Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Diffs of the user's reverts:

diff1

diff2

diff3

diff4

diff5

diff6

diff1

diff2

diff3

diff1

diff2

diff3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13] (he actually deleted it afterwards here [14] calling me a "harasser" and "stalker")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[15] -- Talk:Iraqi invasion of Iran

My attempt to explain the sources for this statement were immediately met with personal attacks and baseless accusations, so there was little room for discussion here.

[16] -- Talk:Ba'athism

I didn't participate much in this particular discussion, as I felt there wasn't much to add beyond supporting User:TheTimesAreAChanging's points. Again as you can see the entire "debate" is full of WP:Wall of Text and constant random accusations by User:Saucysalsa30 against all disagreeing parties. The edit-warring user repeatedly made claims of "copyright infringement"[17] even though the mod in question self-reverted his removal of the paragraph [18] after a brief discussion on the mod's talk page here [19].

[20] -- Talk:Racism in the Arab world

I had attempted to refute some of the points he was making (bringing up historical events completely unrelated with Iraq to attempt to "disprove" a source I had posted), yet he still showed no room for discussion and continued moving the goalposts and/or making random accusations.

Comments:
As a preliminary note, Qahramani44 did bring back copyright violating content. What they showed Berrely was a completely different revision that happened after being warned for the copyright violations in earlier revisions, which, whether intentional or not by Qahramani44, had the effect of confusing Berrely. See the diff here [21] [22] for the timeline, with the diffs of events provided within. I don't know why the user believed they could get away with lying.

TheTimesAreAChanging also admitted on Berrely's talk page to the copyright violation taking place [23], despite lying on this noticeboard along with Qahramani44 claiming that there was no copyright violation. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a classic case of WP:BOOMERANG. The user not only started edit warring in the first place, as explained below, but has been engaging in stalking, personal attacks, admission of ideological WP:BATTLEGROUND editing (stating in various comments and revisions notes about his efforts against "Arabs" and "Ba'athists", edit warring, and general lack of WP:COMPETENCE, such as regularly tagging sources on any content even if it has no relevance and engaging in very slanted WP:OR regularly. Most of his revision history is simply reverting/removing content he doesn't like across Wikipedia and harassing and attacking users who contest his blatantly poor editing and conduct. While I engage in WP:BRD and discussions and showing what multiple sources say (e.g. a detailed explanation of general academic consensus on a topic here[24]) before fixing/adding things, Qahramani44 has engaged in personal attacks and edit warring on no basis at all.

To provide some background, this is series of WP:HOUNDING and other harassment because Qahramani44 was upset that a poor blog-style site called Iran Chamber Society he claimed to be RS was unanimously disregarded as being non-RS in various discussions such as this RS noticeboard discussion. Following almost 2 months of discussion regarding the bad source, the user's outburst in the last 24 hours only started after I went ahead and removed the bad source in the article in question, with the first revision in the barrage across a few Wikipedia articles coming just 7 minutes later[25], with Qahramani44 starting edit warring on Iraqi invasion of Iran.

In addition to their starting and continuing edit warring on Iraqi invasion of Iran, Qahramani44 then via WP:HOUNDING stalked my contribution history and started edit warring on two unrelated articles as well, Ba'athism and Racism in the Arab world (same exact content), including reverting to bring back copyrighted content on both in violation of WP:CV. [26] [27]. From the previous 2 citations, that is where Qahramani44 started edit warring on these two articles. You can see that's where he begins. As a result of Qahramani44's careless edit warring, he brought back copyrighted content in 2 articles, for which he was warned by the mod Berrely. [28]

Furthermore, some of the diffs linked by Qahramani44 were with respect additions/corrections following Talk page discussions which he would then revert (albeit, I was the only one doing research and making points, while Qahramani44 simply engaged in more hand-waving and personal attacks). For example, I fixed continued copyright violation and some OR he added in that wasn't stated in the source, and he responded with another revert. [29] In another example, Qahramani44 was removing a ^{[verification needed]} on content in which he haphazardly added a source on content it not only doesn't support, but contradicts. [30]

Here is a display of one of the three articles of Qahramani44 stalking me and starting an edit war on Racism in the Arab world and continuing to engage in it on no basis or substantiation:

[31] - Qahramani44 stalking my activity on this article and making a spontaneous revert for no reason, despite the copyright violation resulting from the revert. This is where Qahramani44 starts edit warring on this article.

[32] - Despite moderator warning regarding his copyright violation [33], he reverts again with slight modification that still includes some WP:CV copyright violation along with some evident OR that isn't said in the source as well as failed verification on a second source.

[34] - Qahramani44 continuing edit warring.

[35] - After fixing Qahramani's copyright violation and the OR he added in to be in line with the source, they reverted yet again.

Unlike in Qahramani44's case, I substantiated and justified things in Talk. Qahramani's only Talk page involvement were some ad hominems and combative statements. TheTimesAreAChanging was engaging in the same WP:HOUNDING [36] [37], edit warring, and unconstructive insults and sarcastic replies. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed Qahramani44 is either unaware or being deceitful regarding the copyright violation, so here's the timeline. His first revert each on Ba'athism and Racism in the Arab world, as part of WP:HOUNDING and starting his edit wars on those two articles, was them reverting back copyrighted content. [38] [39] After I had a brief IRC discussion with Berrely (I can provide transcript if needed), Berrely warned Qahramani44 for the copyright violation.[40] If you'd like to compare to the book's text, it's almost verbatim the exact same as the original content on the Wiki articles. https://imgur.com/a/eOjxV8O What Qahramani44 is referring to with regards to Berrely came later, after Qahramani44 had brought back the content back again with slight rewording [41] only AFTER being warned by Berrely. Hopefully that clears up any confusion there. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask @TheTimesAreAChanging: if he'd like to participate too, since he was a party in this edit war.

I likely should have opened this a few hours earlier rather than continuing to respond and inadvertently prolong this edit war. I'm not too familiar with making Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring sections so if there are any formatting issues please let me know. Thank you. --Qahramani44 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30 is a uniquely tendentious and incompetent editor who has been edit warring and bludgeoning across multiple articles/talk pages for a very long time, calming down for a period only after his previous 60-hour block. He has been reverted by three different editors (including Wikaviani, Qahramani44, and myself) at Iraqi invasion of Iran and there is no support for his WP:FRINGE views there (namely, that Ba'athist Iraq was an innocent victim forced to "preemptively" invade Iran during the Iran–Iraq War, as well as the easily-debunked lie that Iraq had absolutely no territorial demands, based on a self-serving official statement from Saddam Hussein two months after the invasion had stalled and which Saucysalsa30 takes at face value).

(In fact, if any admin here has the time and feels qualified to review it, I have complied massive evidence of Saucysalsa30's systematic misrepresentation of sources and aspersions directed against other users here and here, although I suspect that may be a matter for ANI rather than AN3... it's pretty stomach-churning stuff.)

In any case, admins should know that Saucysalsa30 seeks to deliberately mislead you, on two fronts:

• The admin that Saucysalsa30 cited above has already determined that there is no WP:COPYVIO in any of the text currently being disputed (here is a diff of Saucysalsa30 arguing with said admin), yet he continues to just ignore that and pretend otherwise (cf. WP:IDHT).
• In addition, despite making unsubstantiated assertions of stalking and hounding, it is actually Saucysalsa30 who followed me far outside his area of interest/expertise (i.e., the Middle East) to defend naked WP:OR designed to cast doubt on the near-universal consensus of reliable sources and cybersecurity experts that Russia hacked the DNC at 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak.

At Ba'athism and Racism in the Arab world, Saucysalsa30 has been systematically whitewashing the (if anything, rather tame) discussion of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party's sordid racial history, despite being called out for OR by impartial observers.

• For example, Saucysalsa30 has denigrated the research of highly-respected academic specialist Fred Halliday by stating that Halliday was "published by a small indie publisher ... the work itself includes various dramatic, exaggerated language and some rather unique conjecture theories, so it's a questionable source at best. ... Halliday makes a profound stretch. The overall passage in the book itself is a hand-waving and inaccurate / minimal coverage aside to the topic to make a unique claim with exceptional implications and with further hand-waving ... it's quite a stretch by Halliday ... Again, this copy-pasted content in this article is Halliday's own strange associations and redflag-leaning claim ... overall this is an evident mix of WP:REDFLAG, WP:ONUS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE in addition to the it being a poor source both in general and specific to the content," despite Halliday's findings being commonplace in the academic literature and Saucysalsa30 providing zero sources of his own.

In sum, Saucysalsa30 should face an escalatory block for his continued misconduct (including for attempting to deceive administrators at this forum in an effort to get an opponent blocked over a non-existent COPYVIO and thereby "win" an edit war that he initiated).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that your response to your relentless WP:HOUNDING [42] [43], WP:CANVASSING with Qahramani44, and personal attacks on various articles is to engage in further personal attacks here and your own starting and engaging in edit wars is rather ironic, and your claims that don't amount to slander have been refuted or simply wrong. For example, Qahramani44 lied to Berrely about which revision involved copyright violation, showing him one that took place AFTER the copyright violation warning. You can see that timeline here [44]. Secondly, the things you bring up had been already been discussed in Talk pages (prior to your WP:HOUNDING) and noticeboards, so your accusations fall further flat on their face. I understand you are upset because you attach so much emotional value to being refuted and have a very poor track record of combative conduct, harassment, and editing (as you've been doing in the last 24 hours), but your pettiness is really starting to show. I mean the fact you're engaging and defending things like copyright violations proven OR and failed violation with the exact sourcing provided in maintenance tags and Talk pages, among other things, while simultaneously engaging in WP:HOUNDING and WP:NPA, is reprehensible and representative of all-around reprehensible conduct.

Also, considering I added content and revised back, but without the blatant copyright violations and baseless WP:OR that Qahramani44 was vandalizing with, the rest of your claims are equally baseless.

And oh, could you explain why you admitted to lying about the copyright violation? You admitted it happened on Berrely's talk page. [45] So why do you lie about it on this noticeboard saying it didn't happen? :)

As an aside, please review WP:BOOMERANG. This precisely describes what you and Qahramani44 are doing here. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The short version of Saucysalsa30's comment above is merely that Qahramani44 restored very long-standing text from Halliday 2000 that Saucysalsa30 deleted on the basis of ever-shifting, frivolous pretexts, only to be warned by Berrely that the text violated copyright, although not obviously so. In response, Qahramani44 immediately rewrote the section. Berrely mistakenly reverted the revised version, prompting a concerned Qahramani44 to ask Berrely for guidance and clarification regarding how best to avoid violating copyright in the future. At that point, Berrely acknowledged his mistake and reinstated the revised version, confident there was no longer any COPYVIO concern. Everyone has since moved on except Saucysalsa30, who has continually accused Qahramani44 and myself of telling unspecified "lies" about the incident, and who still insists that Berrely's mistaken second revert was correct "as the content still contains some copyright violation." Despite the lack of any policy-based support for the latter assertion, Saucysalsa30 employed the pretext of continued taint from the earlier COPYVIO to justify reverting the Halliday material, either in whole or in part, an additional four times across two articles after the matter had already been resolved (diffs: [46], [47], [48], [49]). In sum, Qahramani44's consistent efforts to seek guidance and mediation from administrators suggest that he made a good-faith error, quickly corrected, but Saucysalsa30's continued edit warring, WP:PAs, and attempts to mislead others into thinking that a COPYVIO is still present long after the fact are harder to understand as good faith behavior. (As an aside, Qahramani44's mistake is also relatively minor compared to that time Saucysalsa30 copied a whole paragraph directly from the Chicago Tribune into List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots and it had to be rev-deleted by Diannaa, but at no point did Qahramani44 bring up Saucysalsa30's past history, even as Saucysalsa30 berated him and called him a "liar" over and over again. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses...)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why the edit-warring user is so fixated on this alleged "lie to Berrely", when my question to User:Berrely wasn't even about the original warning he made on my talk page, but the subsequent reversion he made on my post after I had reworded it to remove the copyright violation.

Here at *18:45* Jan 19th [50] he reverts my reworded post.

Here at *18:54* Jan 19th [51] I ask him whether the *revised* edition still breaks copyright.

Here at *18:57* Jan 19th [52] he responds acknowledging the new version was fine and then self reverts his removal immediately after [53].

There is no conspiracy going on so there's no need to lash out at everyone here, or make baseless accusations of WP:CANVAS or of lying to admins. --Qahramani44 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As seen above, Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging are changing their story now that they got called out on the blatant lie. They went from "there was no copyright violation" to "Oh, yeah there was, but it was about something else." Qahramani44, you literally said in your opening post here: "made claims of "copyright infringement", so now you admit that you did do copyright infringement as you were warned for? It was only after the admin's warning did you go ahead and show them a completely different revision to play ignorant like you didn't carelessly edit war to bring back copyright content before their warning.

Not sure if they're attempting to be funny or if this is simply backtracking. And as discussed on the pertinent Talk pages, Qahramani's "fix" mentioned by TheTimesAreAChanging still 1) included copy-pasted phrasing from the source text and 2) blatant OR not in the source text at all. This is just one example of these two users engaging in bad faith editing, stalking/harassment, and other poor conduct. Considering most of both users' history is reverting things they don't like, even a very simple addition of a source in random articles such as this most recently by TheTimesAreAChanging [54], it's very evident that they engage in unilateral reverting across Wikipedia (and edit warring, stalking, and harassment if contested). For example, most of Qahramani44's commits are reverts based on his own personal opinion such as this, with no other basis. [55] [56]. The user's only contributions are removing anything he doesn't like on the website, ironically. And Qahramani44, you should really check this out: WP:BOOMERANG. You not only started all the edit warring in the first place, engaged in stalking and harassment, further edit warring, and personal attacks, but lie and change your story every time you get called out on your false claims. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saucysalsa30, Qahramani44, and TheTimesAreAChanging: What a clusterfest. I wish I could mute people sometimes. I tried to review this. All 3 editors here need to stop casting aspersions immediately and turn down the temperature. Saucysalsa30, you did violate 3RR. But the tagteam reverts effectively do the same and frankly don't seem innocent. For now I'm adding full protection to 3 articles to address the immediate issue.

Drmies, have you any thoughts? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir, same thought as you: MUTE. Sweet Jesus, what is all this about, with the eternal paragraphs, the bold, the blue, the bickering. I can't follow that discussion on Talk:Ba'athism either, but what I did see was some bullshit by Saucysalsa about an academic publisher. Rienner is not "some" indie publisher; Saucysalsa seems to think that "independent" is a bad thing. It is not. Rienner is absolutely fine, until proven otherwise. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but to clarify, they consider themselves a small mom-and-pop type indie publisher. [57] [58]. The point being I don't think anyone would claim they have anything close to the sort of reputability and scale of Wall Street Journal, Harvard University Press (a university academic publisher), Routledge, etc. But anyways that was just one among several issues brought up. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I just woke up to this. I reverted the edit as a copyvio per request in IRC help, and left a note on the users talk re it. I really did not intend to engage in an edit war, or be pinged 7 times. Nonetheless these are some very unstable articles, and following WP:BRD seems to be non-existent. I would just like to correct I am not a mod, or administrator, and am not in a position to make blocks, etc. I hope this sorts itself out. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for that, Berrely. (I count three pings by Saucysalsa30 and one ping by Qahramani44 in this thread alone.) For the record, however, the content of all three of these articles has been extremely stable for many, many years—prior to Saucysalsa30's appearance, nothing like this occurred, and I can easily demonstrate that virtually all of the content that Saucysalsa30 has been removing is just about as long-standing as it gets. Moreover, I've been on Wikipedia for more than 10 years and while I have made many mistakes, I've never been known to WP:BLUDGEON discussions in the way that Saucysalsa30 tends to do wherever he makes an appearance. When it comes to the question of both article stability and who bears primary responsibility for the length of what should have been a fairly routine AN3 report, I would urge you and EvergreenFir to look a little deeper before declaring "a pox on both your houses!"—especially in light of Saucysalsa30's very recent sanction for edit warring on this same article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please spare the continued slander, deceit, and whitewashing of your own WP:HOUNDING across various articles, personal attacks, and other harassment, and bludgeoning across almost every article you participate on and reverting anything you don't like on the website. The stalking and tag-teaming is not an indication of good conduct, esp. considering Qahramani44 started and engaged in edit warring and you decided to join in again. The articles were not "extremely" stable, and the "stability" has more to do with the fact that they're very low traffic articles with little to no scrutiny. For example, the fact I found verbatim copy-paste copyright violations in 2 articles that had been up since 2012 and 2015, respectively (which carry heavy legal implications), among other fixes, indicates the poor shape of the articles.

Reflecting, it's ridiculous to think this all happened because you and Qahramani44 became enraged that after I spent 2 months of discussing the legitimacy of a random blog website unacceptable per Wiki guidelines in various boards (only because Qahramani44 and yourself claimed on no basis was a reliable source), it was removed as a source. Qahramani44 jumped into action to start this craziness within 7 minutes of its removal, incredibly. Seriously, you both put way too much emotion and energy into vengeance after being "wrong". Saucysalsa30 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop with the aspersions and bickering. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The articles are only "stable" (not really) because editors are scared of confronting the excessive number of people police watching articles like it's their personal pet project. Not just of getting reverted for no reason but also for getting harassed and having things in other articles reverted and changed. Articles reach a status quo depending which POV pushing group "owns" it and everyone afraid to edit out of fear their "own" status quo articles get ruined in revenge. The fact that there's a lengthy process going on that escalated to this level after starting with merely removing blogs and unreliable sources (which should have been straightforward and standard) are a good demonstration. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As a result of Qahramani44's filing, we have determined that Saucysalsa30 (who was blocked for editing warring on this same article less than three months ago), violated 3RR again (per EvergreenFir) and used a "bullshit" excuse to denigrate the highly-reliable academic expert Fred Halliday (per Drmies). That seems to be the cliffnotes version, for anyone interested in keeping score.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Who is the "we"? Only you, who not only started along with Qahramani but were directly involved in the harassment, personal attacks, and edit warring. Sorry, but a verbatim copy-paste copyright violation [59] [60] which is what Qahramani44 was originally reverting when he started his WP:HOUNDING and edit warring in the first place is not "bullshit". Perhaps review WP:CV if you're unfamiliar with copyright infringement. If you're going to give a "CliffNotes" version, at least don't lie in the process.

And has already been demonstrated but just to be perfectly clear, Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging not only started the edit warring in the first place, coupled with WP:HOUNDING to war on 2 other articles and other forms of misconduct like the canvassing and personal attacks, but continued to engage in it. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saucysalsa30: where exactly is the copyvio? I see a few snippets that could use rewording but no sentences directly lifted. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir Here is a screenshot from the book itself, as I'd shown to Berrely over IRC. https://imgur.com/a/eOjxV8O Then compare it to the reverts on the two articles bringing back the copyvio [61] [62]. Word-for-word copy pastes from the book.

Just to give an example here of a couple of the sentences from the Wiki articles: "the Iraqi Baathists brought the ideas of Sati' al-Husri to their full, official and racist culmination. For the Baathists, their pan-Arab ideology was laced with anti-Iranian racism and it rested on the pursuit of anti-Iranian themes." And then from the book as shown in the screenshot: "it was the Ba'athists who brought his ideas to their full official and racist culmination. For or the Baathists, their pan-Arab ideology was laced with anti-Persian racism and it rested on the pursuit of anti-Persian themes." Oddly, the only thing that was changed was changing "Persian" in the book to "Iranian" in the Wiki articles, which also creates a different meaning. Basically, put the linked diff on the Halliday section in the Wiki articles side-by-side with the screenshot from the book's text and you'll see sentences directly lifted from the book, same wording used and all. Please let me know if that's still not clear. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This should make it more straight-forward to visualize. https://i.imgur.com/5QYbWCA.jpg Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saucysalsa30: That 2nd sentence is indeed close paraphrasing and a problem. But there are ways of dealing with it that do not involve blanking. I might be "too lenient" but just fix it and move on. However, I don't see the copy-paste you mentioned. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir Please see this screenshot that puts the book text side by side with the Wiki diff. https://i.imgur.com/5QYbWCA.jpg To give another example in that same passage:

Wiki diff: "over the decade and a half after coming to power, Baghdad organised the expulsion of Iraqis of Iranian origin, beginning with 40,000 Fayli Kurds, but totaling up to 200,000 or more, by the early years of the war itself. Halliday says that it was the Ba'athists too who, claiming to be the defenders of 'Arabism' on the eastern frontiers, brought to the fore the chauvinist myth of Iranian migrants and communities in the Persian Gulf region."

Book: "over the decade and a half after coming to power, the Ba'th party organized the expulsion of Iraqis of Persian origin, beginning with 40,000 Fayli Kurds, but totaling up to 200,000 or more, by the early years of the war itself. ... It was the Ba'thists too who, claiming to be the defenders of 'Arabism' on the eastern frontiers, brought to the fore the chauvinist myth of Persian migrants and communities in the Gulf"

The only differences were changing "Persian" in the book to "Iranian" in the Wiki article, changing "Ba'th party" in the book to "Baghdad" in Wiki, and adding "Halliday says". Otherwise, straight copy-paste. Hopefully that's clearer. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, there was no edit war over the text above, which was not reinstated after the COPYVIO was pointed out by Berrely. The text that Saucysalsa30 reverted an additional four times (diffs: [63], [64], [65], [66]) across two articles after Berrely stated that the matter had been resolved to his satisfaction read (in full):

• The Ba'athists in Iraq portrayed Iran and Iranians as an ancient enemy of the Arabs, with rhetoric often tinged with pan-Arabism and blatant racism and heavily inspired by the works of Arab nationalist Sati' al-Husri. In the late 1970s and early 1980s Saddam oversaw the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Persians and Feyli Kurds from Iraq. In the name of "defending Arabism" the Ba'ath also promoted chauvinist myths of Iranians being migrants to the Persian Gulf region.

This snafu also has nothing to do with Saucysalsa30's violation of 3RR at a completely different article, Iraqi invasion of Iran, where he has been both warned and sanctioned previously. There are no extenuating circumstances in that case, so this entire lengthy conversation is essentially a distraction.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)