Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive437

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Page: The Beastmaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

To whom it may concern. Today I decided to edit The Beastmaster article, only to be greeted with a revert. Everything would have been fine, if upon reverting him and stating that I am confused what he is talking about, he reverted me again. This was already a second revert, so I decided to let it go, but because I found a good source, I decided to add it. Immediately I was greeted with a revert again suggesting that I shouldn't use Cite template, but, if that's the issue, why revert? Why not putting it in the proper place where it should be, right? So, I added it differently, as a Bibliography. Seems like a proper place for it, right? After the last revert I came here. His reverts are a grave concern, since what I tried to do is to improve an article. And yes, I did discussed the issues on the talkpage, yielding no result.:(--Filmomusico (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs. Bbb23 (talk
  ) 22:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [48]

Comments: User appears to be

This page is still on my watchlist from the report I recently filed, and I saw this, and since I'm involved, I figured I'd add that the edit summary in their initial removal of this content paints a picture of an editor who is very clearly

Tell me all about it.

21:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Page: Conor McGregor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033208136&oldid=1033206284&title=Conor_McGregor

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033219228 by FormalDude (talk)fight record as per Sherdog"
2. 09:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033216247 by Bastun (talk)absolutely not. The fight record is as per Sherdog"
3. 09:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033215208 by Bastun (talk)it needs to say what the source says, which it did. Mixed martial arts record link in infobox"
4. 07:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033366246 by FormalDude (talk) unsourced and ignored instruction. This is HOUND and malicious."
5. 07:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC) "Correct before"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Conor McGregor."
2. 09:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Conor McGregor "/* Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021 */ Note to NEDOCHAN"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "→‎Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021: r"
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033216757&oldid=1033216571&title=Talk:Conor_McGregor
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033217313&oldid=1033217165&title=Talk:Conor_McGregor
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033217530&oldid=1033217397&title=Talk:Conor_McGregor

Comments:

• As you can see, the first thing I did was discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033216596&oldid=1030768807&title=User_talk:Bastun

The project guidelines are very clear, and I have discussed on talk pages. Also, the version I restored is the stable version/ status quo. Discussion is taking place.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• User has been blocked twice before for edit warring. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 10:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place and I restored the status quo.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You restored what was on the page initially—not the status quo. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 10:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO. 'The state in which before'NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The first thing Nedochan did was bring it to my talk page, rather than the actual article talk page, ignoring both the notice at the top of my own talk page and the existing discussion on the article page. As pointed out on the article talk page, the MMA project can't dictate what sources can or can't be used; in addition, there was an RfC on Sherdog's reliability, which concluded: There are arguments both for and against the reliability of this source. Editors who considered the source less reliable cited lack of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, while those in favor cited its agreement with ESPN as an indication of fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. Overall, however, the consensus seems to be that the source is less reliable than ESPN and other sources rated generally reliable, but does not count as a self-published source under WP:SPS. Some editors believe that Sherdog is reliable for some basic information, especially fight information and results, but not other information. Overall, the consensus is that the source should be used with caution, on a case-by-case basis. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC) source. NEDOCHAN participated in that discussion, so is well aware of it (and even, ironically, opined ou have absolutely no right to start telling another editor what source they can and cannot use in that very discussion!) UFC.com says the result was TKO - doctor's stoppage; ESPN says TKO (doctor's stoppage). I don't want to see NEDOCHAN blocked, but he needs to accept that editors other than the handful who participate in

The info you added was initially unsourced. And you have still not provided a source which lists the result as you did.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

UFC is a primary source and is notoriously unreliable. More to the point, however, the fight result is not listed as the way Bastun did so, anywhere. It is listed in Sherdog as how it was before being changed. Sherdog is the leading source for MMA fight records, hence its being part of the MMA infobox. All MMA fight records across Wikipedia use it. It's extremely important for the sake of WP:VERIFY that the records agree, verbatim, with the given source.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Not true. The info I added was already in the body of the article, and was sourced to the same ESPN and other sources. Sherdog is not the leading source for MMA fight records, per the RfC, which has not been overturned. Your refusal to recognise the community consensus that other sources can be used is a problem - this is

WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour! Anyway; we've both made our contributions here. Let's not bludgeon the process. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!}

11:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The official result of the fight is not recorded as you have recorded it in any sources whatsoever. Not a good reason to overturn guidelines that apply to every MMA page in Wikipedia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted that FormalDude was informed of why his edit was reverted here, by another member of the project. So it's not just me who's attempted to explain and discuss. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that Bastun changed sourced information and replaced it with unsourced information. He has still not been able to provide a source that states the official result as he did. I reverted him and posted on his talk page. He then reverted back to his unsourced version while discussion was taking place. Again, I restored the sourced information per WP:STATUSQUO. Rather than continuing the discussion, FormalDude again reverted the sourced information, then reported me. There is no official listing that says TKO (doctor's stoppage due to leg injury). Sherdog has it the way it was. CBS has the official result as well (look at the bottom where the official results are listed), although they don't say what was injured. https://www.cbssports.com/mma/news/ufc-264-results-highlights-dustin-poirier-scores-tko-victory-after-conor-mcgregor-suffers-leg-injury/live/NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The information is sourced in multiple places. The official results from the league running the fight says "TKO (doctor's stoppage)" and every reliable secondary source says that was due to McGregor's leg injury. Your argument has been completely void the entire time and you haven't made any new points or rebuttals. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 12:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

'The league running the fight'? That's not how it works. You could listen to what two highly experienced MMA editors have explained to you, rather than ignoring what we're saying while restoring made up official descriptions. Please show me a single source that list the official result verbatim the way Bastun did. Not a description, a result. The description is not being disputed, the MMA fight record lists official results as per Sherdog.The official results are at the bottom: https://www.cbssports.com/mma/news/ufc-264-results-highlights-dustin-poirier-scores-tko-victory-after-conor-mcgregor-suffers-leg-injury/live/ NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Results? Not "Method", whatever that means? We should change that heading, so. The result was a TKO, due to doctor's intervention, as McGregor had injured his leg. That's what I entered on the table: "TKO (doctor's stoppage due to leg injury)". Table entries don't normally require references. I added one anyway, after your first revert. The ESPN source says "The official result was Poirier by TKO (doctor's stoppage) at 5:00 of the first round."[49] Per

ownership, and threatening to edit-war. Once again: Sherdog is not the only source that can be used, and that won't be true no matter how many times you repeat it. In the face of this intransigence, I am reconsidering my statement that I don't want to see a block. Sheesh. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!}

17:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

In a clear example of WP:HOUND, Formal Dude just went back to the article, changed sourced information that had been clearly marked as correct by another editor, in an article he's shown no interest in. This is clear HOUND in the hope of provoking an edit to add impetus to this absurd charade.

This silly and malicious report that is nothing more than a content dispute should be closed.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I implemented an edit request from Sosa 1917 that pointed out contradictory statements in the article. You then changed it to not match the source in the article. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sosa 1917 has fewer then ten edits, and their most recent one is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033363283&oldid=1033363197&title=Kris_Moutinho NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I recommend the admin take note that this user has been blocked twice previously for edit warring. I think this encounter clearly shows they have no problem reverting edits over and over even when they are proven wrong beyond any doubt. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Partially blocked from Conor McGregor – for a period of 1 week --Chris (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Page: Killing of Samuel Luiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Birdofpreyru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [56]

Comments:
The matter at dispute is included in the talk diff. He has reverted edits many times to include a pretty long sentence in the first paragraph -which he hadn't even done before starting the edit war-. The sentence gives blatant undue weight to one specific theory, which seems to be disproved at this point. He has a history of editing articles to downplay racism and homophobia. Sorry if I myself also reverted his edits too many times. I honestly prefer to be banned if at least I can get his fringe viewpoints removed. Thank you so much for understanding. Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laprivacidadimporta (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Later edit: I posted the warning wrongly and I didn't include the comment. I have ellaborated more on it and can totally admit my fault. I still hope I can get his edits to end. Thank you for being understading.

• Birdofpreyru is no more guilty of edit warring than Laprivacidadimporta, looking at the edit history. I encourage Lap. to take the matter to the article's talk page, since they seem to be the one initiating the change. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Lap lies. It started with him removing the official statement by police, given by all media, which is still the official position: the crime had no homophobic motive. It was the long standing version of the article, written before me. Upon me returning the statement, then making it more explanatory, he went nuts and started the edit war. He also attempts to add his personal ideas to support his point of view (OR in wiki terms) not taken from cited sources. Note, I don't remove the wording saying that witnesses say it is homophobic in their opinion, i just defending the official pov Lap tries to remove. I belive you should penalies Lap, and here is no wrong doing on my side here. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

My "personal point of view" is the one defended by:

• the witnesses
• The Primer Minister
• Just one of many ministers of Spain
• BBC here
• BBC here too
• The Guardian
• CNN
• oh, look, CNN again
• NBC
• Der Spiegel
• El País
• laSexta
• laSexta again just because...

At this point, every single branch of government, every media outlet everywhere in the world and definitely the public opinion agrees without any trace of doubt that it WAS a homophobic aggression. The police hasn't ruled it out either, it merely watered down the allegations the first day. Since then, it has become completely evident that it was a homophobic crime. That statement by the police cannot possibly deserve half of the first paragraph by any reasonable standard. We now know for certain that the crime was homophobic. It is so wrong and messed up that you are trying to tell otherwise. I ask administrators to, please, fix this quickly. Thanks a lot. —laprivacidadimporta (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I think, it will be pretty clear to admins that you got a heavy butt-hurt here, and far from being neutral you are trying to remove official statements from the police investigating the case, because they don't fit into your narrative; and sure you can cherry-pick some articles which agree with you (although in some of the links you posted above there is no statement that it was homophobic crime). Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the "opinions" of literally EVERY single media outlet in the world, every Spanish public administration, etc... And once again, the police only said that on the very first day. Since then, we have come to know exactly what happened and how. And once again, that initial statement cannot deserve half of the first paragraph by any reasonable standard. You don't get to claim that you're the beacon of truth here when you are obviously extremely bothered by me trying to get factual information in the article. You are the one that has a very obvious fringe counterfactual narrative here. And it's clearly not a nice one or a tolerant one. —laprivacidadimporta (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again: you are trying to remove from the article cited position of the official case investigation, becase it contradicts your radical point of view. And you lie when you say that every branch of Spanish government considers it homophobic attack, actually in half of your citations above there is no mention of the position you claim. I just insist it should be kept until the police (or court) officially recognize it was homophobic attack, if they will. I don't see where your allegation of intolerance is coming from. I believe it is a time for you to calm down and wait what administrators decide. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Won't say anything else to let administrators decide, but my "radical point of view" will stay the one upheld by every institution and media outlet. That's my final word on this. You -and everybody like you- can steer opinions, but not change facts. Be tolerant. Respect. Show compassion. Laprivacidadimporta (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

As a third-party, being the creator of this article and a fluent Spanish reader, I will review the sources linked by laprivacidad: [57]: Sanchez says nothing about homophobia, he condemns the attack for being violent and calls for the police to clarify what happened, some general remarks about freedom and tolerance but nothing to say he said it was homophobic, don't put words in people's mouths. [58] Ione Bellara is a minister from Pamplona who was nowhere near the killing, the source calls it "presunto", that is "presumed", homophobic killing. BBC calls it a possible hate crime, as does Guardian, "presunto" again in CNN. El País is paywalled but starts with "for being murderers, or for being homosexual. That is the question". La Sexta questions whether it was a homophobic attack, and says in the first paragraph that it is up to the police and then the judge to decide. I don't speak German so I can't check Der Spiegel, but if they know something the police in the city don't, I would be astonished. Your quote "At this point, every single branch of government, every media outlet everywhere in the world and definitely the public opinion agrees without any trace of doubt that it WAS a homophobic aggression. The police hasn't ruled it out either, it merely watered down the allegations the first day. Since then, it has become completely evident that it was a homophobic crime. That statement by the police cannot possibly deserve half of the first paragraph by any reasonable standard. We now know for certain that the crime was homophobic. It is so wrong and messed up that you are trying to tell otherwise. I ask administrators to, please, fix this quickly. Thanks a lot." is completely false and not justified by the sources that you provided yourself. You are either not comprehending the words in the sources properly, or...well I can't finish the sentence because

WP:AGF. I will conclude with some words you wrote yourself "You -and everybody like you- can steer opinions, but not change facts." I know this is the board for edit warring, but I will point out to the admins, especially if they can't speak Spanish, that the sources provided by Laprivacidad to "prove" what he says is an undisputed fact, do not come anywhere near close to doing that Unknown Temptation (talk

) 12:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey! It wanted to go through some of my references: in the first one the witnesses explicitly say "it was a homophobic crime" (the quote is also the headline so it's very easy to translate using Google or whatever). In the one by the prime minister, although it's true that he's been clearer on other occasions, he says "we won't take a single step back in rights and freedoms; we won't tolerate it". Obviously this wouldn't make any sense without homophobia included; murders were invented with humans as far as I know; he didn't say it even more explicitly to let the investigation follow its course. Same goes for the third one, from a Minister: "We cannot stay in the middle; all political forces must position themselves against this type of violence". What type of violence could it possibly be, if not homophobia? Did she just connect random words? The one from the BBC, literally in the headline again: "He was killed for being gay". The one from the Guardian is in English, but I'll comment that it's all about LGBT violence. The first one from CNN is, again, all about LGBT violence. The second one is a writer's opinion that deems it a homophobic act in the strongest and most explicit possible terms. That article definitely has no other interpretation. The one from El País is called "Why they killed Samuel". As you can already assume, the article goes on and on about why it was homophobic. The first article from laSexta is titled "Was it a homophobic murder?". Again, it goes on and on about why it IS: "If I come close to someone and see some gestures, behaviours or clothing and in my head that matches a gay stereotype, I will recognise it as such [...] After the discussion they identify him as gay and the aggression takes place". The second one is quite literally titled "Samuel's friends explain why it was a homophobic crime". It doesn't feel like I need to analyse it much further...

After two opinions against me, I'm pretty sure that my request will be rejected, but I wanted to translate parts of each of the articles just so that, at least, whoever reads this understands that I'm not expressing a far-fetched or marginal opinion. This is the opinion that all those newspapers endorse and, even if it doesn't make a difference, I would invite anyone to just copy and paste those articles on Translate. I cannot believe anybody would say they don't support what I'm trying to get across here. All those articles go on and on and on and on about the same thing. By the way, it feels important to note that the Spanish version of the wiki article differs very significantly from the English one and definitely doesn't include a sentence taking up half of the first paragraph emphasising so much the opinion you both hold.

I won't be checking this report because I see this is a pretty lost cause., but you both should be pretty ashamed of yourselves... You're not fighting a war here, even if you think you are. I don't normally edit Wikipedia articles; I only chose to edit this one because I felt it was necessary. Clearly shouldn't have, though... Any admin can quickly discard everything I've said; don't have any hopes on this... Hope whoever reads this has a nice day! Laprivacidadimporta (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

That was a nice wall of text to ignore the facts that all of the sources that you provided called it "suspected" or "presumed" and that even LaSexta writes "Las autoridades no han confirmado que el asesinato de Samuel Luiz en A Coruña tuviera motivaciones homófobas, de hecho será el juez el que decida si se trata o no de un crimen de odio." - "The authorities have not confirmed that the killing of Samuel Luiz in A Coruña had homophobic motivations, in fact it will be the judge who decides if it will be treated or not as a hate crime". I will not be ashamed of following Wikipedia's guidelines on reflecting reliable sources, nor will I be ashamed of respecting the rule of law and the judicial process. You are doing the appeal to emotion and trying to shame others who do not agree with you. Even if Pedro Sánchez, that other minister, a newspaper in Britain and one in Germany, had said that this was a 100% homophobic crime - were any of them in A Coruna, are any of them the police who are investigating, and are any of them the judge who will rule on this case? There is absolutely no difference between you and the people who said that an innocent woman in Murcia was attacked for wearing a Spain-flag wristband, when instead the attack was part of a tit-for-tat between far-left and far-right thugs. There is absolutely no difference between you and the people who think every crime by someone with an Arab name is an act of Islamic terrorism, even if he was drunk or a drug dealer. In the supposedly "civilised" world we wait for investigations and trials to conclude. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Page: Michael Kimmel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BMB2232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1001540831&oldid=999258578

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1001540831&oldid=999258578
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1011440914&oldid=1010087325
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1016424936&oldid=1016029711
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1011440914&oldid=1010087325

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (cannot edit user page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1025340245&oldid=909059243

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; (cannot edit user page)

Comments:

Michael Kimmel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has previously been protected (by EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) due to vandalism. Toofarfromhome (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033406123 by Davey2010 (talk) See Talk:Selfie. I am happy to be partially blocked from this section"
2. 13:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033405844 by Davey2010 (talk) Stop. I am going to take this to ANI"
3. 13:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033405465 by Davey2010 (talk) – I added some extras to the article and removed all my own works. In fact, some of your reverts weren't necessary"
4. 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC) "Restored revision 1033383817 by EurovisionNim (talk): Will fix up hang on"
5. 13:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC) "Restored revision 1031862902 by EurovisionNim (talk): Whilst I agree with your reverts, but i reduced the images down"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Selfie."
2. 13:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC) "/* July 2021 */ 3rr"
3. 13:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC) "/* July 2021 */ re."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Today Nim had made controversial changes to the Selfie article which I disagreed with and reverted, This resulted in back-and-fourth edit warring, In between the edit warring I was taken to ANI[59] which as of writing this nothing's happened there.

I'm currently at 4rr due to 2 reverts[60][61] and 2 edit conflicts[62][63] (not an excuse but I lost patience with edit conflicting with them so just copied the entire article with my changes and pasted it not knowing what he did, I was by no means trying to sneakily add the content back - I just became fed up with hitting edit conflict time and time again) and I've not edited the article since - Nim on the other hand had reverted and had been editing it,

I've told Nim twice to seek consensus for their changes however they simply reverted and continued to edit the article, I'm certainly not blameless here as it takes 2 to edit war however in all fairness I wasn't the one making such controversial changes, I held off reporting this hoping something might be done at ANI but nothing has been Thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There is not really any point reporting me here

WP:GA as this can be a good step for big things and get a lot of rewards for my hard work. Some users like Davey do not want to do that, but I have been doing a LOT less replacing images with my own like I did in 2018 and instead am uploading a lot less on Commons and using images which are available to spruce it up and recover it from a mess to a proper high quality tidy article for users. Isn't that the whole aim of editing on Wikipedia? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits)

00:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Despite the apparent mea culpa above, EurovisionNim continues to edit war [64][65] and be more disruptive by making an ANI against anyone who disagrees with him. Sjeintspen (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't edit warred in these two as per

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies to the user. Is this clear enough?EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits)

05:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

And your solution is that I should ignore all rules. If you make massive changes to articles, you are quite likely to meet some resistace. Rather than attacking those who disagree, you would probably find it advantageous to work with other editors. Sjeintspen (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

dispute resolution protocol and starting a discussion on the article's talk page. There's obviously no need to take administrative action now, as it appears that the reverts have stopped. EurovisionNim, please read through this report and the ANI discussion, and please take this as a learning opportunity and an opportunity to improve how you respond to disputes. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

06:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah. Perfect. In fact, I will reread all the relevant policies. I've got a lot on my userpage so that works. Maybe I won't edit articles other users I know will likely revert me. Case closed, and I will take this as an opportunity to familarise myself consdiering i've only been back last week so getting my head to things --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing report, as the relevant discussions have taken place, and the
  edit warring seems to have stopped. See the relevant ANI discussion (permalink) for more information. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}
  06:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Oshwah for your assistance here and at ANI it's greatly appreciated - I'm sorry you were dragged in to all this I really am! Not to cause drama but I'm not entirely happy with the fact no action has been taken given he's also TODAY edit warred on a completely different article, That being said it takes 2 to edit war so guess it would be unfair to punish one and not the other. (I've been here long enough to know how edit conflicts work!)

Anyway I'm happy that Nim's recognised their problems and has read EW too.

I've gone ahead and restored the status-quo content and shall participate in discussions on the talkpage.

Thanks again Oshwah and Sjeintspen for your help. Take care, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 13:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; diff

Comments:

@

WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk

) 00:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I never said that Jorm is not correct. I know what External links are and how to use them, we do, however, do use {{Cite magazine}} or {{Cite journal}} in Bibliography sections, which this editor also disputed, although I seen it many times here when it was used. As for the block, if it will happen, it will be the first one for me, which means I will be blocked for 24 hours, not more. I don't think it will be even. The other thing that I can do is let it cool off for a week or so, and try to insert that source again, (or ask somebody to do it for me). The source, which is this one is quite important, and therefore, should be present in one way or the other.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I will let it slide this time. I have some other articles to attend too. However, if the edit warring will persist on other articles, I will need to come back here. I think the above editors need to be warned at least. This wasn't his article, it's not mine either, but, any addition (as long as it's not spam), should be welcomed. If an editor disagrees with the citation method - fix it. Why revert an addition that is good to add???--Filmomusico (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

any addition (as long as it's not spam), should be welcomed -- I think I get the spirit of what you're trying to say here, but

WP:INDISCRIMINATE exist for a reason. --Chris (talk)

06:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Further, this bothers me a bit: As for the block, if it will happen, it will be the first one for me, which means I will be blocked for 24 hours, not more. I don't think it will be even. There's three things to point out here: (1) it shows that you either don't think that you violated policy or that you don't see an issue with doing so and may again in the future, (2) "they'll be blocked for longer" is not a good attitude to have in a collaborative project, and (3) it's not even correct. There's no reasons your blocks wouldn't be even. Is this really something you want to have said on the record? --Chris (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, he didn't told me it was

WP:UNDUE since the article is only half way cited. Let me rephrase about the blocks: According to our blocking policy we assert it based on the fact if the editor is new or experienced. A new editor might get blocked for less, depending on the scale of a violation. An experienced editor, who had previously been blocked for the same offence (if he did), will be blocked in accordance with his previous violation. Am I correct?--Filmomusico (talk

) 14:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Filmomusico: Blocks are not punitive: they are preventative. If admins are happy that Jorm will not revert again in violation of 3RR, no block is necessary. On the other hand, if a user makes comments implying that they will revert again to preserve their preferred version of the page, then a block is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Understand. As I said, I can let it go, but am worried that this type of editing will continue from Jorm. I never said that I am reverting to the version that is preferred according to me. The source was a necessity, I just don't know where to put it. You see, I was looking for a different film and stumbled on a source for this one. Pages 20-21 clearly indicate that this is a source about The Beastmaster, the only problem is is that the text is too small to read, so, to be safe, I put it in Bibliography with cite template. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, many of our film articles use cite templates in Bibliography. Maybe you can take a look and tell me if it belongs in the article? Will appreciate your input, or do I need a separate discussion for this to be open in dispute resolution?--Filmomusico (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, he didn't told me it was

WP:UNDUE

or anything else -- you made a general statement (any addition (as long as it's not spam), should be welcomed) and I replied with a general rebuttal, showing that there are some cases where this is not true. I am not applying it to this particular situation, only correcting your incorrect generalization.

I'm far more worried about your statement that you are effectively willing to be blocked since you think your block will be shorter. The fact that it it would not be aside (24h is standard for a first EW/3RR block, and neither of you have been blocked before), it concerns me greatly that you seem willing to have yourself and another editor blocked if you think your block will be shorter. This is an extremely counterproductive attitude in a collaborative project and reeks strongly of

WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. --Chris (talk)

00:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like a straight forward case. Filmomusico made 3 reverts and Jorm made 4. I don't really care who is righter in this situation, that does not apply here. It looks like there is no appetite for a block and the disruption seems to have ended. Probably a warning and a close would be best case at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action. If the war resumes, blocks are possible. You might be able to get advice at
  WT:FILM. At first glance it may appear that Filmomusico is insisting on a non-standard way of adding references to the article. Some of Filmomusico's comments above may be more warlike than necessary -- even bringing this to the 3RR board at such an early stage seems premature. Filmomusico, in your post above you are already discussing which of you will get blocked (and for how long). This does not suggest a sincere desire on your part to resolve the dispute. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 17:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Page: July 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FellowMellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:33, 12 July 2021
2. 21:39, 12 July 2021
3. 12:06, 13 July 2021
4. 13:09, 13 July 2021
5. 14:02, 13 July 2021
6. 15:40, 13 July 2021 (this is an undo of this edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:09, 13 July 2021

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [66]

Comments:

So I was warned about something else about changing the election ongoing from no to yes. I did not continue doing that after I was left a message on my talk page. My edit is completely different from before. I fixed the results because they were inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FellowMellow (talk • contribs)

• Comment Looks like a good-faith update of the statistics by FellowMellow per what's on the cited source. I think they're trying to keep to the spirit of the rule. @FellowMellow: I'd suggest starting a talk page discussion about the stats rather than changing again—or really, rather than changing anything on the article for a day or so, to play it safe. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It looks like various people have been rushing to update the article before final results are in. See also the above comment by User:C.Fred. This whole thing may be moot in a couple of days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Page: Baidya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Advaita2222 (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. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:

Reverting repeatedly, ignoring my resolution proposals.

talk

) 17:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Admin's suggestion. @
  Abhishek Sengupta 24 and Advaita2222: you both need to discuss your edits on the talk page and wait for consensus to be reached before changing the article. I would prefer you to work it out amicably, rather than to have either or both of you be sanctioned (discretionary sanctions or otherwise). —C.Fred (talk
  ) 18:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action, per the above comment of User:C.Fred. Note that User:LukeEmily has stated at Talk:Baidya that he is willing to help improve the sources. I suggest that the other editors should try to work with Luke. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Page: Baidya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [78]

Comments:

This is apparent caste glorification. The user belongs to the same caste. They have incorporated rankings that have no substantial basis whatsoever, in order to put their caste on a pedestal. Moreover, they have reverted four times by now.

• Admin's suggestion. @
  Abhishek Sengupta 24 and Advaita2222: you both need to discuss your edits on the talk page and wait for consensus to be reached before changing the article. I would prefer you to work it out amicably, rather than to have either or both of you be sanctioned (discretionary sanctions or otherwise). —C.Fred (talk
  ) 18:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action. See another report of the same dispute below. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Page: Killamarsh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Discodave1889 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80] 26 May
2. [81] 28 May
3. [82] 2 June
4. [83] 3 June
5. [84] 10 July
6. [85] 12 July
7. [86] 12 July
8. [87] 12 July
9. [88] 12 July
10. [89] 13 July
11. [90] 13 July
12. [91] 14 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [94]

Comments:

The sections on fireworks and the ferret society are being regularly re-added to the article. Initially they were removed and the editor informed that lack of citations was the issue, then to avoid 3RR, tagged for "citation needed" to allow opportunity for references to be added. After a month without citations sections were removed again only to be restored on the grounds that "Sources are not mandatory on Wikipedia, which is why it is not authorised by educational bodies as a research tool.", ignoring numerous edit summaries and talk page notices. continuation of reverting even after temporary block. EdwardUK (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked from editing the article for one week for persistent addition of unsourced content by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Page: Eleni Foureira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dealer07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033172901 by Johnnie Bob (talk)"
2. 01:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "I fail to accept having my edits reverted without sufficient arguments (especially when I have already provided one to what my co-speaker posed), if u keep undoing them without sufficient reasoning they will be reverted back."
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC) to 01:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
   1. 01:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "I'm Greek hun, if u don't believe you're more than welcome searching for it. Undoing without having searched first is both illogical and rude. I added a source in case you're still doubting."
   2. 01:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 01:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 01:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 01:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "I already have an account and know how wikipedia works, if you do not provide sufficient arguments I fail to see any flaws with my sayings."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Eleni Foureira."
2. 02:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eleni Foureira."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I think I have figured it out, from the source that they added in their latest edit: they have simply not bothered to check their spelling, and have therefore insistently edited this to say that the man is a raper (a person who commits the crime of sexual assault) rather than a rapper (a musician who sings rap songs). They have still clearly gone over 3RR and failed to communicate with other editors, but it doesn't seem to have been a deliberate attempt at a BLP violation. jp×g 02:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, agreed. Editor will not be released from this WP:AN/EW complaint, however, since the editor vowed to continue edit warring over this indefinitely by his statement referenced above, "... if u keep undoing them without sufficient reasoning they will be reverted back." Johnnie Bob (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(more on above comment) It was immediately after the above edit containing the above comment that I elected to stop reverting the user's edits and file this WP:AN/EW complaint, since I had already posted the 3RR warning on the user's talk page. Johnnie Bob (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Dealer07 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Eleni Foureira unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. It looks like they made five reverts of the article on 12 July. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)