Open main menu

Our "mutual friend" is back once moreEdit

Hi Ed, hope all is well. You blocked this IP on two occassions for persistent disruptive editing (unsourced category adding without edit summary). He's at it once again.[1]-[2]-[3]-[4]-[5] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for another two years. Thanks for your report, EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
And thank you for dealing with the disruption. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

PA just for asking about reliabilityEdit

While I am trying to resolve the neutrality issue of the Women's rights in Iran 's article, HistoryofIran accuses me to do pov-pushing IRI edits 2 times! In another hand, when I issued the lack of source for some key sentences in the lede, he said "Are you honestly saying women in Iran have just as much rights compared to other countries? The article makes it quite clear that that is not the case" ... or " The whole article pretty much highlights the lack of women rights in Iran, yet you're still putting a citation need tag"... everyone knows that Wikipedia articles are not RS! I just want to improve Women's rights in Iran article and you can check my edits in that article, but by such suffering from HistoryofIran (blocked multiple times), the editing is not that easy.

I'm not asking you to block him or so, I just felt like asking for admin suggestion for dealing with his serial accusations and harassments. Regards!Saff V. (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Accusations that can easily be backed up (heck, even a neutral random user had the same suspicions about you from the get-go [6]). It's no secret that you have been strongly warned in the past for pov-pushing [7]. Also, you keep making pro-IRI edits, [8] ("gender appropriate")? You have already tried to censor the lack of women rights in Iran [9] and now you're trying once again. Also, what has the amount of times I've been blocked to do with anything? I've made contribitions to this site 100x more than you if we're gonna talk about stats. Also, keep the harassment accusations for yourself, thanks. Keep this up and I will report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I would encourage Saff V. to keep in mind the warning left by User:Vanamonde93 after a discussion at ANI last March. The question asked at RSN seems like it refers to an action for which documentation would easily be found elsewhere. It is asking what decision was announced in November 2018 by the UN General Assembly's Human Rights Committee. The source text of this resolution can apparently be found at this UN link and you should be able to figure out from mainstream sources whether the resolution was adopted or not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm of course trying to abide by the rules. I have started talk page discussions and asked other to comment on sources at RSN, so your reminding of the warning without commenting on his accusations probably encourages him to keep on using such a destructive language.Saff V. (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


Hey Ed, it looks like we block-conflicted. Sorry about that. My block was harsher than yours, but despite it being their first block, I felt a longer block was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Some kind of action was obviously needed and there is a case for a longer block.. It seems that in some months AN3 goes a long time with no admins and then other times we all come at once. Maybe it's the holidays! EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Exophthalmus vittatus listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Exophthalmus vittatus. Since you had some involvement with the Exophthalmus vittatus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Taketa (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to support deletion of the redirect, for reasons I'll explain there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Rump stateEdit

I noticed in User: Matt Smith that he had some problems with Taiwan's political status (back in '17). I am currently working in the Rump state article, and he has reverted back in that Taiwan is a disputed rump state.
It's a single edit, and he is using the discussion page, but because he chose to revert and then discuss, I thought I should offer a heads up to the admin who blocked him for activity very similar to this. Could I trouble you to add it to your watchlist for a few days? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The previous problem ('Edit warring about the history of Taiwan', from January 2017) was reported at this link. There was a complaint at AN3 which I closed with a warning. At that time I told Matt Smith that "You are risking a block if you make any more reverts about the political status of Taiwan (past or present) that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page". EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's clear that, Jack Sebastian, who is provoking edit wars by keeping removing a long-time content (more than one year) without getting a consensus, is now falsely accusing me of provoking edit wars. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I have, more than once, offered you an 'out', Matt. No one can help you if you choose to instead fight about it. No one wins a revert war; in fact, everyone loses, including the article. I'd say that you should use the discussion page, but you've already disregarded my advice and I was forced to report you. You have only yourself to blame. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
If you don't want to admit that you disregarded WP:Consensus and kept removing the long-time content without getting a consensus, I cannot help you. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Matt, please understand that I am not here asking for your help. I am hoping you are not too far down the rabbit hole to miss that.
I guess my concerns were justified, Ed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
You of course can have your reasons of editing articles, but when your edits of a long-time content are opposed by other editors (I and User:Dentren, in this case), you should get a consensus with other editors first, not keeping doing what you think is right. Unfortunately, you failed to do that in this case. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 at it againEdit

You have warned me for edit warring with this user before when I stated I was merely reverting his POV pushing, well guess what? He is at it again...and has now transferred the same dispute (Hrvatinic family) on to the Croatian nobility article. He is also showing the same "pattern" on other articles (removal of anything connecting medieval Croatian state with modern-day Bosnia), f.e. also on Turkish Croatia. He is also doing with Serbian-Bosnia related articles as well. All in all this user is a POV pusher vandalizing articles and removing sources and content without proper discussion. What am I supposed to do here? Revert him again and be accused again of edit warring with this troll? Shokatz (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you opened a discussion somewhere on an article talk page to resolve the content issue? In the last six montha you've Santasa99 has received a surprisingly large number of warnings, though they do get credit for keeping them in their archive rather than deleting them. Instead of reverting again, both of you should consider the options presented at WP:Dispute resolution requests. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe you have mistaken me with the said user. I am warning you about him as it was you who handled with the last dispute I had with him (as far as I am concerned), not the other way around...and yes, he does have a surprising number of warnings for edit-warring in the last six months and it is even more surprising he is still allowed to carry on with his shenanigans on Wikipedia. As for me, I am not even active enough in the last six months to receive "surprisingly large number of warnings". My only recent warning comes from the close contact with this person i.e. for the reason I've been reverting this persons POV-pushing and blatant removal of content and sources without proper discussion on Hrvatinic article earlier this year, in March. Now I come back again on Wikipedia few months later and find him he is still doing it and carried it over on other articles...few of which I mentioned above. Shouldn't this fall under the WP:ARBMAC already? I've seen people falling under discretionary sanctions for much less before... Shokatz (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I would still like to know where you, User:Shokatz, have attempted to discuss this on article talk. Neither party should revert again until this is attempted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Since you are not interested in (article) Talk page discussion, which I started (you asked the user twice, and after the second time, he run, without giving an answer), I have to respond on this one here. If you are (@EdJohnston:) interested in this particular dispute, or with mentioned previous one with this User:Shokatz, than maybe you should check my large number of warnings once again, by taking a bit closer look. I was reported by this editor over dispute on article Hrvatinić, where he resorted to variety of baseless accusations and personal abuses, just like here and on article Talk pageTalk page where I started discussion. You should check his reply there, because if that's what common Wikipedia practice is, than I am a guilty one. Prior to that report and subsequent warning issued by you I have never been reported or warned for anything in my 12+ Wikipedia-years, because I never reached that point in any dispute (another warning was issued in connection to that same dispute as I mistakenly reported him to ArbCom which made some admin quite upset) - unlike this User:Shokatz, whose logs present clear picture of ethno-national POV, for which he was in dispute with just about everyone except like-minded members of that particular ethno-national group. Just like today I either disengaged or made persuasive enough argument to "win" debate, but nobody ever reported me nor drag me into edit-war so persistently enough to reach the point of no return. Besides, you should, maybe, check User:Shokatz loaded language little bit too, in our and his previous disputes and edit-wars (isn't he just called me a "troll", right here on your very own Talk page?!), which are aplenty, it's deliberately designed to provoke reaction - user is obviously well versed in this kind of engagements. I hope you are going to drop by on Croatian nobility Talk page.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
We had the discussion about this (regarding Hrvatinic being Croatian nobility as much as Bosnian - these things are well sourced and not mutually exclusive to each other) and the user in question could not prove his points. Now he is carrying this issue on other articles...specifically Croatian nobility article...and from what I can see on few other articles as well. I am not even involved in the other articles and I can see him clearly edit-warring there as well (Turkish Croatia, Donji Kraji, etc. and several others). As for the "discussions" themselves you can actually see with what one is dealing with when engaging in such extreme activity by his reply. Walls of text hiding ad hominem fallacies, offensive language and just pure simple dismissal...I can see when someone is not in the "mood" for consensus but purely and simply pushing their POV and agenda. How long should this person be allowed to vandalize Wikipedia? Three months, six...a year? Two years? I am quite a long time on Wikipedia and I remember users such as PaxEquilibrium (just to give an example), a user I was warning admins about his POV pushing and Wikipedia-abusing methods...only to be dismissed at first, but then I come back a year and a half later to find him banned for the very same thing and even having numerous sockpuppets (proven abuser of Wikipedia policies)...I know a troll and POV-pusher when I see one and this guy is most definitely a prime example of one. Shokatz (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't discuss this issue on three different page. If User:EdJohnston is willing to offer further assistance, than user should join conversation on article talk page, so that all current and possible future interested parties could see discussion and maybe take part themselves, if they chose.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way, who had a discussion, when and where, with myself unable to prove my point, whether the Hrvatinic and Hrvoje Vukcic in particular is or isn't Croatian as much as Bosnian, to whom, exactly - point at it, at both, a discussion and one who decide(d) that I was unable to prove my point ?--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello User:Santasa99 and User:Shokatz. The word count of these complaints is high and the clarity of the issues is low. Can I ask first about this revert that User:Santasa99 made back on 11 March at Hrvatinić? This led to a whole series of back-and-forth reverts that ended on 30 March. Can anyone tell me what points are still in dispute there? Or is it resolved? I remind you that Wikipedia doesn't need to persist in a quest for the ultimate truth on a confusing situation. If reputable historians disagree we can simply report the disagreement and leave it at that. 'Some say the kingdom was called A&B, and Prince C owed allegiance to the King of A. Other historians disagree.' If you can tell me what the issues in the Hrvatinić dispute were, preferably in point form, I may be able to propose an RfC. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
There are no disagreements nor agreements among reputable historians vis-a-vis this issue - the family and its most prominent member Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic is simply referred across the historiographies as a Bosnian - nobleman, duke, grand duke, king-maker, etc. He had episode of some 20+ years in ruling over Split Commune". The most telling fact is that even contemporary reputable Croatian historians refer to Hrvatinic as Bosnian - no one, nowhere, refer to Vukcic-Hrvatinic as both Bosnian and Croatian. Croats at the time didn't have institute that could give and take title, while in ethnic sense there were no Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs at the time. And finally, about my first removal on 11 March: Engel Pál is self-trained historian (I believe this info is included in his own Wkipedia article) with shoddy reputation even in Hungary, whose scholarship, among other themes, is subject of a study "Narratives Unbound: Historical Studies in Post-communist Eastern Europe" in which authors critically describe how post-communist Hungarian academia degraded from left to right ideological spectrum (from communist cosmopolitism to right wing ethno-nationalism) - anyhow, why use self-trained Pal Engel, while having plethora of Croatian and English language reputable historians, like John Fine, on our disposal? (Here's how Gordan Ravančić, director of "Croatian Institute of History" refer to Vukčić-Hrvatinić by title: "Grand Duke of Bosnia, Knyaz of Donji Kraji, Duke of Split".
Regarding these that other visible removal in link - vassalage to Subic on the part of the family's early days was short-lived from historical perspective, so it's really beyond point to include that info both in lead and in Infobox. In the body of the article issue is taken care of, with early family members vassalage to Subic described in second paragraph, so there is no need to have it all over the place - it doesn't belong in lead and Infobo per notability, nothing else. You can check my entries on all these articles Talk pages, where I tried to explain myself, and where editors who reverted my edits joined after edit-war already commenced - and even than they contributed little or nothing constructive to TP discussion - just like today and day before.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I have one more suggestion - how about we try to get some senior editor with experience and some knowledge in Balkan's medieval history to give us their inputs, while you are here and willing to engage into this problem with us? User:Surtsicna is pretty versed in promoting article on Balkan's medieval history to GA class, such editor must have some credibility.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
That edit you linked there shows on what level this user operates. He is in fact "evaluating" linked sources provided for the claims made in the article. Correct me if I am wrong but he (or anyone) on Wikipedia is the last person to do so. He even goes so far to claim incompetence on one of the historians, a claim he now repeats even on this very page. Is this person qualified to do so even? Even mentioned John Fine talks about Hrvatinic (Hrvoje most of all) as a member of Croatian nobility. All in all his "arguments" are laughable and border on complete WP:OR. As far as Hrvatinic family goes, this family held territory within Croatia and passed into Bosnia (note that Bosnia as a whole was at one point part of Croatia) and also that a large part of modern-day Bosnia-Herzegovina was part of the core of medieval Croatian kingdom. Claiming they were exclusively one or the other is wrong, it would be as if one claims that Norman families that invaded and established themselves in England were not English nobility. Furthermore the person in question (Hrvoje) was named Viceroy/Regent of Croatia as was his brother after claiming this family had absolutely no ties with Croatia and was not Croatian nobility when it is well documented they at one point had enormous influence on the political situation in Croatia is a blatant lie and completely ignores historical facts. And lastly the most hilarious and ironic thing in all of this is that the Hrvatinic family itself derives from a name Hrvatin which itself derives from the name Hrvat (Croat/Croatian) and even the name Hrvoje is a modification of that same name. So he is literally denying that these people whose family names derives from the national name of Croats, were feudal lords in medieval Croatia and held official titles (Viceroy of Croatia and Duke of Split) had nothing to do with is hilarious beyond belief. But all this isn't that funny when you look into the edits of this person, just go through it and you will see a pattern...he goes around and removes any mention of Croatia (and recently also Serbia) with Bosnia. If anyone is "ethno-centric" as he accused me several times in his gibberish wall of text rants, it is this person. He is a text book POV-pusher, troll and well documented abuser of Wikipedia policies...just look at the number of edit-wars he was a part of (as you said yourself) in the last six long will such behavior be tolerated? And what is one to do about it? If I revert him then he is reverting back and then have two people that revert each other and neutrals see it as an edit-war. If I try to discuss it, he goes into this mode of ranting (but saying literally nothing of meaning) and arguing so if a neutral looks at it again, he sees two people arguing on the matter they (neutral observers) know nothing about...I guess that old saying "Never argue with an idiot because people won't know the difference" rings extremely true for me in this case... Shokatz (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
It is fine to contact regular editors who may have content knowledge about Eastern Europe. But why not first try to phrase some of the questions in single-sentence form, where a question can be answered yes or no. I see why you might want to consult the work of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., one of whose books is linked at this URL. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: yes, but not just because that one book, also his entire opus is connected to western Balkan, former Yugoslavia region, and Bosnia on particular, while being something of a "gold-standard" for reference in all articles on region's history. But as I said, he's not the only one - any contemporary Croatian/Croat historian whose reputation hasn't been tainted with ideological and/or ethno-nationalistic undertones is acceptable across the articles on history of Balkan.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Shokatz: I am not an "idiot", I do not "trolling", so I am not a "troll" either - I am your peer-editor, kinda. Name Hrvatin is all-Slavic name, not just Croatian, so that's etymological falacy as it doesn't takes root in ethnonym Hrvat (Croat) - Serbs are also named Hrvatin, so Serbian lord Hrvatin[1] held Rudine near Gacko while his brother of Vojin held Gacko (1327)--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Tomović 2011, pp. 357, 361.


  • Tomović, Gordana (2009). "Oblasni gospodari u 14. veku" (PDF). Užice nekad i sad: Srednji vek. Užice: Grad Užice. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-26.

I am not quite sure @EdJohnston: what do you mean about phrasing questions, because I never had any doubts that changing and/or removing of contentious claims and any bits of text from article, especially if they are are both contentious and can't be referenced with reliable sources, and which for days and weeks, or at least through entire duration of a prolonged dispute (or even edit-war) other editor(s) never even tried to validate with any, is grounded in WP:VER ("Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.", and I know that removal should be kinda last measure, but these cases as far as I can tell aren't in that category). In a string of 5 interrelated articles, which above User mentioned in part, User:Shokatz and another editor User:Ceha, with some IP in between, pose as a bulletproof guardians with seemingly identical editing, behavioral (conduct-wise) and rhetorical pattern, while contributing very small quite possibly non of prose and/or references, except that they persistently, across the weeks and months, removing considerable amount of my own edits (and in at least one case someone else's older but valid), references and even tag-messages - not to mention guarding of two articles falling to pass scrutiny per WP:COAT and WP:DUPLICATE, one completely without refs, other with few refs, but so blatantly misinterpreted sourced texts. (Meanwhile, it's not insignificant, User:Ceha started following me around from one of these article to another, removing all my edits. I am sorry that I have crossed the line, that they were successful in pulling me into edit-wars, that's my mistake and responsibility. But if you are a bit curious about this case, you should have noticed by now what kind of exchange is only possible with named editors, who didn't shy away from labeling me "idiot" and "troll" right here on administrator's own Talk page, along with a tirade of threats and insinuations - these five article's Talk pages altogether have dozens maybe more of my entries and discussion initiations with responses, if there was any, resembling above tirades. Although I am inexperienced in dealing with such situations (not to mention report procedures and the rest), and know that I am wearing that inexperience as a badge of honor even if I can call myself a "senior editor" (by the way you miscounted those last six months "warnings" in my archive), I am going to navigate my way through this and bring it across the finish-line, with or without outside help.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "EdJohnston".