Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's all over the talk page
Comments: This is a new article from November 3rd. In the span of 8 hours, Jontel made seven different reverts, which were challenged by other users he edit warred with. The content differs in each revert, but revolves around removing Holocaust denial and far left ties of this group. Each group of diffs above is separated by other users challenging Jontel.11Fox11 (talk)19:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, this was going on while this was on the front page under "did you know" with the description: "... that the British conspiracy-theory and Holocaust-denial groupKeep Talking unites the far right and far left?". Jontel was disrupting, possibly even vandlising, an article displayed on the front page that has significant traffic today. Jontel's edits specifically went after the description in the front page.11Fox11 (talk)19:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not think I was edit warring, just making several changes to different parts of the article. The article is based almost entirely on one report by a pair of campaign groups, with superficial coverage of the same report by sympathetic media without them conducting additional research. It is misleading in a number of ways through misrepresenting the report contents, using tendentious wording and guilt by association. I was correcting errors and giving reasons for doing so. I was making a number of changes because there were a number of errors. Where my changes were reverted, often with unspecific justification, I have typically raised the issues in the Talk page. I have not repeatedly reverted fresh edits, just previously existing material, and am happy to pursue discussions via the Talk page, which I have initiated, including proposing compromise wording. It is the case that the source report makes little mention of Holocaust denial, whereas it has been given prominence in the article, and also that those involved, ex Labour Party members, would not normally be characterised as far-left, who would be revolutionaries, by anyone familiar with the term. I addressed a number of the more prominent errors but certainly not all. It is regrettable to be heavily editing a ‘Did you know’ article, but why was such a new, weakly sourced, controversial and misleading article given such prominence?Jontel (talk)20:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Contrary to Jontel's statement above that "I have not repeatedly reverted fresh edits", he actually did repeat the same edits:
In the first instance, I was attempting to find a compromise. In the second and third instances, my changes were reverted without sufficiently specific edit summaries. As it was a new article, all of the material was relatively new. It was not a matter of me reverting changes to an established article. Why doesn't the complainant engage with the issues raised on the Talk page? All he says is 'sources' without specifying them and make a personal attack.Jontel (talk)12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Result:User:Jontel iswarned. They may be blocked if they make any further edit that reverts others' changes, even in part, without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. If you are truly 'attempting to find a compromise' you should wait for the outcome of a discussion instead of reverting.EdJohnston (talk)17:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Both warned for long term edit warring by EdJohnston. The next person who makes an edit at Hellenistic philosophy is risking a block unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. ◅ Sebastian20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[19]
Comments: While this has extended beyond a 24 hour period, I think you will see that there is no attempt to find a solution to the issue by the user. In fact, they have not made a clear case for what it is that they object to in the content. They have only raised the claim that it conflicts with the articleHellenistic period, which it does not, and in any case that'sWP:CIRCULAR. Furthermore, the rest of the content that is being reverted is not explained by this. As you can see, they have not responded to a discussion on the talk page. You will also see from the other talk page discussions that this user is in general not at all constructive, often appealing to their own expertise or other articles against content with academic sources, as well as engaging in extremely petty fights over interpretation of individuals words, etc.Keepcalmandchill (talk)04:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Keepcalmandchill has previously had to withdraw two previous accusations against me of edit warring. This third one is similarly unfounded. As withKeepcalmandchill's edits on the subject of Hellenistic philosophy, this complaint is also based on factually incorrect information. It should be clear to any reader ofTalk:Hellenistic_philosophy that extensive conversation is happening and thatKeepcalmandchill's comments have been responded to.Keepcalmandchill is correct that I have pointed out that I have made over 1,000 edits on detail pages regarding Hellenistic philosophy and thatKeepcalmandchill has made none.Keepcalmandchill is similarly correct that I have pointed out that their edits onHellenistic philosophy contradict sourced claims made on other, more-detailed pages regarding Hellenistic philosophy, typically sourced from various specialized academic sources rather than the two introductions to philosophy thatKeepcalmandchill repeatedly cites for all claims.Keepcalmandchill is also correct that I repeatedly point out that this area of philosophy (like all of the others) involves specialized terminology which needs to be used with precision.Keepcalmandchill is again correct that the 3 reversions in 24 hour rule has not actually been broken. But, as one can see, they have decided to post a complaint anyway. I suggest that this matter would be better addressed by availing of some form of third-party intervention.
I apologize that the volunteers who deal with edit warring issues have to spend time addressing this matter, as all parties are in agreement about the fact that the reversion rule has not been broken. It should be noted that shortly prior toKeepcalmandchill raised this complaint I had asked for help on this matter at the Help Desk as it had become clear to me that an impasse was looming.Teishin (talk)04:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I did not "have to withdraw" the previous complaints. I did so as a gesture of goodwill after you responded with some degree of positivity to constructive compromise proposals that I made in the relevant discussions. As both of those complaints involved an outright violation of 3RR, I think it is safe to say that this user has little respect for the rule.Keepcalmandchill (talk)05:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Result:User:Teishin andUser:Keepcalmandchill areboth warned for long term edit warring. The next person who makes an edit atHellenistic philosophy is risking a block unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. This dispute seems to have been going on since 1 October. Nobody is entitled to keep reverting endlessly. At some point you are expected to organize your ownWP:Dispute resolution and find a consensus.EdJohnston (talk)19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990045978 byCuriousGolden (talk) restore state that does not involve the use of a politico-geographic term that is ambiguous (i.e. could refer to multiple different entities in the general area over history from Khanates to NKAO).)."
12:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990035761 byCuriousGolden (talk) N-K has meant many things over the years. It could be taken to mean the entire territory in dispute, in which case, it's not an enclave but actually adjacent. Await further clarification please."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user reverts edits he doesn't like without a proper reason and their edits on all articles relating toNagorno-Karabakh andAzerbaijan are quite disruptive (e.g. 1.here andhere (note that they did the same revertagain on this page after being explained by me in anedit how what they added was wrong) where they revert my edit to put a "de facto" control tag on a village that was confirmed to not be under the "de facto" control of the belligerent they were referring to. They failed to provide an argument for these reverts whenconfronted; 2. Reverting a removal of a primary sourcehere because "what's 1 more primary source in an article replete with primary sources?". From my understanding of this edit summary, the user clearly understands that primary sources are not allowed, yet they still revert an edit to add it back as it supports a POV that they follow). The user has also broken several Wikipedia policies (WP:ETIQUETTE,WP:GOODFAITH) in most of our discussions and has accused me of random things (Like here:accusing me and a random page mover of being a tag team and hererandomly accusing me of reverting edits in an article I had never done a revert on). —CuriousGolden(T·C)14:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Please note that Eldhorajan92 is edit-warring against us in 2 articles at once. Diffs are from both articles (5RR in one, 4RR in the other) and he was very recently blocked for edit-warring in a similar situation.Elizium23 (talk)08:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Iam attempt to edit war Because of edit war held against reference, then after conclusion(talk discussion) not go to re-edit or Edit War!EldhoseTalk12:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
From 16 Nov 2020 to 20 Nov 2020, User: Eldhorajan92 continuously engaged in edit war by adding in-sufficient references which do not have any direct mention of the topic. The user quoted non related remarks from the online/google books for pushing biased views into Wikipedia article according to the user's point of views by self interpretations , discarding all logical and historical side of the content in the references -John C. (talk)00:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
John C. doing continuous edit war against reference. After conclusion of talk page discussion, Its stopped!. Iam not doing any self interpretations, mentioned only Stephen neil and Claudius Buchanan Books(Valuable Books of Syrian Christianity in India). The Indian Orthodox(Malankara Orthodox Church) is only separated after 1911 then just confused.EldhoseTalk04:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
As per reference, The Malankara Church under Patriarch of Antioch. After 1911, Malankara Metropolitan is Independent under new church known as Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church as per court view.EldhoseTalk05:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Jstalins, it's very difficult to have a discussion with this user (User Eldhorajan92). He keep saying something in talk pages which does not make sense and edit the articles accordingly. In the articleList of Malankara Metropolitans, as per the lengthy discussion, we listedDionysius V under "List of Malankara Metropolitans ofMalankara Syrian Church after 1877". But in the articleDionysious V, User Eldhorajan92 wanted to keepDionysious V under Jacobite Syrian Christian Church!! Basically he continues the edit warring on this topic in other articles also. You can check the discussionTalk:Dionysious V#Church --John C. (talk)01:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
18:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/*Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (2021) */WP:PROMO cite is an advert on author's website, appeal to "professorial" authority irrelevant, popular psychology book NOT an academic work."
(Non-administrator comment)Tenryuu, The article is limited to 1 revert per 24 hours and is semi-protected. I am sorry for reverting twice in a 24 hours period - the twinkle tool did it when I made this report - it was an accident. ButAcousmana did it manually. I would argue 3RR does not apply here because the article is limited to 1 Revert per 24 hours.J.Turner99 (talk)10:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Indefinite block not justified here. User appears to not have familiarity with sourcing policies (e.g., an unverified Facebook page isn't reliable). I have left a detailed explanation at the article talk page; hopefully, with this comment and the messages left from other uesrs, this will guide the reported user to discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk)15:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The page being edit-warred on,WABC-TV, recently came off of two week protection because an IP-hopper kept deletingShimon Prokupecz from its list of allumni. User was also aggressively asserting ownership of the page. I'm sure it's the same one, even though they've decided not to use edit summaries.Crboyer (talk)17:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a new one for me, too. I spent over a week trying to explain DUE to the guy who reported me, Horse Eye's Back (which he did from his new Wikipedia account; he seems to have been banned from his old one). This guy believes an Early Life section that covers 30 years ofFred Malek's life should have over 90% of it devoted to a dropped misdemeanor charge. He also seems to believe that any media outlet that mentions this incident is REQUIRED to be mentioned on Malek's page under DUE, which might be the oddest thing I've ever seen someone argue here at Wikipedia. This guy only came here because I warned him I was going to report him for similar offenses if he didn't knock it off. -Bbny-wiki-editor (talk)22:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Every word of it is true. Your current Talk page and your last account's Talk page are littered with warnings and suspensions for this type of foolishness. The "Dog stuff" discussion on theFred Malek page speaks for itself. -Bbny-wiki-editor (talk)22:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bbny-wiki-editor: The underlying question here is about your conduct. I don't think you've breached 3RR, since the oldest of the reverts listed above appears to be a bold change and not a wholesale removal. However, I also don't see where your edits qualify for an exception to 3RR. This looks like a content dispute, so you should proceed with it as such, including working to build consensus. —C.Fred (talk)22:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, but with whom am I supposed to work? I deleted this content back in the summer and it remained deleted for weeks or months. It was only after Horse Eye's Back returned, with a new Wikipedia account, that the content was restored. It seems like the burden should be on him, but he likes to play this game where he makes an edit and then tells people not to make further edits without "taking it to the Talk page," which is like a cutesy way for his edits to be the final word. It's also impossible to have a rational discussion with a person who believes sources are ENTITLED to be mentioned on Wikipedia. The Talk page discussion with this guy was like a bad Seinfeld episode. -Bbny-wiki-editor (talk)22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
True or false? You used a new Wikipedia account to restore material that was deleted back in the summer and stayed deleted until you created your new Wikipedia account. You're obviously the user formerly known as Horse Eye Jack who is all over the Malek page's history. Let's not waste more time here playing games. -Bbny-wiki-editor (talk)22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Which game are you playing? Hard to count them all. You used a new Wikipedia account to restore material that was deleted several months ago. You claim not to understand DUE, but then started invoking DUE to defend your position. You suggested I insert a pared-down version of the deleted material, which I did yesterday, only to have that immediately reverted, with the full four-paragraph version being restored. You've alternately claimed there was and wasn't a consensus to keep the debated material, as recently as today, AFTER restoring material you admitted there was no consensus to keep. And now you've filed a frivolous complaint against me for doing things you've done yourself. Like a lot of people here, I guess you have way too much time on your hands. -Bbny-wiki-editor (talk)23:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Bbny-wiki-editor,C.Fred suggested you didn't violate 3R (yet), but it's pretty obvious you've been reverting in that article for a while, and thus one could say you're guilty of longterm edit warring anyway. If you do not wish to get blocked, you should probably stop. In addition, your comments here are instances of harassment and certainly display a lack of good faith, and if you continue down this road you can be blocked for a combination of disruptive edits. I am going to revert you since it is my opinion that you are indeed an edit warrior on this article, and you should not have an advantage.Drmies (talk)03:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
That's funny. There's no way I've been more disruptive or done more edit warring on that page than Horse Eye Jack and his new identity, Horse Eye's Back. I also haven't posted a single word here that isn't true, so it's unclear how any of it qualifies as "bad faith" "harassment." Also, in your revert notice, you claimed I reverted "clearly against consensus." Since when is two to one a "consensus" for anything, let alone a clear consensus? The debated material was deleted from the page for many months until Horse Eye's Back created a new Wiki account and came back for more edit warring. Why was it okay for him to restore it without a Talk page discussion? Do the rules apply to everyone here or only some people? -Bbny-wiki-editor (talk)03:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Result: No action. AsUser:C.Fred noted above, the diffs provided don't show a 3RR violation because only the last three were reverts. I adviseUser:Bbny-wiki-editor not to remove the dog-related material again without consensus on the talk page. There is a chance of some negotiation as to how much material about the incident deserves inclusion.EdJohnston (talk)21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990283427 byNatGertler (talk) Stop reverting. Every source is cited. There are links to Stork's google scholar page. Stop reverting factual edits that contai important information and then calling it an opinion."
IP is aWP:SPA whose attempts to spin the article to call the subjects contributions "minor" at to cast doubt on the quality of his publishing credentials ("his h-index can be considered very inflated") viaWP:OR Reversions of this addition have included not just myself, butDirkbb (talk·contribs) inthis editNat Gertler (talk)21:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:WikiProject Boxing –Titles in boxing section, ongoing discussion
Comments: User:Bigboy 691 is bulk-adding a large section to boxing bio articles which has not yet gained consensus at WikiProject Boxing, which oversees theMOS:BOXING style guide. There is already a detailed section within the latter –MOS:BOXING/TITLES – which handles championships won by a boxer and uses succession boxes. There is currently discussion about whether to include a summary-type of section earlier in the articles, but User:Bigboy 691 insists on adding the sections anyway, without waiting for consensus or indeed participating in discussion. This is no longerWP:BOLD, but disruptive editing because discussion is still ongoing. Instead, he hasblanked his talk page a few times despite requests to engage in discussion, and he appears to have slight conduct issues via edit summaries:
However, this is not so much about his conduct than his edit warring and unwillingness to discuss a style format which could affect a large number of articles going forward.Mac Dreamstate (talk)19:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Result: No action. It appears that the user is not continuing to revert atCanelo Álvarez; his 'Titles in boxing' section isn't there any more. I suggest opening aWP:Request for comment to try to settle the general style question. Before someone can be blocked for violating a consensus there actually has to *be* a consensus.EdJohnston (talk)15:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
08:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Updating summary of the College of Medicine's role in society. References to a previous organisation should certainly be included in history but not in the main summary of the organisation. The College of Medicine is now 10 years old and the current summary is outdated."
Previous version reverted to:[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] (Over a month ago "revert: more than one editor has opposed you deleting well-referenced parts of the lead, take it to the talkpage" he didn't listen.)
Comments: BunnyyHop has a long history on the pageMarxist-Leninism extremely disruptive edits, and keeps trying to get around discussion on talk, his edits have been reverted multiple times be meDavide KingKIENGIR, andAsarlaí. He strangely believe that not responding to a proposal is a form of support and thinks the time frame for this is an hour. Despite there being a clear consensus against BunnyyHop, BunnyHopp refuses to listen and tries to edit the page despite making disruptive edits. I have tried so hard to try to get this editor to stop, the editor has already edit warred before, violating edit sanctions. We tried discussing this on the talk, editors like Davide King has stated this, yet BunnyHop and refuses to listen.
I tried to remove the POV (explained in the talkpage) inculcated in the lead of the article by making a small synthesis of the basics of the ideology.Davide King has been very helpful - he taught me to use the sandbox to alter the article - which I didUser:BunnyyHop/sandbox so I could avoid being accused of edit warring. He has also been very understanding and specific on parts of my text which contained a POV without me knowing it, and also instructed me to add more secondary sources such as academic works - which I did. Very pleasant experience. I also moved the criticism from the lead to the overview, so it's packed together with the rest of the contents. My experience with this user is not the best - I don't understand what he really wants me to alter. He also accused my text of belonging in a "poorly written biased ML blog" and that "maybe you should start a blog, instead of trying to spread your ideology here". I only want to make the article truthful, and I used a lot of sources. This user says it's not neutral because it doesn't contain bad things some states did in the lead, which I find incredibly POV. It's not the case with the article of any other political ideology.
Anyway, my problem with this user is that I can't find way to reach a consensus, even though I asked him many times to be specific. He's always reverting my edits, no matter what I do.BunnyyHop (talk)00:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No where did you establish consensus, other editors thanked me for reverting your edits, I only reverted a fraction your edits, the other reverts were done by other editors because your edits were extremely biased. You are clearly editing against consensus on the talk and the discussion is still ongoing, and your proposals don't have support and are reverted. You keep editing without a consensus and the discussion on the talk page, thinking that not responding is "consensus". Your most recent edits prove this. No where did you establish consensus this, your edits have mostly been reverted by Davide King, KIENGIR and Asarlaí, I am not even the main person reverting your edits. It's extremely disruptive to the page.
Davide King himself stated you were edit warring and warned you against it saying that sanctions might come, and you still went to edit war. All of your edits have been reverted because none of them are of encyclopedic standards and you keep removing sections of thegenocides,massacres and atrocities committed by Marxist-Leninist dictators and you keep editing the article despite being against consensus, as well as poorly written and poorly formatted sections. That's why you are being reported.Vallee01 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC
Editors have thanked me for the my edit which you reverted, but that doesn't matter. I have not removed those things, I have moved them to the appropriate place which is NOT in the lead. You have made edits that were not backed by sources, some of which I removed. As for poor formatting, why don't you edit my sandbox so it's better formatted? I don't think your extreme POV (should a paragraph of the lead of the liberalism article be about what liberalism defends, or the horrors of slavery? It's completely absurd and non NPOV) is encyclopedic. I decided to change it - because it's an incredibly biased way to structure the article - by writing the basics of Marxism-leninism, all sentences being excellently sourced. Davide King only reverted my edits once IIRC - he used the talk page to tell me what I should improve and I did - to source better that paragraph and other things. You simply say there's no consensus, I ask why and you don't say anything concrete other than "poor formating", or provoke me to create my own blog or something else. In this moment I ask myself - What am I supposed to do? This editor doesn't suggest me anything useful. My edits are ALWAYS backed by sources. KIENGIR said he had the same problem as Davide and not much more, something I solved by adding more and better sources, changing sentences, etc. Asarlaí didn't revert my edits, you did. Colleague Isabella, on the other hand, thanked my edit. I'm not "establishing consensus" not because I don't want to, it's impossible when communication is little and I don't feel like the people who are against really put an effort to establish consensus, especially when my edits who are very well sourced are thrown in the garbage because of "poor formatting". What's disruptive is not caring about my edits and then saying that "there's no consensus so you can't edit the page", no matter how well I've sourced it. My edits were always according to what was told me in the talk page - I recommend the colleague who is reviewing this to check the edit story on my sandbox and the talk page of the article. I find it a little weird you reference edits from October, because not only was I newer on Wikipedia, it was also about a different matter.BunnyyHop (talk)01:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You are just stating false information, I never wrote the section on massacres and genocides on Marxist-Leninism, Davide King and Asarlaí wrote most of that:[56][57]. I don't think you understand I had little to nothing to do with the section of mass murders committed by Marxist-Leninists, I simply restored them because you keeped vandalizing the page. "Davide King has only reverted my edits once" Is just completely false. Davide King made most of the sections which you are trying to remove.
Seriously it's not hard to fact check this to see through your obvious fibbing. It's not hard to see your violations, you can't hide it.Vallee01 (talk)02:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You are still in October. I barely remember anymore what happened almost two months ago. I'm talking about when I first started writing certain parts of the article a few days ago. I do not care about what happened almost two months ago, it's not relevant anymore. I care about now, where I have my fully sourced and well-structured article just waiting to see what everyone says and finally make it go forward, which you are still not addressing. I only want you to tell me where's the problem in my edit so I can fix it - or you can fix it yourself, my sandbox is open for everyone to edit. You have an objection to my edit - what is it? I have barely touched those parts in my sandbox. If I committed an infraction, that was 2 months ago, when I was still kind of new to Wikipedia. It really feels like you don't want to reach consensus but to provoke me (as you did in the talk page) to make me more prone to committing infractions. If you wanted to reach consensus you would edit the parts of my sandbox where you see a problem (or just point out and I'd do it) instead of wasting our time here, seeing if I'm gonna get banned for what I did 2 months ago or not. I'm most likely gonna leave this here and let the admin do his judgement. Is it possible to redirect this conversation into a dispute solver, or any other user/program in charge of dealing with a problem like ours? User:BunnyyHop|BunnyyHop]] (talk)02:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Exactly you have been edit warring for over a month! I tried so hard to get you to discuss things on the talk, not just me other editors emplored you to go to the talk page. You returned over the last week to keep edit warring from over a month ago, your disruptive behavior isn't new. A month ago Asarlaí told you clearly"revert: more than one editor has opposed you deleting well-referenced parts of the lead, take it to the talkpage," you didn't appear to listen. You keep deleting well referenced sections without explanation and you keep trying to get away from discussing on the talk. You haven't stopped your disrputive edits.Vallee01 (talk)03:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Result:User:BunnyyHop iswarned for long term edit warring atMarxism–Leninism. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. If you are unsure of what others think, you can open up anWP:RFC. At present nobody on Talk seems to agree with you.EdJohnston (talk)18:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
01:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC) "This page is a LIE! Not updated with latest medical evidence, the trial of JetBlue pilot Captain Andrew Myers. In that case the medical evidence against aeortoxic syndrome was put on trial, in a court of law, and LOST!!! Whoever is paying you to monitor and update this page is a fraud!!!"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I selected only some of the diff as there are more and the edit summaries indicate that the user has no intention to stopMcSly (talk)01:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Pageblocked indefinitely.Guy(help! -typo?) 02:04, 26 November
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[60]
Comments: This page is subject to 1RR. This user is still actively violating the 1RR at the page, despite a request to stop and review the DS notice, and a promise that it was an accident. This user has been reported and then banned, blocked, or warned for edit-warring and violating either DS or 3RR at least three times in the past year. See1,2,3. (Note: In the ANI thread that resulted in a two-week ban for a 3RR violation, the imposing admin notes that it was actuallythree separate 3RR violations that broke the camel's back, not just one. So we actually have nearly a half dozen instances of this user violating either 1RR or 3RR documented betweenWP:ANI andWP:AN3.)Wikieditor19920 (talk)03:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what this editor is on about, but we've had issues in the past. I've learnt from my past mistakes and have been making a concerted effort to do better, this report is not fair or justified. If I did go past 1RRI'd have happily self reverted if given the chance. I think this report is vindictive and should boomerang.Bacondrum (talk)08:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That first diff, I thought I was doing as wikieditor had requested? I'm pretty sure I restored all of his edits? I sincerely find his claims confusing. I don't think I've gone past 1RR, I'm not even sure I reverted anything at all. Same with the second "series" of reverts. I thought I was simply making edits, I can't see how I've reverted anything, but I'm more than happy to self revert if I've done the wrong thing. I've nothing more to add. Admins, please ping me if you have any questions.Bacondrum (talk)08:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: Can you make it clear which edits in those series you are saying are reverts, and which previous edits they are actually reverts of, please? Reports like this make it very difficult for admins to pick apart what is actually happening. Thanks.Black Kite (talk)12:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Yes, I've edited the diffs to show two chains of this user's edits broken by another's changes (each grouping is effectively a single revert perWP:REVERT) within the 24h period. The user did initially partially self revert after being asked, but then returned, and undid that with additional edits.Wikieditor19920 (talk)12:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not clearly seeing a blatant violation either, but I'll leave it for another admin to look over and make sure I'm not getting it wrong.Black Kite (talk)01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I would decline to find a violation here because the reverting story is unclear. If a page is under a 1RR, it only takes two reverts to break the rule, but even so, the first edit of the two has to be an actual revert. That's what I can't determine. At first glance, there are a bunch of similar words being stirred around into different orders. It appears that Bacondrum is willing to fix the problem if it can be pointed out to him.EdJohnston (talk)02:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:This was the first revert, comprised of two consecutive edits. It involved changes to the existing language in the lead, and removal of sources that had just been restored in theprior edit. The second revert, after intervening edits by me, partially undid edits by myself and others.Here, as part of the second chain of reverts, the user claimed they were reverting "contested wording." Yet there is no such exemption, and this was already outside of the 1RR. You can also view thepage revision history if you just want a visual representation.
The user's promise to self-revert now is moot at this point—they violated the 1RR and restored their preferred version, and in the time since passed other editors have continued editing the page. Of course, they also promised to self-revert immediately prior to continuing the violation by extending the string of edits in the 2nd revert, rather than stopping once I pointed out the 1RR limitation. That this is followed by an apology (though the tone seems to have shifted slightly since the initial apology) and a claim to have not known what a revert is, or needing to be instructed on what they did wrong, is pretty consistent with the last several times they've been reported for the exact same violation.Wikieditor19920 (talk)03:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
And also,Black Kite suggested I failed to provide evidence of "what specific edits were reverted," but I don't see how that is necessary evidence for a 1RR report.WP:REVERT broadly construes any changes or revisions to the article as a revert — someone added the language in at some point. The provided links show the user made changes to the article, undoing the work of other editors -- some recently, as I noted above, and some a bit older -- in two distinct reverts.Wikieditor19920 (talk)03:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
They are not reverts!?! They're just edits!?! See how much nasty venom is being directed at me? This isWP:BULLYING - false accusations and harassment, and is thus a serious personal attack.Bacondrum (talk)03:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Woah, hang on now."Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version." Claiming thatany edit that removes previous content is a revert is nonsensical - that would mean, for example, that I couldn't copyedit a badly written article.Black Kite (talk)08:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
We're not talking about copy editing. The user initiallyacknowledged violating 1RR and promised to self-revert (see the linked warning thread on their talk page), but then reversed course and decided to continue making changes rather than self-reverting.In this edit, which was part of their second revert, the edit summaryexplicitly notes that they knew they were reverting the work of another editor, not their own.Wikieditor19920 (talk)18:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
And as far asBacondrum's comments here, I haven't responded, not because it isn't untrue, but because I just don't take it personally. This user attacks the filer and claims they are being bullied, harassed, etc.,each and every time that they are reported for disregarding the rules that everyone else seems capable of following. Here are some snippets from the last three times this user was reported for edit warring. Stop me if these sound at all like déjà vu (links are above):
September 2019think this warrants a WP:Boomerang Regarding WP:HARASS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I'm trying to be civil, but they are making it all but impossible. I've made mistakes in the past, learned and changed my ways - one little mistake that I retracted and apologize for does not warrant this level of hostility or sanctions, IMO..
December 2019WP:BOOMERANG should be applied here. Yes I've edit warred in the past, but I've learnt and I believe I'm a much better editor for it. This is a clear violation of guidelines.
October 2020Thanks good sir, I certainly will be more careful, and it was not my intent to edit war. I have not been persistently edit warring as Wikieditor claims, I have been discussing edits at talk. I am happy to let this go, but the disruptive and vexatious behavior of Wikieditor should be noted, if not addressed I'm afraid it will continue, they seem to be incapable of seeing their conduct is highly disruptive.
I think it can be shown that this is a long-established pattern with no signs of stopping. If it's overlooked here, I think the obvious concern should be that it will most likely just continue indefinitely. But I've presented my evidence, and it's not in my discretion to decide how to handle it.Wikieditor19920 (talk)19:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
::@Black Kite: I am asking to review the specific violation here and consider the user's past as part of the sanction. You are completely misconstruing what I wrote and overlooking an obvious violation.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)I'll strike my above comment. Like I said, I believe I presented evidence of a specific violation; the user's past history of violations was merely a supplement. But an admin has weighed in here and decided how to close it out, and as I also said, that's something outside my discretion.Wikieditor19920 (talk)19:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
He's been editwarring himself
black Kite,EdJohnston,Swarm,Liz Sorry to return to this but despite all this carry on about me, wikieditor has just removed this text for the third time in six days "against those whom they identify as belonging to the far right".
I merged two sentences about the group's protest activity, and removed the "those that they identify" language in an attempt to pacify users who specifically objected to it on the talk pagehere. As usual,Bacondrum, you don't have your facts straight, haven't done your research, and are accusing others of engaging inprecisely the behavior you are, and yet there is still no accountability for it.Wikieditor19920 (talk)01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, up to a point. I am going tostrongly suggest that you voluntarily abstain from commenting onWikieditor19920, reporting his supposed infractions, or reverting his edits directly, otherwise you will also find yourself subject to escalating sanctions. The only reason I did not pageblock you, as I did Wikieditor19920, is that the report above is not entirely clear-cut, in that you reverted different content with the two edit series. So, while you may be technically correct, on Wikipedia at least, that is not the best kind of correct. Your changes have somewhat better consensus support but that's not a license to ignore the DS on this article, OK?Guy(help! -typo?)01:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This is basically an acknowledgement thatBacondrum is subject to a "polite warning" for violating 1RR (I don't know how diffs showing two distinct reverts at a page subject to 1RR can be any more clear cut), and aWP:INVOLVED admin is imposing a two-month sanction on me forWP:BRD edits which incorporated others' suggestions. The bias and lack of accountability in this area of Wikipedia by those charged with overseeing it is just unacceptable.Wikieditor19920 (talk)01:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, polite but firm. And only because Bacondrum's edits appear to be closer to consensus - I don't see them being reverted as consistently (I could be wrong there of course). I'm not going to push this further myself, but I do have some experience of this kind of dispute and the admin corps has very little patience with pairs of editors who knock six bells out of each other at every opportunity.
My advice to you both is this: if you want to recruit support, the best way to do that is to exemplify Wikipedian ideals by driving content improvement through calm and civil discussion on Talk. I have seen you both do that in the past. Both of you have done some good work and made some solid points. Take it to email or find a place to talk, but please seek common ground, otherwise the heavy mob are going to roll in with the cudgels and not care at all who started it. And remember: Wikipedia's best content is the result of respectful discourse between people with differing points of view.Guy(help! -typo?)01:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
My issue is not with Bacondrum. My issue is with the biased manner in which you and other admins have handled this, giving unheard of leniency to an editor whose edits you support, who is a repeat violator of 1RR and 3RR, and an extreme, unjustified ban against an editor you substantively disagree with (me) for bold edits that you mischaracterize as against consensus.Wikieditor19920 (talk)01:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was already under a partial block from the closely-relatedAndy Ngo (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) (whose major target is Antifa), and continues to conduct debate via edit summaries not on Talk, so I have added Antifa to he pageblock and extended it. This is in lieu of requesting an AP2 TBAN, which I think is defensible based on the lack of introspection displayed atuser talk:Wikieditor19920 in response to the original pageblock, and noted by several well respected and calm editors. I encourage review and discussion of this, and this is without prejudice to action against Bacondrum, who is absolutely not blameless here.Guy(help! -typo?)00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I am blameless hereJzG, exactly what did I do wrong this time? I have done wrong in the past, but not this time.Bacondrum (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Fair enough JzG. I'll leave it alone.Bacondrum (talk)01:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[65]
Comments:
Comment: Since this user couldn't find a valid reason, they started calling me "problematic" and "not here to build an encyclopedia" because of my talk page history. I demand at least a warning.nyxærös15:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The valid reason was that the file has been there since 2008, and it has not been an issue for over 12 years. It wasn't a problem that was discovered, and in light of that lack of urgency,WP:BRD could have been followed. I do have concerns about your longevity on Wikipedia based on your attitude with this case and many other cases in the past few months and a related block due to this.WP:NOTHERE includes "General pattern of disruptive behavior: A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions," and "Treating editing as a battleground: Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia."Erik (talk | contrib)(ping me)15:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: WP:3RR also states: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, andany user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached."nyxærös16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, Nyxaros' replacement of the poster image appears to be in keeping with the guidelines atWP:FILMPOSTER. The previous image, while it's been there for twelve years, is a preview poster ("This Fall") and not a theatrical release poster.
Neither editor made effective use of talk pages to resolve this dispute. Nyxaros opened up a discussion on the article talk page, then Erik opened up a new section instead of directly responding to Nyxaros' thread. Both editors left messages at each others' talk pages -- Nyxaros to template Erik, and Erik left a contentious message at Nyxaros' page -- with neither editor trying to calmly discuss the matter.
I blocked Nyxaros in August 2019 for incivility following a prior admin's warning. The same pattern of behavior has resumed in this interaction. Examples:
1 ES: "...it is clear that you don't know anything about this issue"
2 ES: "...Since you don't do your research correctly, maybe you can understand that from just looking at "THIS FALL" or English language? Hmm, maybe not..."
...and also in other recent, unrelated interactions. Examples:
1 ES threatens an anon with admin action for good faith editing: "no, you will be blocked if you continue to do so"
2 ES: "...I don't think you should see yourself eligible to edit further on both of these pages/files."
Personal recommendations
That both editors be cautioned to use better judgment when dealing with edit disputes, and to use talk pages more appropriately.
Additional note to Nyxaros -- While you may have been correct on the technical merits of one movie poster over another in this case, your tone is not acceptable for this project. Being technically correct NEVER gives you the right to try to bully other editors. Stop.
RegardingWP:FILMPOSTER, it isn't a license to go around fixing what isn't broken. The thrust of that guideline is to stop editors from fighting over their preferred posters during a film's marketing campaign, since there can be many variations. The image that has been around since 2008 has been completely sufficient, and from what I can tell, even if it differs from the Cannes poster with the words "THIS FALL", that is a pedantic and nearly-invisible difference.Erik (talk | contrib)(ping me)18:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
15:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990971451 by Jingiby (talk) I added Rossos in support that the Lozari were early adherents of Macedonian nationalism. It is not up to you to determine what is trustworthy, if you don't trust it your opinion. Unless you can provide me with sources as to why Rossos is wrong on this matter, this will stay.)."
15:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990970940 byStoyanStoyanov80 (talk) Can you please stop edit warring and discuss in talk? But no, I never claimed he is Macedonian. He was just considered important for early adherents to Macedonian nationalism, hence why the Macedonian language should stay there. You can add Bulgarian too if it helps you sleep better."
15:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990970213 byJingiby (talk) The source provided to support this is the preamble of the Loza journal, it literally calls Bellios a Macedonian patriot and you can see they are inspired by him. Your tags are influenced by your pro Bulgarian views on the Macedonian Question."
15:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990969179 byJingiby (talk) Added his name in Macedonian because of the impact he had on the Macedonian National Awakening, he was Vlach correct. But the adherents to Macedonian nationalism such as the Lozari, were impacted by him; he was an important figure for them. As such, that is why I added the Macedonian language, because he is a prominent figure for Macedonians."
15:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990968917 byStoyanStoyanov80 (talk) Please read my statement, to quote: Added his name in Macedonian because of the impact he had on the Macedonian National Awakening."
15:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990966375 byJingiby (talk) you can't just remove my edits without any legitimate explanations, that is vandalism. Your edits are motivated by your personal beliefs. I made the original statement, you need to discuss it in talk if you have any objections."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
As you can see, these two users are coordinating against me in order to get me banned. These users edit according to pro-Bulgarian views and make sure that anyone who challenges their stance gets banned. Their edits on this article (and other articles that they were going after me for) were not constructive and I was trying to avoid yet another heavily pro-Bulgarian biased article. Please note that I am new to this site and I am not as familiar with the rules as they are on Wikipedia.Dikaiosyni (talk)15:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The userUser:StoyanStoyanov80 is accusing me of disruptive behaviour yet vandalised my edits and also engaged in disruptive behaviour, going after my edits without any adequate explanation. This user is motivated by a pro-Bulgarian ideology and wants to silence editors that are not pro-Bulgarian aligned using technicalities such as this.Dikaiosyni (talk)16:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The issue is not only on that page. They went into my contribution history and mass reverted my edits on random pages just to spite me. Does not comment edits, does not post on talk pages, reverts talk page warning.TarkusABtalk/contrib20:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I know this is a separate issue, but while we have the admin's attention this user is also uploading copyrighted material to Commons and claiming it as their own work. SeeFile:Re5-gold-edition.jpg, which I can assure you is not his original work. It's the box art fromResident Evil 5. There's no way thatall of these various issues are being made in good faith. Strongly recommend at the very least a temporary block for multiple disruptive behavior.Damien Linnane (talk)00:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Nobody broke 3RR, the problem is that the user pushes their idea without explaining their reasons and against the consensus. There were more reverts, I give only the last ones.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'didn't give a warning, but I citedWP:STONEWALLING where their behaviour is called "disruptive" in my commenthere.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on project (sic !) talk page: E.g.[69]
Yes, this report is ueseless, better BOOMERANGish, the user fails to understand our basic policies (consensus building, dispute resolution guidelines etc.). The sad thing he reiterates those false accusations that have been already debunked, I participated in the discussion both on the article's talk page, and the wikiproject page, I explained everything, and contrary what the user say (as another user just reinforced, etc.), no consensus has been reached (the user went forward with a bold edit, admittedly ([71]), and contrary what the user says, per defintion (if we are strict) the edit warring started by ([72]) this edit, when the user without any modification pushed his version with no consensus, while I tried to rephrase it more times before telling him if it goes like so on, the the page will have to be restored). I answered to the user's weird accusations (stonewalling, funny, restoring to status quo is the standard process, which is not favoring anyone's version, after more trials), disruptivity is as well not the case, I assume with a good faith the lack of experience in the resolution regarding such issues.(KIENGIR (talk)18:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC))
I still hold that there was consensus, since two users expressed their support (diff), while none expressed disagreement except KIENGIR who refused to give any substantiated reasons. --Rsk6400 (talk)08:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Nope, it is the most easy to spot it wasn't, as reinforced by the other editor, just because two agreed, does not mean everybody agreed, you did not even wait for everyone's feedback, you simply don't understand how consensus building works. I warn you to drop such false and misleading allegations like "refused to give any substantiated reasons", I did even more times, they are readable both talk pages (not liking them does not mean they do not exist).(KIENGIR (talk)08:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC))
Result: BothUser:KIENGIR andUser:Rsk6400 arewarned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert again atGermans without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. The question of what to put in the 'short description' field could easily be handled with anWP:RFC if the two of you can't reach agreement.EdJohnston (talk)03:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
05:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990530997 byAlbertaont (talk) brd, unsupported and undue. That's not in the sources and the material isn't necessary when it can be combined with the second cause. Debate on the talk page first before reverting"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Should be an easyWP:BOOMERANG and especially so for an editor who has an establishedblock record. The complaint is invalid because the consensus for the removal of the material in question long pre-existedthe revert that was the basis for the first difference of the listed revert - that will be evident for anybody who reads the "paragraph removal" section on the associated talk page. As for the complainant himself, administrators should note that he has beenWP:FOLLOWING the edits I've made on two separate pages (Air defense identification zone andTaiwan News) and has most likely committed a 3RR violation on one of them (4 reverts on the Taiwan News page within 24 hours -[73],[74][75],[76]). Administrators should also be aware that this isn't the first time the complainant has engaged in this type of harassment either - he has been doing the same thing toUser:Amigao andUser:Pasdecomplot (and no doubt many others - these two users are just the most recent ones that I could find who've been subject to this editor's harassment) and apparently that's been going for a few months now even though he was handed a block a few months prior (on 24 June 2020 to be exact) for, again, doing the same thing to a third, uninvolved editor. The best course of action would probably be if the administrators could just drop the hammer and start imposing severe sanctions in response to this complainant's pattern of disruptive editing because this really does look like an obvious case of an editor who justclearly isn't here to build the encyclopedia.Flickotown (talk)04:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The idea I followed you to2020_United_States_election_protests is pure fantasy, givenmy edits at the POTUS and Senate articles dating to 7 Nov when news outlets called Pennsylvania and the election for Biden.
Conveniently omitting that the "Controversy" section you had removed was the result of anAN/I 3rd Opinion discussion, yourlecturing of BRD can only ring hollow. As to the spurious counting of 3RR, the2nd diff clearly is not a revert, as that material had never appeared on the page before, norany of the revisions dating from before your May edit and the latest "dispute". The3rd diff is a semi-automated usage ofUser:Zhaofeng Li/reFill, building on the link added within the 2nd diff.
Your claim ofWP:HARASSMENT ofAmigao will need far stronger and persistent evidence than your own word.
As to the 24 June block, there is no possibility that you did not notice the phrasing"feuding with [editor name]", which was cited both in the log and the admin'scustom message. Afeud simply doesn't occur between two uninvolved editors.
oh wow I didn't even realize that our history actually went that far back to the Rania Khalek article. So it seems like an interaction ban probably is in order in addition to the severe sanctions that should be imposed in response to your pattern of disruptive editing.
Stop trying to gaslight everyone and draw this false equivalence between our conduct as if that's supposed to successfully deflect from yournot here edits and editing. You can do your hardest to act like an archaeologist and go around and dig up as many isolated incidents of my problematic conduct as possible (and I admit, I should have used better language for the examples you found), but it doesn't compare to your months (perhaps years) of edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles over multiple areas of disagreement. It just doesn't. The facts don't lie: my conduct on the talk apge for the 2020 United States election protests convincingly shows it's very clear I've come a long way from my earlier days while your hounding of my edits shows that you've learned nothing from your earlier blocks.
I didn't say you followed me to the election protests article, I said youfollowed me to theAir defense identification zone andTaiwan News pages (which is true). I wasn't aware that there was a controversy section on the talk page for the Taiwan News article prior to my revert of your revert, but now that I am, I've taken the discussion to the talk page (even though I am well within my rights to revert your disruptive editing perWP:HOUNDING.) And the actions towardsUser:Amigao is harassment (funny how you didn't mention your actions towardsUser:Pasdecomplot), but since we are on a noticeboard involving administrator's it's best to let them educate you and tell you the truth (instead of reducing it to a i-say-you-say pissing match). As I said this complaint should be an easyWP:BOOMERANG because it just doesn't have anything to stand on.Flickotown (talk)05:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Simply because you have not launched personal attacks (the bare minimum) atTalk:2020 United States election protests does not mean you ignoredLiz's advice (on 18 Nov) to seek consensusbefore further removals, of which there aremultiple linked to above.
Pasdecomplot wasblocked for their ownWP:ASPERSION-casting conduct, if anything the mentioning of them as somehow being subject to unfortunate circumstances (namely, harassment) isgaslighting. Especially as I was not mentioned once (nor did I !vote in favor of the proposed 1-month block or 6-month sanction), I will take no lectures in being toldthe truth.CaradhrasAiguo (leave language)06:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
You say that because you don't actually know what's going on: you're just trying hard to give the administrators an impression that you know what's going on. I didn't ignore her advice because my removal was a bold removal, that is a removal that should not have been controversial (I removed material that was duplicated on two other articles.) As soon as another editor took issue with it, I took it to the talk page. Your comments would apply only if I made a contested removal, that is removing material which was previously restored and did not have the corresponding consensus on the talk page to restore - not what happened here. As for your dustup withUser:Pasdecomplot, it doesn't matter if he's blocked or not. THe point is your disruptive editing is the common denominator for the issues that at least four other editors have with you - and no I don't mean one-liners on issues that I don't remember to editors that I don't have an interest in remembering, I mean your model style of harassment where you edit war with multiple editors across multiple articles over multiple areas of disagreement over a period of months, if not years. Not that you care as the whataboutery in your comments makes clear - which is precisely why the complaint should be an easyWP:BOOMERANGFlickotown (talk)07:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean one-liners on issues that I don't remember—Astonishing facetiousness in light of the factthese are not one-liners, and do not date from Dec 2018 / Jan 2019, when your account was opened, but rather, this June. As you did not take the simple step of checking barely10 edits back to determine the order of the "bold" edit there, you should not be assessing your own edits asbold removal. That is up to non-involved editors such as@Liz: to judge.
Yes, that is all true, but note the difference in how I've responded and how you've responded. I actually take ownership for those comments I made. I've actually proved that I've learned from my previous mistakes. That is why unlike you I don't need to get all defensive and hysterical in my responses. That is why unlike you I don't need to go through every single comment that you've made for me to prove my point. As I said the facts don't lie: my conduct on the talk page for the 2020 United States election protests shows it's very clear I've come a long way from my earlier days. You on the other hand can't even bring yourself to admit that you've been hounding other editors even though you were blocked for precisely that reason. That's how pathetic this whole "complaint" of yours actually is. For your sake I suggest that you take your own advice and leave the rest of this complaint to non-involved editors. The more you type, the harder the boomerang is going to be.Flickotown (talk)08:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not conflating anything. What you are doing is hounding. You're the one following my edits on the ADIZ and Taiwan News article when I couldn't care less about doing the same to you. Your feud with that editor is just another example of yourWP:NOTHERE edits and editing.
Profanity is allowed so i don't see what the problem withthis edit summary of mine. I stand by what I said and I would do it again. I'm not swearing at anybody, I don't either know or care who wrote the previous material and I'm not doing it in the course of a conversation either. Obviously it'd be a different story if I did know who the author of the material was but that's not the case here. One more example of how I can prove that I've been learning from the mistakes I've made, especially during my earliest days on this encyclopedia.
"which, incidentally was what brought you to my attention again." Damn. I don't know where this obsession comes from (apparently I've been occupying a place in your attention span all this time) but whatever the cause of it is it must have really got under your skin. I'm that important to you am i?Flickotown (talk)09:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no WP:HOUNDing here. If two points can solidly illustrate a pattern, statisticians wouldn't need any training!: Anyone can view for themselves that thelast time you and I were both at the same venue (May / Jun of this year), I had not interacted with you at all. Indeed, between the last interaction inFeb 2019 and that non-interaction whereDeltaSnowQueen, you had made68 edits. Between that Feb 2019 I mentioned and 24 Nov, that'snearly 200, a majority of your current edit total.
You have not learned much in the way of self-conduct. Even now, your usage of the termhysterical (describing a mental disorder) above parrots your poor conduct (12) from the early days of your present account.CaradhrasAiguo (leave language)15:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
those are three blocks over a course of almost six years, the first of which occured four-and-a-half years after their registration,
two of those were related toFlickotown's frustrating behavior before,
and one out of those three blocks was lifted by an administrator when it was found to be excessive and was only related toFlickotown.
Meanwhile,Flickotown himself ought to be careful at whose block logs he's pointing. As said,CaradhrasAiguo only received three blocks within six years, the first of which occuring almost five years after their arrival, whereasFlickotown himself has only been here for a little under two years and managed to get blocked within a few weeks of his first arrival, without it being lifted, and his provocative behavior has not only led to a block of himself, but also to one ofCaradhrasAiguo's blocks which was found to be excessive.
Furthermore, I'd like to repeat my summary of whatSuper Goku V haswritten aboutFlickotown's behavior that has led us here.Flickotown seems to manufacture "consent" for his edit-warring behavior by means of:
inventing invisible unicorn users to "agree" with him,
deliberately misinterpreting suggestions for alternative phrasings as "consent" for absolute removal without replacement,
and interpreting it as "consent" when people don't respond to him on the talkpage within two minutes.
All in the face of absolute majorities of a number of different people telling him repeatedly he's clearly in the wrong, and yet he keeps offending whenever he thinks nobody's looking.
I'm also surprised you're linking us to a totally different issue that seems to be aboutTaiwan News (a battlefield with his involvement that I didn't even know about until you've just linked us to it), when this report is aboutUser:Flickotown's behavior regarding2020 United States election protests and its talkpage that we're seeking a decision on. Something like atwo-digit amount of people have told him to stop what he's doing on that one article and talkpage alone, and yet he keeps acting against consensus there.
Finally, the issue being reported and at stake here isnot personalization, it's constant disruptive edit-warring against consensus, even if he may be trying to personalize the entire issue in his comments here now. It wouldn't be his first block for this kind of behavior, and he's beenpersisting in this behavior against consensus for weeks even though the mentioned number of people have told him to stop. We didn't come here to ask him to not personalize this, we came here to reach a decision and effective measure against his edit-warring behavior against consensus in which he's persisted for weeks now, no matter how many people are telling him to stop. --2003:DA:CF2D:2700:1C3C:ED1E:F45C:C19D (talk)04:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The sectionNon-indigenous minorities was termed keeping parity withEthnic groups in Europe#Non-indigenous minorities. But the IP keeps on changing it to"Other minorities" despite the fact that most of the "minorites" in the section are citizens from different countries of Europe, Russia, North and South America that migrated recently from these regions to Asia, for work, even troops. See the sources forPakistan,Israel,Afghanistan (US troops),North Korea,Nepal,Kuwait (troops). Also most sources present do not talk anything about "race" as the IP mentioned in one of their edits. I do not know how they are native minorities as the IP wants instead of being "Non-indigenous minorities". Also there is no mention of race in the sources. The IP is unnecessarily POV pushing especially whenEthnic groups in Europe#Non-indigenous minorities considers Jews and Romas as "Non-indigenous minorities" despite being in Europe for hundreds of years. PossibleWP:CIR issue as well, apparent from edit summaries which do not seem to be a reply to my comments, but going to a different direction. -Fylindfotberserk (talk)11:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
First revert 17:59 12 nov:[77] he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map[78] this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november:[79]
Second revert 20:33 12 nov[80] he re ads the same map again after it was removed.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article:[81]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[82]
Comments:
This article is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War topic, allowing one revert per 24 hours.
This user has a very long edit-warring record. In addition, the user resorts to personal attacks when their argument fails such ashere,here,here,here,here andhere, andhere. Another personal attack on another userhere.
This user removes mass amounts of sourced, relevant content because it simply goes against their POV (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Examples are:
Konli is edit-warringhere, 4 reverts in less than 48 hours.
This user uses fake edit-summaries to sneak in their significant changes to the meanings by simple tweakingsuch as this one and removal of sensitive words that fake/change/reverse the meaning (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc.
This user was blocked back in June for edit-warring. It is about time for this user to see a topic ban or a indefinite block given their constant disruptive behavior and sabotage of many articles. ThanksAmr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk)22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That page was quiet for months until Konli17 returned from his long break and decided to push their POV. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Here's a recent example on theHulusi Akar page of how he fakes content from sources:123456789101112. This user is clearlyWP:NOTHERE and is just here to push his agenda and should be blocked.Thepharoah17 (talk)23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
A decision for this case is over due and the user in question is taking advantage of this by continuing their edit-warring. See what they call "clean-up! They havedeleted half an article that is well-sourced (neutral, Western sources) and very relevant to the area in question. All this happened while an RfC is open and againstadvice on the Talk page by user@Sixula:. If all the edit-warring is not enough for an indef banning then the many personal attacks identified above should be the straw to do it. Thanks,Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk)00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the conflict between Konli and the other three could really use an admin looking into it. The complaining editors SD, Amr Ibn and ThePharoah17 have all shown a very surprising tolerance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which appears not to be on the radar of the Admins. SD and Amr Ibn, both wanted tomove Syrian Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied regions of Syria in the midst of an Siege of Kobane by ISIL in 2015. The pinged admin EdJohnston closed the discussion at the time.ThePharoah17 has shown similar views after I have made that public just a few days ago arguing that the YPG is just a terrorist organization as ISIL. The YPG is only designated a terrorist organization by Turkey, and supported by a global coalition of 83 countries including the USA and most of the countries of the European Countries, which is formed specifically to fight ISIS. ISIL is probably the most designated terrorist organization in the world. That they now want to oust Konli17, who really improved many articles is not very Wikipedia. Amr Ibn and SD are also involved in a long edit war about the existence of Syrian Kurdistan, in which they deny its existence and dismiss any academic sources which mention a Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute is currently raging at theANI and also at anRfC at the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk)09:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Paradise Chronicle, you are accusing me of being "tolerant" to ISIS is extremely offensive. You can not show one single comment I have made that comes even close to what you are claiming. No one on the planet hates them more then me. You should be banned from wikipedia for your words. Also, what academic sources have I dismissed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk)10:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it.Tradediatalk23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
THIS GUY IS A VANDAL!!!! Here is the most recent example now of how he snuck in a change in words in an edit:[83]. Notice how the words "Assyrians and Syriacs" are turned into "Kurds".Thepharoah17 (talk)19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The current issue presented in Syrian Kurdistan is not even a real violation of a 3RR rule, and if so classified SD would have incurred in it as well. The filer of the report Supreme Deliciousness restored a version which was more to their gusto twice on the same day and which edits are clearly focused on an existence of Syrian Kurdistan, which is the subject of the article since weeks.
Here andhere the diffs of their "restoration". In between SD had several other edits where SD removed sources and text not to SDs gusto on the 13 November 2020
herehere andhere they also removed text concerning concerning Kurds in Syria on the 13 November 2020. So all together5 edits focused on the removal of mentions of Kurds in Syrian Kurdistan within 24 hours by Supreme Deliciousness.Paradise Chronicle (talk)09:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
This report doesn't show any violation of the 3RR rule as all the links show different edits and the important one is just on one day. One revert per day is allowed as to my knowledge.Paradise Chronicle (talk)15:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[88][89][90]
Comments: This user is extremely POV pushing, and doing long lasting edit wars with other users. He is thinking Turkey or Iran is occupyingKurdistan. He got ridiculous edits such as changing short description into "Iranian-controlled part of Kurdistan" or such as "the portion of Kurdistan under the jurisdiction of Turkey", as if Iran or Turkey is occupying a foreign country. As for Western Armenia, claiming an Armenian irredentist concept is "Turkish irredentism". This user has clearly no idea about distinguishing an geocultural region or a political region.
Beside that, insisting about a map made by ablocked user turned out to be asockpuppet, which is clearly controversial.
Also adding in another map, adding wrong reference, you can control yourself.
´*Comment. Konli17 has been edit warring for a long time at theSyrian Kurdistan article, adding fake maps with unreliable sources and removing good sourced content that doesn't fit his agenda. I have tried to reason with him but he is still misbehaving and edit warring. It is time for a long block or ban from wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk)18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it.Tradediatalk23:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This report isn't even mentioning a violation of the 3RR rule = 4RR within 24h. Konli17 just disagrees with you, at most has reverted twice in 24h. Beshogur has incurred also in reverts while both of you haven't broken any rule, as far as I have checked. The jurisdiction part was resolved as far as I have been involved in the dispute, and the termunder was replaced bywithin which Turkish Kurdistan really is. I guess this is the wrong noticeboard for this dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk)15:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Comment. Konli17 has been edit warring for a long time at theSyrian Kurdistan article, adding fake maps with unreliable sources and removing good sourced content that doesn't fit his agenda. I have tried to reason with him but he is still misbehaving and edit warring. It is time for a long block or ban from wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk)18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it.Tradediatalk23:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not done on the talk page, but seeUser talk:75.67.91.38 § Djesse Vol. 3 for an attempt at non-templated discussion. Reporting here as they have broken 3RR.
Comments:
Violation of 3RR to restore a slightly promotional version of the lead, while also removing sourced material which they consider incorrect. I have tried to compromise over the wording, but they just are reverting back to their preferred version. They are using edit summaries to talk instead of discussing on their talk page. I have made three reverts on this article, so I will be disengaging before I break 3RR myself. They have had plenty warnings about removing sourced material and instead just reverted. They have also been removing sourced material atJacob Collier.DreamyJazztalk to me |my contributions21:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
To note they have admitted in their edit summaries that they are part of the management company for Jacob Collier. I don't know if this is true or not, but this might be the case. Also other editors have been reverting this edit too. Although I have been reverting, I have attempted to discuss this with the IP on their talk page.DreamyJazztalk to me |my contributions22:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period ofone weekUser:Dreamy Jazz, I appreciate the efforts you made in that article and on the IP's talk page. The block log now says "edit warring, promotional editing, undeclared COI, refusal to engage in discussion". Thank you,Drmies (talk)17:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of48 hours for edit warring + failure to communicate with other editors. Not partially blocking here due to the failing to communicate and from their contributions a history of edit warring without discussion (Maya & Miguel). Also thanks toUser:Rschen7754 for trying to start a non-templated discussion.DreamyJazztalk to me |my contributions17:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[113]; user is obviously aware of the edit warring restrictions because he posted awarning on my talk page to mock me almost immediately after I warned him.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is a ton of discussion on the talk page; I'm sure that any neutral observer will see that Saucysalsa30 is engaged in rather extraordinaryWP:BLUDGEON/WP:PA behavior.
Yes, I am the original editor, and you and Qahramani44 started an edit war and are guilty here and is evident in the revision history and ,as explained here. Whether you two coordinated your conveniently alternating reverts or if Qahramani44 is your sockpuppet is a possibility though another discussion, but the point is you two started an edit war and made 4 reverts in the same vein.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySaucysalsa30 (talk •contribs)00:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
"There is a ton of discussion on the talk page"
Yes, you mean by me. I added substantial explanation of failed verification, bad sourcing (including a blog of all things), original research, and other content violations. Your only comment in response to my Talk sections were 1) personal attacks, 2) a tangent not pertinent to content being edited, 3) a false and refuted claim, and 4) claiming Washington Post is an unreliable source. You actually ignored practically every point I made in the Talk page.The only reason why you are making these incident reports is because you were proven wrong, can't live with it, and instead are attempting to shut-up any opposition.WP:IDONTLIKETHIS applies to you, among other things.
I am the original editor, and then you and Qahramani made 4 reverts and started edit warring. Alternating in your revisions and evident canvassing is not an excuse for your behavior. Furthermore, speaking of false accusations, you are falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another userin an incident report, on which you've already been proven wrong. Not a good look.
Blocked – for a period of60 hours. Blocked Saucysalsa for 60 hours: they are edit warring against three editors, with unconvincing arguments.Drmies (talk)18:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC) (from below)
TheTimesAreAChanging and Qahramani44 reported byUser:Saucysalsa30 (Result: Boomerrang blocked 60 hours)
These two users were alternating reverts of my edit between each other, and made 4 unsubstantiated reverts and edit warring, especially in light of Talk page sections I created.There may becanvassing orsockpuppetry involved by these two users too and may be worth for admins to look into it, especially since TheTimesAreAChanging has already made adisproven sockpuppet report as part of this. See the "Comments" section below for context. TheTimesAreAChanging is making such reports because he was proven wrong on an article which among others he is pushing intense POV and defending bad sourcing, failed verification, original research, and other violations.
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]This is the revision before Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging engaged in edit warring, WP:TEAR, potential canvassing, and other disruption.To be very clear and this can be seen in the revision history, I am the original editor, and they started and engaged in edit warring in response and made 4 reverts even after I explained my original edit in the Talk page.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran&oldid=990921268
Diffs of the user's reverts: (Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging were taking turns in the reverts, and simply reverted with no further action. Notice that they alternate between each other, too).
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]Yes, I added numerous sections to the Talk page to explain violations of original research, bad sourcing including a blog, POV, failed verification, etc., to which TheTimesAreAChanging responded with a single comment ignoring almost all of the points being made. In this comment, he went on a tangent not pertinent to content being edited, managed to be wrong on his claims and even imply Washington Post is not a reliable source, and mixed in personal attacks against me.
Edit: TheTimesAreAChanging added a second comment on the Talk page to reiterate the same refuted point in the first.
Comments:
TheTimesAreAChanging is likely canvassing along with Qahramani44 to share and alternate in their reverts, as evidenced in the revision history.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran&action=historyI defended my original edit in the Talk page, including explanations of original research, bad sourcing including a blog, POV, failed verification, etc. The only response I got on the Talk page was a comment by TheTimesAreAChanging with a tangent, making a refuted claim, and implying WaPo (then backtracking in a follow-up comment) is not reliable, with a mix of personal attacks included.Due to not being able to refute my Talk sections and suggestions for improvement on an article in bad shape, TheTimesAreAChanging is attempting to shut down any resistance to his blatant POV and content violations withfalse and disproven accusations of sockpuppeting and Incident reporting. It's an obvious case of knowing he is wrong and in response, trying to shut-up the opposition. This is important to keep in mind since the user is making asockpuppet report (already disproven by the DesertPanther user I'm accused of puppeting, see the sockpuppet report link) andedit warring report (edit warring which TheTimesAreAChanging and Qahramani44 started unilaterally) disingenuously in response to having their POV and other content violations refuted.Saucysalsa30 (talk)22:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
HelloHeartGlow30797 Could you please look into Qahramani's and TheTimesAreAChanging's edit warring, the potential for them being sockpuppets (given the alternating tag-teaming nature of their behavior), TheTimesAreAChanging's disproven sockpuppet accusation linked above, and look at the Talk page of the above linked article?Saucysalsa30 (talk)00:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Uh no, I didn't Wikaviani. I added a single reliable source on that page, not modifying content, which you then removed on no basis. What you're making is a baseless personal attack. This sounds likeWP:TEAR.Saucysalsa30 (talk)00:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@HeartGlow30797: Wikiviani is speaking on a citation I added on an entirely different page (not pertinent to this discussion), not modifying existing content as they falsely claim, which Wikiviani then reverted on no basis. Furthermore, if Wikiaviani took one look at theIraqi_invasion_of_Iran Talk page, they would see a host of severe content issues as already explained.Saucysalsa30 (talk)00:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
As said before, this is not an appropriate place to report such this. I strongly encourageWP:DRN instead of here and will help you there if you choose to do so. Also, having two editors report each other for edit warring is further evidence that this needs to be moved to DRN. Thanks!(Non-administrator comment)Heart(talk)00:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Saucysalsa30: your above comment alone obviously shows yourWP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Besides, you have been editing here for about 1 year, thus you're all but a newbie, playing the victim card while you are edit warring against several editor will not help.---Wikaviani(talk)(contribs)00:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Wikaviani:, so you make baseless personal attacks, and claim that thoroughly explainedon the Talk page and obvious bad sourcing (such as personal blogs), failed verification, original research is acceptable? The only people showing aWP:BATTLEGROUND and uncivil mentality here are yourself and TheTimesAreAChanging who started edit warring in the first place and is making these reports because he was proven wrong. Your unabashed insults and personal attacks prove you have absolutely no reason being part of this discussion.@HeartGlow30797:, how is this acceptable?Saucysalsa30 (talk)00:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Nope, you changed some content in the infobox of the Iran Irak war breaking the long standing consensus about the neutral manner of presenting the outcome of the war, then i reverted you and explained you why i did so, but you tried to reinstate your edit without any attempt to discuss it on the talk, which goes againstWP:BRD. By the way, baseless accusations like the one you made just above (where did i insult you ?) qualify as personal attacks, not what i said to you. Since you don't sound like an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia, i think we're done here.---Wikaviani(talk)(contribs)00:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
First of all you initially said differently, saying previously I was modifying long standing content. All I did in reality and which you admit now, is I added a single point with reliable sourcing not modifying/removing existing content, which added neutrality and had the unintended effect of hurting your personal feelings. Yes, calling people "neebies" and having a bad mentality and making other demeaning comments aren't personal attacks? They absolutely are. The fact you came here to make personal attacks and on a tangential matter at that, and the fact you're angry that reliable sourcing hurts your feelings, is ridiculous. Also, ironically, considering you defend vandalism and terrible content quality on Wikipedia as is the actual matter of discussion here (which clearly you have not looked at), it is evident you should not be editing encyclopedias if you have such a disregard for Wikipedia guidelines. And just an FYI Wikiviani, TheTimesAreAChanging and Qahramani44 started the edit warring and are defending vandalism, original research, non-RS, and other violations, since you didn't look into the matter at all.
I don't see why you're making this note when I already linked and explained to you above, was already disproven and the filer there, TheTimesAreAChanging, even admitted as much as being wrong over there. As I said previously, TheTimesAreAChanging is engaging in all of this nonsensicalWP:BATTLEGROUND because he's upset that he was proven wrong. They've only engaged in personal attacks and these ridiculous reports because they got upset that they were proven wrong and couldn't handle it. It's simply immature behavior.Saucysalsa30 (talk)07:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of60 hours. Blocked Saucysalsa for 60 hours: they are edit warring against three editors, with unconvincing arguments.Drmies (talk)18:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments: I firsly removed a section with any citations. After that, userVallee01 reverted my edit, adding a source (without indicating any pages) and another paragraph. This new paragraph was constituted by two problematic parts - one of them using a blog as a source, and the other claiming that "Due to the failure of Cuban anarchists to organise, Cuban exile developed X theory", when in fact, the Cuban exile is from the 19th-[start of]20th century, while Guevarism is a theory from the 60s together with the Cuban revolution. After that, despite me justifying in the edit summary, the colleague reverted my edit and pinged me in the talk page, where I went further in detail. After replying, I removed a blatantly obvious violation ofWP:V. After verifying the other source he inserted, I also removed a sentence where it claimed the author criticised Guevarism for trying to impose a dictatorship, a claim which after using Google Books to search for "dictatorship" returned nothing related, being thus on my second revert. It was once against reverted with the description "the literal book is a reliable source written by the person himself is reliable", not addressing the problem I raised in my revert edit, and the colleague replied in the talk page with "You appear to not be able to properly cite things or hyperlink. You're current statement can be be boiled down into nothing". 2 days later I replied in the talk page, "The book does not mention dictatorship, as it's indicated by the link I sent on the revert. Please, no original research", to which the user did not reply for three days (despite being engaged in other articles such asMarxism-Leninism), wasting thus my third and last revert with an even more elaborate description as to why it's notWP:V (just in case there was any doubts left), and the addition of a page needed template for the part of phrase that did not mention dictatorship, for which another user thanked me for. To no avail, it was reverted for the fourth time with the description "BunnyyHop thats not even how you put a[page needed]. You never do this[page needed]. The book goes into extreme detail about Che.", with the premisse that my point wasn't valid because I inserted the page needed template before the dot (The editor could have simply moved it to be after the dot), and that the book went into "extreme detail about Che" so it was not necessary to insert a page nor dictatorship to be mentioned, even if that violatesWP:NOR. There is no reply on the talk page. This user was more aware of the 3RR than me - I was warned a few days ago for long time revert warring, which I did not know was possible. I'm not very experienced on Wikipedia and this is my first time reporting someone. --BunnyyHop (talk)17:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop For starters you were the first person to edit the article moreover yourself were the only on being reverted. The entire claim is bogus. For starters I didn't revert my added edits I actually kept them, despite your removal being bogus. You yourself have been the only reverting, not only that while I have added citations. BunnyyHop you clearly are not here to build an encyclopedia, just look at this:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Communist_Party&diff=986756112&oldid=986071469. You already have been banned on Portuguese Wikipedia, for posting biased Marxist-Leninist propagandahttps://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio(a)_Discuss%C3%A3o:BunnyyHop#Notifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio. And you keep posting it here. Irregardless of the case that while I added citations you keep reverting to your single page. If there are only two people involved this can't be an edit war resulting in anything. Moreover you have had extremely disruptive edits, your report makes out clearly instead of going to the talk page you reverted the edits. And despite adding a verifiable citation you removed it.Vallee01 (talk)21:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[133]
Comments: The editor presents themself as an expert on the topic. Unfortunately, in this case they appear to be following their own opinion of what is correct instead of the balance of reliable sources that cover the book. They have expressed WP:OWN attitudes towards the article: "I have asked you to discuss further edits on the Talk Page. You didn't."[134] and "Restored previous version. The edits were not agreed upon."[135] as well as unwillingness to engage in building consensus: "I have enough of this. As I have noted before, you have neither the intention nor the ability to cooperate."[136] They make blanket revert to their preferred version, refusing to include any of my changes including those they had earlier agreed to on the talk page,[137] (point #2) and repeatedly restored a BLP violation—claiming that the book, by a living author, states something that even they admit on talk it does not actually say.[138] (point #2) They requested third opinion, and were criticized for making personal attacks.[139][140] (t ·c)buidhe14:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, how many edit wars are you currently involved in? And keep in mind that just because you don’t explicitly violate 3RR doesn’t mean you’re not edit warring, especially if you’re doing across many articles concurrently. Volunteer Marek08:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Not blocked.Buidhe, I'm all for blocking edit warriors, but I'm wondering here who is at fault. You are both edit warring, of course, and it seems the talk page is at an impasse (I'm sorry the third opinion didn't prove very helpful). Specificallythis, which seems to have started it all, is problematic: you say "the Vidal source does say what is attributed", but it doesn't: the source says "Rever stresses that the reports were sent to her unofficially"--so it's Rever's claim, but your version states it as a fact. You say "the authors are not notable", but that can only refer to the "and two British professors", who are not authors, or Hintjens and Van Oijen, who are authors but whose notability is not a matter of consequence here and you didn't remove their article--which is of course published in a perfectly acceptable peer-reviewed academic journal. You make claims of BLP violations, but as I read over the talk page I fail to see the point. On the other hand, I don't see any evidence that Bachman isnot an acceptable source here. But your edit summaryin this edit, I can't agree with that.
I have no intention of blocking you both, though it seems clear to me that both of you are edit warring and equally at fault. Especially you have done an admirable job of writing content, but many ofSaflieni comments and edits are valuable too. I'm afraid there is no other way out of this except for a. mediation/intervention by someone who knows the subject; b. you two working it out, with the help of other boards and editors to answer individual questions (who is an expert, what's more of a reliable source, etc.); c. a block for both of you--which would help nothing at all. Good luck.Drmies (talk)17:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, How is it not a BLP violation to falsely attribute to the book something it does not actually say?
And as I state above, I just don't see how our conduct is equal, given that I've incorporated many suggestions by them, but they don't seem willing to budge one inch from what they see as "right", as well as the battleground mentality and personal attacks. (t ·c)buidhe21:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The BLP doesn't stretch that far. Yes, I am sure you don't see how your conduct is equal. I'm just hoping that you can see how it is practically impossible for an admin who is not judging content to see much of a difference between the two of you, especially given the complicated edit history. Sorry, but if explaining conduct requires so much of an explication of content, it is going to be hard to separate it from a content dispute.Drmies (talk)23:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you start by reading the book and the sources and the literature instead of relying on uneducated assumptions, Buidhe? This is exactly why people don't (and shouldn't) trust Wikipedia.Saflieni (talk)02:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
23:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "You haven't responded in talk page nor have you backed up anything you have written, on the other hand, you didn't provide any reason to why delete the added info."
16:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Dude, stop being disruptive already. I left you a message on your talk page, if you don't want to solve it, stop vandalizing..."
Comments: The editor Eccekevin keeps putting questionable content into the article aboutMichelle Steel. It is an incident that supposedly happened 6 years ago, but it is not supported by reliable sources. Also,User:Eccekevin has been reverting and even called one of the good faith reverts of the questionable material to be "vandalism" even though the edit was not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. You can see that good faith violation here:User:Eccekevin's false claim that IP editor's edit was vandalism. At a bare minimumUser:Eccekevin needs to stop the edit war and discuss whether there are reliable sources, which so far there has been zero provided by any editor. --CharlesShirley (talk)15:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Warned. The 3RR brightline was not crossed.Eccekevin directed to discuss matter at talk page before attempting to re-add and reminded that the page is within the topic of US politics. I've also added the page to my watchlist —C.Fred (talk)16:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments: This user keeps adding outdated information about skyscrapers in Europe and keeps deleting my recent improvements of the article.--Александр Мотин (talk)21:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
This user simply slided in with reverting my edits in the same second while I was editing the article, leaving the threat on my user page that I will be blocked.188.252.196.122 (talk)16:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
On further review of the history of the article, the reporting user is in jeopardy of violating 3RR. I will give a courtesy reminder. —C.Fred (talk)17:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
These immediate edits byUser:4thfile4thrank were clearly intended to provoke 3RR by me, so that I would be blocked. Also, I used the description, which used the word "atrocities" from the lede of another Wikipedia article. The last time I checked, "atrocities" was not a vulgar word and in the context of Stalinism could offend only someone who is sympathizing with Stalinism. I would also kindly ask, if it is allowed, for someone to redirect me to appropriate page for this report and for the opinion of another administrator.188.252.196.122 (talk)17:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Nothing in the edits was unduly provocative. Please focus on your conduct; don't try to shift the blame to another editor. —C.Fred (talk)17:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Why didn't you respond to my request to redirect me to appropriate page for reporting this incident if you have reacted so quickly andeven proceeded to edit (!!!) the page because of which this incident arose? Now I'm going to report you as well, this time, I hope, on the appropriate page. Are you an administrator here on Wikipedia? (188.252.196.122 (talk)17:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC))
The appropriate place to respond to the issue would be at the article's talk page. And yes, I reverted your edits, because I considered the breach of NPOV to be severe enough to warrant a revert. Forgive me for being lenient and not blocking you for the repeat violation of NPOV. —C.Fred (talk)17:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of31 hours. Block is a partial block in the hopes that the IP will participate in civil, constructive discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk)20:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if I should have submitted this atWP:AIAV. Guess I'll leave it here for now. There is a talk page consensus at that article to not make the edits he was making. The IP edited the inline comment saying not to make the edits, to make the edits. –Novem Linguae(talk)18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments: BunnyyHop has a long history on the pageMarxist-Leninism extremely disruptive edits, and keeps trying to get around discussion on talk, his edits have been reverted multiple times be meDavide KingKIENGIR, andAsarlaí. He strangely believe that not responding to a proposal is a form of support and thinks the time frame for this is an hour. Despite there being a clear consensus against BunnyyHop, BunnyHopp refuses to listen and tries to edit the page despite making disruptive edits. I have tried so hard to try to get this editor to stop, the editor has already edit warred before, violating edit sanctions. We tried discussing this on the talk, editors like Davide King has stated this, yet BunnyHop and refuses to listen.
BunnyyHop is simply here to push a POV and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He has been bannedtwice from Portuguese Wikipedia for biased editing on the Portuguese pagesPortuguese Communist Party, andDictatorship of the proletariat. He is a member of thePCP and states it himself on his Portuguese talk page. When called out about being a member of the PCP while editing the article of the PCP on English Wikipedia. He stated he wasn't a member of the PCP,despite stating that he was on his talk page. He only finds interest in one subject that being Marxist-Leninism and all his edits are positive towards Marxist-Leninism as seen byhis contributions.
This section of his edits onPCP speaks for itself. Here is a section BunnyyHop added to the PCP, while being a member of the PCP."(The Portuguese Communist Party exists) To uphold Marxism-Leninism as its theoretical basis,[15] dialectical and historical materialism as an "instrument of analysis and guide for action", the rupture with right-wing policies, the realization of a patriotic and left-wing alternative, and the realization of its party program that is defined as an 'Advanced Democracy with the values of [the] April [revolution]'"
He clearly is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has an extreme interest in editing articles relating to Marxist-Leninism and seen by hiscontributions, and always removes negative elements, removing criticisms, atrocities etc... He has been warned three times to stop edit warring and was already reported and warned for doing so.[1][2]
His most recent edit he removed sections detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities when asked to kindlyrevert the page he refused. His edits were later reverted by Asarlaí. This user is only here to post things relating to Marxist-Leninism, and he is only here to post positive things of Marxist-Leninism.
Oh my god, not this again.
"BunnyyHop has a long history on the pageMarxist-Leninism extremely disruptive edits" This has been contested already and I received an warning. I have not made a "revert". In reality, there should only be one link in this report.
"and keeps trying to get around discussion on talk" Not true,Davide King and I have been the most active editors on the page, telling you about why it's not good to have a forked paragraph of criticism in the lead using weasel words, some of which is constituted ofWP:NOR. Other editors such as TFD have also contested this. I might have interpreted him wrong, but I thought we had settled down to remove this from the lead and include an hyperlink to the article that deals with the subject itself. [[153]]. On the article about the communist party, you removed an entire paragraph to include absurdities which can be seen as vandalism (as pointed out by the other editor in the talk page) such as "claiming to be a dictotoral(!!!)vanguard" and "The stated goal of the PCG(!!!) is to upholdMarxism-Leninism, and to be synthesis ofnationalism and statecommunism." [[154]].
The refuse to answer is only when you objection amounts topersonal attacks andharrassement throughhounding, clearly evidenced by this very own report, where the user goes to my Wiki in other languages in other to disqualify me, accusing me of being a member of a party my wiki simply says I support.
I suppose that "we do not listen" is to the fact that most of your edits are based in your own POV with noWP:V, like for example in the talk page ofMarxism-Leninism. Me andDavide King started making changes to the article because we were starting to reach a consensus - by either my checking sources and replying why such phrase might not be verifiable or be original research. The paragraph you insist having was full of it - on the premisse thatMarxism-Leninism isStalinism, despite me and the other colleague coming to a conclusion that it's not the case according to academic and a peer-reviewed source.
The two times I have been blocked were for a good reason - one was for my persisntence on an arbitrary use of a word in an article (which the admin and I discussed and have come to good terms), the second a mistake by an admin on theChina article for placing the source in the wrong sentence, which is now being contested by me and was contested by another admin. And this wasnot on this wiki(!!), but the colleague which apparently has been stalking everything I did felt the need to use this as an argument anyways.
"He has been warned three times to stop edit warring and was already reported and warned for doing so" This is not relevant neither for me nor for you, although you have been blocked for 3 months for edit warring.
"always removes negative elements, removing criticisms, atrocities etc" This is a lie.
"he refused. His edits were later reverted by Asarlaí" I did not refuse. I stated I was gonna include it in the Overview as most consent (for which I later edited in the talk page), but Asarlaí reverted it before I could.
If I did violate any rule by replacing it with the a paragraph linking to the article I thought my colleague and I had agreed on, it was not my intention. But there's no denial in saying that this user did not contest the article of the party being absurdities and does not contest anymore on the article ofMarxism-Leninism. Anyone who watches that talk page can understand I'm trying to get everything as verified as possible and as neutral as possible. --BunnyyHop (talk)21:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop You being banned for biased editing on pages relating to Marxist-Leninism doesn't constitute a personal attack. The issue with your edits is you keep not only pushing a world view but you keep trying to get around consensus, not discussing things. I warned you and you refused, you stated clearly on your talk page you can't hide these things. You never reverted your edit because you didn't want to Asarlaí did. BunnyyHop this has been stated to you, not responding to a discussion does not mean support. It's not hard to see your edit history, all of your reverts relate to you reverting the section detailing atrocities You refusing you never did anything wrong, despite you being warned, you were warned because you were edit warring the administrator stated if you began edit warring again you would be blocked. You don't apear to understand that your actions relate to you, if you were blocked by admins twice for biased editing for editing pages relating to Marxist-Leninism. You were warned and told not to edit war, you didn't listen.Vallee01 (talk)21:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
To the admin who reads this, I urge you to check the talk page of these articles because my colleague is grossly exagerating. The "edit war" this user is accusing me of - is me editing the pageonce after extensive discussion on the talk page, where the consensus for some things was achieved. Admin, I urge you to check the talk page. As for what happened in the other wiki - which doesn't have anything to do with this at all but the user uses it to make me appear intransigent - notice how now it changed from "Dictatorship of the proletariat" and "Portuguese Communist Party" (In reality it was on the article about China due to the source not being in the right place - check the talk page and use Google translate if you wish. "Biased editing". The first article ended with the admin explaining to my why using arbitrarily a synonym to refer to a certain word was not neutral - and this led to us editing the page of the article itself to include those terms) to "pages relating to Marxism-Leninism" has if it was some kind of violantion for a user to edit pages where he has knowledge on. This is not the NPOV board, but to give context to the colleague reading this I'll use a comparison - this user wants to mention the worse cases of slavery and genocide on the lead of theliberalism article. On the talk page it was viewed as better to use the already existing criticisms of liberal rule page instead of arbitrarily choosing historical events. The user intransigently refuses to even move this to the overview of the article. [P.S. I did not misunderstand my colleague. There's a new update on the talk page where he affirms to be against this, making it "3-3". There might be a editor I'm missing, because I thought onlyVallee01 andKIENGIR (which has not participated in a while) were against - thus making it 3-2]BunnyyHop (talk)22:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop the issue is you keep trying to get around consensus, you are edit warring when discussion isn't over. I asked if you could please you torevert the page. Moreover you tried to rename the page "Dictatorship of the proletariat" with I kid you not"The democratic dictatorship of the proletariat." It screams of POV editing. Here is what an editor told you,"I am replacing the name Dictatorship of the proletariat because this is the name of the existing article but you insist on putting a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, forcing a WP: PV without WP: FF. DARIO SEVERI (discussion) 00:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)." It's not hard to see, we cancheck pages.Vallee01 (talk)22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I was not trying to get around consensus, I was trying to get consensus, which I did (reminder that consensus doesn't mean unanimity), hence why it was edited according to what was discussed in the talk page.
"Moreover you tried to rename the page" - once again, lies and something completely unrelated to this. What I did was insist to use the term in a certain part of a another article, to which some pointed out was a synonym - and was blocked for the first time, 3 days. It's not even possible to rename pages, afaik. After my block the admin gently explained to me why it was not neutral editing, to which I thanked, and changed the article to includeall synonyms of the wordDictatorship of the proletariat. It's interesting how you turned this into a discussion about my block in another wiki.For the colleague reviewing thisBunnyyHop (talk)22:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop, only one person supported your proposal, all other editors were against it, and discussion was still ongoing, people called for you to revert but you refused. The issue is that you have persistently edit warred and ignored the talk. You have reverted the page Marxist-Leninism so many times. BunnyyHop this isn't the first time you have been warned, reported, or blocked for editing. You removed sections on the atrocities Marxist-Leninist, genocides, killings etc... Youalways have posted things in favor Marxist-Leninism, of your entire edit history you have always defended Marxist-Leninist. Also this was youredit extremely clearly you tried renaming it. Everything you do onWikimedia effects everything else. Posting Marxist-Leninist propaganda on Portuguese Wikipedia makes it clear your here to post propaganda.Vallee01 (talk)23:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – 1 week. The user waswarned for edit warring due to a 25 November report on this noticeboard about the same article. They have continued to revert now without getting a talk page consensus. There is a very long talk page thread in which it is hard to perceive any clear result. Certainly no permission was given there for continued reverting. In the above report, people speak about a prior block of this editor. Bunnyyhop was blocked twice in the month of Novemberon the Portuguese Wikipedia for as long as a week in a similar topic area.EdJohnston (talk)23:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991600766 byTwassman (talk) Rapidly reverting edits, Twassman censoring negative review of author. Burying it two sentences at the end is inappropriate given the inflammatory nature of the authors work. Mods should lock edits.."
22:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991599023 byHaeB (talk) Kindly did read articles, stop blocking all negative review of your favorite author."
22:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Previous removal of controversy section edit stated that this section is "simply a collection of every negative thing said about the book" the editor then extremely ironically, proceeded to remove the only mention of a negative backlash to the work from, what should be the historical record. Unacademic!"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:Four warnings, which IP blanked (so has clearly read).
Hello i'm the one being complained about! White Fragility and Robin Deangelo have received widespread negative review in conservative media, and widespread positive review in liberal media. Conservatives view this author as a KKK like figure spreading racially inflammtory and bigoted ideas. Hiding all negative review of author to two sentences is unacceptable and hides reality. Twassman and the other seem unable to put their personal views aside here. Will Wikipedia endorse a holistic view of the author? or is criticism of wikipedia bias on point? The discussion has not been how best to capture the reaction to the author, its just been a editting war with my censorious peers.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 (talk •contribs).
First revert 17:59 12 nov:[155] he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map[156] this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november:[157]
Second revert 20:33 12 nov[158] he re ads the same map again after it was removed.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article:[159]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[160]
16:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991348601 byPabloLikesToWrestle (talk) You are the one who vandalized first. I have left you many messages asking you to explain your reasoning before wantonly disregarded my contributions. Please have a nice day and stop vandalizing."
Blocked 48 hours.User:KhanzotChinev, if you are right, it will all come out on the talk page. Reverting will not help your cause.User:Cassiopeia, I'm kind of hoping you'll look at the actual content of the dispute and maybe help figure some things out. Thanks,Drmies (talk)14:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies,KhanzotChinev, andPabloLikesToWrestle: Good day. I have been asked to mediate the content dispute between user KhanzotChinev and PabloLikesToWrestle onKhamzat Chimaev page by Drmies. As both involved parties has been blocked from editing from Dec 1, 2020 and involved parties can bring the content dispute discussion to the article talk page on4 December, 2020 when the blocked are lifted. Pls note that admin Drimes has reverted the content -to this version and please do not edit the page content until the discussion has reached an agreement/understanding. When discussion, pls be civil, no personal attack, no trolling, no passive aggressive communication, no provocation, no false accusation without evidence. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk)08:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[179]
Comments: I haven't edited Wikipedia very much, but Horse Eye Jack/Horse Eye's Back seems to have a history of interacting poorly with numerous other users on this site. I wouldn't mind avoiding interactions with him in the future. How can I ensure that?Lostromantic (talk)21:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The reverts fall cleanly under our WP:BLP policy (see WP:3RRNO #7). The Diplomat might have mentioned the Brereton Report but they did not support the text as written, we cant have a statement about a living person which isn't completely supported by a WP:RS. I was also never warned by this user, the diff provided is baffling. It is from January and ends with the person who thought I had edit warred realizing that they were mistaken and apologizing. It doesnt make sense on any level, if the point is to show that I have in the past been warned by other users there are actual examples of that which don’t end in an apology to me... TLDR I have no idea what this guy is even trying to argue.Horse Eye's Back (talk)22:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
In addition to edit warring, clear neutrality violationhere by twisting the words of the source making it seem like it wasn't satire, as well as removing all mentions of Afghanistan despite the sources mentioning that topic.MajorShortbread (talk)00:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank your for your second edit on wikipedia. I hope that your first edit (reverting me and reinserting unsupported text into Zhao Lijian) wasn’t too strenuous. Just a note my dear MajorShortbread, the word “satire” appears in none of our sources.Horse Eye's Back (talk)00:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Some things to point out here that I've noticed -- Firstly,Lostromantic's assertion that the Sydney Morning Herald is non-neutral and hence cannot be cited in this Wikipedia article is groundless. Yes, it could be described as non-neutral, in a way. But it's still a generally reliable source. -- Secondly, the assertion by bothLostromantic and another user that the image shared by Zhao is "satirical" is absurd. There is nothing humorous about the image. By definition, satire is a form of comedy and it must include a humorous element. Also, none of the sources seem to describe the image as satirical.Jargo Nautilus (talk)03:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
A few notes, if you don't mind.Lostromantic, if you want to avoid an editor, just don't report them. And if you do report them, do not muddy the waters with specious mentions of a (declared) previous account.MajorShortbread, that is an interesting drive-by account you have, and I am tempted to block you perWP:NOTHERE, but I will settle for a partial block (from that article)--because indeed, the sources do NOT support "satire", andremoving half a phrase isn't a blockable offense or a breach of neutrality.Jargo Nautilus, it is possible that others do find something humorous in that image (at least hypothetically possible), but the main point is, as you said, the sources don't bear that out. The real edit warrior here isUser:Damian gogo, whom I have blocked temporarily for evading a previous block (based on CU evidence that I cannot disclose here); I am considering blocking them indefinitely for edit warring, manipulating/misquoting sources, and POV editing.
As forHorse Eye's Back, their edits have, as far as I can tell, stuck to Wikipedia guidelines on the use of reliable sources. They have, however, clearly been edit warring, since edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. The question is whether the reverts fall underWP:3RRNO, and there are a few things to consider. First of all, Horse Eye didn't always clearly indicate in edit summaries that, for instance, there were BLP violations, though they did at least once. I think there was one that said "vandalism", though I don't believe the vandalism was that obvious (see WP:3RRNO, item 4). But what redeems the editor is that they said, often enough, that the material was not supported by the sources--[180],[181],[182],[183], and I could probably find more; this meets WP:3RRNO item 7. Moreover, but they didn't know this, WP:3RRNO item 3 applies here as well, as CU established (and I will pingMaterialscientist, though I may not tell you why). So, I find that Horse Eye's conduct here, while on the face of it it constitutes edit warring, is not in violation. I'd like to askEdJohnston, if I may, to have a quick look here to see if they agree. In addition, I am semi-protecting the article since there is too much drive-by editing in addition to the other problems (socking, for instance), that I signaled already.Drmies (talk)15:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I requested semi-protection of Zhao Lijian early yesterday when there were only a few IPs and drivebys[184] but it wasn’t acted on, fighting to maintain some semblance of respect for BLP is not my idea of a good time and I wish it hadn’t been necessary. MajorShortbread was also found to be likely atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting and fits the pattern of Ineedtostopforgetting socks harassing me and driving up the revert count.Horse Eye's Back (talk)15:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg I state in my edit "Reverted to version as of 09:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC) The source is outdated, it clearly said that azeri infiltrator groups were near the town of Shusha, but since they have been repelled.The source is from 29 October and such not up to date. Please stop edit warring, otherwise we'd have to contact the administrators, since you already broke the three-reverts rule that can lead to a ban."
Comments: The user has reverted the file ten times since his edit, without any explanation of sort, despite having received explanations on the reasons why his edit was not correct and having invited to stop edit warring multiple times from multiple users. He did not care, showing aggressive and uncollaborative behaviour, and continuing his edit warring. I alerted him of the three-revert rule and invited him to stop, as you can see in the changelog, but I was attacked as a "troll".
No violation. For acute vandalism issues, report toWP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. —C.Fred (talk)19:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – 3 days. We are unlikelyto describe a person's contributions as 'minor' in the article lead. If this kind of thing continues a longer block is possible.EdJohnston (talk)21:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Since this user couldn't find a valid reason, they started calling me "problematic" and "not here to build an encyclopedia" because of my talk page history. I demand at least a warning.nyxærös15:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Page protected –Konstantinos Bellios andYoung Macedonian Literary Association protected 5 days each. If warring continues after protection expires, blocks are possible. Both Dikaiosyni and Jingiby are already alerted to theWP:ARBEE sanctions.EdJohnston (talk)18:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Already blocked – Indef byUser:Drmies: "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia--also duck block, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist".EdJohnston (talk)04:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Not blocked.Buidhe, I'm all for blocking edit warriors, but I'm wondering here who is at fault. You are both edit warring, of course, and it seems the talk page is at an impasse (I'm sorry the third opinion didn't prove very helpful). Specificallythis, which seems to have started it all, is problematic: you say "the Vidal source does say what is attributed", but it doesn't: the source says "Rever stresses that the reports were sent to her unofficially"--so it's Rever's claim, but your version states it as a fact. You say "the authors are not notable", but that can only refer to the "and two British professors", who are not authors, or Hintjens and Van Oijen, who are authors but whose notability is not a matter of consequence here and you didn't remove their article--which is of course published in a perfectly acceptable peer-reviewed academic journal. You make claims of BLP violations, but as I read over the talk page I fail to see the point. On the other hand, I don't see any evidence that Bachman isnot an acceptable source here. But your edit summaryin this edit, I can't agree with that.
Warned. The 3RR brightline was not crossed.Eccekevin directed to discuss matter at talk page before attempting to re-add and reminded that the page is within the topic of US politics. I've also added the page to my watchlist —C.Fred (talk)16:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d509617066){kind=link}
.svg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d509447932){kind=link}
.svg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d509328451){kind=link}
.svg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d509628098){kind=link}
.svg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d509617588){kind=link}
.svg%23Warning){kind=link}