentioned at AN3 before, then you can make a new complaint without waiting for exactly three reverts. Consider opening a discussion at WP:RSN if there is a debate about the quality of sources. The effect of snake bites should fall under WP:MEDRS and that is very strict about marginal sources. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice. So if he continues with his myths and conjecture, I can just open a discussion about it at WP:RSN? Or where would I make a complaint? I cleaned up the "Venom" section of the King cobra article. If you can take a minute to look at it and tell me what you think, I'd appreciate it. Bastian (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey again Ed, sorry I don't mean to bother you at all, but I was wondering if you had looked at the "Venom" section of the king cobra article yet? Everything in that section is now well-written and everything is sourced. I just wanted to see what you think of it? I sent Fearingpredators some messages on his talk page and he plans on coming back and just basically taking the section and turning it back into what it was: a total mess. I am not going to get dragged into an edit war, but what can I do to keep that particular section of the article the way it is now: objective, factual, and well-sourced. At least the sources I have put up claim what the article claims. Before that, he had things like "mortality rate of king cobra bite is 75%", but none of the references he had put next to that statement claimed such a thing. Then he had the exact same situation with a couple of more statements - the one which stated that "a king cobra bite can kill a person in 15 minutes" and "the average death time is 30-45 minutes". None of the references stated such a thing and in fact, an University of Adelaide study put the mortality rate of an untreated bite at 50-60% (which I sourced) and another source claimed that mortality rate varies sharply, with most bites being non-fatal to humans. I didn't make those up like he did with his "75% mortality rate" and his "death is caused in 15 minutes" junk. I hope you give it a read, look at the references just to confirm my work, and tell me what you think. Thanks in advance. Bastian (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We expect both you and Fearingpredators to work patiently toward consensus when he returns. (I don't see much value in you posting on his talk page while he is still blocked). You could also ask User:Ruud Koot for his opinion since he's been editing the article recently. Quality of the sources can be discussed at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. To bring in more snake experts, consider posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. If there is a dispute and no solution seems possible, you can open a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sock of Micoapostolov (talk · contribs)

Hi Ed. A sock of a long ago indefinitely blocked User:Micoapostolov has since several months destructing with his extremely nationalistic POV-views nearly all Macedonian-Bulgarian related articles from different IP-accounts. I recognize him by the one and the same geolocation-Aracinovo, near Skopje. The last from his targets now is the article Grigor Parlichev‎ under 77.29.34.131 (talk · contribs). He is usually active under 31.11.73.31 (talk · contribs) and has vandalized recently my personal talk-page:[18]. He is active under 77.29.125.60 (talk · contribs); 89.212.187.231 (talk · contribs); 89.205.49.28 (talk · contribs) and many other accounts. How to deal wit him? Regs. Jingby (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I suspect Wisco2000 (talk · contribs) was his sock, but I can not check his geolocation. He is not more active. Jingby (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and type in '8MA8'. This will allow you to add new information to the previous complaints about Mico Apostolov socks. The previous case can be viewed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/8MA8. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)