User talk:EdJohnston

Regarding Your Notification on Hemshin peoples

Hello Ed, Thank you for the notice on my talk. I do understand your concern. Nevertheless, I feel the need to appeal to you to make sure that you have a complete understanding of the development history of this article as briefly outlined below. I also kindly as for your clarification and guidance regarding my below raised questions- as your intervention raised my curiosity and interest:

• The article has experienced lengthy and detailed discussions earlier through which it reached the maturity level to ensure stability for a number of years. During these discussions, the article was considered section by section and gradually improved using all the referenced material available- occasionally resorting to mediation procedures initiated by me to avoid wholesale reverts. It is interesting to note that most of the editors who used to implement such wholesale reverts or refused discussion now appear in the list of supervised editors in mentioned arbitration. The discussions to a great extent included exchanges related to the very recent insertion repeatedly made into the lead with no discussion or effort for consensus.

A brief look at Talk:Hemshin and the body of the article will make it evident to you that the recent insertion undermines recorded discussions that involved several admins and calls for mediation. Now, I would be grateful if you could clarify the below and guide me through your recently imposed notice:

• I am having difficulty in understanding why it is the case that an undiscussed modification to the lead of an article which has achieved its current form through a lengthy consensus building is ok in your perspective, whereas my call for discussion before engaging in such major edits is not? Interesting to note also that your warning to me comes right after my very first intervention whereas repeated insertion of the same clause to the lead of a stable article does not deserve any notification.
• I happen to be interested in the Hemshin region and its history, and therefore contribute mostly on this article. Is this in contradiction with any Wikipedia policies? I am not a professional wiki editor, but feel the need to contribute here as I do have relevant material. My edit came recently simply because I observed an undermining of earlier discussions after a period of stability. Having said this, could you please comment on your remarks here about my intervention in relation to Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

It is nice to have an admin interested in the article, as it experienced intense edits wars earlier before it enjoyed stability for 4 years as a result of the detailed discussions on the talk page – until recent- undiscussed edits along the lines of those who are now supervised under mentioned arbitration. I kindly ask for you clarification and guidance along the above issues.Omer182 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is funny to see people reverting in 2013 based on what they claim was decided by consensus in 2008. I am not sure that a consensus was reached in 2008. My attention was drawn to this article by one of the participants since User:Cihsai had been conducting a slow edit war over 12 months to remove a particular mention of possible Armenian origin from the lead, while never using the talk page. You showed up in the apparent effort to continue User:Cihsai's edit war, though I take note that you did participate in the 2008 discussions. There is a current discussion which asks whether Simonian's book is to be relied on for its statement about Armenian origin of the Hemshin. Feel free to participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It looks like you have already banned one user, and warned me that you will do the same in case I remove the addition, repeatedly inserted by the same two users, with no prior discussion. The reference mentioned is already in the article itself, and the inclusion of the sentence in the lead disrupts the coherency. Your warning keeps me away from editing this article. Kindly consider removing your warning to achieve a balanced view. Omer182 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My warning was "If you are hoping to win the war by reverting more often, please know that these articles are under close scrutiny by administrators." My main concern is about you repeating your previous change without consensus. If you can persuade the other editors on the talk page, then no doubt your requested change will be made. If you consider this change to be very important, then it's probably worth opening up a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. This may have the benefit of bringing in new participants. From the point of view of sourcing, the current discussion at Talk:Hemshin peoples is quite disappointing. People should be searching for published reviews of the major articles and books. If nobody from either side is prepared to do any real work with sources, then full protection of the article should be considered. There is some hint that User:Ali-al-Bakuvi and User:JackalLantern may have specialist knowledge (there are perhaps others) and I hope those who have knowledge can do more to advance the discussion of sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Administrators haven't been able to resolve the dispute because very few if any of them have much knowledge on the Hemshin. This isn't surprising since there are hardly any English-language publications on them–the (peer-reviewed) Simonian text was really the first of its kind. As I've explained on the article's talk page, I feel the introduction is "balanced" enough; unfortunately, in my experience, the only "balance" some have wanted to bring to it is to jettison mention of Armenian provenance (for political reasons). Jackal 06:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Linking in edit summaries

Aloha. I noticed that you and others often provide helpful links to AN3 reports in the logs of your blocks. The problem is, these links can't be resolved after the discussion is archived. Of course, one can eventually find the links given this information, but it takes additional time. I'm wondering if you can figure out a way to link directly to AN3 (and other) reports that will allow users to find to browse directly to the linked reports. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A great idea, which I don't know how to implement. The closest I've seen is the permalink feature used at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests. See an example -- in my move log there's an edit summary moved page Der weiße Rausch to Der weisse Rausch (Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial (permalink)) where the word 'permalink' goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/584864133. I.e. it takes you to a version of the page WP:Requested moves/Technical requests on which you can see the original move request.

Per this diff it appears that the permalink is the idea of User:Wbm1058. A person would have to be good at template coding to do such a thing. Maybe a similar gimmick could make permanent links to 3RR complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (WP:AN3) uses the generic template {{userlinks}} in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Example when users create a new section with Click here to create a new report in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Header. I'm assuming that you and other admins would block users by clicking the "block user" link in that template. Just as {{RMassist}} is closely tied to WP:Requested moves/Technical requests and is intended to be used only on that page, where it creates edit summaries customized for that application, we probably would want to create a customized version of {{userlinks}} if we want customized edit summaries that refer back to WP:AN3. I'll need your help to test this as I'm not an administrator. Wikipedia:New admin/Blocking#User blocks/unblocks shows the typical Admin blocking form I assume that you use. Per mw:Manual:Block and unblock#URL parameters, I think I can use wpReason-other to prepopulate the "other reason" text field. I've coded that up in the sandbox for {{userlinks}}. Please test by blocking User:ThisIsaTest using the sandbox template transcluded here: . This should add a permalink to the edit summary. If you think a longer summary specific to AN3 would be good, let me know. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried blocking ThisIsaTest (talk · contribs) but, from this block log, nothing special happened, i.e. no permalink that I can see. This does sound like the right approach. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Debug:

• Here is the generated URL from the 'Block' button of your special userlinks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Block/ThisIsaTest&wpReason-other=%28%5B%5BSpecial%3APermalink%2F%7Cpermalink%5D%5D%29

• Here is the generated URL from trying a technical move:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage&wpOldTitle=Colloquium+marianum&wpNewTitle=Colloquium+Marianum&wpReason=Requested+at+%5B%5BWP%3ARM%5D%5D+as+uncontroversial+%28%5B%5BSpecial%3APermalink%2F586338699%7Cpermalink%5D%5D%29&wpMovetalk=1

OK, here is my revision of your URL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Block/ThisIsaTest&wpReason=Other&wpReason-other=%28%5B%5BSpecial%3APermalink%2F%7Cpermalink%5D%5D%29

I think you need to set values BOTH into wpReason and wpReason-other. The word 'Permalink' is propagating now into the 'other reason' field but there is no actual permalink yet. I didn't bother setting the duration field, but that could be added. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping it would let you choose a reason from the drop-down menu and append the custom permalink reason, but it seems it's either-or. Other on the drop-down must be chosen to use the custom reason. I updated the sandbox template. Try it again. I think leaving wpExpiry (expiry time) unspecified may be the best approach, so different expiry times can be chosen for different situations. Admins should chose an expiry time and check any desired boxes before clicking on the Block button. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your change makes it work now! Perhaps I'll find a way to try it out. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Very good. I see in your block log that you typically link to the specific WP:AN3 section which is helpful because that page is so long. But that section link is only good until it enters the vast Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives. So, while I didn't think permalinking section anchors was needed for technical move requests, it's needed here. I'll work on that. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Philippe II, Duke of Orléans resolution

Use WP:DR for any further steps. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ed, I don't think that the decision is fair. I did not merely add a paragraph saw it removed and then started trying to force it into the biography of Philippe ! I have no time to waste on fruitless conflicts and much appreciate the collective nature of writing on wiki. The litigious paragraph about Marie Louise has been part of Philippe's article since February-April 2012. I thought it to be an important chapter of Philippe's biography to mention at least briefly in his article since it's present in all published biographies (eg. Chritsine Pevitt "The Man Who Would Be King: The Life Of Philippe d'Orleans"). It is only weeks later that FactStraight started editing out bits of my editing, then some months later all of it and this without any rational explanation nor any attempt to reach a consensus with me. last month Kansas Bear "joinded the fray" writing me a "editing war" warning as if I were the culprit of the reverting ! I only ever tried to reestablish what was being removed without any rational explanation. Cross-references and a slight degree of redundancy are inevitable in any encyclopedia. If they are to be banned completely then one could also eliminate most of all the other contextual references in many articles and strip articles to the bones, leaving only the hyper-text links sending the reader back to other articles... And still over the past days FactStraight has never tried in any way to justify his reverting my paragraph in any sound and sincere way. I have never looked for conflicts with anyone but this does not seem to be the case with the other party if you look at the history of his "contributions" : he spends much energy reverting other editors' contributions. When Kansas Bear started reverting my paragraph I left a message on his talk page explaining my position and he merely reverted this text from his talk page without any attempt at any form of dialogue. I don't see this as trying to estalish a dialogue. In their recent proceedings both FactStraight and Kansas Bear have acted in a derogatory and contemptuous way. I have no time to waste in this rather pointless "editing war" initiated and waged by the other party but I don't think that your decision is fair and please ask you to look a bit more at the specific history of this Philippe II duke of Orleans article and at the dates of creation of "my paragraph on Philippe's relation to his daughter Marie-Louise. Thank you for your attention. Aerecinski (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. If you have been reverting the article both as a registered account and using IPs you could be sanctioned under WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Ed, this procedural reply does not answer my remarks at all. You took a decision without looking at the origins of the problem examining the chronology of the various editings. As I state very clearly above it is the othe party that started reverting my paragraph entirely months after it was already part of the article and this witout any willingness to dialogue. The other party is I think using sock puppets and I would like to complain about that. Also since wiki is focused on dialogue and consensus I don't think it's normal to be the object of such accusations by people who it seems reduce their arguments to cryptic formulas and agressively coded language. I am not American and am unfamiliar with their procedural antagonist actions. Regards Aerecinski (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I posted a standard 3rr warning on your talk page in November.[1] I have not acted in a derogatory nor contemptuous manner, since I have used the Philippe II duke of Orleans' talk page.[2] Where have you used the talk page to explain why this clearly off topic paragraph(s) should be included in the article??? Also, in response your multiple accusations of sockpuppetry,[3][4][5] I will say this,Put up or shut up! I read another sockpuppetry accusation issued by you and I will file a personal attack complaint. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Bear, you know very well that I wrote you personally in July 2012 explaining you the relevance of Berry's inclusion in her grand-mother's article. At the time you were less antagonist and didn't systematically revert me out from your talk page the way you do now. Also please use less antagonist words. You now seem bent on writing me warnings and threats and now tell me to "shut up !". Is that a wiki way to address other editors ? Aerecinski (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC) User:Aerecinski, this discussion is about the 3RR. If we look only at the substance and not at the procedural details, your edits are peculiar. Why is there a need to have the behavior of Marie Louise Élisabeth be strongly criticized in the article on her *grandmother*? What is the relevance? Bad grandparenting? It looks like you want your criticism of Marie Louise to be widely aired in a variety of articles where it scarcely belongs. The details of the daughter's scandalous life are fully told in her own article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Ed, thank you for answering me and introducing the debate about the relevance of Berry in her father and grand-mother's articles. A debate that should long have taken place with the other party ! I don't "strongly criticize" Marie-Louise behavior and if you read the letter of her grand-mother you'll realize that she was strongly afflicted by Berry's death who was only 23 years old ! Here again I limited reference to berry's death and its causes to a few sentences. To me it's not at all a question of criticizing the behavior of someone who's long dead but only to echo the traces she left in French history and also in historical novels. I don't think that she was "bad" or "badly educated". I am a cultural historian and not a moralist. This "negative" portrait is part of history but it doesn't please FactStraight and Kansas Bear who seem eager to limit the biographies of royal family members to straight genealogy and a history without any "blemish" (cf. other recent conflictive editing situations that FactStraight opened about other royal families)... Berry's lifeways were most likely "well ahead" of her time which is in part probably why she carried such a negative reputation. She was a very emblematic character of the time period and also used as a negative figure by the political opponents of the Regent and of his relatively liberal politics (compared with the rigor of the later part of Louis XIV rule). This makes Berry an interesting character and not at all "an embarassing... ill-reputed figure" who should be forgotten and kept in the isolation of her own "negative" biography... The fact is she was the daughter of the Regent and one of the key figures of his court, which is also why I think she should be mentioned if only briefly in her father's and her grand-mother' entries... Anyway, this discussion should have taken place with the other party, but they refused any form of dialogue. And here I am only appealing to you because of the unfair manner they handled their lack of agreement with my already existing paragraph in Philippe's article. RegardsAerecinski (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC) "Bear, you know very well that I wrote you personally in July 2012 explaining you the relevance of Berry's inclusion in her grand-mother's article." And where in this post does it explain what I asked on Philippe II duke of Orleans' talk page? Where in this post do you answer the relevance question? "The recent addition of, "from her husband. The debauched lifeways of the young widow forced her to hide several pregnancies and spirit away a live born daughter, possibly fathered by the count of Riom, who later became a nun at Pontoise..", is unsourced and is not relevant to this article. This addition will be reverted." In fact, I see NO mention of Philippe nor how this is relevant to his article! You don't like my tone, too bad. I don't like sockpuppet accusations by an editor that has categorically ignored the article talk page, editwarred for months and now is insulting two editors(ie. derogatory, contemptuous, unfair). It is quite clear you are not here to build a community encyclopedia, but to add irrelevant trivia to articles, despite other editors' objections. --Kansas Bear ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 23:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Bear, you are confusing issues on the 2 articles. We did have a brief exchange about the 2 "litigious" articles: Philippe and Charlotte-Elisabeth. As I had written you back then the source for Berry's pregnancies are in Saint-Simon and are detailed in Berry's own article (I explained you I didn't want to make the reference to Berry's death lengthy). At the time there was no "editing war" at all between us nor with FactStraight who only much later decided he wanted to delete my whole addition to the article. So please don't tell about a months-long war which does not exist, unless war has been on your mind for all that long. You have a strange notion of insult, considering my protests to be insulting while caring very little about the way you deal with other editors and tell me to "shut up!" and "too bad" if I don't like it ! You have written me threatening warnings and your wiki partner FactStraight repeatedly accused me of sock puppetry (FactStraight probably still suspects me of being a sock puppet of his arch-foe LouisPhilippeCharles). Should I have taken offense and threaten you both... No sorry I'm not that way. But I don't like this vigilante-styled attitude considering yourself the sole judge to decide what's "irrelevant trivia" on matters that you don't seem to know very much about... Or maybe you are you an expert on French History ? Et donc pour conclure, mon ami, restez courtois ! Aerecinski (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC) You are the one confused, I explicitly asked where your discussion pertaining to Philippe II was. Your response was the July post(your words). I believe your accusations and personal attacks have given EdJohnston a clear picture of your attitude and intent. Continue to associate Factstraight and myself at your own risk. This will not remove the fact you have not engaged in a discussion concerning Philippe II, but have taken your opinion of 3 other editors to 3 different pages! And now you have to resort to derogatory insinuations of my intellect....You are desperate! Pity you can not find the time nor inclination to type this much on an article talk page! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Bear, does expertise on French History have anything to do with someone's intellect, I don't think so. I guess I'm "desperate" if you say so. Of course there is nothing personal, nor derogatory in your words, for after all you are the only true judge... and the one entitled to decide what's genuine "talk" and brush my "opinions" aside, the same way you deleted entirely my edits, without any dialogue...Aerecinski (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ed, what does "collapse" mean ? That the contents are only visible to the parties concerned ? In any case, I think it's better that way. I don't like the way our exchange suddenly turned into another place of conflict with the other editor. At first I thought we could come to some kind of dialogue in the neutral framework of your talk space but unfortunately it didn't work out that way, turning communication into another case of war. Sorry about that.Aerecinski (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

'Collapse' means that I put a header on the discussion. It should continue elsewhere. The best place is the article talk page, but it should be limited to the content matters. If you believe it is essential to talk about the behavior of other editors you can go to ANI, but they will not consider content questions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Shervinsky (le sigh)

Hate to end up on you talk again so soon, but I think we've reached the point of "intervention or endless edit war" over on Triune Russian people (esp. considering his past history). I can't even make a grammar edit or request citation without it being removed, so this is just textbook WP:OWN at this point. I'd try reasoning (and I have been active on the talk) but when even the smallest edit is reverted under dubious description, it's just demotivating. (sigh) - 1 (undoing all); 2 (calling my grammar edits "complete destruction and distortion of the content"; 3 (claiming I removed his sources when I never touched them) --Львівське (говорити) 15:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. The reason I revert Lvivske's edit is that he removes large text parts and serious sources without explanation. If he wants to correct grammar mistakes or add new facts, I welcome this (as long as they are relevant and representative), but I demand that he does it in a civilized way, combining my parts and his parts and not recklessly replacing them by his own. --Shervinsky (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I never removed any sources or large swaths of text. You, however, did remove a few sentences and 3 refs I inserted last night. Also, to say I did anything "without explanation" is deliberately disregarding my edit summaries and dozen or so points I've made on the talk page in the last few days. Are we reading the same edit history here? --Львівське (говорити) 16:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And now he has made another full revert of another editor involved 4 --Львівське (говорити) 16:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ban appealed

Please be notified that I appealed the ban you imposed on me on WP:Arbitration enforcement.Cihsai (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Senkaku Islands#Requested move

I am writing this request as you made a comment at the talk page before.[6] Current RM is ongoing for almost a week. The requested name is a violation of the policy and overwhelmingly opposed by editors. So I would appreciate if you could close the RM and impose the restriction on the initiation of further move requests for an appropriate period like the previous RfC. Thanks in advance.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The page became the place of edit warring. Some editors removed[7]/collapsed[8] inconvenient discussions for them.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Since seven days have run on the move discussion, any admin may decide to close the discussion and state the consensus. From a very quick look, it appears that the move proposal is unlikely to succeed. (This is without yet doing a study of all the policy issues). I am concerned that some editors such as yourself are trying to refactor the discussion. This is not needed. Any closer who is willing to tackle this will be prepared to do a proper job. It may take a few days before anyone is willing to do this, so just be patient. Misbehavior during the discussion may lead to sanctions, so please wait for consensus before altering the page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)