Page protected On the one hand, that should stem the immediate issues at the article. On the other, a rangeblock may be in order. I don't do those, but either another admin could handle that, or if other misuse of the accounts continues, ask for one atWP:ANI. —C.Fred (talk)20:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
22:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 977610407 byBmf 051 (talk). You aren't the owner of this page. Make reasonable case in Talk before undoing changes."
21:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC) "Unless somebody has evidence the fresco has been resorted to the original, the fresco should be considered GONE. Hence, the past tense should be used to refer to the original."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[21]
Comments: This editor has used multiple IP addresses to make these edits but that is common and I am making no insinuation of sockpuppetry or evasion.ElKevbo (talk)00:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
For starters you immediately try to get 3 edit revert and then to state an edit warring, moreover this isn't even of limit of 3 edit reverts, I only reverted 2 edits the other was a changing of the article without any information from other editors.Vallee01 (talk)02:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[32]
Comments: User:Devonian Wombat has edit warred over the inclusion of the Life and Liberty Party on theThird party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election page. I advised him on his talk page that as there was a consensus on the talk page to include the party's candidate,see here, and as such further advised that he should refrain from reverting further. Instead of taking it to the talk page, he immediately elected to revert the page once again. I believe pages related to post-1932 US presidential elections have a 1RR rule for edit warring rather than the usual 3.
Declined Unless the article is under a one-revert restriction (and I don't think it is), two reverts do not rise to the level of edit warring.Salvio09:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Please look into the IP address range of 2601:18C:CC00:61A0, as also seen in the edit history ofOne Magnificent Morning. They have persistently reverted edits on multiple articles without citation as to why, and continue to do so under multiple anonymous IP addresses with this similar IPv6 range.--ZLMedia02:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This user above (wjemather) turned back a legitimate edit of mine several times without a good cause to do so. I do not want trouble. This user (wjemather) has been targeting me in a stalk like manner for months. I tried explaining my edit today several times, but it was a lost cause.Johnsmith2116 (talk)15:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[45]
Comments:
93.164.22.202 is editing againstrough consensuses onTalk:Take That(edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs), andhave added zero sources to support the changes they proposed have supported their proposed changes with one source that contradicts said consensuses. They also repeatedly blanket reverted updates to date formats, the removal of an unreliable source (Metro (British newspaper)), and the alphabetization of categories.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP has chosen not to use the talk page.
Comments:
A cursory check of the sources, one quote has been altered and not taken verbatim from the source, thus it isWP:OR. IP has also deleted references that give different perspective of Medes/Kurds connections. --Kansas Bear (talk)05:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User is deleting content they find "libelous" to the subject even though it's been properly sourced. Other editors have reverted their edits already. I reported them to AIV, but I was instructed to go here.Crboyer (talk)04:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Nkon21 being a jerk and reverting my valid point about how the flag carrier of a country like Kenya shouldn't be allowed to use the word Pride in its slogan: Please block this a-hole.— Precedingunsigned comment added by70.27.41.58 (talk)02:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments:SMALLJIM has reverted GF edits 5 times in the last few hours. Unfortunately, this is apparently part of a long history ofSMALLJIM exerting control over the page. He continued to revert, make threats of blocking, and then making what appeared to beretaliatory edits, apparently all designed to stifle the participation of new editors while completely disregarding talk page discussion. The edits were thoroughly explained on the talk page, but it seems it is a lost cause. This editor may have some sort of connection to the subject. He appears to have also stalked other editors of the page.You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
I have been involved in this article as long as Smalljim going back years. The IP 199.188.176.137 has a distinct confrontational, tenacious and argumentative style which is exactly like previous accounts (including socks) blocked for COI editing. I fully support and agree with Smalljim's actions. The IP should not be editing the article, particularly given the nature of the content and DUCK behavior. --GreenC21:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Given the style and pattern of communication as well as the repeated open collaboration (not to mentioned what appears to be shared personal feelings about the subject)GreenC appears to have some sort of pre-existing relationship withSMALLJIM either online, offline, or both. Clearly this conduct is counter to the spirit and purpose of WP. Neither has been able to mount a single legitimate reason for the wholesale removal of GF, properly sourced edits, other than their personal (and shared) feeling and ideas.199.188.176.137 (talk)21:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi~Oshwah~, Good question. There was a news story last week that was similar, as I explored it online, the Barron's article came up, so I decided to add it to WP. I began familiarizing myself more with the recent history and talk page edits from there.
Regarding thediff link I thought I did add it, but I may not be doing it right? I did change the diff links above to something more accurate I believe. The discussion on the talk page is here[69]. Here is an example of a talk page discussion being removed[70]. There is another example of a talk page entry being deleted here[71]. Let me know if there is something else I need to do - thanks.
Also, I would appreciate your input, as I would have also appreciated the other editor's input, as communicated here[72], on the edits, and how they can be improved, etc. The edits were straightforward and basically quoted from the sources. The Barron's article is extremely long and I invited the other editors to provide feedback or edits on what should be added, I just added what I thought was the most relevant to the section and the existing edits. I actually tended to agree with the feedback on the Dealbreaker article (once it was pointed out), but before I had a chance to improve it or implement the suggestions, all of the edits I made were repeatedly removed (without any explanation) carte blanche. The one constructive edit made in its place felt agenda-driven and somehow (oddly) retaliatory?[73]199.188.176.137 (talk)02:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking back at the history of this page, it's remarkable how much controlSMALLJIM, single-handedly has asserted over the page (including removing enormous amounts of what appears to be well-referenced edits). Though there is an open Rfc, he ignores it. Though there is an open discussion on the talk page, he ignores that too. In fact, he deletes the discussion on the talk page, apparently in an effort to hide it? He also deletes thewarnings on his talk page, apparently to hide those too. Though all the edits conformed both to the spirit and the letter of WP guidelines,SMALLJIM falsely believes it is an "us and them" scenario, with anyone who agrees with him being one of "us" and if someone interferes with his control of a page, they are "one of them," that is demonstrated in his comment "willing to abide by 'our' rules" as if the rules were somehow his, and WP his personal site.
This is troubling conduct for a WP editor.SMALLJIM appears to have some sort of emotional or personal connection to the subject, which is at best bias and at worst, obsessive and needs to back away from attempting to exert control over the page so that other editors can participate. I'm going to wait for other editors to respond to the Rfc, then revert the edits which should never have been undone, I'm also going to study the page history carefully to see what other viable, well-referenced editsSMALLJIM might have removed, and ensure that everything that complies with WP guidelines is added back.
As can be seen, bythis edit,SMALLJIM, clearly has some sort of agenda with the page and the subject. His edits appear to be driven by retaliatory feelings rather than WP guidelines especially when he feels any editor interferes with his absolute control over the page. This seems like convincing evidence that there is some relationship betweenSMALLJIM and the subject.
I have added the warning for disruptive editing back toSMALLJIM talk pagehere.
There appear to be five reverts by the IP on 12th September so I would recommend a block for plain old edit warring. The only hesitation might be if there is a genuine BLP issue, but after looking atthe most recent BLPN complaint from 2016 I don't think there is one. The IP appears to seeUser:Smalljim as his major opponent. Smalljim might be following up on the previously-reported COI issue, the one that led to several blocks, including one forsockpuppetry. If we weren't convinced to take action on the IP's edit warring, we might block for theWP:ASPERSIONS against Smalljim in the IP's post just above. ("SMALLJIM appears to have some sort of emotional or personal connection to the subject," going on to mention his 'agenda' and his 'obsession').EdJohnston (talk)03:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[80]
Comments: The talk page was used, however, concensus is impossible to reach due to the other user's arguing in bad faith. As proof for bad faith: I made an edit, he undid my edit and asked for verification, I provided verification. His reply was that no this is not true. I asked him to check the sources I listed and asked him to list the sources for the counter-arguments he made. He insisted that he is right, I asked him again to list the sources for verification. So far so good, but now the bad faith arguments start: he replied with an ad hominem instead of discussing the the substance of the subject itself. I told him I will not play his insults game and that he didn't still didn't offer sources for verificaiton. He then started lying, saying he did provide source, despite the talk page itself being proof for anyone to see that no source was listed on his part. I tried to keep it in good faith and asked him "where", his reply was "here". Everything posted on wikipedia has to be backed up by sources. This user is attempting to undo an edit without a legitimate reason when the sources outright contradict the previous stance that he supports. On one occasion, he admitted to this, arguing that there was a mass Hungarian immigration between 1940-1941 (to which he also didn't give evidence), making the 1941 census that he insists on keeping misleading. In short: it's impossible to reach concensus when the other user is arguing in bad faith. However, according to Wikipedia, concensus is not about unanimity but about addressing legitimate concerns. A concern not backed up by evidence can hardly be called legitimate. Unless he can provide sources for his counter-claims, this discussion will likely not go anyway. For the sake of the guidelines, I am continuing the discussion with this user, however it's unlikely that he discussion will reach consensus soon due to his uncooperative behavior. According to this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD_misuseI believe the other user is filibustering, since he insists that "There's no consensus! Stop edit-warring, I declare! See the talkpage!" despite not being able or willing to provide a source for his claims on the talk page.LordRogalDorn (talk)15:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
ClearWP:BOOMERANG, see discussion at ([81]), on the other hand, the user accused me recurrently at the article's talk page, his/her's talkpage about lying, and also herenot providing a source, atlhough it's easy to verify I did ([82]), so it's a clear violation as well of a WP:CIVILITY issue next to the user'sWP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is conducted by this user in four different pages (where the respective user's, including me reset the pages to status quo ante and draw attention to keep dispute reolution policies, but had no effect, and persists misleading edit logs and comments, which are mostly copy-pasted and mirrored from the other users with slight modifications).(KIENGIR (talk)15:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
Comment There have not been three reverts by either party within 24 hours, so we don't have a brightline violation of 3RR. I also don't see where this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. I don't think immediate administrative actions are warranted. If the parties cease reverting and take this matter to the talk page, no administrative action should be necessary. If the edit warring continues, then I would issuepartial blocks toboth parties.
I also think that the way forward is by expanding the discussion beyond these two editors, either by asking for athird opinion or with arequest for comment. I strongly suggest that the editors begin a new thread for the 3O/RFC, since the current discussion is tacked onto the end of a thread from 14 years ago. —C.Fred (talk)15:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
C.Fred,
thanks for your feedback, however these cases are clear, a freshly created single purpose account is performing clear provocation and disruptive behavior, it's easy to verify (not a complicated case though), check the talk pages of the respective articles I already posted to another admin (the first diff in my response). Moreover, talk page discussions ARE and ongoing (except one that is referred to the article's talk mentioned here), in which the user tendetiously fails to get the point (because you mentioned "If the parties cease reverting and take this matter to the talk page...", it's already done and the user refused to remain on the talk page and to cease disruptive editing).(KIENGIR (talk)16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
KIENGIR "I made a check other places as well" does not mean you have a source. The very point of a verifiable source is that other people can verify it. You have offered a source for Hungarians immigrating in Northern Transylvania in 1941. That does not invalidate the source for the 1940 census. For your arguments against that you provided no source. If anything, the only source you provided is contrary to your constant re-edits: If there was a mass Hungarian immigration between 1940-1941, then posting the 1941 census without posting this crucial element is misleading.
C.Fred, I will do as you suggest and continue the discussion on the talk page in hopes of reaching consensus. In case no consensus can be reached again for an unreasonable reason, such as refusing to provide sources for his claims or simply not liking the changes, what should my course of action be?
Concerning KIENGIR's unfolded accusations, this account is new, so what? From a new account to the assuming goal of "desruptive editing" is a long way, especially when only one of us provided a source for his edits. But I agree with him that the case is simple: I provided verification, he did not, counting on abusive filibustering to keep the page in the disruptive form. His 2nd accusation is a blunt lie. It can be easily verifiable that I never left the talk page, despite losing faith in having a productive discussion due to his uncooperative behavior, which is why I decided to come here in hopes of solving the issue. Is it really a WP:CIVILITY fail to call someone a liar when the proof of his lies are in plain sight? I'm not talking about an ambiguous case or simply telling his version of events. But about telling "the user left the talk page" where both my original comment and the talk page itself are clear proof that I did not. Hence, my original accusation of arguing in bad faith.
I'll try to continue the discussion as you suggested, hopefully, a third party will come and solve the issue, as I will try to reach consensus but at this point my expectations are low.LordRogalDorn (talk)01:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Repeating the same thing that are not true, does not help you, WP is an incremental platfrom, verifiable.
The contents issues you summarize here is similarly fallacious, but this page is not enter do details, did already in the article's talk. I provided a source, also above I provided the diff ([83]), here it is again, but you the 5++ time you accusing me of lying (twice here). Regardinguncooperative behavior, I accepted part of your additions, which was adequate to present (1930 census), while you just blatantly reverted all the time for your preferred version any of my restoration of status quo ante, so that's all about the objectivity of your demonstration. As another admin pointed out, using the talk page is not enough, you have to remain there and the status qou ante version should be displayed until the end of the resolution, so quite interesting why you pretend here not knowing exactly what is to be done. And please also abandon in the future accusing me of bad faith, since this is something you do. In case you don't retreat the lying accusations, and the admins do not act because of this recurrent harming of civility, I am afraid I'll have to make some steps.(KIENGIR (talk)04:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC))
Result: Both parties have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions underWP:ARBEE. This is clearly a nationalist topic. If anyone is hoping to get support from admins, please make your talk page posts understandable. If you find that you can't reach agreement, use the steps ofWP:Dispute resolution. It isrisky to charge that another editor is lying.User:LordRogalDorn, as a new editor, might be cautious when reverting on nationalist topics that have been the scene of past disputes. There does not have to be any time pressure on Wikipedia when we are trying to get the events of 1940 described correctly. If usability of sources is in question,WP:RSN is available.EdJohnston (talk)14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
01:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 978285589 by331dot (talk) There's nothing to discuss. The album is released and verified on every platform including Discogs and MusicBrainz. The fact this is even an issue is juvenile. It's an album title. Move along."
00:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 978283694 by331dot (talk) Anyone can get an article written about them as well. Or run for president. Or commit a murder. Doesn't change what happened. Deleting names of an Album on Wikipedia is the most childish thing I've seen on here. What's your deal?"
22:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 978241081 byDeepfriedokra (talk) iTunes is the #1 Digital Download Music Platform in the world. Every artist who is on Wikipedia of any notability has their songs on there. The fact you would remove album titles that are released under the artist's name on iTunes (as well as Apple Music and Spotify) shows you are not abiding by Wiki's standards. Those chart rankings are as credible and verifiable as it gets."
18:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Albums */ Updated new Album release and chart position on iTunes US and Canadian charts"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Reporting as I'm involved. User is edit warring to preserve their addition to this article of an album that is only sourced to iTunes, a non-independent primary source. User refuses to discuss on the article talk page, though replied onmy talk page suggesting they will continue to edit war.331dot (talk)08:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I had already placed a partial block on editing the relevant article before I saw that this report had been made. I originally blocked for 48 hours, but on reflection decided that 24 hours should be enough.JBW (talk)08:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:First the editor moved one of my comment at AfD. When I moved it back the editor used a profane edit summary. After that the editor continually erased my other comment 4 times.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:diff
Comments: I have previously reported the editor on this warring boardhere August 26, 2020 and the report was closed without comment or action. The edit wars have been happening more frequently with the editor following me to AfDs and deletion sorting and refactoring my edits or outright erasing them. I attempted to discuss with the editor during the first 3rr report. There have been other reverts, and sophomoric behavior at AfD like this otheredit war at AfD (also see his oversized !vote with a summary:mine's bigger so it counts more). In addition to my previous 3rr report, there was another situation where this editor was continuously reverting me and refused to discuss. During deletion sorting I noticed that an AfD nominator made a mistake and entered two deletion nominations for the same list/article. The OP originally put these in anunrelated AfD and I corrected the error. I then corrected the other errors in the deletion threads, however Deacon Vorbis continually reverted my corrections September 1, 2020.
The duplicate AfD wasn't an edit war; it was me cleaning up an accidental mess caused by a new user, and getting interfered with by Lightburst because they didn't understand what was going on.
I'm not following you to AfDs.
The current incident was, as last time, only me reverting personal attacks made by Lightburst against me at an AfD. I'm sick and fucking tired of not being able to participate in a good-faith, civil manner in AfDs without getting personal potshots lobbed at me. No one should have to put up with this shit. Those other diffs were me trying to fix the damn formatting, because of an indented comment under someone else's comment screwing up the threading. I only made 3 actual reverts, and I even undid my own last one of those (before this was filed), so you can have your goddamn personal attack back.
Somebody needs to turn down the volume on the speakers or the electricity to theKlieg lights.
As Deacon Vorbis said: " I'm sick and fucking tired of not being able to participate in a good-faith, civil manner in AfDs without getting personal potshots lobbed at me. No one should have to put up with this shit. ... and I even undid my own last one of those (before this was filed), so you can have your goddamn personal attack back."
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. If you're trying to call out hypocrisy for using strong language while talking about civility, that's understandable, but if there's one place where I just need to get the point across of how overwhelmingly frustrating and tiring it is to put up with these attacks, then let it be here and not at the AfD. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)02:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
User:F.Alexsandr is rejecting The New York Times as a reference. Without references he is claimning that Russian state sponsoredWagner Group is "private company without state affiliation" removing NYT references that states otherwise in the process.[88][89][90] 3RR is also breached. I can't stand this honestly.176.88.142.57 (talk)12:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a report reedit warring, not specifically 3RR. The editor has restored this material without considering WP:BURDEN and without further contribution to the BLPN discussion on this article, where issues of WP:SYNTHESIS have been raised. Given this pattern, we can anticipate further attempts at restoring BLP-problematic material that lacks consensus for inclusion.Nomoskedasticity (talk)06:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity wrote:"The editor has restored this material without considering WP:BURDEN and without further contribution to the BLPN discussion on this article." That's a 'non-truth'. I have explained thatan hour-long broadcast between two eminent professors featuring Lipkin espousing his views constitutes a reliable source. I have asked 'Why is Lipkin considered an "extremely poor" source for his own views?' I waited a month but received no response. What else can i do? Having been accused of misquoting, I asked 'Which quote is a misquote?' (so i can answer the allegation) - no response. Lipkin, in his own words, said he went onto Dr. Oz to "push" his messaging "to the entire country".[1] I asked why his messaging to the entire country is not relevant to a composite account of his views? - no response. I have asked for specifics of the article to be discussed - no response - just a flurry of threatening notifications and name-calling. That causes me to question their motives. I am very happy to discuss specific problems and find a solution/compromise, but wiping material backed by around 80 refs (including dozens of scientific papers/articles) is not a solution - it's whitewashing. Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk)00:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Despite being asked to participate in discussionBefore the Bang continues to edit-war their preferred version which violatesWP:BLP policy and has not engaged in discussion. It has been explained multiple times that restoring challenged BLP material "pending discussion" is not allowed.Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)00:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me give an idea of what Before the Bang means bywiping material backed by around 80 refs (including dozens of scientific papers/articles). A typical thing that Before the Bang does is to quote a statement by Prof. Lipkin from a podcast (i.e., a primary source), and then to juxtapose this quote with Before the Bang's interpretation of scientific studies, in order to prove either that Prof. Lipkin is wrong or, worse yet, lying. Here's a typical passage from Before the Bang's massive additions toIan Lipkin, in which Before the Bang accuses Prof. Lipkin of dishonesty, based on Before the Bang's own personal analysis of various interviews that Prof. Lipkin has given:
In response to a question about masks on theDr. Oz show, Lipkin said: "Well...ah..the...the really ...ah … the messaging that you're getting from WHO, CDC, and others suggests that... masks are not useful."[2] As Director of the Northeast Biodefense Center and the WHO Collaborating Center, Lipkin headed a key WHO advisory body.[3] Lipkin added that masks should be left for healthcare professionals and "emphasized" that the virus was less dangerous than the flu.[4] He was not wearing a mask or practicing social distancing whilst on the show. At the time, Lipkin was aware of what he calls a “compelling” 2003 WHO study “that showed that face masks... had a dramatic impact on community transmission”.[5] Lipkin said “I thought a long time about trying to publish this (but) I didn’t proceed - so that’s something that unfortunately is going to go in the memoirs rather than the written record.”[6]
Before the Bang begins with their own transcription of an interview on YouTube, complete with "ahs" and "ums". Then, an unrelated source is brought in to show that Prof. Lipkin consults with the WHO. Then, Before the Bang remarks (without any source, just based on watching the YouTube video) that Prof. Lipkin isn't socially distancing. Then, Before the Bang charges that Prof. Lipkin must have been aware of a study that supposedly proves his statements in the YouTube video about masks wrong. Before the Bang cites a few timestamps from a podcast in order to back up this accusation.
Before the Bang has now introduced this material over and over again into the article, against the objection of a number of editors (myself included). Earlier today, Before the Bangreverted again to reinstate the offending material. Before the Bang has also attempted to edit-war similar material into the biography of another scientist, Prof.Edward C. Holmes:diff.
I think more than just an edit-warring block is necessary here. Before the Bang appears to be focused on both including poorly sourced, defamatory material about Western medical scientists who have worked in mainland China, and on pushing conspiracy theories related to SARS-CoV-2. Before the Bang has ignored warnings about general sanctions related to SARS-CoV-2, BLP policies and edit-warring policies. I think this is a clear case ofWP:NOTHERE, and that a wide block from all SARS-CoV-2-related and China-related articles is appropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk)08:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
10:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 978512815 byPeacemaker67 (talk)No, but there is a policy to discuss content in question before its deletion, that is what consensus is about."
10:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 978507184 byMikola22 (talk) I have seen it, and I have also seen that no consensus is reached thus no changes should be implemented until that happens."
IP has been directed to the discussion on the article's talk page, but has refused to engage. Consensus for this disputed content does not exist, but rather, the IP claims that consensus is needed for its removal. —MelbourneStar☆talk10:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
You really haven't directed me anywhere but you ignored comments that I left to you on my talk page. As for the article in question - sourced content was deleted while discussion about content in question is still going on the talk page of article in question "Flag of Serbia". That content was there for months at least and you cannot delete it until proper consensus is reached on talk page.212.178.233.111 (talk)10:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Don't misrepresent the article's history. The disputed content - which is ~1,000 bytes of data wasnot present for months.
No, what I am saying (and you are lying about) is that YOU haven't directed me to talk page (unless you count that spam message on my talk page as direction). I'm also surprised at the number of Australian authors who side with ustashe revisionists on Wikipedia, you being one of them just like peacemaker67. As for your lie that content has not been there for months here's my proof: May 10th[92], March 22[93], November 27, 2019[94]212.178.233.111 (talk)11:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
You ignored Mikola's direction to go to the article's talk page -- I don't see the need to repeat the same message over and over. The revisions you cite as proof that your version of the article is the status-quo aredifferent to your version. Some 300 byes (and different sources cited) others 900 bytes off. Again, misrepresenting yourself. I can see the article has been protected, so I have nothing else to say on the matter. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆talk12:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Way to miss a point - flag (which is the main issue of content in question) was there for months. And please don't say anything else, I doubt it will be useful at all.212.178.233.111 (talk)13:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
And I see you rushed to those articles as soon as you could to delete that content as fast as you can, just like on others Serb-related articles, when you are not busy with historical revisionism.212.178.233.111 (talk)11:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Sir I don't know you, what I do know is that we all have to abide some rules. You have talk page where that flag is being discussed and unfortunately for now it isWP:OR. We know what is done in such cases. Good luck.Mikola22 (talk)11:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
And until consensus is reached you are not supposed to delete content in question which has been there for months. As for the rules I see you abode by them as well - you were blocked from editing at least four times and I see you were also widely discussed on this page as well[99] and[100].212.178.233.111 (talk)13:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
10:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC) "Please never never never bring the misleading part back to the article again before you have got permission from the TOP MANAGER at Wikipedia Company and Wikimedia Foundation"
20:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 978506752 byMikola22 (talk) I have seen it, and I have also seen that no consensus is reached thus no changes should be implemented until that happens."
I am fascinated by your inability to open discussion on talk page before blindly deleting content from this article (and others), while there's still discussion ongoing about content in question[102][103].212.178.233.111 (talk)14:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I've not edit-warred, but you most certainly have. In fact, I've asked you (as have others) to stop edit warring and discuss your disputed edits a few times now — and you'd think after violating 3RR once just a day ago, that you would have learned to be a bit more collaborative. Edit warring past 3RRtwice since then suggests you've not. Also, I see in your comment you've linkedthis discussion byWEBDuB; not only are younot User:WEBDuB, but eventhey have asked you to use the article's talk page. —MelbourneStar☆talk15:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
What I am fascinated at, is that the editor that is demanding talk page discussions, has made exactlyzero edits to talk pages. They probably are to busy edit warring across several articles. --T*U (talk)16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations! Withthis edit you just managed to squeeze in 5 reverts within 24 hours, while your edit warring is being discussed here. Amazing! --T*U (talk)17:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Mobile IP user is warring with disruptive editing; warned by admin Materialscientist, but persisting with vague, unsourced content. Edit summaries explain.Zefr (talk)21:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[108]
Comments:This user is one of several newish accounts that have appeared in recent weeks attempting to remove information about third party candidates from the 2020 United States Presidential Election page. This user had previously been warned about the 1RR rule for post-1932 United States Elections, but elected to delete the warning from their talk page, see here[109]. When I attempted to work this out with the user on their talk page, they again elected to delete my comments rather than talk it out. See here[110] This user account was created in 2011,but bizarrely remained inactive for 9 years before being utilized again starting in January of this year to edit political articles. It thus appears to be a so called "sleeper account". See here[111]
For the record, I have had this account for almost a decade. But I only did one revert. I don't see how I broke the rule (it says you can revert once). —Rivere123 (talk)19:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
As noted on your talk page, you did revert twice. There is a separate issue about the restoration of the text by the editor who opened this case.In my opinion, the best way forward is for both parties (plus anybody else interest) to discuss this at the article talk page and reach consensus. —C.Fred (talk)19:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I only made one revert in 24 hours and in doing so directly answered a question that Rivere123 had asked in making his/her initial reversion. The user inquired "Why mention Jorgensen and not any other minor candidate who is a woman?...". In my edit summary reverting her edit, I plainly stated that this was "Because there are no other notable female presidential candidates mentioned in the body of the article." This is a factual statement, there are no other female presidential candidates listed at all in the entirety of the 2020 United States Presidential Election article. The user's reasoning for the reversion made absolutely no sense. As I linked above, when I explained this on Rivere123's talk page, they simply deleted my comments from the talk page rather than elect to discuss it further.XavierGreen (talk)20:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
To give some backstory, he had made an apparently good faith edit back on June 12 changing the conclusion of the battle from "Confederate victory" to "Inconclusive". Several users, myself included, didn't agree with this decision (especially in reference to modern scholarship), and reverted it back to the original whilst adding additional sources at the end of July.
He didn't take kindly to this and reverted it back. To prevent an edit war from occurring, I decided to move things to the talk page where a group of us discussed things and officially came to the consensus that it was a Union defeat. He refused to participate in these discussions and apparently left whenuser:BusterD reverted his latest attempt at reverting.
A month passes and he returns out of the blue in late August, rehashing the same disproven arguments. Despite his edits being changed he has continued to revert the edits to this day in order to instill his personal beliefs. And no, he has not attempted to post anything in the talk page or invited a discussion.
Back in June, I was willing to give him a good faith pass. Now, it's been nearly 2 months and he's still barking up this tree without conceding, accepting, or presenting new information. I request that he be banned from this page.Valkyrie Red (talk)02:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This pattern has been going on for six months. The user reverts on a variety of civil-war articles to keep them on the version he prefers. (He works on too many articles to make it practical to use semiprotection). The only way to stop this may be a six month block of the /64 range.EdJohnston (talk)16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – The /64 range is blocked anon-only for three months for edit warring per the above. If the user wants to begin discussing their changes, nothing prevents them from registering an account.EdJohnston (talk)00:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments:The359 has been edit warring with Fungchilong as well as two IP's and has already made 14 reverts within 24 hours with regards to the same content. One of the IP's was blocked but sadly the edit warring continued.Tvx117:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Fungchilong has been altering the flags of the article since the 18th, as has been reverted byUser:IMSA E320 twice (12) before I reverted it a third and fourth time because Fungchilong continued to alter the flags again. Fungchilong has continued to alter the flags since then. The IP address appeared to do the same things and I believe is aWP:DUCKWP:SOCK. The second IP admitted to being aWP:SOCK so was reverted for blatant block evasion.The359 (Talk)17:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Sadly even after I warned you not to do it and were having a discussion you carried on edit warring, I was reluctant to come here and almost wrote on your page that you were giving people no choice but to block you for a while. Well someone decided to take action. Sorry The359, this is pretty much a slam dunk, I cannot see any justifiable way as to how you avoid a block here.Games of the world (talk)17:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Reverting a meatpuppet that is block evading is notWP:3RR, per exemption #3 "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." So the later reversions of a blocked user were made after your "warning".The359 (Talk)18:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
"If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption." Entered asWP:SPA per revision #8, for an IP that was blocked for disruption after I myself reported them to AIV.The359 (Talk)18:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
An SPA that was providing no source, was warned twice, and still rapidly reverting is not here for a discussion. Hence it was reported to AIV. The only other choice would be to call for a lock of the article, which I believe you are against.The359 (Talk)20:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m againstfull protection. Howeversemi-protection would have been a good solution. Allways better than 10+ reverts.Tvx111:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Result:User:The359 iswarned for edit warring and the page is semiprotected for one month. I won't block because the IP editor who was being reverted is most likely a sock. But forUser:The359 to go past 3RR is still risky unless you are reverting plain vandalism, which is not the case here.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User is edit-warring to include pejorative terms like "Tetul hujur" in the article about an Islamic scholar. Looks like a deliberate vandalism.LucrativeOffer (talk)20:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: –
Comments: User also refuses to make use of the edit summary despite being told as to why their edits were being reverted. According to the block log, they seem to have been blocked for similar behaviors in the past.Telsho (talk)09:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I (the user in question) have started a discussion concerning removal of the source in question on the talk page of that page (Talk:Uqturpan County). I had originally seen the take down of this source as a kind of 'trolling'- the justification given for the initial removal was arbitrary ("Use a different source"). I have taken that source down during the period of our discussion. The user also removed a 'citation needed span' without adding a source on theHawaii page, leaving unsourced information both unsourced and written with Wikipedia's voice, in direct conflict withWikipedia:UNSOURCED (seeTalk:Hawaii where the user attempts to justify inclusion of admittedly unsourced and therefore unverified material on Wikipedia mainspace), further evidence to me that there is a trolling element involved. Later, the user removed useful information that happens to mention Taiwan from a page without discussion- later a discussion was started (Talk:Original equipment manufacturer). The user seemingly spuriously tagged for deletion about thirty-one of my long-standing fair use uploads related to Taiwan. Seems to me like the user may want to arbitrarily diminish coverage related to Taiwan, a troll-like agenda. I am not sure what to do exactly. Thanks for any help here.Geographyinitiative (talk)13:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)(modified)
Firstly, you resorting to personal assumptions that I am 'trolling' you isn't really a good start. Secondly, all of these instances happenedafter this edit warring report was made, which would mean you reverted my edits on other articles that had no connection toUqturpan County, and could possibly be seen asWP:HOUNDING. Now, benefit of the doubt can be said forHawaii as you had edited there previously, but I can't say the same forOriginal equipment manufacturer and alsoShake Shack.
Lastly, your file uploads were not of fair use either, and there's no indication that those websites had allowed permission for their logos to be used on Wikipedia. Therefore, I don't see what point you're trying to make here.Telsho (talk)15:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I originally thought you were just a troll because it seemed you were removing a legitimate source for a claim without providing any valid reason ("Use a different source"). I had never seen you editing in this area before, so I assumed this was a drive-by deletion, like what's currently in process with the attempted thirty-one fair use images I uploaded related to Taiwan. I urge you to withdraw those attempted deletions. I understand you may personally view that source on the Uqturpan page as illegitimate, which is why I am trying to engage you on the talk page there. As for other claims, I am responding on those talk pages to your responses.Geographyinitiative (talk)15:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I see what you have done with Shake Shack- you added a source. That actually changed the content of the sentence in question. I have thanked you for that edit, which was good! I am not here to get into silly internet fights, I am here to make a reliable encyclopedia. Some deeper understanding of the use of sources relevant to Xinjiang may result from the discussion on the Uqturpan page, but in my mind, no such understanding would ever result from the phrase "Use a different source" followed by revert.Geographyinitiative (talk)16:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Trust me, I'm not here to fight with you either nor do I have any personal grudges against you. The problem here now is that it took you quite sometime after this edit warring report was made to only start discussions on the talk page, and so I had assumed you were initially not willing to discuss any of it. I'm sure had you not made those multiple instant reverts without anything on the edit summaries onUqturpan County andAkto County (where you eventually added a different source, which is great), this report wouldn't have even been created and we wouldn't be wasting our time writing any of this that doesn't benefit the both of us. Obviously, I'd love to move on from this too.Telsho (talk)16:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
10:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* International Human Rights Program hiring controversy */ Bmf 051 edit war; COI violation; BLP violation"
10:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* International Human Rights Program hiring controversy */ ==Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion==
10:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* International Human Rights Program hiring controversy */ Suspected conflict of interest."
10:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* International Human Rights Program hiring controversy */ Biased media allegations are not valid sources, and clearly constitute BLP violations and a form of vandalism. If and when a duly constituted investigatory body examines all of the aspects of this controversy, and issues a report, that information then becomes admissible."
10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* International Human Rights Program hiring controversy */ removed for blatant violations of BLP and NPOV violations."
Francis Schonken refuses to explain the reasoning behind their reverts. After reverting an edit, Francis Schonkentypically sends a 3RR warning to the reverted editor, but then refuses to discuss those warnings when told they are incorrect ([126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138]). Several admins and other users have already pointed out this behaviour is not constructive ([139][140][141][142]). One-to-one discussion therefore seems unlikely to be productive.Nemo14:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
HelloUser:Nemo bis. In your opinion is Francis's optimism justified? Will the linked thread allow the issue to be settled? It seems to me that one or both parties may have crossed 3RR, so this reverting had better not continue.EdJohnston (talk)22:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't share such optimism. Francis Schonken has been edit warring with dozens of users and administrators, always throwing around heavy-handed and misguided readings of policy. We might find an amicable solution on the specific case, but the user needs a third party opinion on the overall pattern if we want to break this vicious circle.Nemo07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
A bunch of people seem to be going ham on this article reverting each other to change the name of the football club this guy is from. Might warrant looking into (I have no clue who's right).{}10:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[150]
Comments:The user refuses to engage with an ongoing discussion and instead removes cited content.
User:Namiba, it was you who was edit warring. Once there is reason for the deletion of an endorsement, it should be deleted. Then you can use the talk page and come to a consensus on inclusion. Instead, Namiba continued to break standard endorsement policies and continued to add this back, even after another user explained on the talk page why it should not be added.Lima Bean Farmer (talk)16:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
That's not what the other user wrote. Regardless, you failed to discuss the matter on the talk page and continued to engage in edit-warring and ignore a call to discuss the matter.--User:Namiba17:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Namiba, you did not give me the chance to discuss. After the first time I deleted it, and the second and third time, you had the opportunity to use the talk page and continued to add it back. Even when you finally used the talk page, you still added it back. The other user quotes the rule for adding groups which says independent sources or official sources of the group should be cited which you did not. When you continue to addCrystal ball edits, they should be deleted before discussion. Not providing a proper source provides means for deletion, adding it back is edit warring.Lima Bean Farmer (talk)18:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The article is currently in thestatus quo ante condition. I see whereNamiba asked about the source two weeks ago, and another editor said it was unreliable. Nonetheless, Namiba re-added the material yesterday. I don't think any administrative action needs taken, provided Namiba goes back to the talk page and gets consensus among editorsbefore trying to add it again. —C.Fred (talk)19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I went to the talk page on September 8 and it sat uncontested until the user removed the content again on September 21. How can you say that I did not give the user a chance to use the talk page?--User:Namiba11:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Contrary to the assertions above, the proposed information does not violateWP:DUE because it provides information explicitly set forth in every source cited, both present and in the past, for this assertion. Instead, KyleJoan is violatingWP:DUE by selectively excluding information regarding an alleged racial harassment episode. KyleJoan would leave the section as simply stating that the page subject was the target of racial epithets in 2018, with zero further detail. This information is exceedingly vague and offers no insight into the episode, including the location, outcome, resolution or parties involved. This editor appears to be a fan or follower of the page subject, Sunny Hostin, and her employer, the talk show The View. KyleJoan thus appears to be including information and excluding other information that respectively furthers or hinders the page subject's own work and political causes. KyleJoan's preferred edits ambiguously elicit racial discord and generate confusion. KyleJoan has offered no justification for excluding the information besides pretextual references toWP:DUE , and has engaged in bullying and mocking in KyleJoan's responses on the page's talk page. I encourage any administrator to review the Sunny Hostin talk page on this topic in its entirety, not just the excerpts selected by KyleJoan. 96.241.151.80— Precedingunsigned comment added by96.241.151.80 (talk)16:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
02:50, September 23, 2020, undidthis edit. Basically moved most of the article's sections under the heading of "Slavery and concubinage". As Grufo's edit summary indicates, this was a revert.
Comments: Grufo wasblocked for edit warring on this very article byOshwah a mere 10 days ago. They appealed their block on the grounds that they technically didn't commit 4 reverts. That'sWP:GAME.331dotdeclined their appeal as "You don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring".Similarly they may not have committed 4 reverts (#3 may not be a revert) but they have made at least 3 reverts in less than an hour. I have suggested they seek an RfC for their changes but they clearly prefer to edit-war.VRtalk 04:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Edit: since filing this report, they have clearly made at least 5 reverts in the last 24 hours.VRtalk18:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Here we are again. Let me collect the data, because I think I would like to point out that the edit-warrior is Vice regent and not me. --Grufo (talk)04:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Besides that re-merging the paragraph about ancient Rome is a revert, and so it is re-inserting a disputed content elsewhere, if you go to my Talk page and seethe block you talk about, you will probably notice that I had contested it with exactly the same motivation: I had not violated theWP:3RR rule. You know what the answer was? “You don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring”. --Grufo (talk)04:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
03:23, 23 September 2020: Moving a text freshly inserted into the page to a different paragraph does not count as a revert or anything, and I don't even know why this edit is mentioned here
Other problematic examples of Vice regent's destructive approach concern their re-insertion or revert of disputed content without searching for consensus, but only leaving announcements. See for example:
01:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "There is no actual justification to include this material on this page; per talk page discussion preliminarily hiding the information anticipating any confirming information showing that 进 and 党 are used in the native communication of the society where this organization operates."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Exception for displaying both simplified and traditional characters in Infobox Chinese */ disruptive, GI has been warned"
I have great respect for most of their content creation work elsewhere, so I takeno glee in filing this. User is experienced enough to know of WP:BRD and what constitutes edit warring. There is no "Revert" after the "Discuss" in WP:BRD, at least not without a wholly uninvolved 3rd opinion or RfC. Rehashing of the same arguments is a slam-dunkWP:DEADHORSE. A partial block from the page would be the best optionCaradhrasAiguo (leave language)16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not aware of the concept in question. The user has made fun of me and my writing style rather than responding to substantive points and arguments about a specific case where inclusion of foreign language material not used in Taiwan is egregiously not good for the Wikipedia article in question. The DPP never uses the characters this user wants to add to the page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary- it's an encyclopedia-- the form the above user wants is found on Wiktionary (I made thepage myself). Please keep in mind that I was just attacked this week where thirty one images I uploaded related to Taiwan were spuriously tagged for speedy deletion and I have been attacked on Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia with wild accusations about me from IPs. Taiwan is not using the characters 进 and 党 to discuss the DPP organization. Adversarial foreign language linguistic forms not used in the area in question or by the organization in question are not under the scope of a normal encyclopedia article, which is what I am advocating for on that talk page. Enforcing the letter of bad precedent on Wikipedia is bad for Wikipedia, whereas allowing Taiwan to tell us what the foreign language forms it uses is consistent with the practices of a normal encyclopedia. (Of course, the form including 进 and 党 is relevant to the Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia's (language version) page for DPP, where readers also read in simplified characters. But here, on English Wikipedia, and concerning an apparently solely Taiwanese topic, it seems likely that the position I advocate for on the talk page will succeed- how could it not? How could an encyclopedia be pro-PRC POV biased? Keep in mind that traditional characters on PRC articles can be referenced to proven historical or artistic usages.) Traditional characters are still part of the linguistic system in the PRC[162], whereas most of them never were or are in Taiwan ROCGeographyinitiative (talk)17:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)(modified)
Comment: The two clearly disagreed over whether this particular article should include both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese characters in its{{Infobox Chinese}}, leading to a mini edit-war by both editors and a clarification to a closed RfC atMOS:CHINESE. The close of that RfC was clarified as saying that{{Infobox Chinese}} should include both forms unless there is a consensus that a particular article is an exception.I then opened a talk page section atTalk:Democratic Progressive Party for the two editors to determine a consensus for whether that particular article should be one such exception. I do think that Geographyinitiative prematurely reverted to remove the Simplified Chinese characters again, roughly only 15 hours after their first comment on the talk page and before anyone else had responded. The RfC consensus of having both sets of characters should be preserved until the discussion on this particular article is mature. —MarkH21talk17:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources,MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
14:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources,MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
14:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources,MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
14:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources,MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
12:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". Unreliable sources nczas.com and radiomaryja.pl.MOS:DEADNAME."
12:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979903446 bySubtropical-man (talk)WP:3RRBLP Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"
12:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979902254 bySubtropical-man (talk) misgendering removed in accordance withMOS:DEADNAME. Sources of ill repute: nczas.com, twitter, radiomaryja.pl removed. This is a living person, and this can not be on this page."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
User:Plunging - this is new user, account created practically only for vandalism: delete sections from article, delete sources, edit-warring. 99% edits of this user are destructive edits. Yes, I have undone his vandalism many times. This user does not know the rules of Wikipedia. This user gives absurd arguments like: removes 18 sources and whole section because they sources show the real name of the person. This user believes that sources by giving the real name of this person attack and defame the person. With this user not possible discuss. The user did not give a single argument in line with the Wikipedia guidelines.Subtropical-man(✉ |en-2)15:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
For context, this is part of a lengthy discussion about various aspects of referring toMargot (activist), a non-binary Polish activist who has been previously arrested.Subtropical-man prefers a certain page state because it abides by NPOV as they see it, whilePlunging prefers a different page state because it abides by NPOV and BLP as they see it, as well as abiding by a certain code of ethics that they prefer. At this point, at least Subtropical-man seems to be blatantly in violation ofWP:3RR and Plunging might be as well, although they were acting in the belief ofWP:3RRBLP.
Subtropical has clearly reverted more than anyone else and has described the page's BLP subject as 'worthless', so clearly has a problem with her and wants to highlight her deadname. Plunging was protecting the subject.Malick78 (talk)15:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Typical ordinary slanders and conjecture. You have no right to guess what I think. This breaks the rule of Wikipedia:NPA. Yes, I think, this person is not encyclopedical because this person has committed a crime (assault, vandalism and property damage), the press made a scandal because he/she is an LGBT person. As for the name Michał - it is very often used in sources. Simply. There are dozens of sources using the name of "Michał". Why should the encyclopedia hide this data?Subtropical-man(✉ |en-2)15:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that this user believes that sources by giving the real name of this person attack and defame the person. With this user not possible discuss. The user did not give a single argument in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but it is not allowed to delete article sections with 18 sources based on their opinion. A new user should respect experienced users, respect the rules of Wikipedia - account of Plunging created practically only for destructive edits. I think it makes sense to block this user indefinitely.Subtropical-man(✉ |en-2)15:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The real name is Małgorzata. Subtropical is pushing thedeadname, which is violent, disrespectful, and dismissive towards Margot and all trans, queer, intersex, and non-binary people.--Plunging (talk)15:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Real name? No, this is not real name. Her rela name is Michał by any (again: any) documents and law. She prefer name of Małgorzata, ok. I respect that, however, this does not mean that the real name should be kept secret, that they should be hidden in an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia, it is based on facts supported by sources. This is not LGBT magazine or blog. Also, Margot not offended by being referred to as Michał. You have practically no arguments that follow Wikipedia's policy.Subtropical-man(✉ |en-2)15:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Stale and possibly even exempted underWP:3RRBLP – and the other user was indeffed. If anyone suspects this user is a sock, please file a SPI report with evidence.Salvio08:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, but what about Subtropical-man? He was actually the culprit in my opinion, and a quick look at the page's history shows he was more at fault.Malick78 (talk)13:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
12:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "everything that I have done has a citation, it is factual and brings balance and context to the lead. Undid revision 980069410 byMcSly (talk)"
11:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Vandalism from a user that has not contributed to this page please comment constructively on talkUndid revision 980066516 byAlexbrn (talk)"
10:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Inserted suggested content from administration about The World health organisation and TCM. Inclusion of citation from another Nature Magazine article and reason from WHO for inclusion of traditional medicine, and added links to ICD and WHO"
16:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Addition of inclusion of Trational Chinese Medicine by World health organisation. Same citation as Pseudoscience,"
15:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Dubto duplicated material, their is a complete description including duplicated links in the Critique sectionUndid revision 979744544 byZefr (talk)"
14:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Deletion of repeated information as there is a more concise example including repeated links and duplicated content in the critique section. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User is highly disruptive in article and on talk page, repeatedly reverting content from several experienced editors. Not listening or participating in constructive discussion and article improvement. See user's talk page and TCM talk page for resolution attempts.Zefr (talk)14:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
User keeps altering the team ranking without consensus. Another contributor and me have tried to discuss the issue in the talk page, but the user refuses to engage there. In the last diffs they even deleted the reference (made in the article's comment) to the discussion in the talk page.
Blocked – 48 hour block of the /64 range. The IP editor has been making lots of reverts since 31 August but has never posted on a talk page. Let me know if semiprotection becomes needed.EdJohnston (talk)14:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
14:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "/* History */ again, see talk page: this image needs to be completely removed because inserting it into this seven-paragraph article makes aWP:OR implied claim, but even more of a problem is the fact that you have used aWP:CIRCULAR citation to an article that gets its information from this Wikipedia article and links straight back to it"
16:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979919454 byIvar the Boneful (talk)—restoring this ignored both previous edit comments and the talk page discussion; linking this phrase to Judaism by choosing to illustrate the article with an image with a menorah in it, out of all possible funerary inscriptions, isWP:OR as I have expanded on in the talk page."
User:Struthious Bandersnatch objects to an image of a historic Jewish tombstone at the articlerest in peace, which has been in the article since at least 2011. The reason given for removal is that the user saw a social media post which states modern-day Jews do not use the term "rest in peace". I revertedthe initial removal, which apparently makes me a Jew-hater accordingly to the user's comments on the talkpage. The user's third revert was made after a warning on their user talk page, with the response that they were ""waiting for the WP:AN3 report".Ivar the Boneful (talk)10:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Note thatIvar the Boneful did not fill in "Previous version reverted to" because the diffs he presents aren't all reverts to a particular previous version; the first one isn't even a revert at all but is a deletion of aWP:CIRCULAR citation and the content added with it. I have now nominated the image this user is trying to forcefully restore to the article fordeletion on Commons because it appears to be a copyright violation originally uploaded with a false source.
I and most Jewswish that visceral hatred of Jews was necessary before someone could propagate theanti-Semitic canards I have pointed out you are using. But unfortunately it's very easy to do carelessly, in the same way it's easy to not bother to do any real research tosupport restoration of challenged content into an article or engage with the discussion of the material and Wikipedia policy on its talk page and instead just shout about edit wars. Spouting anti-Semitic tropes persistently without acknowledging you are doing so, or that there is any reason not to, very quickly becomes blatant and intentional anti-Semitism. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂11:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"it appears to be a copyright violation originally uploaded with a false source". Here's the source:[183]. You're criticising me for "not doing any research", but you couldn't be bothered googling the image before nominating it for deletion? Do you have any sources disputing the image's provenance? Do you think this is some sort of antisemitic conspiracy to photoshop pictures of menorahs into old inscriptions? Frankly this is bizarre.Ivar the Boneful (talk)11:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ivar the Boneful andStruthious Bandersnatch: you are *both* edit warring. I was about to impose a partial block on the both of you, but then saw that the last revert is almost 22 hours old. As such, I'm not sure a block is necessary, you just have to followWP:DR, if possible without commenting on each other's motives.Salvio11:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
16:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Changed "coerced consent" to "agreement" as coercion makes no sense in this context and implies that God is a bully who forced Pharaoh to stop being a slave owner."
15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Changed "coerced consent" to "agreement". It makes no sense to refer to his agreement as coerced consent as it gives the false impression that he was being bullied. He was a slave owner, not a victim."
Update: Usertowiki200300500's activity continues, and there now appears to be a potential puppet of some kind involved. I believe a partial block fromPupusa is appropriate for Usertowiki200300500 at a minimum, since this user is not using talk pages and is insisting on nationalistic editing. -Julietdeltalima(talk)17:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Page protected. I noticed the page was protected in May for this same issue. I have semi-protected the page for six months. —C.Fred (talk)19:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I have not reverted you more than 3 times, adhering toWP:3RR. Furthemore, you're constantly reverting almost every article that I've edited in. Do we need to get into that?Telsho (talk)19:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
3RR is a bright line not a rule. I did try to get into that with you on your talk page along with@Þjarkur: and others, instead of engaging us in discussion you deleted that and every other attempt at communication.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware of your canvasses. I didn't just revert you for the sake of it and I had explained most of my edits on the edit summary, and everything was stable until you came in and started constantly spamming my talk page over many different articles in a short span of time, leading me to think you weren't really interested in communication but a way to justify these reverts. I'm sure you were just waiting for the first opportunity to report me, leading us here. I'm not the one initiating edit wars though.Telsho (talk)19:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Please reviewWP:CANVAS before casting more aspersions. I took a wiki break, you appear to have used that break to systematically go through my contributions and erase or disparage them. Again I asked for an explanation of this very reasonably on your talk page and you instead deleted my comment along with others. Don’t be surprised when someone reacts negatively to you shadow deleting hundreds of thousands of bytes of wikipedia without consensus.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
You also used Twinkle to do all of this which is an abuse of that program, but thats in addition to everything else and its something I already raised on your talk page.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
You specifically stated not to "cast any more aspersions" and yet you decided to do exactly just that within the next sentence. If you really are Horse Eye Jack, we made contributions within similar specific parts on Wikipedia, and so it's only inevitable that we will end up editing on the same article at some point. I was not even aware about your "wiki break", and so whatever edits that you had made on your supposed old account has had no influence towards my contributions on Wikipedia.Telsho (talk)19:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
This should probably be taken toWP:ANI. However, agree with the original report that there was unacceptable edit warring over this redirect when an editor had already opposed it. –Thjarkur(talk)19:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Please see alsothe related sockpuppet investigation, closed without a behavioral analysis but in which the CU confirmed Telsho as a possible sock ofa LTA. The reported edits here continue to be in line with the behavior of the LTA. Should a SPI be opened (again), or is ANI the proper venue in the wake of a closed SPI? Also note, in consideration of the aspersions cast above, that Telsho has received multiple warnings about personal attacks in the past, including from admins, which have been deleted from their talkpage.Grandpallama (talk)19:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
To address this unrelated discussion hijack from my beloved stalker, this user had brought this topic up to multiple admins and checkusers (and had even emailed some of them) and yet wouldnot stop. Even after the SPI closed about a month ago, it seems like they won't be stopping with their personal vendetta against me anytime soon.Telsho (talk)20:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
You'll certainly get a chance to state your position at either SPI or ANI, whichever the admins advise is the correct course of action. Bringing up context for your edit warring is in no way a hijack of the conversation, by the way, though yourattempt to delete my comment is sanctionable in itself.Grandpallama (talk)20:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[197]
Comments:
The user has repeatedly changed a redirect to an unreferenced article, 3 different editors have reverted these changes only for the user to change them back. --John B123 (talk)21:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Bcliot33 has been citing a discussion on his andNorthBySouthBaranof's talk pages, where it continues from there.
Comments:
This is a complex case that involves a user trying tododge the literal reading of WP:3RR while still violating WP:EW. After trying in various ways with the first series of edits to label downplay Loomer's far-right politics while labelling Rashida Tlaib a leftist, theywent to the Tlaib article to try to label her a leftist there. When reverted byNorthBySouthBaranof, Bcliot33 asked for a reason there, which he then proceeded to misrepresent (treating it as universal policy rather than general but non-universal advice) to edit war in the second series of edits. While doing so, he waves this statement around to ignoreWP:BRD. This is a pretty clear attempt to create a false dichotomy (either we can call both of them "far-XYZ" or we can't call either of them) based on false equivalence (Tlaib is to the left of Loomer, and so must be equivalently far-left as Loomer is far-right). Given that the first edits started off with trying to remove "far-right" from Loomer while applying "leftist" to Tlaib, this is a clearThe Card Says Moops maneuver.Ian.thomson (talk)08:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
—Unfortunately userIan.thomson always removing legit edits. I tried to remain as neutral and anti-personal, I wish other users would follow Wikipedia-neutrality. User Ian.thomson has linked to a youtube video that has nothing to do with the issue it shows clearly is not in a good mental condition, he is persecuting and using personal insults in my talk page which told him he is welcome to discuss issues there, but not to insult.Bcliot33 (talk)09:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I was never notified thatBorsoka requested a 3rd opinion. AndTgeorgescu's intervention on the talk page ([223]) simply mentioned that we tend not to use secondary sources older than 50 or 100 years. This had little to do with our current discussion where a primary source is concerned, not a secondary source. The userBorsoka reverted my edits on the grounds that they are not compliant with Wikipedia'sWP:SOURCE policy. After a discussion on therelevant talk page it became clear that my edits are compliant with Wikipedia'sWP:SOURCE,WP:HISTRS andWP:PRIMARY policies. Eventually, userTgeorgescu reverted my edit on the relevant page on citing a [former discussion of his, concerning the Gospel of John]. I asked him on histalk page what does it mean. He replied thatWP:PRIMARY andWP:RS were never highly regarded inside Wikipedia. I asked for clarificaiton on how the general set of rules for Wikipedia works, as I assumed every policy is valid at least in principle, and stated that according toWP:RULES "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow", so any policy should be normally followed and are by definition highly regarded among editors. He did not further reply, but replied to another user on the same page, making it clear that he has seen my message but choose not to reply.LordRogalDorn (talk)09:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days: we do not fill articles with lengthy quotes from arbitrarily choosen 16th-century historians' books without establishing the quotes' relevance with a reference to a peer-reviewed work. He have been unable to understand this basic rule. I also drew his attention to the possibilities of dispute resolution ([224]), but he ignored them and he is pushing his agenda.Borsoka (talk)11:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The sentence was given 7 minutes afterBorsoka's reply, I had no time to defend my case. Nothing of whatBorsoka said is true. There were no 3 editors who constantly tried to explain me a basic rule, but only 1 editor:Borsoka. As you can see: [[225]] and [[226]] the other 2 users did not do such a thing thatBorsoka claims they have done. As you can see from the diffs, it was far "from days", and only 1 other user said in only 1 comment without further explainations, that we don't use older sources, citingWP:HISTRS. I replied him that [[227]] the age restriction only applies to historical scholarships, not primary sources, who are allowed, also citingWP:HISTRS. It goes without saying that primary sources, are by their very nature old, so having a time restriction on primary sources is quite absurd. He did not make a 2nd comment. It is reasonable to assume that he left the conversation. And the last user did not even side with him. So his claim that "three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days" is simply made up. The quotes were not arbitrary, their relevance was already established in the article andBorsoka was aware of this from our discussion on the talk page. And I didn't ignore his possibilities of dispute resolution, but replied to them, explaining him that Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources when certain conditions are met. His response was that [will not play any more of your games], when I asked him to explain what he meant, he stopped replying. For 3 days. Giving the impression that he dropped the discussion. After 3 days of silence from his part, he reported me.LordRogalDorn (talk)13:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Brought up on talk page before most recent edit:[231]These edits have continued following this report being made, including now removing the source that they were contradicting but without providing an alternative source to justify this change.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTrinePGTL (talk •contribs)20:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Please see[232] and[233] as well as[234] where I have attempted to raise the issue on the article's talk page as well asUser:Abu ali's talk page. Abu ali has opened this complaint rather than respond to my talk page comments. Note, as well, that what Abu ali says is his attempt to resolve the dispute was actually about another article and is on that other article's talk page:Talk:International Socialist Alternative and is about another issue, one he has just raised, which I have attempted to address with this edit[235] So his claim above that he has attempted to resolve the dispute onCommittee for a Workers' International (1974) is erroneous.
User:Abu ali is attempting to POV-push as well as use these articles to direct traffic/promote his organization's websites.
The Committee for a Workers' International split in 2019. The minority faction declared that the CWI had dissolved and that they had refounded it. Hence the articleCommittee for a Workers' International (2019). The majority faction called itself the CWI-Majority for several months and then changed its name toInternational Socialist Alternative in 2020. Despite this Abu is treating theCommittee for a Workers' International (1974) page of the original pre-split group as if it the page of the new organization and a) first removed the website of one of the two successor organizations, in favour of the one he belongs to[236]. I then removed the websites entirely on the argument that either both websites should be listed as successor organizations or neither should since the original organization no longer exists.[237], and he put it back[238] and so on.
The second element of the dispute on the CWI(1974) page isUser:Abu ali insists on using the narrative text of the article to promote his organization's websites. I initially removed this paragraph:
"Some of the key documents relating to the split are published at marxist.net[1] and some of the documents published by the 'In Defence of a Working Class Trotskyist CWI' faction are collected in the bookIn Defence of Trotskyism[20][239]
because it didn't add anything to the narrative, it was only promotional of his organization's book/website. Abu put it back in[240] and I compromised and attempted a balance by writing a paragraph that retained Abu's link but added one for the other side, and used language which favoured neither.[241]. He changed to a version which again is promotional of his group's website/book.[242]
Looking atUser:Abu ali's edit history, since he reappeared on Wikipedia if February after a 12 year absence, virtually all of his edits (150 or so) have been to either this article or others related to the CWI, which I think means he should be regarded as a single-purpose account.Sowny (talk)14:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I apologise for my 12 years of absence. The demands of life often do not leave much time for sitting at a computer. I think Snowy's comments show a failure to assume good faith. Regarding the CWI website which Snowy repeatedly deletes, www.socialistworld.net - an examination of wayback machine shows that’s this has been the CWI website for nearly two decades. And examination of this website shows that the CWI is still active and operating today, even if Snowy does not like the fact. The role of wikipedia is to reflect the world as it is, not as certain users would like it to be.ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk)15:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted to the status quo ante where both websites were listed.[243] This was the situation before you removed one of them in favour of the organization you belong to.[244] I hope that resolves the matter.Sowny (talk)15:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You say "Your organization". But you have no idea who I am and what if any organisations I own. On the other hand, you assert that you are not a member of the ISA. I think that a brief examination by an objective observer would say that both the ISA and the CWI exist and are active to this day. It would be useful if some univolved editors would help out, as we are clearly deadlocked here.ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk)15:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You claim not a member of either organisation. But your obsession with this subject makes your claim that you are "trying to ensure the articles are balanced" hard to believe. You claim that there was a consensus to split CWI into CWI 1974 ad 2019. But consensus means unanimity. And I opposed the split of the article at the time, so there was no consenus. And I will propose that we remerge the two articles (actually just delete the fork), when I have time. But that is an issue for another day.ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk)16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Another issue raised here is my linking to the collection of documents around the split on the CWI site. I know that those who formed the ISA produced over 100 documents around the CWI debate, some of which are reproduced on the CWI site. These documents form an important part of the ideological foundations of the ISA and the political explanation of the split. If you can find an ISA published compendium of these documents, we should add it to the article. But if no such compendium has been published by the ISA, then we have to make do with the CWI's list.ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk)16:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Already included under External Links:Committee_for_a_Workers'_International_(1974)#External_links. Your attempt to promote them in the body of the article with the following paragraph is both superfluous and promotional: "The CWI have published their main documents of the debate leading up to the Split in the book "In Defence of Trotskyism". They have also made the most important documents from both sides available on the marxism.net website.Sowny (talk)16:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The roots of any split in organisation are always political, and their nature can in this case be revealed from the documents written by the protagonists of the split. The CWI and ISA articles are both weak in this respect. They give a blow by blow narrative of the events leading up to the split, but reveal very little about the ideological differences which drove these events. The CWI have published a collection including most of their key documents and a small number of ISA documents. If the ISA publishes an compendium of its documents, then we should add it to the articles, perhaps replacing the CWI list if the ISA list is more extensive.ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk)16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem isn't with the links, it's with the promotion of them in the body of the article. You shouldn't be using Wikipedia to try to promote a website. The links are already listed under "external links". You want not only to also have them in the body of the article but use prose essentially promotong them. It's one thing to link to something for citation reasons, quite another to do so in order to promote the website.Sowny (talk)17:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The political basis of the split should be the core of the narrative, and not a footnote. The argument about promoting a website is a red-herring, and somewhat disingenuous given your continual attempts to promote the ISA website on the CWI page. I would certainly be happy to replace the link with a complete compedium of all debate documents hosted on the ISA website, if the ISA publish such a collection.ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk)17:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The length of this discussion is already indicative enough: this is a content dispute that (fortunately) has not turned into a full-blown edit war that administrators need to get involved in.Drmies (talk)17:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User has made 6 reverts at the article in less than 12 hours. Was blocked for a week for edit warring in the same conflict article 2 months ago.Resapp (talk)19:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[259]
Comments:
User has made seven reverts at the article in less than 12 hours. Is still continuing to revert more despite warnings.Resapp (talk)19:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
This user makes biased edits that violate the rules of Wikipedia. No wonder why so many newly created accounts are involved in editing articlesin favor of Azerbaijan. While from the Armenian side only two active users are involved. This type of the articles should be edited only byextended confirmed users. I hope from semi-protected we will go further to full-protected.Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk)19:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Page protected Since two inexperienced users have been involved in this edit war, I have raised the protection level to extended-confirmed. —C.Fred (talk)20:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Thanks for protecting the page. Although you do not seem to have warned the inexperienced user who has made 7 reverts. Can you tell him not revert further in the next 24 hours at least? Edit warring should be discouraged.Resapp (talk)20:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Resapp: No warning is necessary. The user is sufficiently aware of 3RR, including exceptions such as reverting edits by indefinitely-blocked users or their sockpuppets. —C.Fred (talk)20:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: I'm not sure about that. Only 1 out of users 7 reverts is reverting a sockpuppet and a blocked user. User is still insufficiently warned IMO.Resapp (talk)20:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[263]
Comments:
User who was warned after making 7 reverts in the same article in a day has returned in less than 24 hours and has made 2 more reverts in the same article. The warning from yesterday is above.Resapp (talk)08:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
My reverts are explained, with the sources put as well. I understand that there is a tremendous desire to show the events currently taking place from the side that ispreferable. I'm not surprised that you have complaints about users who areArmenian byorigin (seeing your last edit warning posts to other users). I got this "warning" right after changing@Solavirum:'s edits (what is suspicious). I would like to ask@C.Fred: to review@Resapp:'s account. And sorry for taking your time again.Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk)08:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved, but I was tagged so why not add a comment? So, my warning toԳարիկ Ավագյան was done in accordance tothis discussion. Syrian and Kurdish mercenaries isn't official, but Գարիկ Ավագյան them anyways, and I reverted it. I hope you can resolve this. Good luck to you both! --► Sincerely:SolaVirum08:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Գարիկ Ավագյան: You don't understand. You cannot make more than 3 reverts in the same article under 24 hours. It doesn't matter whether your reverts are explained or not. You were warned about this yesterday after making 7 reverts. Yet you are here today before 24 hours and have made 2 more reverts. SeeWP:3RR exemptions for what is not considered a revert.Resapp (talk)09:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Solavirum:, well, thank you for your comment. Not actually, your reverts and edits1,2 are about removing the name of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh and putting Nagorno-Karabakh instead, while clashes occure not only in Nagorno-Karabakh but on the whole frontline of the Artsakh Republic. Also, about the territorial changes. You do not pay attention to the statements of the Armenian Defense Ministry (link to which I pasted), which is biased.@Resapp: I suggest you to read carefullyExemptions section. Best regards.Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk)09:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Ermm, the link you presented here shows what I exactly said. SNA's alleged involvement is not notable enough. BTW, territorial changes must be added in any case, ongoing or not. --► Sincerely:SolaVirum09:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The page is already protected based on Resapp's involvement. Please address content concerns at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk)12:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Baratiiman, you included links toyour own reverts on that page rather than just Pahlevun's reverts. I've removed them for clarity. Pahlevun has only made two reverts to that page. Baratiiman has so far opened threads on the same issue onWP:COIN,WP:NPOVN,WP:DRN,WP:TH, and now here. –Thjarkur(talk)13:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
a) You have been given answers and pointers to relevant guidelines, in several places, by several people. b) This amounts to harassment of the other editor – I just posted a warning to your user talk page, which you chose to delete (like several previous warnings). c) This noticeboard is for violations of the3 revert rule. Do you understand why it was inappropriate to file a report here?, regardless of all your previous inappropriate reports? --bonadeacontributionstalk14:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes you all guided me all right I went from notice board to another not of them giving Real Human Response it was like who didnt read anything and you are not helping in building consensus for whatever reasonBaratiiman (talk)14:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
This is not a very good explanation for why you reported me. As I said before, Wikipedia is not your personal sandbox and what you wrote is too long and not needed. You've been hopping through IPs as well and admitting it, too.Luigitehplumber (talk)20:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I sympathise with the editor you reported - they generally have found a fault with your restoration of information, and its clear you have no intention of resolving the matter by discussing this. I hope that an admin will complete their semi-protection request to stop the IP's behaviour, which is quite frankly atrocious.GUtt01 (talk)21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
An edit war, and reporting about, implies a continunal amount of disputes between both parties. All I did was simply step in to revert what appears to be quesitonable information, and this is what I get? I think the IP user has proven that their disruptions on the page need to be stopped and the article's semi-protection request is justified. As for the IP in question, you have just made it clear that you are not the victim here, but the aggressor, and that myself and the other editor are being victimised by someone whose behaviour is unacceptable. If you cannot take the matter to the article's page for discussion, then you should have dropped it.GUtt01 (talk)21:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Not in the article talk page but this person came to my talkpage and I've explained it to them. Here are thediffs
Comments:
Initially kept adding "Mongoloid" in the article. When told enough number of times in their and my talkpage. in the recent edit changed the ethnic identifier to "East Asian". Meiteis are South Asian people geographically since they live in India.Fylindfotberserk (talk)12:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments: Vadzim(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) involved in edit warring and aggressively "took control" over very dubious map of Belarus in which Lithuania (Litva) is marked as region of Belarus. This is clearly a forged map with territorial pretensions to Lithuania. Even more false or at least unindentifiable claims in defence of the map were presented claiming it was prepared by Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Source of the image (map) has no references to any Academy of Sciences. Also for notice@Itzhak Rosenberg:, who also made edits.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[279]
Comments:
Both of these users have been editing up a storm onKatrina Karkazis; Seemplez wants there to be a section listing the subject's publications, and the IP editor does not! I suggested they take it to a talk page instead of reverting each other, they had afight which involved somepersonal attacks, continued reverting, etc.
When the IP editor did their fourth revert, I rolled it back. I gave them both{{uw-3rr}}s, they kept going, I put an RfC on the talk page... and now Seemplez has added the bibliography back into the article. I'm not sure what the protocol is on this, since they've both done an excessive amount of reverts and neither of them seem to want to build consensus for their edits.jp×g09:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Note:this apology (about ten minutes before I made this report, which I didn't notice before making it) should probably be taken into account.jp×g10:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
With it all laid out like this, and after re-reading what 127.116 said on my talk page, I believe that I was in the wrong a lot more than them. I breachedWP:NPA first, I started the edit war and I couldn't admit that I was out of my depth. I was immediately on my talk page saying literal falsehoods when 127.116 left the message, and I regret it deeply. I did leave a message onthe IP's talk page asking about the revised bibliography I added. I haven't seen them respond yet, though.Seemplez10:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
HE attacked me first, of course the modifications were well known and studied, go to AIS and see the trajetory. So as Wikipedia is Dictatorial, sometimes also the without powers editors like me have the knowledge as well, not only the arrogant guys who think are owners of wiki— Precedingunsigned comment added by88.68.182.54 (talk)16:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[288]
Comments:
Despite being told to add whatever they think may be missing, and despite the sources verifying what is in the article, Pahlevun just keeps edit-warring to add a neutrality tag to it.
PerWikipedia:Responsible tagging, I have thoroughly explained why the article has POV problem on the talkpage. Despite the fact that there is a discussion ongoing related to the POV issue, two users keep removing the tag without addressing the issue. Removal of the tag is againstWP:WNTRMT and I restored it.Pahlevun (talk)21:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Result: No action, but I'll make an observation. There is no evident violation ofWP:3RR though there is a slow edit war over the word 'renowned'. All parties should be aware that blocks or protection are possible if this continues. If the issue is so important, why not open anWP:RFC on the single word 'renowned'?EdJohnston (talk)23:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Comment - Not really an edit war, this IP's edits consist purely of vandalism inserting a racist slur into the article. The IP should just be blocked for disruptive editing.Jdcomix (talk)14:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
17:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC) "Undone page vandalism by 980961679 byPraxidicae (talk) Look up the facts before you go messing around wildly with information you don't understand."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
And now they've done itagain despite a discussion on the talk page that they refuse to engage in while calling any editor that dare cross them a vandal.Praxidicae (talk)15:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Page protected On the one hand, that should stem the immediate issues at the article. On the other, a rangeblock may be in order. I don't do those, but either another admin could handle that, or if other misuse of the accounts continues, ask for one atWP:ANI. —C.Fred (talk)20:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Declined Unless the article is under a one-revert restriction (and I don't think it is), two reverts do not rise to the level of edit warring.Salvio09:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely~ ToBeFree (talk)20:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment There have not been three reverts by either party within 24 hours, so we don't have a brightline violation of 3RR. I also don't see where this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. I don't think immediate administrative actions are warranted. If the parties cease reverting and take this matter to the talk page, no administrative action should be necessary. If the edit warring continues, then I would issuepartial blocks toboth parties.
Already blocked.Salvio08:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
08:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
No violation –EdJohnston (talk)15:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)