The "previous version reverted to" diff is very old because it's the start of this latest 3RR violation and provides some context. TheRingess and myself already went through this warring resolution process in the past and a compromise was reached to allow a "Controversy" subsection under "History" on the Siddha Yoga article. After a few months TheRingess made a change to "order history chronologically" and deleted the controversy header that we reached via compromise. I reverted this and asked them to use the talk page to discuss why they were going back on the compromise. I had asked them to use the talk page for a few months now but they refused. This turned into a "slow burning edit war" as someone else called it where I tried to return to the compromise and TheRingess was adamant that controversy didn't belong in this article anywhere and it's only a part of history. Several times I requested a discussion on the talk page which was never provided.
I then decided to go back to my original position that controversy should be its own section and not a subpoint of history. TheRingess finally responded to my requests for outside comment and using the talk page. Users discussed but I felt we had only returned to the original 3RR situation. For example, if I include that "death threats" were made users remove it saying they can't find where it says that. So I decided that since people keep removing this succinct statements due to apparent lack of substance I would expand these controversies to include the specific details needed to remove any doubt that this is a factual thing that happened as backed up by multiple reputable sources.
I looked to other Wikipedia articles of a similar nature such as Scientology and Church of Latter Day Saints and Catholicism and so on to derive a "standard" format for how these issues should be included in the article and then made a revision to follow that format. A controversy section with a list of controversies outlined individually rather than the previous approximately paragraph long statement of "rape, gun smuggling, death threats" and so on. TheRingess has repeatedly reverted this change now breaking the 3RR rule which they should be well aware of since we already went through this process in the past for the same violation. TheRingess states that I'm breaking WP:NPOV and WP:OR but won't elaborate on this and refuses to collaboratively edit to make things more neutral without removing all content. From what I can tell their issue is that they claim saying Siddha Yoga is a controversial organization makes the article non-neutral yet that wording I copied from the Scientology page to try to follow a format accepted on what I assume is a much more contentious and debated page regarding controversies.
TheRingess has been accused multiple times now on both the Siddha Yoga article and it's talk page of being biased towards Siddha Yoga and trying to protect this article from any negative content. They also deleted the talk page contents several months ago which had more of this history of them arguing against any inclusion of these controversial stories. Link to previous "archived" discussion of controversy section where we went through this same discussion where TheRingess claimed everything was just opinion without any factual backing and I painstakingly went through to prove everything. Right back to where I started.
Comment WhileTheRingess has reverted the article four times, and even though they have not mentioned it explicitly in their edit summaries or the talk page, I believe their reverts qualify underWP:3RRNO exemption #7, "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia'sbiographies of living persons (BLP) policy." Other editors have pointed out the BLP issues.The article is currently in the position it was in before the edit war that the IP started today. To that end, I'm inclined to take no action. However, it might be necessary to apply some degree of protection to the article if the edit warring from the IP continues. —C.Fred (talk)03:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
In my view, the IP editor should be blocked for edit warring. Alternatively, the article needs semi-protection. —kashmīrīTALK09:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Since the edits have stopped, I'm not going to do anything. I'll watchlist the article, though. If the IP were to resume their behaviour, a block would be the next reasonable step (seeWP:BOOMERANG). —C.Fred (talk)13:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
So, if the material is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced which material is that exactly? My intention is that I'm going to restore my edit and I will cite or modify anything contentious yet no one seems to want to clarify what exactly is being discussed. WHAT content? What am I supposed to change? Do you need a citation for every sentence because that is fine. Is the scientology article allowed to say it's a controversial organization but my edit somehow can't? Why? is the scientology article wrong as well or what? I'm purely trying to follow existing examples. I will say that yes, many of the statements made were not sourced, and I had intended to go back and source them but didn't have the time the night I made the edit. Also much of what I wrote IS sourced, why is it that no one wants to work to clarify what needs a correction and only a blanket removal and threats of a ban will suffice? In a very simple sense, why is it that an editor who went back on a 3RR violation compromise is still there "getting their way" and you don't care? I'm the one at fault? I am very confused. No one wants to work with me to reach consensus by pointing out specific issues, I have to fight with an editor who already went back on a compromised solution, and now I have to listen to people accusing me of pushing a point of view yet the current article copy basically says rape of underage women was just "tantric yoga"? I mean seriously this blows my mind. The very victims of rape said they were told by Siddha Yoga they got a "special gift" of tantic yoga and it's their fault they feel raped and that is what the article essentially says now but that isn't a non neutral view?
Also what is the Biography of Living Persons being discussed exactly? Who? Muktananda is dead. Siddha Yoga isn't a person. The controversy guidelines say that a controversy section may be appropriate for religious organizations with a large body of controversy discussed by reputable third party sources. Who is the living person being discussed? Gurumayi who is says disappeared from public view? That is factual and backed up even by Siddha Yoga itself.
I'm concerned that people who really have no idea what they're talking about on this topic are just skimming it for 2 seconds and making a snap judgement. This is exactly what happened last time the 3RR rule was broken and I got an apology from an admin after I had to spend hours of my time sourcing all of the same information that was removed by TheRingess and that I'm trying to add back. These claims are not made up fantasies they are factually backed up history of the organization, I'm not making anything up.
Comment - I'd like to share my perspective as a long-time article watcher (and occasional editor) who has observed the slow-motion as well as rapid-paced edit warring. I agree with the IP and others that there should be a "Controversy" section that is not be buried under "History" or "Teaching and practices: Controversial tantric practices". The controversies are well-known and have been covered in reliable sources such as The New Yorker, academic journals and books. There are ways to present this content in a neutral tone of voice, with proper citations.
The IP needs to improve their edits by adding proper citations. Also the hugewalls of text do not help. Looking back through the talk archive, it seems The Ringess has for many years adopted a sense ofownership. While I admire the fact that they are working to keep the article "clean", I think that sometimes they go to far; when someone disagrees his standard reply is "I don't respond to ad hominem attacks", or basically "I don't want to hear what you are saying." Neither of these strategies (by the IP or The Ringess) work well in resolving the editorial concerns.
I am of the mind that either: 1) the controversy section remain as a stand-alone section, and developed using reliable inline citations; or 2) create a new article specifically on "Controversies surrounding Siddha Yoga" as there are other examples of such articles in the encyclopedia. There could be a link in the present Siddha Yoga article to the new article. Sorry this is so long, I really hope it can be resolved without blocks or page protection.Netherzone (talk)15:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment I do not claim any ownership of this article. When I first started on Wikipedia about 15 years ago, the article was in terrible shape as far as I could tell. I began to try to improve it, I was bold. Over the years I've noticed that very few editors seem to wish to improve the article, they come either to remove the controversy or expand it. I cannot blame them for not wanting to improve it. Beyond the two articles that made the allegations of rape and sexual misconduct public, there really aren't many articles out there about the organization beyond for example "Meditation Revolution". So I hold out no hope that the article will expand beyond its current length of about 2 pages. Currently I feel it is well organized. No attempt has been made to deny the allegations or to prove them as both stances are well beyond the scope of the article. There aren't even any civil or criminal lawsuits. I have brought up the biographies of living people because some editors want to present the allegations as fact and implicate living people in criminal conspiracies to cover up the alleged malfeasance. That, in my opinion, is potentially libelous. This recent editor is attempting to present a non neutral point of view. For example, they talk about the trademark (which is also covered in the Etymology section) and try to present a pov that having a trademark is scandalous. They present an analogy without providing a source. The reader is being asked to believe that the content is somehow been peer reviewed by someone who actually knows trademark law. They claim that the current head has "disappeared", which according to the organization itself is patently false. They make some reference to the attacks on 9/11 stating that the organization set out to profit (the editor calls it profiteering) from those attacks. This is not fact, just speculation and opinion on the part of the anonymous editor. This editor also accuses other editors of doing original research. They point out a Salon article that speculates that the SY guru is the guru mentioned in Eat, Pray, Love. Actually there is no direct quote from Elizabeth Gilbert, the author, as to the identity of the Guru. So the Salon article simply speculates and brings up the Rodarmor and Harris articles without adding anything more. I think I do not need to go on. So I find this anonymous editor uses the talk page of the article to attack me. This is a common argumentative tactic whereby someone simply puts the other person on the defensive. So rather than discussing how to improve the article, I am forced into a discussion about myself. I am not retired, I am a working individual who believes in Wikipedia, but I don't have the time to waste talking about myself. So good day, and happy editing. I look forward to your comments on the article and discussing how to improve it.TheRingess (talk)16:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
That's a nice story TheRingess but it kind of falls flat in two ways. First, the controversy basically didn't exist at all when I first edited the article. That is why I'm even here, I noticed the article had no mention of this controversy, so I decided to include it thinking it would be no big deal. After all it's widely reported, reputably sourced, etc and yet you immediately jumped on it and removed it and here we are, what, 2 years later and you're still blocking any mention of these things except in couched terms? You claim people wanted to expand or remove it but you have removed it yourself multiple times. Second, you are trying to present yourself as neutral and this really great unbiased person but you still continue to avoid the question, "WHY DID YOU GO BACK ON AN ADMIN ARBITRATED COMPROMISE WHERE WE HAD REACHED CONSENSUS ON THIS MATTER MONTHS AGO TO ONCE AGAIN REMOVE CONTROVERSY?" I'm sure you can spin another story about how you really were just being a great neutral editor but the reality is that you waited months after we reached consensus via compromise to revert things back to the way you wanted and when I called you on it you have just ignored the question and continued with your "I don't respond to attacks" non sense. In my opinion it seems pretty stupid to have this entire edit warring arbitration process if someone can just go back after some time and undo everything that was agreed upon and the admins don't care and let that person continue to demand people work with them to reach a new consensus. After we reach consensus this time will you be back in a few months again to claim controversy belongs under history and remove a bunch of sourced material claiming it isn't true? What assurances are there? What will the admins do? Apparently nothing. I'm pretty frustrated because I had to spend hours of my time last time sourcing everything to an admin who gave me a knee jerk reaction of being wrong with no idea what the truth was and here I am again being asked to source everything just so I can add back in what was already proven to be worthy of inclusion. You on the other hand are free to delete it at whim, break the 3RR rule, and keep throwing around links to rules that you yourself are breaking. Will I get another apology from the admins like I did last time? I'm insulted that all the comments here basically jump on banning ME if I try to do anything again. I'm working within Wikipedia's guidelines, working with admins to reach consensus, etc and yet once again the knee jerk reaction comes that I must be the bad one who needs a spanking. Give me a break. Siddha Yoga is a highly controversial organization. It has another organization entirely devoted to its controversies. It has been called a cult now by at least 3 different sources, 2 licensed psychotherapists, one of whom even did his doctoral thesis on Siddha Yoga being a cult, and it was also featured in a television show on Cults yet where even the slightest hint of Siddha Yoga's dark history? It's in the "history" section as a small blurb, or at least it was, now it's apparently only under "practices" where the claim is made that raping underage girls was just misunderstood tantric yoga practices. Seriously? And people have the audacity to link WP:NPOV when that is the current copy? Let's not forget that Siddha Yoga's many victims have said how Siddha Yoga tried to convince them they weren't raped but rather getting a "gift" from Muktananda and that there are third party sources of those victims stating their therapists, themselves practiced/knowledgeable about tantric yoga, have said whatever Muktananda did it had nothing to do with tantra. Using sources like Caldwell to try to support this warped view of Siddha Yoga when in reality she clearly states that whatever Muktananda did with those girls it could at best be called a hollow shell of tantra that is missing even its most fundamental elements.206.214.56.81 (talk)04:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I do think we should do exactly what I had already done and what I reported TheRingess here for removing. Exactly what the guidelines on controversy say to do and which I modeled on other controversial religious pages. The only thing I didn't do was cite every single sentence I wrote because I was tired after writing 10,000 words and planned to revise more later and also most of what I didn't cite is easily verifiable fact that I didn't think would be contested or at a minimum should be discussed and revised rather than removed outright. Some of the things like the trademark of Siddha Yoga were placeholders for more content that I'm still holding onto now and which includes third party sources.206.214.56.81 (talk)04:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Be bold. I still contend that the controversy is part of the history. But I don't own the article, and other editors have worked hard to create the article as it is now. I have nothing further to say as all I can do is express an opinion, not all editors are aware that this entry exists. As you know, the talk page of the article is the appropriate place to discuss making improvements to the article. Happy editing.TheRingess (talk)19:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Joshua, maybe before begging to have me banned you should respond on the Siddha Yoga talk page where you told me to see WP:CSECTION as for why there should be no controversy page yet that article explicitly states to do exactly what I did for religious pages which is a controversy section with subheadings for each controversy. I'm still waiting for your response, you used this as an attempt to justify not having a controversy section, yet it directly states NOT to try to mingle controversies into the content as you desire. You then left the conversation and came here to beg for me to be banned because I'm editing different articles and have not done anything close to edit warring. I removed your "controversial tantric yoga" non sense one time before I made that talk page comment you quoted. I've done everything I said I would do. Your content is still there as I'm waiting for consensus. Yet no one is addressing their own advice now that it was shown you shot yourself in the foot and supported having a controversy section by linking that article. Just going to ignore it and beg for me to be banned?
To quote you:
"See WP:CSECTION and WP:OTHERSTUFF for the inclusion of a controversy-section. See WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:UNDUE for the section itself. And see WP:CONSENSUS for the utter lack of consensus to include your writings. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)"
My response:
Do any of you actually read those pages?
"Philosophy, religion, or politics - For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets. "
I already stated previously that the controversy section I added was modeled after other existing controversial religious pages and when you linked that page I told you it clearly states to do what I did. You've been here reverting my changes that follow the guidelines you claim to want others to follow.
07:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by FilmandTVFan28: This should be "the country or collaboration within which principal creative control was exercised". If there are two countries, reviews and veiwership figures should come from both countries.MOS:TV"
07:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC) "Where the animation is outsourced is irrelevant, otherwise you'll have to change the nationality of most shows to South Korea or China"
I've added my own comment atTalk:Caillou#South Africa removal,trying to explain the issue and why the show is being listed as South African. After being reverted onCaillou, the user came over toSpongeBob SquarePants trying to claim that the show is South Korean, which I explained to them in my comment why that is very much incorrect and why it differs from the situation regarding the nationality/country of origin forCaillou.Magitroopa (talk)09:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[7]
Comments:
It appears that Abdul afghan has chosen to edit war,here,here, and the Ghurid dynasty article. Removing referenced information without discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk)15:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
17:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1027028046 bySjones23 (talk) I have already explained on the talk page. What more do you want from me?"
16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026959871 bySjones23 (talk) Already explained on the talk page. This should not be stated that he is still active since he is barred from the animation industry."
21:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC) "I've made my point, I've provided a source, let the other users present their argument on the talk page before its reverted. Again, this page is not a forbidden holy manuscript. Wikipedia won't crash forever over two words."
20:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */ Go to the talk page before reverting something that's in the script."
18:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */ Whatever, mate, the scene shows Ruth in the room, and the line is "we should tell mother and Cal". Revert it as many times as you want, I'll just put it back."
17:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC) "Oh, go and watch the damn film instead of vandalising. I've seen the film over and over and again and she was there, she did a brief double take when she saw Jack and gently pulled Rose back when the master at arms was taking Jack away. Like I said: WATCH THE FILM."
14:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */ Unsourced? How about the movie itself. She says "we should tell MOTHER AND CAL", and both Cal and Ruth forbid her from seeing Jack. Revert it again based on that logic and I will delete the entire synopsis."
Blocked – for a period ofone week. Part of the reason for the block was the user's disruptive threats in edit summaries, e.g., to remove the Plot section entirely and the promise to continue reverting.--Bbb23 (talk)22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments:This whole thing is silly, of course. I just fully protected the article to put a stop to this nonsense. It seems to me thatUser:Tierradepayless should be very, very careful lest they run into a NOTHERE block; all they're doing is fighting, and they don't seem to have taken the trouble to get acquainted with the platform on which they're fighting.Drmies (talk)04:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
09:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1027332286 bySoaringLL (talk) Vandalism? No one but the Jews believe that Abraham is the founder of Judaism, better to say that he is the patriarch in Judaism and Christianity and a prophet in Islam."
09:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC) "reverted the older version of "Recognition reason" as the term Abrahamism does not exist for religious purpose, while i can't understand the revert reason ofUser:SoaringLL, because of poor English."
09:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC) "Removed as perNPOV, Because it shows tempering with the 'point of view' on this page."
08:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Islamic account */ The calligraphy has been changed, the phrase "صَلَّى ٱللَّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ" is only used for the prophet Muhammad."
The problem is quite obvious: you reverted back to your own versionfive times in less than24H and you continued to do so despitemultiple warnings about 3RR.Jeppiz (talk)10:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[15]
Comments:
No violation. Not only is there no evidence of a warning to the reported user's talk page, but the reported user did not exceed three reverts. Thereporting user, on the other hand... —C.Fred (talk)14:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
00:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC) "I am removing the tag for citation needed in the lead, because the lead does not require citations; it is just a summary of what is in the body of the text. The necessary citations are there"
00:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC) "removing other tag from lead for the same reasons. It's the lead. Citations are in the body of the text. Please don't put tags for things that are not required by Wikipedia"
00:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC) "removing last uncalled for tag from lead; citations are in the body of the text. Please see[16] "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article,"
00:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC) "removing uncalled for tag as material has 3 references one with a quote"
Comments: This editor and I have had polite (if not contentious) discussions on this article's talk page going back roughly a year. The editor committed to extensive rewrites of the article, which I supported. Coming back after several months, it's clear that there are seriousWP:SYNTH issues with the article. There are unsourced examples ofMOS:WEASEL such as "Even so, it can be reasonably claimed that from 312 until 375, paganism was relatively tolerated." and there are citations which are examples ofWP:OR andWP:NPOV issues, such as "The modern Church takes a much less antagonistic stance to non-Abrahamic religions. See Dignitatis humanae and Nostra aetate." In initial discussions with the editor last year, it was clear that they were new and that their edits were in good faith, so we were able to come to agreement. Now it is clear that there are serious issues of editorial bias and partisanship about the content of the article. This can also be seen atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#"Anti-paganism policy"/persecution articles. I'm only interested in the article's content insofar as it conforms to policy and guidelines.— Precedingunsigned comment added byGlobal Cerebral Ischemia (talk •contribs)
Comments: Please note these are not repeated reverts of a single edit, they are a series of individual reverts of multiple edits. I only reverted once. There was no back and forth and no war. I have a personal policy of never reverting more than once which is posted on my talk page. There is no synth in this article that was written byme and if there is any, anywhere in the article, I would need some actual examples in order to address it. I would be happy to do so if given some. The sentence he claims is weasel is a summary sentence in the lead, but I have already offered to rewrite it. The quotes he offers of OR were not written by me and were in the article before I worked on it. I have also already offered to remove those. I left them originally as a gesture of good faith toward the original author. I am not new, I have been on WP since 2017. If he can come up with any examples of anything I have written that demonstrates bias of any kind, I will happily redo or remove it accordingly. What seems to be going on here to my understanding is that another editor and I supported the deletion of articles we took toWikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#"Anti-paganism policy"/persecution articles, and it has deeply upset them. If I am mistaken I apologize, but I think this is a punitive response to that.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJenhawk777 (talk •contribs)}
Uninvolved editor comment PerWP:EW,A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. This is a report based on one revert and the report was made 3 minutes after the OP posted on the article talk page, not allowing time for any dispute resolution first. Should be closed as premature.Schazjmd(talk)13:33, 7 June 2021 (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. —C.Fred (talk)14:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
An IP editor is edit-warring others over how a sentence about how Rotten Tomatoes assessed reviews as positive for the series. This happened after Nyraxos first reverted their edit[17]. So they reverted them[18].
Nyraxos reverted again[19]. Another IP range reverted them, however it's possible they may be the same as the sane broadband can use multiple IP ranges[20].
After Nyraxos reverted again[21], they took to calling them a vandal and/or disruptive editor while reverting them[22].
So Nyraxos reverts them again they are the real vandal and should discuss the issue on talk page[23], but the IP reverts them back saying they are vandalising[24].
After I reverted the IP myself due to their disruptive behaviour[25], they started insulting me as someone getting emotional[26].
Anyway you look at it what they're doing is not right. They've also fought with YoungForver and others on the same article over how cancellation is written in American English[27],[28],[29]. While in this case they may right about cancelation, they seem to have a habit to get into protracted edit-wars instead of trying to resolve a dispute.LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk)05:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
If you read similar Television articles, the reception section does not need to be as long as Nyraxos makes it. I am simply trying to make the article less-complex, as this is an all-access Encyclopedia. Instead of having a discussion, you are now attacking me and accusing me of bias, when that is completely untrue. Looking at your edit historyLéKashmiriSocialiste, it appears you have been guilty of editing articles with extreme bias, so please do not accuse me of the very things you do.122.107.78.176 (talk)08:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
It depends on accuracy of the wording and thus can be longer. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on this, you were right about spellings of cancelation. However I've only stepped in because you falsely started accusing them. So it's not really my fight. I didn't accuse you of any bias (nor I try to edit articles with bias). Since the change was made by you and you're edit-warring with multiple people, you should have opened the discussion. But till now you've resisted doing so. All you do is point finger at others.LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk)09:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. If anyone decided to be offended then apologies. I'm just trying to do the right thing. I just think it's strange that one article gets special grammar and language edits while every other article conforms to similar styles. And because i speak up about it I get punished for it.122.107.78.176 (talk)09:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
You're baselessly accusing a person of vandalism. A few words isn't going to harm anyone and it's not even long. However I do think that you might be right about shortening it. But it's not something for you to be engaging in an edit war over. Not engaging in an endless edit war and not accusing others falsely is far more important than how an article is written.LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk)09:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Well the wayYoungForever likes to casually call me a vandal when i was correcting her "cancelation" mistake, I assumed it was a term used to describe an edit one didn't agree with. Why didn't she receive any repercussions for being so ignorant and accusing me of vandalism when I was simply correcting her mistakes AND beginning the edit wars? Is it because she's an established member who is immune to criticism? Only God knows...122.107.78.176 (talk)11:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Yet, you are not even American living in the U.S. and you claimed you know how spelled it. As an American, I said repeatedly, cancellation is commonly spelled as with two "l"'s whereas canceled is commonly spelled with one "l" in the U.S. —YoungForever(talk)13:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Uninvolved remarks @YoungForever The spelling is cancelation/canceled in the US, this is clearly stated in the US English spelling guidelines, please familiarize yourself. Also after having looked at your edit history, you seem to have a habit of getting into arguments and aggressive behaviour towards other editors who are simply trying to help you. Please maintain a professional manner when editing on Wikipedia. Disruptive behaviour towards others will result in a potential ban.WikiHelper200 (talk)01:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Uninvolved remarks 1. Everyone involved (the IP,LéKashmiriSocialiste, andNyxaros seems to edit war. 2. While nobody is vandalising, accusations of vandalism are thrown back and forth. 3.LéKashmiriSocialiste, please follow the prescribed report format when making reports.Jeppiz (talk)
Jeepiz continues to harass me even though I wrote that I don't want them to contact me. Their way of working here is similar to the IP whochanged my message and called me a "vandal" and "loser". Even though this IP is blocked, I think it would be best to extend their block. I am not interested to continue this discussion as long as one of these two don't hassle.ภץאคгöร18:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Blocked user repeatedly placing fake block notices on their talk page. The 61 hour block notice at the end of the page is a fake block created by the user. Needs TPA revoke.--- Possibly (talk)01:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, the user in question is placing new fake block notices and attempting to make it look like the admin who placed the original block is extending the block. Then they are questioning the admin as to why they're doing this. The reverts are happening whenever another user, myself included, attempts to correct these edits.NJZombie (talk)01:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Editor persisted with unexplained reverts despite warnings, and I had to push my 3RR allowance to the brink. Does not seem that the editor will stop based on repeat unexplained reverts. Also suspect user is a sock as their first edit was adisruptive edit at ANI.IronManCap (talk)19:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@IronManCap: I don't see obvious block evasion, nor do I see where this editor has violated the 3RR brightline. The ANI post tells me they know this is a contentious issue; they really should be discussing the format of the presentation at the article's talk page rather than edit warring. —C.Fred (talk)19:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
It is a revert. Tables were removed by myself on June 3 withthis edit in which I explained them being removed per the talk page (of which I've linked the discussions in my previous comment). -Favre1fan93 (talk)19:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours Clearly over the brightline and with no signs of willingness to discuss. —C.Fred (talk)20:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Appreciated. Although I'm not very well qualified to comment, I will just note that my sockpuppetry suspicions were perWP:QUACK, as I find it unusual for a new editor to make their first edit at ANI, and then to almost immediately begin inserting extensive tables. I will drop these suspicions for now since the edit warring has been taken care of, and I don't have solid proof linking the account to another user.IronManCap (talk)20:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; No notice was posted to the user's talk page. The user knows WP:3RR as it is demonstrated by his message on my Talk page listed above.
Comments: Just a side remark: Norfolkbigfish deleted tags informing editors about a debate because there is an ongoing debate on the article's talk page ([38]). I have never read such an explanation.Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Borsoka (talk)16:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a complicated subject,Crusades andCrusading, at the best of times. It is not helped when editors use tagging and the asking of rhetorical questions rather than editing or making positive suggestions at the article's Talk Page.Dominic Mayers and I have attempted to draft wording that would achieve three way consensus but this has been unsuccessful. The suggestion that the lead paragraph contains original research has largely been disproved both on the Talk Page and athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Definition. As Riley-Smith, one of—if not—the leading academic crusade historians put itIt must be admitted that crusading is not easy to define. The answer to the challenge is probably to be found in a precis of his words inRiley-Smith, Jonathan (1995). "The Crusading Movement and Historians". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan (ed.).The Oxford Illustrated History of The Crusades. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–12.ISBN978-0-19285428-5. combined withMaier, Christoph T. (2006a). "Ideology". In Murray, Alan V. (ed.).The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Vol. II:D-J. ABC-CLIO. pp. 627–631.ISBN1-57607-862-0.. This requires compromise and consensus rather than opinion and tagging. Any possible conciliation would be welcome (and I concede that I have acted intemperately and will mitigate this in future), however it should be taken into account this editor has previous, and an IBAN was proposed for them about a year ago.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Proposal.Norfolkbigfish (talk)17:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Just another side remark: yes, if editors use tagging and ask rhetorical questions rather than editing or making positive suggestions would be quite unhelpful. I made lots of positive remarks during our discussions (for instance,[39],[40]). I also made edits always with proper edit summaries (for instance,[41],[42],[43]). I do not want to start a content debate here.Borsoka (talk)17:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your action. Just a remark: it was not a topic ban proposal, but an other type of ban. Of course, I could live with any type of ban.Borsoka (talk)20:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[47]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[48]
Comments:
Note page is under 1rr (as you can see they were informed of this and issued the DS alert, In addition, there is a degree of PA about their interactions, they seem unduly committed to this edit.Slatersteven (talk)12:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Ok Sorry!
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:diff
Comments:
Slow-motion edit warring from this editor against multiple other editors (that's the "behavior" problem part of the issue) for the addition of aWP:SYNTH/WP:OR section to the article (that's the "content" problem part of the issue). Considering that this editor has been at this for three months, against multiple editors, and appears to almost be aWP:SPA on the topic, I suggest a block until they demonstrate that they willWP:DROPTHESTICK. --IJBall(contribs •talk)19:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours. The user has tried to add the same material to the article *nine times* since March in spite of its being removed by others. This is an example of a long-term edit war.EdJohnston (talk)16:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Confused about why another user is allowed to make multiple reverts but it's a rule violation when I do it. Technically they reverted edits that I made first.PurpleSwivel (talk)17:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Not an accurate or fair statement. If my edits weren't reverted (multiple times by the same user), multiple reverts would not be necessary on my part. "It takes two to tango" as they say. Explain the discrepancy.PurpleSwivel (talk)17:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Because you are acting on someone else's behalf. Someone who also made multiple reverts. For some reason that username is not on this page. Why is that?PurpleSwivel (talk)17:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
FYI, hat user PurpleSwivel is referring to above with the "multiple reverts" is me, but, one wasback on May 28, one wastoday June 9, 12 days apart. My May 28 edit was actually the most recent til today, as the page is not heavily-trafficked of late. Let's also note that this user has never edited another article besides this one, and also proudly displays on his talk page a link to another user suspecting them of sockpuppeting.ValarianB (talk)18:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Cheekily referencing someone's wholly incorrect suspicion that a user is a "sockpuppet account", or how many different articles a particular account has edited, are not valid arguments for the veracity of that account's edits. That is an example of an "ad hominem fallacy"; I believe there should be an article on this very site outlining its lack of validity. Fact is fact, regardless of whose mouth it's coming from. Your inability to comprehend this (since this isn't the first time you've made this poor argument) is indicative of why the article in question is so heavily biased; you don't get to pick and choose what is and isn't true based on whether or not you like the person saying it. Or maybe you do, when it comes to certain contexts/topics.172.58.143.91 (talk)18:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments:
Comment Reported user has neither breached 3RR nor been warned.Reporting user, who has also made three reverts to the article, is deemed to be aware of the 3RR restriction by basis of making this report. —C.Fred (talk)18:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
As the accused, I know being "right" isn't a defense, but please note that this is a BLP article the reporting editor is trying to buff up with specious puffery that is nothing more than an Instagram post. Only this editor and a coincidental fly-by SPA IP think deserves mention (on its own section no less!) of an utterly non-notable organization. Other editors have removed this material on the page, repeatedly, and this editor has filed false ANI notices on the User Talk pages of both the editors who removed this non-notable trivium post from this BLP, and, further, continued to post false notices and claims on my user talk page, and random comments like asking about living in DC. While, also, failing to actually notify about this actual discussion, which I am under the belief is a "requirement".JesseRafe (talk)18:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, C.Fred, thanks, but look again -- It was a blank link. And this came right on the heels of another false "there is an ANI notice about you" just minutes before, when there wasn't one. They were bombarding my talk page with everything except what they're supposed to do, e.g. attempt to discuss, warn, or notify accurately. I can only imagine ill intent from someone with this long a history here, to avoid letting me be aware of this very discussion.JesseRafe (talk)18:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment Reporter placed an ANI notice on my talk page as well, on behalf of the SPA IP noted above, after my two reverts. (I believe the SPA IP reverted themselves more than that in their short tenure on Wikipedia today, but I digress.) On my talk page, I asked for a rationale as to why this reverted material should be included. My tone was admittedly pointed, but the reporter did not respond and has not tried to demonstrate why these edits should be included. Blank summaries seem commonplace for the reporter's edits/reverts. I think this report is, quite frankly, bogus....Shoestringnomad (talk)18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@A21sauce: ButShoestringnomad did not violate 3RR. I don't see where anyindividual account violated 3RR. However, if I looked closer, I might put together where it appears that asingle editor, using a registered account and while editing without logging in, violated 3RR. Would you like me to look further? —C.Fred (talk)20:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments:
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of72 hours.A21sauce was already advised that Shoestringnomad did not violate 3RR. On further review, the edits by the IP to the Dianne Morales article coincide with the edits by A21sauce. Therefore, A21sauce has violated 3RR and is blocked for 72 hours. —C.Fred (talk)21:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[63]
Comments: Fleets wasreported here last month for edit warring against MOS:OL, and against consensus which was clarifiedhere (the user declined to take part in the discussion). The result of said report was a warning fromEdJohnston to not revert without gaining consensus. Yesterday, after I dared to removed a few pointless redirects or country links (1,2,3,4,5), Fleets decided to revert all the edits and jump back over to Paul Gallen to make the same kind of edit (see the diffs provided in the diff section) that they were previously warned not to make. Multiple editors have disputed their usage of completely pointless redirects and piped links, to which their response is to revert on sight without providing a logical reason (their only rationale to date has beento make the location appear as one colour...). As it stands, at least three other editors have raised this issue with Fleets, while a fourth has noted their problematic edit-warring behaviour. Over the last day or so, without digging into their contributions, they have reverted myself,Nikkimaria andEdwardUK across multiple articles, whileTony1 politely asked them to stop today (which was ignored) andDynamoDegsy raised the issue with them a year ago which, obviously, was ignored. This appears to be a case of IDHT with a side order of ownership over rugby related articles on their watchlist...all because they want to make the location in the infobox look pretty and appear as one colour. I wouldn't really like to see an experienced editor blocked for their purely aesthetic preference of linking, but Fleets needs to be told once and for all, consensus is firmly against them and they need to stop. –2.O.Boxing11:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. But I wonder whether this can be solved without sanction. If no one objects, I'll email the user to try to persuade her/him not to persist. If that still doesn't work, well ... at least we tried. Um, no, Fleets's email is not enabled.Tony(talk)12:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Always happy to engage, but still not clear on why the piped links seem to create a deeper vitriol than a gender; gender identity or biological gender debate. For clarity I've not edited very many rugby articles at in my time here, and one of the fellow editors mentioned here whom I hugely respected and engaged with numerous times is no longer with us on this Earth. Perhaps some of the conflicting and inaccurate wording in the multiple MOS's could be tightened up, because no-one wants to be brought down with engaging with fellow human beings, who I assume are genuinely attempting to do the right thing, as I am when I read the links provided. If I am wholly wrong, I'll be the first to apologise for getting peoples backs up, and if only mostly to blame by reading the MOS with legal eyes, then I'll bend the knee at that point.Fleets (talk)14:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Fleets is continuing theprior edit war atPaul Gallen that was reported here on May 1. At that time I warned him he could be blocked if he reverted again without getting a prior talk page consensus. But today we have new reverts. The next step should be a block for Fleets unless they will agree to wait for consensus before making further changes to redirects on rugby articles.EdJohnston (talk)14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Happy to wait for consensus on rugby (league) articles, and have no interest in rubbing anyone up the wrong way, as clearly I appear to have done that, based on the feedback, as I'm sure we are all reasonable human beings, deep down.Fleets (talk)15:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It's not just rugby articles, the linking issue extends across all subjects (except maybe geographical articles, I get the impression they're slightly different). The consensus for redirects/piped links of cities and states doesn't seem to be clear cut. However, in my opinion (and apparently others), the consensus for the linking of countries or the inclusion of countries within a piped link/redirect is established; it shouldn't be done. When I have more than a few minutes spare I'll bring that specific issue up in the discussion at MOS:OL.
Result: No action for now, per the filer's advice above. If the dispute restarts, open a new report and mention this one.EdJohnston (talk)15:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[66]
Comments:
No violation – No violation as yet. There is nothing atTalk:Amitriptyline about this issue. It is ironic that the users tell each other in their edit summaries to use the talk page while neither one does it.EdJohnston (talk)15:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Both IP addresses come from the same region and are disregardingWP:DE andWP:OR policies in order to insert information on severalAva Max song articles about an unannounced album edition. The IP addresses have been reverted byUser:Lrt000, User:Nightenbelle and myself, but have beenWP:TENDENTIOUS about including unsourced information with a citation needed tag. The latter two users both issued warnings to the most recent address, as I additionally left an explanation about their edits. The IP blanked their talk page twice after being warned. Based on the first IP's edit history, they have made similar edits to other song articles which are being constantly reverted. —Angryjoe1111 (talk)16:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
17:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC) "I have provided two new sources. Please respond to my messages on the talk page before you delete all of the accurate/sourced information that is here."
16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC) "Okay, I added another reference for you corticosteroids at high doses are a part of standard care for Sar-Cov-2. Many sources can confirm this."
15:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC) "The edits made were filled with opinion. It is unscientific to describe the opinion of a scientist as "erroneous". You and other scientists may disagree, but that's your opinion. Please simply state the facts. The information that was added did not have a citation and was laced with opinion."
15:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC) "Properly cited accurate information. I have no idea why this was deleted."
22:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC) "In the medical community Kory is most well known for his testimony regarding corticosteroids. I added a few sentences about this in his introduction."
Multiple warnings and reverts from multiple other editors. Conversations on her talk page as well asmine and they ignore it and add it again pretending nobody ever answered. They blanked the edit warring warning after making their fourth revert.Notfrompedro (talk)19:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[78]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[79]
Comments: Partially blocked 24 hours fromJohn F. Kennedy. As this editor has been participating in the discussion (which is good), but continued the edit war while doing so (which is not so good), they will remain able to participate on talk, but not to directly edit the article.SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to get the user (who created much of the article) to engage on the talk page (requests in edit summaries and on the user's talk page), but to no avail. I'd also note that the user reappeared after nearly three years of inactivity once an IP that was reverting the article was kept from doing so by semi-protection.BubbaJoe123456 (talk)18:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Blockedindefinitely Indef partial block fromMikey Wax. There's clearly a COI that prevents Jonny2w from editing neutrally and collaboratively on this article. They still have access to the article talk page where they can request changes.Jezebel'sPonyobons mots18:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments:
Reiterated violation of the three reverts rules.
Result: Both parties are warned for edit warring. No violation ofWP:3RR. There is a long term edit war but very little talk page discussion.User:OscarFercho, you *still* did not notify the other party; I have done so for you. If this war continues with no serious effort to reach agreement on the talk page, blocks are possible. If you can't agree, the steps ofWP:DR are open to you.EdJohnston (talk)02:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Clearly unwilling to discuss his edits or provide accurate edit summaries, and with clear communication and language issues, I don't think this user is going to stop edit warring unless he has been forced to. Having already warned byEdJohnston regarding edit warring on a different article before,[97] this user seems to have never improved his approach. --Yoonadue (talk)10:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
00:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Lists */I commented but It didn't appear; I'll comment again there. There is also no formal consensus not to keep the European Union on the list, basically what it says also applies to you.They were basically quick to generalize that consensus as legitimate, even though it doesn't have half the features to make it a useful or good consensus.I have already mentioned why that consensus is not valid, and why they even take that as true, that they did not even give notice that it was a suppose...)"
00:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Lists */I don't think you understand. That is why I spoke to the other user to make another supposed consensus, and neither of you two have appeared there now. In addition, it is a failed argument to take that "consensus" into account if they know very well that not even half of those who edit this page have commented. That is not even statistics and therefore it is failed.Little logic class for you, which I think you needed.)"
23:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Lists */the irony in that comment, I suppose, I just suppose that you don't realize that you and the other user are doing the same thing that you claim. Actually, I suppose you have no arguments and for that reason, I invite you to disscuse It in the Talk Page. You are making the Ad Antiquitatem fallacy and anecdotal evidence by only citing the opinion of few people, and of something that is past, that can still be argued. I'll wait for you."
23:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Lists */Only a few commented on that discussion, and anecdotal evidence cannot be used as an argument, otherwise that is a fallacy. Undoing changes."
23:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Lists */I saw your comment, and it had really bad arguments. In the first place. And it would be great if you stop eliminating the European Union, because honestly you just pollute the page instead of helping Nor is it mandatory to put in the "Talk Option" by when an edit is made, so leave that typical sentence that you usually do as usual, because it does not work. Go ahead if you want to continue vandalism by eliminating useful information such as the EU, that will not work and the rest..."
05:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Lists */Undoing vandalism. And please stop deleting useful information that can help people just based on something as vague as "the EU is not a country". What you do is misinformation and therefore vandalism. Reference the Talk Page if you want to delete or change this."
Blocked – for a period ofone week for violating 3RR and for personal attacks against other editors. The user has done nothing constructive since they first started editing.--Bbb23 (talk)13:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
[104] From today: A more measured revert approach that nevertheless imposes changes to the same content that is still under discussion.
[105] From May 27, 2021: First instance I'm aware of that editor made the bold edit.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[106] This is a combo of the first two reverts by the editor. While not noted as reverts, you can see from the May 27, 2021 change by the editor that these were essentially reverts.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[107]
Minor note: I did not open a sockpuppet investigation into this user as the editor accused me of doing on The Vanguard Group talk page.
More importantly, I am guilty of violating 3RR. While it was by accident (I am brand new to RedWarn and hadn't realized that selecting a revert type was final and not an intermittent step I was curious about), I did inadvertently revert a fourth time. I realize that ignorance is not a defense and will accept actions taken against me for breaking the threshold.
That said, risking my own block is still a small price to pay in an attempt to shed light on this editor's disruptive style, not only on The Vanguard Group.
The user has a history of seemingly disruptive edits and reverts with insufficient reasoning, such asthis andthis. While the editor began a discussion section on that article'stalk page, they immediately made the samerevert], with no input from other editors.
I welcome your neutral take on this. If I am totally off base, at least it will be a learning experience to improve as an editor. Thank you for your time and consideration.Shoestringnomad (talk)10:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Shoestringnomad andSucker for All are bothwarned that any further reverts may be met with blocks. Neither editor has violated 3RR (both have 3 reverts in the last 24 hours - Shoestringnomad: your first two diffs listed are consecutive edits and therefore count as one revert; I'm not sure why you think you've reverted 4x).--Bbb23 (talk)12:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you,Bbb23. When you referenceany further reverts, are you referring only to reverts to the page in question within the 24-hour period? What are the parameters?Shoestringnomad (talk)13:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shoestringnomad: It's best not to get too precise/legalistic. You and SfA have a dispute. That dispute should be resolved on the Talk page, not battled in the article. Therefore, until that disputeis resolved, it's best that neither of you edit the article.--Bbb23 (talk)13:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention. I think the issues with original synthesis are prevalent as described in my edits and on the talk page. Given no response to my most recent post, I have made a compromise edit which is actually supported by the sources and not an issue withWP:SYNSucker for All (talk)19:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
02:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1028290146 byTamzin (talk)do not organize a war of edits while maintaining vandalism and violation WP:Neutrlity"
02:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1028289745 bySkyWarrior (talk)do not organize a war of edits while maintaining vandalism and violation WP:Neutrality"
01:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC) "Returned the neutral wording deleted by the Korean Nazi from the registered account. WP: vandalism"
02:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC) "In the case of an initially agreed revision before vandalism on April 16, 2021, this section is not duplicated and is required."
Previous version reverted to:[110] (A little unsure of what this section requires, so the link is what the other user is reverting the page to which I believe is what is required?)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
[111] (Subsequent edits occurred in the following 2 hours to restore the user's version)
[112] (Subsequent edits occurred in the following hour to restore the user's version[113])
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[117] (Article resolution was transcribed from user talk page)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[118]
Comments: Oops, added my comments inside of the void template.
I have attempted to contact the user in question multiple times about the content dispute, however, the user refuses to participate in the resolution process. They have been continually reverting the page to their desired version. I have made multiple attempts to contact them and have proposed two possible compromise options - both via their talk page and via the edit summaries - but they have ignored these attempts. Furthermore, they have expressed a willingness to continue this behaviour if I did not check their sources (which I already have, and included them in a suggested compromise.)
I am aware that I am partially at fault in this situation, as I too have broken the 3 Revert Rule and am willing to accept any punishment handed to me as a result ofWP:Boomerang. Although I doubt it serves as justification, my reasoning for continued reverts was to maintain the page's design as that before the problem content was added, until a resolution was reached between us (which, as above, did not occur due to lack of communication).
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[125]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[126]
Comments: User reverted many times to attempt to include a section which failsWP:NOR andWP:POV and contradict the article definition, did not provide more appropriate sources as requested in the talk pageSgnpkd (talk)17:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
No violation. Further, no edits by the reported user between the 3RR warning and the opening of this case. As I write this, the article is instatus quo ante condition. I suggestSgnpkd take the matter to the talk page to see if there is consensus to remove the material. —C.Fred (talk)17:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to add, I providedthree new sources, an article fromThe New York Times specifically about Hong Kong nationalism, and two directly on point academic papers. The OP wants these sources to explicitly say "neo-nationalism", but neo-nationalism is not a new ideology, it's simply new expressions of nationalism, which is what those sources are about.Beyond My Ken (talk)19:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[138]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[139]
Comments:
Please pay attention to the user Adrianisv. Unproven claims, a map without sources, erases a large amount of sources of information. He himself asks for sources, but if they are placed, he deletes them.Kandi (talk)12:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
user Adrianisv's disruptive behaviour over the past 24 hours calls for an immediate and indefinite ban.Gligan (talk)13:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You use at least one other alternative account, as well as your IP address to revert the changes I've made. The page in question is subject to dubious, constant brigading by Bulgarian nationalists, as you can observe by watching the disputes the editors have been involved in and the reports that have been made against them throughout their activity. The alternative name I've added to the first paragraph of theSecond Bulgarian Empire Wikipedia page is cited, verified information in the "Nomenclature" section. It's a name used in international historiography, as well as cited in medieval sources. The Wikipedia pageEmpire of Vlachs and Bulgars redirects toSecond Bulgarian Empire, while the multiethnic character of the state is documented in the broader body of the page. Please, do not attempt to revert my work. If you wish to edit something out, you can do so by making one-by-one edits, stating your reason in the "Edit reason" field. Alternatively, you can go to Talk page to discuss the issue there. You can't delete all my work without an edit reason while adding new information, then complains it gets reverted. I've added the map you wished from my own initiative while preserving the information I've added. Thank you.Adrianisv (talk)13:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, please head over to Google Books, and search for Vlach–Bulgarian Empire, the Bulgarian–Wallachian Empire, Romanian–Bulgarian Empire, the Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars. You might be in for a surprise.Adrianisv (talk)13:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period ofone week for violating 3RR and accusing other editors of vandalism because they disagree with him. My first thought when looking at this report was to lock the article given that many other editors were edit-warring. However, although I don't usually like to apportion blame on this board, as far as I can tell, not a single editor agreed with Adrian's changes, and yet without acknowledging that there was a clear consensus against him, he plowed on. I was also disturbed because Adrian used an IP in the beginning to support his position, which is yet another violation of policy.--Bbb23 (talk)20:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
01:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit byEddie Woodchuck (talk): S.W.A.G. is an acronym. Acronyms have period after every letter. Or no periods at all. Consider this a final warning."
Bogus report done out of spite. I'm withdrawing from this issue as this disruptive editor finally gave a sufficient explanation, something they should have done thefirst time after their bold edit was reverted, as perWP:BRD. Instead, they chose to escalate the issue with insufficient explanations instead of making their finally valid explanation from the beginning, which would have avoided all of this.Amaury •01:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Fine with ending report, First and second should of been enough to cover the reason as two reliable sources changed the title as before it was indeed typed S.W.A.G, knowing that was incorrect from when it was added, I choose to not do anything but then today just saw they changed the title to the correct title as the sources did update. Decided to report as it was getting into an edit war and didn't want it to continue. Seems like the matter is solved now with the last edit summary.Is it made of Wood (talk)02:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
This comes fast on the heels ofa revert I made of an edit by Tritomex on another page, where he rewrote a source without even reading it. I.e., falsified the source. Um, it's news to me I broke 1R at Ihlan Omar. All of those diffs (I haven't time to check this) appear to refer to every edit I made on that page, most of the edits being in response to the concerns of a single editor who could not find anyone else ready to listen to him. But if I did, well, of course, I will revert. I'll leave it to the experts to suggest the proper course of action, since Tritomex made no attempt to notify me of a potential slip, if it does exist?Nishidani (talk)12:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with that subject, as you constantly and daily remove my edits for years. I undid a revision that was added few hours before without consensus or discussion and your claim that "I falsified sources" is WP:CIVIL violation. Your actions cant be a potential slip, as you have been already among other things sanctioned for violating 1RR rule before. You have years of editing behind you and you know the rules. Due to your actions which were already described as edit warring[158] by an administrator, you cant self revert now, as the page is being placed under 0RR. You have been warned on discussion on this noticeboard by myself, after you ignored all comments and suggestions of another editor at talk page.Tritomex (talk)13:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Also on 10th of june you made no less than 18 edits on another 1 RR page.[159]. You are doing this all across Wikipedia. On 25 of may on yet another 1RR page you made at least 5 or 6 reverts.. and I can continue....[160]Tritomex (talk)13:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have bothered other editors, asking them to look into this (thanks by the way). I just don't have the time and patience to sift through these reports (apart from not always grasping the niceties of 1R, though I have labored under the impression I'm careful about not violating that fundamental rule). Just a point Tritomex. You citethis diff to the effect EL put the page under protection for a week in response to my edit-warring. I stand corrected if I am proved wrong, but I believe he made that sensible move without specific regard to my behavior, since he did so in response to arequest for page protection by the major reverter of that page, another weird request since, as was noted, the complaining editor was asking that the page be locked in to the very version he contested (after he found that his repeated reverts and RfCs found almost zero endorsement). So, you understand 1R even less than I do, falsified a source (as I indicated) and came at me with this malformed attack, and even here misrepresent what an arbitrator did by insinuating their protection of the page was aimed exclusively at me, when it apparently wasn't. It is a paradox that you insist I should know what 1R means after 84,000 edits when you have been here at least a decade I believe, and don't appear to understand how it functions.Nishidani (talk)14:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The first 5 diffs I looked at were not reverts. They were not either removing material or, as far as I could tell, reversing the actions of another editor. I suggest that you winnow or add explanation to your lists. Currently, they give the appearance that you don't understand what a revert is. ← ZScarpia
Add the curious insistence thatyou made no less than 18 edits on another 1 RR page and linking to a page that doesnt have a single revert in its history by any user at all, I dont think it is simply anappearance.nableezy -13:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Of the 17 edits listed by Tritomex, many are actually the same edit (I count 8 duplicates) and many are consecutive edits. In total there are only four consecutive blocks and Tritomex was responsible for explaining which were reverts and why. This report should be summarily dismissed.Zerotalk14:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tritomex: You've made such a mess of this report that it's practically malformed. In any event, the report is old; all the edits made by Nishidani were made over 24 hours ago. In addition, the report has been largely mooted by the full protection imposed on the article yesterday. As to the merits, the only thing that need concern us at this point is the last 24-hour period before the protection, and as far as I can tell, Nishidani made some reverts in a series of consecutive edits (here), but made none in a subsequent single edit (unless the material they added had been removed some time recently) (here). Therefore, they didn't violate 1RR.--Bbb23 (talk)13:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[171]
Comments: These reverts are tending towards removing a citation to The Rajputana Gazetteers, which was present in the citations for an extended period of time, and it's removal is rather clumsy due to it still mentioning the book by name without a citation attached. The claimed reason is that Raj-era citation being "invalid", but not backed up with any substantive claims about why that's the case (in addition to it not being removed from the Hindi-language Wikipedia). Additionally, I question the faith of the reversions due to some reports onWP:AIV mentioning caste warrior.
Read more about why Raj Era Sources are not reliable in Indian caste related articles overhere. And regarding that disruptive edit warring, I don't think I've broken the Three Revert Rule in any single day on that article. Thanks.HinduKshatrana (talk)18:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: Please note that this pattern ofblatant vandalism has been conducted by several trolls (wouldn't be surprised if it's the same troll using multiple accounts and pseudonyms) and has been reverted not just by me but others likeHydrogenation andNotfrompedro. But I'm impressed with how sophisticated "Elisabeth"'s game has become-- it's quite amusing in fact, how dedicated they are to protecting their queenKingoflettuce (talk)17:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Just take a look atElisabetta's edits. Account createdtoday and ignoring the pointless edits to a now redirected page i.e.Shane Jordan (writer), she has been exclusively blanking/removing content on spurious grounds. It is evident that this is a vandalism-only/promotion-only account. I'd further venture that they have been commissioned by the subject herself to engage in such blatant censorshipKingoflettuce (talk)17:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It would seem wrong of me to close this report as 'decline', as I am somewhatWP:INVOLVED. Ihad already engaged with bothKingoflettuce over yesterday's repeated vandalism of this article (which resulted in page protection) andengaged with with today's arrival of brand-new userElisabetta Montalti who got around the page protection and legitimately removed some content, but left unjustified/unexplained templated warnings for KoL. In a somewhat protracteddiscussion on my talk page today KingofLettuce recognises they may have got a little carried away in responding to the vandalism attacks, and I havegiven them a friendly and informal (non-templated) warning for them always to edit, revert and engage with other users based on policy, or they could well receive a block for edit-warring. I believe that message has got through and this report can now be declined and closed by a non-involved admin.Nick Moyes (talk)20:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Editor has apparent conflict of interest (but has refused to respond regarding that on their talk page or at BLPN), and has repeatedly removed tags from the top of the article as well as repeatedly restored material that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or cited to sources that do not support the added content. –wallyfromdilbert (talk)20:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The editor has continued to make two more reversions after this report was filed for a total of at least 7 reversions of 4 other editors in less than 2 hours. I have not edited the article since filing this report, and the comments by the editor below refer to the actions of a different editor and not me. –wallyfromdilbert (talk)20:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments:
Wallyfromilbert is reporting falsely. Originally there was a difference of opinion on various citations and whether they were accurate or not. I also was unaware of how the edit warring policy worked. The issue is now resolved in my opinion and the tags and citations that are on the page are all present and look fine at this stage. The other editor was omitting certain materials that I felt should be included, so yes that material was re-added with appropriate sources. The article is now less than half the size/content as it originally was and it is in a mutually agreeable state from my opinion. There is no conflicts of interest that warrant being disclosed. The reporting editor has also purposely removed relevant information (some of which he himself originally contributed) to make the article appear like it isn't noteworthy so it can be deleted. This is malicious. Thank you. –spceckle11bt (talk)— Precedingunsigned comment added bySpeckle11b (talk •contribs)20:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC) –spceckle11bt (talk)
Blocked – for a period of31 hours Gave them several opportunities to self-revert and take it to the talk page, but they declined. Editing privileges revoked accordingly to halt the disruption. —C.Fred (talk)21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
10:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC) "There is no way I let you censor reality, I'm not open to talk because it is truth. The alternative is mentioning it somewhere else in the page"
10:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC) "There is nothing you can do to hide truth so I'll fight until the very end or until you mention it somewhere else in the page"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[179]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;
Comments:This user has repeatedly made disruptive edits to the article. He's constantly adding new words that doesn't match with what the sources actually say. Here is one example where he adds "correspondence with neighbouring civilizations in written Arabic" that's not mentioned in the source. He simply added it because it sounds good.[180] He does the same here[181] and all over the page. This user is completely vandalizing the page and has violated the 3rd policy. He has also uploaded multiple copy-right files and were removed on more than three occasions with twice of me reporting.[182]
I've told him to please refer to the talk page to discuss changes[183]. On the talk page, he didn't explain his addition and his removal of Hobyo and told me to get a life.[184] He added a tribe of people as the successor state of this kingdom, and called me an evil person for reverting his wild additions[185] He has been damaging the article and even went far to calling me a b word.[186] Can you please do something about this disruptive user? He has literally broken multiple rules on Wikipedia.Ayaltimo (talk)12:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
1) The IP tried to change how information is presented in a stable article. 2) After reverting their edit and asking them to seek consensus in the edit summary, I started a talk page discussion long before them to see whether anyone agrees with the change. 3) AfterClearing the "trash", theyrefactored my comment, and when reverted (for obvious reasons), they started a new discussion of sorts. 4) Is this a new editor who doesn't know how to reply to a comment? Highly unlikely given the fact that they know how to ping, issue warnings and find their way here.M.Bitton (talk)18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
1) As you can seehere from my edits; I didn't change any information but ratheradded a new table under the previous one, what I added is the ten least liveable cities according to the index, and I evenadded a new source. 2) I tried to seek consensus byclearing my point of veiw and asking them why they keep revert my edit, butI got no answer. 3) you can't judge someone new because they didn't know aboutarchiving old discussions!! 4) To this moment, they refuse to clarify their point of view onwhat is the reason of reverting? which is the real question here, !--105.67.4.136 (talk)19:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
As the IP has clearly demonstrated in the Polisario Front article, they have no respect for explanations, they just ignore them and keep reinstating whatever they collected from the Internet's cesspit to the article. Since they are here, maybe they can explain why they vandalized these articles among others.[198][199][200][201][202]M.Bitton (talk)22:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
No they are wrong; all the edits they mentioned are done by other people from different IPs and I have nothing to do with them!;
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[209] and[210]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments: User:Shirshore has been repeatedly made disruptive edits to multiple pages in clear violation ofWP:NPOV. Additionally, replacing mentions of Somaliland with Somalia clearly indicating their Pro-Somalia POV pushing. This is despite discretionary sanctions being in place forHorn of Africa articles. Furthermore, breaching the 3 revert rule on theDhahar page.
User:Shirshore has also disruptively edited theLas Khorey page, where they removed a citation from the BBC ([211]). Moreover, they have pushed their POV to on additional pages most of which citing by unreliable sources or none at all such as onBuuhoodle ([212]).
As perWP:GOODFAITH, I have attempted to come to a consensus on theLas Anod talk page without avail. Disruptive editing continued on this page throughout. ([213]).
It is important to highlight the user’s clear history of disruptive editing, breaching NPOV and 3 revert rule violations. This behaviour led to a 72 hour edit ban for very similar reasons after disruptively editing otherSomaliland pages. ([214]), where they were POV pushing, edit warring and disruptively editing multiple pages. The user was soon blocked after a report was made by@Dabaqabad: (see report[215])
As a result, I am making this submission in response to this user’s behaviour which exemplifiesWP:NOTHERE, demonstrated by their edit history and breaching ofWP:NPOV,WP:3RR andWP:GOODFAITH.
I have consistently made constructive edits. I have ensured to provide reliable sources for all edits. This is all available in the history of the articles mentioned.Shirshore (talk)22:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
EditorsJacob300 andDabaqabad are pushing a pro-Somaliland agenda and intend to prevent any mention ofPuntland in the aforementioned articles. The towns/cities ofbuuhoodle,Badhan,Dhahar,Las Qoray,Taleh are all controlled byPuntland, hence there is no reason the entity should not be mentioned and included in the articles. Somaliland also claims the towns/cities but it does NOT control them. I have only fairly and neutrally made such constructive contributions to these pages in good faith, all the while consistently engaging the editors in the talk pages of the articles in order to reach consensus. I repeatedly explained my reasons for the edits, and not once have I deleted a sourced edit where a reliable citation is provided. Furthermore, I have consistently warned them to not result to edit warring, and to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. I believe these users (if the not same person) are targeting me and hellbent on blocking me from editing on Wikipedia, simply because they don't want a neutral and fair viewpoints represented on these articles for readers. This is not what Wikipedia is about.Shirshore (talk)23:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shirshore: You removed sources that I had cited multiple times, among them BBC and VOA ([216],[217], ([218]])despite you explicitly agreeing that they are reliable sources ([219]). To quote you; "As I have previously explained, use reliable news sources, academic publications or reports from trust organisations.BBC Somali, VOA Somali, and such are reliable." Why remove or revert content that cite the very sources you agreed were reliable?
You keep removing any sourced content I add, and try to prevent me from adding content that does not suit your POV. Nowthat is not what Wikipedia is about.Dabaqabad (talk)01:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Dabaqabad, Like I have told you previously, I did not remove or revert sourced content, I merely edited to reflect the actual content in the citation. There is nothing wrong in doing that! The information you provided in the Article and information provided in the citation (when I checked) were completely different, hence I corrected it without removing the source. I do NOT have a POV, I think you're POV editing here. There is no doubt about that since you're part of the Somaliland WikiProject.Shirshore (talk)08:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shirshore: My membership in the Somaliland WikiProject does not prove anything. You have been removing sources that you explicityagreed were reliable and that went against your POV, as the diffs linked prove, using "edited to reflect the actual content in the citation" as an excuse. The diffs prove you have replaced them with unreliable sources that support your claim or just flat out removed them.
This is not the first time you have been disruptively editing Somalia/Somaliland articles and will probably, by the looks of it, won't be the last time either. I tried assuming good faith multiple times however it is very hard to do so, especially considering your recent disruptive edits + your lack of assuming good faith. Wikipedia is not a playground where you can change articles as you see fit.Dabaqabad (talk)12:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
As I speak Shirshore has just edited and added an unverified blog as a citation on theTogdheer page, in addition to citing an unrelated map from 1988, before Somaliland even existed ([220]). Clear case ofWP:REFBOMB. This user has demonstrated on multiple occasions that they are not interested in reaching a consensus or cooperating, which points toWP:NOTHERE territory, especially since he is editing in the middle of this.Dabaqabad (talk)12:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jacob300: Do not use Wikipedia's rules to accuse your opponents. You should review your own behavior before you criticize others. You are too political.@Shirshore: You should not edit the article during the discussion.--Freetrashbox (talk)12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dabaqabad, My edit in theTogdheer article is a non-issue. We both agreeBuuhoodle District is disputed byPuntland state. I do however, apologise for the citations, I took them from theSomaliland-Puntland dispute article. I will ensure to provide reliable citations that you will be satisfied with in the future. I will also cease any edits before consensus is reached asFreetrashbox has advised. I wasn't aware that I should cease all editing while in dispute resolution. Nevertheless, I'm seriously interested in reaching a consensus with you andJacob300. First, I will ensure I cite reliable sources for ALL my edits. Second, these will be sourced from trusted news websites, academic literature, reports from unbiased organisations, and official government documents/publications. If you can agree to these terms (per Wikipedia guidelines) then we have an agreement. I will inform you now however, I will double check on your edits, so please ensure that the text you provide in the articles actually reflects what's written in the cited source. If this not the case I will edit to ensure it does! similarly, you can do the same for my edits.Shirshore (talk)13:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparently,Jacob300 reportedShirshore because of their history. The two editors edit-warring are Shirshore andDabaqabad. If 24 hours hadn't elapsed since the report was filed, I would have blocked both Shirshore and Dabaqabad. However, neither has edited since then, so instead both editors arewarned that if they resume their dispute, they risk being blocked with no further notice. I strongly urge both editors not to edit the article at all but stick to the Talk page to discuss their dispute. I'm also cautioning Jacob300 that this report is at least in part an abuse of process, and retaliatory uses of Wikipedia noticeboards may be sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk)15:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@User:Shirshore,User:Dabaqabad clearly does have an issue with the edit you made toTogdheer today, and sees it as a continuation of your behaviour in which he is disputing NPOV. Although, you have said you are seriously interested in reaching a consensus, if an editor has an issue with one of your edits, and you respond by stating that it is a 'non-issue' your attitude is not even indicating that you hear what they are saying. It is not conducive to a productive discussion. Even if you think they are wrong, it would be better to try and understand as sympathetically as possible why they have an issue, rather than simply refuting that there is an issue and saying you will halt what you are doing until the discussion is over. If there is no issue, then there is no discussion, but there is an issue, the objective of the discussion is to ascertain the validity of the issue and attempt to reach consensus.Amirahtalk16:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
User was given a non-template warning on their talk page, and is persisting with their removal of a link (not even a direct textual mention), despite pre-existing discussion on the talk page.RandomCanadian (talk /contribs)23:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, I blocked the editor for the edit warring, but there's a lot more in their history that warrants scrutiny. I cannot do that right now, and I apologize for taking the easy way out.Drmies (talk)23:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[227]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[228]
Comments: 4 reverts in less than 4 hours, changing section title to "collusion with commandant Chepart and cruel behaviour towards Indians" (or similar).--Eostrix (🦉 hoothoot🦉)17:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Eostrix, please do not do not reverse the fault :
In factSavary34 is reverting any content with which he disagreeseven theres ares sources.
Hello EostrixBeleny hides the truth. In fact, he keeps making changes that totally violate the neutrality of viewpoint. For example, he repeatedly makes his personal judgement, even in the introductory summary, by referring to Etienne de Perier everywhere as "barbaric" and "cruel".--Savary34 (talk)18:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Both editors have been edit-warring for the last two days. I've locked the article for five days.--Bbb23 (talk)18:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
New user (possibly the same as an IP who previously made the same change), but not listening to the warning given. Their only response to being notified about the talk page was totag it for deletion.CMD (talk)16:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Editor added a whole host of junk websites and additional sources that weren't helpful in May. Some removed by IPs, some restored by passing by registered users, and onlyZhomron seemed to actually look into the sources, and removed them a few times with other editors seemingly just restoring what looked like removal of sourced material. Pisarz came back yesterday and without an edit summaries re-added the material 4 times in 7 hours.JesseRafe (talk)12:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Then what should I do? This guy is intent on putting ethnicity information which goes against the manual of style into the description of the band Aqua.Liquidmetalrob (talk)16:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[235]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[236]
Comments:
The reported user refuses to join discussion on talk page where myself and other editors unanimously agree on the subject surrounding the revertsChicagoWikiEditor (talk)19:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned this editor that they broke 3RR on a separate article only a day or so earlier, and instead of blocking them, decided to protect the article and directed them to talk (diff). My message went unresponded to and unactioned, which is fine, but it shows clear knowledge of the 3RR rule.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;diff
Comments: I considered just blocking myself, considering I am uninvolved, but would rather a second set of eyes.Daniel (talk)20:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Vif12vfBlocked – for a period of3 months. Clear 3RR violation and this is not the first.
The range 67.69.69.0/24Blocked – for a period of24 hours. There were 3 different IPs in this rage involved in the edit war and they all have the same edit summary style. This appears to be a single person violating 3RR from multiple IPs (likely not intentionally IP-hopping, it's a small range for a mobile provider).
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Comment: As an uninvolved editor who saw this unfold in recent changes, both editors seriously need to slow down. A cursory review of the edits by Амангелді Бексұлтан do not show any indication of vandalism, nor has Drill it provided any edit summary or reason for their reversions.Sdrqaz (talk)15:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the article's talk page, Амангелді Бексұлтан has attempted to engage with Drill it, asking why their edits are being reverted, with zero response from Drill it.Sdrqaz (talk)15:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Declined.Drill it has made no attempt to engage in discussion on the talk page. I prefer no action over full-protection of the page, or a partial block ofboth editors, at this time. —C.Fred (talk)16:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Unless of course someone thinks letting them know further edit-warring on the same article (that caused an indefinite block from article space to begin with, resulting in the creation of the ElDiabloChico sockpuppet to continue edit warring over the same issue) is not a good idea?FDW777 (talk)19:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
As seen in the discussion, I put the article from the history department of the university. Sources of a geologist(Celal Sengor) who offered extreme theories are cited.Istanbul University also has history on its coat of arms. However, it is constantly being changed as vandalism.https://www.istanbul.edu.tr/en/content/university/history
Crazycomputers Won't you review my academic resources?. trying to change the history of many institutions and vandalism. Will you allow this?— Precedingunsigned comment added by5.46.191.4 (talk •contribs)
This is not the place for such a discussion. There is already a thread on the article's talk page. That is where discussion about the sources should remain. --Chris(talk)18:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:OUCH. User is edit warring against two veteran users. At first he wanted to push a worse looking map onto the article[255][256][257]
Now he has simply resorted to removing/altering random stuff in order to provoke a reaction[258][259]
Also violatedWP:NPA; besides here, he has also called me or/and LouisAragon 'blind' and in a condescending manner called me 'Mr.History'[260] and'mr iranian history'.
I've blocked the reporter for 24 hours. It's a bit early to say that Mapswourld is NOTHERE, although we may get there later. There have been no personal attacks. Mapswourld did not call anyone "blind". They said that editor(s) were "blind reverting", which clearly meant "blindly reverting". Nor is calling HistoryofIran "Mr.History" an attack. We're dealing with an editor whose English is not all that good.--Bbb23 (talk)15:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
00:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029437888 byScottishFinnishRadish (talk) the sources say “mocked” without proving it and giving link to only 1 tweet, which doesn’t mock it (that’s not an interpretation, that’s the fact). Stop linking misleading sources then"
22:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) "Edited inaccurate info about Gina Carano's tweet, also attaching a link to her original tweet. Gina Carano's tweet is first and foremost an obvious satire on the results of the U.S. election taking place at the time. If she was mocking the wearing of face masks, which has no objective evidence, that is clearly not the primary purpose of Gina's tweet."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Note The warning came very slightlyafter their last revert and they have ceased since then. PerWP:NOPUNISH I suggest no block is necessary at this time, unless the user reverts again. I am watching the article. --Chris(talk)01:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
11:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "The letter was never made public and if you are not willing to take my word for it, then you should get in touch with the Ministry of Land. Continuing to post this article with the new knowledge that the Ministry of Land ACCEPTED its mistake is not an absolution of a crime. The whole affair was simply a media circus with no basis for which no charges were ever put against the DPP and no arrest completed. This is defamation. You are not reporting facts correctly."
11:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "This was a highly politically motivated action which brought prejudice to the DPP and his family. The Ministry has provided SUN TAN with a letter confirming that the mistake was an administrative mistake on the part of the Ministry and the matter has been redressed. You are basing yourself on one-sided media article which have not given the full picture - because once the mistake was admitted as being that of the gvt, no further media attention was given to fuel the fake story."
10:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "Removed this article from the wikipedia page as factually outdated. The Ministry of Housing sent a letter to SUN TAN confiming their actions and re-affirming that the decision and consequences thereof had some from them."
10:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC) "removal of this paragraph - this is outdated and lends prejudice to the DPP."
Firstly, my understanding is I'm entitled to revert my good-faith change once in 24 hours under the 1RR rule and have I not breached it.74 observer (talk)
Secondly, the change promotes the article from incomplete/stub status which some editors are motivated to hold it in. It is now accurate to the article title. The change completes the short list as perWP:CSC, it provides encyclopedical value. It is a progressive and constructive change. The original list criteria was arbitrary (the original author used it as a stop-gap as they were not in possession of a complete list at the time of creation).74 observer (talk)12:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Not the case, there are twoupdate approvals out of the four responses and one of the other responses was off-topic (delete-all is another/different discussion).74 observer (talk)13:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Look at the discussion above that change - four update responses and one of the other responses off-topic. Hence the conclusion to update.74 observer (talk)13:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@74 observer: consensus is weighed by a neutral, third-party editor; you certainly do not get to judge the consensus of your own discussion (unless by way of you withdrawing it).——Serial13:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
so to sum it up, 1-he violated 3 reverts rule..2-he deleted the discussion section and still insisting to force his ideas thru reverting and asking friends to help him in his job 3-he accused me with vandalism and it is a personal attack 4-he would not allow any of my contributions whatever I write.. so do rules apply for "veterans" as he calls himself and give them amnesty to do whatever they please.. i dement immediate block for (talk) this message is for you (talk) i hope you get notification for it--Mapswourld (talk)16:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
He considers me an opponent at lest its how i perceive it, just check how he reverts every contribution i do just check the links above--Mapswourld (talk)22:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide completediffs.!ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ22:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
14:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029701694 byAustronesier (talk) Interesting, the hoax info was allowed to stay up for years, leading to widespread public misinformation, yet when the truthful secondary resesrch is posted, people want it removed.WP:NOTCENSORED"
11:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029657315 by213.162.73.204 (talk) Undid unsupported edit by IP editor. Issue was resolved on talk page - don't revert again or you'll catch a swift ban."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
The editor has been blocked twice before for edit warring and more disruptive activities, and the pattern now comes to surface again.Austronesier (talk)14:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
My explanation for the 213.162.73.204 and Urselius reverts is as follows: the source material does not support the statement that Yamnaya had "dark hair and skin", and is a form of copy editing. The statement itselfdates back to the year 2020, where it was sourced with completely different references. Those references are Wilde (2014), Mathieson (2015), and Haak (2015).It was uncovered on the talk page in 2020 that none of the sources supported those statements. In the same discussion, editor Joe Roe verified a different reference (Heyd 2017), which says simply that the Yamnaya were light skinned. So 213.162.73.204 and Urselius attached the old, unsupported statement (using other references) to the new source, Heyd (2017),which directly contradicted it. That's just plain sloppy editing and arguably vandalism.
My explanation for the Austronesier revert is that he deleted an entire section from the article that had stood for years, out of the blue, which I see as censorship or vandalism.
Note that the article has attracted a lot of deleterious edits in the last 24 hours, including an IP editor (213.162.73.204) who appeared out of nowhere. We may be looking at a case of brigading.Hunan201p (talk)16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
No violation. Three reverts in the last 24 hours. I see a discussion on the article Talk page. It should continue rather than the edit war. I have blocked the IP via a /24 range for a long history of disruption and personal attacks in edit summaries.Bbb23 (talk)16:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[269]
Comments:
SPA-account pushing original research against a very clear consensus upheld by several other users. Four reverts in less than 24 hours.Jeppiz (talk)16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
IP is simultaneously engaged in edit wars (of varying speed) at at least three articles related to the UK, Australia and monarchy. Appears to be completely disinterested in discussing their changes with other editors, but merely repeats contested edits in the hope they'll "stick".GeneralIzationTalk17:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the editor has been making repeated disruptive edits for a few weeks now, and has not responded to any of the many messages left on the IP's talkpage.Erictalk18:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
18:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1029738136 bySanAnMan (talk) Yet it's fine, and plenty of other sources do this- sources don't need to match *precisely*/*exact*"
User is constantly reverting edits generally with the comment of "it's fine" without cause. We had an edit-war discussion not too long ago about adding in additional information to the show's table, which he finally capitulated on when a primary reliable source backed up my point. Now, he started a second edit war after being warned just recently about the first one, this time for changing the formatting of a cited source just because he thinks "it's fine". This user appears to have a habit of reverting edits and not listening to anyone's view but his own. I also attempted to open a discussion on his talk page to have him prove his opinion on changing formatting and he deleted my comments twice.SanAnMan (talk)19:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
No violation. The first diff chronologically was not a revert. That means that Magitroopa reverted only twice.Bbb23 (talk)20:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but wow. A report over italicizing a few words in a source title or not? Wow. A few things to point out here:
This is not a revert of any kind, simply fixing the source. Firstactual revert would behere, and my first actual revert would bethis. (This was written before Bbb23's response above.)
More interestingly, I'm not sure why the user has a problem with using italics in the title ofthis source, but apparentlythis andthis are fine to have italics within the title, even though the sources don't explicitly use it themselves.
As noted by the user, this is the second edit war to occur on the article between us two. I had discussed cleanup of articles with the same user before atTalk:MasterChef (American TV series)#Series overview cleanup, especially in regards to MOS cleanup. However, at this point, I'm starting to question if this is aWP:OWNERSHIP issue they have withMasterChef-related articles and I have a feeling that attempts at cleaning up other articles will just end up in more reverts/edit warring.Magitroopa (talk)20:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The disagreement is about where within the dab pageBush should the link toBushing appear. It all began whenUser:Masato.harada moved it out of the "see also" and into the main body as part of a bigger edit, but was promptly reverted by Bkonrad (1R). Then follows a bried exchange atUser talk:Bkonrad#Your instantaneous reversion of my edits to the disambiguation page for 'Bush'., where it appears Masato.harada had a good point, and Bkonrad's objection had to do with Masato.harada's edit not complying with the MOS.
At this stage I tried to incorporate Masato.harada's suggestion into the dab page in a way that complied with the MOS[270] (providing further explanation in the edit summary). I thought things should be settled by now and everyone should be happy, but Bkonrad then reverted again (2R) and again (3R) and again (4R).
I'm not myself blameless (I've made two reverts myself), and ideally the matter should have been discussed on the talk page before the subsequent reverts. However, my experience has been that Bkonrad – insightful though his comments often are in discussions where he's uninvolved – has an apparent inability to ever hear other people's opinions once he's committed himself by making a revert, and will then continue reverting ad nauseam and participating in any discussion only to continually gainsay the other editor. Such discussions have in the past always failed unless they got escalated to the wider community (Talk:Rah#Abbreviation for several hospitals was a recent example).
Bkonrad's editing is often helpful, and I would like him to go on working in this area. However, he really needs to be made to understand that his approach to reverting is totally unacceptable. –Uanfala (talk)18:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[272]
Really? But it's just about an editor breaking 3RR. I don't have any quarrel with Bkonrad, just with his reverting. –Uanfala (talk)19:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
It appears to me from your comments to be about more than "just about an editor breaking 3RR". In addition, you should both be using the article's Talk page, not BKonrad's user talk page, to discuss the dispute and seek consensus, as you and BKonrad are not necessarily the only editors of the article who will have opinions on the issue. I'd suggest you start a conversation atTalk:Bush before you report anyone here or at ANI. The fact that you have not done so doesn't reflect well on you in these circumstances.GeneralIzationTalk19:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, I made the comments that I made because I was trying to explain why I'm here instead of posting on the talk page. My impression was that whenever an editor breaks 3RR, they can be reported here. That's what this place is for, right? If I push with the talk page discussion, it can only be expected to escalate into an RfC, which will resolve the problem after a few weeks, but that at that point it will be a bit too late to go back and report the initial edit warring, wouldn't it? –Uanfala (talk)21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind. I would just ask for a clarification. When is it acceptable to break 3RR? I was under the impression that this was a bright line, and anyone crossing it for anything other than reverting obvious vandalism or copyvios would get summarily sanctioned. Is that not the case? If not, then does the fact that the editor reported is an admin have anything to do with the range of possible outcomes? Thanks. –Uanfala (talk)22:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Uanfala: You say you don't understand why I referred you to ANI because this was a report about edit-warring. This noticeboard has very specific instructions on how to format a report. You ignored those instructions and wrote a somewhat lengthy description of the problem, which sounded far more like a problem you had withBkonrad's conduct generally, of which edit-warring was just a component. That sort of report is far better made to ANI or AN, depending on what you're seeking. As for Bkonrad's being an administrator, with apologies to Bkronrad, I didn't know they were an admin when I made my comment.--Bbb23 (talk)23:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the clarification. Does that mean I could trim my report of the general comments, redo it into the required format and re-submit it? (You're right I have a problem with one aspect of Bkonrad's editing, but I don't expect that to be resolved by ANI. I was only looking for a "bucket of cold water": a clear statement to him in a format that will make it through, that edit warring is not fine.) –Uanfala (talk)23:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
You could file a new correctly formatted report and make whatever comments you wish. Is it really worth it to you? It doesn't sound like you are seeking a block, just a clear determination that Bkonrad violated 3RR. That's a bitWP:POINTy. Sometimes it's better just to let it go.--Bbb23 (talk)00:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Bkonrad habitually violates 3RR, that's a fact. The problem is that he doesn't care and apparently no-one else does either. The point of this whole exercise – and the reason why I'm wasting my time, and yours too, with this apparently fatally misformatted report – is for him not to do that again. This edit-warring is bad, it creates a bad working environment and it drives people away. If an editor edit wars like that, they would get a short block, and that would get the point across: that they shouldn't be doing it anymore. I don't care if it's a block or something else, as long as it drives this point home. –Uanfala (talk)00:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment WhileTheRingess has reverted the article four times, and even though they have not mentioned it explicitly in their edit summaries or the talk page, I believe their reverts qualify underWP:3RRNO exemption #7, "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia'sbiographies of living persons (BLP) policy." Other editors have pointed out the BLP issues.The article is currently in the position it was in before the edit war that the IP started today. To that end, I'm inclined to take no action. However, it might be necessary to apply some degree of protection to the article if the edit warring from the IP continues. —C.Fred (talk)03:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of2 weeks;Special:Diff/1026971972 andSpecial:Diff/1026974751 didn't really leave a different choice.~ ToBeFree (talk)10:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
No violation. Not only is there no evidence of a warning to the reported user's talk page, but the reported user did not exceed three reverts. Thereporting user, on the other hand... —C.Fred (talk)14:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution. Another admin has protected the article. —C.Fred (talk)14:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide completediffs.User:OscarFercho, you also filed to notifyUser:Cjcrum668.EdJohnston (talk)15:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely Multiple warnings since March 8th, no response.Doug Wellertalk15:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Already blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. --Chris(talk)18:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)