Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive422

Page: Basarab I of Wallachia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: "Basarab's name is of Turkic origin.[7][8] Its first part is the present participle for the verb bas- ("press, rule, govern"); the second part matches the Turkic honorific title aba or oba ("father, elder kinsman"), which can be recognized in Cuman names, such as Terteroba, Arslanapa and Ursoba.[9] Basarab's name implies that he was of Cuman or Pecheneg ancestry, but this hypothesis has not been proven.[8][10][11] At least four royal charters from the 14th century refer to Basarab as a Vlach.[12] Charles I of Hungary referred to him as "Basarab, our disloyal Vlach" in 1332.[1][11]" [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Borsoka removed sourced material, disputes established linguist and historian; 02:07, 26 November 2020
2. Another example of sourced material removal; 16:35, 12 November 2020
3. Yet another; 16:01, 12 November 2020‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: "Hello Borsoka. I've seen that once again you've took interest in editing my contribution. I'd like to point out to you that the modern Romanian language does indeed have a Daco-Thracian substrate, fact agreed upon by all universities in this country and abroad. There's no reason to put a undue weight tag there... As for the rest of the tags, I'll leave them there until we reach a consenus in the talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC) 1. Yes, "Daco-Thracian" may be the substrate language of Romanian. Or, it is also a possibility, that early medieval Romanians borrowed a specific pastoralist vocabulary from Proto-Albanian and this specific vocabulary is described now as heritage of a supposed substrate language. Both views are mentioned in international scholarly literature. 2. Romanian also borrowed words from Slavic and Turkic languages, from Hungarian, from Western Romance languages. If you understand Hungarian, you certainly realize that the name "Basarab" is extremly similar to two Hungarian words ("to make love" in slang and "Arab"). Could we assume that the name is of Hungarian origin based on this similarity? No, because similarity does not make a connection. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Well, it's not the nicest of assumptions, but you could nullify in the same manner the cuman theory, which is also based on such connections. The Proto-Albanian language may have also derived from a Thracian idiom, hence some similarities between our languages. Your derogatory way of using "pastoralist vocabulary" shows me that you may have indeed a visible adversion to Romanians. Keep going like that and you'll also find your way into ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC) No, the Cumans dominated the Pontic steppes just decades before Basarab's birth and Cumans made up a significant part of the population of the Golden Horde in the 14th century. Making a connection between a language widely spoken in the region in the 12th-14th century and the name of a ruler born in the 13th century is quite logical. However, making connection between a ruler's birth and a language spoken in the region more than a millenium before his birth is a fringe theory. Sorry, but I think my Talk page is not the best place to discuss this issue. Please use the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)" [2]

1. Conversation continues here: [3]
2. Previous conversation with Borsoka (I'm not too proud of how I've behaved here, but I cannot remove it now): [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]; [6] (Same links as above)

Comments:
The entire issue is centered around Basarab's name origin. Basically disputing between either a Cuman origin or an indigenous Romanian origin.

, he constantly removes my contribution because he's considering it fringe. Truth is there's no official academic consenus on the matter of Basarab's name origin. However Borsoka is dogmatically following his theory alone. As far as Wikipedia policy goes, the theory I'm supporting isn't un-academical nor departs significantly from the mainstream views. If there'd even be a mainstream view in the field of Romanian linguistics, Sorin Paliga's theory (the one that I'm supporting) isn't unorthodox. Neagu Djuvara's theory (the one Borsoka is supporting) also isn't standard by any means, Djuvara has just written a small number of pages regarding a possible origin of Basarab's name, yet Borsoka pushes that theory like an absolute truth.

Note: IP 85.120.207.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is me. This IP is a common IP from a students' dorm. I created an account not because I want to sockpuppet, but becasue I'm new to Wikipedia editing and my account Boyar Bran is the first I've ever done.

I know that my behaviour is also far from ideal, but all I want is to present an academical theory, thanks. Bran (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hilarious. (Just for the record: 1. I placed tags in the article requesting sources to verify that the statements do no represent a marginal/fringe theory. No source has so far been added. 2. I approached two wikiprojects asking comments ([7], [8]). Nobody has so far commented the issue. 3. I requested a third opinion ([9]). It remained unanswered. 4. Paliga does not claim that Basarab's name is of Romanian origin. He claims that Basarab's name is possibly of Daco-Thracian origin, comparing the name of a 13th-century ruler with words from a poorly attested language which died out in the early 7th century at the latest.) Borsoka (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is this report connected to the three other reports above. I have no knowledge of any connection between the four cases. Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to report Boyar Bran for edit warring. Can I do it here or should I start a new report? Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Borsoka is constantly removing my contribution! He didn't wait for the issue to be resolved here in ANI and that's not conforming to the rules. I did not exceed my three reverts per day so I didn't break any rule. Important note: User:Borsoka may be politically biased. Exempt taken from his talk page: "(...)Taking into account that Hungary is located in Central Europe, I could only be a Central European nationalist. :) Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)"[10] Bran (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

1. I did not remove Boyar Bran's contribution: I transformed them into a footnote and explained my edit in a lengthy edit summary ([11]). (I am still convinced the whole text should be deleted, because it presents a fringe theory, but for the sake of compromise, I placed it in a footnote.) 2. Boyar Bran have not exceeded his three reverts per day, but I would like to report him for edit warring. 3. The above quote could hardly be proof of my bias. If the whole context is taken into account, it is even more clear: an editor was for a time convinced that I was a nationalist (form the Balkans), and appoligized for this assumption on my Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you denied being a "Balkan" nationalist, but rather a "Central European" nationalist proves perfectly your bias. Although Romania isn't a Balkan country (but a neighbour); Romania still fits inside the category most "Central European nationalists" groups deem unwanted. Bran (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not want to comment on your remarks. In my reality, I cannot and do not want to understand them. Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

) 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=991670112&oldid=991606496 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 [12] 1 Dec 2020, 4:09am UTC
2. 2 [13] 1 Dec 2020, 6:32am UTC

(page is 1RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:
If Calton is one of the top 1000 WP contributors of all time, doesn't it follow that they should know -- and abide by -- the rules? Their talk page is a litany of reprimands for edit warring, and yet they're allowed to go on unabated. I mean, this person just tried to add Donald Freakin' Trump to a list of "Notable Russophiles"...really??? Stop the POV-pushing...stop the madness! 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Technically not a 1RR violation. If you take a look at the restriction on the page, specifically Template:American politics AE, under "Remedy instructions and exemptions". It states Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. Which in my personal opinion is not great but is what it is. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's still edit warring. Nice Wikilawyering for the bad guy, tho. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • No one here is the bad guy and honestly I do not like that exemption personally or how they are not listed at
      WP:1RR as exemptions. Just is what it is. PackMecEng (talk
      ) 17:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• All of this is so murky. I agree that the IP exemption, if we can call it that, is not great. I also think, Calton, that you should know you have a tendency to skate on thin ice. I think that the IP's edit was not productive and that Calton was right in saying that context matters. On top of that one could argue that BRD should have prevented the IP from reinstating the edit (yeah I know, just an essay). Ha, and while I'm thinking things, I'm thinking that that entire list in Russophilia should be scrapped. It's like a hybrid of a list of beer drinkers--who cares?--and a list of people who like BBQ chips--like? love? can't live without? whose assessment? Drmies (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I honestly DGAF what your opinion of my edit was. We're here to solve the problem of the edit warring engaged in by Calton. That said, I would love to see how you justify the UK Government -- or, y'know, completely unrelated editors pushing a POV that's in lock step with same -- softening their rejection of the rapporteur's findings with an irrelevant, meaningless statement of "support". Go. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I note that the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" made no case and was a complaint about user conduct (that was

) 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not even what

WP:SOAP means, kid. Are you sure you're the person to litter my talk page with warnings, when you don't even know basic WP tenets? 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk

) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a really attitude issue here, but this is not there right noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Use a colon to nest your reply, kid. Like I said, you're really not the right person to interject here. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think a boomerang block is in order, even though this is not ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you should stop making irrelevant comments on this matter. You haven't made a single one yet that was on point. Another experienced "Wikipedian" who doesn't know the rules. Pity. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F8E5:4B59:7519:2850 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

IP editor now blocked for obvious asshattery on this page and others. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Here This Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 95.29.45.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:
Extremely disruptive IP address has been adding fictitious information about newly recorded songs by Gwen Stefani, Dua Lipa, and Madonna for weeks, if not months now. User writes about events that take place in the future and pass it off without adequate sourcing. User has been heavily encouraged to discuss the matter on several talk pages, including Talk:Physical (Dua Lipa song) and on several user talk pages, in addition to being warned dozens of times. User:LOVI33 has attempted to begin talk page discussion on User talk:95.29.45.86 (see [22]), but without success. I irresponsibly reverted their edits on Template:Gwen Stefani too many times without realizing it and I now want no part in undoing this user's edits anymore. Carbrera (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC).

This IP is a sock puppet of User:Zhmailik (it’s really obvious), and has been blocked before for doing the same actions. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This IP has been performing extremely disruptive edits. They have broken the three revert rule numerous times and refuse to engage is

WP:BRD, which I have attempted to start with them on their talk page. They also have deleted warnings and my comments on their talk page, just further proving that they refuse to engage in BRD. I wouldn't necessarily say they are a sock puppet of Zhmailik due to their edits being different, but I would say it is definitely a possibility as they behave the same way. The numerous suck puppets of Zhmailik have performed that exact same way so that is why I am questioning it. Nevertheless, they must be stopped. LOVI33

20:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Mz7 (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: In Praise of Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Explanation:

The Wikipedia article is about a controversial book about a delicate subject: the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. However, the creator and editor Buidhe gives undue weight to layman's views about the book and dowplays the information from specialized peer reviewed research. As a result the article contained errors copied from reviews. It turns out that Buidhe has not read the book and several of the sources he cites in the article, and he misunderstood some of the sources he did read. Because I have read the book and the related literature as well as the reviews I was able to help out. I added useful, reliable information and removed mistakes and controversial statements. But Buidhe didn't respond well to my edits and kept reverting them. Multiple attempts to start a dialogue on the Talk page in order to explain the edits and their background failed. I have come to the conclusion that Buidhe has some strong opinions about the book without having read and understood it and he therefore prefers not to cooperate with others.

One of the examples that have remained unresolved because of the reverts is my edit which adds the conclusion by two scholars in a specialized peer reviewed journal. It discusses one of the theories that are central to the book. Buidhe disagrees with those scholars but first it became clear that he had not understood whether my edit referred to the book or to the journal article or to my own opinion. After he learned that my edit was almost literally taken from the journal article he starting debating the peer review process in general and the experts research results in particular but without making sense. Another example is the selection and the number of quotes. Buidhe selects expert quotes that appear to support the thesis of the book while in reality these experts are very critical. In addition, Buidhe wants each and every layman's opinion to be quoted in the article even though they all say more or less the same things. This is because the book is their only reference to the subject and including all of them overly represents an uninformed minority view. Other issues are about understanding the content of the book and the reviews. It would take too long to specify them all here. I'll just refer to the Talk page for explanations about my edits and the unfruitful discussions about the reverts. The Diffs: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28][29] [30] [31] [32] I ended up drawing a line at one point and have suggested to Buidhe not to edit any further without a concensus on the Talk page. Saflieni (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• The specific text in the article that is a BLP violation is "On Rever's "infiltrations"-theory, that the RPF was pulling the strings of every organization". (bold added) This is an extraordinary claim, so I repeatedly asked Saflieni to quote from the book where Rever says it. They refuse to do so, and even admit that Rever never said it in the book. Therefore, it is a BLP violation. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• It is not true that I reverted all their edits. As I stated on talk, "your additions about Bert Ingelaere and Marijke Verpoorten, Colette Braeckman, the 2019 letter in Le Soir, etc." were all retained, I never tried to expunge them. (t · c) buidhe 16:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It takes some brass neck to make four reverts in 24 hours at 22:00, 27 November 2020, 06:53, 28 November 2020, 07:38, 28 November 2020 and 13:24, 28 November 2020, then come here are file a report about the other person... FDW777 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A friend of Buidhe I presume? Read my complaint first and then look at the history of the reverts please before bullying me here. This is not the Talk page of the article, but regarding the first point: I have explained that this is how the two scholars summarize the issue. Since Buidhe hasn't read the book he's not in a position to comment on whether their assessment is correct or not. And please do not confuse matters by referring to a few exceptions. I request Buidhe to stick to his own complaint and stop editing mine. Saflieni (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I have checked Rever's book again about her infiltrations-theory which is an essential part of her claim that the RPF rather than the Hutu extremists planned, sparked and (partially) executed the genocide against the Tutsi ("The RPF strategy to achieve power in Rwanda had three objectives: to infiltrate, instigate and obfuscate.") Rever suggests a general infiltration of the Rwandan population by its members (a fifth column) and more specifically of the Hutu political parties, all four Hutu militia and the government army, to "stoke extremist sentiment among the Hutu militias and parties they infiltrated." For the post-genocide period Rever claims that the RPF infiltrated the ICTR, the UN and other international insitutions, the Special Investigations Unit, the French judicial inquiry, the UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations, and so on. The summary in the Hintjens & van Oijen article covers this theme accurately. There's no reason to revert and keep reverting my edits on this and other aspects of the book ten times in the space of two weeks. Saflieni (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

If you can back it up with quotes from the book, I don't object to adding a factual list of organizations that Rever claims were "infiltrated", but this is about the content of the book (what it objectively said) rather than the reception. And as you admit, the book did not actually say that "every organization" was "infiltrated". (t · c) buidhe 00:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion here is about you reverting my edits ten times in a row based on absurd considerations such as "Does Rever actually state that the RPF control NATO or the Seattle City Council?." You are just being obstructive for the sake of it. Or maybe you don't understand the concept of using examples to present a theory. The journal article I cite comments on that theory. Now stop using this page as if it's the Talk page. Saflieni (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not blocked. See above: it seems only fair that the other editor would also file a report here. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you Drmies. Could you please explain to me something? Each time I edited the article my edits were reverted before discussing it on the Talk page. After this happened a number of times I decided to freeze the article to get a third opinion, which Buidhe rejected and I thought didn't solve the problem. However, the outcome was for both of us to stop editing the article. My attempts to work it out in a dialogue failed because of a lack of cooperation. Buidhe then continued to push his version, reverting my edits again, so I restored the article to the point of the 'third opinion freeze' until an agreement could be reached on the Talk page. How is that edit warring? Now we are here and again there's no solution. I find Buidhe's behavior intimidating and intended to frustrate other editors to the point they give up and disappear. And since you've read the Talk page you must have noticed the other part of the problem: someone working on an article without having read and/or understood the sources who is nevertheless unwilling to cooperate with others who are better informed. Isn't such an attitude a recepy for disaster? Saflieni (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Please don't ask me to explain your opponent's conduct; I can't. If you wish to claim that your opponent is unqualified, you'll have to make that case, succinctly, on ANI--but I don't know how successful that would be. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
      • That was not my question, Drmies. My question was twofold. One: Why do you consider my freezing the article at the point of the third opinion while trying to reach an agreement with Buidhe on the Talk page 'edit warring'? Two: Why is deliberately and repeatedly frustrating other editors acceptable behaviour? Not a question but to address your remark: Buidhe has informed us on the Talk page of the article that he didn't read the book and that he didn't read several of the sources he cites. He is just guessing based on (mainly) layman's reviews that are full of errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Drmies: Please note that Buidhe has restarted reverting my edits, now aided by someone else, and me restoring them. Please answer my question which I asked before: Why do you consider my freezing the article at the point of the third opinion while trying to reach an agreement on the Talk page 'edit warring'? Their method seems to be to wear me down so I give up and they can continue as they see fit. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• User:Saflieni, "aided by someone else" is a serious accusation. If you are really asking why I consider your behavior to be edit warring, then I don't think you know what edit warring is. In fact, looking at the recent history, where you make no fewer than five reverts of that "someone else" without even explaining why, I think it is clear that you are in fact edit warring, and if I had had finished my coffee I'd block you for it. EdJohnston, would you be so kind as to look over that history to see if I am way off the mark? Saflieni, in an edit war the worst thing you can do is continue edit warring--without edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Drmies, you are wrong. I've invited that editor to the Talk page and have explained the reverts there in detail. Be fair, please, You still haven't answered my question which I have asked three times, If you can't explain it to me, how am I supposed to know how to proceed and such a situation? Thank you. Some of my edits have been reverted 12 times in a row now, plus by the new editor who joined the show. What about that? Saflieni (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You come to a board where you want administrators to act, and then you tell the administrator that they're wrong. Nice! When you are in a hole, stop digging: you are edit warring, plain and simple. That the others are edit warring too doesn't make you right. As for your "question", you can ask it until the sun goes down. How you are supposed to proceed? You could stop edit warring and point out, as I did on the talk page, that at least some of HouseofChange's edits are wrong--if you do NOT understand how reverting without an explanation is prima facie disruptive in the middle of an edit war, you may not be competent enough in working in a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI: I was referring to the points where the warring started (not by me, if you've paid attention) and the point of the impasse at the third opinion, which is where we still are. How to proceed from there? So you are telling me now: let the bullies do their thing and get out of the way. Thanks for that enlightening advice. I will. Saflieni (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Since reverting by both sides continued after User:Drmies' original closure, I've put In Praise of Blood under a week of full protection. As Drmies noted, both sides have been edit warring. I hope that Saflieni and Buidhe have both read the advice at WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If you read the Talk page discussion from beginning to end you'll find that advice to be pretty useless. My "edit warring" as you call it was an attempt to freeze the page to prevent the ongoing 'mechanical' reverts of my edits, as I've tried to explain in vain. You can freeze it yourself now for a week but it won't change a thing. Saflieni (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Page:

)

User being reported: Anony20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "
   WP:VANDAL
   "
2. 16:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC) "WP:VANDAL"
3. 08:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted image removal by HA; Reason quoted by them for removal was already discussed. Request to let admin decide it and till then no further vandalism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [33] on 17 october 2020, this was stable version.
2. [34] from 26 November 2020, there has been continuous attempt to add this image by Anony20, which was reverted by me and
   talk
   ) 07:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
3. [35], he has been warned by admin post closure of
   talk
   ) 07:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
4. [36] this comment represents that he has
   talk
   ) 07:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I honestly have no idea what is going on. The article's

Heba Aisha's talk page, and there's probably way more to this. They've been warring for the past few days, and Anony20 has received an arbitration warning from a request that closed just this morning, which was since violated. SWinxy (talk

) 04:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There were repeated image vandalism on the page by user Heba Aisha. Request you to respect the consensus on

WP:RFCAnony20 (talk

) 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes

talk

) 06:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Anony20

Have a look at the RFC[37], and don't mislead pls.Anony20 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to resolve this with discussion[38] but the vandalism didn't stopped there. Discussed it on a new thread by HA[39] and on page protection page(see Bihari Rajput)[40]. Even after the RFC request, other editors don't have a problem with the updated image[41], then HA is showing her biased nature towards the community by using terms like "Illiterate", "Poor", to somehow revert my edit. HA even mislead the admins of wikicommons that my image is a duplicate and nominated it for speedy-deletion which was rejected there. This kind of selectively targeting and showing ownership to a page is not acceptable.Anony20 (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding my invitation to discuss and post vandalism warning issued to Heba:

1. Page talk page[42]
2. Vandalism warning[43]
3. Vandalism warning[44]
4. Vandalism warning[45]
5. If Heba was concerned with the image in a good faith, she wouldn't have removed the image before
   WP:RFC(see the timing[46] and [47]
   )
6. Other's opinion in
   WP:RFC[48]

1. Apart from these there were mischievous attempts by Heba to get my upload deleted anyhow from wikicommons.

Anony20 (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Heba Aisha I m not making comments as he is not aware of policies and donot want to read it .

talk

) 07:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days for personal attacks by User:Bishonen. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

User:MrOllie

(Result: Blocked)

Page: Blacklisting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Keving.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "Removed a duplicate article citation and revised language to include "explicitly" and "implicitly"."
2. 22:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 991987428 by MarkH21 (talk). This is a neutral and well-cited sub-article. It includes both sides of the argument as well as citations from sources Wikipedia recognizes as authoritative, such as Politico and the Independent."
3. 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "Numerous neutral sources have reported this as a "blacklist". I want to clarify that I am a trained historian and history teacher. I have included a tweet as it serves as a relevant primary source."
4. 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "Restored suspected vandalism by MarkH21 (talk) This is a legitimate and neutral inclusion into the topic of blacklisting. A suggested revision might be warranted, but simply deleting this inclusion is inappropriate. It is neutral in that it introduces potential blacklisting and then leaves it open for debate as to whether it qualifies. Sources across the political spectrum are also utilized."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:

Their response to being directed to the talk page was to blank the talk page section and then revert again.

MrOllie (talk

) 22:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• What is going on? I have included a short article on blacklisting with authoritative sources, neutral tone, and neutral content, and Wikipedians are coming out of the woodswork to prevent this submission. Instead of talking first or even revising my contribution, two individuals have just deleted my sub-article every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keving.91 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • By Instead of talking first, you seem to be ignoring all of the attempts to discuss / point you to the talk page (all of which you attempted to delete):
    • Article talk page posts:
      1. Diff
      2. Diff
    • Article edit summaries:
      1. Diff: Feel free to open a discussion at the talk page if you have other reliable sources on this.
      2. Diff: Again, the talk page is there if you have reliable sources and want to introduce contested content.
      3. Diff: See
         WP:BRD
         and work it out on the talk page
    • Messages on your talk page:
      1. Diff: The edit summary for the deletion of that section explicitly gave the reason as [...] Also, remember to follow
         WP:ONUS
         and use the talk pages if necessary. Thanks!
      2. Diff: [...] You have continued to revert and have ignored repeated requests to discuss on the talk page.
    • Message on my talk page:
      1. Diff: Please take a look at the comments at Talk:Blacklisting#Tweets about the 2020 US Presidential Election and discuss it there [...]

You still haven't posted at Talk:Blacklisting#Tweets about the 2020 US Presidential Election and have instead tried to delete the talk page section while continuing to revert. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. User:Keving.91 also removed others' comments from the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Reiner Gavriel reported by User:Akylas7 (Result: No violation)

If this needs to continue it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Ingush people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reiner Gavriel (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] [51]
2. [diff] [52]
3. [diff] [53]
4. [diff] [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [56]

Comments: User Reiner Gavriel does not seek consenus, and is creating a hostile article.

--Akylas7 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The user Akylas has been banned from editing that page prior with several sockpoppets. Now he claims that I am hostile, despite him threatening me in his native language ("Sun xov x'o mal va" translates to "I know who you are"). After realizing that he has no access to edit the Ingush people page, Akylas went and randomly removed the Chechen name for the Darial gorge and started adding random unproven myths to the Chechen people page. --Reiner Gavriel (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It is possible that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi/Archive may be related to this case. User:Reiner Gavriel did have a previous account called User:Zandxo but his new account is legitimate. Refer to this ANI from last August. The person who opened this AN3 complaint is Akylas7. If it is determined that User:Akylas7 is really a sock of User:Dzurdzuketi he will most likely be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

² Hello, as you can see, other users commented on User:Reiner Gavriel behavior on the Ingush people article. I have not edited the article. In the edit history you can see that Reiner Gavriel engaged in edit wars with multiple users. Plus in the talk page he stated that he is someone else, and does not know the language, now he claims that he does know the language and falsely states that someone is threatening him. When NO threats have been made, except for a request to stop engaging in edit wars because of his personal feelings towards the Ingush nation. Please look into this. I am not interested in editing that article myself, just want to see fair treatment of a Wikipedia page Thank you. --Akylas7 (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• No violation – The diffs you provided are from 10th August, and don't show any current violation. (The party that Reiner was reverting back then was a sock). I hope that all parties will get agreement on the talk page before making any more controversial changes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston is there any way to find out if @Akylas7 is indeed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi/Archive? Akylas7 is constantly referring to things I (may) have said in my conversation with Dzurdzuketi/his sockpuppets, both of them are Ingush residing in the same European country (please correct me if this is information I am not allowed to refer) and both are editing the same articles. Akylas7 has been also threatening towards me ("I know who you are") and vandalized 2 Chechen-related pages. Thank you. --Reiner Gavriel (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think you have evidence, go to

WP:SPI, click on 'How to open an investigation', then put 'Dzurdzuketi' into the box which appears. This will allow you to continue the prior report with your new information. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --Reiner Gavriel (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. Though I would like to point out, that every single user who does not agree with Reiner Gavriel is being accused of socketpuppetry by him. There is no monopoly on editing a Wikipedia article. Like I said, I am only interested in fair treatment of Wikepedia articles. Also see the edit history of this page to see where Reiner Gavriel violated the 3RR (three-revert rule): [57] [58] [59] [60]

Kind regards --Akylas7 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If I understood the three-revert rule properly, this does not fall under it, unlike these edits by you [61], [62],[63] You are interested in fair treatment on Wikipedia articles yet you try to hide historical facts due to you simply not liking them and you vandalize pages like the Chechen peoples page (referring to the links I posted). --Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Reiner Gavriel It was pointed out by other neutral users, see here [[64]] that your edits bring up conflict. This is not only my opinion. --Akylas7 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Akylas7 reported by User:Reiner Gavriel (Result: Blocked for socking)

Page: Chechens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Akylas7 (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. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [69]

Comments:
User Akylas7 threatened me in his native language ("Sun xov x'o mal va" translates to "I know who you are"). He also vandalized other pages as an act of revenge.

--ReinerGavriel (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I indef'd for socking. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Tariq afflaq reported by User:Teishin (Result: Blocked)

Page: Zeno of Citium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Tariq afflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]
5. [75]

Tariq afflaq is reverting both PopulationGeneticsLevant and me.

Those are all from 1 December. There's also this from 26 November, very probably one while not logged in, which PopulationGeneticsLevant reverted, asking that the issue be taken to the Talk page.

1. [76]

Tariq afflaq is currently engaged in similar edit wars on several other pages, all regarding the same ethnicity claims.

On Porphyry_(philosopher)

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

Tariq afflaq is reverting just me here.

On

Mavia (queen)

1. [80]

Tariq afflaq was reverted by Julia Domna Ba'al here.

On Joseph Safra

1. [81]

Tariq afflaq is reverting Warshy here.

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

1. PopulationGeneticsLevant warned at [82] "This is becoming vandalism. Next we go to administration board."
2. I warned them on the Talk page that administrative action would be resorted to at [83].

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

Efforts to reason with Tariq afflaq have been made at:

1. Talk:Zeno_of_Citium#Syrian_Zeno?
2. Talk:Porphyry_(philosopher)#Ethnicity

Comments:

Teishin (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. A campaign of adding claims of Syrian nationality or Syrian origin to articles. No evidence of waiting for consensus anywhere. His changes at Zeno of Citium (founder of the Stoics) have been reverted five times by others. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

He is back, circumventing the block with an IP account.PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, Tariq afflaq immediately came back as 2001:8F8:1E23:2F47:19F7:F363:6C4B:C710 reverting edits with the same claims as Tariq afflaq on three (so far) of the pages identified above.

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]

Teishin (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

IP's Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1E23:2F47::/64 range now blocked for a month; User:Tariq afflaq is now indeffed for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

User:ImTheIP reported by User:11Fox11 (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]
4. [91]
5. [92]
6. [93]
7. [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: gave BLP alert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:
On 19-20 September ImTheIP made huge changes to the article. This included changing the established citation style ([96]) and extensive use of non-reliable sources ([97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]). The most egregious of these is this diff in which a blog hosted on

WP:RSP. ImTheIP's attitude on the talk page has been confrontational from the start. 11Fox11 (talk

) 06:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I filed a request for a third opinion on the other noticeboard, I guess that is not needed anymore. :)

Indeed, I reworked the article which was in a sorry state. A conflict began on November 25 when User:Worlduse deleted a large amount of content they were unhappy with. A quick look on their Worlduse contributions page told me why. 11Fox11 intervened on November 27 and restored the version preferred by Worlduse. I reverted and asked them to explain themselves on the talk page. They re-reverted but no explanation was forthcoming.

A brand new user, Mirk Wolf, got involved and deleted even more content they found objectionabe. 11Fox11 now began reverting to Mirk Wolf's version. I've been here long enough to know about

WP:COI

and I find it odd that 11Fox11 would revert to a version preferred by user with so few edits.

Of the 7 reverts 11Fox11 listed, four ([103], [104], [105], [106]) are ARBPIA reverts. 11Fox11 reverted themselves four times.

I urged 11Fox11 a number of times, both in edit messages ([107], [108]) and on the talk page, to explain what parts of the article they were dissatisfied with so that we could address their concerns. No explanation was forthcoming. I even asked them I wonder if you are attempting to goad me into reverting one to many times to be able to file a complaint? They didn't answer. About 24 hours later I reverted and they almost instantly re-reverted and filed this complaint.

Now they link to a number of diffs they claim are BLP-violations. If they thought so why didn't they bring those diffs to my attention before? The diff they find "most egregious" is since November 28 sourced to a book by Ali Abunimah. The Olive Tree Initiative section is since November 2 sourced to an article in the Journal of Palestine Studies. 11Fox11 must have missed that. The other diffs 11Fox11 lists are about the AMCHA Initiative itself and can't be BLP-violations.

I'd like to ask you 11Fox11 why didn't you bring this up before? As I wrote on the talk page, your revert was massive and I'm not a mind reader. It both deleted a large number of unrelated edits I made and reinstated content authored by a non-ARBPIA compliant user. Had you told me what your complaints were we could have addressed them. ImTheIP (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted to the status quo ante version. During this dispute ImTheIP continued inserting questionable content and changing the citation style from the established ref style to sfns. I noticed ImTheIP added a book authored by Ali Abunimah, who is the founder of Electronic Intifada, and published in a non-reliable outfit as a second citation to the Electronic Intifada blog. Having two unreliable Electronic Intifiada sources does not repair the BLP issue. The use of non-reliable sources, in this paragraph and elsewhere, was explicitly stated. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It took you three days to reply to my comment on the AMCHA Initiative's talk page I wrote on November 28 but only eleven minutes to reply to my comment above. Your newfound eagerness for debate is refreshing but you didn't answer my question: why didn't you bring this up before?

You reverted to Worlduse's and Mirk Wolf's versions. Those were not status quo ante versions as the editors inserted their own preferred content.

Abunimah's book is published by

WP:RS

(there is also a YouTube video of Rossman-Benjamin). And regardless, how was I supposed to know that was what you were objecting to when you weren't telling me?

Much of what you, Worlduse, and Mirk Wolf, reverted were part of my cleanup job of that very crufty article. Yes, I changed ref to sfn. You are the first person I've met on Wikipedia who complain about that; virtually everyone seem to think that sfn is superior.

I admit that you have some valid points, but they weren't made in your edit messages nor on the article's talk page. ImTheIP (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm a

Third Opinion volunteer. The 3O request has been removed since the filing editor has said, above, that it is no longer needed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 17:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Whilst Electronic Intifada is indeed not RSP, and removing anything BLP-related that is sourced to EI would generally be a correct thing to do, I would find this report more worthy of action if (a) both parties were not involved in edit-warring, and (b) the reverts made by the filing editor did not also remove large chunks of what appears to be reliably sourced material. Also, the status quo ante version is the 20 September version of the article before Worlduse started removing content; the correct thing for 11Fox11 to do would have been to revert to that version minus any BLP violating material. The rest should have been discussed on the talkpage. Also, Worlduse and Mirk Wolf's edits should have been reverted anyway, as they violated the 30/500 ARBPIA rule. I would be interested in the comments of other administrators. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  Whilst this was going on, ImTheIP added yet more unreliable sources. On 29th November they added a self-published AuthorHouse source to somehow tie the name to the Holocaust. They also changed the citation style, converting a large number of references from ref tags to harvnb tags on 28-29 November. The instances of Electronic Intifada were far from the only issue. 11Fox11 (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps in the same genre it should be noted that you added a 1,300 character long copy-paste from the AMCHA Initiative's own website? That Amcha was a code word used by European Jews in the aftermath of the Holocaust is well-known. Yes, it was perhaps sloppy of me to use a self-published book (it was the first I found on Google), but it was hardly a BLP-violation.

You write that "The instances of Electronic Intifada were far from the only issue." But why didn't you bring it up on the talk page?! I asked you time and again to explain yourself. I even wrote I wonder if you are attempting to goad me into reverting one to many times to be able to file a complaint? but you didn't answer. ImTheIP (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You just made a false edit summary in a revert of a mass of material. Much of that material has nothing to do with

WP:BLP.Nishidani (talk

) 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:ImTheIP and User:11Fox11 are warned for edit warring. Only the removal of BLP-sensitive items should be excused under the policy. When people make mass reverts, the non-BLP changes should be counted against the 1RR and lead to blocks if necessary. If you guys are sincere about BLP, it shouldn't be too much trouble to confine your reverts to the BLP-related items. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

User:86.6.148.125 reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Black Book of Communism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.6.148.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [110]
2. [111]
3. [112]
4. [113](This last link is a revert to this version)
5. these consecutive edits revert to

this version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion shown here

Comments:

I don't normally bother with IP users, but this one seems unusually determined. All the above links are reverts, though the user sometimes made small changes before removal, so each time reverts back to a slightly different version. The Talk discussion suggests a desire to push a

WP:POV. Newimpartial (talk

) 17:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Kevo327 reported by User:185.120.124.31 (Result: Page protected)

Page: March Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)
User being reported: Kevo327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [115]
2. [116]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_Days&diff=992188161&oldid=992187742
4. [117]
5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian%E2%80%93Jewish_relations&diff=992185841&oldid=992185622}
6. [118]
7. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Days&diff=992192783&oldid=992188601[

I have tried to reach a consensus on the talk pages for these articles but the user is actually deleting the discussions on the talk pages as well.

185.120.124.31 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• comment : the vandalism-only IP adress above provides sources that are not
  WP:NPOV that don't warrant a discussion. taunts me about real life events (check his talk page) and is currently reported for vandalism. - Kevo327 (talk
  ) 00:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• comment: The fact that you reported me for vandalism for edits that are clearly not vandalism is immaterial. Several editors had a discussion on the March Days page and agreed that the sources for the Dashnak massacre of Jews were more than sufficient. You went against
  WP:CONSENSUS by removing them. I will add that you engaged in open antisemitism when you referred to my edits as 'jewish propaganda' here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_Days&diff=988169630&oldid=987824943

185.120.124.31 (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

no consensus was reached, and you faked the source by changing its quote (please check the quote of the Michael smith article in the following diffs)

stable revision right before you edited: [119]

quote changed by you: [120] - Kevo327 (talk)

• comment It does appear the Michael Smith source was misrepresented. I removed it from the Armenian Jewish relations page. In turn, I have provided several other academic sources that document the massacre of Jews in Quba, including Isgendereli and Mustafaev. Were you editing constructively, we could have discussed this on the talk page. Given that you add the journals of armenian nationalists and war criminals as sources to these pages, it seems your standards are different for information that is unfavorable to Armenia.

185.120.124.31 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

misinterpreted? I gave proof that you vandalised a source and you call it a misinterpretation? I discussed my reasons on the talk page of the

Armenian-Jewish relations (and i had given my reasons before that you didn't answer on). And you prove my point of you not assuming good faith right here and now. Calling names left and right, labeling people as war criminals just because you don't like them. (Signing off for today) - Kevo327 (talk

) 01:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• comment Mis-rep-re-sen-ted. When I began editing the page, the source was quoted incorrectly. Good catch! Regardless, there are several other academic sources that do describe a massacre of Jews in Quba and you have been systemically removing them from these pages and calling them vandalism.

185.120.124.31 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Uninvolved user comment: from checking the page history over at March Days, I can confirm that both the reported user and the reporting user have both broken 3RR. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

[121], [122], [123], [124] are the reporting users reverts, the reported users reverts are above. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CuriousGolden

(Result: No action)

Page: Lachin corridor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990173346 by Solavirum (talk) insert "unrecognised""
2. 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990045978 by
   talk
   ) restore state that does not involve the use of a politico-geographic term that is ambiguous (i.e. could refer to multiple different entities in the general area over history from Khanates to NKAO).)."
3. 12:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Eliminate N-K altogether which is ambiguous."
4. 12:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990035761 by
   talk
   ) N-K has meant many things over the years. It could be taken to mean the entire territory in dispute, in which case, it's not an enclave but actually adjacent. Await further clarification please."
5. 11:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "it is too early to say that N-K is an enclave. It's status has yet to be clarified."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lachin corridor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

De-archived: still looking for help. Last report copy-pasted below. —

(T·C)

14:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The user reverts edits he doesn't like without a proper reason and their edits on all articles relating to

14:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Since the archived report, the user has continued their

(T·C)

14:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To my opinion, this is not only editwarring but also POV-pushing, based on the given links. The Banner talk 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm also seeing lots of POV-pushing, and in general, unconstructive edits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged hasn't edited Lachin corridor since 23rd of November. Is there any reason why this report needs further consideration? Do you think their edits regarding place names break any policy? There is a talk thread at Talk:Fuzuli (city)#Varanda but I'm not clear if there is any problem there. If necessary somebody could open an RfC about Varanda. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action taken. In my personal opinion the edits by
  WP:ARBAA2 discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 16:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Spider-Man (2017 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aaa11769 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */Again, you got it backwards. He never said it was his opinion. He outright confirms that the three seasons of GotG has an effect on Maximum Venom, and again, the only way for that anything that happened in seasons 1-3 of GotG, is for them to be set in the same continuity."
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC) to 10:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */I am not "making up my own theories," you got it backwards. Cort Lane never said it was his opinion. And again, it doesn't matter if it's not verified, it is still them, but that doesn't matter, since I'm not putting those as sources."
   2. 10:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC) to 09:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */Again, what do you think that means. The only way for the seeds that was set in three seasons of Guardians to have any affect in Maximum Venom is for them to be set in the same universe. Why would he say three seasons if they aren't in continuity? And they never said it was only their opinion, it was stated as fact. Harrison Wilcox was asked a similar question on Twitter, and he said that Guardians is one continuity, set in the same universe as Marvel's Spider-Man and Black Pa..."
   2. 09:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */And again the creator of this series was no longer involved with this series when this was all stated. He was very well misinformed."
4. 07:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */I want to apologise if I was being rude before, I'm sorry, that is not how I want to seem. In response to what you said, I refer to my previous statement. And on the creator thing, again, he hasn't been involved with the show since before season 2, and was most likely unaware of what Lane and Wilcox said."
5. Consecutive edits made from 06:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) to 06:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 06:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */I refer to my previous statement, you just refuse to accept it. And I already went to an admin on the matter."
   2. 06:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */Also why did you bring up the Twitter account again, I didn't even leave a link to it. But, again, just because it's not verified, doesn't mean its not him."
6. 06:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */I'm not leaving links to that account, but just because it's not verified, doesn't mean its not him. And what do you think "we planted the seeds in two seasons of Marvel's Spider-Man and three seasons of Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy" means, he is stating that the events from three seasons of GotG has an effect in Maximum Venom, and the only way for that, is for them to exist in the same universe."
7. Consecutive edits made from 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) to 19:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */That post is 5 years old and outdated, the same person outright confirms the opposite in the new one, and even further confirmed it on Twitter."
   2. 19:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
   3. 19:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
   4. 19:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
   5. 19:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
8. Consecutive edits made from 07:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC) to 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 07:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */Please do not remove information that is sourced."
   2. 07:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Continuity */"
   3. 08:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Development */"
   4. 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Spider Team */As of season 2, this is Miles' official Spider name."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Way more than 3 reverts, might be a

) 16:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I warned both of these on talk earlier this morning and started a talk discussion for them at

WP:NOTHERE at my glance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Yeah as I said "might" since one of them most of their cont. were on the article rv. I don't think blocking them since they are new, but giving firm warning. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, they already had a warning msg on usertalk (from me), and haven't made any edits to the article since. An admin giving them another warning for the conduct they've already been warned for and stopped doing is just BITEy. They're doing it the right way now, so no action is needed at all imo (other than people weighing in on the dispute on article talk) unless one of them does something problematic in the future. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Yeah, it feels BITEy now to me, so I guess I'll withdrawal for now unless they again. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 19:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: This complaint has been withdrawn by the submitter User:The4lines. Report again if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Page:

)

User being reported: RayanS93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is again changing logo size(s) and edit warring for which they were blocked previously. Also making unexplained changes to pages. David J Johnson (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: It appears RayanS93 has been indefinitely blocked elsewhere for personal attacks against the filer. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [126]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [127]
2. [128]
3. [129]
4. [130]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [132] and [133]

Comments:
Diffs #3 and #4 are not restoring the previous version it its entirety, but restoring the entry for IWI Tavor X95 which was present in diffs #1 and #2. I have tried repeatedly to engage with this editor at

) 07:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Also, the edit filter reports that this person uses bad sources. Makes incorrect charges of vandalism on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]
4. [137]

Comments:

This newly created account has started his editing activity by attempting to Bulgarify articles through a mix of

) 14:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. Edit warring and personal attacks. Trying to connect article topics to Bulgaria using folklore or ancient primary sources rather than scholarship. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: List of 2020–21 NBA season transactions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Pifas225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992295530 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
2. 15:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992293805 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
3. 14:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992289894 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
4. 14:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992289466 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
5. 14:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992287522 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
6. 14:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992284980 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 13:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC) to 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992281553 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
   2. 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992282463 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
8. Consecutive edits made from 13:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC) to 13:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992279949 by Donnowin1 (talk)STOP VANDALISING"
   2. 13:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992269678 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
9. Consecutive edits made from 13:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC) to 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992271598 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
   2. 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992271700 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
10. 12:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992271143 by Donnowin1 (talk)STOP IT"
11. 11:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992269776 by Donnowin1 (talk)"
12. 19:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Free agents */ Please DO NOT Delete my work again"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of 2020–21 NBA season transactions."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seemingly a content dispute, no discussion on talk for this particular point as far as I can see. Has persisted beyond 3RR warning. Issue may well apply to User:Donnowin1 as well, although they haven't edited since the warning. See article history. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like they were edit warring with another editor yesterday, and can't be bothered to respond to attempts to discuss User_talk:Pifas225#NBA_free_agents. Probably a case of Wikipedia:Communication is required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. In part, this seems to be a dispute about how to color the page to show the status of various transactions. User did not respond to the complaints on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Saint Michael in the Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:646:C100:1CF0:2038:2F5A:C729:A76C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Role and mission */"
2. 19:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Role and mission */"
3. 19:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Cultus */"
4. 19:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Cultus */"
5. 19:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Angels and archangels */"
6. 19:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Prayer to Saint Michael */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Saint Michael in the Catholic Church."
2. 20:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Saint Michael in the Catholic Church."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clearly disruptive/vandalism, constant reversions. Nithin^talk 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – IP's /64 range blocked one month by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Anti-racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1003:B44B:1F6F:147E:ED2E:CA2B:5B9F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Adds roughly the same thing despite bering reverted 3 times, and was warned for warring on the talk page, but continued reverting.

) 20:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Liz. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: various

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: different discussions at the talk page

Comments:
The editor most probably was aware due to prolonged editing of the article or at least was notified that the article is under 1RR sanction. The reverts were in good faith, but all other editors including myself are avoiding to make more than one revert, which is good in itself because there exist different disputes regarding article's structure and content. Maybe a block is not needed, but a good admin's warning would be welcome.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It's unclear that it's actually a 1RR violation. I will leave a note for Acousmana anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Kayastha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Anamika Pandit 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "those sources are not allowed on wikipedia."
2. 17:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "ms. heba aisha, opinions of Raj era ethnographers are not allowed on wikipedia on caste. Quoting zoologists from 1800 on caste is also not allowed. you also delete it from Bhumihar page or I will on unlock. what is your problem with Bhumihar. Bhumihar are Brahman not shudra. correct your mistake miss."
3. 06:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Varna status */ms. heba aisha, opinions of Raj era ethnographers are not allowed on wikipedia on caste. Quoting zoologists from 1800 on caste is also not allowed. you also delete it from Bhumihar page or I will on unlock. what is your problem with Bhumihar. Bhumihar are Brahman not shudra. correct your mistake miss."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

3RR broken over content dispute involving insufficiently justified removal of sourced content. Giraffer ^munch 17:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Block Heba aisha who is calling all the Hindu castes shudra including Bhumihar. Bhumihar are Brahman not shudra. Block her. She is warring with everyone on all pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anamika Pandit 1999 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Heba Aisha

The user lack the understanding of

policy. All sources used are independent third party sources from high quality publisher.(Basically she removed sourced content to justify her personal opinion) Take a look:

) 18:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: The user appears to be confused about Wikipedia's sourcing policy. I've imposed
  EC protection due to this being a caste article and suffering disruption from inexperienced people. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Occupational burnout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992395672 by Iss246 (talk) Not balanced at all."
2. 01:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992395307 by Iss246 (talk)"
3. 01:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992393683 by Iss246 (talk) Can you discuss this with me and we come to a mutually agreed wording Iss246?"
4. 01:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992390358 by Iss246 (talk) That is not a balanced paragraph. Why won't you just work out the wording on the talk page with me?"
5. 00:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992388644 by Iss246 (talk)"
6. 00:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992384943 by Iss246 (talk) Can we work out the wording together on the talk page Iss246?"
7. 00:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992384181 by Iss246 (talk) Can we work this out together Iss246 on the talk page before we settle on wording?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [143]

Comments:

• While both editors broke the 3rr rule (many times over), only Coastalalerts continued to edit war after being warned. M.Bitton (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like both Iss246 and Coastalalerts were warned of edit warring on this article. So why have you only reported Coastalalerts and not Iss246 who also continued to edit war after they were warned? I warned Iss246 they were edit warring and they reverted my edit was well. Seems pretty ordinary to me. Also Iss246 has been blocked a few times before after looking through their history. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

who also continued to edit war after they were warned? Can you substantiate this with diffs? M.Bitton (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I warned Iss246 at 01:39 UTC and their last reversion to the article in question was at 01:38. So they did stop edit warring after the warning. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Iss246 was warned by me for edit warring and reverted straight away. They also were both warned 2 weeks ago it looks like. Iss246 has been blocked a few times before so to say they were not warned and can justify so very many reverts is ridiculous. They both should be disciplined and if one has been blocked a few times before like Iss246 has they should be given a long ban as they continue to edit war even after being blocked. I will put their reverts on here as diffs. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Iss246 only stopped after I reported them at the Administrator's Noticeboard, not your warning so much. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Coastalerts is blocked 3 days (This is their first block, but they were adequately warned about 3RR in November). User:Iss246 is blocked two weeks (a long-time editor, previously blocked for as long as a week, they seem to not be giving their full attention to our policies). EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @EdJohnston: I could be mistaken, but Coastalalerts doesn't appear to have been blocked. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Now done. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk)

Looking at the article again it seems a further editor Ohpres was also actively involved in this edit war between Iss246 and Coastalalerts. As soon as Iss246 and Coastalalerts were blocked, Ohpres restored the article to their version that Iss246 was arguing for [144]. I reverted this change and restored the article to where it was before the fracas and hopefully editors can now create a consensus moving forward. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Care Bears: Unlock the Magic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992667040 by
   WP:DE
   "
2. 23:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992570219 by TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk) Did you know that I haven't long in to the app?!"
3. 23:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992423371 by TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk) That means nothing"
4. 20:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992226845 by TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk) That is unsourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Care Bears: Unlock the Magic."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An edit war has been going on mainly between BaldiBasicsFan and TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 over the episode listings and the sourcing of the episode listings. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 16:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

One of the disputing editors, TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 72 hours for failure to communicate. Will that allow this complaint to be closed? User:BaldiBasicsFan is reverting to insist the the show is continuing, while the point made by others is that nobody knows yet. Conceivably the producers themselves have not decided. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, the source

WP:OR. BaldiBasicsFan (talk

) 21:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

DeadRat did provide a source, being the streaming platform, which would have been fine if there was a date on there. However, Baldi is correct because it is

WP:SYNTH because they just assumed a date. The service, which I have does not explicitly state the date the episodes were released. Thus guessing a date is assuming which is SYNTH/OR. The episodes are definitely out, as I can view them right now; but the date known is TBA, until a reputable or official source is confirmed to be out. But since DeadRat is continued to revert Baldi's edits, and has been temporarily locked from editing for it, I think this case can be closed. If someone could email corporate and they responded back, then a proof of screenshot of that email response should be enough to justify the release date. CartoonnewsCP (talk

) 23:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since one of the reverting parties is under a 72-hour block. Let us know if this war resumes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Axis Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 103.102.116.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992898921 by Prolix (talk)"
2. 18:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "banking falls within financial services industry read article and don't remove other products which the bank provides"
3. 08:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "banking falls within financial services industry read article and don't remove other products which the bank provides"
4. 04:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "banking falls within financial services industry read article and don't products sections company do provides other products apart from banking"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (softer wording for newcomers)
   (RW 16)
   "
2. 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording)
   (RW 16)
   "
3. 18:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* STOP adding unsourced content */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Persistent edit warring and unsourced content addition by IP */ new section"
2. 18:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Persistent edit warring and unsourced content addition by IP */ re"

Comments:

I have warned this user multiple times regarding the fact that adding any content requires sources. They've ignored messages, and refuse to change their ways. User is clearly aware that what they're doing is edit warring and are well aware of how to cite properly. I am not entirely without blame here, I may have lost track of my reverts in the heat of the moment, but I have made every attempt to resolve this issue. Prolix 💬 18:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: IP blocked 48 hours for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Fuad Kasumović (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• Special:Diff/992879786

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989007358 by 5.43.72.55 (talk) Not needed"
2. 14:41, 7 December 2020 "Undid revision 992833756 by 5.43.72.55 (talk) Stop!"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Kirbapara's edit summary "Not needed" put to edit in which updated and cleaned up version (obiously improved and referenced) of the article is reverted to previous version of opposite characteristics – indicates vandalism. The user is noticed present to minorly edit (edit-just-to-edit) sensitive topic articles of Balkan dark history with fascism-like-oriented biased views. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/5.43.72.55's false claims are just not okay. I have edited the page up to the standards that it should look like, for example use the page of Jasmin Imamović who got reelected. He is putting another office for him as if the mayor of Zenica is two offices. --Kirbapara (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2020 (CET)

I think no action is required now because user applied his/her described improvement without insisting on non-selective revert. 'Common language' found. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes! :) --Kirbapara (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2020 (CET)

• Result: I'm marking this report as withdrawn, though the whole thing is baffling. The two parties seem to have agreed on something, though I'm not sure what. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Tenet (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "remove unused parameters +
   MOS:SEAOFBLUE
   "
2. 13:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "too many links + nationalities come later in the paragraph + consensus"
3. 12:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992630696 by
   talk
   ) following consensus, however, is a policy and you're violating it"
4. 08:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992615887 by
   MOS:SEAOFBLUE
   "
5. 05:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992568474 by Debresser (talk) the consensus was to have specifically these genres in this order"
6. 10:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992418843 by UnknownBat (talk) breach of consensus"
7. 19:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992075146 by Utkarsh555 (talk) (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992628893 by
   reverted three other editors in the past 24 hours
   "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tenet (film)#"science fiction action-thriller film" or "action-thriller and science fiction film"

Comments:

Three editors have reverted this editor's insistence on including the word "and" in the lead for a film genre. They have provided no policies or discussions to support their claims. –

) 13:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus: Talk:Tenet (film)/Archive 3. Next time, actually look for it. Cognissonance (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read that archive, and I do not see the consensus about the word "and" as that was only briefly discussed, only a consensus for the particular genres. You have now reverted a fifth time [145]. –

talk

) 22:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

At 03:54 on 7 December Cognissonance took out the word 'and' from the list of genres. Is this a concession to the ciriticisms here? If so, maybe the report could be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this report can be closed with no action. I appreciate Cognissonance finding a compromise on the talk page. –

talk

) 05:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No, this report can not be closed, because Cognissonance did not take out the word "and"; instead he took out a whole genre![146]

This user has severe

WP:OWN issues at Tenet (film) (and other film articles). He comes along once or twice a day and simply starts reverting everything he doesn't like. I had noticed this behavior of his already a few months ago, and have pointed it out to him more than once.[147][148] But today he really crossed the line, when he decided that his talkpage proposal at a very limited discussion that is less than 24 hours old gave him the right to revert a crucial addition to the Tenet article that was only recently discussed for literally a whole month with many participants (now archived at Talk:Tenet_(film)/Archive_3

).

I stress that this report is about the behavioral issue, not the content issue (which was conclusively settled two months ago , as mentioned above, and as Cognissonance knows very well, just that he didn't

WP:LIKE that conclusion overly much). By the way, during that previous discussion he did precisely the same thing, making an edit[149] while the discussion had gone only 2 out of the 30 days it would last in the end. Just showing that this is really an issue with this editor. Debresser (talk

) 15:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Cognissonance has now started reverting again to reinsert the word "and" into the lead [150]. I agree that there seem to be OWN issues here, and the behavior does not seem to be stopping. –

talk

) 20:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

He continues: [151]. Cognissonance has now officially violated 3RR. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring to restore the word 'and' to the opening sentence. They have continued to revert since the report was opened. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Greek genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted
   good faith edits by Alexikoua (talk
   ): If so, you should be able to find a reliable source for it. Rummel's work is not RS for death estimates because it lacks a reputation for accuracy in that regard."
2. 21:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 992889303 by
   WP:ONUS
   is on you to show that Rummel's figures are worth mentioning"
3. 17:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Greco-Turkish War */ Rummel's death estimates are not well regarded today, fail WP:RS"
4. [152] is a revert of this [153]
5. 23:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Genocide as a model for future crimes */ these statements are a coatrack, since they don't touch on the subject of this article". This is a revert of to this version [154].

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Bright line 3RR vio, keeps removing sourced material. Highly experienced user.

) 21:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• The first edit is not a revert, it is a removal of content that is, as I stated, a coatrack and unrelated to the topic of the article. The second edit is not a revert either. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • While they were making this report, I posted on the talk page why Rummel is not reliable, so far no one has replied. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The first edit (#5) absolutely is a revert, because you removed the same material on November 27 [155]. Remember?
      Khirurg (talk
      ) 00:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The second (#3)is also a revert because you removed material (reliably sourced material, at that) [156]. This material was added at some point. Thus removing is a reversion of the addition.
    • Diff #4 is also a partial revert of this edit [157]. #4 and #3 were performed consecutively, but it's a clear 3RR vio.
    • I replied at the talkpage [158].
      Khirurg (talk
      ) 00:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The second edit listed as a revert in the report, clearly is not a revert. The removal of content is not necessarily a revert. In addition to that, Buidhe is an established editor with a clear block log, so nobody should rush to block them. Solving the dispute on the talk page would be a better solution than wasting time here.
  Ktrimi991 (talk
  ) 00:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

After my post above, the filer added another diff. It changes nothing. The former number 2 is not a revert, and Number 3 and Number 4 are consecutive reverts, hence they are counted as one when 3RR is concerned. Buidhe has not breached the 3RR.

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 00:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I added the new diff as a result of your post. If you hadn't posted, I might have missed it. #1, #2, #4, #5 are clear cut reverts. #3 is also a revert but performed consecutively with #4.

Khirurg (talk

) 00:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• No action. Please take this to the talk page, where a discussion appears to be already underway. Neutrality^talk 00:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: 2020 Turkish Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: HumanBodyPiloter5 (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 22:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) to 23:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Qualifying report */ emphasising that team and constructor are not synonymous terms in Formula One"
   2. 23:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Qualifying report */"
2. 22:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992936022 by Cinagroni (talk) deleting new information that was added to the article because they want to start an edit-war even when offered a compromise, splitting this information in some way is actually important to conveying it correctly"
3. 22:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Qualifying report */ both sides of the sentence have equal weight"
4. 22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992932937 by Cinagroni (talk) acronym was already used earlier in the article, none of those semi-colons were out of place other than maybe the sentence about Hamilton overtaking Pérez"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC) "/* WP:3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HumanBodyPiloter5&diff=prev&oldid=992935542

Comments:

This user has reverted four times, wholly or partially, in the last couple of hours. Their behaviour appears to be motivated by an ideological grudge against the concept of correct grammar: "There's no such thing as correct grammar", "linguistic prescriptivist ideology is an often bigoted and thoroughly discredited relic of the Victorian era and I will not tolerate it", "grammar isn't real, prescriptivists can cry about it.

As well as edit warring, they are being aggressive and hostile: referring to me as "the prescriptivist edit war starter" (in fact, they made the first revert) and "the anti-semi-colon person", and twice saying they would make a certain edit "if it makes you go away" ([159], [160]). I think this needs looking at. Cinagroni (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I think I changed the thing back to your edit. I got overly heated because I do actually genuinely feel a deep repulsion towards prescriptivist grammar and I should've stayed out of it. In all honesty I think the implication of prescriptivism brings out something of a trauma response in me due to dealing with certain obnoxious pedantic people in my personal life growing up and I will fully admit I acted inappropriately just now as a result. Can we please just stop this now and try to take away some sort of lesson? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Sophia Flörsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.39.155.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2001:8003:3C41:DC00:7CF6:F698:C8A7:A022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [161]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [162]
2. [163]
3. [164]
4. [165]
5. [166]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:80.39.155.107, User talk:2001:8003:3C41:DC00:7CF6:F698:C8A7:A022

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

Comments:
A clean-up has been attempted of the original as it was not completely correct, but still allowed under Wiki guidelines (current edit as of posting - this may appear slightly botched but I haven't gone through this process before). MSportWiki (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Independent Bloc (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Vif12vf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Special:Diff/992967632

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:01, 7 December 2020 "Reverted to revision 980328622 by Vif12vf (talk)"
2. 00:14, 8 December 2020 "Reverted 1 edit by 5.43.72.55 (talk) to last revision by Vif12vf"

 # 02:21, 8 December 2020 "Reverted to revision 992950325 by Vif12vf (talk)"

1. 02:24, 8 December 2020 "Reverted 1 edit by 5.43.72.55 (talk) to last revision by Vif12vf"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user reported makes arbitrary and non-selective reverts of my contribution, giving no rationale. Probably one more sockpuppet or false-purpose generated account. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Existing info lacking sources does in no way justify you adding more unsourced info! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources are not needed for every statement. General true statements that are supported by logic only and that are useful contribution fitting in an article flow are welcome. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Filing IP blocked 24 hours. They have been warring to add an unsourced statement about the meaning of 'independent bloc'.
  WP:V
  provides that 'Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.' The statement was

If considering the meaning of its name (Independent Bloc), this organized group of politicians can be regarded also or instead of 'real' political party – a

political alliance

or bloc (or coalition).

This seems to be a personal reflection by the editor and nothing that he found in a source. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Benjamin Gordon (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krutapidla2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [167]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]
5. [172]
6. [173]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benjamin_Gordon_(businessman) [diff]

Comments:

Who is Krutapidla2, and why does he keep posting disruptive and slanderous edits in violation of Wikipedia policies? Multiple people have asked him to stop, including me. He has only redoubled his efforts, in what appears to be a personal vendetta. He has formed a single purpose account for purposes of attacking the aforementioned page. His sole contribution to Wikipedia has been a series of attacks. Please just look at his account history.

Unlike Krutapidla2, I am not a paid editor. I am not an editor or expert of any sort with respect to Wikipedia. I am, however, the subject of this page he has chosen to vandalize. I reached out to right a wrong and correct a slanderous posting on my page. What I received, instead, was a torrent of attacks from Krutapidla2.

Krutapidla2 appears to be a disgruntled paid editor himself who is accusing others.

Isn't his conduct a clear and continued breach of Wikipedia policies? Can someone help please? Thank you. Bengee123 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)/>

Page protected – 3 days.

WP:BLPN what is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Execution van (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC) "Please, read the summary. You have reverted by edit for no valid reason. It has not been removed, it was moved to the "People's Republic of China" section and added an obsolete source template for being 18 years old. Removed non-
   WP:NPOV phrase and added hyperlink to Capital punishment in China
   to the first phrase of the article. If you have any objections, use the talk page."
2. 00:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC) "The phrase removed is repeated on the "People's Republic of China" section, better tagged as an obsolete source due to its old [18 years old] age."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apparently trying to

) 03:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The colleague reverted my edit because he thought I had removed the sentence, when in reality I did not, so I reverted the edit and included his suggestion. Since it's 18 years old, a phrase consisting of "predict that the execution rate in China will increase" should not be on the lead, so I moved it to the PRC section and added an obsolete template. As for "China has one of the highest execution rates in the world" I thought that was not related directly to the article, so I added a "is a method of capital punishment in China" to the first phrase of the lead, since it's much better than simply stating a random facts about it. All of this was reverted for ""So then we are in agreement stop removing sections detailing Chinese genocides [sic!]" [175] even the ^{[citation needed]} template was removed from "first used in 1997". My colleague stated the "removal" of a "section" when in reality there was no removal (I only moved it and added a obsolete template due to it being 18 years old), hence the revert, he could have simply not seen that part. BunnyyHop (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello I am the editor who is involved in the current dispute. I do agree BunnyyHop is making disruptive edits, and is not here to build an encyclopedia. BunnyyHop consistently removes sections of Marxist-Leninist atrocities, is a stated Marxist-Leninist, and has already had issues with biased editing both on Portuguese Wikipedia and on English Wikipeida. Although this at first sight might look minor with only 2 diffs over a period of less then 24 hours I think the content that was removed speaks volumes. BunnyyHop is a member of the PCP, or at least lives in Portugal, edits the article

talk

) 21:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

There is an extensive dicussion in the talk page of

Marxism-Leninism which I don't recommend anyone to dive into, but [here] is a good diff to contextualize what's written above. Also, there was no removal of content in Execution van, there was an extremely old phrase which includes "predict". The text "Human-rights groups predict that the execution rate in China will increase because of mobile capital punishment" has been changed to "Amnesty International predicts that the execution rate in China will increase because of mobile capital punishment" and an obsolete tag has been added with the text "This is a report from 18 years ago. Did the execution rate increase?". --BunnyyHop (talk

) 02:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, does this page have any 1RR sanctions? It appears as there have been only 2 reverts which do not constitute a report here under normal circumstances. Please move to the talk page if this indeed does not violate the 3RR rule. Thank you. Heart ^(talk) 02:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No violation – 3RR was not broken. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: David Dinkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: GermanJackhammer (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 13:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) to 13:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Early career */Typos"
   2. 13:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Personal life */African American used incorrectly."
   3. 13:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "Dinkins wasn’t born in Africa therefore he was an American with African ancestry."
2. 13:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "David dinkins was not from Africa. Therefore the term “ African American” is incorrect."
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC) to 09:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Early career */Typos"
   2. 09:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Typos"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on David Dinkins."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continual reversions of experienced editors reverting his unconstructive (and misinformed) edits regarding the use of the term "African-American"

) 15:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. This user is unlikely to succeed in replacing the term 'African-American' with something else all across Wikipedia. Next block is likely to be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Unilever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.10.163.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [176]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [177]
2. [178]
3. [179]
4. [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [182]

Comments:
Three more reversions by a previously blocked editor who refuses to engage on the talk page. The issue appears to be about the unification of the structure of Unilever: it was unified to a single structure with a head office based in the UK on 30 November 2020. The IP keeps changing it back to how it was (UK/Dutch). I have no idea why the IP wants do do this because they will not engage on the talk page even though I opened a discussion there. Dormskirk (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – Two weeks for long term edit warring. Last block was for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Kajang (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.43.72.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5 (out of the 24 hour range)

Comments:
An IP, reverted four times for the identical edit by three different editors within the last 24 hours. IP has justified their edit by referring to non-existent guidelines ("rules for disambiguation pages require no redirects between [[]] but direct link, template names have capitalized usage on English Wikipedia"; see #4 above). See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vif12vf reported by User:5.43.72.55 (Result: Filer blocked) (8 December 2020) Narky Blert (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 6 months for edit warring. The IP user has been blocked as long as one month for disruption since November 1. See also their edit filter log. They don't seem to care what anyone else may think and they don't care about being blocked. They just remove all the notices and keep going. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

TY. For completeness, see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing (8 December 2020). Narky Blert (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Flags of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.217.29.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [183]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [184]
2. [185]
3. [186]
4. [187]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [189]

Comments:
Editor is also making an unreferenced change to Flag of Albania to try and prop up their edit, complete with inflammatory anti-Serbian edit summary.

Blocked for 31 hours and warned of their need to discuss concerns and provide sources on article talk pages. (May possibly be editing under User:46.217.147.85, too.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: PlainSite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QRep2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlainSite&diff=978463066&oldid=973787938

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlainSite&diff=993135825&oldid=992997637
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlainSite&diff=993135986&oldid=993135825
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlainSite&diff=993328899&oldid=993311399
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlainSite&diff=993430388&oldid=993365458

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QRep2020

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PlainSite#Neutral_Point_of_View

Comments:
Just to make it evident, the Talk page edit was made AFTER the unwarranted

) 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 48 hours by User:The Bushranger. See Talk:PlainSite#Full protection due to edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.224.159.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [190]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10-12-2020
2. 09-12-2020
3. 09-12-2020
4. 08-12-2020
5. 08-12-2020
6. 06-12-2020
7. 05-12-2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [191]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [192] (see comments)

Diff of AN3 notification: [193]

Comments:
Persistently adding content with little to no encyclopaedic value, with little to no sourcing, going back a week now (including 4RR within 24hrs). This is an SPA, that has only made these same repeat additions to this page, has not edited any other page, including talk pages. An earlier 'welcome' message posted to their tp gained no response, same for the 'soft 3rr' message posted to their tp. This user will not engage. -

02:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Charles Cicchetti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC) "Wikipedia has no place for political bias."
2. 18:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC) "Fixed the censorship and blatant deletions of this mans wikipedia."
3. 18:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC) "Fixed the censorship and blatant deletions of this mans wikipedia."
4. 18:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
5. 18:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• User talk:TruthWillBeToldRed#December 2020

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Charles Cicchetti#evaluation of Cicchetti's declaration in the Texas lawsuit

Comments:

Multiple Warnings were given by User:VQuakr and User:Asartea about the user's disruptive editing on the autoconfirmed user's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TruthWillBeToldRed. I happened to be come across this disruptive user recently. He is claiming the info paragraph on the biography was political bias. And he made no attempts to discuss with other editors to reach a general consensus but continued to make disruptive edits. The User has also entered in another edit war with User:Asartea, Here ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [194]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [195]
2. [196]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [197]

Comments:

Tenebrae included a primary source in addition to a secondary source to verify a claim. Later, a consensus not to include a primary source when a secondary source is already present, which reinforces

16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Page protected for a week. Doug Weller talk
  16:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I did not file this report based on any 3RR violation; the report has to do with Tenebrae edit warring against an established consensus to enforce an existing guideline. KyleJoan^talk 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • Y'know, I was about to offer
      WP:BOOMERANG might be in order for the untruthfulness, the forum-shopping and the false 3RR filing.--Tenebrae (talk
      ) 20:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Mai Kadra massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.247.252.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version from before all the section blanking and reverting took place: Old revision of Mai_Kadra_massacre

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. section blanking of sourced material (Claim: Amhara ...); 07:19 10 Dec
2. revert of revert, i.e. new blanking of sourced material (Claim: Amhara ...); 07:32 10 Dec
3. revert of revert, i.e. new blanking of sourced material (Claim: Amhara ...); 07:40 10 Dec
4. blanking of Attacks intro section; 07:25 10 Dec
5. revert of revert, i.e. new blanking of Attacks intro section; 07:31 10 Dec
6. revert of revert, i.e. new blanking of Attacks intro section; 07:46 10 Dec

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:89.247.252.171 is short enough to read quickly. These are actually warnings against section blanking, not edit warring, by three editors who are not me; plus my warning that the IP is now being discussed here at AN/3; and a personalised request to read about what edit wars are and why they are pointless. I'll put the current version here, just in case further edits confuse the issue.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Tariku Tagel is now "indefinitely blocked"; it's possible that the IP is the same person. In terms of substantive work to clarify editing conflicts, see my latest edit to the talk page in which I point to the sourced info that we have and the fact that this is not a Manichean (good vs bad) situation in terms of the info available, and point to what seems to be a possible overview.

Comments:

There are more blanking edits and reverts than listed above - see the page history. Boud (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

At least a temporary block until this IP user (if s/he is not Tariku Tagel) takes the time to understand elementary Wikipedia principles would seem necessary to me. Boud (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The IP user has started talking on the talk page of the article. It's probably worth waiting 24h or so to see if s/he has started to get the basic principles of Wikipedia editing. Everyone has the right to have a chance to learn. Boud (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: IP blocked two weeks. There is an ongoing dispute about responsibility for the massacre. But it is unlikely this can be addressed by deleting mainstream media reports from the article. Most likely the IP is User:Tariku Tagel evading their block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello

talk

) 00:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jerm: Seems likely that it's the same person, though it could also be a group who don't understand the futility of ignoring Wikipedia principles. In any case, I proposed semi-protection. Boud (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The page has been semiprotected one month per

WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Abu Bakr ibn Umar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:1811:3480:5500:C07:1071:E435:DB71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [198]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [199] (6 Dec)
2. [200] (7 Dec)
3. [201] (8 Dec) (subsequently semi-protected until 10 Dec by User:Doug Weller)
4. [202] (10 Dec)
5. [203] (11 Dec)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [204]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: My reversal of his edits asking to take discussion to talk page: e.g. [205], [206], request on user's talk page: [207]

Comments:

The edit-warring is over an image on the page. The image in question is a depiction of the Almoravid commander Abu Bakr ibn Umar from the 1413 portolan chart of the Majorcan cartographer Mecia de Villadestes. Although the identification is only probable rather than certain (nothing on portolan charts is certain), it is supported by the surrounding labels and inscriptions on the chart, and this identification has been proposed in various secondary sources who have examined the chart (e.g. La Ronciere (1925), Cortesao (1975)).

Alas, this image is a headache since it seems to offend racist sensitivities. Because he is depicted with a dark-colored hue, that apparently offends people who believe that Abu Bakr was not Black, that North Africans are not Black, etc. and so have insisted in removing the image repeatedly from this and other pages. Never mind whether he was or wasn't actually Black, a Medieval Spanish cartographer chose that pigment for his own reasons. What is important is that the placement, labels and inscription sufficiently support the identification.

The IP above is only the latest a series of IPs who have tried to remove the image, believing it is "fake", with accusations of "Afrocentrism" or some such nonsense. It could be the same IP who removed it four times before last year (language is similar):

• [208] (Mar 25, 2019)
• [209] (Mar 25 2019 again)
• [210] (Apr 18, 2019)
• [211] (Nov 6, 2019)

The last IP came to my talk page to protest on Nov 7 [212]. On my talk page, I gave him some of the justifications for the identification ([213]) (he didn't reply to it).

Although the IP changes, the tone is similar, and I believe it to be one and the same person.

This IP might also be the same person as User:Zakaria the Riffian, who created a user account on January 10, 2019 to do a bunch of edits on Berber topics (he only edited on two days - Jan 10, 2019 and Sep 30, 2020). He was the latest to delete the image on Sep 30 2020 [214] with similar language ("Image is false"). The IP may have forgotten his login to the Zakaria account, or is sockpuppeting.

Now he is back, with another IP, again with the same language, reverting it repeatedly. I have repeatedly asked him to discuss the image in the talk page. The IP has refused, and insists on deleting it.

I don't believe it is earnest failure to understand he is edit-warring. I believe he is the same person behind the IPs that tried to delete it several times earlier. I don't believe he is interested in discussion.

To prevent his deleting it, the page was semi-protected for a couple of days by User:Doug Weller, but the IP immediately returned upon expiration and deleted it again. I would like to request his edit be reversed, the image restored and the page semi-protected or fully protected for longer, if not indefinitely. Thanks. Walrasiad (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected indef. Consider WP:Dispute resolution. It appears there is a long-term campaign by someone with a large variety of IPs to remove the image. The IP editor has not used the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: 2020–21 Biathlon World Cup – Stage 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 37.54.218.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 993789550 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) - vandalism"
2. 14:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 00:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on 2020–21 Biathlon World Cup – Stage 2."
2. 16:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of Achievements */ new section"

Comments:

Have tried discussing these edits with this IP, and they refuse to discuss. Have left warnings/notices. Not sure what to do beyond reporting now. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Nonsense. This user-vandal has removed a big section without any discussion and support. The section was restored only. Another user also reverted him, see [215] 37.54.218.236 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Warned You both need to go to the article talk page and discuss this matter. If this matter returns to this board, neither one of you may be pleased with the result. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan; Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury; Gisela Stuart

User being reported: Andrei-Williams-2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [216]
2. [217] (manual revert)
3. [218]
4. [219]
5. [220]
6. [221]
7. [222]
8. [223]
9. [224]
10. [225]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex_B4#5_December
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrei-Williams-2005#December_2020

Comments:

I have tried to resolve things with this user on theirs and my own talk page but they continue to revert to their changes rather than discuss with me the policies I have cited such as

) 16:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is not blockable. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston, I can assure you that I am not a disruptive account, I am only trying to make articles clearer and nicer. AlexB4 is not showing any proof on why my edits should be deleted, the reason why I reverted his changes is because he is not specifically telling me what is wrong with my edits, he is only showing me some WP. Andrei-Williams-2005 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Alex B4 seems to be arguing that the large infobox that we see in the version of the article you created here is just too much coverage of Smith's shadow cabinet positions. (Click on all the 'Show' links to see everything). If a consensus was formed on this, Alex should be able to find it and link to it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Ah okay. Will do. Also sorry for the state of my report, it's the first time I've felt I've had to use the function. Many thanks. Alex (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Well I approached the page protection noticeboard for protection for the page to prevent reverting while consensus is still to be achieved and the dispute be resolved. The admin said this would be the more appropriate place to bring this up. So could we implement a page protection at least? Alex (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the rush and there is no risk of imminent damage to articles. This basically a question of styling. Come back if you receive consensus for a change on one of the articles, and others won't let you do it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. Report again if the problem continues. See WP:Dispute resolution for steps you should be considering. User:Alex B4, you need an exact description of the edits you consider to be wrong and you should be submitting them for discussion on article talk, so others can weigh in. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [226]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [227]
2. [228]
3. [229]
4. [230]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [231]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [232]

Comments:

This user is disruptive and edit wars on multiple pages, the user doesnt seem to understand how wikipedia works. Looking at this page history, the user broke the 3rr against an ip user but is now editwarring with me.[233] I had warned them a few weeks ago on another page which i included in the report. Can something be done here? Magherbin (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've followed the Wiki guidelines. I've requested for page protection [234] because the page has been vandalized by persistent

sockpuppetry as you can see [235], [236], [237] and after these accounts kept getting banned. The sock attempted to vandalize the page by using his IP and was doing the same thing by adding unsourced additions then made an official account called Rogeman123 and even reverted one of the Administers edit [238]. I was simply protecting the page then we settled our dispute and I told him the source clearly mentions Somali instead of "Muslim" or "Adal" [239] and he complied [240] but Magherbin has personal issues with me and decided to start an edit war with me so he can catch me slipping and create his false narrative that I was causing disruptive editing when the evidence I presented from above shows you the complete opposite. He also recently started an edit war with the user Ragnimo just today. [241] He once had an edit war with me and Ragnimo on Aw Barkhaadle page [242]. He launched a fake investigation on two individuals which eventually proved me and the other user were unrelated. [243]

This user simply has personal issues with me and is known for abusing multiple accounts in the past and was banned for it/ [244] Besides this matter has already been resolved and just reverted back to Magherbin's last edit and attempted using good faith before he reported me. [245] but this user doesn't know anything about good faith and just removes things he disagrees with without consulting us on the talk page. Ayaltimo (talk) 3:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt you're misreading multiple sources on multiple pages, and since you removed my warning on your talk page [246] it seems you're well aware of your actions. Continuing to editwar on another page after

WP:Hounding me by calling my edits vandalism [247] is not assuming good faith. This is what we call disruptive editing. The users issues go beyond the scope of this noticeboard but sticking to their edit warring habits, some sanctions need to be made here especially their clear violation of 3RR with the IP user. Magherbin (talk

) 06:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing misleading and I'll explain why. You were sending edit warning messages on multiple users after engaging with them on multiple pages as you did with this user on the same day which says 24 of November [248] You are not only in dispute with me on that page but also with

sockpuppetry then you showed up engaging in an edit war with me all because we have a past and you can't seem to let go of your personal issue with me and that is not how Wikipedia works. We have to be a community and work together. Even after you did that I assumed good faith and reverted back to your last edit. [255] so the issue has been resolved between us but the commission should take action against you for engaging in edit wars with multiple users on multiple pages because that is a clear violation of wiki guidelines. Ayaltimo (talk

) 6:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that

) 06:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is a sock account, no two ways about it, but I am unfortunately too close to the case to block. That being said, @Magherbin:, you may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Horn_of_Africa_disruption, because we are trying to get more firepower to bring to bare on these pages and the more testimony that its needed the better the odds are that it'll happen. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston It seems like the user Magherbin is engaging in another edit war with another user [261] and the other day he was engaging with him on here. [262] I only simply reverted the IP's user edit for adding unsourced addition. [263] I wasn't the only one even another moderator picked up and reverted his unexplained and unsourced additions. [264] Magherbin simply followed me on that page and decided to engage in an edit war with me because he has personal issues with me but I reverted back to his edit to assume good faith and not play his game. [265] My issue with him has been resolved. However, this user is engaging in an edit war with multiple users on multiple pages and actions must be taken against him for his disruptive editing.

User:TomStar81 I don't know if you're trying to connect me with Ragnimo who you accused of being a sock puppet but the moderator has already cleared my name and confirmed I am unrelated to Ragnimo. [266] Matter of fact he reverted one of my edits because he shared a different opinion. [267] He even launched an investigation on me [268] but it turns the sock master called Shit233333334 who owned multiple socks all got banned instead. It's sad that you don't even know you're speaking to a sock master yourself. Magherbin got banned for abusing multiple accounts. [269] He is very likely a sock puppet belonging to Middayexpress when you review the analysis. [270] I will be launching an investigation on him since the evidence is very compelling. Ayaltimo (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Magherbin I was tagged onto this dicussion and above you linked to the Adal-ethiopian war article. I looked at it and the only thing i did was add a correct source to the page, that was missing it. Anyways leave me out of your disputes. You both can edit war eachother without including me into this. I don't have time.

Also don't understand how i can come back to you spamming my talk page for 1 single edit i made. For adding a source and then later you self-revert yourself? [271]. Both of you act like disruptive socks and troll accounts. Also i hope you know

TomStar81 Ayaltimo is most definitely a troll sock of Alaskalava. I have already launched a sockpuppet investigation against him and i am waiting for a CU to confirm things [272], a few disruptive troll socks i related back to Ayaltimo have been confirmed and banned/blocked.

You can see how Ayaltimo is actively trolling and his edits summaries make no sense [273]

FYI Magherbin has a history of continously edit warring with other editors[274] and has been blocked before for vandalizing the same pages. Click the links and see for yourself. Has a history of disruptive socking [275] , Both of them included sources that didn't state what was added to the page.[276] You can see it for yourself if you click one the sources added for them. He is actively engaging in the same behavior he is acussing others of. But thanks for the suggestion i will definitely weigh in on the Arbitration commite and mention Alaskalava/Ayaltimo and Magherbin/Lokiszm7 and others when i do. Add evidence. Ragnimo

User:Ragnimo he called you the sock. The accounts that you have accused me of has already been banned and were not related to me because I have been the most active in reverting their vandalism. A "troll" account wouldn't safeguard pages from disruptive editors nor contribute to articles that need more development. My edit summary makes sense I simply reverted back to Magherbin edit because the source was highly disputed and I didn't want to get into trouble for safeguarding that page too much. I don't know where you got your ridiculous idea from by tying me with Alaska Lava but I am also building a case on Alaska Lava for potentially belonging to MustafaO. I've already launched an investigation on Magherbin proving he's very likely a sock belonging to Middayexpress. [277] Once the CU closes I expect an apology from you for the ridiculous accusations you've made. Ayaltimo (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

He can call me whatever , there is no evidence. When they finally run a CU check , it will show itself that you are Alaskalava. They only ran a CU check on those other accounts for a seperate reason and confirmed them with eachother and they are your other troll accounts, so all they need to do is a run a CU on you to confirm it.

Source was highly disputed? What are you even talking about? Whats the dispute in the source? You said one thing and the next you say another thing. You have zero consistency in your behavior, you are the disruptive person. You are not safeguarding anything. Cordless Larry even caught you disrupting the Somali article [278]. You added "According to "The origins of Somali" The Journal of African history states:". When you linked source was something else. You are clearly just mocking it. You're a jobless troll that follows people around and i can bet my money on that you are Alasklava doing this for retaliation. Trying to link Alaskalava to someone else doesn't make you not him and you can write these long incoherent ramblings it wont change it Ragnimo (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ragnimo stop with the personal attacks. You are not following the rules of Wikipedia. No Personal Attacks. Please refrain from personal attacks. I don't know how you get the idea of me being Alaska Lava but you also accused Hamza678yu and TBftf of being my sock but it turns out they belong to this sock master. [279] You were wrong about this one and you will be wrong about the Alaska Lava claim once the CU is complete then I expect a full apology from you because clearly, you don't know anything. As for Abdullahi Abdurahman's book. He was actually quoting from Lewis and Herbert when you check further readings. Go to page 65. [280] It wasn't disruptive editing but a clear misunderstanding. Stop asserting your false narrative as you did with the previous accusation against me. Magherbin proved on the talk page the source was a Wikipedia mirror copy. This source was disputed [281] so I simply reverted back to Magherbin edit. It's called using good faith and I was pretty consistent defending that page. Let the CU scan run and you'll see how you're wrong about me again. Ayaltimo (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Describing your behavior and then following up with evidence for it, is not personal attacks. See

and as she explains she was pointed to it for a seperate reason. If you are not Alaskalava why are you so defensive about it writing long ramblings?

There is no mention of Sade Mire on page 65[283] nor any qouting of her going on. Nor is there any mention of "According to "The origins of Somali" The Journal of African history states:" that you wrote down which is made up and completly nonsensical. All you see on page 65 is just the author summarizing the content of his book in his conclusion.

That other source you linked just now also had nothing to do with what you added on to the page.

Anyways argue with your chair. This is will be my last reply to you, i wont feed a troll Ragnimo (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

On page 65 it says in the further reading section. Lewis, Gerbert. "The origins of Galla and Somali." The Journal of African history, volume 7. That's where Abdurahman references his source when he mentioned the origins of Somalis. Clearly, you don't know how to check the source which makes you the bigger troll between us.

When you said "You're a jobless troll that follows people around" that was clearly a Personal Attacks which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

How can I be Alaska Lava when he believes the Somali clan's origin are Arabs. [284] and my sources suggest Somalis are native to Somalia. [285] Now the moderator has proved me and Alaska Lava are unrelated. [286]. Ayaltimo (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Three editors are warned for edit warring and alerted to the new Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions (
  WP:DR advises what to do in a case like this, and if you don't follow that, sanctions are possible. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 18:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Azeri (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohammad785 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts (on "Azeri"):

1. [287]
2. [288]
3. [289]
4. [290]
5. [291]
6. [292]
7. [293]

Diffs of the user's reverts ( on "Azerbaijani disambiguation"):

1. [294]
2. [295]
3. [296]
4. [297]
5. [298]
6. [299]
7. [300]

Comments:
Mohammad785' edits were definitely unhelpful (CIR maybe?), and I wish he had gotten the point the first time round and posted on the talk page instead of reverting. But then, I can't say I'm happy that when he did eventually bring up the issue on a user's talk page, instead of receiving an explanation, he was blankly reverted. Can't we do a bit better than that? – Uanfala (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Four reverts pretty much says it all. If said editor can/will not use the article talk page, then perhaps this is a competence issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh well, I did explain to him in a few edit summaries, and then at greater length in his thread on my talk page. To no avail. See also the history of Azerbaijan (disambiguation): five reverts in the space of 30 hours. At this stage, I'd totally support a CIR block. – Uanfala (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

He's simultaneously edit-warring on a few more pages as well, including Azerbaijan (disambiguation)[301] and Azari[302]. Definitely

WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk

) 10:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree that Mohammad785's edit warring needs to stop. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Even knowing that they have a 3RR violation, they continue to edit war with me. I have been rollbacking their edits since they are

clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. [303] [304] [305] [306] keep in mind that all of these were in the past hour. They also are edit warring on Azerbaijan (disambiguation) and Azerbaijani. With all reverts combined, they’ve probably broken the 3RR fifteen times over. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!}

) 14:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, on and on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, 14 reverts in the space of two days. This is not a normally productive user who's just lost it today and needs a short block to cool down. This is a user who's refused to get the bare basics. Indef for CIR? – Uanfala (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIR. It takes some determination to turn a DAB page into nonsense. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Don't Look Now (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Porterhse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [307]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [308]
2. [309]
3. [310]
4. [311]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [312]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [313]

Comments:
Porterhse is attempting to edit a MOS violation into a GA-rated article. The linking isn't a huge deal to be honest, I would have let it through if the MOS wasn't so clear cut on the matter. Porterhse's disregard for MOS guidelines, consensus based editing and the 3RR policy is more of an issue at this stage. Two editors have reverted him with a full explanation on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This user also just left a message on my talk page saying “F*** right off”. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [314]
2. [315]
3. [316]
4. [317]
5. [318]

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Cathedral, Mulanthuruthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Right.editsgold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [319]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [320]
2. [321]
3. [322]
4. [323]
5. [324]
6. [325]
7. [326]
8. [327]
9. [328]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [329]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [330]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Warned about implied legal threats. Acroterion (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: Baklava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Painting33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC) "made up source"
2. 20:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "Vandalism"
3. 19:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "made up source"
4. 12:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "made up source"
5. 09:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 993674222 by Alessandro57 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Cabbage roll."
2. 16:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Cabbage roll."
3. 19:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Disruptive Editing */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Acroterion (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The user repeatedly removes information, adds unsourced information that indicates

18:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Page: L. Steven Grasz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snickers2686 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/990464575

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/994076699
2. Special:Diff/994075777
3. Special:Diff/994072071
4. Special:Diff/993913277

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/994080475 (post-fourth-revert), Special:Diff/994076481, Special:Diff/994075119, Special:Diff/994071682 (pre-fourth-revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/994078120 (on my page because user refuses to discuss on talk page)

Comments:
Four reverts in a 24-hour window without discussion on talk page (or actual reasoning on any page) despite repeated requests. The content added is uncontroversial, relevant, included with due weight, and from a quintessentially reliable source, official documents for nominees long used for biographical information in U.S. judiciary-related articles.

@

WP:BRD. —C.Fred (talk

) 02:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• No action needed. No reverts by reported editor after contact by reporter. I've added the article to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Page:

)

User being reported: 34syd4t4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:29, 2 November 2020‎
2. 18:53, 2 November 2020‎
3. 12:14, 3 November 2020‎

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user was warned for edit warring yesterday and their edits were reverted by me and

14:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Result:

Bigg Boss (Hindi season 14). An AfD might be one way to settle that. EdJohnston (talk

) 01:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The user was earlier warned by different users for edit warring on different articles. They were first warned by AnomieBOT most probably for edit warring with SpacemanSpiff at Dhinchak Pooja ‎ on 22 October 2017‎, then by Fowler&fowler on 21 August, 2020‎ (diff) for edit warring at Shyamala Gopalan and then by me for their behaviour at "Jaan Kumar Sanu" which they totally ignored and continue reverting so I don't think they care about warnings. GSS ^💬 08:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Page: Limited Edition (Magic: The Gathering) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SnowFire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Leitmotiv (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]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limited_Edition_(Magic:_The_Gathering)&diff=986655061&oldid=986577706
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limited_Edition_(Magic:_The_Gathering)&diff=986667749&oldid=986655061
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limited_Edition_(Magic:_The_Gathering)&diff=986737805&oldid=986667749
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limited_Edition_(Magic:_The_Gathering)&diff=986811669&oldid=986737805
5. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limited_Edition_(Magic:_The_Gathering)&diff=986820179&oldid=986811669
6. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limited_Edition_(Magic:_The_Gathering)&diff=986870684&oldid=986820179

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Limited_Edition_(Magic:_The_Gathering)#Spacing

Comments:

In literally the most ridiculous Edit war ever- these two are fighting over double spacing.... and have argued about it on the talk page, and tried to bring it to the

) 18:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It should have never got to this point. My edit was purely innocent, if not entirely productive - but certainly not disruptive. Why it was hotly contested, I have no idea. I learned a thing about double spacing in the process though. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really the right venue. Double spacing is allowed on Wikipedia. Whitespace-only edits are pointless, gum up watchlist talk pages, and generally aren't improving Wikipedia, despite the general good intent of people making them, so they are generally discouraged and sometimes outright reverted when it's not clear what the benefit is. Leitmotiv is the one who is starting an edit war over imposing his preferred spacing style. I wouldn't care if Leitmotiv was also making substantive edits, it's his right to use whatever spacing style he desires. However, that was not the case here; this was a whitespace only edit. If ceded in this particular venue, then this is essentially a license to automatically go through Wikipedia and remove double spaces from all articles, even articles maintained by editors who are happily and harmlessly using double spaces and prefer them - a change that would make editors unhappy and have no effect whatsoever on readers. It's essentially

WP:RETAIN

, except rather than American / British varieties, it's single-spacing / double-spacing. It doesn't matter, so defer to the editors who've done the work most recently.

If there was a local consensus that it's better to use single spacing on an article, then that's fine. I'd have ceded to that out of respect for the editors who prefer it (although I wonder if Leitmotiv would have if there was an article that other editors preferred double spaces on), and already do so many places on Wikipedia. It's impossible to say now since various editors have shown up to profess their love of single-spaces. That said, Leitmotiv, this kind of edit serves only to make other good-faith editors angry, and doesn't help Wikipedia. It's slightly bizarre: we both agree that this doesn't affect readers. And we both agree that Leitmotiv was the one who made the initial bold edit removing double spacing. So why am I the subject of abuse for politely explaining to you that there is no standard on Wikipedia, and I "live in a weird upside down world", and I'm the one edit warring? SnowFire (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ya'll... you have been reported here not because you are arguing over one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen... but because both of you broke the do not revert an article 3 times in 24 hours over the same change rule. It has nothing to do with consensus or how many spaces there should or shouldn't be- it has to do with both of you acting like mature adults and discussing it respectfully on the talk page instead of reverting and re-reverting each other over and over and over. Please, one (or both) of you realize how silly this is and quit arguing! Nightenbelle (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did bring it up on the talk page. I'm happy to discuss it respectfully but think that the Dispute Resolution page Leitmotiv brought this too originally was the better spot to undergo said discussion.

To the extent that this is the edit war talk page, I want Leitmotiv to understand that, even if he disagrees with it, Wikipedia policy does not in fact currently endorse edits that solely change whitespace or spacing style, though - they cause far more heat than light. And if such edits are done, and are contested, to just give up - to believe other editors if they say they disagree and not start an edit war over it. (This issue is beyond just single spacing vs. double spacing - there are people who go around trying to standardize template spacing from using newlines, to not using newlines, to having all the values line up with manual spacing, to not having all the values line up, etc., and this is also discouraged if they're not also making substantive edits.) SnowFire (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that Wikipedia's policy is unclear about double spacing, it does not explicitly state that double spacing is okay either. As you and I both recognize, Wikipedia renders it all single spacing anyway, which would appear to be the de facto Manual of Style. I understand that it's not a big deal, and I've admitted that from the very start of this edit war conversation at this page. However, it's not such a big deal, that it also requires ostensive reverts on your end that literally add nothing to the article. I would have rather preferred you come to my talk page to discuss the finer merits of double spacing. You would have had more receptive ears than getting involved in an edit war that literally accomplishes nothing. My edits were innocent, yours appear to be out of personal preference per your talk page arguments, and Wikipedia is not the kind of place for that type of biased editing. My edits, while perhaps not useful, were an innocent attempt to remove unused space on wikipedia. Your edits were contrarian and strictly edit warring, because you knew in advance they don't add anything to the article, but readded them in spite of this. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This does not make sense. Why are your edits "innocent" and mine aren't? Either they're both innocent, or neither are. You, Leitmotiv, know that your edits "don't add anything to the article, yet you reverted in spite of this." You see that this is exactly the same thing, correct? SnowFire (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Because I was unaware of the supposed "controversy", but you were. You also knew that your edits would add nothing to the article, but reverted anyway. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: SnowFire and Leitmotiv are both warned. Either one may be blocked if they revert again at Limited Edition (Magic: The Gathering) unless they have first obtained a consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)