Vandalism, edit warning and threatening in edit summary"CG does S and no matter how many IPs you block that and my response to it won't change" editor is not going to stop vandalism ~ Amkgp✉06:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: Explanation of why I reverted them: I recovered some important materials of the page which have existed for many years but were recently removed. I suggested adding thecitation needed tag to make others add the reference to these important information, rather then simply removing these important information.Poppopsun (talk)13:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Warned. This editor did violate thethree-revert rule; however, they appear to have stopped reverting at this time, and the nature of their edits as well as their contribution history suggests that they are relatively new and may not have been familiar with Wikipedia's policies in this instance. For these reasons, I would decline to block and have instead left{{uw-3rr}} for the user.Mz7 (talk)01:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mvcg66b3r: The report failed to demonstrate edit warring. If you think the user is disruptive,WP:ANI is where to take that—but remember that your conduct will be scrutinized as well. —C.Fred (talk)03:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
[2] On this talk pageTalk:Pashtuns#infobox we agreed for the source and estimation can stay (While I advocated to only use the the goverment of India census as it is only reliable for such information about numbers) but due to the fact it is not a reliable source (see@Mar4d: comments here[3]) we should wait for aWP:RS so I added a "Better source needed" template till we have an ethnographic/census source but Anupam does not agree with having a temporarily template. While my comments and Mar4d comments cleary say that we should wait for a better source.
[4] There is a consensus hereTalk:Pashtuns#Disputed_source_Solved to only leave it for the "religion" section and omitting the infobox section till we have an ethnographic source that supports the case. But yet the user is performingWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and opened a new talk page since today but is evading to provide an ethnographic source for their extraordinary claim.
[5] (e.g. that there was an edit war going on on all this)
Comments: The user in question is using their experience andWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in order to continue with edit-warring on 2 problems we face on thePashtuns page. which is:1. the population count for India's Pashtun count where as I support the official Indian census which says 21.800 Pashtuns and the user in question a random interview with a famous person that claims there are 3.2M Pashtuns in India without providing anything except their own quote.2. Claimants of religion, user is advocates to add Sikhism and Hinduism to the infobox while there is no single Ethnographic source that supports this claim, they use cherrypicking sources that are refuted by their own + there was already a consensus which the user does not want to look at.
User does not want to work to replace this source here[9] for the estimations on India's Pashtun population count while we have a consensus about the facts an interview is not a good source for population estimations. We decided to have wait for aWP:RS to arrive so I added "Better source needed" temporarily. Which is not wrong to do at all as I am not deleting the source or whatsoever.
For example for this edit here[10] there was consensus to add an ethnographic source for thisWP:EXTRAORDINARY claim but yet the user Anupam evaded the talk page and does not deliver the ethnographic source and is usingWP:CHERRYPICKING especially in this source[11] (where the author itself says the Sikh people immigrated in 1871 to those areas and are identifying as "Pashtuns" due to culture/language adaption where I clearly have given the quote here:[12] but user Anupam is just completely ignoring it that just add to this suspicion ofWP:TENDENTIOUS editing.
User reverted me twice to prevent me to merge 2WP:OVERKILL sources (same interview but different newschannel)
Also@El C: and@Uanfala: were a part of that discussion last year, where we just asked to deliver an ethnographic source that supports the extraordinary claim. till now we have not received anything for it. They can confirm we had a consensus for this all.
Of course edit warring comes from two sides (which you can see ofcourse). I really want this to stop in order to get improvements on this page. I just asked from the user in question ethnographic/census sources for bothWP:EXTRAORDINARY claims but yet the user does not want to live up with that. For the religion section, we already had a long consensus to mention them but not in the infobox. but the user is claiming I want to silence them which I clearly do not do. If they are right they are right. Besides if the user is so certain about its causes it should atleast provide an ethnographic source instead of cherrypicking. To have the template "better source needed" does not seem to be hostile at all especially for temporarily till we have a better source. I think blocking the page temporary will stop the continuous reverts but we have to gain consensus at least. It is better for the quality of the page and others can join the discussions too + reverts will stop.Casperti (talk)21:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
(There is also a high suspicion of canvassing as I only see the same users at talk pages where discussion, where I am involved in, the same users are coming up (Discussion about Afghan related pages). For example when user:Khestwol was discussing on Afghanistan's location when the editor saw the discussion did not go his side the user asked for insight from the 2 same users (Anupam and Shashank5988) ([13]) that are active right now onTalk:Pashtuns too. Luckily for me, the user also added admins which eventually did not agree with their stance. Wherever I am active in (talk pages) they pop up especially for consensus they pop up. Which seems weird + they do not have arguments at all except "I LIKE IT" or they giveWP:OVERKILL)— Preceding comment added byCasperti (talk •contribs)20:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
One look at thearticle history actually demonstrates that User:Casperti has been edit warring with multiple users, reverting myself,User:Khestwol, andUser:Aman.kumar.goel all in one day, in addition to edit warring before that. Although each of us has tried to use the talk page, User:Casperti continues to aggressively push his POV in the article. I expect to see aboomerang here, although if I am wrong, I will certainly apologize and will abide by any advice the reviewing administrator wishes to give me. I hope this helps. With regards,AnupamTalk23:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Only 2 reverts in 3-4 days is not a violation of 3RR. A look into article history tells that the OP is the one edit warring the most.Azuredivay (talk)02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Azuredivay and Anupam, that the one who is edit-warring with multiple users within the last 24 hours is actually Casperti.Khestwol (talk)02:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I had admit that edit conflicts certainly come from two sides. The User Azuredivay above does not know what it is talking about. Yesterday, was the only day I reverted. The day before were multiple edits that were mostly for MERGER purposes. That explains that, so please do not accuse me. User Anupam wants this to be a BOOMERANG using taking advantage of experience but that does not solve anything. We both want quality for the article. That’s what every goodfaith editor wants on WP. The user is evading 1 consensus atleast where tagged users and me only want to have an ethnographic source for the claims no cherrypicking (who eventually refutes their own claims). Not much is asked. tendentious editing is just wrong. If the user(s) is certain about its claim there should be ethnographic/census sources supporting their claims not only cherrypicked interview claims. It might be a good option to use Rfc when everything is cooled down as soon as possible. Non-sided Rfc in order to prevent Canvassing.(The suspicious Canvassing was recently pointed out by another user on the talk page as well.)So we have an outcome everyone has to accept no matter what. Otherwise this could continue with 2-3 days gaps (not only by me). We all want to prevent that.Casperti (talk)03:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Have to add that the last 2 reverts were for consensus purposes but it should have been done in one rv[14]. that is indeed my bad. I have to admitCasperti (talk)04:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I see frequent reverting by bothUser:Casperti andUser:Anupam since 24 May. Can anyone explain why both editors should not be blocked? This is a long running dispute and admins shouldn't sit idly by while both sides are knocking the article back and forth. The advice atWP:Dispute resolution is clear enough.EdJohnston (talk)04:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston, I can assure you that I have been editing and improving the article for years and have used the talk page throughout the time that User:Casperti has introduced challenges to the article. A review of the talk page discussions, however, demonstrates that virtually no users support User:Casperti's edits there; rather they have been challenged by several users. Nevertheless, I would prefer not to be blocked and would agree not to edit the article for the next three months, if you think that this would be an appropriate remedy.User:Doug Weller is familiar with my work there, as well as on other articles pertaining to South-Central Asia, so he might be able to comment on this situation in a way that might be helpful. I hope this helps and look forward to hearing from you. With regards,AnupamTalk04:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course Anupam, we all are trying to improve and preserve quality. It seems so weird that since I think 1 year there are sources placed for these 2 issues are not supported by any mainstream reliable source (Censuses/Ethnographies) except by interviews of news articles. That makes the sources/claims extraordinary which gives attention. (Not only by me, check talk histories or edit histories) then it changes and then it goes back on again after months. So it's better to ask for third opinion/RfCs and not edit it till its solved. We actually need opinion whether sources are reliable for claims etc etc and other stuff. Besides, do not ask for "friends" opinions all the time or CANVASS. It is more annoying then good to be honest.Casperti (talk)05:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
and the other user Aman.Kumar is also weird enough always involved (see comments above) and always comes up with threats without any arguments only accusations. We are all active on theTalk:Pashtuns but when it does not goes it's way, then threats come up. You can read the user's notice though. The user does it frequently for some reason, see talk page history especially the first topic.Casperti (talk)05:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Casperti, stop filibustering and pulling out random accusations out of a hat. The users you accuse me of canvassing don't even have their email enabled. Given that they have participated in past discussions involving the same article and their South-Central Asian background, it makes sense why they would comment on the talk page. Regardless, the evidence here speaks for itself so I would recommend not casting aspersions any further and wait until an administrator has the opportunity to review this. Thanks,AnupamTalk05:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The users are always suspiciously active on South-Central Asia ("Afghan") topics when it involves "India" and when you come up with a discussion for some reason. But I only said I find it weird. Only you asking for Dough Weller's opinion on your recent behavior is, to get free out, is somehow Canvass isn't it? Let this sink, we could avoid it by asking non-partied opinions. Also recently an IP answered on the talk page to include third opinions as well.Casperti (talk)05:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I should use my Admin hat here officially, but I see three reverts in the last 24 hours from theUser:Casperti who has brought this here, each one reverting a different editor (the 3 above).@EdJohnston: I'm not at all sure blocks will solve the problem, unless we use partial blocks of course. The alternative is to pp the article and convince them to have an RfC. I'm also not happy with Casperti's aspersions, they don't help create a conducive atmosphere for discussion.Doug Wellertalk09:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The users involved in this "edit war" have opened that noticeboard for the same issues approx. Seems unfair to "wipe out" the other usury invoking a noticeboard after this noticeboard. In addition it is not a real surprise.Casperti (talk)16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
IP has been edit-warring over months to add the same (usually Philippines-specific) events to the timeline despite numerous warnings and multiple editors reverting their additions. For instance, all of the above-linked reverts from the past month (only a part of their edit-warring) include the repeated insertion ofKidnapping of Angelo dela Cruz orCatriona Gray of the Philippines is crowned Miss Universe 2018.—MarkH21talk19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
08:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960497391 byGSS (talk) You have now done three reverts. Please discuss on talk page and wait for others to comment. Thanks."
08:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 960497033 byGSS (talk) I think it is pretty evident on the talk page who is edit warring here and acting against consensus."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
SPA only here to whitewash the page and removing well-sourced contents without seeking consensus and I strongly suspect there is some meatpuppetry going on.GSS💬08:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
17:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC) "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or"
16:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC) "Wikipedia's sourcing policy This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative. This is a negative material sourced from the tabloid. its not constructive"
16:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC) "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral,"
16:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC) "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or"
Regardless of the outcome of the dispute regarding the removal of sourced content, the image that is repeatedly being restored isa BLP violation. Unless there is talk page consensus (or consensus reached through a similar process such asWP:BLPN), it should not be restored.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots22:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I've checked the content that was being removed as well; it was all sourced, but all to a questionable source - TMZ. I'll leave a message on the article talk page, but consensus is going to be needed in order to ensure the content is in line with BLP policy.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots22:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted this user 3 times (and he reverted me 3 times). Fixing source falsifications which were done almost a week ago is not edit-warring. Based on this reasoning, any edit can be regarded as a "revert". This user falsified sources, I have fixed them, and then they edit-warred to restore the falsified content (anyone can check the sources). Looking their talk page, they were blocked for edit-warring and disruptive editing before.176.41.91.255 (talk)20:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The first 3 were consecutive fixes of clear source falsifications on a particular content which was added days before. I don't think they were reverts. If so, then I apologize for that and will not do it anymore. But the editor's edit wars (he reverted me 3 times), disruptive edits, source falsifications, and "efforts" to get me blocked should be noted by admins. He apparently wants to continue to falsify sources there and don't want others to fix his falsifications.176.41.91.255 (talk)21:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
We've got anWP:SPA arguing that any criminal record George Floyd had is absolutely relevant to him being murdered, and doesn't want other users noting that he's made no other edits. I'mWP:involved otherwise they wouldn't be here.Ian.thomson (talk)22:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Ian.thomson is removing dissenting opinions under the disguise of "trolling" then using the personally-curated discussion to "prove" his desired consensus.71.197.184.205 (talk)23:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Andthis edit shows complete contempt for anything that constitutes "American conservatives and moderates". This person is so ideologically possessed that thinks moderates do not have a valid opinion on wikipedia.71.197.184.205 (talk)23:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you'reSmooveMike? Also, One America News Network and InfoWars are on theWP:FRINGEs of the far-right. It's a trollish lie to say that dismissing those is contempt for conservatives and moderates.Ian.thomson (talk)23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Guy it's probably a good idea as they're appealing the sockblock. There are many reasons why the account should remain blocked (treating Wikipedia as a battleground, personal attacks, tendentious editing...) the sock bit is just adding a loophole for them. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots15:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Ponyo, done - changed toWP:NOTHERE. If your reaction tot he death of George Floyd is outrage that Wikipedia doesn't mention his unrelated police record, well, we can probably do without you.Guy(help!)16:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
(I am relatively (~6 months) new to Wikipedia, so, while I have looked through the guidelines, I apologize for any errors in this report or in my handling of the issue.)
I have been in an edit war with this user for a while now. Neither of us, to my knowledge, has directly violated 3RR, but I believe the edit histories for these articles nonetheless show an edit war. The user is apparently a Bono nationalist, as they have made some nationalist claims, including the following:
"Bono Twi is the earliest form of Akan language and more also a parental Twi." ([57]) The Bono dialect is the mostconservative dialect, but it is neither the earliest form of Akan (as it's impossible for any living language to be older than its contemporaries) nor the "parent" of Twi (as it's not the oldest form of Twi, as it's impossible for any living language to be older than its contemporaries).
Editing the "Etymology" section inFante dialect to state that a.) there is only one possible etymology for the name "Fante" instead of several, b.) that that etymology is in reference to specifically the Bono people instead of the Asante, and c.) that there are no historical or linguistic problems with that etymology, by way of removing all mention of those problems from the article.[58].
EditingTwi and all mentions of Twi to include Bono (and sometimes Fante) as dialects of Twi (e.g.[59]). Twi (itself a dialect of Akan) traditionally includes only Asante and Akuapem as its major dialects; Fante and Bono are treated as separate dialects of Akan.
Persistently editing these statements back in after they've been edited out.
The user's edits are also generally poorly-written and disorganized. Any attempt I've made to edit them, remove unnecessary information, include better sources, or make them read better has been reverted, most notably in[60] and[61] but in all these articles as well, hence the edit warring. (They appear not to know how to revert edits, or are intentionally not reverting them, because their actual edit-reverting takes place by manually editing the relevant sections, so they don't display as reverts per se despite having precisely the same effect.)
I have attempted to make the user aware of these issues as politely as I could and to work constructively with them ([62],[63],[64]), but they have been surprisingly hostile ([65],[66],[67]), including directly challenging me to report them here.
(On another note, the account may also be a sockpuppet of another user,User:Bosomba Amosah. This pattern and attitude towards editing these articles (i.e., the edit war) began withUser:Bosomba Amosah, who then suddenly stopped (possibly due to a ban?), andUser:Sacrifice06 immediately continued it.User:Sacrifice06 was also the only user to supportUser:Bosomba Amosah's proposal to move "Abron tribe" to "Bono tribe"[68]. I don't know if this is sufficient evidence for sockpuppetry, so this is only a note; I believe the above paragraphs are enough evidence for edit warring and nationalist editing, however.)
If I have done anything wrong, or if there is more evidence necessary, please let me know. I'd put quite a lot of work into the Central Tano language articles and it's disheartening to see their quality degraded like this.
Pardon me noble administrators for going against the rules in this community, however i have an edit tussle with this my fellow simply because he only aims to clear all the relevant information relating to Bono articles only. He seems to fuss over only Bono related articles only. He is posing as writer of the various Central Tano Languages but he seems to know less about these languages. He doesnt know Bono Twi is parenatl Twi and the earliest form of Akan language.[1] on page 115 and 116,[2], and all other information relating to Akan languages can be found in this book, however my fellow editor has despised this truth and have decided to do otherwise. He even tried to connect "Fante people" history to "Ashanti people" on Fante dialect's etymology, which is never true, Fante people's etymology is connected to to their "Bono people" or brethren[3]. He has also tried several times to erase all the relevant information on Bono related articles only. For instance[4],[5],[6], of which if he tries anytime, a notification is given on the unreliable content information and of course weak informattion source. This can be traced on the various article's pages, and on the various pages histories. All the Bono related articles are highly sourced, of which it can be found on article's talk page. Anytime i notify him, he deletes those notification on his talk page. Once again pardon me for any wrong doing. ThanksSacrifice06 (talk)23:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
"Going against the rules in this community" is precisely the issue discussed here. I've got no interest in drama; just wait for an admin response.Lingvulo (talk)01:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
You see am being frank here by admitting any mistake i have committed, if we are discussing about "Going against the rules in this community", then i believe you have done more "reverts" or "edit warring" than i did. I believe Administrators reviewing the histories of the various article pages would get to know the truth. And also why you have deleted all the notices i sent to you on your user talk page. Thanks.Sacrifice06 (talk)07:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
PleaseEdJohnston i don't mean to personally attack anyone with all due respect and i believe my fellow editorUser:Lingvulo also do not wished to do the same. However as a result of the tussle between us, i was referring to him on his talk page why he kept on deleting those notices i have sent to him. But rather keep on pointing to me of edit warring, knowing very well of his actions and mine as well. So i believe finally the truth is out, we should all take note of it, to promote the health of this noble community. Once again Pardon both of us for any guilt. ThanksSacrifice06 (talk)18:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect,User:Sacrifice06, you have been quite actively hostile for some time, e.g.[69], since before I cleared my talk page - which, I may note, I cleared because I'd rather not host personal attacks there. (If doing so happens to be a rule violation, I can't say I was aware.) I've tried to be polite ([70],[71],[72]), but you have been surprisingly rude in response - this not to mention the edit warring and nationalist editing, as was the original issue, nor the unrepentant and unapologetic challenge to report you ([73]).
I do admit to the edit warring, the rules regarding which I'd initially misunderstood; I take full credit for this and apologize. Once more, I have no interest in drama, so I'd like to accept whichever punishment is deemed appropriate, then continue researching and editing following it. Thank you.Lingvulo (talk)18:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Things need to be sorted out hereUser:Lingvulo, to err is human, i have even apologised on our behalf's, being guilty of edit warring and breaking any other commnunity rules. Sorry for any hostility, as i have let bygone be bygone. Once again Administrator, pardon me and my friend for the guilt. We would all work towards ensuring the health of this noble community and follow the rules as well. Thanks.Sacrifice06 (talk)19:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
As much as I would like to,User:Sacrifice06, I don't believe this is an earnest apology. I'd put up warnings on three occasions ([74],[75],[76]), describing what is described here in as friendly a manner as I could; I received hostility and insults in return ([77],[78],[79]), including a very direct challenge to report, at which point the apologies offered above would have been more appropriate. What is given here does not serve as an excuse forUser:EdJohnston's request, nor do statements as general as "to err is human" and "let bygone be bygone". What was pasted repeatedly on my talk page was indeed a personal attack.
Again, I do not want drama, and I would like this to be ended as soon and, preferably, as amicably as possible.Lingvulo (talk)00:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
HelloUser:Lingvulo, i thought we are cool now. Lets all be earnest, i initially sent you a message[80] to stop clearing the Bono related articles only. You deleted those messages and later pointed to me of edit warring. Then i sent you this message[81] to alert you to stop pointing to me of edit warring and moreover stop deleting the notices or messages, because your actions also leads to edit warring. This was the real meaning of my message and nothing else. So i even explained toUser:EdJohnston and apologised. As i said, i do not personally mean to attack anyone, never. So please lets move on and stop this drama. Please Administrators pardon me and my friend for the guilt, and i also apologised to anyone i have offended throughout my means of communication. Thanks.Sacrifice06 (talk)06:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Their edits on my and Materialscientist's talk page indicateWP:NOTHERE; and they've indicated that they will create additional accounts as a form of block evasion so could we also have a CU check for sleeper accounts once this gets dealt with? Thanks,RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)03:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Pick your poison on the talk page, there are tens of edit requests along the same vein, with no reliable sources provided to contradict the "far-right" descriptor. "Libertarian" already exists as a description of some of the groups further down in the article, but sourcing does not support applying it to all.
They've stopped for now. I'm unimpressed with their editing history, which appears to fall into the watering-down-to-mush school of POV-pushing.Acroterion(talk)21:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I would block for a 3RR violation myself, but since I reverted one of their edits (only found it because it flagged as an addition of The Sun), bringing here for an uninvolved opinion. The editor in question has not engaged despite talk page warnings. Their username also pretty strongly suggestsWP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW.creffett (talk)15:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Its not a bright line 3rr as its spread over three days but its on a page under discretionary sanctions and the conduct is getting out of hand. User:Marvin 2009 (who now goes by Precious Stone) has apparently been disrupting Falun Gong related pages since 2015 (User talk:Marvin 2009/Archive 1) with a great deal of regularity. There are also repeated claims of “per talk page” and “see talk page” but there isn't actually any consensus anywhere on the talk page which supports these changes. I don’t feel like I’m being engaged with in good faith on the talk page either, especially because they insist on reverting during the talk page discussion process claiming that its been worked out on the talk page when it clearly hasn’t.Horse Eye Jack (talk)18:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually now that I dig a little deeper the user’s first edits appear to be to move their page to "NTDTV Vocal Competition” and they appear to have had the intention of promoting the show which is produced byNew Tang Dynasty Television. I’ve placed a COI notice on their talk page.Horse Eye Jack (talk)18:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Comments:
1. As to the "NTDTV Vocal Competition" issue User:Horse Eye Jack raised, I announce here I am not related to NTDTV in anyway. If my memory is correct, that was over 10 years ago, when I just applied the Wikipedia account, I noticed there was such an interesting vocal competition. I tried to upload a short video and create a page for introducing the event (Nobody paid me to do so!) , and at the same time for learning and practicing Wikipedia editing. As I was not familiar, I failed to upload a proper video nor create the page. I have never been a part of NTDTV. I was not clear about the rules when I just applied an account.
2. I remember, in the past, before some activists who tried to promote their narratives on sensitive pages like Falun Gong article without reliable sources, were eventually banned, they sometimes were in heated arguments with me (including leaving many false accusations on my talk page), because I tried to prevent them from disrupting Wikipedia.STSC (talk·contribs) andUnicornblood2018 (talk·contribs) were two such examples.
3.WP:ARBFLG's decision in 2007 showed two anti-FG activist usernames were indefinitely banned for the editing the Falun Gong related topic, and multiple other users were temporally banned. Before my recent edits on this article, I have not touched this sensitive topic for over a year. Recently I noticed it appears that a kind of activism is in the working to add WP:OR contents in the name of reliable sources; after reviewing the sources as per WP:V, however, one can easily see the reliable sources are actually misrepresented or misused. Here is only one example,the line 'The Falung Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad' or similar meaning is not covered by the provided NYT source and other sources. In this edit, there were multiple misrepresentations as i detailed them in the article's talk page. To prevent Wikipedia article from being disrupted was the reason I started to edit in this topic after over 1 year.
4. When I said per "talk page" in the editing summary, I meant I provided the details on the talk page on how User:Horse Eye Jack's added contents were not supported by the provided sources I never said it had been worked out on the talk page. At the same, I provided some explanations for individual changes in the editing summary and on the talk page.
5. User:Horse Eye Jack kept reverting:a,b,c, and failed to provide reasonable grounds and deleted many reliable sources. I am surprised I am the one who was reported:)Precious Stone21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
These articles have a serious problem with editors such as this one coming out of the woodwork and attempting to scrub, obfuscate, or blur any mention of the political involvement of this particular new religious movement. A few choice quotes for users unfamiliar with Falun Gong and its extensions, such asThe Epoch Times, orShen Yun:
Both Shen Yun and Epoch Times are funded and operated by members of Falun Gong, a controversial spiritual group that was banned by China’s government in 1999 … Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.
In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.
Despite its conservative agenda, Epoch Times took pains until recently to avoid wading into partisan U.S. politics. That all changed in June 2015 after Donald Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy, proclaiming that he “beat China all the time.” In Trump, Falun Gong saw more than just an ally—it saw a savior. As a former Epoch Times editor told NBC News, the group’s leaders “believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party.
The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.
The Epoch Times, digital production companyNTD and the heavily advertised dance troupe Shen Yun make up the nonprofit network that Li calls “our media.” Financial documents paint a complicated picture of more than a dozen technically separate organizations that appear to share missions, money and executives. Though the source of their revenue is unclear, the most recent financial records from each organization paint a picture of an overall business thriving in the Trump era.
Source: Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times".NBC News. August 20, 2019.OnlineArchived 23 August 2019 at theWayback Machine.
These articles could all use way more eyes to fend off the constant attempts at turning them into promotional pieces.:bloodofox: (talk)21:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Bloodofox (talk·contribs) , I have no problem with contents supported by reliable sources, whether they are true or not true. However, the line "The Falung Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad" and the line "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun" you added to the lead section of the article, cannot be supported by the 6 sources you provided, including these above 2 ones. No lines with similar meanings to these 2 lines exist in these 6 sources. As i said toUser:Horse Eye Jack in the talk page, he is welcome to add any reliable source supported contents, but WP:NOR should be followed.
But its not now and never was OR... Its always been a clear and rather conservative summary of the information contained in the WP:RS.Horse Eye Jack (talk)22:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:V states: “All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include aninline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.”
From the 6 sources in the past 3 days you failed to find any info that supported 'The Falung Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad' or 'The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun'.Precious Stone23:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The sources I gave were some of the same quoted extensively above by Bloodofox, there has always been inline citations to reliable sources which directly support the material. I am also going to ask you to stop refactoring your comments after you’ve been responded to perWP:TALK#REPLIED.Horse Eye Jack (talk)00:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"The sources I gave were some of the same quoted extensively above by Bloodofox, there has always been inline citations to reliable sources which directly support the material". This is a false statement again, as you did many false statement on the Falun Gong talk page. There have never been citations from these sources supporting the material.
Above, I added the 6th point, some of the deleted links by you and bloodofox,and adjusted format, as I was not aware of the rule. Okay, I will try not to make changes after they have been responded.Precious Stone01:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Comments byUser:Bstephens393: I'd like to chip in here as an uninvolved editor (albeit occasionally participating on the article's talk page.) I oppose all edit warring, but the complainant in this case seems to have unclean hands. It looks like bothUser:Horse Eye Jack andUser:Bloodofox have recently engaged in such behavior, all the while refusing to discuss in good faith on the talk page, despite several requests and reminders. Furthermore, neither seems to have edited the page before last month, but now they are exercising very definite ownership over it -- e.g. declaring their preferred version of the lede to be afait accomplis, but without answering almost any of the questions raised about the merits of their changes.
BeyondWP:V andWP:RS, the concerns are mostly about due weight, including the role of an extensive corpus of peer-reviewed literature vs. newspaper articles, among other things. The aforementioned editors have behaved as if these questions weren't legitimate concerns in the least, perhaps since they would complicate the editors' preferred narrative-building. In addition, they have repeatedly made seriousad hominem accusations of bad faith against other editors. I wish everybody would just get along and follow the etiquette, and I certainly wouldn'twant to call them activists; that said, I'd ask you to consider at least the following diffs when you evaluate this claim.
tell me Bstephens393... Why did you come out of a seven year retirement in May? I notice that since then you've contributed almost exclusively on FG pages and pushed a very pro-FG POV. While you had touched heavily on FG and FG related topics in your previous decade as an editor it didn't make up the vast majority of your edits, what changed?Horse Eye Jack (talk)01:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Show me onesingle edit where I have "pushed a very pro-FG POV." I have never been "pro-FLG" or "anti-FLG". Please give me the diffs right now. I have not edited the articleat all during these debates, and on the talk page I have mainly insisted that all parties engage in civil discussion andcollaborative editing. As for my personal PhD hiatus and why I decided to come back now, that has nothing to do with the question at hand. If you really want to know, I have a broader interest in China's current expansionism in HK because of close academic connections, and this is a related hot topic I've been closely watching. My original intent was to leave one comment on the talk page and move on. Quickly I noticed that some of the editors had absolutely no interest in good faith discussion, and I cannot rule out the suspicion that this may be partially related to the current geopolitical events.Bstephens393 (talk)01:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The first edit you made in nearly a decade suffices[99]. Is there a reason you have made no edits related to Hong Kong or China since returning to Wikipedia? Besides for small edits atAlexandre Gallo,Gruber Collection, andSaturn (alligator) you have only edited the FG talk page and contributed to related noticeboard discussions. You appear to be a single issue editor since your return, I’m as far as you can get from being a single issue editor here... Less than 1% of my edits are FG related.Horse Eye Jack (talk)04:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Anybody can see that the diff you provided has nothing to do with "pushing a very pro-FG POV", or even a "pro-FG POV." It is a commentary on the NRM label (which I supported) and appropriate contextualization based on WP:RS. Stop yourad hominem attacks. The fact that I've written about a dozen comments on the article's talk page over the last few weeks -- and haven't edited the article evenonce -- is obvious to anyone. As soon as the academic year ends for my graduate students, I will have a lot more time to focus on this and other topics. Let me remind you that your activism and edit warring arenot assuaged by your contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia. They do not buy you acarte blanche for bad faith editing.Bstephens393 (talk)04:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:Aspersions you’re gonna need to provide evidence of “activism,” “edit warring,” and “bad faith editing.” If you make baseless accusations as you do here its aWP:PA.Horse Eye Jack (talk)16:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
By the way I think you miscounted your edits, you’ve made a dozen edits of FG related noticeboard posts... On the FG talk page you’ve made more than two dozen edits since coming out of retirement.Horse Eye Jack (talk)16:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not count minor revisions of existing comments (including syntactic or grammatical changes and rephrasing) as separate comments. As for activism, edit warring and bad faith editing, I have provided the diffs above, and I could list a number of well-expressed, legitimate and recent concerns that were raised but never properly addressed on the article's talk page. However, this is not the place for that discussion.Bstephens393 (talk)18:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: Constant edit warring over the article due to personal political bias.Mr. Samerkov (talk·contribs) has also been warned over edit warring in the past. He has also been targeting and harassing other editors, claiming them ascybertroopers of a certain political party.Tofusaurus (talk /contribs)14:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This is repeated behaviour. A previous edit war was refereed to AN/I (by an equally culpable editor), but did not attract attention and was archived.Dewan Rakyat was protected following a request I made to RfPP, and disruption died down. While, Mr. Samerkov is definitely edit warring again, I do note that they have now made a post on the talkpage. It's not the best talkpage post, but out of the significant number of IPs and editors that have been warring over the article, they are the only one to have done so so far. A partial block focused on this page may be useful in encouraging further discussion.CMD (talk)14:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It's Fine, I took a blame. Seriously if you really want to block me. Im Nothing to blame. But it's not about political belief or not. Sometime i can't trust any website except from the Real Website such as Berita Harian or New Strait Times i would Accept it. I doing for what the best. CMD was Right, maybe i was a Fool or Too Harsh lately. But Please, just Let me do what's the best i can. I won't bother Dewan Rakyat but il try to stay away with it. Block me as you want. Im not coming back after this.Mr. Samerkov (talk)14:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Result:User:Mr. Samerkov iswarned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page.EdJohnston (talk)19:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User does not understand that he is not allowed to remove the Copyvio Tag itself, I explained it now 4 times to user. Perhaps needs a pause.CommanderWaterford (talk)08:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
13:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Electoral history */His party affiliation is DEMOCRAT party. Not DEMOCRATIC party."
13:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "Corrected party affiliation from Democratic to Democrat which is the correct and accurate name of the party."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
13:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "←Created page with '== Democratic party == Please read the talk page discussion and others edit summaries as you are edit warring across multiple articles. If you reinstate these ch...'"
I added a discussion on the talk pagehere before seeing this report...@Ed6767: the other user involved in this mostly seems to be the IP; unless they're the same person as@Noelephant:. But undoubtedly this is a 3RR violation; though if both editors engage on the talk page as I suggested this might not be necessary (after all, WP isn't a bureaucracy and if both editors stop breaking the rules there's no reason to block, which is only a last resort...) Cheers,RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)15:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, I agree. A block should only be to stop disruptive editing and reported user has made significant constructive contributions - but despite three warnings, they are still engaging in the edit war and seem to think theyown the page or have some sort of advantage over a newcomer, which could also be againstWP:BITE. If reported remainedWP:CIVIL and didn't try the whole "better than you" deal and saught resolution, I would've not opened this thread. But at the moment, the only interaction that has happened is through edit summaries boiling down to "I'm right and you're wrong".Ed6767 (talk)15:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ed6767: I don't disagree with your assessment,I just note that they don't appear to have made any new reverts since we both warned them so I guess a short wait-and-see is in order. Cheers,RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)15:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh well, they haven't communicated on any talk page so far and further disputed edits have not been met with any explanation anywhere... Could anybody also explain to me what part of"low resolution" is not clear (and fix that file, while we're talking about it...)? Cheers,RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)12:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, the behaviour is still somewhat continuing by the reported user. I've exhausted my UWs, not sure a personal message would be listened to or worth the time.Ed6767talk!19:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ed6767: Exactly the point I was making earlier. At this point I would support a block for edit-warring.Now they also want to keep three redundant plot summaries when one would be plenty enough. Also, looking through their edit histories they don't seem to have much used talk pages; out of their 700+ edits the only edits to talk pages are results from page moves or a few requests to some editors, nothing in the way ofWP:DISCUSS...RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)19:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – 24 hours. This a dispute about the new Looney Tunes series created for HBO.User:Evelynkwapong539 has continued to make reverts atPlunger (Looney Tunes Cartoons short) while this report was open, while making no response to the complaint. There has been disagreement on how many plot summaries should be included in each article. The editor never uses article talk.EdJohnston (talk)01:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
22:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "/* The King: Eternal Monarch */ if a group of pop culture enthusiasts follow the drama means it a cult status drama... that is the meaning of cult its understood... read republicworld article and understand properly before making changes... thanks"
22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "/* The King: Eternal Monarch */ accordingly to the republicworld article"
17:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "/* The King: Eternal Monarch */ group of pop culture enthusiasts following the drama means its a cult its understood... for example group of comic readers following manga means its a cult like that..."
17:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "/* The King: Eternal Monarch */ i have made several changes and removed hype.my but pop culture popularity and south china post are reliable so i kept it thanks"
16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "/* The King: Eternal Monarch */ iam from austrailia can you tell me whats wrong everything is properly written and south china post republicworld.com are reliable sources for your concern..."
06:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "I am a volunteer who loves his country and try to promote historical sites and museums. No one is paying me. This is a free contribution."
01:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC) "publishing my research regarding the f-15 history with THE Saudi Air Force"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
The user was advised and warned for edit warning but there is no effect of the warnings and he's continuously reverting others. Also, there is a case of undisclosed paid editing.GSS💬14:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please take care of this user? constantly reverting despite warned multiple times.GSS💬16:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
21:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Track listing */STOP REVERTING THIS ARTICLE! LEAVE IT ALONE! PLEASE! WHY MUST IT BE THIS DIFFICULT?!"
20:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Track listing */I don’t understand. Am I performing some sort of sacrilegious act that y’all have been committed to forever or do you simply hate using bold to make the different pieces easier to distinguish at all?"
00:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Track listing */Well, I guess have no choice but to give up. I just wanted this album to look nicer. At least leave it like this. It’s the best I can do without aggravating anyone. Sorry for all of the anger. I just didn’t expect you to be so over controlling at this. Please forgive me."
That doesn’t mean y’all have to keep ganging up on me! Just letting you know, if you think I’m trying to piss you off - it’s actually the opposite- you are trying to piss me off because you apparently believe that this one album track listing must be different from all of the other albums."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Not all reverts in one 24-hour period, but it's a repeated pattern.User:RodgerSP is a new user and all their edits so far have been focused on this one issue - trying to remove any reference to the legacy of theCPGB in theCPB article. After a bit of back-and-forth reverting they did finally engage on the talk page, however they immediately went back and reverted edits on the main article afterwards. The wording of the article was already balanced and neutral and I don't think the edits are in good faith.Extua (talk)15:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[126]
Comments:
Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. The userdeclares on talk that they will continue the war about the founding date of the party (he says 1988 while others say 1920).EdJohnston (talk)14:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
12:53, 04 May 2020 (+192) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 954648077 byKautilya3 (talk) This evident from neutral sources as well from Indian sources as per losses incurred. Moreover the main article of this war mentions India's upper hand with referring to the Assessment of losses so I've added it the same way.)
13:49, 05 May 2020 . . (+192) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 954816825 byKautilya3 (talk) Edits reverted without having any reasonable ground. The sources about losses and all the claims are well referenced in the article from where edge is clearly evident. So the said reversion amounts toWP:EDITWAR andWP:TWABUSE. Don't change it without providing a reasonable ground or counter information.)
00:38, 08 May 2020 (+96) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 955373353 byAman.kumar.goel (talk) Discussion is ongoing, do not remove it before it ends!)
12:51, 14 May 2020 (+160) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 956581397 byField Marshal Aryan (talk)WP:SQS The point is well referenced, discussion is started by other editors who are refuting whether the sources mentioning of Pakistan's edge are on merit or not.)
15:02, 05 June 2020 (+305) . . Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (Undid revision 960701978 byTrojanishere (talk) Discussion about victor and whether it should be mentioned or not is ongoing ontalkpage, it's just the mention of edge as per the said sources. And it's not about declaring victory in 1965 war as per losses, all those war analogies you said may apply to the main 1965 war page but it's a sub page about aerial battle which merits this mention!)
15:08, 7 June 2020 +305 Information added is well sourced. Though it can be removed but provide rebuttal or counter information. Those refuted it started a discussion on talkpage and it was going on while it was reverted last time. Stop status quo stonewalling and come up with reasonable ground to remove the content! updated
Edit warring on main page wasn't enough and he started to engage inWP:LAME edit war on talk page too:-
13:40, 5 June 2020 -2,695 Reverted to revision 956799269 by USaamo: Reinstating as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NomanPK44/Archive, no evidence was found for sockpuppetry as to it. It was premature to remove it, User:Field Marshal Aryan did it in haste.
Statement byUser:USaamo It all started with edit dispute onIndo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 when I edited it to add assessment of losses and edge as per the pattern of main article ofIndo-Pakistani War of 1965 which mentioned the upper hand of a party as per assessment of losses.[129][130] It got reverted byUser:Kautilya3 and was asked to add sources, though already cited neutral sources have a mention of it. So I added another neutral source[131] but it also got reverted and they started an all out edit war with different users like thisUser:Aman.kumar.goel,User:Field Marshal Aryan andUser:Trojanishere coming and reverting my edits and calling the sources to be non reputable. The said source was refuted by them but no reasonable ground or rebuttal was given. We had a detailed discussion about these sources onarticle's talkpage and I went on to quote some more sources from international media, authors and journals but they termed it all rhetoric even though many were verifiable. The page's revision history has all it that how many times these guys reverted my edits and I also reverted their edits during this time but initially they started it and kept doing it.[132]
As to edit war ontalkpage RfC, I added back a comment removed by them but I got confused between the two filings and just looked on the findings at the end of page all the times considering it a single filing on the page, it was an honest mistake. I see the finding wasWP:DUCK. I started an RfC there to get views over the matter from uninvolved and neutral editors but I see it was also flooded with comments opposing it by the same involved editors who actually indulged in this edit dispute with me except one or two. Same like that caseWP:DUCK#UsageWP:MEATPUPPET and seemingly canvassing.
There has been no violation of 3RR from my side and edit warring did happened but started by them and all these editors were involved in it with me. I have no intention to make Wikipedia abattleground and the said edit was only meant to improve the content and neutrality of the article and previously had no such disputes while these editors usually indulge in editing controversial pages concerning India Pakistan history and propagate their narratives by pushing their POV and stonewalling anything coming against it making Wikipedia a battleground which is against it's policies ofWP:NOTBATTLEGROUNDWP:StonewallingWP:NPOV.USaamo(t@lk)14:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Trojanishere is inflicting this edit war[134], revisions log has it all what he started in the middle of ongoing discussion.[135] He's continuously reverting well sourced edits owing to the RfC which has been canvassed through meatpuppetry while no analysis of the sources presented intalkpage discussion but a blind denial. This needs to be stopped!WP:EDITWARWP:DISRUPTWP:StonewallingWP:NOT (Updated)
Blocked – 48 hours.User:USaamo has continued to revert the article while this complaint was open. There is an RfC on the talk page in which most people disagree with his view, but he goes ahead regardless.EdJohnston (talk)15:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 961500480 byGrayfell (talk) So basically you are reverting justified edits without any justification beyond "My Rule" Can you name one time in which someone has voluntarily said "No, I am wrong, your edit is right" in a Wikipedia talk page? Didn't think so. So let's get real, this is about you pushing your ideological barrow and censoring anyone else's justifications, contrary to Wikipedia's stated aim of being free."
20:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 961497273 byEd6767 (talk) Not unexplained at all. The article implies that white guilt is a universal fact when it is clearly controversial and far from universally accepted theory. The header also inappropriately contained research which was not deleted, but was relocated under the appropriate heading. If you wish to impose your ideological biases on Wikipedia, you are the ones with all the power, but don't pretend otherwise."
04:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Other constants */ Please finish these 3 mathematical constants. They are common. Please don't remove them. If you're removed twelfth root of 3 and square root of 6, I will add these."
19:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 961481998 byDeacon Vorbis (talk) Square root of 4 is equal to 2. Square roots of all non-square integers are common. For example: Square root of 6 is more common than the square root of 7"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[137] (also noted on article talkpage)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:TP discussion
Comments: Article is under 1RR. These are not obvious reverts but an editor trying to insert a false narrative in 3 different ways. The "removing liberal bias" edit-summary is somewhat telling.Black Kite (talk)01:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I was told I should self-revert. So I did self-revert. But, when I self-reverted, I also inserted additional information which made the article less biased. (Hence my comment "removing liberal bias.")Is there a rule that says when I self-revert, I have to self-revert to exactly the previous version? If so, I apologize for my breach of etiquette and will follow this rule in the future.Shoebringer (talk)06:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Was quite prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you made a very similar edit again later the same day. Blocked 24 hours — Martin(MSGJ · talk)20:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
19:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC) "It's factual information about a politician's record on an issue they voted on. Do not remove information just because you don't like how it reflects on you."
Well, I was not aware you were dealing with this situation, but I still feel a block is needed here. They had both received warnings before continuing to edit war — Martin(MSGJ · talk)20:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
My concern is the blocks make the full protection redundant as there are now discussions open on the relevant talk pages that neither editor can participate in. If the goal was to stop the edit warring, that had already been accomplished prior to the blocks. If you don't want to undo the blocks then I'll undo the protection, but we're probably just kicking the ball down the road 12 hours.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots20:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
edit warring atMariemont, Ohio warnings and advice given on their user talk. Called other editor's kids and children in edit summaries of reverts, so personal attacks as well.Beeblebrox (talk)04:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[151]
Comments:
The reported editor is acively edit-warring against two editors (including me) and blatantly refuses to discuss his chages of ethnicity on the article's talk page while he has been told to. Admin intervention seems to be needed. Thanks.---Wikaviani(talk)(contribs)00:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:[159]
Other discussion on a different users talk page:[160]
Comments:
All revisions took place within a half hour, users were able to reach out to this ip but the conversation was not productive. /Tpdwkouaa (talk)20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Result: Both editorswarned. The next person to revert is risking a block. Deacon Vorbis has indicated he won't continue.EdJohnston (talk)16:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Resolution initiatives can be found on talk page of article. I personally wasn't involved, but I'm filing a report on behalf of the other editor(s).Hummerrocket(talk)20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
What are you doing SS? Those diffs don't show the same material being deleted or restored. In fact, your diff #1 is my original addition, which has gone unchallenged. Diff #2 and #3 are about a different sentences also unrelated to diff #4. You should know better. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥15:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff one alters removed "He was also a philanthropist" which had already been reverted [[171]] and restored and was being discussed here [[172]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UT
I agree in my case that diff #2, #3 and #4 were reverts (though about different subject matter). I have stopped at 3RR, diff #3 was basically to acknowledge the misclick on "revert vandalism" after an edit conflict. Will DeFacto be as forthcoming? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥19:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Well the first diff there doesn't show revert, it shows a cite body being moved from a ref in the lead (to reduce lead wikicode clutter) to a ref down in the article. But with the article being so controversial, and heavily edited and fast changing at the moment, and with no talk of edit-warring, and no warnings having been given (to me at least) I wouldn't be surprised if one or two have topped the 3RR. On the plus side, I think weare progressing towards a better article. --DeFacto (talk).20:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, maybe it will get better one of these days. Fair enough, in Diff #4 you were moving an article you know is not attributed to the correct author without correcting it. You reverted the correction of the author field earlier and now have poked around with it a second time. If you are interested in improving the article, please correctly attribute to the reference to its author (Andrew A. Hanham). I had done this before your revert #3. See again thebright blue author notice with a quill at the bottom of the page. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥20:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
My first edit ever to the page was apparently counted as a revert though I did not look at the page history before editing, as was my polite apology to Cassianto for accidentally hitting "revert vandalism" instead of "undo" when the interface jumped after loading Twinkle. (I could not undo my mistaken "revert vandalism" because Cassianto had done so within 30 seconds of the misclick.) As was made clear I had no attention to revert any further on the page... oh well, such is life. I suppose I could appeal, but I don't really feel like going back to that page, anyway... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥21:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think you both need a break from reverting, while instead focusing on article talk page discussion. Regardless of 3RR (murkiness and otherwise).El_C21:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User seems to be pushing some odd unsourced nonsense on the article and continues despite multiple editors reverting them and multiple warnings.Ravensfire (talk)03:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – Indef. Strange edits that appear to be vandalism. User can appeal for unblock on their talk page if there is some reasonable explanation.EdJohnston (talk)02:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[180],[181]
Comments:
Slight variations in IP. Has indicated clear intention to continue edit warring and introduce a change against consensus.MaxBrowne2 (talk)05:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
MaxBrowne2 violatesWP:POV andWP:THREATEN -- ignores sources while failing to provide sources of his own after his claims have been refuted:[182]. Went through with his threat, and claims a consensus that isn’t there, asQuale is fine with the sources:[183].
Three editors - myself, MaxBrowne 2 and Quale - have now reverted you. Instead of going to their user talk pages you need to discuss on thearticle talk page.--P-K3 (talk)22:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP-hopping editor has engaged in a long term edit war since 8 June. Nobody else supports this concept of a 'vice world champion' of chess. Use the talk page to persuade the others.EdJohnston (talk)02:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Your claim that »nobody supports a concept of a “vice world champion”« is false and laughable in view of the sources presented. Abuse of power and an accusing me of »edit warring« is a convenient way to ensure violations ofWP:POV andWP:THREATEN, appreciate you for alerting me to it. And I’m not »IP-hopping«, sorry — can’t let a lie stand unchallenged. What my online provider does with semi-dynamic IPs is beyond my control, I don’t actively pick different IPs. Add-on: it’s not »persuade«, it’s »convince«. Anyway, good luck with your practice.
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The user has been reported, try to put his personal view against consensus view, and he made edit warring against 3 editors, he didn't attention to other editor that invite him to see the talk page, thank you.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Virtually no attempt to communicate. Also abusing more than one account—editing logged out. Besides the clear edit warring, support block as perWP:DE andWP:CIR.Amaury •15:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
See also[186] – I suppose that will settle the matter; I'd close the report I filed here if I knew whether I'd be allowed to do that. Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned I'd like towithdraw this report, so that nobody needs to put their time and effort in it. --Francis Schonken (talk)05:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting this here. I undid their initial blanking edit for dubious claims in removing sourced content (incl. from some sources I know to be reliable). Afterwards, they made a claim on the basis of a few of the sources being unreliable - and blanked a smaller amount of content. I decided to let it be and let regular contributors of the article sort it out from there; source reliability in Christianity is not my specialty, so I refrained from any further reverts. I figure someone else, who can dedicate the appropriate time to that article, can sort out this mess.ProcrasinatingReader (talk)19:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – 24 hours byUser:Oshwah. It appears that Lempop2 has made ten reverts on this article and never posted on the talk page. If the editor continues they will be risking an indefinite blockEdJohnston (talk)14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: Violate of three-revert rule, in that summary ([200]) I wrote "Don't remove that" and then he again reverted my changes for the third timeNatanieluz (talk)11:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The edits in question that I reverted blatantly violated NPOV, with lots of undue weight, and no talk page was ever started. I did revert 3 times, though I honestly wasn't thinking of the 3 revert rule and I put an edit summary in all of my reverts.T Magierowski (talk)12:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
In each summary I wrote why I added this changes to that page, I have give you wide explanation, (at least a few explanations), there are sources for everything; even after your second revert I wrote(like I said before) - "Don't remove that"Natanieluz (talk)12:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
There are exceptions to the 3 revert rule, such as the one about BLP. The article on the elections isn't a biography, but your edit openly attacks the Polish president with phrases like "Andrzej Duda and his political party openly attack sexual minorities, opposition parties and even Polish citizens" and "Duda's homophobic war against minorities". Those phrases had to go ASAP.T Magierowski (talk)12:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This title's are very similar to that from news papers all over the world, but if you didn't' "like" this title, why you simple didn't change that to something else?Natanieluz (talk)13:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
No violation Only three reverts (a violation is four or more reverts). And I have to say that section (particularly it's title "Duda's homophobic war against minorities") was a clear NPOV violation.Number5713:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This particular user used to be productive. But, since their recent edits were reverted by multiple users onSani Abacha article, they have gone berserk to the extent ofremoving a discussion that supposed to be archived fromPrimefac's talk page. Their recent edits are now disruptive on the project. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬23:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nnadigoodluck, said it best. I personally would have reported this user about a day / two days ago but from a closer observation & having interacted with them I don’t think they are being vandals or disruptive on purpose. A lack of comprehension on policies likeWP:NPOV or consensus building seems to be the complication here. Furthermore, having lived in Nigeria for the last 20+ years & understanding the intricacies pertaining to culture, ethics and beliefs I suspect the user may have a subconsciousWP:COI with the article without even knowing so. In any case I don’t think any dire sanctions are required a warning is enough.Celestina007 (talk)11:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
In the bilateral relations templates, this user is removing Turkey from Europe and removing Russia from Asia (which are both Eurasian countries) while adding a West Asian country (Cyprus) to Europe. These countries geographic classifications are very clear and it is not possible to classify Cyprus as only in Europe while classifying Turkey as only in Asia. This user is trying their best to classify countries according to their political opinions.Desperado15 (talk)18:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Desperado15 is new to Wikipedia. Having myself been a member and edited articles on Wikipedia for more than ten years, there have been numerous discussions and debates on this topic. It does not make logical sense to classify Russia as Asia when it has a massive chunk of land in Europe, but classify Turkey as Europe when over 90% of its land mass is in Asia. Like many editors, Desperado15 is biased on the matter. Please refer to Wikipedia's own page onEurope.Aquintero82, (talk);19:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
It appears that Desperado15 may also have been using the IP78.190.231.255 (talk·contribs). The IP has made almost 50 edits that might be considered controversial. Admins should do whatever is needed to keep the war from continuing.EdJohnston (talk)02:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Result: Filer blocked 48 hours, the IP is blocked one month. The editor is doing mass changes to classify Turkey as being in Europe rather than Asia across multiple diplomatic templates. This needs a consensus, and they have not tried to use talk.EdJohnston (talk)13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
14:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "as some cannot read and think this specific source is general, i chose an even more specific link that verifies this sentence is accurate."
14:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962345043 byPraxidicae (talk) there is nothing spammy about this link and it's required to verify the sentence is accurate"
I would have preferred an apology for your mistake. You accused me of being a spammer four different times and you were wrong about what the link even was.Isenta (talk)14:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Isenta there is nothing for me to apologize for, you added a spam link as I stated in my summary. This is straight up corporate spam and we do not generally allow such things as I explained to you repeatedly. However your aggressive personal attacks are uncalled for as is your edit warring. Have a nice day.Praxidicae (talk)14:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You keep calling me a spammer man. How is that not a personal attack? That to me is a personal attack. You are wrong. I am not spamming. I added that as it verifies the sentence is accurate. You first told me it was a general link and you were wrong about that, objectively wrong about that part of it. And yet you go on calling me a spammer. Please stop. Assume. Good. Faith.Isenta (talk)14:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
It is a link to a manufacturer's promotional web site, so is, as Praxidicae said, straight up corporate spam. It is possible to assume good faith of someone who adds such a link once, but to edit-war it back in after you have been told it is unacceptable makes that very difficult to do.Phil Bridger (talk)14:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
For it to be spam, there would have to be intent on my part to be spamming. There was not. I agree it's a bad source. You try to find sources to verify construction company history in the 1940's. It's not easy. I used what I could find.Isenta (talk)14:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Ktdk's edit-warring edits on a number of articles are being disputed by multiple editors, he has beensplitting articles without discussion and withoutattribution, and he has made no attempt to discuss on the article talk pages so it is difficult to see the justification for his claim that "The editors who are experienced than me have accepted my edits".David Biddulph (talk)12:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I've blocked both Ktdk andCarl Grassfield for 31 hours; it wasn't just on this page – seeKLM fleet also. However, if anyone feels that Ktdk merits a longer vacation in view of his/her extensive history of disruptive behaviour, I'd have no objection at all.Justlettersandnumbers (talk)15:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[222]
Comments: Dear Wikipedia Admins, I am herewith reporting the misconduct behavior of the user (Bellagio99), who has reverted my edit several times. It is my first contribution to Wikipedia, and I added a reference to a research article regarding the application of SNA in economics (similar to other fields of knowledge mentioned in the SNA wiki page). But the user (Bellagio99) insisted to keep deleting my contribution without even reading the article that I am citing. Actually, removing a citation based on the name of its author is totally unethical. Such racist discrimination should be stopped. I am really shocked to see this happening in Wikipedia which supposed to be objective and fair. Thank you in advance for you kind consideration. Best regards,Malina120 (talk)01:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I see only two reverts within the last month. Further, the discussion on the user's talk page directly contradicts the claims you made in this report. —C.Fred (talk)15:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Blocked – for a period of72 hours Edits by IP rose to the level of disruption that a vandalism exemption applies for the nominator's reverts. —C.Fred (talk)15:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
13:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC) "The judges gave the houses another chance cause they were good enough to not being in the bottom two. Stop changing it cause they were safe or even worst adding more colors, it makes it messier you have to keep the board simple."
The disagreement is over the placements of two lowest performing contestants in an episode of a reality TV show (Legendary (TV series)). The user Tullyo insists that his interpretation of the judges critiques were correct, and continues to change the information on the page in accordance with his perception of the judging. However, multiple users including myself disagree with him and change Tullyo's edits to what the page displayed initially. I have even posted the article talk page link twice in my reverts to Tullyo's reverts because I've started a discussion on the topic, but he refuses to engage in any type of discussion and instead chooses to keep changing the page to his opinions.Monochromatic Bunny (talk)20:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – 10 days. User has been blocked twice before and seems to be edit warring wherever they go. They are hardly ever to be seen on talk pages.EdJohnston (talk)15:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
02:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Skull and teeth */ Yes, I 100% sure. I read the original article. Blumendfeld talks of the Caucasoid race in general and does not exlcude North Africans, Middle Easterners or South Asians and says in the page 25 that Caucasids have small teeths. I don't know how is this controversial, when Caucasoids have always been composed of these non-European groups, including North Africans."
02:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Skull and teeth */ North African were also included in the original Caucasoids."
He started changing the page early on 13 June. After being reverted and warnedhere, he inserted the same idea on 14 June, 00:05. After being reverted again, he started the edit war I report here, on the same article, but trying to force a different idea, namely that North Africans are Caucasian. He also made other edits, I only gave the diffs related to that idea. If we count the first diff (at 14 June 02:54) as initial action, he didn't infringe 3RR, but looks like he is intentionally gaming the system and to make other users confused.Rsk6400 (talk)06:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I accepted that my initial proposed editions for "outdated" were not helpful and the first discussion was solved. I really apologize if I gave problems, I completely moved away from that first discussion. With regard to the second point, of "North Africa", as you yourself acknowledge, I did not infringe 3RR, so in my opinion that does not qualify as edit war (I wasn't "intentionally gaming the system" but rather reverting back to the statu quo, as North Africa was mentioned in the lede from the beginning). Crucially, I'm not proposing a new idea with the North African mention. In the lede, it has been mentioned that Caucasian classifications include population from North Africa since years, it was the statu quo version till yesterday someone tried to change it deleting the North Africa mention and I admittedly opposed. Besides, I am not trying to say that all North Africans were Caucasian, I just reverted back the lede paragraph as it was in the statu quo. The lead paragraph always included North Africa according to the old anthropological classification of "Caucasian". The lede of the article reads that Caucasian "has usually included ancient and modern populations from allor parts of, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa." With he term "all or part", it includes regions were Caucasians are present in all the territory or part of the territory, which would include North Africa. Anyhow, I apologize again if my actions have been problematic, especially when it comes to the first discussion that extended too much, something I want to prevent now with the second topic of discussion.James343e (talk)08:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I reverted back to the statu quo, the mention to North Africa in the lede paragraph has been the statu quo version for years till yesterday someone tried to change it deleting the North Africa mention and I admittedly opposed and put it back.James343e (talk)10:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. James343e's defence is not very convincing. He declares that 'North Africa' is part of the status quo, and that's why he is warring to put it back.WP:NOT3RR does not excuse reverts made to defend the status quo, whatever you may believe that to be. I saw four removals of 'outdated' followed by four edits to restore 'North African' over a two-day period.EdJohnston (talk)03:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[230]
Comments:
The IP does not seems to care about Wikipedia guidelines, especially in regards to the, "Fuck WP:OR" revert listed above... IP has failed to give a proper reliable source and instead would prefer to keep speculation and original research. IP has also decidedly not to discuss the issue on the talk page, reverting once more after I included a link to the talk page discussionin my own edit summary.Magitroopa (talk)21:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion (in which user HappyWanderer15 participates) on the talk page about the content of the article. However, user HappyWanderer15 is using an edit war to promote his version.Охранник Леса (talk)12:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
User is upset that I warned him for edit warring on his talk page, so this is a retaliatory post. The talk page discussions are clear that "abuses" is the preferred wording over "allegations."Охранник Леса is the only user who disagrees.00:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
08:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "So remove "Classic Chinese": Classic Chinese is a writing system, it's not a language. Classic Chinese (Hantu) was abolished in 1910. And Vietnam wrote alot Chu Nom too."
08:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "More than 30+ countries had sent tributes to ancient China, even include Portugal and Netherlands and none of them "Chinese tributary state", but only Vietnam is must be listed as "tributary state" LOGIC!!! (MarkH21)"
Blockedindefinitely – It seems that this user won't be able to edit Wikipedia neutrally. Any admin may unblock if they become convinced that the editor will follow policy in the future. Here isone of his edits:
After 2 days using wikipedia, now I know that MarkH21 is a Chinese troll who is patrolling wikipedia for their Chinese interests without being alerted or ban.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I told the user to feel free to add their information if they did not agree with mine. The user did not write anything in the talk page nor did he/she add anything constructive. The sentence has no source either.176.33.55.202 (talk)14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment Not a decline, but an observation. Looking at this I see a dispute. I am happy to see the reported user's comment here, which reflects what I saw from the edits: both editors should engage in dialogue on the article's talk page vs using “undo”.,N.J.A. |talk13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[244] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[245]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[246]
Comments: I stumbled onto this after four other editors -Kineolody,Deegrayve,Tomcat7, andGovnery - added sourced information to the Yagudin page and Corwin2K removed it multiple times over a period of days. I did notice that 3 of those accounts are rather new, but one of them (Tomcat7) is an experienced editor, and the information is well-sourced, so I felt it should be re-added. Just like with the other four editors, Corwin2K reverted my edits. The information is not positive info on the subject, so it appears Corwin2K wants to minimize the coverage it receives in the article (he originally wanted it wiped completely). My two posts to his talk page warning him about edit warring went unanswered.JimKaatFan (talk)13:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
20:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC) "I removed anything involving "debunking" polygraphs. They are an incredibly effective tool in lie detection and are 98% effective, which is better than most medical tests"
There is a discussion (in which user HappyWanderer15 participates) on the talk page about the content of the article. However, user HappyWanderer15 is using an edit war to promote his version.Охранник Леса (talk)12:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
User is upset that I warned him for edit warring on his talk page, so this is a retaliatory post. The talk page discussions are clear that "abuses" is the preferred wording over "allegations."Охранник Леса is the only user who disagrees.00:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
No violation However, I would strongly adviseHappyWanderer15 to gain consensus for their changes on the talk page (contrary to their edit summaries and claims on talk, there does not appear to be any consensus for the proposed change) rather than force them in by edit warring.Number5710:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
06:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963516128 byAdamfinmo (talk) I had already started a talk page discussion on this, and you need to contribute there rather than reverting I'm afraid"
Pontificalibus continues to engage in a revert war while their proposed re-addition of the contested URL is under discussion.AdamF in MO (talk)07:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I was going to report both of us here so thank you for posting this. Hopefully we can both hold off until some other editors have considered the matter.----Pontificalibus07:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It is fairly clear to me that the user Haltendehand's behaviour to delete relevant facts (in light of current relevant news discussion) and reverting edits to the page of Indro Montanelli to push his narrative is unacceptable to Wikipedia ethics. He didn't engage and pushed his narrative. Haltendehand has deleted 'controversial' paragraphs in the biography of the famous journalist, that have been clearly sourced, but he deleted them.Vale.devin (talk)20:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
In answer to that I would say that 1. I have not removed any facts from the article, merely moved details about the subject's actions in his youth to the appropriate section and 2. More importantly, as the revision history shows, I am far from the first person to try to do this. Yet every time this is attempted by anyone,User:Vale.devin simply reverts it, and has until now refused to engage in a conversation about thisHaltendehand (talk)20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Comments: It seems fairly clear to me that this user's behaviour in consistently reverting edits by anyone who tries to remove or amend the clearly inappropriate paragraph in the intro is unacceptable. He has not engaged either on his user talk page or in the discussion page of the article. For reference, it seems entirely clear to me thatUser:79.66.214.44 is the same person asUser:Vale.devin. I also do not deny that I might be at least in part at fault for the edit war. Apologies incidentally if I have made any mistakes in this form or forgot to add something.Haltendehand (talk)18:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
User:David O. Johnson, thank you. I corrected it without looking at the revision history, thinking I'd made a mistake when entering the data into the form. If it happens again I'll avoid correcting it so as not to cause what would be rather an ironic edit war
He has previously been advised on a ANI that "ask that in future if you are reverted, you go directly to the talk page rather than reinstating." He has been advised ofWP:BRD however has chosen to ignore this advice and repeatedly reinstates his own images on this article, despite the fact that a number of editors have posted on the talk page that they disagree with the inclusion of his images.Dan arndt (talk)02:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm really sick and tired of this ongoing harassment by "Dan arndt". Why don't they just leave me alone and let me do my job? --A.Savin (talk)02:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
"Dan arndt" is assuming bad faith of me, is monitoring all my edits and reverting most of them for hard-to-understand reasons, or evenwithout any explanation at all. Is there not a single admin out there, who don't find this behaviour normal? I am clearly a good-faith contributor, who has been in Wikimedia movement for 15 years, and this hostile and arrogant behaviour makes me ill. --A.Savin (talk)03:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment:User:A.Savin often engages in edit wars to restore his own images to articles. (See his talk page). But this time around he also restored his own picture to the article four times in 36 hours. (First time, 13:13 on the 12th, through the fourth time, 21:55 on the 13th). He might avoid a block if he will promise to make no more reverts on this article without first getting agreement on the talk page.EdJohnston (talk)19:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
No violation However, there appears to be a long-term issue with A.Savin's behaviour. The suggestion that A.Savin is prohibited from reverting their own pictures back into articles seems a sensible way forward.Number5710:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "We need to go back to the stable version so stop your pov pushing if you want a discussion."
12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "The information came from the book "costume et parure du Maroc" de Rachida Alaoui. So you can't call the source unreliable."
Twinkle didn't pick the above up automatically because I'm not an involved user.
Comments:
M.Bitton (talk·contribs) has previously warned the user on their talk page of 3RR violations. Whilst they themselves have come close to a 3RR breach on the same page, as of writing this they've not broken 3RR, whereas SegoviaKazar has.Naypta ☺ |✉ talk page |12:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period ofone week.Partial block. As the admin who had recently fully-protected the page, I take a dim view of SegoviaKazar having abandoned the discussion, even though I'm not sure 3RR has actually been breached here (thePrevious version reverted to parameter has been left blank in this report).El_C13:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Nuh, sorry, Twinkle doesn't like you reporting to AN3 when you're not personally involved in the dispute, it seems - will file a bug report. If you look at the diffs, they've just been reverting everything the other user does, pretty much - they've not reverted one specific thing more than three times, but perWP:3RR, it doesn't need to be the same content.Naypta ☺ |✉ talk page |13:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that. It's just not clear from your report whether the earliest diff constitutes a revert or just abold edit.El_C13:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank youNaypta andEl C for saving me a trip to ANI, as I've just about had enough with them casting aspersions (something they have already been asked to refrain from doing) and edit warring while dodging the concerns raised on the talk page.M.Bitton (talk)15:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963212460 byArms & Hearts (talk) Happy to remove this after a discussion but I don't think it is right to remove it before. I have opened a discussion but nobody has discussed this as part of the 'Edit warring' page - 'Disagreements should be resolved through discussion'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
So far no discussion, apart from the one I have initiated in the talk section, arguing why the animated gif should be removed. I believe strongly the gif is a key part of this story.Gu64rk g (talk)15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted, so I won't take action, but this editor's early edits appear to have been an attempt to promote conspiracy theories.Acroterion(talk)15:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I blocked before I saw this. The edit was, among other things, copyright infringement; reverting it doesn't make you involved. —Cryptic15:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[267][268]
Comments:
This user is edit warring. I have showed good faith and started a discussion on the talk page but the users is acting in bad faith by reverting back, on and on. This leads to nowhere and makes any civil discussion and editing Wikipedia impossible. --Tuvixer (talk)08:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I removed content which wasWP:OR and/orWP:UNDUE, requesting that Tuvixer not restore it without consensus according toWP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.") Neither of us violated 3RR. The page is now fully protected so I advise that Tuvixer use the talk page to discuss the inclusion of the content and that this report be closed with no action.buidhe08:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
No violation Buidhe has not violated 3RR as the first three edits above are not reverts. As the article is already protected, no action is required here. However I thinkPeacemaker67 should restore the pre-edit war version of the article – a version achieved by edit warring shouldn't be allowed to stand. Cheers,Number5708:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The stable version is almost always the correct version in cases like this. And while I agree resolving the issue is key, it is also important not to reward the party ignoringWP:BRD or make the party who was following BRD feel highly aggrieved by allowing the B version to stand, as this may encourage both parties to edit war to get their way in future. So, while this is resolved, please restore the stable version. Thanks,Number5709:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 andNumber 57 I have reverted edits made by Buidhe and I have started a discussion, but Buidhe engages in edit warring and on the talk page claims that I should prove a negative when instead it is she/he who needs to explain why the removal of sourced content is warranted. So when a user shows a clear bad faith, like what Buidhe is doing now, how is a resolution possible? Also isn't a basic rule of Wikipedia that when someone reverts edits that you made that you do not revert them back? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk)09:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a basic behavioural expectation, yes. Hence why the stable version should be restored pending any agreement on the talk page.Number5709:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - all of the IP's are warring in nature. Doesn't use talk page as requested. ONJava has now had 5 separate editors revert their same edit. Uncivil edit summaries. I could provide diffs, but it's easily seen in their contribs. There's not much else in their contribs apart from revert warring to get their way. --Merbabu (talk)09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[289]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page:[290]
Comments:
This editor changed Biden's portrait, which there is a consensus for, on all four of these pages repeatedly, despite reverts from multiple editors. This editor did engage with me some on the article talk page, their talk page, and my talk page, on which I calmly explained the present consensus, complete with links to relevant past discussions. However, they ignored my warnings and continued to make the change repeatedly across multiple days. They also repeatedly used hostile language, including calling the consensus picture "FUGLY," referring to me as "the kid," and leaving a profane message on my talk page stating that "The picture was changed from a deliberately F*ng uglly picture to make him look bad." The consensus picture had stood for quite some time, so it's unclear what the editor is referring to. The editor first reverted my revert of their edit on June 12th. It is now the 16th and they have not stopped. — Tartan357(Talk)02:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
ON the contrary, it wasUser talk:Tartan357 who was doing the edit warring, as there was no consensus for the picture in question, and in fact, I have been trying to revert that ugly picture for months now. In other words it's TARTAN357 who is at fault here and it is he who should be sanctioned. Calmly explaining something that clearly isn't true is true doesn't help matters, in fact, just shows arrogance on his/her part. i had in fact, first reverted the picture to a better one well before that, in March, IIRC. An apology to myself would be nice.
In my opinionArglebargle79 (talk·contribs) can be blocked for repeatedly putting back a photo of Biden that does not have support from others. I could not find any recent discussion that showed agreement on a single photo, but Arglebargle is being reverted by at least three different people (User:David O. Johnson,User:Tartan357 andUser:TDKR Chicago 101), which suggests he does not have consensus. Arglebargle79 may be able to avoid a block if they will promise to make no more changes to Biden photos until clear agreement is reached on a talk page.EdJohnston (talk)19:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Diffs of the user's reverts
22:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "YOU'RE LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OLIVER IS SUPPOSED TO COME BACK IN THE SERIES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
22:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "YOU'RE LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OLIVER IS SUPPOSED TO COME BACK IN THE SERIES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
22:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "YOU'RE LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OLIVER IS SUPPOSED TO COME BACK IN THE SERIES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
22:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "YOU'RE LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OLIVER IS SUPPOSED TO COME BACK IN THE SERIES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
22:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "YOU'RE LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OLIVER IS SUPPOSED TO COME BACK IN THE SERIES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
22:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "YOU'RE LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OLIVER IS SUPPOSED TO COME BACK IN THE SERIES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "YOU'RE LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OLIVER IS SUPPOSED TO COME BACK IN THE SERIES AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
18:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC) atDhola, Tibet: "Paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line.""
This is a bit of a tricky situation. Several months ago I found a two-line stub calledDhola, Tibet, which I expanded and renamed to "Dhola Post". The user complained about it yesterday saying that it was an undiscussed move. I conceded, set the page back to what it was, and created a new page onDhola Post. However, the user continues to edit war at the new page as well, overthe same content
The user also removed citation needed tags without actually providing citations.
@Kautilya3: Your allegation that I continue "to edit war at the new page as well, overthe same content" is plainly false. I have not changed your newly created page onDhola Post to match the existing page ofDhola, Tibet. Instead,
* I removed discussion in the "Location and background" section that was irrelevant, focusing on the main point that the Thagla Ridge is north of the McMahon Line, but India believes the watershed principle implies Thagla Ridge is itself the border;
* I deleted a map that was created entirely by you and thus constitutesWP:NOR;
* and I removed discussion in the "Establishment" section that was irrelevant, focusing on the doubts from Captain Prasad, Maj. Gen. Prasad, and Lt. Gen. Singh on whether Dhola was "properly Indian."
I don't see the logic in being accused of edit warring when you made 3 reverts of my changes within 8 minutes (much less 24 hours).Erik-the-red (talk)14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
That is incorrect. I have done a maximum of 3 "reverts", where some of the reverts may have been done in several successive edits. --Kautilya3 (talk)14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you did. 2 of your 6 alleged "reverts" are not reverts at all. [[WP:REVERT] refers to "undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version."
You erroneously labeled12:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC) as a "revert" even though the diff makes it clear that I substantially rewrote a paragraph based on a newly added source with sufficient documentation (Henderson Brooks-Bhagat) and deleted sources you claimed to be unreliable (Calvin) or insufficiently documented (Maxwell). Because I rewrote a paragraph based on a newly added source, there was no "restoration to a previous version."
You also erroneously labeled[291] as a "revert" even though the diff makes it clear that I made the changes for the first time. There was no previous version from which those changes already existed.
I am afraid you are trying to game the system by arguing technicalities. The fact remains that you make no effort to seek CONSENSUS, and insist on your version of the contents being paramount. By your own admission you have made "4 reverts" despite receiving a 3RR warning. --Kautilya3 (talk)15:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Your allegation that I make no effort to seek consensus is false. As you yourself admitted in your complaint, "discussions took place at thearticle's talk page as well as theuser's talk page." Anyone can check and see that I initiated a discussion with you on theDhola, Tibet talk page at 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC), while you chose to "warn" me on my talk page at 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
Already blocked –@Amkgp: in the future, obvious vandalism such as this may be reported instead toWP:AIV. Thanks,Mz7 (talk)01:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Warned. This editor did violate thethree-revert rule; however, they appear to have stopped reverting at this time, and the nature of their edits as well as their contribution history suggests that they are relatively new and may not have been familiar with Wikipedia's policies in this instance. For these reasons, I would decline to block and have instead left{{uw-3rr}} for the user.Mz7 (talk)01:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
No violation —C.Fred (talk)23:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. The user should also be aware that an unidentified Youtube link is not likely to be accepted under ourexternal link guideline.EdJohnston (talk)14:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely because obvious.Guy(help!)23:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed toUser:ALTERNATIVE VIEWS 10007). If any admin thinks that I'm extending too much good faith here, please amend the block as you see fit.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots02:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Note I've just invited the reported editor to self-revert. I'm waiting to see their response. —C.Fred (talk)16:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment Not a decline, but an observation. Looking at this I see a dispute. I am happy to see the reported user's comment here, which reflects what I saw from the edits: both editors should engage in dialogue on the article's talk page vs using “undo”.,N.J.A. |talk13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
StaleN.J.A. |talk11:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Page protected – 2 days. Please use this time to negotiate on the talk page.EdJohnston (talk)21:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
