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)

Ed, would it be OK to discuss the issue in hand on Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons, specifically points discussed in Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops? Should I get through WP:AE and get myself un-banned first? Please advice. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, FYI I went ahead with WP:AE procedure. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:26, 27 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)

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)

Dalai lama ding dong

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

1.[2]

2.[3]

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

[4] 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, [5][6][7][8][9][10].--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. [11] - 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. [12] - Where is the battleground behaviour from me?.
3. [13] - 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. [14] - 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. [15] - 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)

Examine Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#range_of_.22number_killed.22 and Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Strength_of_Fu_as_a_reliable_source inter alia, showing the specific and details discussions required by Sandstein. Note also the Wikichecker figures for number of edits by editor to this article showing Paul Siebert with 142 edits, Igny with 93, and TFD with 73 dwarfing the others involved here. And the Talk page shows Paul Siebert with 1399 edits, TFD with 1191 edits, with those two editors by themselves dominating the total discussions on the talk page over an extended period of time (well over 1/3 of all edits ever made on that talk page). Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

@EdJohnston. Such editing restriction is equal to a permanent protection of the article because these people will never agree on anything. But I understand the reasoning behind this... It would be better to topic ban all these editors from editing the article, because that would allow others to edit. But you can not do it because most of them did nothing wrong. Of course one might topic ban at least those who do nothing but reverts in mainspace (like here), but this is something I am not qualified to argue about. Biophys (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, per your suggestion here for an RFC over two alternate lede`s I have now written one and prepared a section.[16] How long ought I wait for TFD & PS to post an alternative before beginning this RFC? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You probably should look at [17] which basically says most of this is about "agrarian reforms" and That agrarian reforms may lead to outburst of violence is a well known fact. I suspect your lede would have to say "Agrarian reforms have led to 'premature deaths' in some few communist countries either due to famine or due to people not liking reform abd killing their own livestock" or the like <g>. Collect (talk) 21:23, 26 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)

Thanks for all your help, it will be a better section of the article indeed. If you can, please keep a watch on the article. It is frequently edited by SP accounts and most probably those accounts belong to one person who is maintaining the entry against COI. But I dont have the time to pursue that anyfurther.Kanatonian (talk)

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)

Sorry to disturb you. The above information is referenced (you can check every references there) but the user kept removing these things which are considered by him as "myths"(the references cited for supporting the death time in the article do have such statements; moreover,he even claimed that the book which I was asked to scan some pages and add to the references is not toxicology study which I think it is insulting the authors as you can see what he stated in my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fearingpredators). I would like to request administrator's attention on this article. Another thing is that I think there are several exaggerations in the article black mamba and two references there don't claim what the sentences state. So I would like to ask where can I request for attention or even intervention of administrators who have related knowledge (or are snake experts) as I believe that they can make an objective judgment on the accuracy of these two articles?

I apologize for being involved in the edit warring since I am not used to talking much in English which is not my first language. Now, I did some modifications in the article king cobra (you can check it to see whether it is legitimate) but I'm afraid that the user will remove the information with references I added back. So, I would like to request for the attention of administrators. Thank you! User:Fearingpredators (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You apologize for edit warring, but this does not seem sincere, since you went right back to edit warring at King Cobra after your block expired. I am leaving a warning now on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that since I don't know that I can't make the edit(I have stated the reason on the discussion page). This means that I need to undo such changes? or it should be done by administrators? User:Fearingpredators (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You should undo your last two edits yourself, and wait and see if any editors agree with you on the talk page. The editors should decide on what should go in the article, not administrators. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 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)

Thank you. Jingby (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

King Cobra, again

Hey Ed, it seems like Fearingpredators is at it again. I just wrote this message to him and debunked his claims and references, please take a moment to go over it to confirm that the way I had it was good. Even Jasper Deng agrees that my version was much better.

Fearingpredators, okay I am going to dice and slice all your claims and your references right here once and for all. You didn't "do some references and added back information" - you reverted it back to what you had it before. Now you claim:

A single bite from it can cause the death of an adult human in 15 minutes and your reference this, which doesn't claim such a thing at all and this NYTimes article written by Sean B Carroll, lol, who is he? The new guru on herpetology. That second one is NOT a scientific source, it is a news paper article written by some schmuck columnist who is as clueless as you seem to be. The University of San Diego's Terence Davidson says that symptoms don't begin to MANIFEST UNTIL 15 MINUTES LATER Check it out here.

On to the next now:

"though the average death time recorded is between 30–45 minutes after envenomation." (this statement just kills me, lol) and your references are here, which doesn't claim that at all and this: Freiberg, Dr. Marcos; Walls (1984). The World of Venomous Animals. New Jersey: TFH. ISBN 0876665679 (again, unverifiable and I highly doubt it claims such a bold claim unless of course it's a children's book).

So as you can see your "15 minutes to death" and your "30-45 minute average death time" are both debunked. I mean even the University of San Diego claims that symptoms don't begin to MANIFEST UNTIL 15 MINUTES LATER Check it out here. I know you hate this, but that is just too bad. I am sick of having BS and references that don't match up to the claims in the article. That's not all though, I am far from done.

"Yet, in a toxicology study, the LD50 of the Chinese-caught specimens was found to be 0.34 mg/kg" (this one has me in tears, seriously) and you reference this. That is NOT a toxicology study. Do you know what a study is? Where is the data to that study? That is a point blank statement from a book. We don't even know the source of that statement and that value. It is NOT a toxicology study and as such I am going to take it out and put back the actual studies that I had put there.

Now on to your next ridiculous statement:

"The mortality rate from a bite can statistically be 75%" and your references are "Capula, Massimo; Behler (1989). Simon & Schuster's Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of the World. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671690981."(again, unverifiable. BTW, which changed? how come you didn't list this as a source before? Can you scan this please?) and this, which does NOT claim a 75% mortality rate AT ALL.

So what now? Why did you destroy the "Venom" section of the article by taking out real studies and real references, not references that don't claim what the article claims? What gives? Why? What is your motive?

That is what I wrote back to him. Bastian (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I go ahead and revert it back to the version I had it before? The good one. Bastian (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a bit to see if Fearingpredators will self-revert, as I requested on his talk page. If he does not do so, he may be blocked again. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay will do. Even Jasper Deng thinks my version is way better than his. I don't understand his motive behind these bad sources and his claims of this super-duper snake. He's online, but he won't change it and instead pretend to be "offline" just so he doesn't have to change it. Bastian (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There are those who are sincerely offline, and others who are only pretending. So hard to tell the difference. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but with someone like Fearingpredators you never know - he's used at least 2 separate IP's that we know of and I highly suspect that he has another account, which reared it's head a few days ago when he was threatened to be blocked if he got involved in edit warring. But I'll give him the benefit of a doubt. Bastian (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear like our friend here is going to revert his changes. I mean he was online just an hour or so before you sent him that message and since it is only 11:51 pm in Hong Kong (where he is from) right now, that means it's in all likelihood that he saw the message you sent him, whether online or offline. I'd bet my bank on it. Bastian (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ed, sorry I don't mean to be a bother, but it doesn't seem like he is going to edit it. I am absolutely positive that has seen your message already because normally at this time he would be on here talking his mouth off (or in this case, typing lol). He won't resurface for at least a couple of days just so that his version, which is a horrible one, remains the one on. Do you give me permission to revert it back to what it was before or are you going to block him or what's going to happen? Bastian (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be away for several hours. You can put your version back if you are sure that it has consensus. Do you think the points in dispute have been thoroughly discussed on Talk, and that people agree with you? EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Jasper Deng has already claimed in plain words that he prefers my version. My version is well-sourced and well-written, his (Fearingpredators) first language isn't even English and his references are all bad. So I am going to revert it back. As you can see in my reply to him, I debunked his claims and their sources. He even referenced a NYTimes columnist as a "source" - I mean come on, this is a science related article. Then he falsely states that a passing statement from a 1990 book as a "toxicology study". I can assure you, this is right up my ally. I am a Medical Laboratory Technologist (bachelors degree) and I have studied toxicology well enough to know. I work in a hospital setting, if a person comes in with a snake bite and the victim nor the doctor know what species the snake was, it is up to us in the lab (we call it Clinical Chemistry in the hospital, but it is toxicology) to determine what kind of toxins are in the victims system and then pinpoint the species which bit the victim so the correct antivenom can be administered. Fearingpredators just has a hobby. That is the difference between he and I. Bastian (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wheel_warring_by_DragonflySixtyseven]. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisition

Per your edit here, this article is supposed to have some level of semi-protection but IPs are somehow still able to edit it? Thought you'd want to know, Shearonink (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)