Page: 1971 Bangladesh genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TripWire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
This is not a violation of 3RR, but a case of continued edit warning despite both a warning and the fact that one of the three editors TripWire has reverted had opened a discussion of the content on the article's talk page. TripWire's insistence on retaining their preferred version is unhelpful while the talk page discussion is under way. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response by TripWire

A clear case of WP:BOOMERANG as the user reporting has made no significant edits of the article himself, nor has he participated at all in the discussion(s) being carried out. The user has a potential CoI with the article and perhaps this is the reason he is not happy with leaving a sourced content that does not suit his POV. Though I need not to explain my edits as they are not violating 3RR, but as the matter has been brought here, I will like to reply:

• The very first edit quoted by the complaint was made at 19:33, 8 August 2016 in response to when a longstanding info (that Sirmila Bose is an Indian academic) was removed by Czyrko without any explanation. How else should someone deal with such an edit which was borderline vandalism? The edit summary I gave was: "She's of Indian descent. Attribution to her has been discussed at talk"

• The second edit being quoted was made at 00:36, 10 August 2016 when Aditya Kabir mistakenly reverted me thinking that I was t-banned which was not the case. As there was no reason behind Aditya's revert, so it had to be undone.

• The third edit being quoted was made at 15:47, 10 August 2016 in response to Kautilya3's revert with the edit summary: "She's an Indian. Added sources. Plz read and also understand WP:ASPERSION before throwing around policies" - this was infact the first proper edit that was made by me in which two sources were added by me to support the content which were not present initially. How else do we build WP - by adding content based on sources, no? The first two being mistakes, per WP:3RR cannot be taken as reverts. It was here that a discussion commenced at the articles talk-page per WP:BRD. Dont see anything wrong here either.

• The fourth edit being quoted is the repeatition of the same edit already mentioned at serial 3, I dont know if I should take it as a mistake or a poor attempt at adding false weight to the report?

Lastly, a discussion at the talk page is currently being carried out and per WP:BRD the longstanding and sourced content cannot be removed unless a consensus is gained by the party trying to remove it. So, I dont see a problem here and dont understand the reason behind this report except that it is sheer WP:HARASSMENT and a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In short, as the complainant himself has said that this is not a case of 3RR vio, I am still wondering why am I even replying to this? A WP:BOOMERANG will be in order especially when the complainant is an uninvolved editor with no contribution or participation in resolving the dispute, and as he has filed an undue report wasting precious time of Admins.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Worldbruce's Fresh Comments

As I have mentioned earlier, my first revert was in response to "Unexplained removal of content", a reason which is quite common and frequent on WP. You remove legit content without giving any reason, it is bound to get reverted unless the initial edit was made to counter vandalism etc. So, speaking frankly your opinion didnt matter as my revert equaled an attempt at countering vandalism.

Second, when you say you had "cautioned me against editing against the consensus of three other editors", I must say that you are again wrong here. Because, the first editor committed borderline vandalism by removing content and then not explaining why. The second editor, (wrongly) reverted me thinking I was t-banned i.e. his dispute was not with the content but with me as a person. And the third person again just jumped the gun despite knowing that the previous edits by two other editors were not legit. So, sir, you cant possibly say that I was going against the consensus of three editors.

Third, I do not agree with you when you say that you tried to "de-escalate" the conflict, as there was NO conflict because the first revert was in response to vandalism, and the second one was in response to a mistake. The conflict only commenced when Kuatilya joined in and then opened a discussion.

Fourth, my edit history will show you that I am quite active at talks/prompt in opening discussions and participating in the same. I would have opened up the discussion myself as I have done so many times in the past whenever a dispute has risen, but I dont understand why would I open a discussion when I was reverting "Unexplained removal of content"?? Yeah, sure, per WP:BRD I was about to open a discussion when Kuatilya reverted me as that was the first legit revert but he beat me to it. So, your caution to me well before there ws any conflict was out of place and will be considered as WP:HARASSMENT.

Last, as you have corrected your mistake, I shall too strike my comment. And as you have added a fresh diff, the response is that this edit was made at 21:07, 12 August 2016 AFTER the discussion had progressed, and as per policy, content in dispute ought to stay unless there is a consensus to ultimately remove the content i.e the clean/original version of the article stays till consensus has been gained. So, again, I dont see anything wrong with it either especially when it was WP:NOT3RR.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kuatilya

Kuatilya, first, this forum is not for discussing content disputes but edit-warring, so if you have anything to say about the latter, please do so or else there is not need to complicate a very simple issue of Harassment and a poor report. Still:

• Re:Stonewalling: A little glance at the discussion at talk-page will show who was actually stonewalling. Kautilya3 having no locus standi for his revert first himself brought in the Sarmila's nationality issue to the discussion and then brought in the merits and demerits of Sarmila's book which had nothing to do with the current dispute, and then bold enough, asked me to stop discussing both of these issues though it was him who stonewalled the discussion at the first place. What's even strange that he accuses me of stonewalling while he himself totally sidetracks and stonewalls in response to a very direct question related precisely to the dispute. This was my desperate attempt to bring Kuatilya back into the actual discussion so that a resolution can be reached to which he paid no attention whatsoever. I would request the admins to please take a look at the discussion themselves and see if it was me or Kuatilya who was deflecting the discussion.
• All this was done by Kuatilya while he blatantly violated the restrictions placed on him recently.

• Re:Synthesis: Kuatilya is just misrepresenting the source which clearly says that Sarmila is an "American... of Indian parentage", while he safely omits the mention of another independent source which explicitly says that Sarmila is an Indian author. I wonder if he actually knew what he meant when he said that I synthesized the content even though it was not added by me.

• Re:Longstanding: The content in dispute was added after an exhaustive discussion [9] [10] [11] had taken place and consensus had been reached to which Kuatilya had been a party to. I wonder what prompted him to against the consensus to which he had been heavily involved and had agreed to just months after?
• Strangely enough, whereas Kuatliya himself advises others not to modify content without leaving an edit-summary or else they risk a reversion, but at the same time fails to follow his own advice and instead supports unexplained removal of content by Czyrko by reverting me which infact is cause of this entire dispute! Unfathomable, innit?
• Kuatilya, the main point is that as the consensus has not been reached (for removal of the said content), it should stay there till an agreement has been reached, but then you removed it twice already.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sutish

Sutish, I dont know you and you dont know me. We have never interacted, never crossed paths, nor been in disputes or even probably edited the same articles. But I have found you to be quick in jumping into reports involving me and Kuatiliya. Second, your comment here show that you have absolutely no idea what WP:3RR is, please educate yourself on it first.

'To Admin I would request you to speedily close this case as the usual attempts of WP:SOAPBOX are underway. And if possible, please look into the fact that why always a set group of editors who have never communicated with be before are always available to comment on such reports.

@TripWire: Thank you for pointing out my pasting error in the above list of reverts. I have struck the duplicate and added the revert I intended to include.

At the time of your first revert, I had no strong opinion as to which version was better. Indeed, my early feeling was that this was developing into a contender for lamest edit war ever. As you say, I am an uninvolved editor with clean hands. I have not engaged in the edit warring, and have attempted to de-escalate the conflict by cautioning you against editing against the consensus of three other editors and encouraging you to open a discussion on the article's talk page, advice you decided not to take. Kautilya3 opened a discussion on the talk page, and I have been following it. If you were to advance there a cogent and persuasive argument for why your version better serves the reader, you might even win my support. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a probably a bit more complicated than the standard edit-warring situation. TripWire did participate in the talk page discussion, but their participation has been the usual stone-walling. The points I have raised have not been addressed, and TripWire reinstated the disputed content before reaching a consensus. Whether that is sanctionable or not I leave to the admins to decide.

All I can say is that the rationale given for the final reinstatement [12] is not valid. The first citation, the author's personal page describes her as an "American... of Indian parentage." The fact that reducing it to "Indian academic" is an unreasonable synthesis is not something TripWire appreciates or probably ever likely to appreciate. The contention that it is "long-standing content" is also not exactly true. This content has been inserted after 4 March, a period of intense disputes, resulting in two full page-protections and two topic bans. So, this is problematic content and there is loads of such content on that page. The real problem is that all the knowledgeable editors that could have fixed the page have gotten tired of the disputes and left. The ratio of POV pushing to well-qualified editing has gone sky high, and the Wikipedia is degenerating. So, until some brave new souls come who have the knowledge and the energy to fight, this junk will just stay there. Those are the facts of the situation. This edit was just a drop in the ocean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TripWire has given lengthy responses above, filibustering as they normally do. I deliberately avoided content dispute here. But if the two sources disagree, the discussion of their relative merits should have happened on the talk page and consensus reached before an edit was made again. The main point is however that consensus has not been reached before they reinstated the disputed content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A clear breach. I don't think I have had any involvement with TripWire on articles but I have noticed their antics - wild accusations against others, TLDR responses involving misinterpreted policies, POV pushing, a tendency to pay lip-service to BRD while continuing on their merry way etc. I did comment at the recent AE case, suggesting that enough is enough. I maintain that opinion and the content of this report merely reinforces it: they seem yet again to be incapable of following our norms and I have little doubt that this is ultimately going to end up before ArbCom and/or with a community-imposed indef topic ban from everything related to South Asia. - Sitush (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• TripWire - think edit warring, not 3RR. I regularly follow Kautilya's edits - we have a lot of cross-over in terms of interests, although we do not always agree. When we do not, we work things out in a collegial manner, which is something that you should learn. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Khizr and Ghazala Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

107.77.225.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734558484 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) rv edit warring 3RR vio"
2. 04:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "THE FALSE CLAIMS WERE FALSE!!!1!!! Polarscribe -> FCYTravis -> NorthBySouthBaranof"
3. 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Restore non contentious edits"
4. 03:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734556077 by FCYTravis (talk) Travis throwing one of his "FALSE!! OMG!!!" "CONSPIRACY!!! OMG!!!" fits again. No."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Khizr and Ghazala Khan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Reversion review */ That's right out."
2. 03:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "We should remove the whole thing, actually."
3. 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Reversion review */ Sources cited."

Comments:

Personal-attacking edit warrior who appears to bear a grudge against me for some reason. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Only two reverts, however clear signs of vandalism. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Croatian Air Force and Air Defence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

93.142.75.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734630142 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
2. 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629997 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
3. 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629914 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
4. 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629841 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
5. 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629786 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
6. 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629747 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
7. 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629670 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
8. 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629604 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
9. 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629426 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
10. 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629273 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
11. 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629179 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
12. 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629095 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
13. 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734628898 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
14. 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "stavit ću automatski aj bok hahahaha"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Croatian Air Force and Air Defence. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

And many more reverts. This report and the one below are for the same article. Also edit warring on Croatian War of Independence. —MRD2014 T C 17:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Semiprotected this article three months, as well as the Croatian War of Independence. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Croatian Air Force and Air Defence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

212.178.242.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
2. 17:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
3. 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
4. 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
5. 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
6. 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
7. 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
8. 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
9. 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
10. 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
11. 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
12. 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
13. 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
14. 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
15. 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Croatian Air Force and Air Defence. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Many more reverts. This report and the one above are for the same article. Also edit warring on Croatian War of Independence. —MRD2014 T C 17:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Clayton Fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jax 0677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Talk:Clayton Fire. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Jax 0677 (talk) to last version by Zackmann08"
2. 18:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Jax 0677 (talk) to last revision by Zackmann08. (TW)"

Comments:

User continues to add templates indicating the page is about a living person, which it is not. This is not the fire time they have been engaged in an edit war or that they have been warned for vandalism. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

• I stopped adding {{WPBIO}} after getting the warning. I put {{WPBIO}} up there because the suspect has not yet been convicted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – This is a war on the talk page not the article. It appears that User:Jax 0677 is not continuing to revert. There are only two reverts so far. The submitter, User:Zackmann08, is warned not to make incorrect charges of vandalism. Your diffs showing your 'attempt to resolve the dispute' are simply your own reverts. I see no actual discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thank you for the information. I think I included the wrong diffs when I filed it but that is neither here nor there. I will review the policies and make sure I don't make the mistake again. Thank you for the information! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Paracetamol#Toxicity

Comments:
Abductive is adding UNDUE and unsourced, editorializing content about possible toxicity of acetaminophen/paracetamol to fetuses/infants. This subject has been extensively discussed on Talk and we get people who show up from time and demand that this hyped-in-alternative-media risk be emphasized more. See here and the section below that and elsewhere in the Talk archives. The existing content is the result of careful discussion among experienced editors and accurately reflects MEDRS sources. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Jytdog is exhibiting WP:Ownership over this article. I have modified my contributions and received nothing but escalation. I ask that User:Jytdog be civil, and allow scientific advances into the article, even if it bruises his ego and supersedes what he thinks the previous consensus might have been. Abductive (reasoning) 01:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personalizing things isn't helpful. Your edits did not follow NPOV nor MEDRS, nor pay mind to the several past discussions about this (in other words, CONSENSUS) Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:Abductive has added new material and then reverted three times to keep it in. He is warned he may be blocked if he reverts again without getting a prior talk page consensus. The claim is that use of Paracetamol by pregnant women may contribute to ADHD in the offspring. Generally, this kind of information is expected to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. I don't see any effort on your part to demonstrate that MEDRS is satisfied. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

I made a number of edits to the article, which were necessary to make it comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V and the WP:MOS. The edits were reverted without explanation by the user I'm reporting. They have reverted four times in a little under two hours, leaving only the rather insulting comment "rvt to last clean version". In response to my question on their talk page as to why they would consider my edits "dirty", they responded with further insults. 86.185.226.91 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And they continue to be astonishingly uncivil, see their removal of my notification to them of this discussion. 86.185.226.91 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Marnette's reverting is minimal and the reporter hasn't exactly gone out of their way to resolve this dispute in a congenial manner (see this message they left at Marnette's talk page despite the fact that Marnette made no personal attacks that I can see). There is progress on the talk page now so I recommend closing this report. Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Minimal? Four reverts in less than two hours is not minimal. It is textbook disruptive editing. Their only comment on their reverts was "revert to last clean version", which was a clear personal attack. And even if there were talk page progress (I don't see any reasons given for their reverting) "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." There's a list of exceptions but it doesn't include a third editor subsequently commenting on the talk page. I recommend that they be blocked for at least 24 hours for unambiguously violating a supposed bright-line rule. It says right here on this page that "Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." 86.185.226.91 (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You installed an edit four times, he reverted you by the same number so let's not get too hung up on the technicalities. I have left comments at the talk page addressing your points (some of which I support) so let's focus on the real issue of article improvement. Betty Logan (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They broke a bright line rule; I didn't. That's not a technicality. Why should they not be blocked for disruptive editing? 86.184.140.247 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the edit-warring is concerned Marnette simply reached the red line first and now you are attempting to exploit a loophole to get him blocked. However, just because you didn't revert four times does not mean you cannot be handed a block too, and the presiding admin might well take the view that you are gaming the rule. Another thing to bear in mind is that if the time expended on this report had been put into resolving the issue at the article then we could have all moved on to other things by now. Betty Logan (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP has been here all of two days and knows how to log things at WP:3RR and is familiar with other wiki policies (WP:NPA, disruptive editing, "bright-line rule", etc. Recommend the IP starts to discuss things on the article's talkpage and this is closed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing for a while and I'm very familiar with the policies. Meanwhile, IP addresses change. I don't think that's news to many people. Why should the editor who was disruptively reverting not be blocked for doing so, when "Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours"? 86.184.140.247 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been "editing a while", certainly not on this account. But if you have, maybe you'd like to disclose your previous accounts in the interests of transparency? Cassianto^Talk 08:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can get a recap at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Betty Logan (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17AUG editor blanked 6500 bytes of sourced content: [21]

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

1. 17AUG editor blanked 6500 bytes of sourced content: [22]
2. 17AUG I reverted: [23]
3. 17AUG editor immediately re-reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theories_of_the_United_states_presidential_election,_2016&diff=734878235&oldid=734877971

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

1. [24]

Comments:

• This editor has been blanking a section of an article under 1RR restrictions. As near as I can tell, he is a supporter of Donald Trump (which is fine) who is non-plussed by a section of this article (which is also fine). He has alleged an ~ 400 byte section of the article constitutes a BLP violation (it doesn't really seem to, but out of a preponderance of caution I'm certainly open to discussing that point and keeping that section off page as we work through it, and have proposed alt verbiage here). However, instead of addressing that section he repeatedly is blanking 6,000 bytes of sourced material (the entire section in which the objectionable sub-section is housed).
  

This is doubly disruptive as the article is under AfD right now; it appears it will WP:SNOW pass, however, it creates a bit of hassle for !voters. I want to give GF here but editor is non-responsive and his vast and extensive block history seems to indicate he's not here to productively or collaboratively contribute. LavaBaron (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with 3rr? I don't see that being exceeded in the diffs you provide? Cassianto^Talk 08:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto - this article is under a 1RR restriction under the WP:ARBAPDS case. LavaBaron (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But EEng had reservations about BLP infringement which, in itself, provides a legitimate caveat. Cassianto^Talk 08:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect if one could just yell "BLP" before 1RR'ing, regardless of the actuality of a BLP issue, there would be no need for enforcement. That said, I certainly give GF to his concerns and am happy to discuss. However, I don't believe a BLP concern over 400 bytes of text justifies deletion of the 6,100 preceding bytes - for which there is no concern - as well? I may be a little jaded, though, I've been holding the line for the better part of a year now at Frank Gaffney which has seen a revolving door of IP editors sanitizing the article over "BLP" concerns and I've also been dealing with Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump being edit-warred 34 times in a day from the Trump campaign HQ over "security concerns" [25]. I may be a bit defensive from having to go through this endlessly, so, if this is a legitimate 1RR I apologize and defer.

(I sure would like to reinsert those 6,100 bytes of sourced material for which there was no concern that is being blanked, though. That's a lot of knowledge that's been destroyed.) LavaBaron (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note the editor here - [26] - seems to be just hitting "undo" without actually reading the text. He expressed a concern about the use of the word "traditionally" in the lede. I rewrote the lede to remove it, and he then reverted my rewrite with the edit note Idea that US presidential elections are "traditionally" this or that needs a strong source which suggests he's just reverting without reading. There's not a rational, analysis-based approach occurring if you're just pounding the "revert" key without actually looking at what you're reverting. LavaBaron (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation EEng has to have been formally notified of discretionary sanctions using the specific template before he can be sanctioned against them. Additionally, reverting fringe theories under BLP can (note, not will or must) be exempt from 3RR. As it stands, there are not enough reverts to justify anything right now. You've started a discussion on the talk page, let's see what happens there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333 - in the interim can I restore the 6100 bytes of text that are not at issue vis a vis BLP? LavaBaron (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• As discussed by multiple editors at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Trump_plant_theory (another article, also by LavaBaron, containing the exact same material for some reason) the material removed states that Jeb Bush, George Will, and others actually propound the theory that Donald Trump is a "plant". This completely misrepresents sources, which make it clear that no one is saying this in seriousness. That's a BLP violation. And, as mentioned, the entire removed section was duplicated at another article -- LavaBaron seems to have seeded it into multiple overlapping articles he's created.
• I didn't realize this article is under 1RR, but if we want to get technical, me removing something that's been there for days, LavaBaron restoring it, then me re-removing it, is only a single reversion on my part.
• LavaBaron is under special restrictions at DYK precisely because of the chronic habit of misreading and misrepresenting sources. He's currently been forum-shopping to have those restrictions removed, and trying to get DYK rules changed to squelch scrutiny of his nominations, without success:

• Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#LavaBaron.27s_restrictions_-_review
• Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Limit_on_Conversations_and_Chit-Chat_in_Working_Areas_.28Review_Space.29
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_Removal_of_DYK_Restrictions

• LavaBaron's idea that I'm a Trump supporter is so absurd as to border on the surreal, as a glance at User:EEng#A_not-so-entertaining_diversion will show. I wouldn't mention this except that it serves to show how completely backwards LavaBaron is able to get things (as in his misinterpretation of sources, above) as well as his belief that everyone who disagrees with him is motivated by dark intentions -- not unlike Donald Trump, come to think of it.

I gotta go to bed, so pinging Fram and The_Rambling_Man, two admins active at DYK who are familiar with the situation. EEng 09:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EEng - I'd love to keep this civil. No offense was intended when I said I thought you were a Trump supporter and, if you were offended, I apologize. If I mischaracterized you, I apologize. However, I don't believe everyone who disagrees with me is "motivated by dark intentions." Sorry we got off on the wrong foot! LavaBaron (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]