User:Faustian/sandbox

Can you please take a look at this article and the disruptive behavior of an editor here
E-960 (talk) keeps disruptively deleting and changing referenced information, claiming there is no consensus because he alone objects. So I added this information from the source Myroslav Shkandrij. (2015) Ukrainian Nationalism: Politics, Ideology, and Literature, 1929-1956. New Haven: Yale University Press pg. 19 :.

E-960 removed parts of it (specifically, reference to Jews being victims in the camps, and the words concentration camps) without prior discussion:.

I then started a thread on the talk page:.

Volunteer Marek did not change the words "concentration camps" despite misgivings but did remove reference to Jews. Another editor, Paul Siebert, didn't have a problem with reference to concentration camps or Jews, but suggested different wording:. No further input from Volunteer Marek.

So based on Paul Siebert's feedback, I changed the wording and added the info:.

E-960 changed the wording without consensus and removed it again, adding a false edit summary that his version was the original statement (clearly, as we see, it was not.  I had written the original statement).

I then added the text plus the full quote from the original source into the reference to make clear that it was supported by the text:.

E-960 removed it again:.

I then found another reference and included it:.

E-960 removed it: with false edit summary about no consent on the talk page for my edit (he was outnumbered 2:1, for what it is worth). As if there was consent for his version.

So one editor has seen no problem with the text I added, E-960 objects to it so he keeps reverting. Even after I change it to match the other's opinion, even after I add an extra reference, etc. he keeps reverting.

Seeking more opinions, I opened an RFC on this topic:. The contributor concluded here: : "First, the source was quoted not verbatim, so quotation marks are misleading. It uses "supported" in a context of not only military, but "university professors, priests, lawyers and doctors". With respect to interned Jews and other nationalities it says "sympathetic". Second, this source does support this statement, and Jews are mentioned explicitly, partially because their testimonies "described murders and abuse." However, I don't know if this source provides a mainstream viewpoint, or it represents just a minority view. Taking into account that the publisher is very reputable, and that the book was cited in 25 articles, it is likely that it is not a minority view, but further analysis is necessary to confirm that."

On the rfc, E-960 accused me of forum-shopping: and flooded the rfc with off-topic complaints about me.

Then he, the same editor that kept removing information sourced to a book published by Yale University Press, added information (diff:) from a Polish nationalist website: ! This strongly suggests that he is biased.

After another editor questioned the words used: E-960 then blanked the entire section without waiting for further discussion:.

I added additional information. He reverted it:.

I restored the blanked paragraph. He then blanked the entire paragraph again: with false edit summary that there was some sort of consensus not to have the paragraph included.

I am not going to rv now in order to avoid 3RR but he has already made 4 rvs within 24 hours:, , ,.

More importantly, however, is his disruptive behavior of removing anything and everything he doesn't like and adding stuff from a Polish nationalist website, which probably reveals where he is coming from.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)