Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive418

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks --slakr^\ talk / 09:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: Lawrence Durrell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.204.247.58 (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:

This person has made 4 reverts in the last 24 hours, 3 of them after being warned for edit warring, and has sometimes instantly reverted other people's edits with little attempt to address the issues. I think this is clear enough from the article history. I have attempted to address the issues on the talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The page history shows your every bit as guilty of edit warping as me. You've ignored

WP:BRD and 3RR and now you're trying to bully through a block. Thank fully more sensible heads have made a better job of asking most of the material now. Though there is clearly consensus still to be found on adding the incest stuff in better. Hopefully you'll discuss that on talk instead of just restoring your version when challenged 37.245.246.183 (talk

) 06:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you broke the 3RR, I didn't. PatGallacher (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Only if you game it over 24 hours. You certainly broke the spirit of it, and you continue to restore your preferred version without waiting for consensus on talk94.204.247.58 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – One week. The 'incest' stuff is weakly sourced. It seems to be due to different ways of reading what his daughter Sappho said in her posthumously-published diaries. The sources that speak definitely on the topic of incest appear to be self-published (Note the links to academia.edu, where users can upload anything, and mentions of Bruce Redwine as an author. He does not seem to be an academic). Durrell's fictional works contain references to incest by the characters, so it's unclear how much of the allegations about Durrell's own behavior were metaphorical. This is not a BLP issue since the parties are dead, but it's a chance to keep our article on a major author from being filled up with unverified stuff. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff and diff

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:
User:Trimperthon insists on adding text to the article's lead section, asserting in Wikipedia's voice what are only opinions expressed by individuals. On their talkpage they received several warnings about their editing, but responded by blanking the page - diff. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

They have now blanked their talkpage again, thus removing my notification of this report (diff), and they have also made further reverts of other editors - diff, diff. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And another revert (diff). This user obviously isn't interested in Wikipedia process or what other editors are saying - their editing is only focussed on adding their own favoured content. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Quite. If I wasn't involved, I would block per

WP:NOTHERE. SmartSE (talk

) 09:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Two more reverts - diff, diff. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting the the user was adding commentary to the St. Louis McCloskey gun controversy page on the 8th of Oct. diff diff with the second one adding the edit reason (Truth). --Vvvx3 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:8800:3100:D33:F079:8BB9:6C0D:BE1C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC) to 22:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC) to 22:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC) to 21:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 21:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 21:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   4. 21:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC) to 21:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 19:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Home media */"
   2. 20:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   3. 20:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   4. 21:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps changing pipelink without a solid reason. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly 98.186.218.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was already blocked this morning for such edits, evading their block. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week by User:Ohnoitsjamie for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: Duolingo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wolbo (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] (restores part of the content removed earlier)
2. [11] (with "unexplained" claim)
3. [12] ("no argument provided for deletion")
4. [13] (with the rather ridiculous "that is NOT an argument, it's a statement")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14] -- I think they want me to fuck off, if that's what FO means. (I actually don't have the Duolingo app, and Wolbo may be using a language I don't know.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15] Note that a discussion was started by

• Result:
  WP:3RRNO in case of disagreement. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Page:

• Shirley Ze Yu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Genevieve Leveille (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Abbas Kwarbai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
at Shirley Ze Yu (2, 3, 4 and 5 were consecutive, with nobody else's edits in between, so I don't think they constitute 3RR)

1. removal of orphan maintenance tag
2. reversion of merged references
3. removal of orphan maintenance tag
4. removal of 'failed verification' maintenance tag
5. removal of 'failed verification' maintenance tag
6. reversion of content edits 11 hours after uw-ew warning

reverts by the same user to my edits in other articles in the last 24 hours:

1. removal of 'definition needed' maintenance tag at Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli
2. reversion of content edit at Draft:Genevieve Leveille
3. removal of 'failed verification' maintenance tag at Draft:Genevieve Leveille
4. reversion of content edits at Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli 11 hours after uw-ew warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18] and this

Comments:
Abbas Kwarbai has been warned about ownership of articles but has become increasingly aggressive in their reaction to me improving the article or adding maintenance tags, i.e. a 'stay out' no-edit order. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you so much for reporting me into this place. Ever since, my activities on Wikipedia is base on my choice to write more article with few edition. A couple of times, I requested for assistance from different user, where curb appeared to be one of them but his has never help me. Later he appear to maltreat me here in Wikipedia by nominating investigation about me that the articles I created are mostly been paid me, he even make an instance with Dr Bindu Babu saying that she paid me because I have removed his edition of saying her PhD is from unrecognized university, but he later told me to provide prove if the university is accredited, I went there to search and I found that it's unaccredited university, and from there I stop editing her page completely except five days where I tried to applied for nomination of deletion of her page (which I want probe I have no connection with those whom I wrote article about them much less to talk of paying me). It became obvious what he is alleging me is not true as he can't prove it in the investigation tag. The investigation was suspended as he can't prove anything.

He added me on his watchlist following my footsteps to catch me with violation of Wikipedia act. I actually disrespect him when he started following me into my [draft:Genevieve] editing by adding verification fail,citation needed which really vex me to remove it because it is a draft not article and I must to recheck all the links I used before taking it to article, he also comment that Jersey is only from United States by reediting the article without clicking on blue link (which clearly shows that there is a province in United Kingdom called Jersey).I undo his edition immediately. Curb also appear to add (definition needed on his GMP) that's for Ahmad Nuhu Bamalli article's where numerous independent secondary reliable sources have mentioned it, and I told him it is a program carry out in Harvard university and it simply means General Management Program, for that reason I immediately remove his template.

In the case of Shirley Ze Yu, someone who isn't Curb added a template of "This article is an Orphan". So,based on what I understand for an article to be orphan, it has no any link attach to it. I later realised that Shirley Ze Yu has numerous links that attached to her article such as she is alumni of Kennedy school business administration, Harvard University, China Central Television news anchor, and her page appeared to be twice when searching it. To my level of understanding, any article with these informations isn't an orphan, as such I removed his template immediately.

I warned him to stop following my footsteps on Wikipedia because following someone like the way he use follow me is an indication that, that person is a criminal in Wikipedia. I don't respond to any editor who touches an article that I created because I know Wikipedia is for all. Free environment like Wikipedia will never encourage one to be following someone's footsteps by adding what curb is doing to me.

Finally, if I make any mistake about what in Wikipedia policy, I'm apologizing. Nonetheless, I want Wikipedia to intervene my issue with curb to stop involving into my activities completely as I know he has chance to edit what. I even declared on my talk page I don't want assist or intervention of User:Curb Safe to involve in my activities on Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs) 13:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@

edits you're being paid to make. --slakr^\ talk

 / 08:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Re this revert, which is referred to in the response above, Jersey is not part of the United Kingdom. This can be seen by 'clicking on the blue link' to paragraph five of the article about Jersey. Coincidentally it is where I live. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: FC Obolon-2 Bucha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.54.2.103 (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. [19] 16:08, 13 October 2020
2. [20] 12:22, 14 October 2020
3. [21] 12:26, 14 October 2020
4. [22] 12:29, 14 October 2020
5. [23] 12:58, 14 October 2020 (added after this report made)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

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

Comments:

• Nonsense. The club was renamed. It is named
  FC Obolon-2 Kyiv not Obolon-Brovar already, see official site. My edits (only 3 reverts, first listed is not counted) are correct. His reverts are incorrect and without any reason (he reverted the page to very old name). 37.54.2.103 (talk
  ) 12:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The IP repeatedly added a non-existent category, contrary to
    WP:REDNOT. That it is why they were reverted.
    They have now made a 5th edit[25] to add the non-existent category.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs
    ) 13:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Again, my edits were made because it is not Brovar already according this links: [26][27]. This Brown is not friend for reality, and reverted many correct edits, it's a pity. 37.54.2.103 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      • The IP's edit did not
        WP:REDNOT, and were repeated despite warnings. They continued even after a 3RR warning, and even after another editor reverted them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs
        ) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
        • This Brown did not read
          WP:5P, broke real events, and were repeated despite warning. They continued to deny the reality. 37.54.2.103 (talk
          ) 14:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
          • I know
            WP:CFD to propose a rename. They should not editwar when challenged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs
            ) 14:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
            • Nonsense again. If Brown has doubts about reality of renaming, it could ask the additional sources on the article talk page (trying to resolve dispute writing his important opinion), but not revert all correct edits and content immediately. 37.54.2.103 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
              • There is nothing correct about repeatedly adding uncited information.
                There is nothing correct about placing an article in a non-existent category.
                And the repeated misgendering is obnoxious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked the next time they try to add an article to a red-linked category. This action violates the guideline at
  WP:REDNOT. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 00:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: Spider-Man: Far From Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 170.239.28.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */Vandalism? Please"
2. 16:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
3. 16:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */Why would you put an unofficial surname?"
4. 15:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
5. 04:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */Jones in not official."
6. 23:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */"Jones" is unofficial surname"
7. 16:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
8. 23:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
2. 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Far From Home."
3. 20:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Far From Home."
4. 20:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Far From Home."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP was invited to start a new talk page discussion, but has failed to do so.

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Maxim.il89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC) (Undid revision 983626452 by Koncorde (talk)Do you have some problem or something? Discuss the sources, there are 6 sources there - which is a blog?)"
2. 09:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983625103 by Koncorde (talk)Right, this is getting ridiculous. Which one of them is the blog? Why not just remove the blog reference? Why edit just for the sake of it? If one is a blog, it can be removed!"
3. 09:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Here's a better idea - adding a "better citation needed" - again, the information is relevant, but if a better source is needed, apparently Wiki has a tag for it."
4. 23:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983565282 by Koncorde (talk)"
5. 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983547107 by Grayfell (talk)No, you're just edit warring for your ego. If "many of those sources are pure garbage", remove the garbage sources - as User:Debresser has pointed out to you, removing everything because you don't like some of the sources is nonsense."
6. 21:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "Wow some people need to calm down. Use bloody talk page."
7. 11:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983416516 by
   talk
   )What's going on? I completely changed the references. Obviously the majority of Jews being Ashkenazi matters."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* October 2020 */
   WP:3RR
   "
2. 00:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* October 2020 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "/* The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed */ Reply"
2. 21:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "/* The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed */ Comment"
3. 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "/* The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed */ reply"

Comments:

This is a dispute over content originally added by an IP who is likely also Maxim.il89 around 11 October.

Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates#The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed has several editors, very little consensus, a battleground attitude, and a handful of personal attacks.

Above are four reverts of four different editors in a 24 hour period. Maxim.il89 seems confused about this and seems to think only one editor (me, I assume) has been reverting them. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Added additional incidents last evening and this morning. User continues to insert information using blogs etc then cries when the information is removed that we should only be removing the blog sources. Today says "which ones are blogs?" when it is the first thing Grayfell pointed out to him on the TalkPage when trying to resolve the issue. Koncorde (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

He continues to misunderstand basic notices on his talk page, and instead heads off to the other users talk page to attack others who leave 3RR or notices.[28][29] Koncorde (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Context

I first ran into Maxim when he was a new editor trying to insert POV and tangentially related content to the wikispace of the club he supports. [30][31][32] This is fine, and an example of many news users not quite understanding how things are often done, and for the most part he calmed down. But even now I can see he has returned to those sections on the main article space and again inserted the same rejected vanity content[33] but has otherwise generally been productive and a lot of content is reasonable if routinely poorly sourced to fan made sources in some cases. I later ran into Maxim at the Chris Mullin talk page where he tried to do a move request. Procedural issues aside, I think you can see he replied to pretty much every single person that posted an oppose reason indicating the kind of one-2-one mentality he has with anyone that disagrees with his POV push.

For whatever reason from the 10th of October the user has become interested in Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence and has posted a mix of the same statements to multiple pages, from a relatively simple[34] to the exceedingly complex[35] which are generally filled with OR and SYNTH. Grayfell has raised this with the user repeatedly (and subsequently so have several other users) but he has ignored their arguments, and per this change on the talk page you can see that he has failed to read what Grayfell said to him and others have reiterated. Koncorde (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• This situation does not seem to be letting up. The user does not seem able to understand that he needs to stop this reinsertion of material in contravention of consensus. There may be
  competence issues here as he lashed out at the discretionary sanctions notification I left insinuating that it labeled him a believer in a genetic connection between race and intelligence. We need an admin to help. jps (talk
  ) 18:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

1. As I see it, Grayfell is also being belligerent about this,[36] including that he too is making the conflict too personal sometimes.
2. The claim that Maxim.il89 is editing against consensus, supposes that consensus is not like his opinion. That is not so clear-cut as Grayfell suggests here, and there is serious opposition to Grayfell's edits, which have as a matter of fact been reverted and no other editor has repeated them.

So IMHO this report is not necessary, and I am confident that Maxim.il89 respects Wikipedia's core policy of consensus. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The context is Maxim.il89's claim that "Simply removing everything is just your ego." which was repeated several times. What, exactly, is belligerent about my response?

Maxim.il89 violated 3RR despite being warned specifically about this. All of this was to restore content added by Maxim.il89. Further, Maxim.il89 has been warned about edit warring multiple times by many editors over the past year. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure Debresser is looking at the same discussions as everyone else and seems to be misrepresenting the facts. Koncorde (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Response by maxim.il89

I went out of my way to look for more sources, change formulations, specifically say how I'm happy to collaborate on the formulation and stuff, and this can be seen from both the comments on my reverts and talk page. I'm sorry, but User:Grayfell knows exactly what he's doing - if it were about compromise, we'd be discussing both the good and bad references, we'd be looking for a better formulation.

This whole thing is over one simple line in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates. I added a sentence saying how most of those on the list are Ashkenazi Jews, which is relevant to the article (Jews aren't just one group). Everything else can be discussed, debated, and compromised upon, but for that there's need to have willingness to discuss and work together. Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You violated

WP:3RR after being warned, and have been warned for edit warring several times before this. This edit, for example, is not "a single line". Several editors have tried to discuss specific issues with you about these edits on the talk page. Adding even more bad sources is not a solution to these problems. This has already been explained to you several times by several editors on the article's talk page. In order to come to a compromise, you first have to stop edit warring and recognize the reason this is disputed. The article's talk page is the place to do this. Grayfell (talk

) 00:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:

All attempts to contact the user have failed, user has continuously reverted to a version that does not comply with

Some disruptive editing on Stan Swamy [45]I requested discussion on the talk page but no response Talk:Stan_Swamy Vikram Vincent 14:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result:
  MOS:DIGITS unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 00:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks EdJohnston! Prolix 💬 07:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, I would like to point to this link [[46]] wherein @Azuredivay: continues to violate with impunity the 3RR rule. It appears that the warning has had no effect. Vikram Vincent 08:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: Multi-level marketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grnwng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:15, 12 October 2020
2. 22:43, 12 October 2020
3. 11:34, 13 October 2020
4. 19:40, 13 October 2020
5. 21:04, 13 October 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:47, 12 October 2020

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:27, 13 October 2020 after first starting a discussion on the editor's talk page 22:27, 12 October 2020

Comments:
Grnwng's edit summaries and comments suggest this is a new account for an editor with some past editing experience. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I see a blatant policy violation, I try to fix it. Unfortunately, I have encountered people who are absolutely unable to comprehend what a neutral point of view is. Grnwng (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the madness I have encountered here: User:Hipal accused me of "original research" for removing the word "controversial" from the opening sentence of the article, and believes that "If it [a biased point of view] is well-referenced, then it's removal is a POV violation". I certainly hope that this user's belief that "X is a controversial Y" is somehow more neutral than "X is a Y" is not widely held. Grnwng (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent others. You're the one who thinks "a biased point of view" applies [47]. Bringing it up again after it was rejected [48] makes it look like you're not paying attention to what others say. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

pyramid selling which on Wikipedia is considered a type of fraud. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]

Grnwng's first edit after this block expired was to revert once again, without any further attempt at changing to consensus to do so. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal made four reverts within a little over 24 hours but received no warning or sanction, strangely. This is an insane situation. The sentence "X is a controversial Y" has no place in Wikipedia. It blatantly violates the NPOV policy. No "consensus" can change that. "X is a Y" is neutral and verifiable, and to argue otherwise is absurd. And yet, this editor keeps on reverting to re-insert the word "controversial", accompanied by a "vague" tag. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous way to behave. Grnwng (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. What can we do to get you to stop edit-warring? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop inserting policy-violating text, and I will be able to stop taking it out again. Grnwng (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

So you're not going to stop edit warring whenever you believe policy is being violated? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you not going to stop edit-warring to make an article violate policy? Grnwng (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. This isn't about me, but if you look at the header on my talk page, there's an answer to your question. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked again for immediate resumption of edit-warring, and according to talkpage it's against a growing consensus. DMacks (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: Young (Tulisa song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Blumoone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Despite the fact she lives in London and I live in Coventry, 100 miles away from her"
2. 01:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983915836 by Binksternet (talk) tabloids should not be used"
3. 01:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983915731 by Binksternet (talk) unreliable source as you have been told before"
4. 01:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983915498 by
   WP:GUNREL
   )"
5. 01:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983915371 by Binksternet (talk) Metro is an unreliable source"
6. 01:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983915263 by Binksternet (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 10:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC) to 10:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 10:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Do not use a tabloid (Metro) for genres as it was confirmed by a "generally unreliable source" (
      WP:GUNREL
      )"
   2. 10:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Suspected sockpuppet of

@

AIV. 180.244.144.193 (talk

) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: User:Danu Widjajanto/Vandal Langsa Log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 36.71.139.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983598223 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) TW Tidak Vandal Langsa Log"
2. 04:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983597986 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
3. 04:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edit by 983597702 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
4. 04:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983293565 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs on User:Danu Widjajanto/Vandal Langsa Log."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: The user has been globally blocked for a short time. User:Mifter has locked their talk page here and semiprotected the disputed page for a month. It seems possible this might be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manda 1993. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: Hartley Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Addicted4517 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hartley_Jackson&oldid=983278668

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]
5. [56]

(same problem in The Mighty Don't Kneel [57] [58] [59] [60] [61])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
This is one of the complex cases.

• [62] the general discussion begins here, in the AfD
• [63] discussion on whether Hartley was a member of The Mighty Don't Kneel begins here
• and continues in the talk page here [64]

Comments:
I tried working as a third opinion (maybe non-neutral; I had voted delete and later keep on the AfD) after Jammo85 asked for guidance in properly sourcing the article. The reverts actually began earlier [65] and [66]. After this last revert, I took some time to research the topic, the results are all in User:Walwal20/RfC_Hartley_Jackson. The RfC also contains Addicted's arguments against. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 10:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Considering Addicted's somewhat hostile comments in
  WP:Wikihounding, not against a specific person, but against a specific topic; in this case, Australian pro-wrestling. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}
  23:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • [67] [68] [69] [70] These diffs on
    WP:CTDAPE also. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}
    00:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • An attempt of
      WP:CONSENSUS on the subject has not yet been achieved. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}
      03:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Additional re Alaxa Bliss edits - Wrestlinginc is listed at
  WP:PW/Sources as not reliable. This is due to their use of people who are listed as unreliable. Addicted4517 (talk
  ) 03:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• This seems like a rather complex content dispute. In my opinion it may have been better to seek more input on the wrestling project first before doing an ANI.
  talk
  ) 06:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This ANI is not about the content dispute, it's about the violation to
    WP:3RR. If you're outnumbered, you should never keep reverting others. The content will be discussed in the post that you mentioned, which was created by me, even though Addicted should have been the one to do it, since he's outnumbered. Addicted does not want consensus, he wants to enforce his view only. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}
    06:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you, @
      being bold in the firm belief in the absence of any contrary information enforces my actions as correct. Perhaps there has been a touch of edit warring, but when one is faced with edits that is totally ignoring policy it constitutes vandalism, and that is a valid exception to 3RR (along with the fact that I never reverted more than three times in 24 hours). Now that both pages have been protected with my version in place perhaps the content can be addressed properly and finally per policy. Addicted4517 (talk
      ) 07:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      • WP:CONSENSUS. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}
        08:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes it is policy issues because now three users are claiming the sources are reliable when it is clear according to policy that they are not, as I explained fully on your RfC draft. You are yet to fully explain how these notes are not correct through policy. That is why we do not have a consensus and as long as you persist with this line there will never be one - and that's a bad thing. Instead of POV pushing to get your way, discuss the issue on your draft RfC. Start by showing in policy how I am incorrect. It's a simple task. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Page protected by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 07:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. I was the one who requested protection here, specifically so that there is time for this ANI to be answered. Can you not make it the result of this ANI, please? Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• • @Slakr: Please do not close this ANI for this reason as it does not resolve the issue at hand. It is a content dispute. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Noting that I am here because of
  WP:3O might be useful. GorillaWarfare (talk)
  16:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've also restored the "Result: protected" that was removed by Walwal20. Walwal20, you're welcome to continue the discussion even after the discussion has had a result recorded, but please don't remove the result that another user has recorded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  WP:3RR, which has not been addressed yet (could very much close it as no violation was observed, or something of the sorts, if you will). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}

  04:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  @

  WP:NPA. This matter is about a content dispute, not 3RR which I never violated anyway per the limits mentioned. EW is of course beyond that, but the core is the said content dispute. Further, there has been a development on the talk page of Hartley Jackson that also has an effect on the TMDK article. Addicted4517 (talk

  ) 07:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  This is a noticeboard on Edit warring and 3RR, so yes it is about

  WP:3RR/warring. If it happened or not, that should be something for the admins to judge. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}

  07:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Edit warring happened, it's been addressed, and now it's time for you to come to an agreement on the content of the page so that when the protection expires this doesn't reoccur and result in sanctions. It might be worth seeking outside input on the acceptability of the sourcing, since it appears you can't agree. Moving that draft RfC to the article talk page and filing it as an official RfC seems like a reasonable choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: I regret to advise that the moment the page became unprotected, Walwa promptly re-started the problem without a consensus on the talk page. I have warned him formally on his talk page and if he reverts again without discussing it appropriately I will be returning here and starting a new report. Just a heads up. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Addicted4517: Feel free to notify me directly if it happens again. @Walwal20: consider this a warning: achieve consensus FIRST, then make the agreed-upon edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Hi

  WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not unanimity). I intend to revert per support of Walwal20 at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, Jammo85 at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, SeosiWrestling at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, HHH Pedrigree at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, DrewieStewie at User_talk:DrewieStewie, Ravenswing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}

  07:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  There is no consensus. Most of the users only provided sources and did nothing else. The reversion is against instruction from an admin. I will leave that there. Action should now be taken, and in order to preserve the page against another edit war I will hold on reverting myself for now. The current edit on both Jackson and TMDK as it stands contains unreliable sources and should be removed with the claims they are attached to. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  If consensus had been achieved, as you claim, there would not have been a need for intervention at this noticeboard. I have Blocked Walwal20 for 24 hours for continuing the edit war against my express warning. I don't understand why you have chosen to continue edit warring rather than moving your draft RfC to be live, so you can gain formal consensus with outside opinions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: Stephen Thompson (fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NEDOCHAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81], [82]

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

Comments:
This editor constantly violates

• NEDOCHAN made an edit [83]
• Lordpermaximum reverted [84]
• Lordpermaximum added content [85]
• NEDOCHAN reverted [86]
• Lordpermaximum reverted [87]
• NEDOCHAN reverted [88]
• Lordpermaximum reverted [89]
• NEDOCHAN reverted [90]

I count 3 reverts for each participant, while noting that NEDOCHAN began a talk page discussion on Talk:Stephen Thompson (fighter) to discuss the issue, but Lordpermaximum has not participated in it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

1. You counted wrong. He reverted it 4 times in the span of 7 hours 17 minutes. You forgot to count this one.

2. The last and the 4th revert was done at 15:36. He opened the talk page section at 15:40.Perm 16:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I consider this an edit to fix the infobox per

WP:MMA. Schazjmd (talk)

16:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The initial edit was not a revert; it was a fix to bring the article into compliance with the project guidelines. I don't see clear evidence of it being a revert. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Karate" part of the fighter's style was deleted by NEDOCHAN 4 times in the span of 7 hours 17 minutes by referencing to an almost inactive project thus overriding

WP:RSP. If it can't be counted as a revert than I accept that there has been 3 reverts by him.Perm

16:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lordpermaximum: And why have you not discussed this matter at Talk:Stephen Thompson (fighter)? —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was counted as 4 reverts. If you don't count it as a revert, I'm happy to discuss it there.Perm 16:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I also want to say I discussed this matter with him at my own talk page here: User_talk:Lordpermaximum#Style_in_MMA_fighters'_articles. Best, Perm 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

I would sincerely ask whoever assesses this complaint carefully to view the edit history of Lordpermaximum. In their short time editing, they have started BLUDGEONING their points in RS Noticeboard, on the BLP noticeboard, started an RFC -the replies to which they have edited and moved. Their heavily edited talk page shows several editors pleading with them, only to get more BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I haven't time to do this properly, as their editing is so disruptive listing it all would take ages. A simple look through their edits shows just how exasperating it has been.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I was given a warning from an administrator for the editing I've done to my posts after others saw it. I did not know it was not permitted and I haven't done anything like that again. Why did you bring it up here? It's irrelevant.Perm 16:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is also a text book example of WP:HOUND. Why did the editor suddenly review my edit to Stephen Thompson?NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Lordpermaximum has been blocked for a week by Floquenbeam for a long list of offenses including edit warring. Bishonen | tålk 20:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

User:Lordpermaximum is now indef blocked by User:KrakatoaKatie for reasons stated in the block notice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: Roberta McCain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 184.58.230.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984230239 by
   talk
   )"
2. 22:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 19:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 11:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 20:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984040394 by Less Unless (talk)"
6. 19:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC) ""
7. 18:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC) ""
8. 18:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC) ""
9. 14:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC) ""
10. 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [91]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [92]

Comments:

Warning was issued on IP's talk page earlier. ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 year. Escalation from 3 months, 6 months, now one year. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: Sher Shah Suri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jatin1234567890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC) to 13:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "No historical proof of destruction of cities"
   2. 13:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "False info , No reliable citations"
2. 13:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "No historical record for Sher Shah Suri ever doing any religious persecution"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC) to 13:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "Building of Grand Trunk Road and cities in India"
   2. 13:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "Religion integration"
   3. 13:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "Sher Shah Suri never had any religious campaign ."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "/* New user blanking/removing referenced material */ new section"

Comments:

• Result: User:Jatin1234567890 is warned for edit warring. No block because the above edits are more than 24 hours old. If the user resumes, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User: Grayfell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page in dispute: Talk:Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

He has broken the three revert rule on a talk page after a crazy conspiracy theory about me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind&oldid=984388798

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind&oldid=984387548

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind&oldid=984381605

This seems to clearly violate the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am in process of filing an SPI. All of these fall under

WP:3RR exempt. Note that the editor did not notify me, also. Grayfell (talk

) 21:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am new and forgot to do that. I would like to avoid having older editors revert my talk page comments based on theories of conspiracy. This is unfair to me and to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You're new, but just happen to be diving into the exact same relatively obscure talk pages for two unrelated topics, and my talk page out of the blue, using exactly the same talking points, and incorrectly linking to the exact same Wikipedia essays? You also immediately know the location of an IP you claim to be unaffiliated with? Nah. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

My first edits were about politics and the western bias in Wiki. I saw a science article that was wrong (the Ashkenazi one) and saw you there engaging in biased conduct and tried to clean up articles where this was at work. I attempted to work this on the talk page at first before you harassed me. I looked up the IP that you accused me of, which is apparently an American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: yeah, I’m siding with Grayfell on this one. They make great points. How exactly did you find a specific editor if you’ve never edited Wikipedia before? Removing sock activity and reverting vandalism doesn’t count as edit warring/3RR-breaking. You can’t take these things to heart, you need to WP:Grow a thick skin. I see you have reverted my edit to that talk page, I will be reverting it now. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I read the comments for the AFD and saw blatant bias from editors, and tried to talk about articles where this was at work and distorting consensus on the science. Oea the King (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin reply: I just got out of a block, I know how many pages you can edit what you’re blocked. One. Your own talk page. I will be reverting your blatant block evasions now. See your talk page. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin did a report also before saw this one, I'm also of the belief this is a block avoidance by previous IP NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is possible evasion of the block of

Race and intelligence. EdJohnston (talk

) 22:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'm not very familiar with procedures here and I'm not confident enough to indef the filer per QUACK at this stage, but I would like to do a no-action close of this because noticeboards should not be available for such blatant retribution. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Agreed. This case is exempted of the 3RR because User:Grayfell was reverting a sock. They weren’t edit warring either, so I think it’s safe to close. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I made exactly three reverts, which is not a 3RR violation. Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• The SPI is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.44.5.219. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since User:Grayfell didn't violate 3RR. Other admins may follow up as they think best. For example, there is an SPI open about the filer. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Page: Hurricane Teddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Hurricane Delta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarioProtIV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Destroyeraa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Teddy: [93], Delta: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Teddy

1. Special:Diff/984360290
2. Special:Diff/984398645
3. Special:Diff/984400855
4. Special:Diff/984401195

• Delta

1. Special:Diff/984231434
2. Special:Diff/984338389
3. Special:Diff/984400089

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mario: Special:Diff/983586017, Destroyeraa: Special:Diff/983585988

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season#Delta image

Comments:
These two uesrs violated

Non-admin comment: neither of them have broken the 3RR. You need four reverts, per user, on the same page for it to be a 3RR violation. Also: the user reporting has not notified either of the two users being reported. I will do that now. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The dispute has been resolved between the parties. Thank you. Now, please look at Teddy's talk page before reporting us unknown user. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, the edit warring on Hurricane Teddy has been resolved, the edit warring has stopped and the page has been unprotected. I suggest closing this with no action, I'll ping MarioProtIV on his opinion. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: I find it rather suspicious that this user's first edit was reporting other users. It may be a logged-out user but I cannot determine who. In addition, this User has been following us around too. May be an accidental IPhop. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)