Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Editor is trying to keep a deleted article inList of password managers with a misreading of what is required for notability as clearly listed in the article page notice. Since I am the one being reverted, I defer to others for review. I was going to let it slide with just a warning, but then I received a personal attack in response[7].
Checking the article history, I suspect there is some off-wiki notice of the listing removal as an IP showed up asking for restoration of the listing[8] and a new account reverting the removal[9]. --Gogo Dodo (talk)05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
jhabdas here: The very noteworthy addition was in place for months before someone else removed it after another person removed the main page in wikipedia, the draft of which has been marked for restoration and updated with more information to continue building on its noteworthiness. Regardless of what the specific rules are on the passwords page according to this person there is no clear reason to put up such a gauntlet for adding open source software to Wikipedia especially when the software several years old and used by hundreds of thousands of people. Period. As for the IP weirdness I use VPN, which is blocked by Wikipedia and harms my privacy online as a result. There's no conspiracy here, nor do I have anything to do with whatever new account was being used to modify the page. It's likely someone else spotted the erroneous removal and tried to fix it (that's what Wiki's are for, right?) As for my initial Talk page response, it was untasteful, I admit, but I meant every word of it, for about 10 seconds until I removed it.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJhabdas (talk •contribs)06:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
My contribution again wholly deleted in favor of religious pov[17]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
I mistakenly conflated edits made at the two articles into one talk page section. I later realized this conflation and moved the discussion to the appropriate talk page, although I still had some confusion regarding detailed issues within each respective article.
Talk page discussion at Ahmad article, and me responding to the wild accusations and refuting them, while taking responsibility for my mistaken edits[18]
Talk page discussion at Ibn Arabi article (and me explaining my talk page conflation, while still attempting to resolve the issues with the other editor), and they did as they pleased[19]
Comments:
I'd like to bring attention to a new profile:Nuralakbar. Despite being new, their dialogue reflects a well-versed editor.
Prior to looking at their profile, I followed good faith and opened a talk page discussion notifying them about the reverting and editing of their contributions. Their edits reflected obvious religious bias and used some unqualified citations (self publishing and a religious / non-academic website).
My invitation for discussion and points raised were ignored.
Instead, a new section was opened leveling accusations towards me, and they reverting their edits (sparking an edit war).
Some accusations were what is called in psychology 'projecting', for they were making accusations of what they had actually done in their edits.
I again clarified the issues I raised, and responded (and refuted) the accusations... but that was a waste of time.
Notice theirprofile's recent history only contains the edit war and talk page exchanges in question.
After looking at their profile and their history, they look like a possibleSock Puppet, or someone evading a previous block, or simply another person disturbing the ongoing work of building objectivity and value into articles per scholarship.
When initially responding to this particular user profile, I assumed I was dealing with someone who would conduct themselves along the lines of wikipedia guidelines, especially after reading their use of Wiki lingo, suspecting they were experienced and would recognize unqualified sources and other editing mistakes they made, perhaps even their bias despite cited scholarship. Instead, I find myself avoiding an edit war with someone who opened up a new profile recently, only to contest the two articles mentioned herein. It is exhausting having to 'tell' on those who do more disruption and add more strife than good work to the wiki effort. I've taken much time out of my day to address this issue, and although the articles in question are not as 'important' as other Islamic articles that I work on, I would like to also request these two articles be secured in some fashion... otherwise, it is just too time consuming and discouraging to make any effort considering the constant vandalism and zealotry. --HafizHanif (talk)19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank youEdJohnston. I thought I did yesterday, just above your notice. Please see thattalk page again. I think in the years I've been editing Wiki, I have only done this once before. My apologies if I did it incorrectly. --HafizHanif (talk)21:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
11:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 850507888 byJohn from Idegon (talk) my point still stands and furthermore the correct British name is used at the top of the article so they should be the dame"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Edit-warring against three different editors (one of whom is also curiously new, but that's another story); no need for TP discussion as all they're doing is removing the first line of the article. Possibly AIV material; but hey.—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room12:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Disruptive IP is constantly edit warring with everyone else, and has already violated 3RR, and is insisting on with their disruption despite being reverted 6 times already. Attention is needed. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻(talk ✉️ |contribs 📝)12:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Edit: Withdrawal of the report. IP promised to refrain from further discruption. Please see:[27]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I am reporting this user based on its behaviour across the entire project, not just atPointless (Australian TV series). User's talk page shows it has been repeatedly warned for disruptive behaviour such as removing content, adding unsourced content and failing to leave an edit summary. Enough is enough.Gareth (talk)08:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[33] Multiple editors have and are attempting to engage this user, at ANI and on multiple talk pages, but they continue arguing their position, while making multiple reverts at the same time.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[47][48]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:[49][50]
Comments: Anticitizen 98 hasnot broken 3RR, however, they have been edit-warring with multiple editors over the course of several days to their preferred version. Anticitizen 98 has had limited engagement on the article talk page, often ignoring points raised.[51] Yesterday, I finally had enough and asked them to self-revert and discuss their changes on the article talk page.[52] Not only did they not self-revert or discuss it on the article talk page, they resumed edit-warring today.[53] It is very frustrating to work with an editor who refuses to try to discuss or reach consensus for their changes and thinks that edit-warring is the way to win content disputes. Maybe a block will get their attention? An article ban might also be a good idea because Anticitizen 98's only real contribution to the article is to edit-war to their preferred version.[54]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)21:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this in depth, but Anticitizen is using the talk page to justify his edits, and not everyone else involved in the article over the last few days is. That doesn't strike me as something that admin sanctions would benefit.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, their edits on the talk page are limited; they've failed to address specific points I've raised. If the admins decide not to do anything about his conduct, what do you suggest? Should we continue to edit-war? Please don't tell me that's what you're saying. There's a clear conduct issue here, and it needs to be addressed.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)23:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Result: No action. If there is a general issue about removing parties from election infoboxes when they don't achieve a 5% result, maybe an RfC could be opened. I notice that Anticitizen 98 has beenapplying this 5% rule to other election articles. From his comments on his own talk page it sounds like he thinks this rule applies to all US gubernatorial elections. ("Every other gubernatorial page backs me up"). Is this written down as a general practice anywhere?EdJohnston (talk)18:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No, not to my knowledge there is such a rule. If Anticitizen has been edit-warring on these other articles too, then referencing them as established practice is meritless. These other articles may not be watched as much or perhaps the editors got tired of edit-warring and gave up.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)23:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments: User keeps deleting my talk page comments.Redalert2fan (talk) 12
05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Blockedindefinitely – byUser:Maile66. I've applied one month of semiprotection to the article and another administrator has semiprotected the talk page. This has turned into a sock festival.EdJohnston (talk)03:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
New conflicted user, aggressively edit warring promotional content into WP. I've reported the impersonation account.Jytdog (talk)23:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Result: Page semiprotected.User:Zacha1211 is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. If you are not happy with the advice given on the Talk page byUser:Jytdog, please ask for assistance atWP:COIN.EdJohnston (talk)14:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Page protected – 2 weeks. There seems to be a long term war betweenUser:Bellshook, the creator of the article, andUser:Coffeeandcrumbs whether a large chunk of negative information should be included in the article. During the protection I think it should be left out, so I'm protecting ona version from July 17 that excludes that material. Discussion should continue on the talk page, with theWP:BLP policy in mind. If agreement can't be reached consider opening anWP:RFC.EdJohnston (talk)03:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I have to object to the false equivalence.My first edit to this page was on July 15, three days ago. I made a few minor edits and then went to the talk page to discover what I suspected already.This is the page you absolutely need to read to understand the situation. I only started making serious edits to the page after having a short discussion withAnimalparty on the talk page whichbegins here. I announced on the talk page that I was going to take on the task of rewriting this page. However, Bellshook has been fiercely defending the previous state of affairs for months and has only ever really edited this page. They have very misleadingly placed a talk page discussion about me at the top of the talk page on July 17.They have cleared fooled you. They have indiscrimanently edited other peoples comments[72][73][74] (note the clever falsification of my talk page comments by directly changing the spelling of words). They made following the discussion very difficult which clearly fooled you.Please strike or revise your statement.
However, in the end, the final decision to protect the page was not a bad idea. There is no rush and I am fully convinced that Bellshook will return and you will have good cause more serious punitive action.--- Coffeeandcrumbs03:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Unclear what you are objecting to. Each of you was reverting the other, more than once, and that's considered an edit war. For Bellshook to change others' comments is a no-no and it had better not continue. I do agree with you that the version they favor has BLP issues that need discussion.EdJohnston (talk)12:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I only object to the description that this "seems to be a long term war between...", epecially the words "long term" being read to also apply to me. I am not concern by being accused of edit warring, just concerned with the accusation of "long term" edit warring. IMO, it creates a false equivalence when my edits were to remove "clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy" as perexcemptions to edit warring policy. You yourself have noticed that the previous version favored by Bellshook had BLP violations. Several others on the talk page have commented that issues were there throughout the article but they did not take action to fix the problem. They let the problems fester for months. I would argue the violations were pervasive perWP:BLPSTYLE in "Tone", "Balance" and as an "Attack page". I was the only one willing to butt heads with Bellhook. Sure you can say that is edit warring butWP:AGF only goes so far. If I had not fought through this resistance the untenable status quo would have remained. Note: this was reported toWP:BLPN in December 2017 andzero action was taken by the impotent notice board. --- Coffeeandcrumbs17:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
'Long term edit warring' isn't worse-than-usual edit warring, it is just a pattern of reverts that is longer than 24 hours and doesn't break 3RR in the most recent day. If you wanted the BLP exception to cover your reverts it would have been helpful to say that in your original complaint. Although the present article may beWP:UNDUE it might not qualify underWP:3RRNO, since the negative material is sourced, even though coatrack-y. The 3RRNO exception requires very blatant stuff, for example unsourced defamation.EdJohnston (talk)18:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Secondly. If two reverts is edit warring then -[79] and[80] those are the two reverts by the editor who is filing this report.
Finally, my removal of content was in line withMOS:TVCAST that states - "Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed" 30 cast members is OTT.Spacecowboy420 (talk)13:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
How is reducing the entire section into TWo cast members right exactly? You basically removed every single supporting character and guest role. Also is there any TV showarticle that only mentioned the lead characters in the characters section? Plenty of editors have edited that article and you are the only one to drastically reduced the cast list. The first time you have removed it, you gave zero explanation whatsoever. Have you even seen the show to say who's notable within the show? I have seen the show and those supporting and guest characters should be mentioned in the article and not just the lead characters. The article is not even large to begin with and there are shows that have a separate article just for the characters. Your edit is disruptive and not helpful to the article. You are edit warring and the earlier you are reported for this behavior, the earlier this issue would be resolved.Hotwiki (talk)19:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
So basically, this is a content dispute that you decided to report as edit warring, rather than starting a discussion on the article talk page?Spacecowboy420 (talk)06:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
You were about to hit 3rr, and this discussion also deals with edit warring. Also, take your own advice. You clearly didn't take the issue to the talk page first when you almost blanked the entire section. Now tell me how did you help the article when you reduced the entire characters section in just two cast members?Hotwiki (talk)08:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hotwiki: fyi, Spacecowboy's first edit wasn't a revert, as it didn't undo a recent edit. Strictly they have reverted once. Suggest you withdraw this filling and, as suggested, is take the ongoing discussion on content to the article talk page. Cheers,—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room09:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
18:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. It you want to have a discussion on Flexcit, then open a page on the subject. Do not use a biographical section to attack this concept, especially when you have made no attempt accurately to describe what it is, or give a balanced view of the areas of contention."
18:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. This is a polemic about Flexcit. It does not belong here in a biography."
18:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. This material is highly tendentious, misleading and potentially libellous. This is supposed to be a biographical entry, not an opportunity for disaffected academics to rant at my expense. If you want to pursue this line, you should open up another page on Flexcit, and open it up to an honest discussion rather than this hole-in-the corner sniping."
This is my first time reporting someone for edit warring, so I apologize if I messed anything up in this report I am filing.Newshunter12 (talk)19:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
User is not per se using the "revert tool" to undo work, but continues to edit reversing edits that are in contention on the talk page causing a ruckus.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTFBCT1 (talk •contribs)
Warned Okay, I see on the talk page that consensus has been reached, so I am not anticipating any more edit warring from either of you. If there is, I will not be impressed.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
[105] In this revert, ZH8000 accuses his protagonist of vandalism despite NeilN's dire warning and posts a warning on his talk page about being disruptive.
Note: Numbers 3,4,5 and 6 were within 24 hours (20:11 18 Jul to 14:42 19 Jul)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ZH8000 with a warning and a block for edit warring is well aware of the rules.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am uninvolved in the dispute. No attempt has been made by ZH8000 to discuss on the talk page. A discussion was started after the last revert by another editor to which ZH8000 has, so far, not contributed. One protagonist (out of five) is now indef blocked for socking (though ZH8000 was unaware of that at the time).TheVicarsCat (talk)16:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
No violation There have only been three reverts. However,@Uliks77:, you are advised that your edits are not acceptable and you need to take this to the talk page. If you change this again without gaining consensus, then I will be blocking you. In the meantime I have reverted to the stable version and protected the article for a week.Number5720:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
17:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Again, this sets incredibly poor precedent. Why does The Passage TV series article get to live with the little information it has while a Cartoon with a released title card is forced to be a redirect?"
20:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851060330 byBarkeep49 (talk)Look at the discussion. No substantial reasoning was put forward. You don't wait 6 and a half weeks and counting to perform a poorly-decided merger. Why out of all the pages made for this show was this one chosen to have its info removed from view?"
This discussion cannot go further. This user cursed me out in private message for questioning the legitimacy of the Articles for Deletion discussion on the article’s talk page, and refuses to be reasonable—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)18:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Other 2019 TV debuts with similar content include Messiah, Jinn, and the Tales from the City revival. There is no reason a Yabba Dabba Dinosaurs article can’t exist with the information it currently has, and it’s not fair that when I ask for things to be considered, I’m told I’m “wrong” in a vulgar manner without a second thought and I’m punished for it—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)18:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
THAT DISCUSSION WAS NOT VALID. Whats disruptive about restoring a legitimate article? Why am I constantly being ignored and talked down to? Why do i have to seek consensus for every little thing while you let my harasser make baseless edit warring accusations against me? The fact is that you force me to get consensus on a talkpage that is currently a redirect, meaning it will be passed by EVERY TIME someone clicks on a link to it. Thats a clear case of stacking the deck. I was given no other options but to restore the article until IJ told me about DelRev. You want to punish me not for edit-warring, but not knowing every policy by heart—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Harmony944: This tact is going to get you nowhere. Following this line now is just going to confirm to any Admin watching this that a block is probably in order to prevent further disruption. I would drop this now, while you're behind, and follow my advice atTalk:Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!... --IJBall(contribs •talk)18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
You cant call me disruptive because i wasnt being disruptive. This "tact" you speak of is speaking out against unfair and biased treatment. If only people werent ignoring the abuse and making things easy for themselves while making it harder for the person theyre on the verge of hurting again. I'm off to make the split proposal. I'd prefer it if I received the decency to be an active part of the discussion instead of being blocked for an extended period that ends up taking up the entire period of the split discussion—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)18:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This editor has quite an extensive history of warring on Wikipedia, and I think any admin reviewing this discussion should take that into account. They displayed the same behavior as they did recently on the Agents of Shield page and would rather war with others to get their own way. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Harmony has learned from their mistakes.Esuka323 (talk)19:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC).
Statement struck due to blatant character assassination. What i have is an extensive history of good to fantastic edits with occasion edit warring accusations. I follow every rule here and it is not my fault no one told me the process of restoring a deleted article. Theres also the fact that the article in question got full-on deleted during this discussion without consensus to do so. It very much seems that consensus nor consistency matter—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)19:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The evidence is there on the Agents of Shield page history, you had multiple editors including myself reverting you and telling you to continue with the discussion. You became impatient because that discussion wasn't going your way and continued trying to push your agenda on the page. Clearly you have been doing this yet again with other editors, just how many chances do you deserve if you continue to break the rules here? If you continue to make the same mistakes, you haven't learned from them.Esuka323 (talk)20:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
In this case, I haven’t broken any rule. BEING IMPATIENT ISNT A DAMN CRIME. One incident shouldn’t taint me forever. I’m not a felon, and yet you’re treating me like one. You don’t care what I have to say, you just want me out.—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)
Your talk page is full of edit war warnings and block notices. Frankly the fact you have the ability to edit here still after so many rule infractions is astounding.Esuka323 (talk)20:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
That doesnt make them legitimate. Youre not bothering with context, youre just judging me by what others put on my page, regardless of legitimacy. You have no evidence that i havent proven to be a good user, and are only trying to drag my name through the mud. I therefore am asking you to leave—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)20:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree withEsuka323. Enough is enough. You've been blocked twice for edit warring and have had your talk page access revoked for using it inappropriately during your first block, and yet you're still insisting you're this perfect little angel who doesn't break rules? YourWP:IDHT is quite strong. Honestly, you're at thedisruptive level now as you are more of a net negative than a net positive to the Wikipedia project. Editors who persistently and consciously can't or won't admit when they're wrong have no place on Wikipedia. I should know. An indefinite blocked would be more than justified now. Wikipedia has noirreplaceable editors, and you've been given plenty ofrope.Amaury (talk |contribs)20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Page protected However, the edits here are disruptive.@Harmony944: The article code is still in the history of the redirect. If this continues then there will also be a block. The only options available to you are to take it to DRV or drop the subject.Number5720:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
“The code is still in the history of the redirect” Which you deleted twice. Without consensus. Which means the code was gone to anyone Twice. You defied the AfD twice. And yet my recreation to actually abide by the AfD consensus is called “disruptive”? And “rule-breaking”? Ever since I started editing here regularly I have been a fantastic editor, only to be confronted over common-sense actions I took because they needed consensus despite every source I gave. And then, again without consensus, you delete the draft talk page where it was confirmed that the draft was suggested by another user. What are you trying to hide? Why am I being targeted for trying to be a good editor—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The redirect has not (nor ever) been deleted by anyone – it is stillhere. I was not aware you had been advised to create the draft article, so I have amended that part of my rationale above. However, I would advise reigning in your other accusations (e.g. of having something to hide).Number5721:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
You are lying. I have the emails. Both of them, with the edit summaries that you deleted the article. It's also in the deletion log. When I clicked to see the article or what changed, the article wasn’t there.Yes, the redirect is therenow, but that’s because it had to be put back upthree times to counter your deletions. And you still deleted the draft AND it’s talk page. Despite what@IJBall: told you. You are overstepping boundaries. You had no consensus, and the only reasoning you ever gave was libelous. By doing this, you are proving yourself far more disruptive than you ever claimed me to be—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)21:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
As you can see in thepage log for the redirect, it has never been deleted or restored. Nor has the talk page of the draft. I would appreciate you withdrawing your accusation of lying.Number5721:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I nowsupport a block – between Harmony944's accusing an Admin of lying, to their failure toDrop the stick, I fear that continued disruption is inevitable here. I'm going to ping the previous blocking Admins,NeilN andBbb23, here as well, because I would like them to appraise this situation for themselves. --IJBall(contribs •talk)21:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: Just having looked at Harmony's comments here, I believe an indefinite block is warranted. However,Number 57 has been handling this, and I would not block at all unless he at least doesn't oppose it.--Bbb23 (talk)23:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Your behavior towards the admins here is disturbing. They have no reason to lie or deceive anyone yet you continue to make baseless attacks against them.Esuka323 (talk)23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Blocked for 36 hours, but I note that the page has been targeted before by another IP, potentially related so it might need to be semi protected if this continues. Regards,AustralianRupert (talk)23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
08:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "We have already decided after duniya News survey that only survey will be added after Talk page disscussion. This survey is not reliable and I have already challenged this on talk page. Wait for concensus"
19:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Read the link that states sampling method. Only 56 districts out of 350 and random interviews. Not a professional survey"
19:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Dont include a media based survey. It clearly states that random people were asked. Opinion survey conducted by a authentic survey organisation with a strata based sample be included only"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
persistent edit warring since last night, even though administrator allowed the survey in question to be added to [Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018
A game is being played by three politically motivated users Jibran, Masterpha and wikiohlic they edit back to back to add pro PTI blog / controversial surveys. Let Talk page discussion to decide the merits of survey for inclusion. I have started a talk page new section since yesterday.Jawadmdr (talk)12:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Jawadmdr is wrong. Despite already having been blocked 1 day for similar editing warring he continues to do the same. Here is another diff where he reverts our edits:
11:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) he says ‘see talk page’ despite there beingno consensus for the poll being removed on the talk page. He has clearly violated the 3RR against edit warring. And if you are wondering how I got to this edit war report, I was checking his user contributions to see whether he had once again disrupted the page. That is how serious this disruption is.маsтегрнатаLк12:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
As for the three editors being politically motivated, I would like to remind him that I was the one who added the previous surveys which were in PMLN’s favour, showing double digit leads. The only political motivation is coming from you, who insisted on adding abiased lead which would put the article in favour of PMLN, as well as changing the graph to show an old, outdated revision from march which would still show the pmln far ahead.маsтегрнатаLк12:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Masterpha See talk page initiative by me to resolve the issue[116] and[117] and discuss instead of trapping in 3R using 3 accounts. I can file SPI like you did and failed.Jawadmdr (talk)13:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
This user is solely on Wikipedia (by seeing his edits history) to edit these two articles relating to Pakistani General Elections and even after an administrator allowed for a survey to be added to a article (btw the survey was published by SDPI whose previous surveys were added to the article), but because he did not like the survey he does not want it to be added, even though according to his own argument (about number of constituencies surveyed) almost every survey then should not be added. -Jibran1998 (talk)14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jawadmdr: go ahead. File the SPI. I did not use three accounts, it is just that you are insistent on a POV push, which is why your edits are being reverted. I do not feel threatened by that because I know that I am not sockpuppeteering and am certain that a check user on all three accounts will produce different results. Unlike you I do not use open proxies to duck my way out of SPI’s. Anyway that investigation is over now. The talk page discussion you initiated is great: but wait for support until you delete a poll which is backed by most editors and admins on the article.маsтегрнатаLк14:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
06:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851424472 byCommanderOzEvolved (talk) I added a comment there on the talk page. Size of the material is never justification for keeping it. In fact, here the very *vastness* of thisWP:OR, off topic, fanboy digression screams that much louder for it's immediate purging -- then it's discussion. You need to provide good *secondary* sources that actually makes such analysis to replace this material."
05:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't work that way. There's simply more explanation of the deficiencies there on the talk page. Removed unduly large segment which is wholly off topic. Vast tracts of text devoted to decades of arcane pre-production details of OTHER movies is not standard for articles about movies, and is completely unnotable. ThisWP:OR makes it's own analysis from primary sources. Notability (and includability) can only be demonstrated via secondary sources that provide the connection and conclusions."
03:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Background */ Removed unduly large segment which is wholly off topic, unnotable. See talk page about this too."
Accuser made no attempt to resolve the matter on the talk page before accusations and this (rapid!) escalation. Accuser seems to think that size of material is justification for inclusion (needs some remedial training?). The size of the material here is the main problem. Large tracts of off topicWP:OR needsattention and discussion, not summary replacement followed by threats and power games. This is run of the mill bold-revert-discuss stuff.Usualzukor (talk)06:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, oops. But I would now like to add further points.
Firstly, many of the sources I checked in the affected section are NOT original research, which complies withWP:OR, in fact some of them are published in notable sites such asThe Huffington Post andThe Hollywood Reporter.
Secondly, I noticed that many of the source sites are archived for preservation reasons. That got me thinking whether you might have misread "archived from original" as original research when hovering over the links with the mouse. Maybe not but that's a possibility.
Thirdly, deleting over 23000 bytes of data without prior consensus will cause issues, especially when re-doing it after it got reverted by 3 different editors.
Other users mistook what you did for vandalism and so did I (and theSpecial:AbuseLog that tagged your edits as such), but I'm now thinking that you may just be going too overboard when removing content. Thus, don't blank whole sections abruptly but take other approaches to remove offending sources wherever found, and preferably in a way that doesn't draw controversy.CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log)07:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Please, "3 different editors" was an undue and too-early characterization. One of them (2Memphis) was "suspiciously-new" and who's revert had no explanation (such a revert makes it look like someone could be trying to fake a consensus). The last "two" took place within just a few minutes. The only editor (of the "three") to actually care that I reverted them (w/ detailed justifications) wasyou. That ain't no consensus. :-)
It takes time to see the formation of either 1) a balanced congenial discussion, or 2) anactual vituperous edit war. A few ordinary bold-revert cycles is too early to justify your escalations IMHO.
You say you're concerned mostly about vandalism. Sounds good to me. Let me suggest that an occupational hazard of that specialty is thateverything looks like a nail. In the future, please examine the fuller picture more carefully before going forward with that confirmation bias.Usualzukor (talk)21:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Warned The reverting has stopped and discussion transferred over to the talk page, so I'm going to close this now with a reminder that you should always do this instead of getting into revert wars.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[124]
Comments: Edits were made to move around other people's talk page comments which was contested and reverted, editor has persisted. Very grateful for this to be resolved by neutral administration.Onetwothreeip (talk)01:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like to invite any administrator who is responsible for this case to see what is really going on in this Talk Page [[125]] and possibly some older discussions in detail. This editor (OnetwothreeIP) had repeated made personal remarks and even personal attacks towards me. Now, the initial undones were due to OnetwothreeIP on my edits without providing any explanations. I have tried to avoid edit war even before OnetwothreeIP threatened to report here, as one can see clearly in history [[126]]. Thanks.Minimumbias (talk)03:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Accusations of personal attacks on my part are complete nonsense,User:Minimumbias has literally accused me of libel which is very concerning perWP:No legal threats and other personal remarks and suggestions about me personally. I believe I asked them to not be so hostile, and that was considered by them as a personal attack. Those issues are completely separate to this issue.
My undo-ing of their edits was explained both in edit summary and in the talk page. As the procedure dictates, I said to User:Minimumbias that I wanted to discuss the issue before reporting them here, but they said I should report them here anyway.Onetwothreeip (talk)04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
__________________
I suggest people directly look at the evidence in [[127]]. Also, I have another editorUser:StanLeeP who testified in that talk page and whose words objectively supported my actions and behavior. To be objective, I had displayed the complete editing timeline in [[128]], as one can easily verify from the editing history of the Talkpage.
What I did was combining some sections with similar topics without altering at all the content or order of discussions - in fact, I am one of few main participants in each of this section. However, editor Onetwothreeip's central point is that I had "no permission sought to change others' talk page entries, changing/deleting headlines (undoing)"/"You do not have the permission of the editor who made the heading". I had referred this editor repeatedly to the relevant Wikipedia policies that there is no such thing called "permission" when it comes to merging similar topics and modifying headings (especially when there are duplicated discussions), but was ignored. On the other hand, Onetwothreeip had offended editor StanLeeP by leaving out or misplacing StanLeeP's discussion with me. The Wikipedia policies I'd consulted inWikipedia:Talk page guidelines include:
Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.
Avoid posting the same thread in multiple talk pages: This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link. If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and link to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why.
The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.Minimumbias (talk)19:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not my "central point" to this edit warring notice at all. I thought you would use that very new user who agrees with you on everything. The moving around talk page entries by Minimumbias was very odd and unnecessary so I restored them to the best of my ability. The problem is that they could not accept their moving around talk entries was disputed and engaged in an edit war to try and keep them, not about what the guidelines say on moving talk page entries.Onetwothreeip (talk)23:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
No, nobody "uses" me. Please do not use provocative language. And I don't know how you drew the conclusion that I agreed with Minimumbias on everything. I first expressed my concern on the Talk Page regarding summer policy which Minimumbias did not completely agree. I then offered my argument and discussed with Minimumbias further. Changes were then made to the article. Some time later Minimumbias invited back to the Talk Page on some other issues and we had some discussions. I only reported what I saw yesterday without favoring either party.StanLeeP (talk)01:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
__________________
If it is possible, I'd like to countercharge editor Onetwothreeip for starting and engaging in edit war by violating the 3R Rule. This is why much earlier I stated in that Talk page ([[129]]) that I'd report this editor here before he/she did. But it turns out he/she was faster in his/her action. I have listed every details in the timeline in that Talk Page. But here is the complete reverting timeline:
1) First revert by Onetwothreeip at 22:41 and 22:47 on 21 July 2018: [[130]]. No explanation given in edit summary. During this process, Onetwothreeip left out or misplaced my conversation with editor StanLeeP.
2) At 01:15 21 July 2018, I started to manually clean the chaos (this is not a revert, because editors StanLeeP and Onetwothreeip had made numerous edits before I did), explaining reasons and Wikipedia policies in all edit summaries. Second revert by Onetwothreeipat 01:22 and 01:23 on 22 July 2018: [[131]]. No explanation given in edit summary.
3) At 01:27, 22 July 2018, I reverted for the first time Onetwothreeip's unexplained reverts in 2). At 01:29, 22 July 2018, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit for the third time: [[132]]. No explanation given in edit summary.
4) At 01:32, 22 July 2018, I reverted for the second time Onetwothreeip's unexplained revert in 3), stating "Unexplained edit" in my edit summary. However, at 01:32, 22 July 2018, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit for the fourth time, violating the 3R rule: [[133]].
5) At 01:33, 22 July 2018, I reverted for the third time Onetwothreeip's revert and made efforts to avoid edit war (e.g, in my further edit summaries I stated clearly "I'd like to make changes to avoid further edit war").Minimumbias (talk)02:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Edit summaries are not compulsory, they are optional. "Unexplained edit" has never been a good reason to make an edit on its own. Even still I explained my edits in the talk page. I'm not sure why you're claiming you wanted to avoid an edit war, when I asked that we discuss the matter you said I should just report you anyway, so I did.Onetwothreeip (talk)03:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Result:User:Minimumbias andUser:Onetwothreeip areboth warned. Either of them may be blocked if they touch or relocate any other editors' comments on the talk page without first getting a general consensus for a rearrangement. The edit warring policy applies in full force to article talk pages. As it states inWP:REFACTOR,"If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted".EdJohnston (talk)04:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
What DBigXray is falsely calling vandalism were quite reasonable andpolicy-grounded edits by the IP[139][140][141]. There is also no evidence that the IP editor is a sock.[142] Even if it was, there is no justification for DBigXray's revert of meaningful edits. I see that DBigXray has come to the talk page (but with a loaded question)after I filed this report. This may beWP:GAMING to avoid sanctions. I would also recommend a block for DBigXray's friend Accesscrawl (an account registered 7 months ago but quite familiar with an old sockmaster from before his time/with language resembling a topic-banned user) for this incivility.[143]Dilpa kaur (talk)10:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
FirstlyUser:Mfarazbaig had used Karachi, Sindh IPs. thats where these IPs above geolocate to as well. CUs dont publicly connect IPs to IDs.
Secondly; Yes, of course. lets believe (instead of blocking) all the the Socks from the SockFarmWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital and start blocking all editors on their hit list. Way to go.
Thirdly, Based on your own contribution history, I have this opinion that your only purpose here is to participate in meat puppetry by supporting Pakistani POV in controversial articles and filing reports. --DBigXray10:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Result: DBigXraywarned for 1RR violation. That editor's claim to be reverting vandalism makes no sense. Also, I have semiprotected the page for three months. When IPs write edit sophisticated summaries it makes me think that some kind of campaign might be going on. I notice thatUser:Dilpa kaur, the filer of this report,was reported at ANI back in February for concerns related to their Kashmir editing. No action was taken at that time. But if it seems that some editors are not able to edit neutrally on the topic of Kashmir, sanctions are possible underWP:ARBIPA.EdJohnston (talk)06:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No official discussion took place on the article talk page however, a discussion took place in edit summaries and inthis section on a user talk page regarding the material in question.
I'm following Wikipedia's guidelines on proper sourcing. Recaps are not considered reliable sources when it comes to talking about a controversy with the public, which I have informed you multiple times. I asked you to provide the "media coverage" you speak of and still haven't done so. I added an actual reliable source,The Washington Post.Miss HollyJ (talk)15:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Miss HollyJ, even if you disapprove of the sources thatUser:TheDoctorWho wants to use, this is not a big enough concern to allow you to revert without penalty perWP:3RRNO. Normally, agreement on quality of sources is reached through discussion among editors. There may still be time for you to back away from the situation. Otherwise, you could be blocked forWP:3RR violation.EdJohnston (talk)18:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
My edits were reverted 4 times by that user as well. I let them know that they can't use recaps as a source because all that they include are summaries of the episode which are already listed in the article under the episodes section. I read it and there is no mention whatsoever of controversy or criticism. I don't think that warrants a discussion on an opinion amongst editors when the facts show there is no proof in that source to back up their claims. I asked for the "press coverage" they talked about and still haven't been able to provide it.Miss HollyJ (talk)19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Miss HollyJ, unless you think you were undoing a BLP violation there is no exemption here for your reverts. Are you sure you won't take the deal, and agree to wait for consensus?EdJohnston (talk)19:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
"This user clearly had some kind of personal grudge" No I did not. 1) That is your opinion and 2) I was never angry. And not once did I say Global wasn't a reliable source. I would love for you to pin point exactly where it is I said that. I said a recap isn't a reliable source no matter where it's from because all it is is a summary of the episode. Also, I never undid the sources that listed The Hollywood Reporter. I left that there. And finally, the article talking about Devin was used as a source on a line that said "Many came to the defense of the two" which is not accurate at all. That TMZ article only listed the personal opinion of one former houseguest, Devin.Miss HollyJ (talk)22:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Just because someone was blocked in the past doesn't mean they're not allowed an opinion. People don't get unblocked for doing the same thing wrong, which meansComputer40 understands what they did wrong in the past and in my opinion has done an exceptional job not making the same mistakes again. Pinging@OfficerAPC: who also reverted your removal to see if they have an opinion.TheDoctorWho(talk)22:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Well given that their call to ban me included mostly lies about me, I don't think they have any credibility and I have the right to defend myself against baseless smears against my name.Miss HollyJ (talk)23:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
That's extremely inappropriate to bring up in a noticeboard filing that has nothing to do with me. I have nothing to do with your edit warring.Computer40«»(talk)00:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Stale. If I'd seen this report shortly after you reverted 5-6 times I would have blocked you; however, it is now 18 hours later and no further issues have arisen. Equally, however, if you continue to edit-war on this article youwill be blocked.Black Kite (talk)23:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:15:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC) The reverts were actually undos with one intermediate edit, so this is not the exact version reverted to.
07:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) self-revert: "Wrong button pushed, and corrected. The other method makes columns which are too far about from each other, and therfore do not read as two parts of a single list. THis technique is better."
The last two edits above are self-reverts so don't count towards 3RR.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is primarily a conduct dispute. BMK was invited to explain their reverts on talk but did not. Discussion was attempted on BMK's talk page, but proved fruitless as he refused to even tolerate the presence of my comment.
Comments: BMK is displaying a shocking lack of civility in using profanity, not providing meaningful edit summaries, not discussing on talk when invited to do so, and removing talk page comments. He also displays contempt for consensus-based editing guidelines.Hairy Dude (talk)11:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment –@Hairy Dude: I'm not sure this was a 3RR violation. BMK reverted you twice, then accidentally reverted you with Twinkle vandalism rollback, self-reverted to go back and use the regular undo function (self-reverts are exempt from 3RR), and finally reverted you again. I think that only counts as 3 reverts. Whether any action or discussion or anything else needs to take place though is another question. You may prefer to take this dispute to ANI instead, as it involves more than one issue.LinguistunEinsuno (Linguist111)12:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not alleging a 3RR violation. I thought I'd included a note to that effect, but apparently not. I've added it now.Hairy Dude (talk)13:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
13:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Warned for removal of maintenance templates, with specific reference to previous warnings for 3RR yesterday
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Discussion is ongoing on the article's talk page with no input thus far from this IP user.
Comments:
While the 3RR has not yet been violated with regard to the merge tag, this same IP user removed a (properly placed, in my opinion) redirect tag on the article less than five days ago.StrikerforceTalk19:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours, since they continued after the warning. I have no idea whether the merge should be done, but they shouldn't be removing the banner that links to the merge discussion.EdJohnston (talk)14:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Blockedindefinitely The edit-warring was not the only problem: there was also copyright problem, promotional editing, editing with a conflict of interest, and failure to take any notice whatever of messages expressing concerns.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)09:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:diff
Comments: Diffs A, B, C and D are a series of edits byQexigator which I think adds undue weight to two additional pieces of legislation. Diffs A, B and C are essentially two stubs about two other pieces of legislation. Diff D includes a wikilink for theTaxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill and a wikilink for theTrade Bill both link to the section created in diffs A, B and C.
In my revert I left the additional paragraph added in diff D but removed the sub-section "Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" as it was overkill. After his first revert (Diff 1 of the user's reverts) I reverted saying that - including the additional legislation was not a problem but the paragraph was enough of a mention andNew bill = new separate article. Create the articles in their respective linksdiff. Since then he keeps reverting saying that I mustdesist missiing the point of this revision and thatTVF can create articles per own advice.
Qexigator has also addedthis diff to the article's talk page statingWhy not cool off, TVF, pause awhile, reflect, and avoid intervening disruptively as if there is a problem, where there is none. He goes on to say,...the edsum explains sufficiently what will be self-evident to a visiting reader concerned with this topic: ... unlike TVF's incomplete and unhelpfullly repeated: ... he then goes on to quote me – except it is not me! The quote is which he mentions is nothing to do with me, it is his own work(diff D).
Stale No reverts for 24 hours, and discussion is being thrashed out on talk. To be honest, I don’t think protection or blocks are going to be useful here. If you can’t come to an agreement, try theDispute Resolution Noticeboard. (As someone with a strong view on Brexit and related topics, I’m probably not best placed to try and adjudicate the content).Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The name Smartin Mellner is a reference to Martin Sellner, who leads a white supremacist outfit Generation Identity that failed to launch in the UK and is known for aggression towards Nash-Jones. Clearly, "Smartin Mellner" has taken offence to this accurate sentence, and seeks to censor the truth:
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. The draft has been declined as it does not have appropriate sources. I can’t offer any views on the content as I am not neutral; I despise Trump and can’t stand his annoying whine.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)06:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Not at 3RR, but disruptive and aggressive edit warring behavior by likely IP sock of an experienced user.
IP links to a school, due to wording used in edit summarieshere and familiarity with warnings and policy (see what was left on my talk pagehere and what was saidhere as well as at the same AfDhere), user is obviously not a newbie and probably has an account but is choosing not to use it.-- ψλ ●✉✓20:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
04:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Removing entire section due to proof of relevance. A single person throwing a tantrum on twitter and tabloid trash running with it to "generate" a click bait headline isn't a controversy."
Comments: This is an issue that has gone on for several months. I thought it was resolved, but then it flared back up again. Contaldo80 has placed scare quotes around the phrase "culture of life" because he says it "is not a real thing" on both the article about the Knights of Columbus and the daughter article about their political activity. When this first happened, I opposed it, as didLionel. After the issue resurfaced and discussing it on talk was unsucessful,I requested a third opinion.
Two other editors weighed in, both of them arguing that the scare quotes should be removed. On the basis of this, I removed them in both articles. Contaldo subsequently reinsterted them in both articles. He wasreverted by Work Permit on the main article, and by me on the political article. He placed themback into the political article. Rather than continue to edit war, I am submitting the matter here. --BrianCUA (talk)14:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[194][195]
Comments: This editor has maintained a stance that every single movie article on wikipedia is formatted incorrectly and has tried to push his agenda by edit warring on these two pages for months:Thoroughbreds (2017 film) andMother! This is despite the fact he has been unable to find one editor to agree with his edits on the talk page and despite the fact that movie articles that he claims are formatted incorrectly have been listed as featured articles, which are considered the best articles wikipedia has to offer. When asked why he doesn't edit other movie articles to reflect how he feels all movie articles should be formatted, his response is that he doesn't have the time to do so even though he's had the time to engage in edit wars on these two pages for months. His repeated reversions are in violation of the page's consensus and there is no precedent for his repeated edits on any other movie article.TheSnowyMountains (talk)01:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I side with Koav here. The wrestling articles about events like Summerslam and Wrestlemania include spoilers. Besides, the lead it is important to summarize the article even if it gives 'too much away' (which is not a clear line). You pointed out articles, I can point to a lot of articles where the lead gives the spoilers away. Please respect Koavf's edits and know they are within policy.JC7V7DC5768 (talk)02:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the format of the articles are better one way than the other. That's not the issue here. What I'm arguing is that this user is violating multiple wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding edit warring, the three-revert rule, disruptive editing, and adhering to the talk page's consensus. If he wants to argue that every wikipedia film article is wrong, there are places he needs to discuss that and obtain consensus rather than engaging in edit wars.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTheSnowyMountains (talk •contribs)03:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Since you've just made multiple false accusations about me I am sure I want to leave this as it is and let the admins deal with your clear edit warring and three-revert rule violations.TheSnowyMountains (talk)05:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
17:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 852108683 byУчхљёная (talk): Still acting as a state symbol; RV per dishonest and inconsistent summaries. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Edit warring to include copyrighted lyrics to the article. As this was not a state anthem, but a proposed (and rejected) anthem, the Berne conventions rules apply, and is copyrighted until 50 years after the author's death. My reversions are exempt perWP:3RRNO #5.Scr★pIronIV18:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Page protected for a period of24 hours. I'm annoyed. You see that section marked "diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" that hasnothing in it? That's where you could have explained why Учхљёная's edits were unquestionable and unambiguous copyvios (and remember thatWP:3RRNO says you shouldn'trely on this exemption to give you a licence to edit-war). As I see it, the text was in there for two years (that doesn't make it okay, but at least makes it a grey area), and another editor previously wrote"Seriously, this song is NOT copyrighted. It's from a DEAD country. 1943. Really? It's open source because it's under the copyright act of the Russian Federation." So I've protected, which forces you to go to the talk page and discuss.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I asked them on their talk page to give their rationale on the article's talk page, and wait for comments by other editors. They placed a comment, but did not wait for consensus and rv again twice.Ktrimi991 (talk)19:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
21:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852136259 byKNHaw (talk) What on earth? Can a moderator please take a look at this? KNHaw? No wonder your page says "semi-retired" I think you need to retire for good."
21:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852135951 byMoney emoji (talk) Why would I bring it up on your talk page? You are not a moderator. You are a community activist (I've looked at your page). I already have spoke with a moderator on the matter and I believe the issue was I didn't reference properly. I find it funny how you're dodging the question I put to you on Peter Hawking's qualifications and trying to lead me down a rabbit hole. NOW STOP THE CAPS"
21:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852135491 byMoney emoji (talk) The fact they "brought it up on Quora" has no relevance. This man, Peter Hawkins, spent 3/4 years of his life studying this at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Do you refuse to acknowledge that? My other source was actually based on public feedback as well and if you actually take part in the poll most actually define it as more left than "left of centre""
21:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852135039 byMoney emoji (talk) This is absolutely bonkers. I think someone with a degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from Oxford University is far more qualified to speak on this matter than you'll ever be."
He's been repeatedly asked to bring up the changes on the talk page, and claims (is lying) that he talked it out with a "moderator" and everything is ok. For the record, I agree with him, but he's not using reliable sources.💵Money💵emoji💵💸21:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments: A very, very long-running edit war; I've brought it to the attention ofWP:NPOV/N. Dael4 has crossed 3RR but other actions may be necessary to solve this dispute.power~enwiki (π,ν)00:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
When a bunch of people gang up on one party in undemocratic fashion then the warring stipulation should be put on them. I am one against manyDael4 (talk)00:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
"One against many" and "undemocratic" are contradictions in terms here. You are trying to impose your will on a wiki page over the objections of others. You are in fact the one attempting to do an end-run around democracy.Nevermore27 (talk)01:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is relevant to the current discussion. I've been on the receiving end of these edit wars, not the instigating side.Nevermore27 (talk)04:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Page protected for 24 hours by Enigmaman[214]. There was a clear breach byUser:Dael4, who was lucky to escape being blocked. Any continuation of the previous behavior after the expiry of protection will result in a block.DrKay (talk)07:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Update: The user is engaging in active edit warring. They are clearly aware of this because they deleted the warnings from their talk page[215] then went ahead to revert again[216] and again[217] without an explanation.—Schistocyte(talk)20:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours. BothUser:Jamie.green.75 andUser:XYZtSpace have broken 3RR and the latter seems to have misused rollback as the edits are not obviously covered byWikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. There is no discussion on the article talk page. I have blocked Jamie.green.75 for refusing to engage in discussion and ignoring warnings, and have revoked XYZtSpace's rollback user right. XYZtSpace did try to engage in discussion and posted to the user talk page, but should not have continued to revert or rollback when the inserted material was not obvious vandalism.DrKay (talk)08:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[219]-[220] (he just left aWP:JDL one-liner, going against what Doug, me, and Wikaviani have said to him on many occassions.[[221]] He continued to edit-war,a mere three minutes after.[222])
Comments: "Cirflow" is a long-termWP:TENDENTIOUS editor as he 1) constantly adds unsourced content 2) constantly adds content accompanied by non-RS sources (such as blogspots) 3) is very fond of edit-warring 4) ignores warnings as much as he can, including those given by veteran users/admins. We could literally file ten ANI reports about his disruptive editorial pattern, but this primarily limits itself to the rampage he's causing on theArtsruni dynasty articles, just one of the many articles in question. On this very page, as we speak, he's edit warring against me,Wikaviani andDoug Weller. All three of us have warned him numerous times, and have expressed numerous times that he can't add the content, as the sources are not reliable. To no avail.
Looking at the compelling evidence and the overal editorial pattern, its safe to say that this user isnot here to build this encyclopedia. Has been editing on Wiki for 4 years (which he even proudly proclaims[231]), but he absolutely doesn't care about Wiki's policies and guidelines. God knows how many articles have been disrupted by him in these past few months/years. Even after getting blockedon no less than 4 occassions for edit-warring, he still doesn't care. Its unfortunate, but more than enoughrope has been given and literally dozens of "final chances". -LouisAragon (talk)02:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history of my edits toArtsruni, You will see in most/all of my reverts I adjust the content to fit consensus- they are not full reverts. I removed the 1544 date as discussed in chat by Dough Weller, but all the other 800 characters of content is cited by Simonian and an Anthropologist yet you still say it is not reliably sourced while simultaneously give no justification as to how that even is! You have no right to remove well cited content and doing so is against wikipedia policy and so my reverts are justified in this case. Additionally, I still never brokeWikipedia:3RR as it was outside of the 24 hour range.User:Doug_Weller needs to come and back me up!Cirflow (talk)02:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Still outside ofWikipedia:3RR, and still cited content that is backed by reliable sourcing that you continue to criticize and consider unreliable despite there being no proof of that being the case. If you look at the chat, you will see I am adhering to consensus with Dough Weller, but unfortunately -You- refuse to compromise and continue to accuse me of Vandalism and article disruption!Cirflow (talk)03:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, you're talking about the 3RR as if this allowed you to edit war. I took the time to explain you on your talk page that edit warring does not mean a 3RR breach and i even posted a link pointing to the paragraph about this on your talk page :[233], however, you keep going on with your disruptive edits. Therefore, i would say thatLouisAragon is right. You seem to have seriousWP:CIR issues ...---Wikaviani (talk)22:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
If anything you are the Incompetent one-WP:CIR. I have been working with Doug to adjust and find a viewable source but all you and Wikaviani do is delete my C I T E D revisions without legitimate justification. You are disruping the article with your tendentious levels of contempt for my edits.Cirflow (talk)04:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: You also havent replied in the talk section I made about this little schism you made, proving that YOU are the defiant and obstructive one Louis!Cirflow (talk)04:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
first, please learn to indent a thread properly. second,this "source" you try to include in theArtsruni dynasty article is just one example among many others that shows you need to read carefully what is considered a reliable source on Wikpedia (WP:RS).
For your information, when you have "wordpress" in an url this means your "source" is ablog and therefore completelyunreliable for us on this community encyclopedia. Doug Weller and Louis Aragon repeatedly explained you that Blogs, Facebook, etc are not considered reliable sources, but you keep going on and you dare qualifying your edits "C I T E D revisions", just incredible for an "experienced user" ...---Wikaviani (talk)04:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The sole purpose of the Wordpress article is to back up the Simonian source, and besides, it is written by an expert and has college written academic material from Wayne State University in its makeup therefore making it reliable. The facebook thing was on a separate page and I removed it as per consensus and recognizing its invalidity. This still does not justify your removal of the Simonian citation, as well as the additonal material it backs up... you should self-revert so that you do not continue to beWikipedia:Tendentious editing as per the subsections under “Characteristics of Problem Editing”
“One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism.”
“One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources”
“One who reverts the pertinent cited additons of others”
In a rush, on iPad. I've got Simonian and it doesn't back your claim, see[234]. This editor doesn't understand RS and misrepresents Sources.Doug Wellertalk04:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
You said in talk that the Simonian source stated that it was around the 1520s not 1544 and I did add that, what you are referring to in regards to “not backing my claim” are the prior edits which I personally remediated. I do understand reliable sources, I am a college student so of course I do as well.Cirflow (talk)05:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I did not say that. I said Simonian's words were that "Hemshin was under Ottoman control in the 1520s" - he doesn't comment on the Artsruni dynasty so you can't use him as a source for its dissolution.Doug Wellertalk07:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, fine, at this rate ill just give up. Thanks for reverting my perfectly good, 863 character consensus bound edit about the line of Artsruni who ruled Hamamshen! At this rate Ill just go edit somewhere else im done here if even my well cited revision is being contested by everyone I quit.Cirflow (talk)05:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
You claimed the blog was originally published at a university which made it ok. That's too ambiguous to mean its reliably sourced, and in fact it's only a the first paragraph, in a different font, which says at the bottom "Published in Wayne State University". In fact even that's wrong, that paragraph is an abstract fromhere and the rest of the blog is just that, a blog post which says at the bottom "Accoring to the research by Vahan Ishkhanyan and my research". I'm beginning to think either you are very careless or are just copying sources from elsewhere without reading them yourself, as you did with Simonian. And atWP:RSN#Is Middleeasteye.net a reliable source and does it back this text? everyone who looked at the source and your text agreed that the source did not back your text.Doug Wellertalk07:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Not blocked. Reported editor has agreed to stop editing the article of his own volition. As a complete outsider, I confirm that a source is inadequate if it does not explicitly support the claim made in the article.DrKay (talk)08:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
02:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852121342 byWalter Görlitz (talk) unsourced, contradicts other sources and his own statements (which are sourced). Also, it's blatantly not true, FYI."
Long-term edit war to censor referenced material. When the content was added, I verified the content, translating it from Turkish to English and verifying that the claims were substantiated. I was not able to verify whether the sources metWP:RS, but that does not seem to be the problem.Walter Görlitz (talk)04:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Warned. I have verified the content: the claim in the article is verifiable. I think the sources do meet the RS guideline, since one isHürriyet and the other is Stewart Coggin (football writer for the London Standard).User:ZinedineZidane98 is therefore reminded that there are insufficient grounds to remove this material from the article, and it should not be removed until consensus changes.DrKay (talk)10:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User has been adding link to an article that's being considered for deletion and removing reliably cited information, claiming it's false. I suspect that this editor is also closely associated to the subject (or being paid to edit the article) even though he/she denies this. Tks,Slightlymad (talk ⋅contribs)04:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
This personsays on their Userpage that they areAlways proud #UNCAlumni! and that is clearly more important to them, than following our content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The last diff was reverted by someone reviewing a COI edit request that the person made after Iexplained how to do that. They added the content anyway after it was rejected. They are not over 3RR but the committment is clear.Jytdog (talk)11:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: These edits were reverted by Jytdog as the result of a COI detected by Jytdog. This COI is being resolved on the talk page, please see there. I did not fully understand the undo edit code and undid the undo's to correct this. This issue is being resolved. This conflict with Jytdog was posted on the Noticed board by SithLordSparklePants (talk)02:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC). This is continued harassment due to an COI that is being managed. Yes, I have made mistakes in my editing, but as one can see this is an newer account and I am learning. I should not be banned by simply learning.
Everyone has to learn. Yourfirst comment at the article talk page was an attack. You have not responded on your own talk page. You have been aggressively editing BOOSTER crap into our project. We call thatnot here to build an encyclopedia -- you obviously came here to promote your alma mater and thus yourself. This is what conflict of interest does to people.Jytdog (talk)11:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Clarity in your edits is always helpful and does not come in the form of repeatedly pasting tomes of wiki how tos. It is unclear how the external, non-UNC refs were BOOSTER. Please list BOOSTED 'crap' that was not well referenced, because it is unclear. COI disclosures are important, and this one is being managed. Being militant and harassing individuals because of a COI is not warranted. From the history page, it is clear thatSpartan1977 was also aggressively edited by you without clarity as to the edits. This is a trend specifically on this page, which makes me concerned as toJytdog has a COI or at least a bias regarding the entity that needs to disclosure.SithLordSparklePants (talk)
A review of the recentpage history will show the two users battling back and forth over the ethnic makeup of Hungary, each citing their own preferred sources.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:InterCity(IC) has tried to open communication but Fisoz92 has not engaged atTalk:Hungary. Fisoz92 has contacted me directly,claiming not to understand the problem. I am not personally involved in this conflict, and have no idea whether either of the users has a better case to make; I only know that they have both refused to engage in proper discussion to resolve the dispute and that both have not violatedWP:3RR.
Comments:
Both editors blocked – for a period of24 and 3 hours respectively. I blocked InterCity(IC) for longer because he has been warned multiple times before and reverted again[239] despite discussions here and elsewhere, whereas Fisoz92 is a new account.DrKay (talk)11:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
This user does not respond to any attempt at communicating with them. If they're not even responding to notices on their talk page any attempt to talk with them on these articles' talk pages would be futile.
Comments:
The user is repeatedly adding unsourced content and removing sourced ones without any explanation in the infoboxes of theFree Syrian Army,Southern Front, andRevolutionary Commando Army pages. They have been notified and warned multiple times, but there has been no attempt by them to respond to any of these. The disruptive editing of these pages continues.Editor abcdef (talk)01:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I made what I felt to be an uncontroversial change to a guideline page, to incorporate a consensus from a past RfC that has never been formally solemnized in the guidelines. I am well aware that one must be careful when BOLDly editing a policy or guideline page, and if someone had reverted my edit and explained why, I was (and am) prepared to discuss the matter on talk. Jytdog reverted my edit with only the vague admonition that "this is a guideline not a niewspaper." I did not (and do not) see that as a clear objection to anything in my edit, and so I restored the content, with an edit summary asking for further clarification, and responding to my best guess at what they'd meant (that the RfC was a historical event, not a piece of guideline or policy). They simply reverted again, with their stated rationale being that I was edit-warring. I do not like to revert twice, but I also do not think it is fair for someone to be able to revert my addition without giving any clear reason why, despite being asked to, so I restored it again. They then left me an edit-warring warning, and promptly reverted againwith rollback.
I am aware that, whatever Jytdog may have done, I reverted twice on a guideline page. If this boomerangs, so be it. But if they want to accuse me of edit warring, when they're the one who made the first and last revert, they're the one who never gave any clear explanation for any of their three reverts, they're the one who described it as an edit war literally while making a revert, and they're the one who used rollback in direct violation of the rollback guideline, then I think it's best that this be reviewed by an admin.
FWIW, I'm about to go to sleep, and upon awaking will be busy till about 8 PM Eastern tomorrow. I've said everything I have to say, though, so I accept whatever result may come of this. If that involves me getting blocked, feel free to increase the length by however many hours are between the time of the block and 8 PM, so that it can be preventative to the intended extent. (I know that that sounds sarcastic, but it isn't.) —PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)02:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
drama. just describe the change you want atWT:RS for pete's sake, and don't try to force a change to an essential guideline. This is not rocket science. I'veself-reverted the rollback, which I should not have used, andproperly reverted, giving yet more reasoning. I opened the discussion on talk btw:Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Daily_Mail. I do not believe pinkampersand intends to further force a change and has finallyresponded at the talk page, so this appears to be quite done.Jytdog (talk)03:02, 28 July 2018 (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. Both editors' behavior was far from ideal but the mistakes were undone and discussion is now underway.DrKay (talk)11:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
02:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC) "Reason: Transcript in citation contradicts all text written in this section. READ the source material everyone. The whole thing is twisted."
This user has been deleting a cited section fromKevin Sabet for a while now, but this is the first time they have violated 3RR. Multiple patrollers have reverted them. I've tried to explain to the editor on their talk page that the info appears cited but they have continued to revert.Aspening (talk)02:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments: The new user Lzzy303 keep spamming his reverting without source his changes in the infobox (that he removed without proper explanations, it's not enough what the official association website says, I answered on the talk page.Jasmir5423:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why the user Matthew_hk keep stalking my edits, I always partecipated in the discussions in the Talk Pages and I properly motivated my edits with riliable sources of Italian News Papers likeLa Repubblica,La Stampa, etc, while the user Lzzy303 didn't. The User Matthew_hk is actually patrolling many Italian Banks pages (likeBanco BPM,Banca Carige) and keeps mantaing the 3 decimals standard with point (after we talked in my talk page if it's possible to use more decimals because if you use exactly 3 decimals on the Italian Banks infoboxes, Italian people can actually misunderstand and read a much bigger value), but he stopped answering days ago in that discussion and he is keeping stalkering me instead, by the way it's his problem not mine.Jasmir5404:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
And yes, I used to make few edits wikipedia without registering not long before weeks ago, it's not a violation. Have a nice day.Jasmir5423:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not using socket puppets, hopefully the administrators can verify this, though I can understand why you have suspectsMatthew_hk, as I am siding with Lzzy303 (at least, so far). As forJasmir54, I made a number of observations on the talk page, you're invited to read them. You can cite a good source, as a newspaper, but if the article states (for example) "the trial on banks was dismissed" (and I looked around and couldn't find any information on a re-opening of the trial) you cannot use it as base for a whole paragraph where you state as a fact that banks are under control. Similarly if a page is old, the trial went on and the verdict was changed, you cannot cite a reliable source reporting the first trial results as definitive and ignore the final trial. Moreover the official bibliography of the founder has at least a certain degree of historical accuracy. Similarly if an article on a newspaper contains an accusation, it's an accusation which may have some grounds, but it's not to be reported as a fact on wikipedia. I am honestly tired of user Jasmir54 saying "Your sources are not reliable" (all of them?) without any proper explanation or attempt to answer my questions (it's the only message he wrote, something like 10 times I believe), while I sometimes used the same articles as Jasmir54 only reading them (as for the banks case), other times citing official documents (for instance "The fraternity is recognized by the church" and cite a letter from the Pope, I cannot see a better citation for this). I could go on, but I believe a look at the talk page of the Communion and Liberation page would be better.GioA90 (talk)06:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
A small extra: I invite the administrators to read the "services" in the info box. As I stated in the talk page, such accusations should be extremely well documented, but they're stated as fact and without citation...GioA90 (talk)06:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
As you can see that's the only statement he's throwing around, without arguments and completely ignoring any argumentation about how currently the citations are not properly used.GioA90 (talk)09:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jasmir54: this is English wikipedia not Italian-language wikipedia, and even Italian had billion (miliardo), i don't understand the logic to replace billion with 1,000 million, given the first appearance of the word billion in the infobox was already link toshort billion. Also, English use comma as separator not dot (i.e. in Italian it is 1.000,00 but in English it is 1,000.00) .Template:infobox company already suggested that not throwing too much significant figure. Lastly, it is you casually throw citation into the article that still not yet able to fully verify the accusation, but you chose to remove the maintenance template. (Special:Diff/850511692)Matthew_hktc11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: AsGioA90 said, though I can see why it would seem like I'm their sock puppet, I'm not. I visited the Communion and Liberation page last week only to find that throughout the course of the past month, any information regarding the organization's history, mission, structure, and publications had been stripped from the page byJasmir54 and had been replaced with questionable criticism of the organization. I repeat, everything had been deleted from the article except for questionable information defaming the organization. As mentioned by GioA90, some of the criticism was presented as fact when the sources cited were speculative. Other criticism (for example, the 100 million budget) did not even have sources. Though there is definitely room to cover the criticism an organization has received, it's not right that the entirety of an organization's Wikipedia page be solely comprised of questionable criticism. That is clearly a biased move. Seeing I know a lot about this organization, I made a Wiki account to do some editing. At first, I added a section on the history of the organization, another on its structure and mission, and I deleted information that I thought was questionable or that didn't have any citations. Jasmir54 was quick to undo all of my edits over the weekend saying that my citations were not correct. I had cited Vatican documents, the organization's official website, the founder's official biography, and other publications concerning Communion and Liberation. Yesterday, I went back to reinsert the history section, the mission section, and more on the structure. I also created a "controversies" section where the criticism Jasmir54 so badly wants to display could go. My edits were marked as vandalism. The infobox was my bad; as I was trying to edit the wrong info it contained, I accidentally deleted it. However, I was reported before I even had the chance to figure out how to reinsert it. Bottom line is, Communion and Liberation is controversial in Italy. However, Wikipedia should be a platform where readers can have access to objective information. It's hardly fair to taint this organization's image in the English-speaking world because users like Jasmir54 are allowed to vandalize pages, stripping them of objective information and distorting the image of the object in question. Again, controversies and criticism should have their place in the article, but they should not comprise the entirety of the page, stripping readers of the possibility to find out more about the organization's background, history, mission, etc., and conditioning them to negative prejudice.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLzzy303 (talk •contribs) 2018-07-24T13:43:01 (UTC)
@Jasmir54:, it seem the report was not properly filled with exact revert and sign of warning given. And it definitely looks likes there is some meatsock in this edit warring, namelyLotuspwr33.Matthew_hktc17:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jasmir54: And it seem you need to be reported to ANI instead. It is just cause for other user to remove poorly sourced material which removing unsourced "defamation" material. And such action did not require external source, but adding those controversy material even as accusation, should properly sourced. I don't see you properly replied toGioA90 in the article talk page, but GioA90 had posted a lengthy discussion of the content.Matthew_hktc01:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can see@Lzzy303: is using proper citations, as he/she cited only official documents and the official bibliography. Please,@Jasmir54:, try to read the comments I made in the talk page and think about them! It is not only a problem of adding sources, the problem is also reading and understanding them, discriminating between "facts" and "accusations" (as much as possible). You can find the best source on earth, but if you paste it randomly without properly assessing what's inside it there's still a problem: if the reliable article states "trial dismissed. Might be reopened" and you can't find an article about the trial being re-opened (I couldn't, at least), then you can't cite the accusations as true. Similarly, a reliable source reporting an old sentence which has changed later is a good source but you should cite the final statement of the trial (even if you don't like or think is wrong). Similarly, unless the trial is finished, you should paste information as "accusations" not facts. Similarly a source that does not agree with you POV is not automatically bad...GioA90 (talk)13:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Btw I am really getting tired of rewriting again and again the same things. It really feels like you don't really care what I write@Lzzy303:...GioA90 (talk)13:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi GioA90, I invited you to the Teahouse. Please don't replace contents from articles with content without reliable and independent references and citations. Welcome to Wikipedia.Jasmir5422:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jasmir54: I was already in the Teahouse asking for help before the first of you bot-style invites (as you can see in the talk page). Moreover it is useless for me to write here, in the teahouse or in the talk page of the page in question, as long as you don't try to read and understand the points I made. I am sure some of them are extremely compelling.GioA90 (talk)12:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jasmir54: Since you said "there is nothing more to say imo",I'll tell you: ok. I am stupid, dumb and I don't understand. Could you please argument you claims of those citations not being reliable? And I would be even happier if you could argument against all the points I made in the talk page, since otherwise we're going nowhere. Thanks!GioA90 (talk)12:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I tried to both leave messages on the users' page and talk page. He's just erasing everything saying "sources are not reliable" (without giving proper explanations) and not addressing any of the points I make. He's also removing the flags about the page POV and content reliablity without changing and/or saying anything on the talk page.GioA90 (talk)20:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi GioA90, I invited you to the Teahouse, Welcome on Wikipedia and please proper source your edits with independent sources.Jasmir5422:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. There's no violation anyway – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply – and the report is stale: Jasmir54 hasn't edited the article for over 5 days.DrKay (talk)12:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
00:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852297334 byBender235 (talk) "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.""
Warned. The previous warnings inform the IP of discretionary sanctions but not specifically about edit-warring and the 1-revert rule.DrKay (talk)12:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – 5 days. Continued reverting the same article after previous block. You also seem to be warring on some taxonomy articles, and an editor has complained to you about unsourced changes. You have never posted on an article talk page. If you don't intend to follow Wikipedia policy you may not find it congenial to keep editing here.EdJohnston (talk)14:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Never mind. They moved on to overt vandalism and I blocked them myself. I'm not really familiar with closing in this venue so if someone could take care of that, I'll owe you a beer.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[257]
Comments:
The above two usersSrnec andDrmies appear to be working in tandem to disregard the BRD process and begin an edit war instead of seeking consensus and/or agreement from editors via the talk page as per edit warring guidelines. As they are working together, they will be treated as a single entity.
The users have responded to requests to discuss on the talk page with aggression, seen here[258].
They have expanded their removal campaign to include the fact that Dragut was Muslim from the lead-in[259]. Why are they doing this? Dragut is was known as "The Drawn Sword of Islam", and the fact that he was Muslim is defining to his character and should be apparent within the lead-in. Their removal of content is bordering on vandalism.
They have been alerted to the fact that the content which they have removed does not violate PEACOCK guidelines[260] as it is referenced as it appears in historical sources by definition "stating the facts", and they have not provided justification except by stating that they do not "think" there was consensus, when in reality the content was added last year and has enjoyed silent consensus since then, for approximately a year now. The removal of this content can be seen as an attempt to diminish the subject of the article.
The content that is being continuously removed does not fit the definition of peacock / puffery as it is accurately cited in historical sources.
The example given on page[261] shows that quoting the facts is allowed.
It states: 'Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.'
This has been done. The words "famed", "respected", and "feared" have been properly cited in historical texts giving an accurate view as to the article subject's historical scope and influence, and importance. The said words were directly present in the historical texts as "renowned" "respected" and "most dangerous". The words are analogues by definition, see:https://www.wordnik.com/words/renown andhttps://www.wordnik.com/words/fear
Here is the example used in the Manual of Style constituting "just the facts"[262]:
Just the facts:
Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[refs 1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.[refs 2]
Direct parallels between the content removed and the example above can easily be drawn by neutral editors and/or administrators, as the removed content has been properly cited in HISTORICAL accounts describing the article's subject.
The above users also stated that, in their opinion, they do not view as notable that Dragut was described this way in historical sources. However the users also contradicted themselves by stating that these terms apply to "notable military leaders in history", which I do not dispute. Therefor, using that same token of logic: as Turgut Reis is a notable military leader in history, properly referenced descriptions of his character and influence appearing in the lead-in are not "ridiculous" (as stated by Srnec [[263]]) and in fact pragmatically contribute much to a quick view of the article's subject being a "notable military leader in history" from within search engines, which lists the lead-in only.
These users are entitled to their opinions, but I ask that they please follow the correct process which is to CEASE edit warring and discuss on the talk page instead of continuing to make the disputed edits despite objection being clearly voiced.
I am placing notices on each of their talk pages regarding edit warring and am seeking formal resolution for the edit warring behavior the two users have exhibited.
I am placing my faith in the collective to not allow me to be banned for reporting these users simply because one of them has administrator rights on the English Wikipedia. May justice prevail.
Let the record reflect thatCdfi lives in the upside-down, accusingtwo editors of the edit war they themselves are waging unilaterally. In other words, they are guilty of clearly editing against consensus which, unlike BRD (a guideline), is a fundamental part of collaborative editing. Note also their false accusation of tandem editing, a violation of AGF (also fundamental). Also, the enormous amount of blah blah blah blah blah--what a jerk.Drmies (talk)15:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Drmies Why are you calling me a jerk? You are name-calling. Why are you so hostile? If you are calling everything I wrote "blah blah" it's pretty clear you didn't read it / understand it. Also your narrative about me accusing you of what I am allegedly doing is false. You have been removing material content from the page in what appears to be an attempt to diminish the article. Stop it. --Cdfi (talk)15:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
You need to stop with the abuse. You are an administrator and should hold yourself to a higher standard of conduct. --Cdfi (talk)16:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
02:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "<ref name="Slappyvoice">{{Cite tweet |number=1018384673263808512 |user=AveryLJones |title=Seems like it's going to be me, but they still have plenty of time to change their minds!|first=Avery Lee|last=Jones |date=July 15, 2018}}</ref> True information"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
The repeated insertions of "Avery Lee Jones" without citing a reliable source goes back to 18 July, and keeps getting reverted by multiple new users and IPs, citing "fake information". Earliest edit where this editor tried to insert it:[264]theinstantmatrix (talk)09:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
11:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "MrMajors (http://retro-computers.co.uk/lee-fogarty/) is the business associate of Mr Andrews, ex director of RCL, and he is posting FAKE informations as well are moving real informations Backers as me are published. MrMajor is in a clear break of rules, due to his Conflict of Interest. See web site where he is quoted as Mr Andrews Business associate - Undid revision 852641038 byGreyjoy (talk)"
11:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC) "MrMajors (http://retro-computers.co.uk/lee-fogarty/) is the business associate of Mr Andrews, ex director of RCL, and he is posting FAKE informations as well are moving real informations Backers as me are published. MrMajor is in a clear break of rules, due to his Conflict of Interest. See web site where he is quoted as Mr Andrews Business associate, - Undid revision 852640479 byMrMajors (talk)"
As far as I'm aware,Saggiori is Jan Saggiori, He is named by RCL Director Dr Levy as a media consultant for RCL in his witness statement for the small claims action against RCL from Luton County Court from January 2018. That means his editing of the Vega+ article, and the Retro Computers article is a conflict of interest. In addition, it's been impossible to verify whether Jan Saggiori has received a new production complete Vega+, since key elements of the device are cropped out of the picture Saggiori has supplied (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VEGA%2B_V2_ISSUE_1_-_Received_July_28th_2018_after_Dispatch_of_Manufacturer_RCL_to_400_Backers_with_date_Proof_on_FB_post.jpg): The style and form of the buttons on the right hand side (cropped out of the picture), the rainbow-striped Sinclair logo directly under the screen. Presently it is impossible to determine this device isn't a pre-production model from 2016, rather than a newly manufactured Vega+.Isofarro (talk)12:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I published news and direct links that reported the news, and a compatitor RGL and the associateds (MrMajor) and vandalizing the page VEGA+.
The user Greyjoy, then took the job of MrMajor, perhaps with the same IP address, as they usually do, to try to silence the news and the post I done on Wikipedia.
Police and FALCON Police are investigating MrMajor/MrAndrews/RGL, you can contact them and they will confirm this. This is not threat it just facts.
They created a fake page under my name and posted fake informations on that page trying to silence me with fake informations, seehttp://saggiorijan.com and they continue the harrassement here with various accounts under various nicknames to try to remove my postings.
They use a fake web site as well for RCL, their competitor (as they are RGL company), see all the Trolls happening there,http://www.retro-computers.co.uk, where they even post photos of myself stolen and modified to look bad. There is a clear conflict of interest here, as a competitor (RGL Ltd) is publishing on a wiki page of a product of their rival company RCL Ltd).— Precedingunsigned comment added bySaggiori (talk •contribs)12:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I thing that conflict of interest as is blatant here from MrMajor and the other fake accounts, are showing the real face of such people.
My post was simple announcing finally after 2 years the delivery of the fist 400 consoles, what is wrong doing so ? Why do they want to censure such information and silence backers ? Do they have an interest as competitors to do so ? These are the questions I ask myself, as they use various accounts and never do it under their real name (as I DO, using my personal account under my REAL Name and not nicks and not various accounts do act).
See my modifications, nothing biased, all crystal clear... why wanting to silence RCL, this act coming from their competitor RGL owned by their ex management Mr Andrews and Mr Melbourne ?
The Sinclair ZX Spectrum Vega+ is now (July 2018) a released handheld games console based on the ZX Spectrum and designed by Rick Dickinson[1] as a follow-up to the ZX Spectrum Vega handheld TV game which was released in 2015. On July 26th 2018, RCL started to dispatch the first batch of VEGA+ V2 ISSUE 1 to 400 Backers.
....
The company's official website is online since few months, under the new extensions "business" (retro.business)[33]
On July 26th 2018, RCL started to dispatch the first batch of VEGA+ V2 ISSUE 1 to 400 Backers. Various photos were posted on the groups as well as Facebook and Twitter. Finally the Backers will get what they pledged for. The New-Management of RCL done what RCL committed for in 2016. [34] [35] [36]
....
Saggiori, Jan. "ZX Vega+: VEGA+ V2 delivery started July 2018". Twitter. Twitter. Retrieved 28 July 2018.
Jump up ^ Martin, Suzanne. "ZX Vega+: RCL Posting about the dispatching of the VEGA+ on July 2018". Twitter. Twitter. Retrieved 26 July 2018.Jump up ^ Saggiori, Jan. "ZX Vega+: Photo of VEGA+ V2 Delivered to myself, a VEGA+ Backer". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 28 July 2018.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySaggiori (talk •contribs)12:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Stumbled across this edit war in recent changes, the single-purpose IP has blanked a section on the existence of a disputed 10th century king of Norway five times in a few hours. Another user might have also violated 3RR while attempting to remove the edits, but the edit summaries suggest that the IP was not editing in good faith: "Removed absolute shite" was the first edit summary of the blanking and then they were not provided for several later reverts.
Result: Semiprotected two weeks. The IP editor has never used a talk page, so it's hard to tell what their concern is based on. The skepticism about the existence of Harold Fairhair seems to be based on scholarly sources. NotifyingUser:Alarichall since they are the editor who added the skeptical material.EdJohnston (talk)04:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours.EdJohnston (talk)14:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitelyAcroterion(talk)12:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Page protected – 2 weeks. There seems to be a long term war betweenUser:Bellshook, the creator of the article, andUser:Coffeeandcrumbs whether a large chunk of negative information should be included in the article. During the protection I think it should be left out, so I'm protecting ona version from July 17 that excludes that material. Discussion should continue on the talk page, with theWP:BLP policy in mind. If agreement can't be reached consider opening anWP:RFC.EdJohnston (talk)03:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
No violation – Try following the steps ofWP:Dispute resolution. Whether or not to include minor characters may have been discussed previously for other articles.EdJohnston (talk)20:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Warned Okay, I see on the talk page that consensus has been reached, so I am not anticipating any more edit warring from either of you. If there is, I will not be impressed.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Stale Looks like this got dropped on the floor.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
