Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[8]
Comments:An IP (several 46.211.xxx) and myself are edit warring over the inclusion of categories atOleksandr Gvozdyk. I have repeatedly invited the IP to gain consensus atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, since his edits could affect many hundreds of boxing-related articles, but he continues to revert and give rationales that have nothing to do with boxing.
We have clearly both tripped 3RR, but I consider the IP's conduct unreasonable and disruptive due their lack of willingness to engage in discussion when originally prompted. It was their content which needed consensus, but instead of starting a discussion to convince the Project of sweeping changes, they arrogantly chose to parrot my words instead –[9],[10].Mac Dreamstate (talk)18:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Page protectedMac Dreamstate, if I was going to block the IP, I'd also have had to block you – their conduct has not been an excuse to break 3RR.46.211.156.81, please start a discussion on the talk page. Use theWP:RfC process if you want outside input or request athird opinion. In the meantime I've restored the stable version so thatWP:BRD is followed.Number5718:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Number57, your stable version is wrong now. Check it again please. Stable version was before his removing of categories on 26 May. It was two months without edits, since March till May. Revert to correct version before 26 May removing.46.211.132.73 (talk)18:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
No, this issue started in March and you need to follow BRD. If you continue to revert when the protection expires without gaining consensus for your edits, you'll be blocked.Number5718:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
No, he must find a consensus, not me, because ALL interim champions (see above) were included in the related categories already before his edits.46.211.132.73 (talk)18:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
"ALL interim champions [...]"—that is flagrantly incorrect, and you'rebludgeoning now. There have been many tens, if not hundreds, of interim champions over the past few decades, but never has there been a WP guideline to categorise them as full world champions. You've picked out a handful of articles that support your view, but there has never been any consensus for it. The consensus needs to be sought by you, if you want a Project-wide change.Mac Dreamstate (talk)18:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Number57. As of now, after your "revert to stable version", onlyOleksandr Gvozdyk is not included into champions categories among other interim champions (listed above). Where is the logic?46.211.132.73 (talk)18:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Note user is also edit warring onJoe Flaherty, adding unsourced, BLP violating material. Their editing style is particularly vexing. They added nearly 12,000 characters to Troyer, and it took them over 400 separate edits to do it. And not one single reliable source. Note that they used at least two separate IPs in the same range on Troyer, so if blocking is how this ends, it's pretty much going to have to be a range block.John from Idegon (talk)04:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
After a full night's sleep, this is still going on. Both the IP and a new user,JustinTee, are edit warring, with at least one additional editor removing the junk. There's been some ILIKEIT junk posted on the talk, but no attempt at discussion. And the IP is still at it on Flaherty too. Help.John from Idegon (talk)13:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of2 weeks (it would have just been one week, but an extra one added for calling John an asshole in an edit summary. However,John from Idegon andJim1138, could you explain why you thought it was ok to break 3RR?Number5714:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I hope this ends it, but am not optimistic. It sure appears to me all is related. I'm sure this has more eyes on it, and Troyer is also protected for a while. Hope other editors also watch Flaherty.John from Idegon (talk)21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
01:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC) "reverting to longstanding stable content. Please use talk to discuss any individual matters of concern and document proposed NPOV changes. Edits that obscure or inadequately convey RS narratives are not NPOV."
23:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 843859094 byD.Creish (talk) Sorry, we've been through this. It says he promoted conspiracy theories because that's what RS tell us. EOM>"
Edit warring and blanket reverting at article underdiscretionary sanctions. Discussion has already been underway with little discussion on their part other than what seems to be an insistence that their version is the right version and further discussion is unnecessary. Because I was caught up in copyediting the article from top to bottom I had not realized the editor had blanket reverted all changes to the article I had made and demanded all changes to "long standing content" be halted and the talk page used first: "Reverting to longstanding stable content. Please use talk to discuss any individual matters of concern and document proposed NPOV changes. Edits that obscure or inadequately convey RS narratives are not NPOV." The blanket revert included the infobox image I had replaced for a much better choice. There has been no attempt by the editor to discuss the copy edits I made, just another revert of content. Aside from the DS vio of 1RR, disruption and removal of good copyediting that improved wording, style, and content ordering in the article, the blanket revert seems very much to bepointy in nature.-- ψλ ●✉✓02:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you think you're reporting. You have jumped into a long-stable article and undone NPOV longstanding language and I reverted it and urged discussion on talk. Some of that discussion -- about the well-sourced longstanding content that D'Souza has advanced "conspiracy theories" has been amply demonstrated to you on talk with a long list of RS references from the talk archive. As to the more recent POV language of yours that I just reverted -- I don't know what you have to say about that because instead of replying to my request for your concerns on talk, you've filed this specious EW complaint. When you do a wholesale rewrite of a reasonably NPOV article that's been worked on by many editors over an extended period, you should not be surprised to be reverted with an invitation to the talk page. Pinging involved editors familiar with this content and sourcing@Jytdog,Snooganssnoogans, andJzG:— Precedingunsigned comment added bySPECIFICO (talk •contribs)02:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Stop claiming the text you edit warred was "long-stable." It was first added today[12]. You restored it twice[13][14] claiming falsely again in your edit summary it was "longstanding" and "stable." It wasn't then and it isn't now.D.Creish (talk)03:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: FYI this article is not under 1RR restrictions. Also FYI "conspiracy theories"[15] In addition to all the sources previously provided to you when you first started your edits. SPECIFICOtalk02:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Even if it isn't, what you did is classic edit warring behavior and is neither productive nor collaborative. It didn't even improve the article. Not to mention that you've barely taken part in the discussion on the challenged POV content in Wiki-voice that you are edit warring over. DS is still DS. I don't know what the result of this report will be, but I think you might want to reconsider the blanket revert you committed and revert yourself at the article. Talking about your objections at the talk page would have been a much better choice.-- ψλ ●✉✓02:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict - I wrote this pre-ping) Numerous reliable sources (cited in the lede)[16][17][18][19][20]explicitly said that D'Souza promoted conspiracy theories (the conspiracy theories include D'Souza's promotion of birther conspiracy theories, lies about 14-yr old George Soros being a Nazi collaborator, false claim that the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was staged by the left and so on). The editor D.Creish[21] reverted text citing these sources, falsely claiming that the sources did not say this at all and that we couldn't say in Wiki voice that D'Souza "promoted conspiracy theories". Winkelvi of course backed up D.Creish[22] even though D.Creish was in the wrong, encouraging an edit war over uncontroversial nonsense. It doesn't surprise me that Winkelvi now uses this opportunity to get an editor whom he has tussled with before sanctioned. For some context, Winkelvi has previously frivolously sought to get me sanctioned over content that relates to conspiracy theories in American politics (I'm sensing a theme)[23] and has even canvassed a fellow editor to find something sanctionable about me.[24][25]Snooganssnoogans (talk)02:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
"and has even canvassed a fellow editor to find something sanctionable about me" Yeah -- that isn't what was going on, but I think anyone going to the links you provided can see that for themselves. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up, it's a falsehood, and it's really doing you no favors to be so fixated on something that happened weeks ago. Nor does it have anything to do with this report on an editor that isn't you.-- ψλ ●✉✓03:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: You are contending "Widely characterized as a provocateur and polemicist, D'Souza's films and commentary have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of false and unfoundedconspiracy theories" is longstanding and stable? --NeilNtalk to me03:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe the edit summary you asked about was the one I wrote on my most recent edit in which I reverted a long string of edits to longstanding content immediately before this report was filed. SPECIFICOtalk03:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: You reverted to your own prior version which included an edit to restore the text in question.[26] This text was introduced within the last 24 hours, correct? --NeilNtalk to me03:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
It's quite telling that 18 hours afterNeilN askedSPECIFICO a very direct question, she has found time to edit and comment elsewhere but not answer the question asked of her here. Hoping the report will get swept under the carpet and archived? Hoping Neil forgets all about it? Hoping the report will be declared stale and nothing will come of it? Only the editor being reported can answer, however...Neil's question is relevant and needs to be responded to.-- ψλ ●✉✓20:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought it had become clear that this complaint is without merit. First, there are only 2 reverts. The last one listed is a copy edit of wording that had been in the article for some time. Second, this article is not under the special restrictions of DS as for example they are applied to American Politics, so there's nothing wrong with reinserting content once the complaint that it's unsourced has been met repeatedly with abundant references on article talk and elsewhere. Third if I understand your specific question, while the exact words may not have been existing for a long time, the statement that the criticism of D'Souza is for his having presented conspiracy theorieshas been in the article for an extended period. The two editors who recently arrived may not have initially been aware of this, but by the time the citations were shown to them and there was talk page discussion of this, they did know. So you might ask them what rationale they had for continuing to re-write this to change the meaning to suggest that only critics believe that D'Souza has espouzed conspiracy theories. I did not state that I restored longstanding "text" or "edits" -- I said what I did, restore longstandingcontent, that is, the meaning of the text including a tweak I made that improved the language and of course which could have been challenged by anyone who felt that it did not improve the language. Indeed, my tweaked language is still in the current version of the article, so I don't think that was controversial. If you review the history of the article and the talk page, you'll see that I engaged on the talk page before this complaint, whereas OP only appeared considerably after me to cast an !vote without addressing the substantive issues including sourcing that I and@Snooganssnoogans: provided. So we have 2 reverts by me on a 3RR article. My reverts were accompanied by responsive engagement that addressed the stated concern of the editors who were attempting to change the statement that critics were responding to conspiracy theories promoted by D'Souza, and we have a complaint by an editor who did not respond except belatedly to say that he did not approve of one of a long list of RS citations. I won't comment, for the time being, on OP's recent behavioral patterns that has been covered by at least one other editor in this thread.
NeilN, I now see that I was mistaken in thinking that you no longer were concerned about the substance of this complaint. Is there any further response that you need from me? For context, I'll also add that this article is one among a number of others I've edited, for exampleStefan Molyneux andG. Edward Griffin in which individuals with non-mainstream views are described as such in their WP articles and where the articles are regularly visited by new editors who try to remove well-sourced consensus descriptions of the individuals as holding extreme views. This appeared no different to me and I think it fits a common pattern of such edits. The D'Souza editor does not call him a "conspiracy theorist" and I saw nobody propose that in this recent series of edits. As I'm sure you have seen,@MelanieN: took the time to review this disagreement and suggested text[27] that conforms to the statement that Snooganssnoogans and I both restored from the recent reverts and which embodies the longstanding and well-sourced consensus that the DCreish and Winkelvi sought to remove, namely that the reactions to D'Souza's films is due to conspiracy theories that he has in fact presented in his work -- and not to the critic's opinions that he presented such theories. My subsequent copy edit of that is not at issue here. Please let me know if there's any further response you require. I don't see a well-formed AN3 complaint here. SPECIFICOtalk15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
As to my reverting the same text that had recently been reverted by Snooganssnoogans: Such multiple reverts by different editors to restore sourced information that's been removed by advocates of the article subjects - advocates who feel this well-sourced information is unfavorable to the subject of the articles -- is widespread and uncontroversial practice on WP. Here is the history of another article[28] where you can see me doing the same thing in sequence with@Doug Weller:[29],@Neutrality:,@Evergreen Fir:, and@Grayfell:. If Winkelvi is claiming that this 2RR report shows me tag-team edit-warring with Snooganssnoogans, then the same logic would implicate all of us who do the same thing to restore well-sourced RS-verified statements of fact on many other articles.Murder of Seth Rich is another article where I have done the same thing in sequence with other editors over an extended period of time. SPECIFICOtalk14:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, I fail to see how mention of the articles SPECIFICO mentioned in response to your concerns has anything to do with the current issue or what the OP brought here as a vio of edit warring. I do consider it a very poor straw man argument that brings absolutely nothing to this discussion and further draws attention to the behavior of edit warring which was initiated by the OP.Atsme📞📧23:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, if you didn't understand, why didn't you just ask me to clarify -- maybe even on my talk page. I mentioned those articles by way of examples that editors such as myself and many others routinely revert to restore settled content (again, not always exact words,) when editors newly arrive and attempt to alter statements they do not like in BLP articles relating to fringe opinions. The article that's the subject of the current complaint is in that respect the same as -- and received the same editing response as -- many others, where editors are accustomed to restoring the meaning of the article that is watered down, eliminated, or flatly contradicted by editors who don't like to see what they feel is unfavorable characterization of the BLP's views. My point was that my response was a fairly routine and rarely scrutinized sort of edit -- particularly in cases where editors patiently provide (as both I and another did in this case) the RS references that support what's restored. I know you're sensitive about G. Edward Griffin, but his name does come up from time to time in various contexts, and here it was only to make that point about WP process and not about Griffin himself or about you, since you've were not, until now, involved in any of this current matter. SPECIFICOtalk23:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not “sensitive about G. Edward Griffin” despite your attempts to make it seem that way in this discussion, which you have done on another occasion regarding an unrelated topic. I am dismayed that you would even mention those 2 highly controversial BLPs to support your edit warring argument, and worse yet, that you would respond by making it appear that I am sensitive to Griffin. Your responses are very telling and indicate your lack of understanding as to why your behavior consistently crosses the line. We have all managed to get along at controversial articles despite our disagreements but for some reason, you keep pushing the limit. It’s the kind of behavior that raises the bar from disagreement to disruption. You need to try harder to get along and stop the disruptive (and rather crafty) behavior of hiding your POV pushing under the guise of “long standing”.Atsme📞📧14:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, we'd all be interested to hear your comments if you think there is any valid 3RR complaint to be made against me relating to this D'Souza incident. Such comments and evidence would be germane to this thread. So you have any reason to believe that Winkelvi's complaint is a well-formed 3RR complaint and that it has merit? If so, this is the place to share your view. SPECIFICOtalk14:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, NeilN was rather generous by extending only a warning to you. That BLP is subject to DS, and it might even be that it falls under AP2 sanctions as well considering the political implications regarding what (1) landed him a felony conviction, (2) resulted in a pardon, and (3) the topics that made him notable. A bit of friendly advice from me to you - drop the stick, tell Neil thank you, and try a bit harder to avoid getting yourself into these predicaments. Superlatives and contentious labels like what you attempted to edit war into that BLP -"provocateur and polemicist", and"baselessconspiracy theories and other false narratives" - true or false/fact or fiction - it is what I considerlazy writing and the kind of terminology that turns readers away...and gets editors blocked or TB. Seriously, it's time to move along.Atsme📞📧03:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Note to patrolling admins: Hold this open please. I'll be re-reading the above in the next 6-12 hours and then there will probably be a formal warning. --NeilNtalk to me04:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Warned While the article is not under special editing restrictions, it falls under the post-1932 AP topic area and so extra care must be taken when editing. Being a veteran of this area,SPECIFICO knows very well that rewording or attempting to summarize what may be existing content can be quite contentious and edit warring to retain this rewording or new summary is in no way "reverting to longstanding stable content". This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus.[30],[31] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed.NeilNtalk to me14:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion in the talk page. I believe the reference should remain. I have not seen any evidence of the study being contradicted by another study in a peer-reviewed journal. -User:171.50.180.203—Precedingundated comment added06:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
10:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC) "See the talk page. No consensus neither proper rationale for inclusion of these artists here. The discussion is being led astray by bringingother stuff."
12:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC) "This infobox is for film and not its soundtrack album. All the artists related to soundtrack album have been credited in the infobox of "Soundtrack" section."
After the user began a talk page discussion about the inclusion of music directors in the film's infobox, he refused to garner consensus for what he deems the parameter should say. Instead, he kept reverting withincorrect andsneaky edit summaries.Krimuk2.0 (talk)06:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
UserUser:Number 57 gives himself the right to edit everything only the way he likes it, edits by all other editors are always reverted or fixed in the way that it is made in his way, which is simply immature.Sredina (talk)14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone actually going to deal with this? Sredina is still (blindly) reverting on the article.[40][41] Not sure how a report with a clear breach of 3RR (four reverts in under an hour) can be ignored for three days.Number5711:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I stopped at three reverts during the original dispute and made a mistake the following day which I immediately undid. I can't see why a very clear breach of 3RR isn't resulting in any action – it's really frustrating for editors who try to stick to the rules and basically says to those who don't that it's ok to ignore 3RR as a bright line.Number5713:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And now Sredina has broken 3RR again today:
11:54, 4 June 2018 Reverts several elements of the table that was under dispute on 1 June back into the article
Blocked – for a period of36 hours@Number 57: Youtechnically stuck to the rules after the self-revert. Admins will not quickly block if one editor has four reverts and the other has three and neither has used the article talk page. Both editors are equally guilty of edit warring; one just happened to hit four reverts first. Today, another editor got involved andSredina continued to revert so now they're blocked.NeilNtalk to me13:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
18:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "The section on "use by American politicians" is misnamed as it discusses at length only one politician. I am concerned about Russian influence in the editing of this page. Russian intelligence may be editing this page to sow discord in the American body politic. I recommend deleting all political references in this entry and locking the page for editing."
18:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 844405887 byThe Mighty Glen (talk) There is nothing to talk about. This is an encyclopedia entry on logical fallacies, not on Donald Trump and the made up conspiracy of Russian collusion. You've been warned."
18:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 844404276 byIggy the Swan (talk) The web page describing logical fallacies is not the place for you to criticize political opponents. Thank you."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
The editor in question is clearly reading the edit summaries asking for discussion at the talk page, since their own edit summaries read, in order:
User:Iggy the Swan:Reverted 2 edits by Wikii6B (talk): Unexplained content removal
User:Wikii6B:Undid revision 844404276 by Iggy the Swan (talk) The web page describing logical fallacies is not the place for you to criticize political opponents. Thank you
Me:Reverted 1 edit by Wikii6B (talk): Rv edit-warring deletion of referenced content. Please take it to the talk page if you believe it should be removed, thanks
User:Wikii6B:Undid revision 844405887 by The Mighty Glen (talk) There is nothing to talk about. This is an encyclopedia entry on logical fallacies, not on Donald Trump and the made up conspiracy of Russian collusion. You've been warned
Me:Reverted 1 edit by Wikii6B (talk): Rv edit-warring deletion of referenced content. Please take it to the talk page if you believe it should be removed, thanks.
User:Wikii6B:The section on "use by American politicians" is misnamed as it discusses at length only one politician. I am concerned about Russian influence in the editing of this page. Russian intelligence may be editing this page to sow discord in the American body politic. I recommend deleting all political references in this entry and locking the page for editing.
This is something like 8 reverts in 12 hours, on a highly contentious political topic. Some block is necessary.power~enwiki (π,ν)03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation.User:Wikii6B's edit warring is blockable even though the neutrality of the article might need further discussion elsewhere. The newness of the account, the aggressive editing and the colorful edit summaries do suggest the possibility of socking.EdJohnston (talk)03:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not personally as this edit warring wasbrought to my attention by athird party who has been in direct correspondence with the reported userhere. Having said that, the article's editing history shows that Wakari07 has already been reverted by two separate IP accounts (107.5.200.111 and 50.200.75.129) which should have been sufficient enough of a warning for that user to stop edit warring.
Comments: The user has been previously warned for his/her edit warringhere andhere; the latest round of edit warring shows that the user has not learned from the previous warnings and should in my view at the least incur a block for this transgression.Wingwraith (talk)01:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Notice that my edits are motivated. There was a stable version, with two competing propaganda sources (which is, in my opinion, better than just one "final" source; the Reuters synthesis is a bit too one-sided for my taste). There is ongoing talk on therelevant talk page. For now, I 1RR'ed Wingwraith's edit *after* he reported me for3RReditwarring.Wakari07 (talk)05:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
There's quite a bit going on here; the ANI resolution in March (implemented by@Swarm:) doesn't seem to have resolved the animosity between these two editors. I feel that the Syrian news agency is more reliable here than theDaily Mail on this topic, but that doesn't justify edit-warring. Why can't a compromise source be used (maybeDeutsche Welle). The fact that Wingwraith was canvassed here and reverted Wakari07 twice is concerning, and the fact that Wakari07 continues to edit war after replying here is even more concerning.power~enwiki (π,ν)06:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Prospective administrators should note that the user perthis edit has in light of the exchange above knowingly and willfully violated the 1RR restriction to which our interactions are subject.Wingwraith (talk)07:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The proposed Deutsche Welle compromise source doesn't include the citation I feel is essential to adequately represent the Syrian government motivation for recognizing the 2 breakaway states. I propose to keep the two competing (Syrian and US) propaganda sources so that the reader can make up an own mind on this extremely sensitive issue. But of course, it doesn't hurt, and I agree to add the third source to the blurb as it stands.Wakari07 (talk)07:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
From my short time editing on the Current Events Portal, I feel that real issue isn't this one article, but a pattern of pulling news directly fromWP:PUS, specifically state run media in countries with low or no freedom of the press. Wakari07 often is quite unwilling to accept any form of criticism or push back about this. A sort of "my way or the highway" kind of attitude.
S/he does add other news items from other sources as well, but this "my way or the highway" kind of attitude makes editing on the Current Events Portal rather difficult, even when making what seem like simple edits. If I notice that Wakari07 is the adder for an item I'm about to edit, I often find myself pondering if its worth making the edit and dealing with potential pushback.
Example of a seemingly simple edit made difficult:
As I have mentioned before, I've only been active as an editor for a couple months now. I've already had a couple minor misunderstandings about the rules here, but I want to get better at this. So, if I am wrong, or in the wrong, about anything here please let me know.
Spoon: I especially notice that on 31 May and 1 June onyour talk page, you and Wingwraith talk of "get around that if you decide to force the issue", and going for a "nuclear option", after you call meon his talk page, a "familiar charterer [who] is making a fuss", a "disruptive editor"... and accuse me of "vandalism" in an edit comment where you want to normalize the infamousOliver North (that issue was settled by reverting to a bare skeleton blurb). While I may be many things in your collective imaginations, I know for myself that I'm here to build a reference tool, an encyclopedia. I rest my case.Wakari07 (talk)02:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as its been over 24 hours since anyone has posted here, I'll chime in again. First regardingWakari07's comments about my correspondence withWingwraith. He facilitated theWP:RFChere, and seems to have a good understanding of how things work here. So I solicited his advice rather someone else whom I had less experience with. I don't see how it is an issue to ask for advice, especially when asking about how the rules work.
Next, yes there was mention of "forcing the issue" and the "nuclear option" that Wakari07 brings up. This something that was only mentioned, I really don't think that's how we've arrived here. I originally only requested anotherWP:RFC.
The question of vandalism accusations. This was my first interaction with Wakari07 and his/her comments that accompanied the edits seemed rather curt and obtuse. I read this as a kind of horseplay. I did not assume good faith, and for that I apologize. I genuinely though someone was just messing with the page. Clearly Wakari07 dislikes Oliver North. And that's totally ok. I think the "skeleton blurb" was a fine solution since his history had little to do with with the news of his appointment, and I'm not sure we would have found a drastically different solution if we brought this to the talk page anyway. (also at that time I didn't know individual days had their own talk pages on the portal)
I also see that Wakari07 continues to source news fromWP:PUS even as this discussion goes on:
[58] (even though this is a Eurasia Review article it looks like a cut and paste from a SANA article)
I've, for the most part, refrained from editing things Warari07 has touched, as I do not wish to needlessly escalate things here.
Perhaps I just need clarification on this. But it is my impression is that citingWP:PUS mostly should only happen in special cases where there is good reason. It isn't something that is normal. I feel like this would be especially true in situations where aWP:PUS is the only primary source. For reasons I've mentioned beforehere. I'd really appreciate input from an admin, or at least someone other that Wakari07, on this question.Spoonlesscorey (talk)18:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
User persists in attempting to add mention of a one line, throwaway, inconsequential mention of this cheese from an Ian Fleming novel, despite at least three other editors (self;Terry Foote;Nedrutland) pointing out that this is almost a textbook case of trivia (cf. Buffy and the wooden stakes, perWP:CULTURALREFS). User insists that this is "no more trivial or pointless than other present references,"[59] a patently untrue statement given that the other inclusions are a poem written byG. K. Chesterton that uses the article subject's character and place of origin as major themes; a significant recurring character in a series of books being named for the article subject; a fragrance specifically designed to evoke the scent; an entire episode of a sitcom on a major national TV network centred around the article's subject and its production; and an assessment of the article subject's place in British cuisine made by a major cultural commentator of the 20th century. A full explanation for the removal of this content was given months ago (see diff above) but this went unacknowledged, although it did seem to have quieted the editor at the time. However, despite this and a string of lengthy edit summaries they now claim that they have have had "insufficient response."[60] This being the case, could someone else please take a look and give a fully sufficient response to one side or the other? Ta.Pyrope21:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of2 weeks It turns out that this edit-war about Stilton cheese is far from being the whole story. For a long time the editor has been editing disruptively, dismissing concerns expressed by other editors, and edit-warring on various articles. I have blocked for only 2 weeks as a token warning shot in the hope it will get the point over. In view of the long period over which the disruptive editing has taken place, I would have blocked for much longer had it not been for the fact that the editor has not previously been blocked, as far as I know (certainly not on this IP address.)The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)10:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[71]
Comments:This guy just straight up ignores evidence and sources, and keeps reverting to an unsourced version, which is immensely annoying. I did not want to take this this far, it was truly a last resort.
The editors who reported and warned are acting in a perfectly co-ordinated way, and they have also done more than 3 reversions to the article, without consensus in the talk page. Furthermore, they are violating consensus and commons sense, pushing the limits ofWP:POV and breakingWP:BUREAU again and again despite this has been discussed with them in a very civilized way. -Theklan (talk)11:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Theklan, I see that you are using the talk page which is good. But you can't be breakingWP:3RR while doing so. Will you voluntarily agree to not edit the article for a week? --NeilNtalk to me13:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
NeilN Of course not! The article has been reverted again byBallenaBlanca andRichardWeiss, who are acting in perfect harmony to break common sense and push Wikipedia. Will you ban them also for editing in a week, protect the article and restore the version before they started to break consensus? We have been discussing their behaviour in the talk page for days, we have even voted, but they continue with their disruptive behaviour breaking the consensus in the talk page. Consensus that is only broken by them. -Theklan (talk)13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Theklan, Ballena and I are not "acting in a perfectly co-ordinated way" and nor have I engaged in edit warring over this point or indeed on this page, ever. Please stick to the facts rather than making unprovable accusations. Theklan is new here and has not edit warred since I warned him so IMO should not be blocked for edit warring. ♫RichardWeisstalkcontribs13:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
No, there's not a "perfectly co-ordinates" behaviour. I think you are acting too fast not be be noted that you are co-ordinated, breaking articles about Catalans, Basque people, Quebecois, Flemish or other people only because you want to impose your agenda. I'm asking and admin to restoreCarles Puigdemont article to the first edition before the problem started and protecting it soRichardWeiss andBallenaBlanca can't follow on with their agenda. -Theklan (talk)13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A fragment of the talk page discussion[81] (the whole discussion is too long and frequently returns to the original argument, which makes difficult to keep assuming a good faith)
It is possible to argue that thefirst incident was not a 1RR violation, because the section was not deleted but moved to the bottom. However, that changed the content, and other users (including me) objected to this move (see a diffs of a talk page discussion above), because that would give an undue weight to some viewpoint at cost of another one. Therefore, despite it was a move, it was asignificant change.
Thesecond incident was related to two different sections of the article. These two parts are logically connected (the texts in the lead and the main article related to the same issue), and these MVBW's reverts served to the same goal: to remove or minimize any mention of criticism of one source (The Black Book of Communism, aka BB) despite numerous evidences of a widespread criticism of this source presented onthe talk page. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say these two reverts were unrelated. In addition, the first revert changed the lead, where even a single word matters. That means not only these two reverts are a technical breach of the 1RR restriction, they significantly change the article, and they are a part of long lasting attempts of MVBW to act against our neutrality policy. The whole discussion on the article's talk page is too long to be placed here, and, since it regularly returning to the original point, I come to a conclusion that the problem cannot be resolved without an external help.
before posting, I formally notified MVBW about DS, but they do not take this request seriously:[82]. Taking into account that MVBW posted the same note on my talk page[83], I assume they are aware of these rules. MVBW is currently active,[84], but I see no sign they are taking my request seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk)04:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Reply. Sorry, it was not my intention to edit war on this page. I made many edits on this page recently, probably more than anyone else[85], but made probably only a couple reverts (I think). Speaking about diffs by Paul,
"First incident":
1st diff - that was removal of sourced text, but not to any previously existing version; no one recently inserted text that I removed. The removal was previously discussed on article talk page, and Paul agreed to remove it[86] - see edit my summary (or at least it was my understanding that Paul agreed).
2nd diff - that was move of the text to a placewhere it never was before; see my edit summary. How this can be seen a revert?
"Second incident"
1st diff - this can be viewed as my revert; it was previously discussed on article talk page, Paul agreed[87] (or at least it was my understanding that Paul agreed), and no one else objected.
2nd diff.Here is it after an additional automatic edit by bot. My intention was not to undo anything, but to reduce redundancies and explain/summarize more clearly for an ordinary reader what the sources tell. Note that the 2nd paragraph essentially repeats the first. Hence I merged two paragraphs together and rephrased three points of the criticism. That version or anything even remotely close to that version never existed in the history of the page. How it can be seen a revert?
As a note of order, Paul has already complained to Arbcom about the same[88], and it was rejected by Arbcom. He also startedthis thread, which I think was a talk page guideline violation on his part (but it was about very same edits). I asked Paul do not do it before[89].
I do not care too much about this page and voluntarily agree not to edit it during at least a week. However, honestly, I think this is actually a "battleground" request by Paul, given all his other actions.My very best wishes (talk)12:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Re: "that was removal of sourced text, but not to any previously existing version; no one recently inserted text that I removed." MVBW has already been duly informed that removal of a significant amount of a text is a revert[90], so I see no reason why they pretend they are unaware of the revert policy.
Re: "The removal was previously discussed on article talk page, and Paul agreed to remove it" Yes, I agreed, provided but only provided, that more prominence will be given to this subject, which has never been done. I already explained this misunderstanding earlier[91].
Re: "it was my understanding that Paul agreed)." The understanding was wrong, and I explained that repeatedly on the talk page. The diff provided by MVBW explicitly says that I proposed toadd two sentences describing a controversy, whereas MVBW removed the mention of controversy completely. My words were taken out of a context and blatantly misinterpreted.
Re: "Here is it after an additional automatic edit by bot. My intention was not to undo anything, but to reduce redundancies" That is not true. One reference to an important source was removed completely, the explanation of the flaw in statistical method was removed, and the statement that this method leads to a systematic bias towards high values was removed, and replaced with the statement that the method was inaccurate. This changed a meaning significantly, and this change was biased.
Re: "Paul has already complained to Arbcom about the same" That is not true. Inever complained myself, I commented on someone else's complaint. I supported it because I thought another user's complaint was justified.--Paul Siebert (talk)13:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
In both "incidents" my 2nd edit (2nd diff) does notreverse any previous edits, and it was not intended to reverse/revert anything. To the contrary, those were edits directed toward finding a compromise: moving the materials to a more appropriate place and rephrase of a newly inserted material to make it more understandable and consistent with the sources. You may think that my edit "changed the meaning significantly". But even if you are right, that was not a revert. First edit in the first "incident" arguably was also not a revert.My very best wishes (talk)14:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
With regard to that[94], I was unaware of the recent change in the DS policy, and I didn't know that formally you were allowed to put this notice even if there were no actions from my side. However, I still believe it was an unprovoked and unfriendly act. You perfectly know (since the times when you were editing under a different name) that I was aware ofWP:ARBEE, which was initiated after your conflict with another user, and I knew about restrictions applied to the users who are editing in the EE related area. Therefore, there were nopractical reason to inform me about a subject we both are perfectly aware of, so I had a reason to consider that your act as non-friendly. With regard to "retaliation", I can only respond: "You say".--Paul Siebert (talk)14:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It was you who filed this request. I did not do anything. BTW, you did not answer my question. Inthis edit you said to me: "you are persistently pushing us towards" ANI filing (this filing?). Who are "us"?My very best wishes (talk)14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[99]
Comments: Hi, user OxfordLaw broke the 1RR rule when he edited two times within 3 hours this article :Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. Moreover, the reported user makesWP:BATTLEGROUND comments in his edit summaries, example :[100], i quote : "Moreover as an Iranian you are hardly neutral in this dispute given the Saudi Arabia-Iran proxy war. I as a Italian am neutral on the other hand". Please note that this editor has a long list of warnings on histalk page and has already been blocked. More, OxfordLaw has also broken the 1RR rulehere :[101],[102]. I would appreciate if an admin could take a look at this user's editing profile who seems to beWP:NOTHERE, according to me. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk)17:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about in regards to some 1RR rule but I merely corrected obvious and continuous vandalism. The Al-Jazeera article does not contain a single evidence of proof whatsoever other than empty Houthi claims which cannot be a source on its own. Moreover Al-Jazeera is a state-owned propaganda channel (at best) owned by the Qatari state/regime and this news channel has an extensive history of making up false news against their political opponents (Qatar's rivals) whether it be Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, UAE or numerous other countries, especially since the Saudi Arabia-Qatar proxy conflict began in June 2017.
Moreover removing the most neutral source on those entire Wikipedia pages (Yemen Data Project) without reason cannot be considered as anything other than vandalism.
As for my harmless comment about your own SELF-PROCLAIMED descent and identity (Iranian), what I wrote is kind of accurate given the history of those Wikipedia pages. Iranian users have a long history of disrupting those pages and similar pages related to Arabs. Most likely vice versa too BTW. I on the other hand am completely neutral as a Southern European. However I have been interested in Yemen for over one decade and I have visited the country thus the conflict interests me and I try to follow it. BTW for years (ever since March 2015) the same Wikipedia pages (infested by people with an agenda - no names mentioned) have hilariously claimed that only 350 Houthi rebels/terrorists have been killed which is absolutely hilarious when their casualties are in the 1000's by all neutral accounts. Whether killed by the Yemeni military, anti-Houthi rebels or the Arab coalition.
If Al-Jazeera, PressTV and similar state propaganda channels are used as sources, we might as well use state owned news from Saudi Arabia who likewise (most likely) make outrageous claims that cannot be backed up by facts unlike for instance my NEUTRAL source (Yemen Data Project) or common sense (no way have only 350 Houthis been killed since September 2014) as claimed for YEARS on those Wikipedia pages. A clear sign of bias.
BTW those Yemen maps should also be updated. The Yemeni army and the Arab Coalition are on the outskirts of Hudaydah and less than 40 km away from Sana'a proper.--OxfordLaw (talk)17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
As for my previous edit warnings, I was by all accounts right and correct in what I was doing (as it turned out) and this has nothing to do with what is going on currently.--OxfordLaw (talk)17:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Your comments about the nationalities of other users are completely irrelevant, i am Iranian but this does not mean that i'm biased about any topic here. Also, you should have given your arguments on the talk pages of the articles instead of edit warring.---— Precedingunsigned comment added byWikaviani (talk •contribs)
Moreover I find it hilarious that certain editors here (including this Iranian user who opened up this complaint against me) considers an empty Al-Jazeera article that contains no proof whatsoever other than Houthi claims and empty (unsubstantiated claims) as some kind of "holy grail" while my neutral source (Yemen Data Project) is deleted. We know that Houthi casualties have been in the 1000's as per the Yemen Data Project and countless of other sources (a simple Google search will confirm this as well as simple logic (3.5 years of fighting against a much stronger adversary) but their casualties are given as "unknown". Meanwhile Saudi Arabian casualties (although officially given as around 500) are DOUBLED due to an unsubstantiated Al-Jazeeera (of all media) article! That's rather "interesting" and then I am going to pretend that this users identity (Iranian) does not play a role whatsoever here. I am sorry but I am not buying it.--OxfordLaw (talk)17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
You were taking sides in this edit warring while you are not a party to this edit conflict. You took part in this conflict in favor of the unsubstantiated (Al-Jazeera article) Houthi rebel claim and thus against the Yemeni government and the Arab Coalition, Saudi Arabia included, which given your self-proclaimed identity and the current KSA-Iran proxy war, I took as a sign of bias which you cannot blame me for, given the disruptive history of Iranian users on those 3 Wikipedia pages and Arab-related context on Wikipedia. I am sure that Arab users are guilty of this behavior the other way around as well. I do not know as I am not an editor on Middle Eastern topics in general at all. I just have an interest in Yemen and Arabia and its ancient history and a few current day affairs.
Lastly, I explained all of my edits in detail while the other party did not explain anything. That's not exactly a sign of cooperation.--OxfordLaw (talk)18:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Anyway those Wikipedia pages are highly biased and have a long history of ridiculous claims in regards to this conflict. The current maps used are a perfect example of this. As explained by the Hudaydah and Sana'a examples.
A NEUTRAL source that could be used are the maps originating from Risk Intelligence which is based in Denmark and a neutral party again (just like the Yemen Data Project that I used).
Don't know where to begin. First of all Twitter is not a Source. Secondly, Two important international media; The Independent and Aljazeera have reporter KSA losses higher than 1,000. Dont tell me The Independent its a Houthi related media.
OxfordLaw you have been blocked in the past for editing in Saudi Arabia Articles. Stop your un constructive behaviour.Mr.User200 (talk)18:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, the fact that i'm Iranian does not mean any bias in my edits. Al-Jazeera and the independent are two reliable soures, whether you like it or not. Also, you should read a tuto about how to properly indent a thread on Wikipedia. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk)19:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
WarnedOxfordLaw has now been notified of applicable general sanctions and should befully aware of the editing restrictions in the area. Further violations or calling good-faith edits vandalism will likely result in a block or topic ban.NeilNtalk to me 3:07 pm, Today (UTC−4)
The user has vandalised my talk page, has made personal attacks and baseless accusations and also has repeatedly vandalised the article by adding factually incorrect information irrespective of repeated warnings. I have also created a section in the talk page of the article. The editor seems to be unaware of many Wikipedia policies
Edit warring is done byUser:Abesam. Without making any discussion in talk pageUser:Abesam removed entire content. I wonder if he can make threatening messages in my talk page and replying to him would become a vandal or personal attack.User:Abesam is calling others edits without even looking at the citations which is uncivil.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKavitha Swaminathan (talk •contribs)19:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks against editors. The paragraph that you are adding and the citations that you are providing for the said paragraph are not at all relatable. Your paragraph says one thing and the citations speak of something that is totally different. Refrain from adding factually incorrect content deliberately. Admins, please go through the history of the issue to know who is at fault.Abesam (talk)19:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Abesam has straight away provided me with threat to block me and has completely deleted a paragraph without any explanation.Please be specific about what i say and what that citation say. POV pushing byAbesam. What i have said and the citation i have provided is same. Provide equal chance for debating rather than threatening to block user.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKavitha Swaminathan (talk •contribs)19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
11:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC) "I’ve added the characters back in. You referring to this as “yours” just shows you’re too emotionally attached to the untidy version to be neutral"
10:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC) "This layout is simpler, easier to edit, doesn’t list every relationship unnecessarily, is in alphabetical order (split by s1 and s2). Stop letting your perceived ownership of the article cloud your judgement."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
The IP is edit warring over the layout - They came to my talkpage where I agreed with them and stated the layout would be changed however whilst I was doing said changes they decided to revert again, I've tried being lenient with the IP but they seem to be more interested in reverting than actually discussing it, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk11:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah thanks all, I thought for a second they actually stopped but it turns out they were actually blocked! </facepalm>, Thanks all, –Davey2010Talk12:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[111]
Comments: Hi, user:Kleuske is edit warring with me andHistoryofIran about the reliability of Sozomen (a christian ecclesiastical historian living in the 5th century) as a source for a massacre of christians by the Sasanian king Shapur ii (in the 4th century) while we spent hours discussing on thetalk page (this is why i posted a link to the talk page instead of diffs in the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" section, because there are just too many diffs...). We asked for Doug Weller's opinion, he nicely answered and said that we should include the disputed source because a lot of sources use him, but he said that this source looks like a personal essay more than an encyclopedic work and he also gave another source about the disputed source :[112]. Then i tried to find a compromise, taking into account what Doug said on the talk page (I left the disputed source in the article, but balanced this with including Doug's source about the disputed source) :[113],[114] and[115], but user:Kleuske straighly reverted my attempt too :[116]. Then i tried to preserve the source on the talk page, in order to include it later along with some reliable academic sources, perWP:WEIGHT :[117], but this too was rejected by user:Kleuske. I would appreciate if an admin could deal with this case. Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk)16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
ThanksNumber 57, really. May i (or someone else) revert the article to a more consensual version (meaning preserving Sozomen's source on the talk page in order to include it back, just as Doug Weller said, along with reliable academic works) ? Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk)16:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Wikaviani: Although Kleuske broke 3RR, it would appear that they were at least following BRD as they were reverting to a stable version of the article. The talk page discussion needs to conclude with some kind of consensus to either keep or remove the material. Doug Weller also stated that they were in favour of using the Sozen source, so it appear the outside input into the discussion supported Kleuske's view. As a result, I would advise that the current version should remain until there is consensus to remove it (which there isn't at the moment). If you need more input, start aWP:RfC.Number5716:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thank you very much for your insight. Then i keep the Sozomen source within the article and i'll complete this with the addition of Doug's source about Sozomen, just like the attempt of compromise i posted above. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk)16:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Number 57, please note some harassement with edits like this :[118] and personal attack like this :[119] by a user who never participated to the discussion and who now comes up with irrelevant behavior. For me, the case is closed. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk)19:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil, do you mean i should have acted differently ? I'm open to any advice coming from honest editors.---Wikaviani (talk)19:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Wikaviani: Can't see any harassment there. Your most recent revert was very ill-advised given what was said above. I'd strongly suggest you stop editing the article and wait for the discussion to conclude.Number5719:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
, No worries, this is precisely what i wanted to do, stop editing the article. But i have honestly tried to find a compromise, sorry if i failed to do so. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk)19:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I asked themon their talk page to provide a source and warned them the next time we would meet would be here. No source is presented, they just keep reverting. Yes, this didn't happen in one day but I'm tired of this.
Blocked – 24 hours. Putting someone in the 'SoundCloud rap' genre should require a source. It is up to consensus what should be taken as an adequate source. Simply removing 'citation needed' doesn't address the problem.EdJohnston (talk)14:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.@NeilN: all the others have a source somewhere in their article, just search their article pages for "soundcloud rap". (also seeTalk:SoundCloud rap#List of artists) Any artist that isn't notable enough to have at least one fanboy to write a stub about them isn't notable enough for that list anyway. I'm not even putting the bar very high for what is an adequate source or what is notable, but for Little Yachty no source is provided at all.Alexis Jazz (talk)20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't editCorruption in Lithuania, except for one edit to add{{NPOV}}. I'm not touching it. In fact, I'm not even interested!
Comments:
BothUser:Detektyw z Wilna andUser:Ke an should be blocked for edit warring. They had a chance to work this out at thethe DRN, got started there, and then lost interest. If you don't have the energy to finish the dispute resolution you should leave the article alone until agreement has been reached. This dispute hasalready been to ANI. You're not entitled to unlimited free use of the admin boards when nobody has the patience for a proper discussion. SeeWP:DR for some steps you should be following.EdJohnston (talk)02:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree this is not a good situation. I tried to discuss to the issue onTalk:Corruption in Lithuania#Neutrality by providing quite exhaustive arguments. But didn't get the interest on discussing the issue at all - how could I discuss then? I looked at contribution history of Detektyw_z_Wilna and his behaviour and I consider it nothing more than a troll. --Ke an (talk)04:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment - This dispute was brought toDRN again, and was dismissed due to inadequate talk page discussion. When this case came to DRN and ANI in early April, I was unable to determine what was actually in dispute because the posts weretoo long, difficult to read and no one took the DRN advice to be civil and concise. I will point out again thatLithuania is still inEastern Europe, both as usually defined and as defined by twentieth-century historians as those countries that were occupied by theSoviet Union. ThereforeEastern Europe discretionary sanctions are available. I suggest that both parties be given the required alert of DS, and if disruption continues, both parties be topic-banned from all posts related to Lithuania for the remainder of the twenty-first century. (The twentieth century ended. The Soviet Union lost theCold War.)Robert McClenon (talk)17:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Unsourced caste POV. I will also drop a sanctions alert on their talk page if they haven't already had one.Sitush (talk)08:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Alert left. They're still reverting, and have left a rather bizarre note on my talk page (so they obviously know user talk pages exist). -Sitush (talk)09:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]User:A bicyclette has 3RR'ed on these 3 pages and is edit-warring here and on multiple other Vietnam War battle pages, adding US claims or more usually "US Claims: X killed (body count)" when I have repeatedly explained that you either have the wikilink to body count or claims, not both. I haven't bothered discussing this on the Talk page as I have been engaged in various other pointless discussions with A bicyclette onTalk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates where an Admin decision is awaited. In addition A bicyclette is making so many changes to so many pages without bothering to wikilink or properly create references, creating more work for other UsersComments:
MZTOURIST is applying his own arbitrary standards, and obsessively monitoring pages and activities as if he was the admin. You'll notice every single edit I have made, he had the initial undo while giving arbitrary reasons for this. More so, he is accusing me of POV, being a sock puppet, and a host of other claims without any evidence and without an ounce of self-reflection about his own enormous POV.A bicyclette (talk)07:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mztourist andA bicyclette: The last time you two were here it was suggested that a discussion on the MILHIST talk page might be useful. Has such a discussion been opened? Also,Mztourist, where's the consensus for "you either have the wikilink to body count or claims, not both"? --NeilNtalk to me13:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
NeilN this is a multiple 3RR complaint, please address the 3RR which is supposed to be a hard rule regardless of any underlying merits.Mztourist (talk)14:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I have been dealing with a vast number of changes made by A bicyclette across multiple pages andBuckshot06 and I have recent history which hasn't helped with resolving the issues. The 3RR isOperation Junction City, but I am troubled by your "actually violated" distinction in light of the numerous different pages 3RRed and after he was warned.Mztourist (talk)15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 15:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to hear whatA bicyclette andBuckshot06 have to say on this. A bicyclette, no more reverts until this is resolved please.Mztourist, just because you warned A bicyclette doesn't give you license to go up toWP:3RR on articles. Please remember you can be blocked for edit warring without breakingWP:3RR]. --NeilNtalk to me16:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
MZTourist has been consistently reverting my edits since I started editing pages, since day one e.g. he will find an arbitrary reason to revert it. I would literally link academic journals, news-week journals and so-on, and MZTOURIST will revert, I will undo, and since he initially reverted my edits he expects the onus is on me. Not only this, he will find edits I have made broadly, and delete entire contributions I have done if he has some disagreement, without discussion or modification, just reverting. MZTOURIST has failed consistently to discuss changes I have contributed towards, so I will not be bothered to try to reason with him given he has refused to even discuss any issues with me since day one. He has some very, very strange reasons provided for reverts as well which he has absolutely no authority towards. For example, I would place a picture that is dated "1962-1970" on the Vietnam War main page, and he will delete it for "not being the correct model". Or I will post news-week articles, academic journals or links about ROK-perpetrated massacres and he will delete it without even a discussion, because according to him they are POV. Yet heconsistently allows POV sources, andconsistently uses POV sources himself. He has deleted entire contributions of mine, because "they didn't cite a page" while he has consistently cited entire book and without discussing it. He has furthermore shown some pronounced racism, as I have literally linked articles were there is a witness testimony to a massacre written by newsweek/cnn/etc, which he deletes because "vietnamese-witnesses" are POV and selective according to him.
This is the third edit warring claim made by MZTOURIST to the admin board, and he has obsessively decided he has control over all history related to the Vietnam War for some reason. The first two were rejected, and many of the edits he had made were reverted by other users for being unreasonable and strange. MZTOURIST has additionally accused me of being a sockpuppet, repeatedly, without any claims or evidence, and which was of course denied. MZTOURIST has a consistent history of attempted censorship and distortion, with very frequent complaints made against him and his intense, unreasonable stubbornness and lack of impartiality. MZTOURIST has somehow decided he will monitor and control many of these pages for a reason I'm not entirely sure of.A bicyclette (talk)16:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Mztourist appears to believe that period U.S. official claims/estimates of enemies killed, wounded, or captured in battle during the Vietnam War can stand without comment, alteration, or amending via later scholarship. Frankly this is both bizarre and POV in view of the extensive discussion beginning in official circles by 1970, as I tried to raise with him at his talk page (User talk:Mztourist#Army War College Study on Military Professionalism, 1970, with a rude response), and in unofficial circles much earlier, that theseBody counts were routinely inflated, partially due to pressure from Westmoreland and MacNamara as to how they wanted the war to proceed. The scholarly consensus now is that such battlefield claim numbers were routinely inflated. Mztourist has not introduced these counts into the articles in all cases - some were inserted by earlier editors - but trying to retain them without annotation or amendment is simply retaining the US official POV of the time, which is grossly outdated. I'm probably involved now due to my extensive efforts to reason with Mztourist, but otherwise, I would probably have taken admin action to stop the U.S. official military POV of the late 1960s/early 1970s being retained in this website without comment or annotation. I believe Mztourist needs to be prevented from trying to keep such counts there without a reference or (U.S. period claim) in an infobox. I recommend, at the very least, an admin warning, and administrator action should Mztourist continue to try and retain such claims without references or annotation in the articles.
The other issue regarding Mztourist, as I've already hi-lighted earlier at AN/I, is that he disclaims without reservation the use of Vietnamese-language sources. They need to be treated with care, as do all sources, but definitely need to be considered. While Vietnamese sources can be biased, it's clear that both sides's sources suffer from this data, and should Mztourist continue trying to remove them totally, he would need to be sanctioned for that as well.Buckshot06(talk)00:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
A bicyclette has a particular POV on the Vietnam War that he wishes to push everywhere, which is that: (1) the US and its allies (especially the Koreans) killed large numbers of Vietnamese civilians and reported these as PAVN/VC deaths; (2) PAVN/VC casualty figures reported by everyone fighting them were wrong; and (3) PAVN/VC deaths were 849,018 and no other figure is correct. In support of these 3 points A bicyclette has made a vast number of edits across multiple pages over a very short time frame (what is his hurry?), providing often obscure sources and doesn't bother to reference them properly: [[145]] expecting others to tidy up after him or misrepresents what the source actually says:Talk:Operation Enterprise (Vietnam)#User:A bicyclette's recent changes. If he does provide a properly referenced WP:RS obviously it can stand, the problem is that many of his sources are Primary Sources and he expects us to accept Vietnamese accounts as being reliable and, in the case of his Vietnamese language casualty document, theonly reliable source, ignoring all other WP:RS. In relation to the helicopter photo he added it in 3 different places with incorrect captions to try to support his arguments: [[146]], [[147]] and [[148]] and [[149]]. In addition he tries to delete WP:RS that disagrees with the thrust of his arguments e.g.: [[150]], [[151]] and [[152]]
Buckshot06 you seem willing to overlook all of A bicyclette's behavior in this, but constantly want toWP:HOUND me. You yourself belatedly acknowledged the issues with A bicyclette's Vietnamese language casualty document and I suggested a resolution of the issue which you have done nothing about. In relation to body counts, you have made your views clear, while I have shown that the numbers actually underestimated PAVN/VC deaths, but putting that argument aside, regarding my supposed unwillingness to keep "counts there without a reference," if you looked at the edit warring here, you will see that I am fine with A bicyclette adding the Wikilink tobody count or stating US "claims", however he insists on adding the formulation "US Claims: X killed (body count)" or even "US Source: X killed (body count claim)" that is like saying "US claim claim claim" any one of report/claim/source/body count makes it clear that this is the US account of PAVN/VC deaths, saying the same thing in 3-4 different ways is POV-pushing. Given the similarities to previous edits made by serial-sockers I have reported A bicyclette as a potential sockpuppet here:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam and contrary to his assertion it has not been reviewed yet, I wish it was because it might spare me having to waste productive time on this.Mztourist (talk)04:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This forms a small part of my total contributions. I have cleaned up the entire Vietnam War Template Timeline, which was previously un-updated, I have cleaned up the commanders, nations and others in the main battlebox template, e.g. on its effects on popular culture, the contribution of women during the war, intelligence development, the role of countries in the war. I have added sections which were not previously there and significantly lacking as well. The original article seems to be badly written, and many of the articles are from straight up POV sources, the Korean article I found significantly lacking with verbatim copy and paste from a site called (talkingproud.com, "official" military history of specific forces and so-on). These should be considered POV, whereas I have cited actual academics in support of my points (Christian Appy, for one, alongside acaemic journals). Furthermore my application of "claims" in the recent string forms one part of this current edit war complaint, but this is standard across all articles.
MZTOURIST is apparently too lazy to summarize articles and other articles, and would rather just copy-paste awkward text into the document while removing all context. My summarization of what MZTOURIST rips straight from AP and elsewhere, or me actually injecting previous edits which he deleted are reverted by him. For example the "casualties figures" was established previously, but MZTOURIST for some odd reason decides to change it to fit his narrative, using what ought to be considered agenda-slated, non academic sources (Mark Woodruff isn't reputable, he has a CLEAR agenda he is establishing). Neither is claiming that only US military sources the only factual bases, given their intense ideological underpinning.
You should take note that MZTOURIST is the one that initially is undoing my edits, while not discussing reasons why. He has a clear narrative he wants to personally establish, e.g. on thebody count page to try to support his contention that badly-written "official histories" ought to be considered the only truth.
The absolute worse, most disgusting part I find about MZTOURIST is that he only engages in this when articles are onclearly established points on war crimes, atrocities, or other things which would repaint his pristine articles. For example he doesn't give a damn about terribly written, terribly POV paragraphs in theSouth Korea In The Vietnam War article about taekwondo, and other unsupported, unfactual statements. He has a strong history of suggestingdeletions and editing out alleged massacres, even if they remain alleged there is literally no reason to suggest such things get deleted because it is according to himPOV. This I find the most pathetic part about him.A bicyclette (talk)06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I haven't even looked at whatA bicyclette has done toTemplate:Vietnam War graphical timeline. Other users have also raised concerns at his edits onVietnam war here:User talk:A bicyclette#Vietnam war article and yet nothing slows him down. Many of the supposed South Korean massacres are allegations based on minimal sources of questionable reliability, see:Binh Tai Massacre,Bình Hòa massacre, andHà My massacre. A bicyclette believes thatany Vietnamese testimony is incontrovertible truth of the existence and facts of any accused war crime, ignoring the fact that these are Primary Sources, the inherent bias of reports from a 1 party state with some of the lowest press freedom in the world and the AP statement that"The AP was unable to independently confirm their claims" and"An additional 653 civilians were allegedly killed the same year by South Korean troops in neighboring Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces, according to provincial and local officials interviewed by the AP on a trip the government took two months to approve. As is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the officials' allegations". The onlyproven massacre conducted by South Korean forces is thePhong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre. Yes, I have AfDed 2 supposed massacres here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (2nd nomination) andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre, both of which were indeed deleted for the reasons stated there. Finally we edit what we're interested in, I'm not interested in Taekwondo and have no responsibility to review or clean up any particular page that I didn't draft. Meanwhile I get accused of racism, prejudice, laziness etc. etc.Mztourist (talk)08:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The only complaint raised was one on images since I didn't properly understand the rules for using wikimedia images at the time. Every other complaint made was from MZTOURIST who was attempting to censor me, by accusing me of edit warring, consistently, being a sockpuppet and so-on.
The links I posted were literally from Hankyoreh, Newsweek, CNN and other major news sources. Even if they are according to your own subjective terribly distorted worldview, this is not a reasonable grounds for deletion. The contrasting view you take is hilarious, in that you acceptwithout question obscure internet websites written by some guy, but think that official news sources are distortive because they present facts you do not like. I mean you literally tried deleting my additions which citeacademic sources. This is you deciding to take up policing of articles and things you don't like. This isn't even the only issue that I have. You just simply cannot accept any documents contrary to your own subjective view, and you haveinitiated the censorship originally, while falling back when you can't defend them while telling me to 'go discuss on milhist' or fall back to 3RR. Notice how other users revertedyour changes to my articles?A bicyclette (talk)09:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting again,User:Hohum's comments were about images, butUser: GPRamirez5's comments were about adding content to an already overlong article. The whole problem is that your sources arenot all WP:RS as you try to make them out to be. Many of them are fringe relying on implication and repetition, apparently unchecked "eyewitness" accounts, with very little hard detail, all the same reasons why those 2 other "massacre" pages were deleted.Mztourist (talk)12:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
You know I already stopped paying attention to what you consider WP:RS, because you aren't an admin. You still cite obscure books with clear motivates that you consider WP:RS and don't consider academic articles WP:RS.A bicyclette (talk)13:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
WarnedOperation Junction City was the article specifically called out. There,Mztourist removed some material.A bicyclette re-added a form of it a few days after (a revert) which was met by three reverts by Mztourist and three more reverts by A bicyclette. The other articles similarly show the two editors edit warring with each other with no third party getting involved with the reverts. Contrary to what was claimed, no links have been provided that point to a discussion where consensus was achieved. Both editors arewarned thatany further edit warring may result in blocks. Find a way to resolve your disputes through discussion - useWP:DRN, the MILHIST talk page, or another venue. The editor who takes the initiative to post aneutral summary of the disputes at one of these venues will probably looked upon favorably by admins should another incident arise.NeilNtalk to me13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[161]
Comments:
Looks like a single editor is waging a unilateral edit war. So far Christian been reverted by four different editors so there is definitely no support for his edit as yet, regardless of its merit.Betty Logan (talk)19:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
+1 - "If you have a problem with the article as it is, take it to the talk page"[171] - The irony!, The fact they've returned simply to revert everyone speaks volumes imho, They're a net negative to the project and IMHO should be indeffed. –Davey2010Talk16:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Darkknight2149 was blocked and then unblocked after a discussion. Both admin decisions look to be correct and by the book. If the underlying dispute needs to be considered further, take it elsewhere.EdJohnston (talk)18:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: User Darkknight2149 has taken it upon himself to declare the film a "reboot". It is clearly a remake as it has the same central character, setting and plot. User refers to one instance of the director saying he couldn't remake the film, insisting that this is the basis for his claim. However, he is bending the director's words to fit his narrative (the director said he could not remake Argento's film's style). User started a talk discussion of it (on a different article) and battles anyone who disagrees. I corrected this info once and was reverted. I have reverted it only twice and user has reverted my edit three times, thus violating 3RR policy. Naturally, Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to this again.Udar55 (talk)13:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
First of all, you were almost immediately informed that this was already on theTalk Page, yet youcontinued to revert (as plainly seenhere). Then, as soon as you were warned tostop edit warring, you file a retaliatory report? ClassicWP:BOOMERANG. You should have stopped the moment you were informed that the Talk Page discussion had already been opened, instead of continuing to revert.
And, not that it matters here, but we have two primary sources blatantly stating it's not a remake, one third party source stating that it's a reboot, and I can easily dig up more. If you have a problem with the cited content, the onus would've been on you to go to the Talk Page from the start.DarkKnight214913:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't violate 3RR, you did. I can also dig up plenty of primary sources calling it a remake. And point to examples of other remakes on Wikipedia labeled as remakes and not reboots.Udar55 (talk)14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to see those primary sources (which aren't and have never been listed). And considering I only reverted you three times on that day, that isn't a violation of 3RR. You were told from the start that this was already on the Talk Page, yet you insisted on repeatingly reverting, knowing full-well that this was being discussed. Then, when you were warned, you opened this report without warning in order to save your own skin. Like I said, this is an obviousWP:BOOMERANG. The fact that you had to add "Naturally, Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to this again" to your report pretty much says it all.DarkKnight214914:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Both parties were wrong not to use the talk page, but I have in the past, and even just today on this very issue, found attempting to communicate withDarkknight2149 on content issues extremely difficult, as he frequently engages in IDHT, refuses to recognize that some sources are less reliable than others for certain kinds of claims, and is generally uncooperative (pingingUser:Curly Turkey andUser:Softlavender, although just about anyone who commented on the problem last year would say the same). Given these facts, it's difficult to hold it againstUdar55 for not wanting to get dragged into an unending talk page back-and-forth before giving up in frustration and allowing DK2149 to "win" by default.
It also seems a little unfair that DK2149 was unblocked byUser:SQL, essentially for wikilawyering about not having been aware of having technically violated 3RR because he was careful "only" to revert three times on a particular calendar date in his time zone (which is not behaviour the edit-warring policy considers acceptable), without the same offer being extended to Udar.
Furthermore, although it is obviously outside ANEW's purview, Udar is clearly right on the substance, and really would have been better off bringing this to RSN or WT:FILM than here. Pointing this out here because hopefully Udar will take this advice in the future.
Are youWP:HOUNDing me again, Hijiri88? I suggest you stop. That Arbitration Committee warning is still in effect. For outside users, Hijiri has admitted in the past to harbouring aWP:GRUDGE going back to aMister Freeze disagreement, so it's no surprise that he jumped in the moment he noticed I was unblocked for something.Don't be surprised ifCurly Turkey shows up heretag-team as well. He's neverfar behind.DarkKnight214917:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Warned for stalking and harassment. ThisWP:GRUDGE-match from this user has been going on for well over a year now. If this persists, I'm taking Hijiri88, Curly Turkey, Softlavender, andTwitbookspacetube (who already banned by ArbCom for this sort of thing) to the Arbitration Committee. As I told them the last time Hijiri88 attempted something like this, I have more than enough evidence.DarkKnight214918:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[179],[180]
Pretty straight forward violation of 1RR restriction (3 reverts in under 24 hrs) on an article the user has broken 1RR previously.
Comments:
Just a point that if the admins see fit to block Coldtrack then I believeWP:BOOMERANG is in order and should suck in every person to have taken part in the same edit war. I initially put the neutrality tag in as a replacement for the DUBIOUS tag, while those happy with the current text have scavenged for reasons to conceal there is a neutrality issue and it is clear than Volunteer Marek, Stikki and possibly others have engaged inWP:TAGTEAM. Coldtrack for the most part - although definitely wrong in his conduct - has fought a one-man battle against the collective. --Edin Balgarin (talk)17:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the foremost issue here is that Volunteer Marek deleted a tag placed by an administrator.[1] Coldtrack restored it.GPRamirez5 (talk)17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I missed that, so excuse me. It just seemed to me that was an illustration of how the edits weren't simply partisan.GPRamirez5 (talk)18:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
There's no other way to say what I am going to say except - I was totally wrong. I've read NeilN's statement that clarifies my initial hunch which had been that tag management amounted to some form of exception. Clearly it isn't. Without prejudice or wishing to bring down others, please realise that this article is a hotbed for disagreement and consensus at present cannot be reached since about twelve or so editors have commented and they are roughly evenly divided. The point is that nobody's argument has swayed anybody from the opposite side and so insults are flying in summaries and in the talk page. I really think it is time to move on however procedure dictates. We require more or fresher opinions and dare I say it, maybe more admin action. --Coldtrack (talk)18:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No action I posted on the article's talk page before this report was opened and I hope the edit warring will stop. --NeilNtalk to me18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Please don’t stoop to accusing me of being a sock of another editor you were successful in getting blocked (unlike your RfA). The project is about building a reputable encyclopedia, not about exerting power over others.Maricotes (talk)00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Right, well good luck with that SPI in the hands of someone who actually has the power to conduct one. I should also add that seeing as how I am certainly not a sock of this Wikii6B editor you bullied into a block,WP:3RRNO#3 certainly doesn’t apply here.Maricotes (talk)00:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Blockedindefinitely Given their behaviour across many pages, it doesn't seem like they're going to be an asset to Wikipedia.Number5714:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period ofa week Seeing as they started making the same edits almost as soon as their previous block expired, I've given them a week off this time.Number5714:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user has been impossible to talk to - through their talk page and edit comments. There is no reasoning with him - from myself and other users.
Comment TechnicallyCharlesdrakew hasn't broken 3RR, but only by a margin of a few minutes, which looks like he may be gaming the system. However, the sudden appearance ofRiceWife to take over reverting duties forUser:Flyingmaneasy does look highly suspicious. I'd like to see some confirmation that RiceWife is not a sock of Flyingmaneasy (who I've just blocked for violating 3RR atDoncaster Sheffield Airport) before deciding on this.@Bbb23,Materialscientist, andNinjaRobotPirate: Are any of you able to confirm? Cheers,Number5714:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Comments: IP edit warring to insertWP:ELNO link, continues to revert (starting with 3rd revert) after getting the warning on the talk page, indicating intent to continue. --Tryptofish (talk)16:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Aw, man, Tryptofish... I was just about to try to solve this dispute. I'll write a bit faster, then.
To get back on topic, I was one of those who added a warning, noting that the user continued to add the content in dispute, and did not take measures to discuss this issue. —Javert2113 (talk; pleaseping me in your reply on this page)18:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
11:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropria"
Comments: page blanked by The1337gamer 3 times, talk page used.
Declined The 1337gamer is quite correct that there is not enough information to write an article yet. Protecting for a short time, by when there should be enough sources to do so.Black Kite (talk)21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Has been deleting content without good reason and edits have been reverted multiple times by patrols. I tried to politely ask them to stop on top of using warning templates, but they called me a "dumb ass" in an edit summary of their revert.Aspening (talk)13:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Administrator note I came across this article and applied a short term protection to stop the edit warring, if an uninvolved administrator thinks that blocking is a better option and wants to modify the protection based on discussion at this noticeboard, feel free (but please note the article talk page). Best regards, —xaosfluxTalk14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Follow up from article talk, a prior discussion as to the editorial question was already concluded, protection has been lifted. Leaving this open for follow up as to the edit warring actions. Also gave an 'only warning' to the anonymous for conduct. —xaosfluxTalk14:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[224] (this is on user talk page, requesting that they explain why they reverted. One cannot resolve anything on article talk pages if the reverter does not offer any hint of why they reverted)
Comments:
I fixed a misused preposition in an article. The user I am reporting undid my edit without any explanation. I left a message on their talk page, pointing out that this was disruptive. I reinstated the edit. They undid my edit a second time, again with no explanation. This cannot be seen as anything other than deliberately disruptive. I commented again on their talk page. They have just undone my edit for the third time, with no explanation in the edit summary or on their talk page, though with an attempted justification on their talk page. Their second and third reverts cannot be anything other than fully conscious disruption, and so while they have not broken the 3RR, I am reporting them here as clearly they wish to provoke an edit war. I see they've been warned for 3RR violations and personal attacks in the recent past.Pe19 (talk)17:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
No violationPe19, you're both at three reverts andDragonFury has now provided as explanation (it would have been better if the first revert had an edit summary containing that explanation). Please work it out on the talk page along with the other editor who reverted you.NeilNtalk to me17:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree there is not a 3RR violation. I already said that. As I understand it, that is simply an incontrovertible demonstration that edit warring is taking place. Not breaking that rule doesn't mean you're not edit warring. And it's clear that this user did not revert my edits for any reason - after a message specifically pointing out that not explaining themselves was disruptive, they made the same unexplained edit twice more. And because they eventually made some attempt at an explanation, you think their behaviour is fine?Pe19 (talk)17:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pe19: There can be a great distance between behavior not being fine and behavior being blockable. Your three reverts and initial message accusing the editor of being disruptive was not fine either, but not blockable. --NeilNtalk to me17:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I reported problematic behaviour. But you've condoned it, and now you suggest that calling out disruptive behaviour was "not fine"? Amazing.Pe19 (talk)18:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm saying that telling an editor that they're being disruptive because of one revert without an edit summary is "not fine" behavior. --NeilNtalk to me18:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
You ever readWP:REVEXP? I will call out disruptive behaviour when I see it, and I trust that most admins appreciate that rather than (for whatever reason) feel threatened by it.Pe19 (talk)19:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to do this to youNeilN, but I'm afraid that this isn't over. Could you take a look at subsequent events and give me your take, please? The OP appears to have decided that as the discussion wasn't going their way they would prefer to revert to edit warring behaviour (after accusing me of trolling... nice). Their recent string of edits have made the text of the article better, but I have to say I am distinctly unimpressed by their bully-boy tantrums and personal attacks.Pyrope17:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Not a bad ideaNeilN, although the actual content issue is less concerning to me than the behaviour of this editor toward others attempting to interact with them in good faith.Pyrope18:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I am distinctly unimpressed by 1) users reverting without explanation in an act of deliberate provocation; 2) administrators endorsing such behaviour; 3) users taking about me behind my back. None of these are the actions of people intending to make encyclopaedia articles higher quality.Pe19 (talk)18:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
1) the deliberate provocation is in your head; 2) the admin did not condone their behaviour, try reading their comments again; and 3) this is a discussion you started, are you telling me you don't have it on your watch list??Pyrope20:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Person A does something. Person B says "don't do that". Person A does exactly the same thing again. That is obviously deliberate provocation. 2) the administrator said nothing to person A, thus effectively condoning their behaviour. 3) Did you speak to me directly, or did you speak to someone else about me?
That characterization applies to you too, you know? You changed a word, they said "don't do that", and yet you did exactly the same thing again. And again. And again. The admin specifically said that both of your actions were "not fine". Do you consider that condoning their actions? And no I wasn't addressing you here, I have been doing that elsewhere, but I did directly address the involved admin in a forum that I was pretty certain you would be watching. This is hardly "behind your back". Had I done this on their talk page, or even as an offline email, then you might have a point, but I didn't.Pyrope21:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You're a liar; they did not say "don't do that". That they didn't sayanything is theentire point of this discussion. Your trolling has been pathetic but I am sure you've had a great time.Pe19 (talk)21:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
Comments: Simply put this user is edit-warring to includeunreliable sources and then claiming the onus is on the people reverting their edit to prove why it's incorrect. Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. The burden of proof is on them to prove why what they're inserting is correct.Amaury (talk |contribs)15:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
If IMDb is an unreliable source why does every actor get their IMDb page listed as an external link on their Wikipedia page? Why are people allowed to label others as disruptive all willy-nilly without actual proof, and then shut down the person they're calling as disruptive simply because they're suddenly the good guy for dragging an innocent person's name through the mud? It is not your job to make false reports.--Harmony944 (talk)15:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Because they are allowed perWP:EL. IMDB just can't be used as a source. Also, you're right. It's not my job to make false reports. It's my job to make true reports when disruptive editing and edit warring are going on, which is the case here. This also isn't your first rodeo with disruptiveness and edit warring, and at this point, the only way to prevent further damage is by you being blocked significantly.Amaury (talk |contribs)15:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Edit warring. Violating the three reverts rule. And blatantly violating WP:POV and probably several rules about Bios too. There seems to be an election going on today which is why this account is so keen on trying to add in intentionally inflammatory commentary about a candidate. Looking at contributions and talk page, it appears this account only exists to push a political/campaign agenda.White ShadowsNew and improved!16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Sourced content from neutral sources is not "inflammatory commentary". Also the content was being removed by an IP address with no valid reason.Truthsort (talk)16:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
That's wrong of course. But that doesn't mean you should engage in a fight like that for no reason. Could the first admin who comes along please strike this? I'm going to try to work things out with the editor in thetalk page...haven't tried to use all avenues to settle this dispute yet so I probably shouldn't take it here until we attempt that.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Editor is reinserting promotional content, I've told them to go to the talkpage but unfortunately they're more interested in reverting than discussing, Wasn't sure if AIV or here were the best choice but figured here might of been better, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk17:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Just to add after the 17:22, 12 June 2018 diff I went to the talkpage telling those who object to go there but insteadthe user again reverted, They have now come to my talkpage however they've had ample oppertunity to go to the talkpage. –Davey2010Talk20:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
DST had stopped after a few more reverts however a new editor (Nwatts2018) has popped up to continue the edit war, I've lost count with the reverts but both editors are over 4 and it's worth noting a few other respected editors had also reverted these 2, AnywaySPI filed, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk22:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
03:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845634035 byDonner60 (talk) Claim uses the same source. If you're going to make revisions, try to establish why you feel they're accurate."
03:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845633371 byEEng (talk) Making an unsubstantiated claim isn't credible enough to go on a wiki. Citations are for wiki articles to establish claims, not link to someone else making the same claim. Your own revision description literally contains the information that deconstructs your claim. "Maybe 1700 people showed up but we're not sure" isn't credible enough to state it as fact or at all."
03:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845626325 byNZ Footballs Conscience (talk) Same source literally admits "having no clue how many people attended". You cannot just refer people to specific portions of sourced material claiming itll establish credibility. The entire source material is to referenced, in which this does not substantiate this claim."
01:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC) "Same source admits the current layout is in the 1865 appearance and on a separate page of the same website admits the theater capacity is less than 700, not 1700. The claim "1700 people were in attendance" is dubious at best from this sources own admission. "Estimated" and "We'll never know the exact amount"."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Reverted user, wrote on my talk page. Both on [there] and on their own page. Suggested taking to talk page. Continues to revert even though three different users have disagreed with the changeNZFC(talk)03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
IP is just your typical determined edit warrior with no understanding of how we use sources.EEng03:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Page protected I've just indef semi protected this. Pending changes wasn't helping and this will prevent edit wars and most of the other stuff that was having to be reverted.TonyBallioni (talk)15:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Those were links to papers, where I mistakenly gave the links to reserachgate (whose legality is not that clear. Some deem it legal). So the links now are to mainstream paper depositories that are clearly legal.
Do not violate COPYLINK. Do not edit war to restore COPYLINK violations. If you remove content and that removal is contested, take it to talk instead of repeatedly removing itJytdog (talk)16:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It was completely correct and shown by diffs. I advise you to be careful. I will not respond here further.Jytdog (talk)21:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Result: No action. It looks like the war has stopped. It is unfortunate that nobody took the opportunity to use the talk page. Based only on the comments in the edit summaries it is hard to figure out the reasons for the reverts. The claim thatWP:COPYLINK was violated would benefit from more explanation. (If an author seems to have uploaded his own conventionally-published work to researchgate.net, are we forbidden to link that?).EdJohnston (talk)19:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
After I reported them the person who edited with this IP stopped warring, has been reverted by other editors and it seems there is no need for further action.Ktrimi991 (talk)17:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[245] Also see attempt to resolve dispute for another warning.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[246]
Comments:At first, the editor said it needed a citation. Then they said it was uncited in the article itself. Then they said the FBI papers were not a secondary source. I provided another primary source. Despite being warned, the editor persisted and reverted the edits for times.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User has been told several times in the past 2 days but several different editors why they are being reverted, but has repeatedly told editors not to edit as they don't know what they're talking about and hasviolatedWP:CIVIL Despite warnings spanning over the course of years, as well as explanation, the behavior continues. (PS: unrelated but twinkle 3rr reporting appears to be broken.)CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯15:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
11:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC) "Added explanatory information on basis of position taken by the NIH and the AHRQ."
10:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845863878 byWard20 (talk). To suppress the views of the AHRQ (which are supported by the NIH in respect of the Oxford criteria) is absurd in light of NPOV: "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, ALL OF THE SIGNIFICANT VIEWS THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BY RELIABLE SOURCES ON A TOPIC."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view"
16:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC) "Terms used in wikipedia text ought to match supporting references; AHRQ is unequivocal that insufficient evidence for GET when Oxford definition excluded: "By excluding the three trials using the Oxford (Sharpe, 1991) case definition for inclusion, there would be insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of GET on any outcome (1 trial, n=49)" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK379582/)."
17:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC) "Referenced the position of the AHRQ with respect to CBT and GET for ME/CFS, noting the relevance of the Oxford criteria."
17:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC) "The references cited in support of this statement have to do specifically with GET, and therefore the statement should specifically state GET rather than a general notion of gradually increasing activity suited to individual capacity."
18:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC) "Inserted information regarding the CDC position, as given on their website, regarding CBT/GET for ME/CFS."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Has been asked by several editors to explain their concerns on the talk page. A discussion to improve the article was started by other editors, however warring continues. Apart from the reverts provided above, Skylax30 has made other reverts in other parts of the article with the same nationalistic POV. I suspect he has tried to canvass other editors for help[257]. Skylax30 was blocked lately on both the English and Greek Wikipedia.Ktrimi991 (talk)10:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
After Skylax30 was told that some content he tried to add toSouliotes is sourced to a book that is very old and its usage should be discussed, he tried to add it toArvanites. After he was rv three times on the latter article, Skylax30 created an article to make use of that source[258].Ktrimi991 (talk)12:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Skylax30 has been told on the talk page ofArvanites that his claim does not find support by other editors, sth told to him during warring onSouliotes as well, because that claim is strong and sourced to a very old book. However, Skylax30, after failing to add that claim on the two said articles, just a few minutes ago asked forhis recently created article to be undeleted becauseUnderstandably, people of Albanian ethnicity are not happy with this.. Since he has been trying to add the same POV on several articles for a week or so, I am not sure what should I and five other editors (only one of them Albanian, two others are Greeks, as a matter of fact) who have opposed that POV do.@EdJohnston:@NeilN: You placed some messages on his talk page. It would be good if you find a stable solution to this because I got tired of reporting here about Skylax30. Cheers,Ktrimi991 (talk)22:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:I started a discussion, user in question respondedonce but did not respond tofurther questions. The fourth revert happened after this point.
Comments:
Zapnath9 has just been blocked for 24hrs for edit warring. (A result of my reporting them to AIV - I hadn't seen this report.)Batternut (talk)17:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
02:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846050618 byYeenosaurus (talk) The word 'cult' is the appropriate term for the organization. It's not derogatory, it is simply the correct word use. If you don't like it then I'm happy to discuss changing the policy, but in the meantime let's allow correct English terminology it's appropriate place."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
nil, see above
Comments:
The fifth revert was done byAraratic (Special:Diff/846127361) with the following edit summary: "There is no original research done by him. The research is done by Milhaupt, which is the reliable source cited for the information. See WP:OR"Matthew_hktc15:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Result: Page semiprotected one month. The first IP listed (who reverted five times) is also blocked byUser:Oshwah. More than one IP seems to have been participating.EdJohnston (talk)00:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
14:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "The reason is accurate section divided by subseries instead of huge results layout"
14:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846257542 byThe359 (talk) - restored correct entry section. Main WEC season article has both entry list and results sections"
14:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846256767 byThe359 (talk) - try to built the results using this comfortable layout, don't use the huge three-floor section for results"
14:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846257040 byThe359 (talk) - sortability doesnt work correctly here, two rows for each driver after sorting"
14:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846258915 by46.211.114.123 (talk) Not keeping another large table here for your convenience.WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason. The information is already listed by class in the entry list offered externally."
14:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846258045 by46.211.114.123 (talk) Which has nothing to do with this article, as entries for the WEC change on a race to race basis, and the full race results are not listed on the WEC article. No valid reason has been offered for keeping a redundant chart. If you want to mention specific series, use prose, as is done on2017 24 Hours of Le Mans and all previous years."
14:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846256323 by46.211.154.39 (talk) Please see all previous Le Mans articles. Entry list is removed. Use outside references for the entry list."
13:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846255418 by46.211.154.39 (talk) Redundant list, the entries are already listed in the results. Entry list is suitable pre-race, results are for post-race."
This action of removing a chart has been repeated on these race articlesevery single year for the past 10 years or so. There is almost always someWP:SPA that feels like reverting this, typically under the reasoning ofWP:ILIKEIT.
Blocked – 48 hours. The six diffs given in this report (since 14 June) show Sapphorain repeatedly changing 'Swiss' to 'Genevan' for the nationality of Liotard. This appears to be a pattern of long-term edit warring to insist that certain people are Genevan rather than Swiss. This matter needs a calm search for consensus rather than warring.User:Johnbod openeda discussion here on 10 June but Sapphorain isn't waiting for the result.EdJohnston (talk)15:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: A user account with the same name as that listed for the party leader has been consistently changing the party's description on theList of political parties in Ontario page.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[272]
Page protected For two weeks.@Hippo43: If you start reverting again after the protection has expired without gaining consensus for your edits on the talk page, then you will be blocked.Number5717:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Page protectedMac Dreamstate, if I was going to block the IP, I'd also have had to block you – their conduct has not been an excuse to break 3RR.46.211.156.81, please start a discussion on the talk page. Use theWP:RfC process if you want outside input or request athird opinion. In the meantime I've restored the stable version so thatWP:BRD is followed.Number5718:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of2 weeks (it would have just been one week, but an extra one added for calling John an asshole in an edit summary. However,John from Idegon andJim1138, could you explain why you thought it was ok to break 3RR?Number5714:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Warned While the article is not under special editing restrictions, it falls under the post-1932 AP topic area and so extra care must be taken when editing. Being a veteran of this area,SPECIFICO knows very well that rewording or attempting to summarize what may be existing content can be quite contentious and edit warring to retain this rewording or new summary is in no way "reverting to longstanding stable content". This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus.[30],[31] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed.NeilNtalk to me14:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Not blocked As they've self-revertedNumber5711:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
No violation Harshrathod50 has not broken 3RRNumber5711:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely byIan.thomsonNeilNtalk to me12:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment Has been indeffed, 'cause we are all a bunch of <<insert insult here>> anyway --Dlohcierekim (talk)14:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed socks ofOrangeJet (talk ·contribs ·count) and have all been blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk)14:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Already blocked No 3RR violation, but they've already been blocked for vandalism.Number5711:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Administrator note I came across this article and applied a short term protection to stop the edit warring, if an uninvolved administrator thinks that blocking is a better option and wants to modify the protection based on discussion at this noticeboard, feel free (but please note the article talk page). Best regards, —xaosfluxTalk14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)