User talk:LordRogalDorn

Edit warring notice
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC))


 * @KIENGIR The talk page was used, however, concensus is impossible to reach due to the other user's arguing in bad faith. As proof for bad faith: I made an edit, he undid my edit and asked for verification, I provided verification. His reply was that no this is not true. I asked him to check the sources I listed and asked him to list the sources for the counter-arguments he made. He insisted that he is right, I asked him again to list the sources for verification. So far so good, but now the bad faith arguments start: he replied with an ad hominem instead of discussing the the substance of the subject itself. I told him I will not play his insults game and that he didn't still didn't offer sources for verificaiton. He then started lying, saying he did provide source, despite the talk page itself being proof for anyone to see that no source was listed on his part. I tried to keep it in good faith and asked him "where", his reply was "here". Everything posted on wikipedia has to be backed up by sources. This user is attempting to undo an edit without a legitimate reason when the sources outright contradict the previous stance that he supports. On one occasion, he admitted to this, arguing that there was a mass Hungarian immigration between 1940-1941 (to which he also didn't give evidence), making the 1941 census that he insists on keeping misleading. In short: it's impossible to reach concensus when the other user is arguing in bad faith. However, according to Wikipedia, concensus is not about unanimity but about addressing legitimate concerns. A concern not backed up by evidence can hardly be called legitimate. For the sake of the guidelines, I am continuing the discussion with this user, however it's unlikely that he discussion will reach consensus soon due to his uncooperative behavior. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * LordRogalDorn, nothing of what you say can be immediately verified because you don't have evidence in the form of diffs. But regardless, you are failing to observe WP:ONUS with respect to multiple pages. That is a problem. The status quo ante version is the version that should be displaying while a dispute remains unresolved. El_C 18:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

EL_C, our conversation and our edits can be easily found on this talk page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_irredentism The diffs can be found on the edit section of the same wikipedia page. Which part of the WP:ONUS am I failing to observe? According to the link you provided me: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Or restores material means that the one who undoes edits also has the responsability to provide a source for his undo, which is why we are having this impass in the first place. LordRogalDorn (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * LordRogalDorn, WP:ONUS reads: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You are not living up to that maxim. As for diffs, because you are the one making the claim, you carry the burden to refine the information with due precision. El_C 16:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In regard to WP:ONUS what else specifically you want me to do that I haven't already done? It's impossible to reach concensus with someone who refuses on the grounds that he simply doesn't like it and that he doesn't believe your soruce despite you already provide your source. He's just making blunt statements right now "what you say is wrong", "you are destroying the page", etc. Reaching common grounds after a productive discussion would be ideal, it's impossible to reason with sone who won't listen to reason or evidence. Please, tell me what else I should do? provide a source? already done. Try to explain him? already done. Try to reach a compromise? already done. What else can I do that I haven't already tried to do? At this point, he is simply filibustering, WP:BRD.LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
El_C 18:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * LordRogalDorn, if the disputes reported here continue it is likely there will be some admin action. I recommend that you have patience when working on these topics. This is a difficult area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You did not revert in order to discuss this on the talk page. First time you undoed because they are already mentioned in the article. I reasoned that they are, but their quotes are not. The second time you undoed arguing that if I want to keep that quote, we should mention other Humanist scholars who thought that the Hungarians were descended from the ancient Scythians. I replied saying that I am in favor of that, I won't undo you if you do it. Then you undoed simply saying WP:Source. I asked you to be more specific, and only then we discussed it on the talk page. We both stopped the edit-war at that point. We talked, turns out WP:Source allows you to use in certain conditions that are met here. Then you said "sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you, because we reached a stalemate" and falsely stated in the undo "OR (as per Talk page)". When we did not agree to such a thing on the talk page. It wasn't original reserach. Then you kept insisting OR. And so on. So, who's breaking the policy? I understand that you disagree, which is why I support your choice to present this to the noticeboard. But don't state your reason for undoing as "OR" when you know it was not OR.LordRogalDorn (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You should try to understand basic WP policies before editing. Otherwise, sooner or later you will be banned. Borsoka (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Which WP policy I broke?LordRogalDorn (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not want to play this game of yours. The relevant policies are mentioned and quoted on the relevant Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What game? I merely asked you which WP policy I broke. The relevant policies on the talk page were already discussed. WP:Source allows you to use primary sources in certain conditions that are met here. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Origin of the Romanians) for a period of 1 week for engaging in a slow-burning edit war. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Salvio 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for Personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Per this edit and others like it. . EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Administrators who want to review this unblock request might also look at the discussion at User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 91, which was an appeal of his 25 September partial block per the edit warring noticeboard. Also check out the prior warnings on this very page, at User talk:LordRogalDorn, which are still in place above. I had previously held a discussion with User:KIENGIR on my own talk page, to which (admittedly) LordRogalDorn was never invited. I saw that thread as me giving advice to User:KIENGIR as to how he ought to pursue dispute resolution. The whole time I was aware that LordRogalDorn was getting near the edge of being blocked for WP:ASPERSIONS but I had previously warned him that it was likely there would be some admin action if the disputes continued. In fact LordRogalDorn and KIENGIR had both been warned on 12 September in a previous AN3 about Hungarian irredentism. In the closure of that complaint I had told him "It is risky to charge that another editor is lying", with a link to ASPERSIONS. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I did not take the hint that "It is risky to charge that another editor is lying" means that I will be blocked if I accuse another editor of lying, regardless of the validity of this claim. If I had known, I wouldn't have pointed it out, even when proveable, but would have used another language instead. I believed that you were talking about unproven accusations of lying out of nowhere, which is easy to see why these would be desruptive. I'm new to Wikipedia and the other editor making personal attacks gave me the impression that this behavior is allowed without any repercussions, that moderators don't care and it's the normal thing in a discussion here. I attempted a few times to keep the discussion only factual [], [], other similar diffs can be provided if an admin requests. But seeing that the other user did not respond in kind, I lost faith in such a method. While I believe the other editor's personal attacks were unreasonable and most of the time he didn't provide evidence for them, even when sometimes I actually asked him why he believes that, most of the time just making blunt statements about how I am X. I always took the time to provide evidence and examples for why I think my personals attacks about him were true. I only later realised that this does not have the intended effect of him changing his ways. For example: [], as you can see my personal attack was backed by a through explaination with clear examples of why that is the case. Similar diffs can be provided if an admin requests. Concerning this last personal attack that I got temporary banned for, as mentioned in the appeal, I was saying that in good faith and with evidence to back it up, not in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation, but in an attempt to stop him from further lying so we could have a honest discussion. My claim about him lying was supported and not exaggerated. I had a reasonable cause, as shown above. WP:ASPERSIONS mentions "without a reasonable cause" and "without evidence", which I had and posted on the talk page during our discussion. However, even if that does not matter and I should be banned, what I don't understand is why only I was temporary banned considering user User:KIENGIR has made personal attacks as well, but for the most part without a reasonable cause, explaination or evidence, therefore the double standards. LordRogalDorn (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As a volunteer administrator, I'm not even going to attempt to wade through this massive wall of text, and I doubt many other admins will bother either. I suggest you replace your unblock request and summarise it in two or three sentences, clarifying that you understand what you did wrong, and how you intend to mavoid making the same mistakes again. Alternatively if you feel there has been some abuse of administrative power towards you, you are welcome to raise it(succinctly!) at WP:AN once your block has expired. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 07:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Voice of Clam, the reason there is a huge wall of text is because I needed to prove that the other user genuinely lied, as the reason I got temporary banned for is calling the other user a liar. I needed to show that it wasn't a random accusation out of nowhere but supported with evidence. The 3 reasons can be summarized as: 1. WP:ASPERSIONS mentions "without a reasonable cause" and "without evidence", I had both a reasonable cause to think he is lying (deliberately misinterpreting the source when I knew from our discussion that he had read the source) and evidence (the reason I made the wall of text). 2. I wasn't invited to the discussion that got me temporary banned to be able to defend myself. 3. The other user, the one I called liar, did the exact same thing I got temporary banned for, personal attacks, so it stands to fairness that if I get temporary banned for personal attacks he should get too, but he didn't. It's a bit of preferențial treatment to temporary ban only one user for a reason both have done. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You were warned, you were blocked for a period for the same reason. If you do not stop this edit warring, you will be banned from WP. Borsoka (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was blocked for a different reason and almost a month ago. We had a discussion, you stopped talking for 2 days. I took this as leaving the discussion, so 2 days later I reverted the edit. You reported me to the admin and I got temporary blocked for that edit. I believed it was unfair so I talked to the admin who blocked me, turns out, I should have menitoned that I'm undoing that page in the absence of explicit opposition, which I didn't, so he was right to block me. He said that this is not a judgment on my merits, but only on the edit revert for unspecified reason, and the block is temporary so I can come back and continue the discussion after that. When I came back a few days later, another user took my old edits and reposted them, you opposed him just like you opposed me, he quoted a part of the policy and turns out he was right, then you did not oppose his edits for 15 days, so my original edits remained part of the article and became the new status quo. The policy is also clear: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carol II of Romania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Ferdinand. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The discussion leading to this sanction was at this AN3 complaint about warring on Origin of the Romanians. It might be reasonable to review this ban in six months if your editing outside this domain gives examples of you working successfully with others on difficult topics. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

ARBEE
Please read carefully the notice above. If you ignore the above ban, you will be sanctioned more seriously. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You still appear to be violating the ban from Eastern Europe by mentioning Romania here, in an edit on Wilhelm II, German Emperor. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
To enforce an arbitration decision and for breaching your topic ban by using a sockpuppet, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
 * If you evade this block or, when you are unblocked or your block expires on this account, use sockpuppets to evade your topic ban again you will be likely blocked indefinitely. Consider this your last chance. Do not edit using any other account until this block expires. Once this block expires, you may edit in areas which you are not topic banned from. I also suggest that you read read the policy on using multiple accounts (i.e. sockpuppetry) before you edit again. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As there was more sockpuppetry discovered I have blocked your oldest account,, indefinitely for the reasons I state on that account's talk page. Because you are a confirmed sockpuppet of this user, you will need to appeal using that account. Until that account is unblocked, you may not edit using any account or IP address, as that is block evasion. Doing so will lead to those accounts being blocked and your edits reverted. This supersedes my above block, but your topic ban is still in place. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)