Page: Basarab I of Wallachia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: "Basarab's name is of Turkic origin.[7][8] Its first part is the present participle for the verb bas- ("press, rule, govern"); the second part matches the Turkic honorific title aba or oba ("father, elder kinsman"), which can be recognized in Cuman names, such as Terteroba, Arslanapa and Ursoba.[9] Basarab's name implies that he was of Cuman or Pecheneg ancestry, but this hypothesis has not been proven.[8][10][11] At least four royal charters from the 14th century refer to Basarab as a Vlach.[12] Charles I of Hungary referred to him as "Basarab, our disloyal Vlach" in 1332.[1][11]" [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Borsoka removed sourced material, disputes established linguist and historian; 02:07, 26 November 2020
2. Another example of sourced material removal; 16:35, 12 November 2020
3. Yet another; 16:01, 12 November 2020‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: "Hello Borsoka. I've seen that once again you've took interest in editing my contribution. I'd like to point out to you that the modern Romanian language does indeed have a Daco-Thracian substrate, fact agreed upon by all universities in this country and abroad. There's no reason to put a undue weight tag there... As for the rest of the tags, I'll leave them there until we reach a consenus in the talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC) 1. Yes, "Daco-Thracian" may be the substrate language of Romanian. Or, it is also a possibility, that early medieval Romanians borrowed a specific pastoralist vocabulary from Proto-Albanian and this specific vocabulary is described now as heritage of a supposed substrate language. Both views are mentioned in international scholarly literature. 2. Romanian also borrowed words from Slavic and Turkic languages, from Hungarian, from Western Romance languages. If you understand Hungarian, you certainly realize that the name "Basarab" is extremly similar to two Hungarian words ("to make love" in slang and "Arab"). Could we assume that the name is of Hungarian origin based on this similarity? No, because similarity does not make a connection. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Well, it's not the nicest of assumptions, but you could nullify in the same manner the cuman theory, which is also based on such connections. The Proto-Albanian language may have also derived from a Thracian idiom, hence some similarities between our languages. Your derogatory way of using "pastoralist vocabulary" shows me that you may have indeed a visible adversion to Romanians. Keep going like that and you'll also find your way into ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC) No, the Cumans dominated the Pontic steppes just decades before Basarab's birth and Cumans made up a significant part of the population of the Golden Horde in the 14th century. Making a connection between a language widely spoken in the region in the 12th-14th century and the name of a ruler born in the 13th century is quite logical. However, making connection between a ruler's birth and a language spoken in the region more than a millenium before his birth is a fringe theory. Sorry, but I think my Talk page is not the best place to discuss this issue. Please use the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)" [2]

1. Conversation continues here: [3]
2. Previous conversation with Borsoka (I'm not too proud of how I've behaved here, but I cannot remove it now): [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]; [6] (Same links as above)

Comments:
The entire issue is centered around Basarab's name origin. Basically disputing between either a Cuman origin or an indigenous Romanian origin. User:Borsoka is POV pushing, he's also an example of WP:TENDENTIOUS, he constantly removes my contribution because he's considering it fringe. Truth is there's no official academic consenus on the matter of Basarab's name origin. However Borsoka is dogmatically following his theory alone. As far as Wikipedia policy goes, the theory I'm supporting isn't un-academical nor departs significantly from the mainstream views. If there'd even be a mainstream view in the field of Romanian linguistics, Sorin Paliga's theory (the one that I'm supporting) isn't unorthodox. Neagu Djuvara's theory (the one Borsoka is supporting) also isn't standard by any means, Djuvara has just written a small number of pages regarding a possible origin of Basarab's name, yet Borsoka pushes that theory like an absolute truth.

Note: IP 85.120.207.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is me. This IP is a common IP from a students' dorm. I created an account not because I want to sockpuppet, but becasue I'm new to Wikipedia editing and my account Boyar Bran is the first I've ever done.

I know that my behaviour is also far from ideal, but all I want is to present an academical theory, thanks. Bran (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. (Just for the record: 1. I placed tags in the article requesting sources to verify that the statements do no represent a marginal/fringe theory. No source has so far been added. 2. I approached two wikiprojects asking comments ([7], [8]). Nobody has so far commented the issue. 3. I requested a third opinion ([9]). It remained unanswered. 4. Paliga does not claim that Basarab's name is of Romanian origin. He claims that Basarab's name is possibly of Daco-Thracian origin, comparing the name of a 13th-century ruler with words from a poorly attested language which died out in the early 7th century at the latest.) Borsoka (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this report connected to the three other reports above. I have no knowledge of any connection between the four cases. Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to report Boyar Bran for edit warring. Can I do it here or should I start a new report? Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Borsoka is constantly removing my contribution! He didn't wait for the issue to be resolved here in ANI and that's not conforming to the rules. I did not exceed my three reverts per day so I didn't break any rule. Important note: User:Borsoka may be politically biased. Exempt taken from his talk page: "(...)Taking into account that Hungary is located in Central Europe, I could only be a Central European nationalist. :) Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)"[10] Bran (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did not remove Boyar Bran's contribution: I transformed them into a footnote and explained my edit in a lengthy edit summary ([11]). (I am still convinced the whole text should be deleted, because it presents a fringe theory, but for the sake of compromise, I placed it in a footnote.) 2. Boyar Bran have not exceeded his three reverts per day, but I would like to report him for edit warring. 3. The above quote could hardly be proof of my bias. If the whole context is taken into account, it is even more clear: an editor was for a time convinced that I was a nationalist (form the Balkans), and appoligized for this assumption on my Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you denied being a "Balkan" nationalist, but rather a "Central European" nationalist proves perfectly your bias. Although Romania isn't a Balkan country (but a neighbour); Romania still fits inside the category most "Central European nationalists" groups deem unwanted. Bran (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not want to comment on your remarks. In my reality, I cannot and do not want to understand them. Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User:Boyar Bran for 72 hours: they have been edit warring here for a while, first as an IP, and they're one revert past Borsoka's--but there are two more things that count heavily here: KIENGIR (and earlier Shakshak31) also reverted Bran, meaning Bran is editing against consensus. Moreover, citing a disputed unknown scholar and linking an Amazon entry is not OK; the discussion on the talk page (which should probably involve more editors and maybe be held also at RSN) is not going their way, and Bran is being particularly uncollegial there. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: In Praise of Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Explanation:

The Wikipedia article is about a controversial book about a delicate subject: the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. However, the creator and editor Buidhe gives undue weight to layman's views about the book and dowplays the information from specialized peer reviewed research. As a result the article contained errors copied from reviews. It turns out that Buidhe has not read the book and several of the sources he cites in the article, and he misunderstood some of the sources he did read. Because I have read the book and the related literature as well as the reviews I was able to help out. I added useful, reliable information and removed mistakes and controversial statements. But Buidhe didn't respond well to my edits and kept reverting them. Multiple attempts to start a dialogue on the Talk page in order to explain the edits and their background failed. I have come to the conclusion that Buidhe has some strong opinions about the book without having read and understood it and he therefore prefers not to cooperate with others.

One of the examples that have remained unresolved because of the reverts is my edit which adds the conclusion by two scholars in a specialized peer reviewed journal. It discusses one of the theories that are central to the book. Buidhe disagrees with those scholars but first it became clear that he had not understood whether my edit referred to the book or to the journal article or to my own opinion. After he learned that my edit was almost literally taken from the journal article he starting debating the peer review process in general and the experts research results in particular but without making sense. Another example is the selection and the number of quotes. Buidhe selects expert quotes that appear to support the thesis of the book while in reality these experts are very critical. In addition, Buidhe wants each and every layman's opinion to be quoted in the article even though they all say more or less the same things. This is because the book is their only reference to the subject and including all of them overly represents an uninformed minority view. Other issues are about understanding the content of the book and the reviews. It would take too long to specify them all here. I'll just refer to the Talk page for explanations about my edits and the unfruitful discussions about the reverts. The Diffs: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17][18] [19] [20] [21] I ended up drawing a line at one point and have suggested to Buidhe not to edit any further without a concensus on the Talk page. Saflieni (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The specific text in the article that is a BLP violation is "On Rever's "infiltrations"-theory, that the RPF was pulling the strings of every organization". (bold added) This is an extraordinary claim, so I repeatedly asked Saflieni to quote from the book where Rever says it. They refuse to do so, and even admit that Rever never said it in the book. Therefore, it is a BLP violation. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not true that I reverted all their edits. As I stated on talk, "your additions about Bert Ingelaere and Marijke Verpoorten, Colette Braeckman, the 2019 letter in Le Soir, etc." were all retained, I never tried to expunge them. (t · c) buidhe 16:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes some brass neck to make four reverts in 24 hours at 22:00, 27 November 2020, 06:53, 28 November 2020, 07:38, 28 November 2020 and 13:24, 28 November 2020, then come here are file a report about the other person... FDW777 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of Buidhe I presume? Read my complaint first and then look at the history of the reverts please before bullying me here. This is not the Talk page of the article, but regarding the first point: I have explained that this is how the two scholars summarize the issue. Since Buidhe hasn't read the book he's not in a position to comment on whether their assessment is correct or not. And please do not confuse matters by referring to a few exceptions. I request Buidhe to stick to his own complaint and stop editing mine. Saflieni (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: I have checked Rever's book again about her infiltrations-theory which is an essential part of her claim that the RPF rather than the Hutu extremists planned, sparked and (partially) executed the genocide against the Tutsi ("The RPF strategy to achieve power in Rwanda had three objectives: to infiltrate, instigate and obfuscate.") Rever suggests a general infiltration of the Rwandan population by its members (a fifth column) and more specifically of the Hutu political parties, all four Hutu militia and the government army, to "stoke extremist sentiment among the Hutu militias and parties they infiltrated." For the post-genocide period Rever claims that the RPF infiltrated the ICTR, the UN and other international insitutions, the Special Investigations Unit, the French judicial inquiry, the UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations, and so on. The summary in the Hintjens & van Oijen article covers this theme accurately. There's no reason to revert and keep reverting my edits on this and other aspects of the book ten times in the space of two weeks. Saflieni (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can back it up with quotes from the book, I don't object to adding a factual list of organizations that Rever claims were "infiltrated", but this is about the content of the book (what it objectively said) rather than the reception. And as you admit, the book did not actually say that "every organization" was "infiltrated". (t · c) buidhe 00:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is about you reverting my edits ten times in a row based on absurd considerations such as "Does Rever actually state that the RPF control NATO or the Seattle City Council?." You are just being obstructive for the sake of it. Or maybe you don't understand the concept of using examples to present a theory. The journal article I cite comments on that theory. Now stop using this page as if it's the Talk page. Saflieni (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not blocked. See above: it seems only fair that the other editor would also file a report here. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Drmies. Could you please explain to me something? Each time I edited the article my edits were reverted before discussing it on the Talk page. After this happened a number of times I decided to freeze the article to get a third opinion, which Buidhe rejected and I thought didn't solve the problem. However, the outcome was for both of us to stop editing the article. My attempts to work it out in a dialogue failed because of a lack of cooperation. Buidhe then continued to push his version, reverting my edits again, so I restored the article to the point of the 'third opinion freeze' until an agreement could be reached on the Talk page. How is that edit warring? Now we are here and again there's no solution. I find Buidhe's behavior intimidating and intended to frustrate other editors to the point they give up and disappear. And since you've read the Talk page you must have noticed the other part of the problem: someone working on an article without having read and/or understood the sources who is nevertheless unwilling to cooperate with others who are better informed. Isn't such an attitude a recepy for disaster? Saflieni (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't ask me to explain your opponent's conduct; I can't. If you wish to claim that your opponent is unqualified, you'll have to make that case, succinctly, on ANI--but I don't know how successful that would be. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was not my question, Drmies. My question was twofold. One: Why do you consider my freezing the article at the point of the third opinion while trying to reach an agreement with Buidhe on the Talk page 'edit warring'? Two: Why is deliberately and repeatedly frustrating other editors acceptable behaviour? Not a question but to address your remark: Buidhe has informed us on the Talk page of the article that he didn't read the book and that he didn't read several of the sources he cites. He is just guessing based on (mainly) layman's reviews that are full of errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: Please note that Buidhe has restarted reverting my edits, now aided by someone else, and me restoring them. Please answer my question which I asked before: Why do you consider my freezing the article at the point of the third opinion while trying to reach an agreement on the Talk page 'edit warring'? Their method seems to be to wear me down so I give up and they can continue as they see fit. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Saflieni, "aided by someone else" is a serious accusation. If you are really asking why I consider your behavior to be edit warring, then I don't think you know what edit warring is. In fact, looking at the recent history, where you make no fewer than five reverts of that "someone else" without even explaining why, I think it is clear that you are in fact edit warring, and if I had had finished my coffee I'd block you for it. EdJohnston, would you be so kind as to look over that history to see if I am way off the mark? Saflieni, in an edit war the worst thing you can do is continue edit warring--without edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, you are wrong. I've invited that editor to the Talk page and have explained the reverts there in detail. Be fair, please, You still haven't answered my question which I have asked three times, If you can't explain it to me, how am I supposed to know how to proceed and such a situation? Thank you. Some of my edits have been reverted 12 times in a row now, plus by the new editor who joined the show. What about that? Saflieni (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You come to a board where you want administrators to act, and then you tell the administrator that they're wrong. Nice! When you are in a hole, stop digging: you are edit warring, plain and simple. That the others are edit warring too doesn't make you right. As for your "question", you can ask it until the sun goes down. How you are supposed to proceed? You could stop edit warring and point out, as I did on the talk page, that at least some of HouseofChange's edits are wrong--if you do NOT understand how reverting without an explanation is prima facie disruptive in the middle of an edit war, you may not be competent enough in working in a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: I was referring to the points where the warring started (not by me, if you've paid attention) and the point of the impasse at the third opinion, which is where we still are. How to proceed from there? So you are telling me now: let the bullies do their thing and get out of the way. Thanks for that enlightening advice. I will. Saflieni (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since reverting by both sides continued after User:Drmies' original closure, I've put In Praise of Blood under a week of full protection. As Drmies noted, both sides have been edit warring. I hope that Saflieni and Buidhe have both read the advice at WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the Talk page discussion from beginning to end you'll find that advice to be pretty useless. My "edit warring" as you call it was an attempt to freeze the page to prevent the ongoing 'mechanical' reverts of my edits, as I've tried to explain in vain. You can freeze it yourself now for a week but it won't change a thing. Saflieni (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert 17:59 12 nov:[22] he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map [23] this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november: [24]
2. Second revert 20:33 12 nov [25] he re ads the same map again after it was removed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

Page: List of tallest buildings in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GigaBiga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

Comments:
This user keeps adding outdated information about skyscrapers in Europe and keeps deleting my recent improvements of the article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Александр Мотин: Was this user ever warned? —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has reverted again.[32] I've invited them to self-revert in lieu of being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Partial block covers the page in question only. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Khamzat Chimaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991442035 by KhanzotChinev (talk) Again, not any reason provided"
2. 00:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991426335 by KhanzotChinev (talk)"
3. 23:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "You haven't responded in talk page nor have you backed up anything you have written, on the other hand, you didn't provide any reason to why delete the added info."
4. 16:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Dude, stop being disruptive already. I left you a message on your talk page, if you don't want to solve it, stop vandalizing..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Blocked for 60 hours--for the edit warring, but also for the incredibly disrespectful comments/personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Khamzat Chimaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991429652 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk)"
2. 00:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991418586 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC) to 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991405830 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) please see talk page"
   2. 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991392052 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk)"
4. 16:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991354831 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) as stated previously, please stop vandalizing"
5. 16:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991348601 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) You are the one who vandalized first. I have left you many messages asking you to explain your reasoning before wantonly disregarded my contributions. Please have a nice day and stop vandalizing."
6. 16:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991347490 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk)"
7. 16:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991345943 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk)"
8. 15:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991339705 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) Please do not delete other people's contributions without first discussing on the talk page. Thank you."
9. 02:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991227638 by PabloLikesToWrestle (talk). Do not vandalize without discussing edits on talk page please. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

• Blocked 48 hours. User:KhanzotChinev, if you are right, it will all come out on the talk page. Reverting will not help your cause. User:Cassiopeia, I'm kind of hoping you'll look at the actual content of the dispute and maybe help figure some things out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Drmies, KhanzotChinev, and PabloLikesToWrestle: Good day. I have been asked to mediate the content dispute between user KhanzotChinev and PabloLikesToWrestle on Khamzat Chimaev page by Drmies. As both involved parties has been blocked from editing from Dec 1, 2020 and involved parties can bring the content dispute discussion to the article talk page on 4 December, 2020 when the blocked are lifted. Pls note that admin Drimes has reverted the content - to this version and please do not edit the page content until the discussion has reached an agreement/understanding. When discussion, pls be civil, no personal attack, no trolling, no passive aggressive communication, no provocation, no false accusation without evidence. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Michelle Steel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eccekevin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Current version

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff #1

Diff #2

Diff #3

Diff #4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit Warring Template pasted on talk page of Eccekevin

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: anon IP editor's first comment on talk page

anon IP editor's second comment on talk page of Michelle Steel article

CharlesShirley editor's first comment on talk page of Michelle Steel article

CharlesShirley editor's edit summary asking for reliable sources (These sources are not reliable sources. They are all activist sources, which take a very limited POV and advocate for a very specific outcome. They are not reliable. I would be happy to include if you provided reliable sources that are not activist, one-sided sources.])]

CharlesShirley editor's edit summary asking for reliable sources again (Pink News is not a reliable source. Please provide a reliable source. Please show that the incident is even worthy of being in the article.)

Comments:
The editor Eccekevin keeps putting questionable content into the article about Michelle Steel. It is an incident that supposedly happened 6 years ago, but it is not supported by reliable sources. Also, User:Eccekevin has been reverting and even called one of the good faith reverts of the questionable material to be "vandalism" even though the edit was not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. You can see that good faith violation here: User:Eccekevin's false claim that IP editor's edit was vandalism. At a bare minimum User:Eccekevin needs to stop the edit war and discuss whether there are reliable sources, which so far there has been zero provided by any editor. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned. The 3RR brightline was not crossed. Eccekevin directed to discuss matter at talk page before attempting to re-add and reminded that the page is within the topic of US politics. I've also added the page to my watchlist —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Domenico Losurdo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 4thfile4thrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user simply slided in with reverting my edits in the same second while I was editing the article, leaving the threat on my user page that I will be blocked. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@188.252.196.122: See WP:NPOV. I did not break 3RR, and the words "atrocities" does not fit an encyclopedic tone. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domenico_Losurdo&diff=prev&oldid=991541025&diffmode=source. Also, the new info is entirely unsourced. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further review of the history of the article, the reporting user is in jeopardy of violating 3RR. I will give a courtesy reminder. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These immediate edits by User:4thfile4thrank were clearly intended to provoke 3RR by me, so that I would be blocked. Also, I used the description, which used the word "atrocities" from the lede of another Wikipedia article. The last time I checked, "atrocities" was not a vulgar word and in the context of Stalinism could offend only someone who is sympathizing with Stalinism. I would also kindly ask, if it is allowed, for someone to redirect me to appropriate page for this report and for the opinion of another administrator. 188.252.196.122 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the edits was unduly provocative. Please focus on your conduct; don't try to shift the blame to another editor. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you respond to my request to redirect me to appropriate page for reporting this incident if you have reacted so quickly and even proceeded to edit (!!!) the page because of which this incident arose? Now I'm going to report you as well, this time, I hope, on the appropriate page. Are you an administrator here on Wikipedia? (188.252.196.122 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

The appropriate place to respond to the issue would be at the article's talk page. And yes, I reverted your edits, because I considered the breach of NPOV to be severe enough to warrant a revert. Forgive me for being lenient and not blocking you for the repeat violation of NPOV. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you an administrator here on Wikipedia or just an ordinary user without administrative rights? (188.252.196.122 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Administrator and acting in administrative capacity on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Block is a partial block in the hopes that the IP will participate in civil, constructive discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Bee Gees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 200.6.143.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. And more. Check article history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
I got involved in this while doing pending changes patrol. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I should have submitted this at WP:AIAV. Guess I'll leave it here for now. There is a talk page consensus at that article to not make the edits he was making. The IP edited the inline comment saying not to make the edits, to make the edits. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sysop banned him. You can close or delete this. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Not my block, but closing the report. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Marxism–Leninism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990483190&oldid=990421914
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990152506&oldid=990149462
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990118272&oldid=990010040
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=989930588&oldid=989928847
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982244048&oldid=982240953
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=989778280&oldid=989491769
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983018922&oldid=982981007
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=991572836&oldid=991544582
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=991576614&oldid=991572836

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism

Comments: BunnyyHop has a long history on the page Marxist-Leninism extremely disruptive edits, and keeps trying to get around discussion on talk, his edits have been reverted multiple times be me Davide King KIENGIR, and Asarlaí. He strangely believe that not responding to a proposal is a form of support and thinks the time frame for this is an hour. Despite there being a clear consensus against BunnyyHop, BunnyHopp refuses to listen and tries to edit the page despite making disruptive edits. I have tried so hard to try to get this editor to stop, the editor has already edit warred before, violating edit sanctions. We tried discussing this on the talk, editors like Davide King has stated this, yet BunnyHop and refuses to listen.

BunnyyHop is simply here to push a POV and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He has been banned twice from Portuguese Wikipedia for biased editing on the Portuguese pages Portuguese Communist Party, and Dictatorship of the proletariat. He is a member of the PCP and states it himself on his Portuguese talk page. When called out about being a member of the PCP while editing the article of the PCP on English Wikipedia. He stated he wasn't a member of the PCP, despite stating that he was on his talk page. He only finds interest in one subject that being Marxist-Leninism and all his edits are positive towards Marxist-Leninism as seen by his contributions.

This section of his edits on PCP speaks for itself. Here is a section BunnyyHop added to the PCP, while being a member of the PCP. "(The Portuguese Communist Party exists) To uphold Marxism-Leninism as its theoretical basis,[15] dialectical and historical materialism as an "instrument of analysis and guide for action", the rupture with right-wing policies, the realization of a patriotic and left-wing alternative, and the realization of its party program that is defined as an 'Advanced Democracy with the values of [the] April [revolution]'"

He clearly is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has an extreme interest in editing articles relating to Marxist-Leninism and seen by his contributions, and always removes negative elements, removing criticisms, atrocities etc... He has been warned three times to stop edit warring and was already reported and warned for doing so.^[1][2]

His most recent edit he removed sections detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities when asked to kindly revert the page he refused. His edits were later reverted by Asarlaí. This user is only here to post things relating to Marxist-Leninism, and he is only here to post positive things of Marxist-Leninism.

Oh my god, not this again.

"BunnyyHop has a long history on the page Marxist-Leninism extremely disruptive edits" This has been contested already and I received an warning. I have not made a "revert". In reality, there should only be one link in this report.

"and keeps trying to get around discussion on talk" Not true, Davide King and I have been the most active editors on the page, telling you about why it's not good to have a forked paragraph of criticism in the lead using weasel words, some of which is constituted of WP:NOR. Other editors such as TFD have also contested this. I might have interpreted him wrong, but I thought we had settled down to remove this from the lead and include an hyperlink to the article that deals with the subject itself. [[40]]. On the article about the communist party, you removed an entire paragraph to include absurdities which can be seen as vandalism (as pointed out by the other editor in the talk page) such as "claiming to be a dictotoral(!!!) vanguard" and "The stated goal of the PCG(!!!) is to uphold Marxism-Leninism, and to be synthesis of nationalism and state communism." [[41]].

The refuse to answer is only when you objection amounts to personal attacks and harrassement through hounding, clearly evidenced by this very own report, where the user goes to my Wiki in other languages in other to disqualify me, accusing me of being a member of a party my wiki simply says I support.

I suppose that "we do not listen" is to the fact that most of your edits are based in your own POV with no WP:V, like for example in the talk page of Marxism-Leninism. Me and Davide King started making changes to the article because we were starting to reach a consensus - by either my checking sources and replying why such phrase might not be verifiable or be original research. The paragraph you insist having was full of it - on the premisse that Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism, despite me and the other colleague coming to a conclusion that it's not the case according to academic and a peer-reviewed source.

The two times I have been blocked were for a good reason - one was for my persisntence on an arbitrary use of a word in an article (which the admin and I discussed and have come to good terms), the second a mistake by an admin on the China article for placing the source in the wrong sentence, which is now being contested by me and was contested by another admin. And this was not on this wiki(!!), but the colleague which apparently has been stalking everything I did felt the need to use this as an argument anyways.

"He has been warned three times to stop edit warring and was already reported and warned for doing so" This is not relevant neither for me nor for you, although you have been blocked for 3 months for edit warring.

"always removes negative elements, removing criticisms, atrocities etc" This is a lie.

"he refused. His edits were later reverted by Asarlaí" I did not refuse. I stated I was gonna include it in the Overview as most consent (for which I later edited in the talk page), but Asarlaí reverted it before I could.

If I did violate any rule by replacing it with the a paragraph linking to the article I thought my colleague and I had agreed on, it was not my intention. But there's no denial in saying that this user did not contest the article of the party being absurdities and does not contest anymore on the article of Marxism-Leninism. Anyone who watches that talk page can understand I'm trying to get everything as verified as possible and as neutral as possible. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop You being banned for biased editing on pages relating to Marxist-Leninism doesn't constitute a personal attack. The issue with your edits is you keep not only pushing a world view but you keep trying to get around consensus, not discussing things. I warned you and you refused, you stated clearly on your talk page you can't hide these things. You never reverted your edit because you didn't want to Asarlaí did. BunnyyHop this has been stated to you, not responding to a discussion does not mean support. It's not hard to see your edit history, all of your reverts relate to you reverting the section detailing atrocities You refusing you never did anything wrong, despite you being warned, you were warned because you were edit warring the administrator stated if you began edit warring again you would be blocked. You don't apear to understand that your actions relate to you, if you were blocked by admins twice for biased editing for editing pages relating to Marxist-Leninism. You were warned and told not to edit war, you didn't listen. Vallee01 (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the admin who reads this, I urge you to check the talk page of these articles because my colleague is grossly exagerating. The "edit war" this user is accusing me of - is me editing the page once after extensive discussion on the talk page, where the consensus for some things was achieved. Admin, I urge you to check the talk page. As for what happened in the other wiki - which doesn't have anything to do with this at all but the user uses it to make me appear intransigent - notice how now it changed from "Dictatorship of the proletariat" and "Portuguese Communist Party" (In reality it was on the article about China due to the source not being in the right place - check the talk page and use Google translate if you wish. "Biased editing". The first article ended with the admin explaining to my why using arbitrarily a synonym to refer to a certain word was not neutral - and this led to us editing the page of the article itself to include those terms) to "pages relating to Marxism-Leninism" has if it was some kind of violantion for a user to edit pages where he has knowledge on. This is not the NPOV board, but to give context to the colleague reading this I'll use a comparison - this user wants to mention the worse cases of slavery and genocide on the lead of the liberalism article. On the talk page it was viewed as better to use the already existing criticisms of liberal rule page instead of arbitrarily choosing historical events. The user intransigently refuses to even move this to the overview of the article. [P.S. I did not misunderstand my colleague. There's a new update on the talk page where he affirms to be against this, making it "3-3". There might be a editor I'm missing, because I thought only Vallee01 and KIENGIR (which has not participated in a while) were against - thus making it 3-2] BunnyyHop (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop the issue is you keep trying to get around consensus, you are edit warring when discussion isn't over. I asked if you could please you to revert the page. Moreover you tried to rename the page "Dictatorship of the proletariat" with I kid you not "The democratic dictatorship of the proletariat." It screams of POV editing. Here is what an editor told you, "I am replacing the name Dictatorship of the proletariat because this is the name of the existing article but you insist on putting a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, forcing a WP: PV without WP: FF. DARIO SEVERI (discussion) 00:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)." It's not hard to see, we can check pages. Vallee01 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to get around consensus, I was trying to get consensus, which I did (reminder that consensus doesn't mean unanimity), hence why it was edited according to what was discussed in the talk page.

"Moreover you tried to rename the page" - once again, lies and something completely unrelated to this. What I did was insist to use the term in a certain part of a another article, to which some pointed out was a synonym - and was blocked for the first time, 3 days. It's not even possible to rename pages, afaik. After my block the admin gently explained to me why it was not neutral editing, to which I thanked, and changed the article to include all synonyms of the word Dictatorship of the proletariat. It's interesting how you turned this into a discussion about my block in another wiki. For the colleague reviewing this BunnyyHop (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop, only one person supported your proposal, all other editors were against it, and discussion was still ongoing, people called for you to revert but you refused. The issue is that you have persistently edit warred and ignored the talk. You have reverted the page Marxist-Leninism so many times. BunnyyHop this isn't the first time you have been warned, reported, or blocked for editing. You removed sections on the atrocities Marxist-Leninist, genocides, killings etc... You always have posted things in favor Marxist-Leninism, of your entire edit history you have always defended Marxist-Leninist. Also this was your edit extremely clearly you tried renaming it. Everything you do on Wikimedia effects everything else. Posting Marxist-Leninist propaganda on Portuguese Wikipedia makes it clear your here to post propaganda. Vallee01 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 1 week. The user was warned for edit warring due to a 25 November report on this noticeboard about the same article. They have continued to revert now without getting a talk page consensus. There is a very long talk page thread in which it is hard to perceive any clear result. Certainly no permission was given there for continued reverting. In the above report, people speak about a prior block of this editor. Bunnyyhop was blocked twice in the month of November on the Portuguese Wikipedia for as long as a week in a similar topic area. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Zhao Lijian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]; unrelated, interceding edits were made here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43] (so far unsourced but not unambiguous vandalism; WP:VANDNOT and WP:3RRNO)
2. [44] (compare to the context wording at the beginning of the paragraph)
3. [45] (again, not an exception; and yes, the Brereton Report is mentioned in this Diplomat link which I cited)
4. [46] (not an exception)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Prior account, as admitted on current account's page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments: I haven't edited Wikipedia very much, but Horse Eye Jack/Horse Eye's Back seems to have a history of interacting poorly with numerous other users on this site. I wouldn't mind avoiding interactions with him in the future. How can I ensure that? Lostromantic (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts fall cleanly under our WP:BLP policy (see WP:3RRNO #7). The Diplomat might have mentioned the Brereton Report but they did not support the text as written, we cant have a statement about a living person which isn't completely supported by a WP:RS. I was also never warned by this user, the diff provided is baffling. It is from January and ends with the person who thought I had edit warred realizing that they were mistaken and apologizing. It doesnt make sense on any level, if the point is to show that I have in the past been warned by other users there are actual examples of that which don’t end in an apology to me... TLDR I have no idea what this guy is even trying to argue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to edit warring, clear neutrality violation here by twisting the words of the source making it seem like it wasn't satire, as well as removing all mentions of Afghanistan despite the sources mentioning that topic. MajorShortbread (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your second edit on wikipedia. I hope that your first edit (reverting me and reinserting unsupported text into Zhao Lijian) wasn’t too strenuous. Just a note my dear MajorShortbread, the word “satire” appears in none of our sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some things to point out here that I've noticed -- Firstly, Lostromantic's assertion that the Sydney Morning Herald is non-neutral and hence cannot be cited in this Wikipedia article is groundless. Yes, it could be described as non-neutral, in a way. But it's still a generally reliable source. -- Secondly, the assertion by both Lostromantic and another user that the image shared by Zhao is "satirical" is absurd. There is nothing humorous about the image. By definition, satire is a form of comedy and it must include a humorous element. Also, none of the sources seem to describe the image as satirical. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes, if you don't mind. Lostromantic, if you want to avoid an editor, just don't report them. And if you do report them, do not muddy the waters with specious mentions of a (declared) previous account. MajorShortbread, that is an interesting drive-by account you have, and I am tempted to block you per WP:NOTHERE, but I will settle for a partial block (from that article)--because indeed, the sources do NOT support "satire", and removing half a phrase isn't a blockable offense or a breach of neutrality. Jargo Nautilus, it is possible that others do find something humorous in that image (at least hypothetically possible), but the main point is, as you said, the sources don't bear that out. The real edit warrior here is User:Damian gogo, whom I have blocked temporarily for evading a previous block (based on CU evidence that I cannot disclose here); I am considering blocking them indefinitely for edit warring, manipulating/misquoting sources, and POV editing.

As for Horse Eye's Back, their edits have, as far as I can tell, stuck to Wikipedia guidelines on the use of reliable sources. They have, however, clearly been edit warring, since edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. The question is whether the reverts fall under WP:3RRNO, and there are a few things to consider. First of all, Horse Eye didn't always clearly indicate in edit summaries that, for instance, there were BLP violations, though they did at least once. I think there was one that said "vandalism", though I don't believe the vandalism was that obvious (see WP:3RRNO, item 4). But what redeems the editor is that they said, often enough, that the material was not supported by the sources--[48], [49], [50], [51], and I could probably find more; this meets WP:3RRNO item 7. Moreover, but they didn't know this, WP:3RRNO item 3 applies here as well, as CU established (and I will ping Materialscientist, though I may not tell you why). So, I find that Horse Eye's conduct here, while on the face of it it constitutes edit warring, is not in violation. I'd like to ask EdJohnston, if I may, to have a quick look here to see if they agree. In addition, I am semi-protecting the article since there is too much drive-by editing in addition to the other problems (socking, for instance), that I signaled already. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I requested semi-protection of Zhao Lijian early yesterday when there were only a few IPs and drivebys [52] but it wasn’t acted on, fighting to maintain some semblance of respect for BLP is not my idea of a good time and I wish it hadn’t been necessary. MajorShortbread was also found to be likely at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting and fits the pattern of Ineedtostopforgetting socks harassing me and driving up the revert count. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the actions of User:Drmies but would also suggest three days of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I will leave that to your discretion--thanks for your time. I know there's a lot to look at here. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page Zhao Lijian is now fully protected for a week. There is nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Robin DiAngelo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991603203 by Bilorv (talk) Political censorship."
2. 22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991600766 by Twassman (talk) Rapidly reverting edits, Twassman censoring negative review of author. Burying it two sentences at the end is inappropriate given the inflammatory nature of the authors work. Mods should lock edits.."
3. 22:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991600040 by Twassman (talk) Rapidly reverting edits, white washing facts about author."
4. 22:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991599023 by HaeB (talk) Kindly did read articles, stop blocking all negative review of your favorite author."
5. 22:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Previous removal of controversy section edit stated that this section is "simply a collection of every negative thing said about the book" the editor then extremely ironically, proceeded to remove the only mention of a negative backlash to the work from, what should be the historical record. Unacademic!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Four warnings, which IP blanked (so has clearly read).

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion initiated at Talk:Robin_DiAngelo#Edit_warring_over_"Controversy"_section_&_book_mention_in_lede, IP chooses not to participate.

Comments: I reported this user right after you did — my mistake! — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 22:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i'm the one being complained about! White Fragility and Robin Deangelo have received widespread negative review in conservative media, and widespread positive review in liberal media. Conservatives view this author as a KKK like figure spreading racially inflammtory and bigoted ideas. Hiding all negative review of author to two sentences is unacceptable and hides reality. Twassman and the other seem unable to put their personal views aside here. Will Wikipedia endorse a holistic view of the author? or is criticism of wikipedia bias on point? The discussion has not been how best to capture the reaction to the author, its just been a editting war with my censorious peers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 (talk • contribs) .

• Blocked – 72 hours. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Note the user removing references with a deceptive edit summary, 'Corrected punctuation'.EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the censorship is condoned from the top! Good to know.... Wikipedia is dying of cancer.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:67F:81E6:1CD2:BE43:629F:CD25 (talk • contribs)

@EdJohnston:, you noted the block but didn't actually block. I've now blocked for 72 hours, which is what I believe you meant to implement. Please ammend as you see fit if I got it wrong.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=991670112&oldid=991606496 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 [53] 1 Dec 2020, 4:09am UTC
2. 2 [54] 1 Dec 2020, 6:32am UTC

(page is 1RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:
If Calton is one of the top 1000 WP contributors of all time, doesn't it follow that they should know -- and abide by -- the rules? Their talk page is a litany of reprimands for edit warring, and yet they're allowed to go on unabated. I mean, this person just tried to add Donald Freakin' Trump to a list of "Notable Russophiles"...really??? Stop the POV-pushing...stop the madness! 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically not a 1RR violation. If you take a look at the restriction on the page, specifically Template:American politics AE, under "Remedy instructions and exemptions". It states Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. Which in my personal opinion is not great but is what it is. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still edit warring. Nice Wikilawyering for the bad guy, tho. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one here is the bad guy and honestly I do not like that exemption personally or how they are not listed at WP:1RR as exemptions. Just is what it is. PackMecEng (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• All of this is so murky. I agree that the IP exemption, if we can call it that, is not great. I also think, Calton, that you should know you have a tendency to skate on thin ice. I think that the IP's edit was not productive and that Calton was right in saying that context matters. On top of that one could argue that BRD should have prevented the IP from reinstating the edit (yeah I know, just an essay). Ha, and while I'm thinking things, I'm thinking that that entire list in Russophilia should be scrapped. It's like a hybrid of a list of beer drinkers--who cares?--and a list of people who like BBQ chips--like? love? can't live without? whose assessment? Drmies (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly DGAF what your opinion of my edit was. We're here to solve the problem of the edit warring engaged in by Calton. That said, I would love to see how you justify the UK Government -- or, y'know, completely unrelated editors pushing a POV that's in lock step with same -- softening their rejection of the rapporteur's findings with an irrelevant, meaningless statement of "support". Go. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" made no case and was a complaint about user conduct (that was wp:soapboxing). I also note their warning breached wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even what WP:SOAP means, kid. Are you sure you're the person to litter my talk page with warnings, when you don't even know basic WP tenets? 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a really attitude issue here, but this is not there right noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use a colon to nest your reply, kid. Like I said, you're really not the right person to interject here. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a boomerang block is in order, even though this is not ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should stop making irrelevant comments on this matter. You haven't made a single one yet that was on point. Another experienced "Wikipedian" who doesn't know the rules. Pity. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor now blocked for obvious asshattery on this page and others. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Lachin corridor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990173346 by Solavirum (talk) insert "unrecognised""
2. 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990045978 by CuriousGolden (talk) restore state that does not involve the use of a politico-geographic term that is ambiguous (i.e. could refer to multiple different entities in the general area over history from Khanates to NKAO).)."
3. 12:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Eliminate N-K altogether which is ambiguous."
4. 12:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990035761 by CuriousGolden (talk) N-K has meant many things over the years. It could be taken to mean the entire territory in dispute, in which case, it's not an enclave but actually adjacent. Await further clarification please."
5. 11:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "it is too early to say that N-K is an enclave. It's status has yet to be clarified."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lachin corridor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

De-archived: still looking for help. Last report copy-pasted below. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user reverts edits he doesn't like without a proper reason and their edits on all articles relating to Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan are quite disruptive (e.g. 1. here and here (note that they did the same revert again on this page after being explained by me in an edit how what they added was wrong) where they revert my edit to put a "de facto" control tag on a village that was confirmed to not be under the "de facto" control of the belligerent they were referring to. They failed to provide an argument for these reverts when confronted; 2. Reverting a removal of a primary source here because "what's 1 more primary source in an article replete with primary sources?". From my understanding of this edit summary, the user clearly understands that primary sources are not allowed, yet they still revert an edit to add it back as it supports a POV that they follow). The user has also broken several Wikipedia policies (WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:GOODFAITH) in most of our discussions and has accused me of random things (Like here: accusing me and a random page mover of being a tag team and here randomly accusing me of reverting edits in an article I had never done a revert on). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the archived report, the user has continued their WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and have started trolling when not able to provide good argument for the addition/removal that fits their POV (Like here and here, where they're trolling a random user). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To my opinion, this is not only editwarring but also POV-pushing, based on the given links. The Banner talk 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also seeing lots of POV-pushing, and in general, unconstructive edits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laurel Lodged hasn't edited Lachin corridor since 23rd of November. Is there any reason why this report needs further consideration? Do you think their edits regarding place names break any policy? There is a talk thread at Talk:Fuzuli (city)#Varanda but I'm not clear if there is any problem there. If necessary somebody could open an RfC about Varanda. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: No action taken. In my personal opinion the edits by User:Laurel Lodged on 22 and 23 November were not very helpful, and might suggest a POV. But this board is for either new or continuing violations of WP:EW. This set of reverts is too old to take action on, but I'm alerting Laurel Lodged to the WP:ARBAA2 discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Foreign interventions by the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Metaveroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]
6. [63]
7. [64]
8. [65]
9. [66]
10. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

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

Comments:
Several editors left warnings at the talk page of Metaveroo and this was the reaction[69]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSK92, noting that the user in question was indeffed right when you filed this report. Best, Blablubbs|talk 15:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

messed up the name, pinging again: Nsk92. Blablubbs|talk 15:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Here This Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 95.29.45.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
Extremely disruptive IP address has been adding fictitious information about newly recorded songs by Gwen Stefani, Dua Lipa, and Madonna for weeks, if not months now. User writes about events that take place in the future and pass it off without adequate sourcing. User has been heavily encouraged to discuss the matter on several talk pages, including Talk:Physical (Dua Lipa song) and on several user talk pages, in addition to being warned dozens of times. User:LOVI33 has attempted to begin talk page discussion on User talk:95.29.45.86 (see [76]), but without success. I irresponsibly reverted their edits on Template:Gwen Stefani too many times without realizing it and I now want no part in undoing this user's edits anymore. Carbrera (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This IP is a sock puppet of User:Zhmailik (it’s really obvious), and has been blocked before for doing the same actions. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been performing extremely disruptive edits. They have broken the three revert rule numerous times and refuse to engage is WP:BRD, which I have attempted to start with them on their talk page. They also have deleted warnings and my comments on their talk page, just further proving that they refuse to engage in BRD. I wouldn't necessarily say they are a sock puppet of Zhmailik due to their edits being different, but I would say it is definitely a possibility as they behave the same way. The numerous suck puppets of Zhmailik have performed that exact same way so that is why I am questioning it. Nevertheless, they must be stopped. LOVI33 20:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Mz7 (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Zeno of Citium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Tariq afflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]
5. [82]

Tariq afflaq is reverting both PopulationGeneticsLevant and me.

Those are all from 1 December. There's also this from 26 November, very probably one while not logged in, which PopulationGeneticsLevant reverted, asking that the issue be taken to the Talk page.

1. [83]

Tariq afflaq is currently engaged in similar edit wars on several other pages, all regarding the same ethnicity claims.

On Porphyry_(philosopher)

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]

Tariq afflaq is reverting just me here.

On Mavia (queen)

1. [87]

Tariq afflaq was reverted by Julia Domna Ba'al here.

On Joseph Safra

1. [88]

Tariq afflaq is reverting Warshy here.

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

1. PopulationGeneticsLevant warned at [89] "This is becoming vandalism. Next we go to administration board."
2. I warned them on the Talk page that administrative action would be resorted to at [90].

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

Efforts to reason with Tariq afflaq have been made at:

1. Talk:Zeno_of_Citium#Syrian_Zeno?
2. Talk:Porphyry_(philosopher)#Ethnicity

Comments:

Teishin (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. A campaign of adding claims of Syrian nationality or Syrian origin to articles. No evidence of waiting for consensus anywhere. His changes at Zeno of Citium (founder of the Stoics) have been reverted five times by others. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is back, circumventing the block with an IP account.PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:, Tariq afflaq immediately came back as 2001:8F8:1E23:2F47:19F7:F363:6C4B:C710 reverting edits with the same claims as Tariq afflaq on three (so far) of the pages identified above.

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]

Teishin (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP's Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1E23:2F47::/64 range now blocked for a month; User:Tariq afflaq is now indeffed for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Bihari Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Anony20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "WP:VANDAL"
2. 16:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC) "WP:VANDAL"
3. 08:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted image removal by HA; Reason quoted by them for removal was already discussed. Request to let admin decide it and till then no further vandalism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [94] on 17 october 2020, this was stable version.
2. [95] from 26 November 2020, there has been continuous attempt to add this image by Anony20, which was reverted by me and LukeEmily, reason explaned in edit summary. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. [96], he has been warned by admin post closure of WP:AE, to listen to other editors specially LukeEmily. But, continuously putting image of feudal lord on caste article.(glorification) Heba Aisha (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. [97] this comment represents that he has WP:COI with that caste group.(HA is showing her biased nature towards the community by using terms like "Illiterate", "Poor", to somehow revert my edit) check this part. Heba Aisha (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I honestly have no idea what is going on. The article's talk page is a mess of unformatted bickering, Anony20 has been putting up warnings on Heba Aisha's talk page, and there's probably way more to this. They've been warring for the past few days, and Anony20 has received an arbitration warning from a request that closed just this morning, which was since violated. SWinxy (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were repeated image vandalism on the page by user Heba Aisha. Request you to respect the consensus on Bihari Rajput as it's in WP:RFCAnony20 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes SWinxy..there is a dispute which is evoked from a consensus that was built in past among caste editors...that image of notable person shouldn't be placed on top of caste articles.Anony20 is consistently doing so.Even he is not cooperating with other editors in RFC and edited the disputed part which was under Rfc(I.e image)Heba Aisha (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anony20

Have a look at the RFC[98], and don't mislead pls.Anony20 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to resolve this with discussion[99] but the vandalism didn't stopped there. Discussed it on a new thread by HA[100] and on page protection page(see Bihari Rajput)[101]. Even after the RFC request, other editors don't have a problem with the updated image[102], then HA is showing her biased nature towards the community by using terms like "Illiterate", "Poor", to somehow revert my edit. HA even mislead the admins of wikicommons that my image is a duplicate and nominated it for speedy-deletion which was rejected there. This kind of selectively targeting and showing ownership to a page is not acceptable.Anony20 (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my invitation to discuss and post vandalism warning issued to Heba:

1. Page talk page[103]
2. Vandalism warning[104]
3. Vandalism warning[105]
4. Vandalism warning[106]
5. If Heba was concerned with the image in a good faith, she wouldn't have removed the image before WP:RFC(see the timing[107] and [108])
6. Other's opinion in WP:RFC[109]

1. Apart from these there were mischievous attempts by Heba to get my upload deleted anyhow from wikicommons.

Anony20 (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Heba Aisha I m not making comments as he is not aware of policies and donot want to read it .WP:CIR issue.Before I started Rfc I reverted the page to the non contested version.And as per rules before we arrive at consensus no edits shud be made to disputed part, but he edited it.Also flooding many platform including my talk page with numerous comment and despite of one active Afc opened yet another on article's talk page.Seems he donot know meaning of consensus and timing of Rfc.Also quoting different policy for different circumstances. (which usually donot applies there)Heba Aisha (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 3 days for personal attacks by User:Bishonen. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Blacklisting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Keving.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "Removed a duplicate article citation and revised language to include "explicitly" and "implicitly"."
2. 22:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991987428 by MarkH21 (talk). This is a neutral and well-cited sub-article. It includes both sides of the argument as well as citations from sources Wikipedia recognizes as authoritative, such as Politico and the Independent."
3. 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "Numerous neutral sources have reported this as a "blacklist". I want to clarify that I am a trained historian and history teacher. I have included a tweet as it serves as a relevant primary source."
4. 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "Restored suspected vandalism by MarkH21 (talk) This is a legitimate and neutral inclusion into the topic of blacklisting. A suggested revision might be warranted, but simply deleting this inclusion is inappropriate. It is neutral in that it introduces potential blacklisting and then leaves it open for debate as to whether it qualifies. Sources across the political spectrum are also utilized."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments:

Their response to being directed to the talk page was to blank the talk page section and then revert again. MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What is going on? I have included a short article on blacklisting with authoritative sources, neutral tone, and neutral content, and Wikipedians are coming out of the woodswork to prevent this submission. Instead of talking first or even revising my contribution, two individuals have just deleted my sub-article every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keving.91 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By Instead of talking first, you seem to be ignoring all of the attempts to discuss / point you to the talk page (all of which you attempted to delete):
    • Article talk page posts:
      1. Diff
      2. Diff
    • Article edit summaries:
      1. Diff: Feel free to open a discussion at the talk page if you have other reliable sources on this.
      2. Diff: Again, the talk page is there if you have reliable sources and want to introduce contested content.
      3. Diff: See WP:BRD and work it out on the talk page
    • Messages on your talk page:
      1. Diff: The edit summary for the deletion of that section explicitly gave the reason as [...] Also, remember to follow WP:ONUS and use the talk pages if necessary. Thanks!
      2. Diff: [...] You have continued to revert and have ignored repeated requests to discuss on the talk page.
    • Message on my talk page:
      1. Diff: Please take a look at the comments at Talk:Blacklisting#Tweets about the 2020 US Presidential Election and discuss it there [...]

You still haven't posted at Talk:Blacklisting#Tweets about the 2020 US Presidential Election and have instead tried to delete the talk page section while continuing to revert. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. User:Keving.91 also removed others' comments from the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: AMCHA Initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ImTheIP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [126]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [127]
2. [128]
3. [129]
4. [130]
5. [131]
6. [132]
7. [133]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: gave BLP alert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

Comments:
On 19-20 September ImTheIP made huge changes to the article. This included changing the established citation style ([135]) and extensive use of non-reliable sources ([136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141]). The most egregious of these is this diff in which a blog hosted on The Electronic Intifada, which Wikipedia consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources considers to be generally unreliable, was used to make highly contentious unattributed statements on Tammi Rossman-Benjamin who is a WP:BLP. Despite many different editors contesting ImTheIP's edits, they continue to aggressively revert to their preferred version that contains an assortment of unreliable sources, including slanderous information on a living person sourced to a red-marked source at WP:RSP. ImTheIP's attitude on the talk page has been confrontational from the start. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a request for a third opinion on the other noticeboard, I guess that is not needed anymore. :)

Indeed, I reworked the article which was in a sorry state. A conflict began on November 25 when User:Worlduse deleted a large amount of content they were unhappy with. A quick look on their Worlduse contributions page told me why. 11Fox11 intervened on November 27 and restored the version preferred by Worlduse. I reverted and asked them to explain themselves on the talk page. They re-reverted but no explanation was forthcoming.

A brand new user, Mirk Wolf, got involved and deleted even more content they found objectionabe. 11Fox11 now began reverting to Mirk Wolf's version. I've been here long enough to know about WP:COI and I find it odd that 11Fox11 would revert to a version preferred by user with so few edits.

Of the 7 reverts 11Fox11 listed, four ([142], [143], [144], [145]) are ARBPIA reverts. 11Fox11 reverted themselves four times.

I urged 11Fox11 a number of times, both in edit messages ([146], [147]) and on the talk page, to explain what parts of the article they were dissatisfied with so that we could address their concerns. No explanation was forthcoming. I even asked them I wonder if you are attempting to goad me into reverting one to many times to be able to file a complaint? They didn't answer. About 24 hours later I reverted and they almost instantly re-reverted and filed this complaint.

Now they link to a number of diffs they claim are BLP-violations. If they thought so why didn't they bring those diffs to my attention before? The diff they find "most egregious" is since November 28 sourced to a book by Ali Abunimah. The Olive Tree Initiative section is since November 2 sourced to an article in the Journal of Palestine Studies. 11Fox11 must have missed that. The other diffs 11Fox11 lists are about the AMCHA Initiative itself and can't be BLP-violations.

I'd like to ask you 11Fox11 why didn't you bring this up before? As I wrote on the talk page, your revert was massive and I'm not a mind reader. It both deleted a large number of unrelated edits I made and reinstated content authored by a non-ARBPIA compliant user. Had you told me what your complaints were we could have addressed them. ImTheIP (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the status quo ante version. During this dispute ImTheIP continued inserting questionable content and changing the citation style from the established ref style to sfns. I noticed ImTheIP added a book authored by Ali Abunimah, who is the founder of Electronic Intifada, and published in a non-reliable outfit as a second citation to the Electronic Intifada blog. Having two unreliable Electronic Intifiada sources does not repair the BLP issue. The use of non-reliable sources, in this paragraph and elsewhere, was explicitly stated. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It took you three days to reply to my comment on the AMCHA Initiative's talk page I wrote on November 28 but only eleven minutes to reply to my comment above. Your newfound eagerness for debate is refreshing but you didn't answer my question: why didn't you bring this up before?

You reverted to Worlduse's and Mirk Wolf's versions. Those were not status quo ante versions as the editors inserted their own preferred content.

Abunimah's book is published by Haymarket Books and is thus, afaict, WP:RS (there is also a YouTube video of Rossman-Benjamin). And regardless, how was I supposed to know that was what you were objecting to when you weren't telling me?

Much of what you, Worlduse, and Mirk Wolf, reverted were part of my cleanup job of that very crufty article. Yes, I changed ref to sfn. You are the first person I've met on Wikipedia who complain about that; virtually everyone seem to think that sfn is superior.

I admit that you have some valid points, but they weren't made in your edit messages nor on the article's talk page. ImTheIP (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Third Opinion volunteer. The 3O request has been removed since the filing editor has said, above, that it is no longer needed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whilst Electronic Intifada is indeed not RSP, and removing anything BLP-related that is sourced to EI would generally be a correct thing to do, I would find this report more worthy of action if (a) both parties were not involved in edit-warring, and (b) the reverts made by the filing editor did not also remove large chunks of what appears to be reliably sourced material. Also, the status quo ante version is the 20 September version of the article before Worlduse started removing content; the correct thing for 11Fox11 to do would have been to revert to that version minus any BLP violating material. The rest should have been discussed on the talkpage. Also, Worlduse and Mirk Wolf's edits should have been reverted anyway, as they violated the 30/500 ARBPIA rule. I would be interested in the comments of other administrators. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Whilst this was going on, ImTheIP added yet more unreliable sources. On 29th November they added a self-published AuthorHouse source to somehow tie the name to the Holocaust. They also changed the citation style, converting a large number of references from ref tags to harvnb tags on 28-29 November. The instances of Electronic Intifada were far from the only issue. 11Fox11 (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in the same genre it should be noted that you added a 1,300 character long copy-paste from the AMCHA Initiative's own website? That Amcha was a code word used by European Jews in the aftermath of the Holocaust is well-known. Yes, it was perhaps sloppy of me to use a self-published book (it was the first I found on Google), but it was hardly a BLP-violation.

You write that "The instances of Electronic Intifada were far from the only issue." But why didn't you bring it up on the talk page?! I asked you time and again to explain yourself. I even wrote I wonder if you are attempting to goad me into reverting one to many times to be able to file a complaint? but you didn't answer. ImTheIP (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just made a false edit summary in a revert of a mass of material. Much of that material has nothing to do with WP:BLP.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Both User:ImTheIP and User:11Fox11 are warned for edit warring. Only the removal of BLP-sensitive items should be excused under the policy. When people make mass reverts, the non-BLP changes should be counted against the 1RR and lead to blocks if necessary. If you guys are sincere about BLP, it shouldn't be too much trouble to confine your reverts to the BLP-related items. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Spider-Man (2017 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aaa11769 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */Again, you got it backwards. He never said it was his opinion. He outright confirms that the three seasons of GotG has an effect on Maximum Venom, and again, the only way for that anything that happened in seasons 1-3 of GotG, is for them to be set in the same continuity."
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC) to 10:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */I am not "making up my own theories," you got it backwards. Cort Lane never said it was his opinion. And again, it doesn't matter if it's not verified, it is still them, but that doesn't matter, since I'm not putting those as sources."
   2. 10:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC) to 09:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */Again, what do you think that means. The only way for the seeds that was set in three seasons of Guardians to have any affect in Maximum Venom is for them to be set in the same universe. Why would he say three seasons if they aren't in continuity? And they never said it was only their opinion, it was stated as fact. Harrison Wilcox was asked a similar question on Twitter, and he said that Guardians is one continuity, set in the same universe as Marvel's Spider-Man and Black Pa..."
   2. 09:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */And again the creator of this series was no longer involved with this series when this was all stated. He was very well misinformed."
4. 07:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */I want to apologise if I was being rude before, I'm sorry, that is not how I want to seem. In response to what you said, I refer to my previous statement. And on the creator thing, again, he hasn't been involved with the show since before season 2, and was most likely unaware of what Lane and Wilcox said."
5. Consecutive edits made from 06:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) to 06:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 06:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */I refer to my previous statement, you just refuse to accept it. And I already went to an admin on the matter."
   2. 06:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */Also why did you bring up the Twitter account again, I didn't even leave a link to it. But, again, just because it's not verified, doesn't mean its not him."
6. 06:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */I'm not leaving links to that account, but just because it's not verified, doesn't mean its not him. And what do you think "we planted the seeds in two seasons of Marvel's Spider-Man and three seasons of Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy" means, he is stating that the events from three seasons of GotG has an effect in Maximum Venom, and the only way for that, is for them to exist in the same universe."
7. Consecutive edits made from 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) to 19:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */That post is 5 years old and outdated, the same person outright confirms the opposite in the new one, and even further confirmed it on Twitter."
   2. 19:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
   3. 19:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
   4. 19:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
   5. 19:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
8. Consecutive edits made from 07:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC) to 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 07:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */Please do not remove information that is sourced."
   2. 07:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
   3. 08:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Development */"
   4. 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Spider Team */As of season 2, this is Miles' official Spider name."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Way more than 3 reverts, might be a Wp:Nothere account too. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I warned both of these on talk earlier this morning and started a talk discussion for them at Talk:Spider-Man_(2017_TV_series)#Content_dispute. Both are discussing there, and nobody has edited the article since I sent them a talk warning. Presumably they were not aware of 3RR, they definitely weren't warned before, and they have not persisted. I've notified the Comics WikiProject earlier today to help these two with their content dispute. They seem to be newer contributors, I would not suggest levying sanctions against either of them at this point, unless they start warring again. If they're willing to discuss on talk now, that's fine, it's what we want. Does not appear either of them are WP:NOTHERE at my glance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Yeah as I said "might" since one of them most of their cont. were on the article rv. I don't think blocking them since they are new, but giving firm warning. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they already had a warning msg on usertalk (from me), and haven't made any edits to the article since. An admin giving them another warning for the conduct they've already been warned for and stopped doing is just BITEy. They're doing it the right way now, so no action is needed at all imo (other than people weighing in on the dispute on article talk) unless one of them does something problematic in the future. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Yeah, it feels BITEy now to me, so I guess I'll withdrawal for now unless they again. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 19:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: The Black Book of Communism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.6.148.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [150]
2. [151]
3. [152]
4. [153](This last link is a revert to this version)
5. these consecutive edits revert to

this version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion shown here

Comments:

I don't normally bother with IP users, but this one seems unusually determined. All the above links are reverts, though the user sometimes made small changes before removal, so each time reverts back to a slightly different version. The Talk discussion suggests a desire to push a WP:POV. Newimpartial (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Chechens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Akylas7 (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:

1. [155]
2. [156]
3. [157]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [159]

Comments:
User Akylas7 threatened me in his native language ("Sun xov x'o mal va" translates to "I know who you are"). He also vandalized other pages as an act of revenge.

--ReinerGavriel (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I indef'd for socking. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: March Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Armenian-Jewish relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kevo327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [160]
2. [161]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_Days&diff=992188161&oldid=992187742
4. [162]
5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian%E2%80%93Jewish_relations&diff=992185841&oldid=992185622}
6. [163]
7. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Days&diff=992192783&oldid=992188601[

I have tried to reach a consensus on the talk pages for these articles but the user is actually deleting the discussions on the talk pages as well.

185.120.124.31 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment : the vandalism-only IP adress above provides sources that are not WP:RS or WP:NPOV that don't warrant a discussion. taunts me about real life events (check his talk page) and is currently reported for vandalism. - Kevo327 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: The fact that you reported me for vandalism for edits that are clearly not vandalism is immaterial. Several editors had a discussion on the March Days page and agreed that the sources for the Dashnak massacre of Jews were more than sufficient. You went against WP:CONSENSUS by removing them. I will add that you engaged in open antisemitism when you referred to my edits as 'jewish propaganda' here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_Days&diff=988169630&oldid=987824943

185.120.124.31 (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no consensus was reached, and you faked the source by changing its quote (please check the quote of the Michael smith article in the following diffs)

stable revision right before you edited: [164]

quote changed by you: [165] - Kevo327 (talk)

• comment It does appear the Michael Smith source was misrepresented. I removed it from the Armenian Jewish relations page. In turn, I have provided several other academic sources that document the massacre of Jews in Quba, including Isgendereli and Mustafaev. Were you editing constructively, we could have discussed this on the talk page. Given that you add the journals of armenian nationalists and war criminals as sources to these pages, it seems your standards are different for information that is unfavorable to Armenia.

185.120.124.31 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

misinterpreted? I gave proof that you vandalised a source and you call it a misinterpretation? I discussed my reasons on the talk page of the Armenian-Jewish relations (and i had given my reasons before that you didn't answer on). And you prove my point of you not assuming good faith right here and now. Calling names left and right, labeling people as war criminals just because you don't like them. (Signing off for today) - Kevo327 (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Mis-rep-re-sen-ted. When I began editing the page, the source was quoted incorrectly. Good catch! Regardless, there are several other academic sources that do describe a massacre of Jews in Quba and you have been systemically removing them from these pages and calling them vandalism.

185.120.124.31 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved user comment: from checking the page history over at March Days, I can confirm that both the reported user and the reporting user have both broken 3RR. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[166], [167], [168], [169] are the reporting users reverts, the reported users reverts are above. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [170]
2. [171]
3. [172]
4. [173]

Comments:

This newly created account has started his editing activity by attempting to Bulgarify articles through a mix of WP:OR and his own personal opinion (in a rather bizarre fashion using legendary stories and attempting to justify them through his own narrative) onto articles. Doesn't shy away from personal attacks either; Stop undoing a source that doesnt match your bias , not a legendary story but a source , look the citation if you have an iq above 40--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of 2020–21 NBA season transactions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Pifas225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992295530 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
2. 15:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992293805 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
3. 14:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992289894 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
4. 14:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992289466 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
5. 14:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992287522 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
6. 14:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992284980 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 13:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC) to 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992281553 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
   2. 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992282463 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
8. Consecutive edits made from 13:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC) to 13:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992279949 by Donnowin1 (talk)STOP VANDALISING"
   2. 13:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992269678 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
9. Consecutive edits made from 13:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC) to 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992271598 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
   2. 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992271700 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
10. 12:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992271143 by Donnowin1 (talk)STOP IT"
11. 11:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992269776 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
12. 19:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Free agents */ Please DO NOT Delete my work again"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of 2020–21 NBA season transactions."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seemingly a content dispute, no discussion on talk for this particular point as far as I can see. Has persisted beyond 3RR warning. Issue may well apply to User:Donnowin1 as well, although they haven't edited since the warning. See article history. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they were edit warring with another editor yesterday, and can't be bothered to respond to attempts to discuss User_talk:Pifas225#NBA_free_agents. Probably a case of Wikipedia:Communication is required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]