Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive409

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

Here's the diff of the first revert.

https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Baltic_Sea&type=revision&diff=957218396&oldid=957211969

Please note the comment. It's based on this person's personal opinion, whilst my edit is perfectly legit.What I changed was the usage of Russian word "oblast" which means nothing more than "region". It's even explicitly said in Kaliningrad Region's article.While my comments where meritorious, he/she began to write in a personal manner. I created a section on this user's Talk page, he/she then moved the section to the article's Talk Page. Normally I would let go but he/she's aggressive, biased and in my opinion, wrong. And certainly, calling me a "buster" (like "listen, buster") isn't a beginning of any creative discussion.Please look at this ridiculous discussion: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Talk:Baltic_Sea#Oblast

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Baltic_Sea&type=revision&diff=957218396&oldid=957211969
2. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Baltic_Sea&type=revision&diff=957230934&oldid=957228490
3. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Baltic_Sea&type=revision&diff=957227103&oldid=957226197
4. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Baltic_Sea&type=revision&diff=957223520&oldid=957222010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Talk:Baltic_Sea#Oblast

Comments:
Now it's your turn. Since this user shows absolutely no will to talk, just to justify his/her reverts, I had to report it. Programmer Physicist (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Programmer Physicist, our article is at Kaliningrad Oblast. Why do you keep changing it? Guy (help!) 20:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(Guy) I have not changed a single word in the Kaliningrad Oblast article.

I'm changing Baltic Sea article Programmer Physicist (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, this ought to be fun. I guess that's what I get for not immediately dropping a 3RR report on you when you ignored BRD thrice in a row? Well, the chronology is nicely timestamped in the history. Enjoy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. You reverted my changes four times in a row. What makes you think you're right?

Hopefully, the chronology will show who's done what, when, where and written what.

Last but not least: calm down. Programmer Physicist (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Declined, from reading the page history, Programmer Physicist violated 3RR first, and also didn't properly comply with consensus-building procedures; as the editor introducing a change that was disputed, it's on you to argue for your case and build a consensus on the talk page. In the absence of consensus we default to the status quo from before disputed changes were introduced until the matter is resolved. Continuing to reinstate your edit after seeing disagreement from Elmidae was edit warring. Given that you seem to be willing to engage with discussion and have refrained from reverting Elmidae's last edit in this war, I don't see any benefit from imposing a block in this case, provided that you don't try to reinstate your edit again without obtaining consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill From your experience, how should I obtain a consensus with such an aggressive user?

IMO there's no chance to convince that person that English Wikipedia should be written in English. Because in light of your explanation, "oblast" will stay there forever. This looks like typical liberum veto for new edits - any single user can block anything, at will, just like that. Hints on this particular case? Programmer Physicist (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Programmer Physicist, having a discussion on the talk page is the way to start going about this (and this is a step that's already been taken, although these discussions generally go better when they aren't accompanied by an edit war). If the discussion stalls, next steps may include requesting a third opinion from WP:3O. In cases where editors are having a hard time staying on topic or don't seem to understand each other's arguments, the dispute resolution noticeboard can help. If all else fails, you can convene an RfC to request input from the community at large. I would recommend discussing these options with other involved editors before consulting them, as some of them can involve a non-trivial amount of work to frame and participate in the discussion._signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As a start, it's often useful to drop a note on the talk page of connected wikiprojects, asking for comments; seeing what term we are discussing, a good option might be Wikipedia:Wikiproject Soviet Union. I'll give them a ping. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thanks, I had no idea about any of these (except the Talk Page) - I'm new, usually I was contributing anonymously before I created an account.

Discussion with this user is pointless, so I'll try WP:3O - it seems to be a really reasonable option. If that goes bad I'll call it a night. Thanks, Rosguill

Programmer Physicist (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Programmer Physicist, it seems like another editor has chimed in, so 3O is actually no longer an option as it's strictly for disputes between 2 editors. I would suggest hearing out arguments a bit more, then possibly going to WP:DRN for next steps. I would also urge you to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Especially for a dispute over something like this, everyone here is just trying to improve Wikipedia, even if you disagree on the ideal resolution to this particular issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Yes, I just noticed a new comment on the Talk Page. I've given it the last try, most probably I'm gonna give up on this.

Again, thanks for a constructive reply. I never knew about WP:3O, the dispute resolution noticeboard or RfC. That's a hell of usable knowledge. Programmer Physicist (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: KSI (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chocolate Tastes Nice 10 (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]
6. [7]
7. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

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

Comments:
User keeps adding their preferred image after being informed the image is nominated for deletion due to copyright issues. Four users, including myself, have more than adequately explained in edit summaries why the image has been removed. An edit warring warning template was left on the user’s talk page by myself as seen above, as well as two copyright warning templates. – ².O.^Boxing 01:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from this article, indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Pakistan Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ytpks896 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edits by Xeed.rice (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Pakistan_Air_Force. (TW)"
2. 12:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Following a disagreement on the Pakistan Air Force page, user followed my edits on this page (Pakistan Navy) and the page of the Pakistan Army to revert all my edits. I have tried and failed to reach a consensus with this user but they do not seem to be responding to my requests and keep threatening to have me banned for vandalism. I take accusations of vandalism seriously as that is not my goal here and I have never vandalized. Xeed.rice (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation However, edit summaries falsely claiming vandalism like this are unacceptable. The edits being made appear constructive, so Ytpks896, if you revert again without having contributed to the talk page discussion, you'll be blocked. Number 57 17:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GiantSnowman (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. [10]
2. [11]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]National Independent Soccer Association IS a Professional League

Comments:
Futbol10p 9:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation The only problem here is Futbol10p's attempts to add something to the page against consensus (and falsely claiming that there is). User:Futbol10p, if you make this edit again, you'll be the one blocked. Number 57 17:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, a boomerang here would be grand. This editor is disruptively editing against consensus as is clear from the edit history and the talk page. GiantSnowman 17:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Portuguese people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.6.246.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka NormanGear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), JamesOredan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)sockpuppet}}

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Att. Administration/Investigations this displays the hallmarks of IP address 84.78.247.13 located in the same geographical area earlier last week which belongs to known sockpuppet User:JamesOredan aka IP address: 84.78.247.13

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

Comments:
Melroross (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected six months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Pakistan Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ytpks896 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision by سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ vandalism by the Xeed.rice"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC) to 11:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 11:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Structure */Restore"
   2. 11:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards for valour */"
3. 10:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "Restore unsource of information changing by the previous user: Xeed.rice"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Pakistan_Air_Force. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Preventing an edit war */ new section"

Comments:

I have launched a restructuring project for the page for the Pakistan Air Force. It is currently in progress and I was still not finished with my clean-up (one of the major issues on this article as well as others was the lack of proper photos, such as the Pakistan Air Force's badge and poor English grammar and spelling), and detailing, that a user @Ytpks896 began to extensively revert my edits. I had hoped to reach a consensus via discussion with this user but they have responded with constant accusations of vandalism and have gone as far as reverting every single one of my edits on the page to the last edit that was made before I began my edits. Upon finishing my over-hauling of the page, I had intentions to go back and re-clean everything to make sure it is fit to remain (including the addition of HD photos and proper organization of subsections) and extensively cite information that had not yet been cited. I would also like to point out that all of my other edits on other pages have widely been approved of by other users with the exception of this user. I would like to make my dedication to making Wikipedia a better place clear and my edits can be seen to show that I value professionalism and organization and have not vandalized in any of my previous edits. Xeed.rice (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Ytpks896 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Pakistan Air Force without having received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ythlev (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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The whole of this thread was a discussion on these maps. Consensus reached to add 3 country maps, not change Infobox map.

Comments:
The image in question (and three similar) was being discussed on the Talk page, therefore no changes should have been made to the map in the Infobox. A completely different images was uploaded to Commons by Ythlev, which fed automatically into the infobox. Users (including myself) deleted this new version on the WP Infobox, with full explanation asking the user to discuss on the Talk page. The user reinstated the new image 4 times without giving an explanation why that was done. This was an attempt to break the new consensus which had just been reached. Cell Danwydd (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd has been an active participant in this edit warring and if fact started it (I can't see any active change by Ythlev) see 1, 2, 3 reverts himself and some rather un civil accusations at Defacto. As per BRD Cell should have stopped when he was reverted the first time and not go another 2 times and in fact Ythlev went to the talk page after his first revert! Looks like Cell not wanting to engage here. Games of the world (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW there is no consensus to add 3 maps. Talks are still on going. Games of the world (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What BRD are you talking about? What edit warring please? You list 3 edits and claim that they were mine. Look closer and you will see that the middle one is that of your good friend Ythlev, not mine. I did not do 4 reverts. Ythlev did. Consensus was reached: Jxseph14 on 23:03, 17 May 2020 said, ' I like the multi-maps set up', Archon 2488 on 00:29, 18 May 2020 said 'I also believe these maps add value to the article', DeFacto on 13:20, 18 May 2020, you said,'I agree with the "intuitive" range idea.' of having the same Key on each of the 3 maps and again on 15:41 said: '@John Jones: so far, so goodish...' So all 5 editors had come to an agreement, a consensus that the 3 maps was the way forward. Just to recap: no BRD, no edit warring and consensus was reached. Please try clear your head before making unfounded accusations. Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

All three of my links are your edits. What are you talking about? Also going up to the line and not over it does not make you any less of a problem (just because another who shares your view did a revert that led to his fourth). Don't misquote users just to get a point across. Defacto didn't say that it that sense and he went on to change his mind and (paraphrasing) state that 3 maps were not needed and just 1 for the whole of the UK in the style that was being discussed and had some sort of consensus (or at least forming) for that. As far as I can see Ythlev did not edit the article he edited the map (on commons). Which you removed against consensus. Also BRD is bold revert discuss. You should have stopped after Ythlev reverted you and gone to the talk page like he had already done. Also he is not my friend. Games of the world (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced that Cell Danwydd (the filer of this report) is here to improve Wikipedia. Before today (UK time), they had only edited English Wikipedia twice this year and only a total of 12 times before that since they first edited in 2014.

Today they parachuted into the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom article to add a tag to the top of it and to remove an image and reverted its restoration twice (here and here) (the subject of this report).

They also visited that article's talkpage to support a call from another editor to remove content about England from the article and to raise a thread attacking me (starting "Consensus broken by User:DeFacto:" here), alleging I had broken a consensus by adding views to the discussion. They followed up that latter attack on my own talkpage here, but failed to supply any evidence of the allegations. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• User being reported: Blusocksblu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Escobar Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Blusocksblu is clearly Daniel D. Reitberg hiding under multiple different usernames to scrub his name from the article. Should also be banned for sockpuppetry. Vandalism...

Blocked – Indef per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WowWashington, and page protected for 2 days by User:HJ Mitchell. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 03:26, 20 May 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]: Undid revision 957709794 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk)
2. [19]: Revert back to 5 paragraphs of text that was arbitrarily deleted for for unfounded reasons.
3. [20]: (No edit summary)
4. [21]: content, grammar and references

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alison_Roman#Discussion

Comments:
Warned by multiple users on talk page but continued reverting afterwards. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no discussion being had on Talk Page. Just arbirtary deletion of the final edit I made as per the suggestions of user Dink. The edit has been parsed down to two paragraphs with modified language for heightened neutrality. User Random Canadian has not been party to any constructive discussion to improve the article. Random Canadian is using own distaste for media to make conclusions about the relevance of the editsa, which is impertinent to improving the article.AmorDoctrinaeFloreat (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't try reading into the minds of others. What I said was that the issue was being blown out of proportion by the media, and that is exactly what I meant (the little parenthetical was a silly comment to keep this in a good mood, but obviously it was misunderstood). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: 2019–20 Western Libya offensive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lucius Corin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 03:26, 20 May 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]:
2. [23]:
3. [24]:

Personal attacks on my talk page:

1. First
2. Second

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2019–20 Western Libya offensive

Comments:

The 3RR is not the only thing I want to report also, the agresive bahaviour and the insults too.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

imagine dictating a wikipedia page, altering and removing everything i said with proof, confronted you about it and now you're playing victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius Corin (talk • contribs) 17:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: I don't see a violation of 3RR here, nor do I see a revert my the reported editor after you left the 3RR warning. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, still I want to report the personal attacks.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Sorry, I didn't see you'd commented. You're welcome to change my actions if you like as the first responding admin. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: No objections. I was engaging with the reported editor at my talk page. I was suggesting that they self-revert and engage in discussion on the talk page. I've now told them that's their only option for updating the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Rape in Islamic law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC) "WP:NOCON says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." arsi's edit was the bold edit and since we have a dispute we should retain the version of the article as it was before his edit"
2. 04:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC) "No this content has been around for a while now, so its those who wish to remove it who will need to obtain consensus for it."
3. 03:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC) "I would recommend you go through the cited sources before making blanket reverts. thank you"
4. 01:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC) "reverting Arsi786's unexplained deletions of sourced content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has reverted multiple editors and broke 3rr. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. I only saw the edit war notice where Sharabsalam explained the 3RR restrictions to me after I had already made that 3rd revert.[25] That is why I have self-reverted now.[26] However, I would just like to say that WP:NOCON states that in case of a content dispute the version of the article as it was before the dispute arose should be retained. And the dispute started from Arsi786's bold edit on 18 May.[27] The content I had been restoring had been there uncontested for more than one month. So it really should be my friends who should obtain consensus for reverting back to Arsi786's bold edit. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

One month is NOT a long period of time.! You are the one who should seek consensus.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

But the dispute only began two days ago. In view of that, the pre-18 May version was the longstanding version therefore the onus is on those who want the post-18 May version of the article to obtain consensus for the removal. Nevertheless, I have self reverted to comply with wikipedia policy Mcphurphy (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You added a content one month ago. It was disputed 2 days ago and you kept reverting since 2 days. You should not reinstate your edit after you got reverted by three editors. You have even broke the 3RR. This is the editwarring that you should be sanctioned for.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already reverted myself after you informed me about the 3RR rule. Mcphurphy (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you self-reverted after I reported you. I informed you at 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC) and you made a fourth revert at 04:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC) and I reported you at 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC) and you self-reverted at 04:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC). Clearly it wasn't the warning that I sent you, it was the report.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I self-reverted after the report. But I told you at 04:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [28] that I had just seen and noted your warning. That was after I made the fourth revert at 04:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC). I was prepared to self-revert but during that time I was busy editing my original reply to you on my talk-page. When you reported me I was still editig my reply at 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC).[29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcphurphy (talk • contribs)

So you made the fourth revert after 4 mins from when you got warned. You didn't notice the warning that time? Oh and I reported you after 4 mins and you waited 5 mins and then self-revert. I find it hard to believe that you didn't notice the warning during that time.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just to add, Mcphurphy has been adding highly inflammatory content to the article. Part of the content alleged that Islam condones rape. This is obviously false (and most Muslims do not believe in rape) as user has cherrypicked from sources to push that claim. I honestly wish the user would discuss before adding such WP:REDFLAG content.VR _talk 07:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I have only been adding sourced and verifiable content. And I have been proving the verifiability of my content on the talkpage by quoting the source materials, sentence by sentence.[30] These are content disputes which should not be raised here. I am trying very patiently to resolve these content disputes in a civil and respectable manner on the talkpages.[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcphurphy (talk • contribs) 09:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Mcphurphy is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Rape in Islamic law unless they have first obtained consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Communism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bcliot33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 957456377 by JzG (talk) "Undiscussed" ?"
2. 21:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 957329952 by Grayfell (talk) In the paragraph above about history of communism E. Bernstein and his view is cited. There is also a Lenin's quote below. Why can't Marx have his view about the history of communism shared?"
3. 07:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 957317558 by TimothyBlue (talk)"
4. 06:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 957315063 by TimothyBlue (talk) Do not delete the addition. Put some warning on the lack of the source first. We are on topic "History of communism""
5. 06:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 957312452 by Grayfell (talk) It is a primary source and on topic, please do not delete contributions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "/* May 2020 */ Again."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit waring */ new section"

Comments:

This is the second time I've warned Bcliot33 against edit warring this month (the other incident being three reverts to Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)). Bcliot33 blanks most user talk page comments, and almost never posts to any talk page.

This specific edit is controversial and should be discussed on a talk page, not in edit summaries. This appears to be part of a pattern of strange, inappropriate edits, but until this editor is willing to post to talk pages, there isn't going to be any way to discuss these issues. Grayfell (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"This specific edit is controversial and should be discussed on a talk page" it isn't. It's plain and simple just like E. Bernstein and Lenin quote on the article this one is also a great contribution to the history of communism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcliot33 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. The user is very keen on having his new content about the Cercle social remain in the article but has never used the talk page to get support from others. Reverting is not very effective as a tool of persuasion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: - Bcliot33 has continued edit war after block expired. [32]   // Timothy :: talk  09:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Core2012 (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. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]

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

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

Comments:

Simply no attempt by the editor to respond. O3000 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Agreed, no attempt to engage, removal is explicitly stated in edit summaries to be based on the editor's personal view rather than on published sources. Guy (help!) 10:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Concubinage in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mcphurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

The user has basically reverted this edit,(05:16, May 20, 2020) in full twice and in part twice (for a total of 4 times) in less than 3 hours.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:50, May 21, 2020, a full revert
2. 08:22, May 21, 2020, a full revert
3. 09:57, May 21, 2020, a partial revert where the user removes the quote by Imam Shafi that was introduced in the (05:16, May 20, 2020) edit and re-introduces back some material that was removed in the (05:16, May 20, 2020) edit.
4. 10:02, May 21, 2020, a partial revert where the user removes the sentence "While Islam strongly discouraged the practice of slavery, it did not prohibit slavery". This sentence was inserted in the (05:16, May 20, 2020) edit. The user had removed it in the two full reverts above.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:28, May 21, 2020 . In addition, this user was reported for violating 3RR just yesterday for which he was warned a mere 8 hours ago.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:29, May 20, 2020, 07:31, May 20, 2020, 02:20, May 20, 2020 etc.

Comments: Mcphurphy has also been trying to change the title of the article to "Sexual slavery in Islam" over repeated objections from 3 users (Arsi786, SharabSalam and myself) on the talk page. Mcphurphy has engaged in very contentious editing on Concubinage in Islam and Rape in Islamic law. For the latter article, Mcphurphy violated 3rr yesterday was reported and then warned. The user does engage on the talk page, which is good, but shouldn't simply keep edit-warring.
VR _talk 10:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

VR did 2 full reverts.[41][42] This was after I left a message on the talkpage saying that we need to keep the last stable version until the dispute is resolved.[43] But Vice regent keeps on bringing back the new version without consensus.

I didn't want to edit war so I stopped with the wholesale reverting. But I noticed that Vice regent was still editing even after they did 2 reverts so I also made edits on that page. I thought if he can continue editing that page it would also be allowed for me. I am sorry if I did break the rule (it was a grey area and its not clear to me yet what falls under 3RR) and I am prepared to self-revert but I didn't understand why Vice regent thinks he can continue editing there after 2 reverts but I can't? I asked him on my talkpage to clarify why but he didn't reply. Instead he went and filed this report. And he only explained to me after he filed this report.[44]

And I have also shown the verifiability of every single sentence which was being removed.[45] Vice regent has not engaged with most of it and has only engaged on one of the sentences (out of the dozens).[46] After Vice regent replied to that I responded to that reply.[47] Yet they still kept on doing wholesale removal of everything. In fact, despite my repeated requests to them to engage on the talkpage, they kept on making more edits to the disputed artice while the content dispute was still on the talkpage.

I also did not do any edit war on Rape in Islamic law. I tried to engage Vice regent on the talkpage there too but he still has not responded there yet.[48] I also left him a mesaage on his talkpage earlier asking him to engage on Talk:Rape in Islamic law. He only considered my request after filing this report against me. Mcphurphy (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I warned you on your talk page before you passed the 3rr threshold, yet you kept making partial reverts anyway.VR _talk 11:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You warned me at 10:03 [49], which is the same minute my last edit on that page was saved in[50] I did not make any more edits on that page after I saw your message (around 10:04).

As for the message you gave me at 08:28 I did not understand it then because you yourself had made two whole reverts just before giving me that message.[51][52] So I became confused. I thought what was allowed for you would also be allowed for me. And most of all, I did not know that my later edits counted as "partial reverts." I thought they counted as regular edits just like your later edits on that page. You were also continuing to make contentious edits on the article[53][54][55] despite my repeated requests on the talkpage that you and others abstain from more editing until we have resolved our content disputes.[56][57][58] Isn't that disruptive? Mcphurphy (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected The full protection I have applied to this article is in lieu of blocking you both, as you are both edit-warring and both have low numbers of edits in total, all or mostly centred around this or reelated topics. Guy (help!) 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Afsharid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sasan Hero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and AttilaAkay (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. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
I’m not sure if one user is reverting vandalism or not, but 3RR has been breached by both users. – ².O.^Boxing 21:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment 3RR may have been breached by both of them, but Sasan Hero was reverting to the status quo version while AttilaAkay was editing against WP:ONUS and WP:EW. Also, AttilaAkay does not seem to have any problem with not assuming good faith and attacking other editors : [59].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to add the Turkish name of it. They also have Turkic origins, and I do respect your values. I politely asked Sasan Hero why he is reversing my edit. Why are you so impatient against a correction? AttilaAkay (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• As I write this, the article is in its status quo ante condition. @AttilaAkay and Sasan Hero: Neither of you should revert the page again. You're both editing in good faith, so there is no exemption to 3RR that applies. Please discuss the matter at the talk page and work toward a consensus about what changes, if any, should be made to the page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

User:AttilaAkay reported by User:Sasan Hero

Page: Afsharid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AttilaAkay (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. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]
6. [65]

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

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

Comments:
I'm only tried to revert vandalism that user AttilaAkay started ,please check page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasan Hero (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have made this report a subsection of the one above it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sasan Hero and User:AttilaAkay are both warned. Each of them is risking a block if they edit the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Squaring the circle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MetricoGeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: last consensus version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69] (by an IP, but refers to "my edit")
5. [70] (same IP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71] (and, earlier, warned on their Talk page by Paul August)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] (see also [73] by Ianmacm and [74] by Hut 8.5, who engaged in good faith to no avail)

Comments:

Edit-warring to promote non-notable work by a fringe figure on the article about squaring the circle — shocking, I know. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston has protected the page and given warnings about edit warring and personal attacks. Concerns were also raised at the Talk page about sockpuppetry, but I guess that's a different noticeboard. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:MetricoGeo has been warned on their talk page. If the behavior does not improve they may not be here much longer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: Thanks. They seem to be persisting. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Turkish invasion of Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.98.102.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What the heck? how many things to follow if announcing vandalism....Help!!!!Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

Blocked – 31 hours by Materialscientist for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Islamic views on slavery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 958178630 by SharabSalam (talk) What disputed content. The info is factual and welk sourced. However, you are more than welcome to open a discussion on the talk page regarding the points you think are non factual"
2. 09:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 958177043 by SharabSalam (talk) The sources are authentic and I just reworded a few sentences. Just because an image wasn't here doesn't mean you can add it here"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC) to 09:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 957893768 by SharabSalam (talk) The changes are well sourced. Do look into them before making any reverts"
   2. 09:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 957893496 by SharabSalam (talk) The image is from Sultanate of Zanzibar whose official religion was Islam"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Islamic views on slavery. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor is removing content without an explanation and adding content from unreliable source which from the independent voices which actually even doesn't support his assertion. The status quo version should be maintained until there is consensus or at least reason to remove content or to add the picture. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I invite User:SharabSalam to explain which information that I added is non-factual? And can he/she elaborate about what it means to be an "independent voice" in terms of sources? Because using his/her logic half of the Wikipedia content is invalid. Just because the info doesn't align with his/her views doesn't mean it's not factual. Here are the things add I added, nothing of which was my POV :
• Slavery existing in pre-Islamic Arabia : Fact
• Muhammad owned slaves : Fact
• Muhammad didn't abolish slavery and recognized it as an institution : Fact
• Muhammad urged his followers to treat slaves more humanely : Fact
• Islam allows sexual relations with female slaves : Fact

I urge User:SharabSalam to tell me which one of this is non-factual. Wikipedia articles are not fixed in time and editors are allowed to make changes as long as they are factual. Thanks Balolay (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you are pushing a point of view. Please read WP:BRD and WP:QUO. Your "facts" which are not reliabily sourced can't be added. Also, removing content without explaining why is unacceptable. Prophet Muhammad did discourage slavery and that was significant during that time when slavery was a business in almost all kingdoms and empires. I don't think you are here to build an encyclopedia. You are clearly here to pushing POV. Also, the Independent "voices" section is not reliable. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• @User:SharabSalam the explanation you gave points towards your own inherent bias it's you who has a particular POV either consciously or subconsciously. You said Prophet Muhammad did discourage slavery and that was significant during that time when slavery was a business in almost all kingdoms and empires. If by discouraging slavery means asking followers to treat slaves more humanely and banning enslavement of other Muslims then I agree with you. However, it is also a fact that Muhammad owned slaves and recognised slavery as an institution. This is relevant to the article too and you can't deny or undermine it.

Furthermore, I want you to explain what do you mean by the term "independent source" and elaborate exactly which material I deleted? I just reworded the lead Paragraph.Balolay (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

When you get reverted you should seek consensus per WP:BRD and WP:QUO. We use consensus building not editwarring to insert content. The Independent, voices section is not a reliable source. Its like a blog. Also, your facts are not sourced by the sources. And you added in the article that "Muhammad (himself a slave owner)" never made an intention to abolish slavery based on no source except your so-called facts. Clearly who is pushing a point of view here. You also didnt explain your removal of sourced content like "However, this was an exception rather than the norm, as the vast majority of labor in the medieval Islamic world consisted of free, paid labour."

I also remember as an example of your POV-pushing your addition in the lead to "Islam in New Zealand" that there are muslims who expressed support for ISIS during the Christchurch mosque shootings. You used an isolated incident just to put that in the lead and to blame the victim.[75] You also kept editwarring adding it [76] [77]and even here using your IP which sockpuppetery BTW [78]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What I can gather from the discussion here is that SharʿabSalam▼ is conflating the Islamic perspective on slavery with the neutral perspective that the article deserves. Muhammad indeed owned slaves and allowed slavery while limiting its scope to some extent. Therefore the lead needs to remain straightforward in regards to Islamic views on slavery. Furthermore, the sources provided by Balolay are well reputed and probably copied from here. Regards RandiGashti (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I swear to Allah 10 times that this editor is a sockpuppet of Baloley. I will launch a sockpuppet investigation soon.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• You said "And you added in the article that "Muhammad (himself a slave owner)" never made an intention to abolish slavery". Muhammad owned slaves and he didn't abolish slavery that's a fact! He saw it as part of the natural order of the things as mentioned in the source. Giving some rights to the slaves doesn't amount to abolishing the practice.

You said "I also remember as an example of your POV-pushing your addition in the lead to "Islam in New Zealand" that there are muslims who expressed support for ISIS during the Christchurch mosque shootings." I don't think that amounted to POV but time and place of the info was indeed wrong. That's why I accepted the removal of that content. However, you can't use some past examples to revert my valid contributions!Balolay (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• you said "I swear to Allah 10 times that this editor is a sockpuppet of Baloley. I will launch a sockpuppet investigation soon" lol are you serious just because someone doesn't agree with you there is something wrong with them. You are very welcome to launch an investigation. I hope editors take notice of your "swearing to Allah" which clearly shows that you are biased in regards to islamic articles. How can we expect any thing neutral from you?Balolay (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  Okay RandiGashti [79]. I am just fasting right now and I am so tired. I will definitely launch a SPI or e-mail a checkuser when I am not busy. You are clearly using a sockpuppet and this is probably not your only sockpuppet.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please dont close this thread now. I have already emailed a checkuser.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Balolay is blocked for sockpuppets.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – The sockmaster, User:Balolay is blocked 1 week by User:NinjaRobotPirate. The sock, User:RandiGashti, is blocked indef. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Yane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Тутуноберач (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. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]
5. [84]
6. [85]
7. [86]
8. [87]
9. [88]
10. [89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is a section at the talk page Talk:Yane_Sandanski#Blatant_manipulation, but it's quite unproductive and one-sided.

Comments:
A just-registered contributor went on a rampage. Unfortunately the warning and the discussion could not calm him down. --StanProg (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: It appears bradv has already blocked the user for 31 hours. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Ayrton Senna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guy9408 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]
6. [97]

Continuing as an IP 80.42.60.47

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]
4. [101]
5. [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

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

Comments: Seems to be a single purpose editor, probably the same guy as was making the same edit in the recent past using IPs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

And the same guy just continuing indefinitely. Ten reverts and counting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months. If there is still a dispute about who is recognized as the 'greatest Formula One driver' why not open a thread at the talk page and provide your sources for review. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Which is what I asked him to do, but he preferred to revert eleven times – the only damn edits the guy has ever made. How is this guy not blocked? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Geography of Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kinsu08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104] (note that this edit war involved multiple people, so this link refers to when Geography of Nepal was semi-protected.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [108]
5. [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not part of this dispute, but note that discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nepal#New map and area of Nepal

Comments:
This user is also reverting at Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Outline of Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). CMD (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 Hours (partially) 331dot (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Honduras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Honduras200010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/958253147/958253240

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]--IamNotU (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Page: Groypers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Swamp Creature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [117]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. first revert
2. second revert
3. third revert
4. fourth revert
5. fifth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118] (also several warnings in edit summaries)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Groypers#Alt-right

Comments:

Editor is continuing to revert, despite edit warring warnings and requests to discuss on the talk page. They did create a section on the talk page, but are continuing to revert rather than discuss. Note that page is subject to discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBAPDS). Reporting rather than handling it myself per WP:INVOLVED—I wrote much of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• This editor's behavior, and especially this comment, shows that this editor is here to WP:RGW, and isn't interested in Wikipedia as a project. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. One can imagine the next block to be indefinite, if the user continues--a charge of whitewashing is easy to prove here, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, Drmies. Do you mind restoring the clean revision also? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Page

Nebuchadnezzar II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "Scholar's name"
2. 16:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "WP:NPOV neutral statement"
3. 07:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 957927929 by Tgeorgescu (talk) WP:NPOV"
4. 03:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nebuchadnezzar II. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Fundamentalist POV */ WP:RNPOV"
2. 08:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Fundamentalist POV */ quote offered"
3. 17:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */ WP:TE"
4. 17:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */ WP:CONSENSUS"
5. 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */ quote offered"
6. 17:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */ WP:FRINGE/PS"
7. 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */ not history"
8. 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */ indent"
9. 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* King Tgeorgescu */ as I told"
10. 21:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */ You do not make the call"
11. 12:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */ quote offered"
12. 12:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "/* King Tgeorgescu */ reply"

Comments:

The user is acting against WP:RS/AC and WP:RNPOV. He has also been warned by Doug Weller. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller falsely accused me of personally attacking you on Talk:Nebuchadnezzar. I did no such thing and am currently awaiting his apology.

Do you report everyone you disagree with? Saxophilist (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I report anyone who breaks the WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Your WP:BIAS is clear. You call people you disagree with "bigots", as we can read in your essay: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:No_bigots

Your disdain for others is extremely obvious. Saxophilist (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

My disdain is obvious... for true believers which seek to ruin mainstream Bible scholarship articles at Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Your prejudice against Jews and Christians is shocking and abhorrent. Saxophilist (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no problems with religious belief. I have a problem with editors which seek to ruin our articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You obviously do have a problem with religious belief, as one of your goals is to stop religious people from editing religion pages. There are so many different articles you can "protect", yet you specifically chose religious articles. Saxophilist (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have never prevented Ian.thomson from editing anything and he has no problems with my edits. Oh, yes, he is Christian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Saxophilist: are you saying that you didn't start a section titled "King Tgeorgescu"? It's hard to see it as anything but a personal attack. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Saxophilist seems to imply that liberal Christians, like Ian Thomson, are apostates. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course you have no problems with Ian Thompson's edits, because, like you, he doesn't believe the Bible. Does Ian believe in the Trinity and the resurrection? Saxophilist (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

believe the Bible means different things for different people. It's like a dog-whistle. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

According to @User:Ian.Thomson's page, he does not believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. What else does he disagree with? He also apparently supports zen and is interested in the occult. He is not a practicing Christian. Saxophilist (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "One man's religion is another man's laughing stock", but your attacks have to stop. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Saxophilist: If believing in the Trinity and seeking salvation and redemption from the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ; and loving God and neighbor is not Christianity, then what is? It surely can't be hatred of minorities or being pompous about holding specific interpretations. You have no right to tell everyone what I believe, and unless you're the one who was crucified for humanity you're in no position to decide what state my soul is in. Stop making hyper-ignorant assumptions of me and cut out the personal attacks towards everybody -- that failure to show anything like grace or humility is why you're having such a hard time here. Wikipedia's policies, particularly the neutral point of view policy and sourcing policies, are not just acceptable to Christianity, but (if you believe Christianity is true) to Christianity's advantage. It's not that I don't believe the Bible, it's that I don't pretend to have the only divinely correct interpretation of it or anything else. If you didn't know less-than-nothing about my edits, you'd know that my edits to occult articles is burning such works with literary criticism instead of fire. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I asked if you believe in the Trinity and resurrection. I never claimed you didn't. I was asking the question in order to find out whether you do or don't. Anyways, according to your page, you do not believe what the New Testament clearly says about homosexuality. Also, you claim to practice zen. Saxophilist (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I never made a judgement on the state of your soul and never said you were not a Christian. I purposefully chose my words very carefully. Go back and read what I wrote. Saxophilist (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You said I am not a practicing Christian. Those were your exact words, right above. I don't claim to practice Zen, I refer to myself as a Zen Baptist because it lets people know I'm not the sort of judgemental bigot who acts like he has the only correct interpretation of the Bible. I favor any interpretation that fits the Great Commandment and brings one closer to Christ (even for others when I don't hold that interpretation). Personally, after looking at the historical context (Sacred prostitution was dead common throughout the Mediterranean and Rome often used same-sex prostitutes; the early church fathers understood arsenokoites to mean Pederasty and this continued up to Luther translating it as Knabenschänder or "boy-molesters") it's pretty easy to read Romans 1:26-27 as condemning temple prostitution and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 as condemning pederastry -- and this interpretation would be more loving to people who are by natural design homosexual. So don't say I don't believe what the Bible says about homosexuality, I just don't hold your teachings, which doesn't mean I'm not a Christian. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Theologians have been unanimous for almost 2000 years that gay sex is a sin. Your interpretation is relatively new and not based on legitimate theology, but is based on modern societal trends. Also, there has been no proof that same sex attraction is genetic. I'm attracted to members of the same sex myself, but I don't have gay sex. Being attracted to members of the same sex is not sinful, and people don't actively choose who they are attracted to. Gay sex, however, is a behavior that people can choose to do or choose not to do. It is not loving to tell me or others that gay sex is fine. Showing love would be sharing the Gospel and warning people of the consequences of sin. It's not loving to tell people it's ok to sin. The Bible is clear about sexual immorality, and Jesus says marriage is between one man and one woman. Saxophilist (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. This discussion is getting out of hand. The point stands that you decided to attack someone you've never encountered and knew nothing about by saying I'm not a practicing Christian (based on your interpretation which idolatrously glorifies homophobia over sola fidae and hyper-ignorant assumptions), because Tgeorgescu not having a problem with me goes against your attacks on him. Those attacks in turn were a result of you not displaying any grace or humility we're called to, nor even an apparent interest in cooperating with others that those outside the flock can manage. Knock off this nonsense or get knocked off the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

it's not my interpretation. It's the infallible teaching of the Church founded by Christ Himself. Study what the early Christians believed. Sorry if you are indeed a practicing Christian. Reading about "a Zen Baptist who supports homosexuality", it's difficult not to jump to conclusions. Please accept my apology.Saxophilist (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)