Shadowwarrior8 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 259: | Line 259: | ||
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*{{AN3|nb|24 hours}} [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|nb|24 hours}} [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Skornezy]] reported by [[User:Shadowwarrior8]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Skornezy}} |
|||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1172478575 1] |
|||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175158146 first instance of editwarring] |
|||
# On a round of editwarring spree removing large- amounts of sourced contents: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175443507 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175444610 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175464635 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175467859 5] |
|||
# Another round of editwarring unilaterally removing tons of content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175723887 6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175728629 7] |
|||
# Latest round of editwarring despite numerous attempts to engage and warnings: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175872232 8], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175874515 9] |
|||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175158146 10], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175443507 11], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175723887 12], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175872232 13] |
|||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_policy_of_Bashar_al-Assad&diff=prev&oldid=1175923548 14] |
|||
'''Diff of three warnings to user's talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skornezy&diff=prev&oldid=1175180643 first warning], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skornezy&diff=prev&oldid=1175781383 second warning], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skornezy&diff=prev&oldid=1175920753 third warning] |
|||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skornezy&diff=prev&oldid=1175924320 15] |
|||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> |
|||
Hello, I'm reporting a relatively new user who appears to have an active focus on removing [[WP:STABLE|long-standing, reliably sourced content]] in the article [[Foreign policy of Bashar al-Assad]]. Most of the low-quality edits made by the user are unsourced pro-dictatorship talking points, while the same person accuses other editors of making POV edits, using that as an excuse for literally [[WP:CENSOR|academic censorship]]. Remember that ''The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias.'' [[WP:POVDELETION]]. |
|||
[[User:Skornezy]] has been constantly engaged in unilteral removal of well-sourced content in this page and has been making [[WP:NPA|adhominem attacks against other editors]]. The sheer magnitude of persistent content removal may likely amount to [[WP:VANDAL|Vandalism]] as well, so this behaviour probably should reported there as well. Despite multiple warnings and attempts at engagement, the user stubbornly keeps removing large amount of content. The user has a general pattern of [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive editing]] and [[WP:EDITWARRING|edit warring behaviour]] throughout his timeline, as seen in the edit history of other pages like [[Syria–United States relations]], [[Saddam Hussein]], etc. |
Revision as of 09:32, 18 September 2023
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Asarlaí reported by User:Darker Dreams (Result: No violation)
Page: Witchcraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asarlaí (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see comments
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]
Comments:
This is a continuation of ongoing dispute which consumes most of the talk page, has had attempted mediation, etc. This editor has previously felt it was appropriate to make edits to "undercut the premise" of articles rather than improve them (contributing to their deletion), and are now suggesting they should take me to AN/I for inappropriate behavior through this series of edits.[7] Darker Dreams (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't broken 3RR, and never have in sixteen years of editing. The first two diffs are one revert: it's me removing two separate bits of content once. The third diff is me adding a tag that merely asked you for a quote. And the last diff is me re-adding that tag.
- As outlined here, I undid your edit because the claim doesn't seem to be supported by the sources, the references were just bare URLs, and it was put into the lead despite not being in the main body. That goes against three guidelines: WP:NOR, WP:BAREURL and WP:LEAD, as I explained in my edit summary.
- I read through the sources and couldn't find anything that supported the statement, so I immediately posted on the talkpage, asking you for quotes to back it up. Instead of simply doing that, you reverted me and immediately warned me for 'edit warring', just for reverting you once! When I tagged the content with [verification needed] you just deleted the tag and said the quotes are on the talkpage somewhere. They're not, and you still haven't provided any.
- Despite being on Wikipedia for years, you're behaving like someone who doesn't know or care about basic Wikipedia rules. For example here, you said you were ignoring WP:BRD because "it's optional". You've been warned many times lately for edit warring on witchcraft-related articles, and only last month you were blocked for edit warring on a POV fork you had made. I suggest outside editors read that thread to get a feel for what DarkerDreams has been up to lately. – Asarlaí (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I incorrectly identified one of the edits as including a partial revert. Asarlaí is correct that they maintained precise adherence to the 3RR rule, as they strictly have throughout this dispute. They simply apply exactly that every time an edit they disagree with is made, then look to for every additional requirement without evidence of cooperation or compromise until all but the most trivial of efforts have maximum time and energy cost imposed on them. Darker Dreams (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- No violation per above. For now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I incorrectly identified one of the edits as including a partial revert. Asarlaí is correct that they maintained precise adherence to the 3RR rule, as they strictly have throughout this dispute. They simply apply exactly that every time an edit they disagree with is made, then look to for every additional requirement without evidence of cooperation or compromise until all but the most trivial of efforts have maximum time and energy cost imposed on them. Darker Dreams (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Jmsrobinson reported by User:Intforce (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Microsoft Azure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmsrobinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 11:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1175643763 by Intforce (talk) Pleae, read WP:STATUSQUO do not revert until a consensus is reached. I already added the suggested tag."
- 11:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC) "Moving to section"
- 07:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1175543272 by Intforce (talk) Please, do not censor this. Let's discuss it on the talk page first."
- 13:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1175434268 by 69.89.53.221 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Jmsrobinson has been repeatedly been attempting, presumably first as an IP user, and now with an account, to add problematic material to Microsoft Azure, ignoring concerns made on the talk page. intforce (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- You started censoring this before reaching a consensus. I already requested a third party opinion. Jmsrobinson (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Rolf716 reported by User:Dekema (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: Proposed expansion of the Buffalo Metro Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rolf716 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Hello, I'm reporting a relatively newer user who appears to have an active focus on adding WP:UNDUE weight about opposition to the Proposed expansion of the Buffalo Metro Rail. I can tell you that there's an anti-expansion activist group that recently sprung up along the proposed route, so I'm not surprised to see that someone wants to contribute this to the article, but relative to the amount of information of the topic, it should not take up half of the lede. It should be in its own section. At this point the user has also asked someone to intervene against me, for whatever that's worth. It's not that serious of an issue. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- As you completely removed all references, shows your intent to censor relevant information. Rolf716 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's not about censorship, it's about article neutrality. The lede of an article is supposed to be a summary of the whole of the article. You can't just stuff anything into the lede, it needs to go in its proper place in the article, and then if it has significance it can be mentioned in the lede section. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Iaof2017 reported by User:AzorzaI (Result: No violation)
Page: Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iaof2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [.]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]
Comments:
Backstory:
I wanna make it clear that I have had some issues with this user on another article earlier today (user's revert:[16]). The revert itself is not my issue, but the editor would fully revert without communicating, even after me taking it to the article's TP and the editor's personal TP (which is the warning I referred to above). The user never responded to neither of them and had my comment on his TP removed. I'm writing this "backstory" because I consider that to have made the user already aware of his disruptive behaviour.
Now, what I am actually basing my report on, is the user's breach of the 1RR in this article. Removing substantial amounts of sourced information and does it, yet again, without even attempting to elaborate. I can see the that the editor has more years of experience on Wikipedia than I do, yet I can't figure out why this user behaves this way.
- Comment There is no WP:1RR breach here. Iaof's two reverts are consecutive/back-to-back, so, as per edit warring policy, they are counted as a single revert. Better sort out your content disputes on the tp than come and waste time here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple times did the editor ignore me when I reached out to request elaboration. The user should have taken it to the TP after reverting, especially since it included the removal of nine references. For me, further attempts to communicate with this editor was no longer possible. --Azor (talk). 23:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Iaof2017: if you disagree with AzorzaI, you should explain your rationale and discuss on the tp. Otherwise, AzorzaI has the right to revert again after waiting for a reasonable period of time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, after a few days. Not after a few hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- No violation. Per WP:3RR:
A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.
Aoidh (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Illuminaati reported by User:Admantine123 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page: Kachhwaha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Illuminaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 09:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC) "All valid citations are provided. Kushwaha name variation was always there this article until it was incorrectly removed some time back. If you want to open discussion then go ahead I can prove it anywhere. But till then Kushwaha name stays."
- 08:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1175766177 by Admantine123 (talk) Open your eyes and read the citations."
- Consecutive edits made from 08:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC) to 08:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- 08:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1175736705 by Admantine123 (talk)"
- 08:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC) "Read properly. The citations are about Kachhwaha"
- Consecutive edits made from 23:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC) to 23:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- 23:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC) "I read the entire book "Peasants and Monks in British India" . Nowhere it says that Kushwahs and Kachhwaha are different. Infact it says this "Kushvaha kshatriyas then became known by the more familiar local designations of Kachhvaha, Kachhi, Murao, and Koiri." It also uses Kachhvaha as a synonym for Kushwaha when he says "Kachhvahas of western Uttar Pradesh""
- 23:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC) "As we see Kushwaha and Kachhwaha are always used as variations of same name. Quote: "From these Kash or Kach derives the great Kashwaha or Kachwaha (Kushwaha or Kuchwàha) of the Rajput genealogies." Also note that in many parts of India ksa sound is replaced by kcha so"
- 23:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC) ""Kushwaha or Kachhwaha" again used as synonyms in The Thirty-six Royal Clans"
- 15:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC) "Changes with legitimate proofs reverted without reaso"
- 17:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC) "Kushwaha, Kachhwaha, Kachhawa are different pronounciations of same community."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 05:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
- 18:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Kachhwaha."
- 08:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Discussion on WP:ANI */ new section"
- 08:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Regarding your recent edits */ new section"
- 08:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC) ""
- 09:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- [17]
- User talk:Illuminaati#Regarding your recent edits, since the matter is about pages of two castes, it was good to discuss on users talk page.
Comments:
Actually, they read the book peasant and monks in British India partially through Google search and using their selected content from it they are trying to link two different communities Kushwaha and Kachhwaha. The quote they have left in edit summary is from chapter "Being Kshatriya Being Vaishnav" and there , author william pinch say that community such as Koeri , Kachhi and Murao people, who are together called Kushwaha formed organisation and started linking them to Kshatriya. But they take 4 lines from it to proove that Kushwaha and Kachhwaha are same. Also, it seems they have WP:CIR issue as they don't respond on their talk page. Admantine123 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
[18]From around 1910, the Kachhis and the Koeris, both of whom had close links with the British for much of the preceding century due to their favoured role in the cultivation of the opium poppy, began to identify themselves as Kushwaha Kshatriya.[55] An organisation claiming to represent those two groups and the Muraos petitioned for official recognition as one the Kshatriya varna in 1928.[56] This action by the All India Kushwaha Kshatriya Mahasabha (AIKKM) reflected the general trend for social uplift by communities that had traditionally been classified as Shudra. The process, which M. N. Srinivas called sanskritisation,[57] was a feature of late nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century caste politics.
- This is taken from "Peasant and monk in British India" and it explicitly says what I have explained above. On the other hand, they have been trying to link two caste, one being an aristocratic caste, another a peasant one.-Admantine123 (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- This noticeboard is unsuitable for discussions about the article content itself; edit warring is behavior, and behavior is looked at here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
User:OrionNimrod reported by User:Aristeus01 (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Vlachs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OrionNimrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [Vlachs: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Vlachs: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [link]
Comments:
Repeatedly asked to discuss on talk page or appeal to dispute resolution Aristeus01 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- <uninvolved> WP:BOOMERANG at best. RF354 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, Aristeus01 started the dispute with this edit and the next edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1175335091
- Another user, CriticKende started conversations in the talk page because he thought the distruptive behavior of the edit of Aristeus
- Talk:Vlachs#Vandalism
- Talk:Vlachs#Deleting Sourced Content
- First I started a conversation with the talk page to solve the issue, where I provided plenty of evidences and examples that Aristeus arbitrary WP:ORIGINAL overrides the language of the academic sources (about different 50 entries, sources) he admitted he will not check the sources one by one to make them correct to satisfy me. He never answer to my questions. That is why I restored the stable version of the page.
- (Here at the beginning, I also showed previous example that pushing WP:ORIGINAL is not alien from Aristeus:)
- Talk:Vlachs#Original research
- Then myself and Aristeus did only 2 reverts whitin 24 hours, (No more than 3 reverts, nobody violated the 3 revert rule) which mean he reported me for the same small edit wat what he did the same: my aim was always to restore the stable version and structure of the page which was using many years long:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1175650504
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1175663670
- If you see his recent history, Aristeus usually report users after some similar content debate who do not agree with his personal POV. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. While both editors have made 3 reverts within 24 hours recently, neither has violated 3RR. However, the talk page discussion does seem to be in favor of retaining the content (though weakly, as it is two editors disagreeing with Aristeus01) and Aristeus01 has been persistently reverting others and has on more than one occasion been going up to 3 reverts without exceeding it. The reverts are frequent the point that going back as far as July (and possible later) most edits by others are either fully or partially reverted by Aristeus01, and despite the handful of talk page discussions about Aristeus01's edits, there is no consensus on any of them that would warrant this persistent reverting to their preferred version. - Aoidh (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
User:24.17.106.158 reported by User:Bestagon (Result: No violation)
Page: Planking (fad) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.17.106.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) "not planking"
- 19:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC) "reverting, and i would thank you to not claim there wasn't a comment as regards the edit.
the included material isn't considered planking. removed as false."
- 19:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC) "not planking"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Warning gave by @Dennis Brown: on user talk Bestagon ⬡ 01:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- noex Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
User:A Georgian reported by User:Emolu (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution; blocked 2 weeks; nominator blocked 24 hours)
Page: Talmai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Nadab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A Georgian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Talmai; Nadab
Diffs of the user's reverts: (Talmai)
(Nadab)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]
Comments:
User:A Georgian has been consistently vandalizing and mangling Hebrew transliterations on several pages – the above two are the only two instances where I have personally interacted with them. Upon inspection, it appears user has been doing this since at least 2012, during which point @StAnselm: attempted to resolve via talk page – nothing appears to have changed. For the past 12 years, they seem to just go inactive for long periods of time, come back to vandalize Hebrew transliterations, and then return to dormancy. Per talk page record, user has a history of edit warring and has been blocked at least once for it. Emolu (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Skornezy reported by User:Shadowwarrior8 (Result: )
Page: Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skornezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 1
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- first instance of editwarring
- On a round of editwarring spree removing large- amounts of sourced contents: 2, 3, 4, 5
- Another round of editwarring unilaterally removing tons of content 6, 7
- Latest round of editwarring despite numerous attempts to engage and warnings: 8, 9
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10, 11, 12, 13
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14
Diff of three warnings to user's talk page: first warning, second warning, third warning
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 15
Comments:
Hello, I'm reporting a relatively new user who appears to have an active focus on removing long-standing, reliably sourced content in the article Foreign policy of Bashar al-Assad. Most of the low-quality edits made by the user are unsourced pro-dictatorship talking points, while the same person accuses other editors of making POV edits, using that as an excuse for literally academic censorship. Remember that The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. WP:POVDELETION.
User:Skornezy has been constantly engaged in unilteral removal of well-sourced content in this page and has been making adhominem attacks against other editors. The sheer magnitude of persistent content removal may likely amount to Vandalism as well, so this behaviour probably should reported there as well. Despite multiple warnings and attempts at engagement, the user stubbornly keeps removing large amount of content. The user has a general pattern of disruptive editing and edit warring behaviour throughout his timeline, as seen in the edit history of other pages like Syria–United States relations, Saddam Hussein, etc.