Page: Susan Lynch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] (1)
2. [diff] (2)
3. [diff] (3)
4. [diff] (4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [2]

Comments: P.S. I know I've filled this out wrong. I'm not a technical person. But the recent page history demonstrates the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ficaia (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale
  No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Book of Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JudasMacca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9],WikiProject Judaism posts (comments by User:Doug Weller)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

Comments:
Doug Weller and I have noticed recent disruptive changes to the lede of Book of Genesis, which started on 9 April 2022. The edits are unsourced and verge on preaching, with "nation of peace" "nation of people" wikilinked to nation, etc. In a header, Doug Weller has written "that guy's nuts" on my user talk page. This came to a head with four consecutive reverts within 24 hours, which threatens to continue. I am not sure that this user should be editing wikipedia, given some of Doug Weller's observations on the user's talk page and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism (see above). Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC) (refactored)[reply]

My comment about the editor being nuts was in response to this series of edits[11] which among other things said that the ruling feudal families of Europe were black and, writing about the Black Death, "which a particular Caucasian demographic brought in via their migration westward from the caves of the Caucasus Mountains where they were engaging in many vile practices (see Arthur Koestler's book) and the rest of the steppe region of Eurasia, and where they were able to spread diseases due to the aforementioned factors and also their excessive body hair which contained lice...". Note that "Caucasian" above is actually a link to Wild man. I'm not sure if the editor made this up himself or copied it, but in any case I think my question about being nuts was appropriate. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you can spell and are not mentally challenged, I said "nation of PEOPLE" not "nation of peace" so that is just outright slander and injurious speech.

Secondly, the term "Jewish" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. I have a source which refers to the LORD's chosen people in the Old Testament, particularly Genesis, which is pertinent in this instance, as Israelites. I'll post it eventually, give me some time. I have more sources that talk about this.

Thirdly, the primary source for the accounts that took place in the Scriptures, especially in the book of Genesis, are not in some "Jewish" scholar's text or some sociological handbook, right, it's in the Holy Bible which is the source and derivation of the Israelites as a nation of PEOPLE, again, nation of PEOPLE, not PEACE. You can spell mate, yeah?

Also, just as an aside, you got this dude named "Doug" calling me crazy, haha! Someone that knows absolutely about the Bible or the narrative of the Bible and what this thing is truly about. Oh Lord, ha! JudasMacca (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JudasMacca: you do know my comment was about edits having nothing to do with the Bible, right? You want to explain those edits? Doug Weller talk 09:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And back to the Book of Genesis issue, before his latest revert I warned him about changing sourced text, which is exactly what he is doing. The source[12] says "it appears as a narrative account of Judaism' understanding of creation and the origins of the Jewish people." He's changing that to "patriarchs and, in general, the origins of the Israelites as a nation of people". He's interpreting that, which we can't do. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say knows absolutely nothing about the Bible or the narrative, audience, purpose and authorship thereof. JudasMacca (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, as to the Black Death and wildman reference, well, do you really want me to bring out all the evidence that I have on the Caucasian coming from the caves of the Caucasus Mountains as well as regions of the Eurasian Steppe.

Just look up the Almas of Mongolia which was documented by travelers speaking about basically beast-men living in a savage state on all fours and extremely hairy. Now ask yourself, when I compare that description to the image of the wild men on the Wikipedia page, aren't the two similar? The answer is yes.

When I say "black" I'm not being literal, I'm using that term colloquially because of all the lies that have run this world and gripped people's mind and understanding of these things. In this case as the proper phraseology would be "so-called" because nobody is black, even the darkest hue in terms of skin color is a very dark brown. That's pseudoscience established for the purpose of the perpetuation of the Caucasian man and his ideology. The same goes for the term "white". You all would be "red" not "white".

As for the so-called black rulership, you really want me to bring out all the evidence on ruling class of Europe in the Middle Ages being so-called black while Caucasians were serfs and in an a very low estate. Do you really want me to do that, cause I can if I'm so inclined to do so. JudasMacca (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely as being a disastrously bad fit for an encyclopedia, see all the warnings on their page plus for instance the above discussion and this edit summary ("jew-ish"!). Bishonen | tålk 10:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Page: The Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TitanicFog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[[13]] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oingo_Boingo_members
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SkidMountTubularFrame (talk • contribs)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Origins of the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sychonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. 17:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Contemporaneous explanations */ This quote now includes references from several "secondary" sources, though the existing ones were sufficient; two recent books, and one from John A. Logan, an American politician and soldier, a general in the war. His work on the conflict treats it in broader historico-political terms."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

Although this is slow edit warring, I took it here because I'm deeply worried by their comment ":Even though much recent scholarship on American history suffers from the well-documented politicization of academia"[19] Rsk6400 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the accusation of edit warring is unfounded. I have given a good deal of time and effort over this simple addition of a quote -- one that is not disputed as to accuracy or reliability. At first the reversions of my edit were claimed to have been done because I did not make a proper reference -- that because it appeared in Atlantic Monthly, and I referred to that publication, it was hence unacceptable, even though accurate. I then added a second source, from the NY Times, thinking surely that would be acceptable, but was again informed that it was not. Apparently no matter how many primary sources I added it would still not be enough. I added a third source, one that had been used in other places in the same article thinking that would bring it over the bar of acceptability. It did not. I even pointed out that under Wiki guidelines that sometimes, specifically quotes, primary sources were acceptable. Again, this was rejected. Apparently this is not the case. My last attempt was to rewrite the edit with additional secondary sources -- three of them: Two from recent historians, and one from a Civil War Union General (as noted in my explanation). The edit now has half a dozen sources listed on it.

The person making this accusation seems to be concerned about my view of the state of scholarship in academia, and gives a quote of mine (I suppose it's always nice to see yourself quoted), but that was from a different article, about a different subject, and really has nothing to do with whether this is a valuable addition to the article. I have given my reasons in the talk page on why I think that it is, and these can be reviewed there, though I am certainly willing to elaborate on the case. I indicated on the talk page that I was happy to discuss the matter, and I made quite a number of attempts to accommodate the objections made, even though I disagree with the necessity. It is unfortunate that this has been brought here since I believe all my actions have been made in good faith, something I find quite important in all areas of life, not just Wikipedia. Thank you. Sych (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:Sychonic is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. (Since April 11 they have restored the Jefferson Davis quotation five times). The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Good faith is not enough; you also need to persuade the other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Candace Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NikolaosFanaris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Several recent instances, 3 April, this is failure to observe BRD, content was reverted by 3rd editor NF makes original add[20]

other editor reverts [21] NF restores [22]

The next article edit is a second editor reverting. [23]

Starting 13 April

NF adds "alt-right" to lead 24 Feb [24] and is reverted [25]

1. NF Adds "far-right" and citations to opening sentence [26] Given 24 Feb edit this is a revert vs a new edit

Other editor reverts [27]

2. NF restores disputed edit [28]

other editor reverts "far-right" (leaves citations) [29]

• Editor is warned about edit warring [30] and discretionary sanctions [31]

NF self reverts [32]

other editor removes disputed content [33]

3. NF again restores [34]

The final edit is just over 24hr but is part of a pattern of combative editing based on the assumption that consensus is required to remove new content and editors who don't agree are acting in bad faith (see similar behavior here [35]). This is a new editor with around 100 total edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion to resolve issue [36] The combination of bad faith accusations and edit warring is problematic. For example, "I just re-read Springee's original post. It is quite misleading to claim that the two sources I added cannot be accessed because of paywall." The articles in question are behind a paywall. "calling the GAL/TAN scale 'POV' shows that you don't understand political science. " No one said the GAL/TAN scale was POV.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]

Comments:

I reversed the removal of cited content which occured without consensus in the discussion page. Therefore, I acted on attempts by Springee to vandalise the article. In regards to the second point, Springee appears to demonstrate a history of removing similar labels (especially the far-right one) in Republican-related articles [1]. For the record, I never used the alt-right one - that's misleading. He did refer to the label and the GAL/TAN scale as POV to justify their removal. His contribution is open to interpretations, but a thorough look at the discussion page can verify my claims [2]. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added "alt-right" to lead [38]. Springee (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The filing editor Springee has also violated 1RR:
  • 07:34 15 April 2022: Reverting 15:09 14 April 2022 edit by X-Editor
  • 07:36 15 April 2022: Reverting 15:00 14 April 2022 edit by X-Editor

I'm not sure that Springee's edits rise to the level of vandalism, but there does appear to be some whitewashing/stonewalling going on. For example here they claim that an actual quote of Owens "does not really clarify her views on the subject", and that the opposing RS view is somehow undue. This looks like an effort to undermine the contested "far right" label by removing sources that support it. And Springee has been here long enough to know that a source being behind a WP:PAYWALL is not a legitimate complaint. All involved should be mindful of the 1RR restriction. –dlthewave ☎ 16:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect though it is interesting that once again you have shown up to a notice board discussion that doesn't involve you but does involve me. Anyway, I made a series of 3 edits that were meant to be back to back. FN reverted one of the edits as I was making the 3rd. Note the edits are just 2 minutes apart (07:34 and 07:36) and FN's edits occurred at 07:34 and 07:35. Are you really going to claim that as edit warring when I could have made all three changes as 1 edit? Your other claims are an attempt to poison the well rather than a reasonable description of both the edits and the concerns raised on the talk page. Finally, I did not say that content behind a paywall is unusable. Rather the paywall makes WP:V difficult for other editors (see my diff here[39] "...requiring a subscription. That doesn't mean those sources are unusable.") Please do not falsely accuse me of claiming sources behind a paywall are not usable when that is clearly not what I said. Springee (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like whataboutism and in any case is not equivalent: it's obvious those were intended to be edits in a row (which count as one revert per WP:3RR). Those latter two edits are perfectly in line with good faith editing. The WP:ONUS for inclusion lies with inclusionists, always has. Quotepicking can still be bad or UNDUE, and removing sources that are redundant is fine (the label "far-right" was already gone). Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One structural note, NikolaosFanaris when you said "reversed the removal of cited content which occurred without consensus" that implies that citing gives a material a special status that then requires a consensus to remove. Sourcing or sourcability is a requirement for all article space content and does not give it special status such as requiring a consensus for removal. In reality (potential) removal is guided by other policies and guidelines, those centering around wp:burden and wp:BLP being amongst those being very applicable here. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - but I still think that the removal should be considered vandalism and POV, hence my reversals. Springee deliberately removed cited content that was backed by reputable sources and contained actual quotes. I sense heavy POV behind some of actions, including the continuous removal of the far-right label. Owens' ideology sits on that side of the political spectrum - there is absolutely no doubt about that. Everything in the views' section already points towards that direction, but somehow this is debated by one user who has a history of removing labels in WP. First the label, and now the removal of actual quotes. Please read WP:IMPARTIAL NikolaosFanaris (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The common meaning of "far right" in the US is either the whackiest, most extreme end of that political spectrum or else a pejorative term applied to any conservative by a political opponent. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the aggressive statement, which is clearly targeting me, I have to point out that top academic journals have been used to back the term in the case of CO. I don't care how you or anyone else in the American context use the term. Those are all hypothetical scenarios. With that said, we are currently participating in this encyclopedia and my understanding is that we have to somehow(?) value political science and terminology. And to answer to your previous statement: no, you are wrong! Far-right does not automatically imply (even in the American context!) that someone is sitting on the most extreme end of the political spectrum. That's called extremism (or extreme-right) and is not always related to the far-right family. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My statements do not devalue political science And we do summarize what is is said in (hopefully good) sources, and summaries are typically done using the common meanings of terms, so those are relevant. My post was also pointing out two different context-sensitive meanings in sources; such may assist in that effort. North8000 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a volatile statement and implies that I am adding the far-right label (backed by academic sources) as a pejorative term: The common meaning of "far right" in the US is either the whackiest, most extreme end of that political spectrum or else a pejorative term applied to any conservative by a political opponent. Nothing more, nothing less. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, adding to my previous post, regarding your statement that far right does not mean the most extreme end of that political spectrum, IMO that assertion obviously doesn't sound correct.North8000 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next the first statement in your post makes two claims about me. 1. That I said that in this case it is a pejorative term. I didn't say that, but agree with it. 2. That I implied a certain motivation of yours for making the addition. I did not say or imply that. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which proves my point that you don't really understand this terminology. The difference between far-right and extreme (or radical) right lies in the ideological compliance with liberal democracy. In most cases, the far-right term is able to accurately describe ultraconservative actors or parties who still operate within those limits. On the other hand, radical or extreme right indicates strong undemocratic notions and a highly authoritarian stance. With that said, I believe that the majority of authors who have come here to accuse me of reversals are driven by clear POV and a lack of understanding of terminology, which shows that certain ideological criteria may cloud their judgmement. To give you a different example, I don't understand astrophysics, which means that I would never express an opinion on such theories. But most importantly, I would never go around trying to enforce my opinion on other OR accuse users I disagree with of attacking conservatives by using a certain terminology. In regards to Candace Owens - no she is not a conservative anymore - she is actually ultraconservative, which effectively makes her far-right because of her clear ideological approach. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NF accusing others of "vandalism" is a bad sign, as is the stonewalling in this back-and-forth as linked above. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that saying or implying "vandalism" and other negative generalizations and implying bad motives about another editor is out-of-line at best. IMO doubly so about an editor who, from what I've seen has been has been a cautious, courteous and very Wikipedian editor. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism, but lots of editors don't understand our strict definition of that term. Bad, but not an ongoing behavioral problem. That link you cite, Crossroads, comes after a very long thread in which the issue has been identified clearly several times. For that editor to clueless ask "what's the problem here?" is a lazy, incompetent, or disingenuous question. I can understand the accused's frustration and snarky response. Not an ongoing crime either. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not vandalism per SPECIFICO. What I'm seeing is a relatively new editor who is not as familiar with the ground rules as they should be, especially when editing the highly volatile AP2 topic area and even more so when it's a BLP. A firm word of caution would definitely help but if it doesn't, then a 6-month t-ban would allow time for the new editor to learn NPOV, BLP, dispassionate tone, REDFLAG, NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, and the difference between media opinion and statements of fact. Atsme 💬 📧 20:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: given that they decided to bull-in-china-shop with these exact same issues at Lauren Boebert [40] while this discussion was active, I think a t-ban to encourage them to get experience in a less volatile area is looking increasingly like the best option. They're just not listening. VQuakr (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information, VQuakr. DIDNTHEARTHAT is an undesirable position to be in. I was not aware of the other BLP, but after some research, I am now inclined to agree with you. Atsme 💬 📧 01:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:...aaaand they're edit warring there, too. [41]. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to support a six month ban because I simply moved the label, which was already mentioned in the article, further up in the intro? Is that how bans are proposed? How is this even an issue? [1] I think I am being attacked unfairly here without serious evidence. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't just move it. You changed it from "per such and such source" to a violation of WP:WIKIVOICE, which is policy. This has already been explained to you, but rather than learn or ask for clarification you're continuing to edit war. Which means you aren't experienced enough (or don't have the patience in general) to be editing WP:BLP's. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, for their own wiki-benefit and than of Wikipedia NikolaosFanaris needs to learn how the the alternate universe of Wikipedia works before they try to jump in so heavily on difficult political articles. @NikolaosFanaris:, in the event that you agree, do you have an idea on a self-administered plan to do that? If not I would suggest a tban on the articles in question which might be an impetus for the described evolution and also solve the immediate issue at the article raised here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not edit Boebert's page again, but I am not going to back down on Owens. There is some consensus on the talk page anyway. Cheers. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Beast (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sathyalingam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 03:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC) to 03:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 03:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Box office */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC) to 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 05:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) to 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Box office */"
4. 10:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disruptive editor. Deliberately changes financial data (as seen here) and ignores warnings on talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: The Suicide Squad (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42], [43], [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Reverting the film is a box-office bomb:

1. [45]
2. [46] - partial revert

Restoring the "Future" section:

1. [47]
2. [48]

Reverting over Ratcatcher's place of origin:

1. [49]
2. [50]

Reverting Buh6173's plot changes:

1. [51]
2. [52]

Reverting me repeatedly over home media sales and box office:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. [57]
6. [58]
7. [59]
8. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62], [63], [64]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [65]

Comments:
The user has engaged in long-term edit-warring and I'm tired of him removing my edits and that of others. And he hasn't done this only on one edit, but multiple ones over months. I don't want to keep edit-warring with him and it's clear he won't stop, I've already self-reverted multiple times or let the situation go so as to not create more of a dispute: [66], [67], [68], [69]

The user is displaying ownership behaviour and doesn't allow an edit other than what he agrees with.

He also denies engaging in an edit war because according to him the edits he is reverting are bad [70]. As he has a lot of experience, I highly doubt he doesn't know his statement is wrong and don't fall in any exemptions of WP:3RR as far as I see. Regardless him thinking the edits are bad isn't an exemption since it's a personal view. I'm tired of arguing with the individual and him reverting me so many times, please take action. Even when I mentioned it to him, he claimed I'm talking nonsense and made uncivil comments [71].

Also I haven't included many other reverts he has done since he hasn't repeatedly reverted them (although they would qualify under ownership behavior since he decides what is right like [72] or [73].) AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]