10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Demography */ This is a much wider problem that occurs in more than one ethnic group, hence the 43 ethnic groupings surveyed in this report."
User has been in persistent edit war with two other users for 3 days, making 9 reverts. I subsequently reverted and warned on their talk page, and was reverted the following day (within 24h). Response on users talk page continues to ignore what they have been asked to do.Koncorde (talk)11:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
For context. The initial change is by userAngrySkies (talk·contribs) on the 11th[1]. The statement changes the wording from "South Asian" to Pakistani. on the 14th there are a series of reverts between each other.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. On the 15th an additional userQ Chris (talk·contribs) steps in to revert as well. Both users have repeatedly pointed out that the source does not use "South Asian" in any form, and instead explicitly attributes"The number of babies born with birth defects in Bradford" to "this was largely because of marriages between first cousins in the Pakistani community". Now we can discuss the sensitivity of this statement, but there is no way to sugar coat the studies outcomes.The study included 43 different ethnicities but the largest ethnic groups were Pakistani (45%) and white British (just under 40%). Of 5,127 babies of Pakistani origin, 37% had married parents who were first cousins, compared to less than 1% of married couples nationally..
EpicForests initial revertsThe leading cause was found to be a 37% rate ofconsanguineous marriage among British South Asians are fundamentally misleading, and do not summaries the source (which is explicit in its reference to what the 37% is referring to). EpicForest prefers to focus on the fact there were "43 different ethnicities involved in the survey." per repeated edit summaries (which will cover a variety of White, Black, Asian and other minorities) which again is misleading against what the main context of that statement: i.e. of proportion of those 43 ethnicities, 45% were Pakistani.
On the 15th the edit war continued.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Again, EpicForests assertions boiled down to the idea that there are 43 ethnicities in the study. Nobody disputes that - only that the article being sourced is not about the 43 ethnicities, but about 1st cousin Pakistani's marrying and an increase in birth defects as a result.
Late on 15th I stepped in and summarised situation.[16]EF you have been reverted by two different editors over the same content. As per those editors, the content specifically refers to Pakistani, it makes no other mention. Your insert is WP:OR as it definitely reflects something not stated in the article which is what is referenced here. Please take to talk page to establish consensus as this is a prolonged edit war. EF reverted, and I again changed back[17]cease edit warring. The source as given mentions specifically the content reflected and not your insertion. and left a warning on their talk page (per top of this section). They subsequently reverted again, and that is therefore how we arrived here.
EpicForest has replied to the warning on the talk page[18] but it fundamentally misses the point behind Edit Warring, discussion, or using talk pages. Goes further to basically threaten bringing their mates round to gerrymander the "consensus", intimating that somehow I am party to the other two users at the same time by asking for...completely independent editors to look at this argument. As far as I am aware, all 3 editors reverting EpicForest are independent.Koncorde (talk)11:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
My words implied I wouldn't get my friends to back my comments up as that would be a fraudulent way to go about things. I would like independent editors to look at this debate as it is getting ridiculous the amount of negative edits that are happening on the Bradford page.Epicforest (talk)23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Weare independent editors. You made a statementI could easily get three friends to back my opinion up but wouldn't that be a fraudulent way of doing things. not a question. If it was a question, I take it you would therefore be accusing myself and others of being "fraudulent" in some way? There is nothing negative about Bradford to use Pakistani as it is used in the BBC article, and BiB study. Tangentally related, I find it curious the main Bradford article doesn't really mention the rather significant 20%+ Pakistani population at all under Demographicsgiven its relative prominence andsignificance.Koncorde (talk)00:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This story is another negative addition to the Bradford page. It is ridiculous that Bradford continually gets edits such as this one about birth defects and cousins marrying. Anyone would think this type of thing doesn't happen in Blackburn, Birmingham and London to name three. It isn't just a problem with people who families originally came from Pakistan, it happens with many ethnicities who's families originated from the Indian sub continent and from other places. I would want completely independent editors to look at this argument. The very fact that the survey looked at 43 different ethnicities seems to indicate it is a wides spread problem and not just confined to one of the ethnicities. Where's the original editor in all this, was he warned about constantly changing my edits? The very use of fraudulent in regards to my last post clearly indicates I would never do that but I'm sure other editors would, that is why I want completely independent editors to look at this.Epicforest (talk)08:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Again,we are "completely independent editors". The report clearly states the issue, particularly related to birth defects, is from first cousins marrying and that this is associated with the Pakistani community. There is nothing negative about Bradford to this. It is factual reporting about public health.
What is notable to Bradford (above those other towns mentioned) is the number of birth defects is double the national average and this is a longterm health concern. If a similar report for those towns also showed a similar link I would expect their articles to also recognise the issue. The report didn't look into 43 ethnicities and find all of them were equally reflected in the health outcomes. The report looked at all births which came from 43 ethnicities, and identified that one particular group was disproportionately represented, this is why "South Asian" is misleading - because you are trying to imply that the report identified other groups also having this same issue which is not the case.
To me it appears you either want to sanitise the article of any mention of Pakistani's, and / or any mention of 1st cousin marriage leading to birth defects in the Pakistani community despite coverage to that effect from serious Reliable Sources[19][20][21][22] to the extent it was even subject to a debate in Parliament[23] and the "Pakistani Cohort" was subject to an additional paper[24] the outcome of which was commented on by the Royal College of Physicians[25] and ongoing coverage and investigation of both the Pakistani community and wider consanguinity but that is very clearly referred to as a particularly Pakistani issue.[26][27][28][29]Koncorde (talk)09:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I would doubt this is the whole report, just something cut together from the original survey. The original complete survey needs to be looked at. Having said that, there are still 43 ethnicities mentioned which does indicate that this is a much wider problem than the original editor seems to indicate. The idea that the whole of the Indian sub continent and further countries don't have this problem is quite honestly incredible. South Asia is a far better indicator of the problem.Where is the original editor, it is very odd that he or she isn't involved in this discussion or even being pulled up for warring! This process could easily be swayed by a clique of like minded editors so maybe some South Asian editors could give a different view of this.This just looks like more negative content added to the Bradford page. To say this isn't negative to Bradford is incredible!Epicforest (talk)13:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This means you haven't read the report. This means you have ignored the repeated additional sources provided. This means you are not reading what other users are saying because you don't agree with them.The study is the largest of its type ever conducted. The team examined detailed information collected about more than 11,300 babies involved in the Born in Bradford project. andError: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] There is literally a decades worth of material and articles from numerous sources all discussing this issue from the Pakistani perspective exactly because it impacts their community at a higher rate. The outcomes of the Bradford study have been applied across the country in health policy. Your edits here just reinforce the point that you will not listen to reason.
As for the other editor, the Admins who review this case can take a look at all the edits on the page and if they feel AngrySkies needs warning they can go ahead. In his defence he is actually using the source material whereas, as you have demonstrated, you are not and your continued suggestions the issue isThis process could easily be swayed by a clique of like minded editors rather than your behaviour is why we are here, so please cease trying to deflect.Koncorde (talk)14:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be doing quite a bit of deflecting where as I am simply pointing out that marrying cousins is a common occurrence in the whole of the Indian sub continent. You seem unaware that Bradford has large Indian and Bangladeshi communities so the idea that this is a Pakistan thing is incredible just as saying this report being placed on the Bradford page wasn't a negative, an incredible statement from you. This is a South Asian problem not just a Pakistan problem. There are also other countries where this practise exists. Clearly the whole survey has not been used in the reference so is hardly a full account of what was found in the survey. It would be interesting to find the percentage of Bangladeshi and Indian people used in this sample, if it wasn't the same percentage as the Pakistan sample then the survey was biased. I would certainly want South Asian editors to take a look at this, rather than people that may have pre conceived opinions on Bradford. This survey being placed on the Bradford site is just another example of the negative edits that have happened over the last couple of years on the Bradford page. The original editor is nowhere to be seen which is odd, he was also warring yet I'm guessing no action was taken over his persistent edits. Lets have South Asian editors looking at this with their insight into that part of the world and how those practises have been transferred to the UK including Bradford.Epicforest (talk)19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
You have not read the report or you would have your answer to the above. You have not read the additional sources or you would have your answer to the above. You have not read the words:In the Pakistani group, 59.3% of women (n = 3038) were blood relatives of their baby's father. Consanguinity was uncommon in the Other ethnic group (7.3%, n = 127) and rare (n = 5) in the White British group.[37] or you would have your answers to the above. This is not about other South Asians. This is about Bradford, the BiB study, and the Pakistani community - per the sources - and its findings. (For the record the % of people wont change depending on the number of people as the report is based on the proportion of cases within the population group. The Pakistani community makes up 20% of the Bradford population. All other South Asians make up less than 5%). Wikipedia doesn't work based on how you feel other people live their lives.
It seems the same percentage of the various ethnicities were not used so the survey was skewed and would always give a false impression of the various problems children had when being born to parents that were related by blood of Pakistan descent. This clearly isn't fair on the Pakistan community. If the biggest grouping surveyed were of Pakistani descent it is hardly surprising that that group came out top of the pile. To be a fair reflection on the whole South Asian community in Bradford the same percentage needed to be used for each ethnicity. That would mean people from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. I would think if that were used as a starting point the picture would be much clearer. As it is, the survey is skewed and of no use.Epicforest (talk)19:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – 31 hours. Epicforest wants our article to say 'South Asian' rather than 'Pakistani', but it appears that the source says 'Pakistani'. (The term 'South Asian' doesn't even occur in the BBC article that is being used as a reference). Changing how the source specifies the national origin of the people in the study would be consideredWP:OR or even source falsification.EdJohnston (talk)21:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments:This user is restoring poorly sourced BLP to wikipedia. I warned him and got no response whatsoever on the talk page.aeschyIus (talk)01:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments: There is more edit-warring from this editor on this article, but 15 diffs of BLP/MOS:LABEL changes to the first sentence of the article should be enough. --Hipal (talk)17:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Result:User:Unibond iswarned. They may be blocked the next time they add 'fraudster' to the article unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page.EdJohnston (talk)14:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[44]
Comments:
One person is reverting three different editors (@Femkemilene andBogazicili: and myself). The dispute is the continuation of one that began around a month ago in which he repeatedly removed air pollution deaths from the lead altogether[45],[46],[47]. I expressed my concern at Efbrazil's talk pageat that time. In early April we agreed on interim wordingwithout prejudice to future improvement. This was an interim solution to stabilize the article which was in the middle of a GA review and to avoid the embarrassing situation of having the lead seem to forget to mention millions of people dying. That calmed things down enough for GA review to finish, but then I tried to improve the wording further and Efbrazil reverted, so here we are.Clayoquot (talk |contribs)23:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted Clayoquot's changes back to the consensus wording, away from the unsubstantiated claims. I don't see how that qualifies as edit warring. If Clayoquot wants to move away from consensus wording, the way to do that is with an RfC, which I've been open to all along, although I prefer consensus as a solution. The essence of the dispute is that I want the lede to be clear that pollution controls are another way to reduce deaths from fossil fuel burning. Pollution controls are how high-income countries have already lowered deaths from pollution by an order of magnitude according to several studies. The wording Clayoquot prefers implies that fossil fuels are killing millions and only a change in energy sources is the solution. It's really an absurd dispute, as the essence of the dispute comes down to this one reversion by Clayoquot:[48].Efbrazil (talk)00:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
You know, if it were me being reported at this noticeboard, I would announce my intention to stop reverting and to accept current local consensus on the Talk page, whether or not that consensus is arrived at via RfC. I would also acknowledge the idea that if I'm being reverted by three different people and the only person around who supports my views is me,maybe just maybe my views don't have consensus.Clayoquot (talk |contribs)03:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I also disagree with Efbrazil's characterization of the "essence of the dispute" as coming down to two words. In diff #3 above he also excluded indoor air pollution and pollution from biomass (effectively removing the causes of approximately 1-3 million annual deaths from the lead). This is a good illustration of why the dispute has become such a time sink for everyone else: When Efbrazil is told that his edits are highly problematic for reasons A, B, and C, what he concludes is "I just have to convince them how right I am about A and all will be fine."Clayoquot (talk |contribs)04:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Those 2 words are the essence of the dispute, because I was happy with Clayoquat's rewrite provided we included that one caveat. When Clayoquat reverted the caveat, I went back to consensus wording. Clayoquat has now reverted the edits again away from the consensus wording, so really they should be reporting themselves here. Consensus means everyone- I realize there is process for voting on disputes, but that doesn't make an edit a consensus edit then.Efbrazil (talk)18:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Consensus at Wikipedia is defined inWP:Consensus. Please review it because no, it does not "mean everyone". Given that you believe in a definition of consensus in which you get to edit-war until an RfC says you should stop, it's not surprising that you edit-war so much.Clayoquot (talk |contribs)18:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
FemkeMilene has agreed based on additional sources in the talk pages that the 7 million number is a bad number to use, and I helped the article by getting it out. Maybe I went about getting the information fixed the wrong way, but I was trying to find consensus and truth. I think it's a bit off to complain on an administrator forum that I removed false information from an article the wrong way.
Regarding this edit:[56] it was a mechanical mistake that I backed out and apologized for, as I did not know the correct way to rename an article. I agree that I have made mechanical mistakes in some of my edits, and have thanked FemkeMilene for assistance with standards there.
Regarding the 3 revert issue, it's not clear to me- I did not commit the initial changes being pointed at, I only reverted changes that I did not think were accurate, then opened talk page discussions so we could try to get to consensus. If a change is then pushed through anyhow, that seems to me to be undermining the talk page process and is also the real third reversion of content. Sometimes there have been multiple edits to a sentence as we are trying to come to consensus, but again that's not an issue of 3 reversions.
The "primary source for a medical fact" issue is under discussion on the talk page, let's see if we can come to consensus there instead of dredging it up here.
What we need to stop doing is suppressing information because it is not a convenient fit for an ideological narrative. The article currently is leaning on studies that paint a utopian vision for sustainable energy without presenting a full picture of issues like air pollution. Omitting information is a form of bias, and the push to remove all mention of pollution controls from the lede comes across clearly as bias.Efbrazil (talk)18:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
You're not supposed to edit war, even if you fully believe you're right. Please readWP:3RR if you don't understand how you broke that rule. While I appreciate that you try to learn from my guidance, I don't feel like I'm getting through. I don't mind a mechanical mistake, I mind you reverting[57] instead of discussing as your first instinct.
In the case of the medical citation, you're still not following theWP:BRD procedure by leaving your version in the article, while there seems to be consensus against it.FemkeMilene (talk)19:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Result:User:Efbrazil iswarned. They have been edit warring about 'unmitigated' and 'poorly controlled'. They are risking a block if they revert again before getting a consensus for their change on the article talk page.EdJohnston (talk)14:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
08:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1018294432 byLord Belbury (talk) Kindly provide reasonable justification to revert edits. Threatening to edit block someone and then ganging up on them by reverting their changes separately are not going to make Wikipedia a better place. If you think that a certain edit should be reverted, kindly follow your own advice and discuss it on the talk page. Threatening and bullying new users is not helpful."
06:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "No need to mention the ideologies of the egging victim here. Also, pointing him to be anti-immigrant and anti-Muslims is a pathetic tactic of diverting the focus of the article to the characterization of the victim."
06:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "Named the perpetrator of egging as this page is about the act of throwing edibles on targets and hence perpetrators names make sense."
06:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "Removed unnecessary parts of the page which made it look like a gossip story. The page should discuss about the origins, the act itself, the perpetrators, the victims and their reactions as well as the analysis of milkshaking. What happens to the perpetrators as a form of public response can be covered in a different Wikipedia article."
I don't understand what is the problem here? Do you think that the content I removed/ added should not have been done? If yes, let's discuss on that. By simply reverting my edits and on top of that, alleging me to be indulging in edit-warring is typical bully behavior. It is not going to help anyone. If you think, the edit was not justified, kindly mention so and provide your reasons. I have provided reasons for the edits I made and I am ready to have a discussion with you on that.Agent raymond232 (talk)09:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
You were reverted by two experienced editors and myself; as long as you see, now, the unwisdom of that—which you might as you haven't reverted since—that's the main thing here. No one is (or ought to be) looking for sanctions for the sake of it, and anypreventative need there may have been has hopefully been ameliorated.——Serial05:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Lol, no. What I have seen is it isn't worth my time arguing with losers on Wikipedia. What you have successfully done is to annoy a new Wikipedia editor enough to not try it anymore. Great job. Keep your stink with you. I am done wasting my time. Anybody who gets brainwashed reading Wikipedia will do it at their peril. I tried to help. I am done.Agent raymond232 (talk)14:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
19:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Stop the baseless accusations of editwarring. I provided a thorough explanation of my edits, far more thorough than the usual explanations given on this site. As mentioned in previous edits, the SETA source provides no evidence and is unreliable. The other two sources are available online and absolutely do not make any claims regarding the ethnic majority of Adiyaman. Bingol University paper only refers to Adıyaman as one of the places where Kurds live ("Kürtlerin yaşadığı bölgeler..."). The..."
19:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Nisanyan is neither a linguist nor a historian and provides very little to no evidence for his speculations. This sort of reasoning is not accepted in other regions' pages and hence will not be accepted here. Stop vandalizing."
19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Please stop the baseless vandalism. As mentioned in previous edits, the SETA source provides no evidence and is unreliable. The other two sources are available online and absolutely do not make any claims regarding the ethnic majority of Adiyaman. Bingol University paper only refers to Adıyaman as one of the places where Kurds live ("Kürtlerin yaşadığı bölgeler..."). The other political science journal article only refers to the mixed character of the region"
19:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Nisanyan is neither a linguist nor a historian. His claims are largely speculative. He should not be treated as a Respected Source."
18:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "As explained previously, As mentioned in previous edit, the SETA source provides no evidence and is unreliable. The other two sources are available online and absolutely do not make any claims regarding the ethnic majority of Adiyaman. Bingol University paper only refers to Adıyaman as one of the places where Kurds live ("Kürtlerin yaşadığı bölgeler..."). The other political science journal article only refers to the mixed character of the region."
19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Sevan Nisanyan is not a linguist or historian and relies on speculation for almost all of his claims. Nisanyan Sozluk and his "map" are not RP."
18:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "I've given a very thorough explanation with direct citation to the given sources why the claim in the deleted content is not proven by the given references. They are publicly available. Please stop ideologically vandalizing the page. It is laughable to claim that my edits were unexplained."
18:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Diyarbakir Medical Association and a book called "Kurdish Awakening" are not acceptable source for the name of a city. Both are heavily ideological Kurdish irredentist nationalist sources, and someone from Diyarbakir Medical Association has no relevance on this subject whatsoever. None. Overwhelming majority of the country, international sources, locals call the city Adıyaman. Finally, "Kurdish" is not a language but a language group."
18:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Username Semsuri needs to stop vandalizing and trolling. Reverting to previous edit. As mentioned in previous edit, the SETA source provides no evidence and is unreliable. The other two sources are available online and absolutely do not make any claims regarding the ethnic majority of Adiyaman. Bingol University paper only refers to Adıyaman as one of the places where Kurds live ("Kürtlerin yaşadığı bölgeler..."). The other political science journal article only refers to the mixed character..."
18:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Diyarbakir Medical Association and a book called "Kurdish Awakening" are not acceptable source for the name of a city. Both are heavily ideological Kurdish irredentist nationalist sources, and someone from Diyarbakir Medical Association has no relevance on this subject whatsoever. None. Overwhelming majority of the country, international sources, locals call the city Adıyaman. Finally, "Kurdish" is not a language but a language group. It has many constituents including Kurmanji, Sorani, Zaza,..."
18:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "The SETA article does not provide any evidence for its claim nor any reference to any independent research. SETA is an AKP aligned think tank that is known for its sketchy research and erroneous claims. At the time the AKP was in negotiations with the PKK and frequently parroted their propoganda to intice Kurdish irredentists. The political science paper does not refer to Adiyamans demographics outside of stating that it is of mixed Turkish-Arab-Kurdish character and that there is a Kurdish p..."
15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "The BBC article references the Financial Times which is not an aurhority on demographics and is just parroting Kurdish irredentist propoganda. The article makes NO mention of the ethnic makeup of the province and city other than to note its mixed Turkish-Arab-Kurdish character and that the Kurdish population is "significant". There is no proof or evidence whatsoever of a Kurdish majority in the province and city. It has historically been a Turkish region, run by Turkish states for close to 10..."
This user was also reported atANI. It just occurred to me that maybe that means I shouldn't have also brought this here. Let me know if I should delete this!Firefangledfeathers (talk)20:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I tried to make an edit at2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings from March 27th onwards and was reverted byUser:kingsif. I requested on the article talk page that they discuss the matter with me, see whole section 'Domestic Radicalisation', and left a talkback to that request on their user talk page. However all messages on their talkpage, for the DRN and later for this escalation, were immediately reverted with no reason. When I hadn't heard from them in 7 days, I left another talkback. When they still had not responded in 4 days, I tried the edit again and they reverted me again, still without discussing. The guidelines say that I can't getdispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with medisruptive editing?Erikdr (talk)18:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay just a small addition, as the process is still ongoing. See the response, finally, on my talk page. The sentences"If you cannot understand why such edits are wrong, you should probably not be making any edits at all." and "There is no discussion to be had, no compromise to reach on bad edits."
are already challenging, it's simply not how a dialogue between editors should work; no matter on whether the subject (me) would be a rookie or already an editor for 10 years. I will abstain from using similar derogatory language back, but feel quite ashamed that someone dares to write it.
"I tried to explain, then you began harassing me." is totally over the top. Just responding (see my talk page) that accusations about breaking OR and NPV are nonsense, just asking for a DRN, is that 'harrassing'?Getting curiouser and curiouser.... All the best,Erikdr (talk)19:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
When you asked about the term "harassing" when I wrote it to you, I explained that three pings in two days to a circular discussion where you demand things of me is harassment. I refuse to interact with editors who cannot wikilink after 10 years and think it's appropriate to add unsourced opinions and "see also" in the middle of prose paragraphs whiledemanding I listen to them, and I refuse to let those bad edits stand. Coming here when I never even approached 3RR is also harassment, targeting me just because you're upset.Kingsif (talk)22:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
14:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC) "The claim is huge, and is explained away with a mere hint of a suggestion. If this Zachary-guy who undid my revision would check, he would see that the article quoted is not centred on the claim furthered, and has next to no data supporting it, all of it stemming from the 19th century, when they lived with animals, had poor hygiene and worse nutrition. How could I make it any clearer?"
Comments: Fram's only contributions to this template has been to add this warning notice, which is not necessary (it is not normal - the normal link is on the talk page - and it is outdated). Their solution to avoid reverting for a 4th time was to ping people on the talk page to support their view - getting around the rule of 3RR but not the spirit. Thanks.Mike Peel (talk)13:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Whether the notice is necessary or not is hardly relevant for the EW noticeboard, but people can look at the discussion on the talk page about this. I pinged all people in the previous discussion about the state of the template and its status, i.e. 4 people on one side and 3 on the other. That's hardly "pinging people to support my view", but pingingeveryone from the previous discussion.Fram (talk)13:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The other user who coincidentally happens to have been the only other editor to add the notice back - in totalthree times twice now?[65][66][67] Which are also your only contributions to the template, same as Fram's? Hmm.Mike Peel (talk)14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:OWN much? Anyway, I also participated in discussions about the template, mentioned issues with it on the template talk page, and corrected many problematic uses of it in the mainspace.— Precedingunsigned comment added byFram (talk •contribs) 14:11, April 19, 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that opposing its use, complaining about it, and removing uses of it really counts as 'contributing to this template'. Certainly it's not the best way to do so.Mike Peel (talk)16:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
In the thread atTemplate talk:Cite Q#TfD warning, both parties are claiming that past discussions support their position, usually citinga TfD from 2017 that had a 'no consensus' outcome. Each one asserts that the other is in violation. Anyone who uses the phrase 'long-standing consensus' is surely an optimist, given the turmoil in this area. Who will bite the bullet and open a new TfD, or propose some other method of dispute resolution? Anyone who takes the time to read the full 2017 TfD will notice how cautious the wording was, and note that the closer,User:Primefac, was not endorsing wide-scale use of the template. (The phrase 'extremely vetted' comes from Primefac). If matters have changed due to improvement of the template since 2017, surely the proponents of wider use should step forward to request general support? Of course they wouldn't be expected to TfD their own work, so perhaps Fram could offer to open the TfD if the other side agrees that this is the best way of seeking a consensus on wide-scale use of the template.EdJohnston (talk)17:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think TfD is a good venue, since it tends to be nuclear or, like the last, end in no consensus. It also increases the polarisation by !voting. I'm not sure of another venue - maybe an RfC, although in my experience they also tend to end in non consensus whenever Wikidata is involved. But the simplest option is surely to remove the non-standard and debated-about notice? I also think this is a bit separate from Fram's behaviour. Thanks.Mike Peel (talk)18:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
If that's intended to be a compromise, I'm not seeing it. You and Fram both reverted three times, and it takes four reverts to break 3RR. Why should a closing admin favor your side of the dispute? There might be an underlying issue, which is whether the template has improved enough since 2017 to allow its wider use. That's not for decision here, but it might be part of the motivation of each side. That is, if the template is known to work well enough, it might no longer need a warning notice. Youcalled the notice 'outdated and misleading', implying that the issues described in the 2017 TfD might have been overcome through more recent work. If so, someone could gather the data on that point and offer it for review.EdJohnston (talk)04:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Last year we had a major push to resolve issues with the template, rewriting much of it, see[68], and the bottom third ofTemplate talk:Cite Q/Archive 2 through to archive 6(!). There are still some issues that are pending, particularly 'first, last' vs. 'last, first' (which it would be good to solve before an RfC, but see current discussion on the talk page). Fram's reaction to all this?Slap the notice back on. My reverts were in response to Fram's, and included a request to take it to the talk page - which I had to to do myself in the end. As for my mistrust of Fram in the recent RfC about authority control, so far that proposal hasgenerated noise but no light for precisely the reasons I gave during the RfC. Thanks.Mike Peel (talk)07:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
No one is stopping you from presenting the current template at an RfC and getting consensus that this time, it is ready to be used in the main namespace at liberty. I like it how presenting a prototype of what it might look like and waiting for responses (or counter-prototypes from people objecting) is apparently "generating noise but no light" and apparently my fault. Damned if you don't discuss, damned if you do discuss?Fram (talk)12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Result:User:Fram andUser:Mike Peel are advised to seek consensus on whether the warning ought to remain inTemplate:Cite Q/doc. Some options are listed inWP:Dispute resolution. If the template has actually improved enough since 2017 that no warning is needed, editors might establish that fact through an appropriate discussion, closed by an admin if necessary. The fact that anything connected to Wikidata may be controversial is not a reason to avoid formal consensus process. Continued reverting is blockable.EdJohnston (talk)01:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nothing
Comments: Has a history of socking and edit warring. Writes flattery with dubious sources and edit wars with it and removes content and edit wars with other users. Called me a fake id for notifying him about this.[71] . User is disruptive in this particular page for a long time, support a partial block.2409:4072:6D14:434A:97D1:396D:F03F:EBF2 (talk)12:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
There has been a controversy there since at least April 2017. This pertains to the origins of the Bengali New Year. There are two theories - Mughal and Vikramaditya/Hindu/Bikramaditto/Indic.
More recently most information with citations pertaining to the latter theory were deleted. I tried restoring some of that information from previous versions compiled by other editors like Sarah Welch. Whenever I did so, the material I restored was reverted.
I didn’t delete any existing material.
The page will benefit from an independent review. I did try explaining what I did on the Talk Page. I didn’t succeed. An anonymous IP number is very active in reverting my efforts at restoring the earlier information. I am not sure whether sockpuppetry is involved. I seek an independent read of what's happening. I had alerted other editors/administrators too.
This is not a complaint on any individual. Its about the page's neutrality.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[79]
Comments:
Jeaubear has been continuing the edit warring pattern of Metairie, Louisiana, IP rangeSpecial:Contributions/2600:1702:14E0:D46F:0:0:0:0/64 at two articles:Angel Miners & the Lightning Riders and also atAwolnation, where they are at three reverts. The disputed edits on both pages involve the IPs adding text cited to Instagram, and Jeaubear following directly after to tweak the IP text a few minutes later[80][81] or to restore the text and continue the edit war. The basic problem is that the disputed text is based on Instagram posts and notWP:SECONDARY sources, but Jeaubear and the IPs have worked together in violation ofWP:MULTIPLE, which is why we are here.Binksternet (talk)22:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
04:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC) "Mate, please you discuss it. I am gonna stay with this one. No other editor, not even senior editors, isn’t reverting this edit then why are you?"
User is at least engaging on talk page, but has made no effort to explain why their edits are better or attempt to edit collaboratively.Spike 'em (talk)10:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:[91] (first revert, duplicated below)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
[92] (undoing very arbitrary edits by User:Showiecz in 3 December)
[93] (Undid revision 1019276186 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) not much...)
[94] (Undid revision 1019396486 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) please discuss)
[95] (Undid revision 1019400779 by Chipmunkdavis (talk))
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I haven't left a warning, but theyleft me a warning, so presumably they are aware.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:[96]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[97]
Comments: Bringing here following mytalk page reply being responded to withan EW notice and nothing else since. Discussion was limited, but the template felt like somewhat of a termination. It also felt a bit much given it was done simultaneously with another revert to war in their desired edit.CMD (talk)05:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period ofone week.Partial block. Not technically a 3RR violation, but concerning conduct. Also, the change does seem to place the article —a country article which is very high profile— in a state of disrepair (visually). Not acutely, but enough that theWP:ONUS maxim is expected to be followed more strictly than normal. I realize the user only has 2 edits to their talk page (including the notice for this very report), but if they're issuing uw-3rr warnings, they pretty much know what's up.El_C13:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
IP consistently comes on to Wikipedia each day and makes the same edits repeatedly, usually on the pages of centenarian BLPs to add unsourced trivial sentences about their 100th birthdays, without any source [examples:Phyllis Latour,Kenneth O. Chilstrom). When I have reverted and prompted the editor to add only sourced content, he/she restores their original edit and then just adds a "citation needed" template at the end of the sentence.
IP continues to edit war.
IP has been encouraged to change tact, informed of rules and procedures, and then warned repeated times but continues to disregard ALL constructive feedback and fails to compromise.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:SunDawn left a warning to the user on 15 April 2021. And I too gave a warning on 24 April 2021 but the user kept reverting.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[111]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[112]
Comments:
The reported editor is edit-warring against 3 editors, has been editing Wikipedia for about 12 years and thus, should be well aware of our guidlines. Repeated addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content to a GA.---Wikaviani(talk)(contribs)14:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I am well aware about guidlines and provide only sourced information. These three users (Wikaviani LouisAragon HistoryofIran)are vandalising Wikipedia and try to use in article terms and names which are not received academically, but to persianise the names and titles of Georgian kings and political entities.Giorgi Mechurchle (talk)16:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I just invited them to self-revert. I'm ready to block if they make any further reverts (other than undoing themselves). —C.Fred (talk)22:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
08:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1018854819 byPoltair (talk) Updating again, don't understand what is "rv - unhelpful" means. Message on my wall doesn't elaborate either."
06:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC) "This is not vandalism, I'm contributing to Wikipedia by updating to correct information. Please check other wikis to verify."
I tried to tell them on their user talk page, but they doubled down. They also reverted (23:33) after the warning (23:09). I request a block. –Novem Linguae(talk)08:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Czello, first you undo my edit and say edits needs consensus, when I did undo your edit, you say its retaliation? How is Wikipedia suppose to work? Should all edits first be discussed in the talk page before added to the page? Or is it allowed to add text directly to the page. Please let me know because it seems wierd that one user have to first go through talk page and the other not. I have mainly done edits on Swedish Wikipedia and do not know how English Wikipedia is, but I guess I will learn now.Qenneth (talk)09:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Czello:, I don't see any controversy in adding the flag of the country where it was invented, No. How can fact be controversial? I also have asked for response in the talk page, but no one showed up. Everyone is just keen to "undo" but not say why. Very contra productive.Qenneth (talk)11:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I have engaged, constructively I hope, on the article's talk page. The situation seems to have calmed and I must admit that my revert comment of 'unhelpful' was not helpful in explaining the issue, I took it to be vandalism.Poltair (talk)09:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I politely disagree that this has calmed down. Qenneth restored disputed content for a 5th time tonight, so this is still active. –Novem Linguae(talk)09:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Result:User:Qenneth iswarned for edit warring onFanta. It appears they made four reverts in 25 hours startingat 06:16 on April 20. (Their changes were undone by four different people, indicating they do not have consensus). They may be blocked if they revert again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page.EdJohnston (talk)01:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Recently blocked for edit-warring, now he's at it again. Persistently trying to change sourced content and to add unsourced info. Looking at the compelling evidence, I believe its safe to say that said user isWP:NOTHERE. -LouisAragon (talk)21:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[119]
Comments: The user clearly has no intention of editing productively, instead determinedly reverting to his preferred version, which has a host of issues. Also, the reference to “Wikipedia policies” makes me suspect a sockpuppet. —BiruitorulTalk18:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Twinkle only loads the last four reverts in 24 hours, but Marvic256 has been reverting the same material on this page for the last week ([126],[127]), and has been making-and reverted over-the same edit on multiple other pages ([128],[129];[130],[131];[132],[133]). Basically, to them, everyone has to be English. Not British. Not Anglo-Norman. But English. Aside from the edit-warring (which is the immediate concern), I suspect their entire editing pattern demonstrates a behavioral pattern more suited to another noticeboard.——Serial10:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[137]
Comments: The user named "Heba Aisha" has always been into defaming the castes and communities of India. Ninety-five percent of the edits made by the user are relevant to caste-and community-based articles. There is a common pattern saying that the user has tried to malign the statuses of all the communities altogether with a certain communal motive, for the last few years. This user has persistently been into disruptive editing, where most of her edits have been repudiated by other editors, where older revisions have always been far better.Ayushsinha2222 (talk)10:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
So, you call this edit warring. Please, be aware with some of the policies of wikipedia.WP:HSC specifically, by this edit[138], you have removedS. N. Sadasivan, the writer whose book comply withWP:HSC and addedSwami Vivekananda, who is not a historian or sociologist. The source is just used to docaste relatedWP:POV pushing. Also one source fromTaylor and Francis Publications was also removed. Please noteSwami Vivekananda is a spiritual leader and the person from same Kayastha caste. His views on his own caste was put by you to remove third party independent sources.Heba Aisha (talk)13:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@HebaAisha, you couldn't remove a well-sourced content. You are free to add any content, but I beg you not to remove any well-sourced content. I beg.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAyushsinha2222 (talk •contribs)11:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, I have never reverted you untill now, you have reverted me and that too on malicious grounds, so this report is gonna end soon (as I haven't violatedWP:3RR and probably, we never came across on wiki, so how can you call me an edit warrior). I can also see youcanvassing with other editors, with whom, I engaged in edit conflict over Kayastha related article.[139] And, i ensure,they will find their way here, sooner or later. Also, the editors who called me maligning their caste's image were all policy violators,or sockpuppets and all of them are blocked. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Heba Aisha, I am open to a completely transparent enquiry by the administration. Let the administration decide upon it now. Take care of yourself during this gloomy time, in the pandemic. Wish you constant well-being, friend!Ayushsinha2222 (talk)11:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Books, book chapters and articles by social scientists and scholars in the humanities, working within their area of expertise.
This is what WP:HSC and WP:POV say, don't they? Swami Vivekananda was a social scientist and a social reformer. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
It is you who have removed an old content sourced to Swami Vivekananda. You should have discussed on the talk page before directly removing the content. This itself goes against the policies of Wikipedia. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Otherwise, according to you, every secondary source is POV, isn't it? I request you to understand the policies better. I am sure you are unable to understand what a POV or secondary source actually is. You quoted Arun Sinha on Kayastha Page.[140] Is that not a POV? Your intentions aren't pure, Heba Aisha. I wish everyone could see it clearly on Wikipedia.Ayushsinha2222 (talk)13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment by Heba Aisha Let me make it simple for reviewing administrator. The user has someWP:COI withKayastha caste. It can be seen clearly here[141], when he tried to add this onBirbal article, but was reverted byAlivardi.WP:NOTCENSORED implies and for such users who belong to same caste, anything which is not glorifying the caste is considered as disruptive. The recent edit onBengali Kayastha by user removed one source fromTaylor and Francis Publications and another by a Social historian, to add the view of a monkSwami Vivekananda, who belonged to samecaste.Heba Aisha (talk)13:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Once Swami Vivekananda rightly said if Kayasthas were not to be taken into account then there would be nothing significant left in the modern Indian civilization " .
This says, that he was a reformer of Kayastha caste, his views are not neutral. Inclusion of his views against a third party independent source fromTaylor and Francis and by a social historian is problematic.Heba Aisha (talk)13:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Warned I'm not convinced there was an edit warring violation yet, but this disagreement is getting to the point where it could be disruptive. I think everyone needs to make greater use of the article talk page and (failing that)dispute resolution or users may find themselves partial blocked from editing that article.331dot (talk)14:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[151]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[152]
Comments: Despite all the presented evidences, the user continues to delete the references provided and modify the content with data without any reliable source. Unfortunately, during the discussion, the user constantly refused to take into account absolutely any presented reference. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk)15:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC))
@Rgvis: This looks like a content dispute. As the editor initiating the change, you really should be taking this to the talk page to get support for the change. I also note that the reported editor has not broken 3RR. —C.Fred (talk)15:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, it is a matter of content, but the user constantly removes even the cited sources (without any explanation and invoking a false consensus), and replaces it with personal content that is not confirmed by any reliable source, only to promote his/her POV (in the last period of time, he/she constantly tries to change a content that has remained unchanged in the last 13 years; of course, I agree that the new content can be added to the article, but supported by reliable sources). Anyway, in the meantime, the 3RR has been violated. (Rgvis (talk)18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC))
I want to note this behaviour is common in Лобачев Владимир. They seem to revert based on their personal preferences using vague justifications such as "WP:CON". I had a discussion with this user some time ago atRomanian-language schools in Transnistria. I had to provide LOTS of sources for my change to remain uncontested[153] and this user later just stopped replying. Even after that discussion I had to haveanother one at Wikidata[154], again having to provide many sources only to remain unanswered again. The behaviour of this user represents a huge waste of time for others.SuperΨDro18:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if you have ever readWP:CONS. Few of the times we have discussed were with a consensus in between. A discussion was not made before regarding which flag and coat of arms should be used. The long-standing version is the one you are opposing and the one restored by my "attempt to return the non-consensual symbols of the principality again"[155]. And the discussion you are having with Rgvis apparently hasn't ended yet or doesn't seem to reach any point.There's no consensus, and even if there was, consensus is not permanent and can change, something you appear to fail to understand many times. "WP:CONS" and "WP:WAR" are not valid revert reasons.
For any admin that decides to look this up, please don't just protect the page again as the last time was done, that won't solve anything and conflict will start again once the page is unprotected. Please look at the article's history and at the discussions that have been made, particularly atTalk:Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia. I am thinking of starting aWP:RfC because discussions don't seem to be leading to anywhere.SuperΨDro18:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: You're right, in that for any long-term solution, there will need to be a RfC to get wide buy-in for the flag and coat of arms that appear in the article. The short term is how to deal with these two editors that are in the short-term edit war. —C.Fred (talk)19:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Things appear to have calmed down. Anything that any user has to say will have to be discussed in the RfC, which I will open in some time. I oppose any administrative action for now, such as a page protection, because there's still not any kind of consensus worth defending with a protection.SuperΨDro19:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[162]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[163]
Comments:
Straightforward 3RR violation concerning the size of the logo for theNational Fascist Party. Nick.mon -- who appears to have someWP:OWNERSHIP problems with the article -- constantly wants a very large logo, while I prefer a more modest one, still easily seen, but not dominating the page or advertising a Fascist organization. Nick.mon rejected my recent compromise, and, although they responded to the discussion I opened on the talk page, continued to edit war after being specifically warned on their talk page that they would be reported for a 4th revert.Beyond My Ken (talk)21:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Don't you ever get tired of monitoring my contributions so you can stick your nose in whenever anything involves me? Isn;t there something more constructive you could be doing?Beyond My Ken (talk)21:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Someday you should actuallylook at my contributions here and on Commons to see what I actually do, instead of just using them toharass me. Like the almost 300 articles created, the hundreds of images uploaded, the vandalism deleted, the PoV edits reverted. I suggest that you stay the hell away in the future, lest you find yourself sanctioned.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Are you really talking about harassment? Really? You accuse other editors of being fascist just because they want a reasonable size for a logo and not a tiny size of 75px and now you're accusingPackMecEng of "harassment"? Maybe I made some mistakes, we should have started a discussion some days ago, but I hope we'll find a solution. --Nick.mon (talk)08:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The situation is quite simple:
1. A few months ago,User:Beyond My Ken and I had a brief confrontation regarding thePNF logo’s size and we agreedto use a 120px size. He proposed it first and I supported his choice, even if the previous version of the logo was quite larger (160px, if I remember well);
5. Now, he’s proposing a size of 100px. I think it’s too small, but I can live with it. Anyway, I bet that after a few months, he’ll return on this page and reduce the size once again, because this is how he works.
Maybe I broke the 3RR, if I did it, I'm sorry for that, but Beyond My Ken’s way of editing is quite disruptive for this community, and I’m not the first one who noticed that (seeWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Beyond My Ken disruptively editing). We reached a compromise months ago, and now he changed the article just to find a more favorable compromise. Is this fair? Moreover, he accused me ofadvertising a fascist party, this is quite childish and offensive (WP:OFFENSIVE?). I don’t want to advertise anything, I just want to have good and readable articles, and I hope you’ll agree with me that a reasonable size for a logo is fundamental in an article about a political party. Anyway, there’s an ongoing discussion on the talk page, I hope we’ll find a solution. --Nick.mon (talk)21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is a difference between the neutral presentation of an organization's logo so it can be viewed by the reader, and advertising the organization:
My choice, which I believe is large enough to be clearly seen and yet does not overwhelm the page
The compromise I offered, which Nick.mon rejected
Nck.mon's current preference
Nck.mon's original preference (although at one point he attempted to make it even larger)
Please note that the above is part of my comment, and should not be changed by another editor, as it was changed on the talk page.Beyond My Ken (talk)04:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree, stop accusing other users of advertising a fascist organization, don't invent false informations (like the one I attempted to make the logo even larger, because as you can see 160px was used for years before your edits) and let's see how the discussion will evolve. --Nick.mon (talk)07:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted your refactoring of my comment. You're free to say or show anything you like in your own comment, but perWP:TPO you arenot free to changemy words.Beyond My Ken (talk)17:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, unless you deliberately change the facts at your purposes (160px was used for years as you can see here:September 2020, or evenDecember 2018. I've never ever tried to use a larger size, I just reverted your edit to the previous version, which was used for years, as I said before). I'm sorry BMK, but this is just another proof of your bad faith... --Nick.mon (talk)19:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, sincerly, I don't know if you don't understand or if you don't want to, but how many times do I have to tell you that, in the November 2020's edit you posted, I was just restoring a previous version used for years (for example, here'sa previous version of May 2017, where a size of 160px was already used). --Nick.mon (talk)07:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
SPA editor repeatedly changing infobox value to one which contradicts cited source, without engaging in talk page discussion for almost two weeks, and resuming edit warring after page protection expired. (They've just now posted to the talk page the first time, but but not before continuing to revert.)Paul_012 (talk)12:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of48 hours Since they tried to remove this report, I have placed a site block, rather than an article block. If we could concurrently place an article block, there would have also been a longer article block, which I will try to do after the site block expires.Acroterion(talk)14:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:None
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments:
Today I've noticed this edit war that has been ongoing for past couple of days, users ThecentreCZ and Concus Cretus have been constantly edit warring without even discussing this situation on the talk page. I was generally not sure who to put in the report but in the past, I also had problems with ThecentreCZ because they were reverting constructive edits and weren't participating in a discussion about their edits. Concus Cretusdid change the colors to gray to begin with, ThecentreCZ started the revert war, but even though both of these colors (gray andgreen) are unsourced as far as I know. Diffs for Concus Cretus' edits1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Iaccidentally reverted this edit (I selfreverted second after seeing what I page was on) thinking it was theCzech Pirate Party's page because they added unsourced content for "Progressivism", user Concus Cretus then promptly added sources for Progressivism and I thanked their edit. In my opinion, both of these editors have to get warned/sanctioned, they have been editing here on Wikipedia for years...Vacant0 (talk)15:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Vacant0: Hello, the user Concus Cretus have been casually changing colour code from Viridian colour, which is already normalised and used on some other pages like charts and graphs connected to this page, like opinion polls and other political lists. Editations from his initiative were normally reverted as user who is not familiar to the cause. There was even no try to include all of these. He changed colour to gray, which is in experience of users familiar with political articles used for unaffiliated and independent groups. We are used to distinguish entities even with customary colours, which is not this case as we know this may change in the future with any data from these political entity. Not connected tho the main dispute, there is possibility this user is connected to the marketing or supporters unit of that party. --ThecentreCZ (talk)16:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that it makes sense that gray is being used for independents/other candidates and Concus Cretus might not know that. I'm curious why you orthe other editor didn't start a discussion? Instead of endlessly reverting their edits you can explain to them the reason why it should remain green on their or PaS' talkpage..Vacant0 (talk)18:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed ThecentreCZ reverting constructive edits in various articles repeatedly and my experience discussing with ThecentreCZ in the past is that it leads to nowhere. As in this case, his rationale is based in no rules or norms and it decreases the article's quality be using similar colors for two different entities based on his personal opinion. I do realize, however, that repeated reverting is not constructive anyway and starting a discussion would be more meaningful instead.--Concus Cretus (talk)18:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Your edits wasn't constructive as I informed you, as you are member of Public Relations division, you might know that. I have long experience with diversive editations with userConcus Cretus, as he is biased and assumed to be alleged member of public relations of political party, surprisingly frequently editing one particular political party and related articles. As concerned for rationale, there is used norms of Wikipedians concerned about political field and infoboxes, that your colour is not used. It is not point of any hard rules and regulations, for you maybe close to your alleged political views. Article quality is something you are concerned, we can see that. That might be suprise to some. In reality, this is just normalised colour used on other pages in Wikipedia as I informed you. Viridian colour is used on polls you haven't edited to gray, which is unaffiliated colour. You still doesn't take it into account, still repeating your biased personal rights. Viridian is just used as mark for distinguish forces, as we are used to with Wikipedians and editors normally. Not your green assumptions, in your biased brain. Its just used anywhere, nobody cares about STAN colour or anything like that. Its not even invetion of mine, as we can found in the article. This was firstly introduced in the article by userBedivere.cs in his [first edit] as he created Wikipedia page Pirates and Mayors. So its was just returning to the original version without your disurption. --ThecentreCZ (talk)20:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, unless you present a tangible color scheme you are referring to, I am not sure how it can be used or followed by anyone except yourself, without you personally enforcing it. It seems like an attempt toWP:OWN, while discussion in article talkpage is being ignored.--Concus Cretus (talk)21:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Discussing followed up here. Who has more eddits is Concus Cretus, he didn't yet reacted on my points. Pulling out of WP points have nothing to do with the matter as we know that in this relation, customary colors are not point of referentions in any case. --ThecentreCZ (talk)13:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
19:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Threats and argument from authority - the sources are right there and correct, and remove modern Iranian nationalistic bias."
19:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""HistoryofIran" has written a biased article, with sentences that are at best historically biased (anti-Bardiya, etc) and at worst completely biased ("Darius loved Atossa the most", "he was a good king who quelled many rebellions"). I suspect they are writing out of Iranian nationalism and are in any case not neutral enough to be allowed to continue to edit such pages, as all of the Persian history-related pages drip with similar bias."
19:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Gaumata's identification with Bardiya, even in Darius' propaganda, is problematic. I do not believe "History of Iran" is acting in good faith in reverting it."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User "Samuel D Rower" abruply initiated an edit-war atDarius the Great as of today, and is persistent on pushing his desired revision into the article through sheer edit warring. Doesn't seem to be accepting any sort of WP policy (includingWP:BRD,WP:CON andWAR), and he instantly removes every warning from his talk page. He recently opened a talk page section, but I don't blame anyone for not responding to it, as itsloaded with moreWP:BATTLE similar to the rest of his edit summaries directed against veteran userHistoryofIran, and not a single word of it is written in a constructive manner:
"I do not believe "History of Iran" is acting in good faith in reverting it."[164]
""HistoryofIran" has written a biased article (...) I suspect they are writing out of Iranian nationalism and are in any case not neutral enough to be allowed to continue to edit such pages, as all of the Persian history-related pages drip with similar bias."[165]
"HistoryofIran" has written a biased article, with sentences that are at best historically biased (Briant quite clearly cautions to accept neither version of the Gautama story, and the article presents other anti-Bardiya sentiment as has already been mentioned above) and at worst completely biased ("Darius loved Atossa the most", "he was a good king who quelled many rebellions" - things uncritically lifted from 40 year old monographs or the primary sources themselves). I suspect they are writing out of Iranian nationalism and are in any case not neutral enough to be allowed to continue to edit such pages, as all of the Persian history-related pages indicate similar bias."[166]
I shall take it as a compliment, as Wikipedia is well known to be an unreliable source at best and a terrible and biased mess at worst. You are a sad, sad man - and threatened me, which surely qualifies asWP:BATTLE. Veterancy hardly makes you correct.Samuel D Rowe (talk)19:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Not aware of any campaign - I just see two Iranians living in the Netherlands (elsewhere, it is pointed out that you use several suspicious IP addresses) making biased edits and edit-warring to keep anyone from correcting the pages they "curate". I have not been the first to pick up on this: "User:LouisAragon inserts his biased edits and personal analysis in many..." starts another discussion opened up on Wikipedia. Louis is further known to be aracist.[167]Samuel D Rowe (talk)19:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment : For the record, this "user", Samuel D Rowe, who i definitely don't believe is new, has somehow dug up a 7 years old (!) diff posted by LouisAragon as a response to a sockpuppet (from 2014 !). Given that Samuel D Rowe only registered in 2020, that sounds really strange and like a desperate (and almost stalkerish ...) attempt to get LouisAragon and HistoryofIran blocked. I had some disagreements with both LouisAragon and HistoryofIran in the past :[169],[170], but in my humble opinion, any editor who is here to build an encyclopedia can see that LouisAragon and HistoryofIran are two big net positive editors for this project.---Wikaviani(talk)(contribs)21:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:The edit warring is taking place on a talk-page.
Comments:
Trolling SPA edit-warring to include personal attacks on a talk-page; presumably a sock-puppet of someone or other.JBL (talk)13:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Was commenting on the misrepresentation of a scientific consensus and the MO i.e. editing patterns of editors. Not a personal attack. Flimsy effort to silence criticism.Nuclear Milkman (talk)14:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Clearly provoked by your involved and unwarranted deletion of comments critical of misrepresentation of the consensus regarding the validity of IQ, which is infinitely more serious than calling someone a "clown".Nuclear Milkman (talk)14:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Unfounded accusations of lying are a clear violation ofWP:NPA (as I am sure you well know, as you know far too much about how to edit wikipedia to be a first time editor). Such accusations are at best unconstructive, so of course they will be deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)15:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
:Note that editor RSK6400 apparently edits Wikipedia to "fight racism" (whatever that means) rather than edit based on a fair selection of academic sources.Nuclear Milkman (talk)14:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
21:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020352320 byGiraffer (talkChanges to -Relationships- First portion serves as promotional for 2 non-historical people and serve no benefit to subject. Breaks Wikipedia's non-promotional rule."
16:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020349694 byNJZombie (talk)Changes to -Relationships- First portion serves as promotional for 2 non-historical people and serve no benefit to subject. Breaks Wikipedia's non-promotional rule."
16:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020348814 byNJZombie (talk)The comments involving her past relationships serves as a benefit to Devon Welsh and Jaime Brooks, not Grimes. Also, those relationships should be classified under a separate category referring to "gossip"- as we do not know the true extent of said relationships."
16:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020347537 byNJZombie (talk) Mentioned already in previous deletion request, please do not use Grimes Wikipedia page to provide free off-site promotion to two non-historical entities that are not important to Grimes narrative."
My intentions were ALWAYS to curb the disruption. The reverts began before I even got involved. The user has some sort of bias againstJaime Brooks who is mentioned in the deleted info. The user in question is also insisting the Jaime Brooks article be deleted for the same reasoning they're using to delete the sourced information on the Grimes article. In fact, they’re now just being disruptive on that article asking for citations on everything and using that to justify deletion. My reverts on the Grimes article were not over a disagreement of content but over the user vandalizing the article by deleted the sourced information. When asked repeatedly to use the talk page to discuss why they wanted the change, they wrote a quick reason and then went immediately back to deleting the information which seems to be continuing now.NJZombie (talk)22:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[174] post-facto, but the editor is a long-term editor and should know better and has another edit-warring warning at the bottom of their talk page.
@Daniel Case: thanks for the response. I see you blocked the second IP, which made two of the reverts, but not the last (and most recent) IP, which made five of the reverts. I was just wondering if that was an oversight, or intentional. Thanks again -wolf03:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I had come here when the first IP had been reported to AIV, so I had only had that one on my mind. I have blocked the other one now, too.Daniel Case (talk)03:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments: The IP continues to edit-war[188], flatly refuse to understand what "consensus" means[189], and make peremptory demands on the Talk page[190]. Can someone please stop them from wasting more of the community's time?XOR'easter (talk)14:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The user is a new account that is specifically removing all information about theNew York Yankees and adding information related to theBoston Red Sox. The user has reverted many more than three times in the past 24 hours on the page, and has been warned on their talk page to cease disruptive editing, though they have continued to edit war. —Mikehawk10 (talk)07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments:User:Eggishorn wanted to revert the content on theRAF Lakenheath article. I reverted and then started a talk page discussion to outline why I disagreed with the content removal. I restored the content to theWP:STATUSQUO while the talk page discussion was ongoing using my third and last revision. However, Eggishorn has removed the content four times, including removing the content on his fourth revert when I had already restored the status quo while we discussed on talk.One way system (talk)17:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Leaving aside the fact that the links are malformed adn there is a redundant link, the first edit was clearlynot a revert - it was a simple editorial changeOne way system is very close to a boomerang since all their changes are pure reverts and I have addressed their lack of quality sources on the talk page.Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)17:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The quality and appropriateness of the sources is a content issue that can and will be discussed on the talk page. That is a content dispute and is not to do with the edit warring.Your first removal of content was effectively a reversion of the content added byUser:Snugglewasp on 4 December 2020:21:10, 4 December 2020 . The content dispute should be discussed on the talk page not be edit-warred over.One way system (talk)17:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Three things to, hopefully, clear things up for One way system.1.Your first removal of content was effectively a reversion of the content added [...] on 4 December 2020. No. The removal of extant material isnot considered a revert (otherwise, no one could ever remove anything: seeWP:REVERT,Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with theediting policy.).2. This makes the first revertyours—of 17:34; when this was reverted you should have gone to the talk page perWP:BRD: you had made aBold reversion, you had in turn beenReverted, so then it was time toDiscuss. As it is, it means you have made as many reversions as Egishorn has. Are you sure you would like to be treated the same...?3. Thirdly,per policy,The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content...i'e,you.HTH.——Serial17:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Mmmm. Apologies for my lack of clarity: "start a discussion" meansinstead of carrying on reverting as opposed to revertingand discussing.——Serial17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
But what you say makes no sense to me. If a discussion was to be had, then the content needs to be restored to the status quo until the conclusion of that discussion. That is what I did. Do you mean to say that restoring the status quo while the content is being dicsussed on talk is incorrect?One way system (talk)17:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, given the number of new accounts engaging in edit warring I suspect there might be some sock puppetry going on. —Czello14:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I have susepcted there is more than one user. Because some of edits have been fixing my clusmy edits and adding sources over time. One user was undoing my edits fast, even my very minor one's to fix an error. For example I was adding sources from Harvard and Stanfard, engaging in the talk page as well. Then after several edits, a second user is engaging in undoing my very minor edits, which again had plenty of sources.Erzan (talk)15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
There weretwo users, including yourself, undoing thesame sentence with many credible sources.
The wordmany suggests there was 3 or more undoing the same sentence but that is not the case, it was justtwo.Erzan (talk)09:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree -- it looks like there has been some PoV pushing from Twozerooz and Godless Raven. I've added the page to my watchlist and we'll insist on a consensus to change the lead from its current wording. —Czello09:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have spent quite a significant amount of time on the talk page, as have numerous other editors. While we are all doing our best to keep the page truthful, Erzan's relentless edit warring needs a better solution. --Twozerooz (talk)14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Erzan has also spent a lot of time there. Honestly I'm tempted to do a huge rollback and say that you should both be followingWP:BRD, but it's difficult for me to see what the "status quo" version of the article is as it's been edit warred for months. By the looks of things, Erzan's version is theWP:QUO. —Czello15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The statuos quo was the edit you see now. I was simply adding minor edits, adding sources from Havard, LSE, Stanford. This page has been under assault, sections that have been on this page for a long while are being removed and it's the same theme. An attempt to remove any edits that refer to socialism. It's bizzare because again, despite credible sources to all my edits, 2 users have been undoing very minor edits on the exact same sentence in 2 days. Is that not vandalism or something?Erzan (talk)15:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
1016874772 is theWP:QUO version. It should be reverted back to here. All users prior agree on the subject. You'll see a few 'thanks' between the other users. --Twozerooz (talk)15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Some of the edits were a clusmy attempt to prevent vandalism. The disputed sentence had plenty of sources and the edits fromUser:Twozerooz have ignored them and the talk page comments from the user have been very personal.Erzan (talk)14:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes there have been plenty attempts from numerous users to revert the on-going vandalism. Plenty of sources have been provided toUser:Erzan by myself and many other users, however they have been ignored. It appears Erzan'slong history of edit warring has now spilled over on to this page as well --Twozerooz (talk)15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
While I can't endorse Erzan's edit warring,WP:BRD maintains that you need to get consensus for your changesfirst. You should have left the article as it was and discussed it on the talk page until you had consensus. —Czello15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
There was consensus from everyone except Erzan. Erzan should have left the article as it was, and discussed it before editing.--Twozerooz (talk)15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can see a consensus on the talk page, just you two arguing. Although perhaps I'm just missing it; can you direct me to anything more specific? —Czello15:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
There was no consesus. I have seen this page for months if not years and all of a sudden the 'socialism sidebar' was removed without anyone mention of why in the talk page by yourself. There is a pattern emerging and it is an attempt to remove references to socialism. This is why I provided plenty of creddible sources to edits to avoid looking like there was a bad faith edit.Erzan (talk)15:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
There was consensus on the things that Erzan is trying to edit. e.g. even the discussion between Godless Raven and TFD were based on miscommunication and were largely superficial in nature, and ended with TFD saying "IOW it already said what you wanted it to say" --Twozerooz (talk)15:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I have read the talk page, over and over. I do not see those users agreeing with one another on the particular edit that is being disputed here.Erzan (talk)15:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The first clue wasn't the fact that we're trying to revert your edits? Regardless, I suggest a way to break the stalemate: BothErzan andTwozerooz be banned for edit warring, for a period of time that will give plenty of time for other users to decide the course of the article. Seems like an appropriate compromise. I also suggest someone clean up the talk page given how messy it has become, which is likely a serious roadblock to allowing proper discussion on the subject--Twozerooz (talk)16:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hold on.
They who? it was only1 user and then yourself who kept undoing thesame veryminor edits which expanded the list of sources.
@Erzan: Go toWP:SPI and click the "How to open an investigation" dropdown; that'll show you how. However, if you want a checkuser request you will have to be prepared to present some compelling evidence. —Czello16:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I personally would not want Twozerooz blocked for my role in this. Especially after all @Czello help in trying to resolve this and adding the page to their watchlist. Happy to follow the recommendations from both @Czello and @EdJohnston.Erzan (talk)16:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
As usual,EdJohnston keeps his cool: blocking both editors would have been a perfectly understandable response (and we could have thrownUser:Godless Raven in that batch as well), but not a long-term solution of course. Discussion is now happening on the talk page--butUser:Twozerooz needs to be careful, and they need to stop making personal attacks ("you seem unwilling to learn"). BTW I see no reason whatsoever to suspect socking, and I don't think anyone is going to consider CU on a hunch here.Drmies (talk)20:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments: They've been warned about edit warring and disruptive editing before, there's an ongoing Arbitration Enforcement request etc. They're continuing being generally disruptive, but they've clearly violated the 1RR sanctions on the page - so I think these 1RR violations should be addressed as a priority.Bacondrum22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments: Reported user here. This issue is already inarbitration (my first ever - I have edited since 2006) making this report seem redundant. I have on my own accord self-quarantined from editing entries since the arbitration was filed, so there is no "continuing being generally disruptive" - and it is not a fitting description for my time on wikipedia. I have no history of frequently being "warned about edit warring and disruptive editing". Possibly the report filing is related to thisexchange between me and the filer. As to the diffs above, they're all adding tags to bring attention to new postings in anongoing discussion on a Talk page, most of them days apart; The last one is a different tag bringing attention to a newly posted argument on the talk page arguingMOS:LABEL. Please let me know if you like more details or have other questions.Terjen (talk)06:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Before 15 April 2021, Terjen opened a discussion on the Talk page, pointing out concerns with using the "far-right" label in wikivoice on the page, proposing it is resolved by adding anin-text attribution.
04:21, 15 April 2021 Terjen adds a tag to the label, linking to the discussion on the Talk page.
05:18, 15 April 2021 NorthBySouthBaranof reverts to remove the tag, with the comment "an RFC already determined that this is appropriate. You'll need new consensus to change it."
21:57, 20 April 2021 Terjen restores the tag, with the edit comment explaining it is "linking to ongoing discussion"
22:30, 20 April 2021 NorthBySouthBaranof reverts the edit, removing the dispute tag, with the comment "per clear and undisputed RfC, closed with "Firm consensus to describe Boogaloo movememnt as far-right as per overwhelming majority of reliable sources"
0:09, 26 April 2021 Terjen adds a new tag linking to the updated ongoing discussion, with the edit comment "tag bringing attention to ongoing discussion about mislabeling"
0:12, 26 April 2021 NorthBySouthBaranof reverts the edit, removing the tag, with the comment "Again, you have two options: open a new RFC to reverse the previous formal consensus, or WP:DROPTHESTICK"
03:41, 26 April 2021 Terjen adds a different "Contentious label" tag linking to the discussion, with the edit comment "tag contentious label - see discussion"
7:35, 26 April 2021 Bacondrum reverts the edit, removing the tag, with no edit comment.
18:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020189495 byMrOllie (talk) it does not introduce any grammatical errors. it fixes blatant violations of guidelines."
18:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020189100 byAkeosnhaoe (talk) irrelevant. If you want to change a particular word, change that particular word. But you are obviously reverting just to be disruptive."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I also reverted a number of this user's edits on other pages which I felt were removing useful information which they re-reverted as well. This user is constantly insulting articles in their edit summaries, it's all pretty strange honestly.Akeosnhaoe (talk)18:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Akeosnhaoe has clear disruptive intent and is undoing edits for no reason whatsoever. See[201],[202],[203]. With regards to the article on python, they claim to have a problem with one particular word that I introduced when fixing appallingly bad writing, but their "reason" is nonsense and they are undoing my changes entirely. This is clearly not someone editing in good faith.Warlighter (talk)18:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This user has been attempting to replace a valid reference to a database showing empirical data of the number of DeLorean Time Machine replicas in existence with a link to his own web address where time machine replica services are offered. A review of the articles history identified this user and other named variants (see article talk page link above) have made similar modifications to this article in an attempt to advertise their services. The data on his commercial web address is also incorrect, but the intention is to use SEO page rank provided by a link from Wikipedia to improve his page traffic instead of for the benefit of provided substantive information to wikipedia visitors. Advertisements of this type have been regularly scrubbed from this page to provide a neutral observation and presentation of the facts. User has been warned multiple times and continues to circumvent edits by replacing links to his personal web address. An edit earlier today went so far as to add a full blatant advertisement for this user's web address soliciting the aforemmentioned replica rental services.Retrotechexpert (talk)22:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Further evidence that GullWing88 is the same user as MikeJones19888 -- user made edits to Back to the Future (Franchise) article and added blantant advertisement to aforementioned web address advertising rental services. ClueBot reverted this change. All contribs from this user appear in the same vein --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GullWing88Retrotechexpert (talk)
Comments: User:KidAd has been reverting my efforts to add a succession box and to document individuals as “acting” in multiple articles including but not limited to the attached articles. Attempts to discuss have failed, attempts to get other users to discuss have failed. Wikipedia doesn’t have a standard when succession boxes should be included, but government office holders seems appropriate and are commonly included in those articles.Yousef Raz (talk)22:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment by involved user Very odd submission here. Based on my interactions with this user, it has become clear that they may lack the understanding necessary to participate in this project. This user has repeatedly edit-warred to include the word "acting" in infoboxes, even when the infobox already includes the word. (Basicallythis change x 15). They have also repeatedly inserted strange and unnecessary succession boxes even after I removed them. In the case ofTae Johnson, which this submission seems to be focused on, they have refused to start discussions perWP:ONUS and evenclaimed that an unrelated discussion onBrandon Wales granted them permission to ignore policy and keep edit-warring. Also strange is that on theDiff of edit warring / 3RR warning part of this submission, they included a link toa warning I leftthem. Additionally, thediffs of the user's reverts also includestheir reverts. This user is obviously confused, and I would appreciate help from anyone in teaching them that what they're doing is not correct.KidAd •SPEAK22:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
OK.User:Yousef Raz, I think you should have listened the first time, listened to the advice of someone who has a bit more experience than you. If you feel like adding another box to an article makes any sense, you should get a consensus for that from the community, especially if you have already been reverted. My suggestion to you is that you say "OK" and swallow your pride, and start a talk page discussionsomewhere. Because KidAd is not going to be blocked for these reverts, and you might find yourself in hot water perWP:BOOMERANG and certainlyWP:ONUS. If that's not enough alphabet soup for you, there's alwaysWP:CIR, and you really don't want us to look through all your edits with that in mind.Drmies (talk)22:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Not looking for someone to be blocked. TThis isn't an issue of pride. These are legitimate edits that are well sourced that only one user consistently reverts for a reason that is unclear. Im trying to avoid an edit war by bringing it here. I have included pretty standard succession boxes that are very common and well places. If these succession boxes do not meet a standard set by a rule, then I got no problem with excluding them. I have attempted to get other users input, and none have responded.Yousef Raz (talk)23:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments:This editor has been repeatedly reverting my and-Zai-'s removal of information related only to Ali Amin (Mustafa Amin's sibling), as well as adding birth and death dates in the biography section despite already having those in both the lead and infobox. He or she has been warned repeatedly, including a message pointing him or her to the talk page discussion I opened, to no avail. The user ignores the repeated messages and continues reverting.Tol |Talk |Contribs23:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments: False information andWP:OR is added from this IP31.166.38.73 (talk·contribs). The user writes about the Turkic origins of the Donghu referring to these sources (Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (2000). "Ji 姬 and Jiang 姜: The Role of Exogamic Clans in the Organization of the Zhou Polity", Early China, p. 20; Wei Shou . Book of Wei. Vol. 1; Tseng, Chin Yin (2012). The Making of the Tuoba Northern Wei: Constructing Material Cultural Expressions in the Northern Wei Pingcheng Period (398-494 CE) (PhD). University of Oxford. P . 1 .; Wei Shou. Book of Wei. Vol. 91 "蠕蠕 ， 東 胡 之 苗裔 也 ， 姓 郁 久 閭 氏。" tr. "Rúrú, offsprings of Dōnghú, surnamed Yùjiŭlǘ"; Wei Shou. Book of Wei. Vol. 91 "蠕蠕 ， 東 胡 之 苗裔 也 ， 姓 郁 久 閭 氏。" tr. "Rúrú, offsprings of Dōnghú, surnamed Yùjiŭlǘ"). But the sources say about the connection of the Rourans with the Donghu and the Xiongnu, not with the Turkic peoples. Previously, the user was engaged in similar activities in the articleTatar confederation. As a result, the article was protected, and the user was blocked. Previously he edited from here:169.148.68.144 (talk·contribs),31.167.235.14 (talk·contribs),Osamaorf (talk·contribs). Request to protect articles (Rouran Khaganate,Proto-Mongols,Donghu people), as well as take action against the user31.166.38.73 (talk·contribs).
20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020745025 byTgeorgescu (talk) Things have not changed much since 2014, in fact now we have more proof towards my point"
01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "I was forced to edit this page, since it heavily distorted reality: the majority of scholars believe that the United Monarchy existed and have rejected Finkelstein's opinion. Not only that, Mazar's opinion is also distorted, since he supports the existence of the United Monarchy"
01:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Archaeological record */ Now the page is equilibrated and reports actual archaeology"
As you can see, my edit notes and my edit itself states the distinction, and my latest edit even includes a reference. Not only is the user undoing my work, the user is also deleting names whichare credited as working on the programme.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]Nothing has been written on talk pages, however the edit summery has been used clearly.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]
Comments:
Blocked – 3 months. Continuation of the pattern of warring for which this IP was blocked for a month back in December. At that time,User:ToBeFree commented in the block notice:"edit warring combined with a complete, active rejection of any attempts to build a consensus, including the repeated removal of the other user's comments from multiple discussion pages". To illustrate that the IP's approach has not changed, today theyremoved their own edit warring report. On 15 April theyremoved someone else's post from article talk.EdJohnston (talk)16:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
22:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Criticism */ colonialism isnt a thing of the past. No work or piece or source out there attributes an "end" to colonialism. People still havent got their land back and europeans are still colonizing, as well as engaging in many new forms of colonialism known as neo colonialism, to say its a thing of the past is misleading and sounds kinda biased towards colonizers if u ask me. There is absolutely no proof that colonialism ended yet mountains of it alluding to its continuation i.e missionaries"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not applicable
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[218]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on other talk page:[219]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[220]
Comments:
As noted in the discussions attempted with Locke Cole the use of IEC prefixes is allowed in cases where both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary. The article in question has for a long time used IEC prefixes to resolve the ambiguity in the two meanings of binary prefixes (e.g. GB meaning either 1 billion or 1,073,741,824). Locke Cole made his changes and was asked to discuss but instead he reverted. Another editor joined the discussion supporting the original usage but Locke Cole reverted nonetheless. so far no one has supported his POV. Clearly the article should remain in itsoriginal version (with minor corrections) while editors discuss the changes if any. Locke Cole should be blocked from further edits of the article.
There is longstanding consensus atWP:COMPUNITS that we do not use IEC units in articles. This editor, as well asDondervogel 2(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) have apparently held a 10+ year grudge that they didn't get their way atWT:MOSNUM and are editing in defiance of that longstanding consensus. I appropriately tagged the article as containing original research and being unsourceddays ago after these two edit warred to maintain the IEC prefixes, and that edit was reverted earlier today. At that point I elected to edit the IEC prefixes out and disambiguate them using the appropriate{{BDprefix}} template to alert readers to the discrepancy between GB/GiB, etc. I've only reverted two times in the past four days. ProposeWP:BOOMERANG forTom94022(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) and Dondervogel 2 who have taken MoS arguments to various articles to fight their lost battle one by one. —Locke Cole •t •c17:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Diff of notification of this discussion for Dondervogel 2:[221]
Locke Cole has reverted only twice today, to keep the article in compliance withWP:COMPUNITS. (The first of three edits today was not a revert and four reverts are needed to violate 3RR.) If anyone, it is Tom94022 who should be sanctioned, for edit-warring in clear violation of guidelines and for tendentious reporting here. —David Eppstein (talk)17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Locke Cole has reverted three times today,, 9:32, 9:25 and 8:44. The usage of IEC prefixes is allowed in articles where both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary - in the article in question by my count there are 7 JEDEC binary usages and 9 IEC decimal usages, clearly neither is primary.Tom94022 (talk)
(ec) You were free to disambiguate the units using the methods shown atWP:COMPUNITS or using{{BDprefix}}, but apparently your fingers only know how to waste time on talk pages or revert. Sad. —Locke Cole •t •c19:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
(ec) I've made three edits toMemory hierarchy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views), one edit and two reverts:2021-04-30T15:44:09 (initial edit, not a revert as I introduced new content),2021-04-30T16:25:34 (revert #1), and2021-04-30T16:32:06 (revert #2). You quote part ofWP:COMPUNITS but ignore the part that you don't like, specifically the full quote here:in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, or in which converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision,or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical (emphasis added). The fullWP:COMPUNITS provides multiple examples of how to correctly disambiguate units where there may be confusion as to their meaning, all of which you fail to use over IEC prefixes whichWP:COMPUNITS clearly tells editors are not to be used... —Locke Cole •t •c19:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Dictionary definition of "Or" in English or in logic is "used to link alternatives." There are three alternatives listed in the controlling sentence that allow IEC binary units to be used - Locke Cole chooses to emphasize one of three alternative exceptions which is just irrelevant, the challenged article meets the first alternative's criterium.Tom94022 (talk)23:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Both types are used because someone mistakenly or deliberately added them. They aren't used because the sources called for them. Regardless, there are options for providing the reader with guidance to make clear that the terms are referring to different values without resorting tooriginal research and givingundue weight to something that clearly has not taken the world by storm... —Locke Cole •t •c05:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Dondervogel 2 has also tried to repeat settled arguments (covered byWP:COMPUNITS specifically from discussions atWT:MOSNUM) at various articles, see the talk pages here:
WP:COMPUNITS requires disambiguation, and these are examples of articles in whichLocke Cole introduced ambiguity, against the spirit and letter ofWP:MOSNUM. My purpose in each of these edits was to start a discussion on how to avoid ambiguity in the article in question. The arguments needed to be the same in each case because the manner in which ambiguity had been introduced was the same.Dondervogel 2 (talk)20:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:COMPUNITS prescribes multiple methods for clarifying the meaning of the metric units. None of them involve using KiB, MiB or GiB except under very specific circumstances. In all other cases MoS states they are "not to be used". If you believe there was ambiguity introduced, nothing precluded you from using one of the examples cited at COMPUNITS. Instead you chose to revert or insist on a discussion about keeping the IEC units. Protracted debate over something you debated at length before is not something anyone wants, which is why the discussion at MOSNUM was immediately met with a lack of desire to reopen the discussion. If you'd like to use IEC units, you'd either need to clearly meet the exceptions provided for at COMPUNITS, or you'd need to convince a consensus of editors to change COMPUNITS to allow the edits you prefer. Individual discussions across the encyclopedia far away from editors that would be concerned with the issue are not how you bring about change. —Locke Cole •t •c20:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Result: No violation. The best place to solve the underlying issue might be atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#WP:COMPUNITS where a talk thread already exists. If people think that the style advice atWP:COMPUNITS is ambiguous, or is too permissive towardsMiB andKiB a new RfC might be needed. Note thatWP:ARBATC provides discretionary sanctions for disputes about the MOS, though the sanctions seem to apply only on MOS-related pages, not on article talk pages. If the revert war that was reported here continues, admins may have to do something under the usual edit warring rules. That might consist of warnings followed by blocks. All this can be avoided if those interested will wait for agreement.EdJohnston (talk)21:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This user keeps mass-deleting sourced content from the page, has been reverted by several editors, warned on their talk page, yet they continue with this.Ashleyyoursmile!14:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[232]
Comments: This user named Adam Ramzy has been repeatedly remove sourced content in the article. He also appeared in edit warring with another user. 180.242.74.101 (talk)22:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Further, the user has not reverted since they were warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk)22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "The Cast and Characters section does not obey the same strict rules, we can infer that this is the true cast order based on plot info"
00:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "The official cast list on the website does not include Chan, yet Feige said she is effectively the lead role of the film, therefore she goes at the top"
New user, only posts on one topic, keeps making same revert multiple times in course of one day. Claims that they "do not back down" on user page. Asks editors requesting that they refrain from edit warring that they "cash [them] outside" on talk page.Poojean (talk)10:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;[241]
Comments: This is a weird one, so apologies. I removed an unnecessary redirect from Gallen's article on the 20 April,New South Wales, Australia -->New South Wales, for obvious reasons. Fleets reverted three times withthis rationale. I couldn't find any mention of the redirect being recommended at the suggested project page and "oh but it makes the location appear as the same colour" is just daft. They then made afourth partial revert after I mentioned the unnecessary redirect isn't covered by any aspect ofWP:RPURPOSE, but this time linking Australia on it's own. Again, simply to make the location appear as one colour. After getting clarification atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking that Australia should not be linked (I pinged Fleets to the discussion, in an attempt to encourage them to engage on the matter, they declined), I removed it on 29 April. Fleets responded by edit warring the unnecessary redirect back in, includingthis, which to me has crossed the line from stubborn to plain old disruptive. I haven't left an edit warring template on their talk page as they're an experienced editor, which is also the reason why I didn't report their breach of 3RR on 20 April. –2.O.Boxing21:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
And the odd disruptioncontinues. Has now removed Australia entirely, simply to make the location "appear as one colour". It's stepping into ownership territory now. –2.O.Boxing09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd also like to clarify for any reviewing admin,thesethreereverts by me were inline with 3RR, toenforce any clearly established consensus which was clarified by experienced editors at the MOS:Linking discussion. –2.O.Boxing10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Result:User:Fleets is warned not to revert again atPaul Gallen unless they get a prior consensus in favor of their change. The page has been semiprotected four days by another admin so the IP's participation in the war is stopped for the moment.EdJohnston (talk)13:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Result:User:Mammooth is blocked one month for apparent logged-out edit warring and the page is semiprotected for three months. Mammooth was partially blocked one week for warring on the same article just a few days ago.EdJohnston (talk)14:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
05:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021149756 bySunDawn (talk) I recommend the user read the guidelines for biographies of living persons. It is their responsibility to seek consensus before reinstating the content. This is explicit in the guidelines. There is no requirement to seek consensus before deleting content, per BeBold."
04:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021148853 bySunDawn (talk) “Unexplained content removal” is not a valid reason for edit-warring, especially when explanations have been provided here and on the Talk page. Get consensus there before reverting."
04:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021142783 byNemov (talk) User Nemov has now violated the three-revert rule by undoing my edits three times. The user should be reminded that no consensus is required before deleting content, though consensus is explicitly required before reinstating it. I suggest user Nemov make his case for reverting on the Talk page."
03:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021139003 byNemov (talk) The guidelines are clear that a user must seek consensus before restoring deleted material. I suggest the user read the guidelines on living persons. It is the responsibility of whoever would restore the content to seek consensus in the Talk page (where there is clearly no consensus), not the deleter."
03:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021018632 byNemov (talk) “If [deleted material on living persons] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.” User did not seek or obtain consensus. Additionally, *several* high-quality sources are required for inclusion in articles about living persons."
05:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm */ A Twitter spat from six months ago is not notable by the standards of biographies of living persons. Other biographical articles do not list every social-media fracas a notable person is involved in, even if they received transitory media coverage."
05:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm */A transient Twitter spat is not a notable event in anyone’s biography. Other articles about public figures do not list every social media flap they trigger."
04:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm */Removed non-notable content."
User insisting to delete content that are well-sourced and well referenced. User has reverted more than three times in past 24 hours. User insisted that others seek consensus, while themselves didn't seek consensus and didn't respond to warnings and talk page of the article.SunDawn (talk)05:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – 31 hours. Epicforest wants our article to say 'South Asian' rather than 'Pakistani', but it appears that the source says 'Pakistani'. (The term 'South Asian' doesn't even occur in the BBC article that is being used as a reference). Changing how the source specifies the national origin of the people in the study would be consideredWP:OR or even source falsification.EdJohnston (talk)21:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Page protected (by another admin, not me). I see thatAudun Haug Nilsen has started a thread at the article's talk page. I encourage them to continue to participate civilly in discussions there, and I inviteZachary Daiquiri to reply. —C.Fred (talk)15:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved fromWP:AN
Already blocked~ ToBeFree (talk)00:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Warned I'm not convinced there was an edit warring violation yet, but this disagreement is getting to the point where it could be disruptive. I think everyone needs to make greater use of the article talk page and (failing that)dispute resolution or users may find themselves partial blocked from editing that article.331dot (talk)14:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely - byUser:Sro23 as a sock ofWP:LTA/BKFIP perWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP/Archive.EdJohnston (talk)21:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed to be the same editor and are blocked indef for sockpuppetry.EdJohnston (talk)22:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Further, the user has not reverted since they were warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk)22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)