Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive419

User:GSS reported by User:Kuckuckz (Result: Page EC protected)

Page: Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GSS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff 1
2. Diff 2
3. Diff 3
4. Diff 4
5. Diff 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kuckuckz (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSS#Please_undo_your_last_deletion
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)#Please_stop_repetitive_interruption
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuckuckz

Comments: My whole work gets repeatedly deleted. I try to do it good but it seems impossible, that is very sad! There are three users did delete my work: user:GSS, user:David_Gerard, user:Grayfell - I feel very much hindered to write on wikipedia. I also asked @MER-C on my talk-page for a third opinion, but go no answer. The last accuse was 'promotional' which i can not see. Also, these three users are deleting content without contributing that aticle themselves, it seems like they are mainly suppressing. I should get much more honored as contributor. Sorry for that sad story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuckuckz (talk • contribs)

Note: this article is under 1RR and general sanctions per WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 19:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: I have placed Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) under extended confirmed protection per the GS/CRYPTO sanctions. Recently there have been changes made by people with fewer than 500 Wikipedia edits who seem to be enthusiasts for the topic and may not be familiar with Wikipedia standards. For example, one of them removed the 'unreliable sources' tag. The sanctions at WP:GS/CRYPTO were adopted by the community to deal with this kind of issue. New editors can still use the article talk page to propose changes. EdJohnston (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to me with regards to one of the new edits? How is this supposed to assist in the creation of the wiki article. In my comment I describe my reasoning for removing the tag. TNO is a well established source and even has its own wiki page: Nederlandse Organisatie voor toegepast-natuurwetenschappelijk onderzoek (also an english page). Instead of shutting down edits in its entirety from new individuals one could simply undo the small edit instead of blocking new users from trying to improve the page? Seems like quite an over-reaction. I left the "irrelevant citation" there as it can be improved upon with another source but to call a National institute for Dutch research unreliable doesn't make much sense, hence why I removed the tag. Edits the user complaint above ^ is referring to are deletions by GSS/David (so it seems) as stated above. Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:3Oh Hexelon reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Turkish Kurdistan|}}
User being reported:3Oh Hexelon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) {{}}

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[2]]

Comments: They want us to source that mainly Kurds call the parts of Kurdistan as a part of Kurdistan. It is similar that we source that mainly French see that New Caledonia is part of France, mainly British see the Falkland Islands are part of the UK or the Catalans see parts of Catalunya as part of Catalunya Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

He looks like a sock along with User:Kerkükli. As seen here, he just edited the page right after 3Oh Hexelon: 1 2 3. Here is another Kurdish page Kerkükli targeted: 4 Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for socking. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Callanecc: The editor seem to use a third account now; Talkativeness. Same type of edits in the same type of articles. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Eldhorajan92 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eldhorajan92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]
6. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:
I've argued on the basis of the evidence I've got, so it doesn't matter(refer talk page and reference article). They object to false information and do not have the evidence to say what they say! Eldhose ^Talk 04:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It is impossible to discuss with this user because their English is so poor. I haven't responded on my talk page or the article's because I can't even tell what their issue is. Sourced information was removed as fake and then re-added with a different source. Srnec (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The source information(reference) said that St.Mark Monastery was a Syrian, so the new reference was added. Eldhose ^Talk 05:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you understand? Are you the evidence I gave you? Or are it the mistakes I missed? (Refer talk page of Article). I have added the history of the Magdalene Church, as well as the history of the Church, according to the official constitution of the Church, and on the basis of books. I didn't add anything without proof! Eldhose ^Talk 05:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: user continues edit-war this morning; new revision added to the list. Elizium23 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I refused to make it the same because the discussion was going on here. Eldhose ^Talk 02:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that the subject of this report has been making comments to this page using deceptive edit summaries. It's pretty much par for the course here. Elizium23 (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You're fighting without proof, so I had to do this. Eldhose ^Talk 06:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Hhl95 reported by User:LeoFrank (Result: Both editors warned)

Page: Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hhl95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985796365 by LeoFrank (talk) That was not me. Stop edit warring and stop making assumptions."
2. 01:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985545523 by LeoFrank (talk) These references were there to support the dates on which these routes would begin. Now that they have begun, the reference directly with the airline is enough and removal of these references makes the table better readible. After all, we don't use references for every specific destination."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Editing while logged out on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol."
2. 00:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also these two reverts by the user as an IP:

• [12]
• [13] — LeoFrank  ^Talk 17:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not my IP, I'm always logged in. Stop this heist now. It is unacceptable to make false accusations to serve your own interests. As per WP:AGF, you need to provide evidence that the other IP's were mine. I can tell you you won't find evidence, because it wasn't me. Consider also the comments that were made with those revisions; they're written in a style that I wouldn't use. You are assuming bad faith, which is wrong. See also Wikipedia:Don't assume. Hhl95 04:59 (UTC+1), 29 October 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

To admins reviewing this case. This user probably needs to be blocked per WP:NOTHERE and WP:HOUND. Please see my talk page where they are repeatedly undoing my edits. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 07:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Hhh95 and User:LeoFrank are warned. Each of you is risking a block the next time you revert at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol unless you've obtained a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. User:Hhh95 should also not restore their own comments on another user's talk page if the user has removed them. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Hhh95 was removing references from the Airlines and destinations sections of the said article. They have been reverted by two other editors, please see the article history. But this user resorted to restoring them even without logging in as pointed out in the diffs above. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 15:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article. So if there is some editor here that is editing logged-out, that problem won't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Mnl0g 044 reported by User:DA1 (Result: No action)

Page: Hayreddin Barbarossa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mnl0g 044 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]

Was asked to consider writing a report here. User had been informed about 'citation clutter' and WP:CITEMERGE but continued to revert. The edit in question is one phrase "of Turkish" having five different ref footnotes [17] when all I did was merge three of the smallest footnotes into one ref box with bullet-points as suggested in the WP page above, reducing 5 to 3 refs. If we can't even start a cleanup process than there's not much hope for the rest of the article. This is tame and clear-cut and not worth being dragged out further. DA1 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. User:DA1, you might have the better idea here but you've never tried any talk page discussion. See WP:DR for the recommended steps. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on multiple articles by an anonym (Result: Both IP editors warned)

Hello, I am new here. I would like to bring to your attention that an anonymous editor constantly reverts my good faith edits on various articles. He had accused me of disruptive editing, although, what I mostly did was changing a dead link here, adding authors here, and removed multiple periods here. He also does some disruptive edits here, here and a complete bizarre edit here.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The above editor is stripping all spaces from the Infoboxes of articles he edits for no reason. His edits are disruptive. See Template:Infobox film, there is no good reason not to keep the same layout, there is no excuse for stripping out all the spaces. I have reverted his disruptive edits. I have made good faith edits to keep his constructive changes such as adding archive URLs. See also Help:List, there's no reason for stripping spaces from lists either. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

He also has some strange habits. He changes citation formatting to this |author=[[Roger Ebert|Ebert, Roger]]| instead of using the citation parameters first and last parameters and author-link, like this |last=Ebert |first=Roger |author-link .[18] (It is a small difference but using first and last is semantically better. I wouldn't criticize someone for using author when adding a reference but deliberate changing a reference back to use author instead of first/last and author-link is not an improvement.) Some of his also edits removed templates from Infoboxes replacing them with plaintext dates, a minor problem but not an improvement.[19] He also actively ignores WP:LINEBREAK.

I don't know what he finds bizarre about my edit to that film article[20] I tidied the Infobox formatting. I tidied the lists. Instead created various subsections, using headings as recommended by WP:MOSFILM instead of putting unrelated information all under one mixed up heading. Also the article already included a Home media section about the VHS further down, it was redundant to include it twice.

I warned 170.135.176.108 that his edits were disruptive, but maybe I could have made my warning clearer but him turning around and accusing me of vandalism is unexpected. Stripping spaces from articles is pointless, readability is the main reason but there are technical reasons too, Wikipedia is compressed in various ways, you gain nothing by stripping spaces out, that the compression algorithms wont do better. I ask him again to stop making disruptive edits. Some of his edits are constructive, best of luck. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No he did not! He undid changes on this article and demanded that I should archived urls instead of changing them. The thing is, is that new url is shorter, and it shows the same content, so I don't know why he insists on reverting.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I too warned the above editor here, indicating that edit warring over spaces is pointless and he gets nothing by adding them.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

By the time I reverted that swimmer article I had seen the pattern of disruptive edits, in that case I did not make the effort to keep any good parts of the edit, but you could improve the links without stripping all the spaces out of the Infobox.

You might personally think spaces are pointless, but why do you think the examples provided by the Template:Infobox film do things that way? Why do you think it is a good idea not to follow the example of the documentation? Why are you actively determined to strip out spaces, what makes you think that improves articles in any way?

I find his edits persistently disruptive and a minor collection of annoyances so I provided a gentle warning on his talk page. He responded by accusing me of vandalism. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Note to administrators please note that Special:Contributions/170.135.176.108 and Special:Contributions/170.135.241.45 IP addresses are both registered to the same group: US Bancorp. They seem to be two like minded editors working together. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I came here to archive dead links, authors, dates, and do good stuff. Other editors from US Bank were vandals, I am at least trying to add something useful, but of course, an anonym won't allow it. He thinks he owns the article or something. The examples in the Template:Infobox film are default settings, and we can change them however we like. I'm determined to strip spaces because most do not have them, and it is pointless to edit an article for that reason alone. So, with that said, you are being disruptive, not me.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

And now look: he accuses me of inserting "unnecessary abbreviations". I didn't insert anything.:(--170.135.241.45 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(I did not "accuse" you of anything, but when you reverted my edit you also restored an unnecessary abbreviation which unfortunately many older film articles use, because people lazily copied the runtimes directly from IMDB.)

I have already agreed not all your edits are disruptive. I ask you to stop and think about stripping spaces. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason. I urge you to look at the help documentation and the templates documentation and the recommendations of guidelines such as WP:LINEBREAK. I'm not asking to add spaces, but I am asking you to leave well enough alone and not deliberately remove spaces from articles.

If as you say yourself, you are "determined to strip spaces" and admit you have no intention of abiding by the examples of the documentation I would ask the administrators to put you on a temporary block to give you some time to think over that decision. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) This appears to be occurring across multiple pages. The filer (170.135.241.45) has noted reverts of their edits by the filee (109.76.200.104) on the following pages:

• Mike Kenny (swimmer) (3RR hasn't been violated)
• Milk Money (film) (3RR hasn't been violated, though the filer has self-reverted at one point)
• Suad Nasr (3RR hasn't been violated)
• University of Cologne (3RR hasn't been violated)
• Noni juice (3RR hasn't been violated)
• Where the Boys Are '84 (3RR hasn't been violated)

With how this issue is spread across multiple pages I think WP:HOUNDING can be suspected beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the content being reverted, I strongly recommend both the filer and filee read MOS:STYLEVAR. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I will be out until Monday, can we discuss it then? It it OK not to edit war until Monday anonym? Thanks.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This editor did not have to escalate this and accuse me of vandalism. This editor did not even stop during this discussion and continued to strip spaces from articles.[21][22] He has clearly stated that he has no intention of changing his behavior. I maintain my request that this editor (and his friend) be blocked temporarily. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to present my point of view on this. 170.135.176.108 started later with Mike Kenny (swimmer), but I started from the film article Milk_Money. I usually edit film articles, and removed user ratings from Amazon and IMDB that are not allowed because of they are WP:USERGENERATED and WP:UNRELIABLE.[23] Shortly after 170.135.241.45 (who I will refer to as BankcorpUser45) changed the article with the edit summary "Authors, page and clean-up." [24] where he stripped all the spacing from the infobox and lists, (ignoring the example of Template:Infobox film, and Help:List) and in citations replaced first and last parameters with the author field, containing a comma and wiki links (which isn't so bad but leaving first last and adding author-link would have been better). (It isn't clear why he removed the title from the reference to San Jose Mercury News either.) It doesn't help that the editor was declaring his forcing of his preferred personal style (of no spaces) as "clean-up". So I reverted those changes and fixed a link while I was at it.[25] (Later he did not check before reverting and carelessly removed the URL I added for Janet Maslin.[26])
I then made an effort to see if this was a pattern of edits, and see if I needed to correct related problems on multiple articles, particularly film articles. A pattern of edits was evident, (some bad, some good, some sloppy). I can understand how some editors might think removing unused parameters from Infoboxes might seem helpful but when an film article is only Start class we should for example be working to try and find budget information for that film, not removing the empty field entirely. Stripping out spaces on a very stable Good Article or Featured article is less of a problem because (at least in theory) there is less need for anyone to read the markup to make changes and fixes, but on the kinds of lower quality articles Bankcorp45 and Bankcorp108 have been editing stripping spaces just makes the markup less readable for the next editor who might be trying to improve the article, and removing unused parameters from the Infobox discourages editors from actually filling in the blanks. I thought the pattern of edits were a little naive and aggressive and wished they could make the obviously good archive fixes without all the unnecessary stripping of spaces, and slightly odd reformatting of author fields.
At first I didn't notice that pattern of edits came from both 170.135.241.45 and 170.135.176.108 (Bankcorp108), and gradually realized it was most likely two editors working together. I tried to fix some more of the articles, I warned Bankcorp45 that his edits were not constructive. I made a note on Bankcorp108's page asking him to please follow the recommended formatting of WP:LINEBREAK. Not following the all guidelines or an established style when you are adding to an article is one thing, but actively changing things away from what the guidelines recommend is disruptive.
The response was to cry foul, accuse me of vandalism. They didn't consider my recommendations at all, they didn't politely disagree, Bankcorp108 instead escalated to accusations of vandalism. (I've worked with people like him, goofing off at work editing Wikipedia but immediately cries foul when he thinks others aren't playing by the rules.) They have reverted my edits with little consideration. As you can see above Bankcorp108 has clearly stated that he is determined to continue to strip spaces from articles, even though this isn't in keeping with the examples provided by the documentation, or any existing style in an article. And after rushing to accuse me of vandalism Bankcorp108 then declares he is gone for the weekend! On a personal note I would like them to consider for their own sake that perhaps their employer would not be impressed if they knew employees were editing Wikipedia when they are supposed to be working and that maybe it would be better if they edited Wikipedia on their own time. I'd like them to reconsider their editing behavior, but I don't think they will even recognize that their pattern of editing is aggressive (and rushing to accuse other editors of vandalism is certainly aggressive) without some kind of of short term block as a warning. (For convenience feel free to refer to me as 109 for short). I will continue to check this thread over the next few days. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I learned about WP:BOOMERANG (while checking out other parts of this page). Interesting that it happens often enough to have a name.

I do not like being called a vandal, I hope this can be resolved soon, and would appreciate clarification from administrators on this matter. (I will check again at some point on Monday.) -- 109.79.76.103 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

And I don't like being called a disruptive editor.

Now, I wasted 4 hours of my precious life reverting nonsensical edits by 109. I assumed that I will come here, edit a few articles by adding reception and other stuff (which you all can do too, but non chooses, everybody have something else to do and someone else to blame for their shortcomings). As for your comment:

On a personal note I would like them to consider for their own sake that perhaps their employer would not be impressed if they knew employees were editing Wikipedia when they are supposed to be working and that maybe it would be better if they edited Wikipedia on their own time.

So you know more about my job then I would know about my own mother???!!! Let me guess, non of you are employed, so you can judge anybody?

Also, why are you crying foul? I can't edit Wikipedia on my own time? I need to play according to what you like and what you don't like? Are you my employer? Yes, I was gone for the weekend, so what? How often do anybody of you go on Wikibreaks? How many of you have something else to do besides edit warring here? Do you have other hobbies? Families? I wish I could have ended this debacle sooner, but unfortunately, the site won't allow me to edit anything from my phone. I also have no obligation to disclose why I edit Wikipedia from work, but OK. Have anybody heard of 15-minute breaks? So, during those time, by law, I can do whatever, and, if I choose to edit Wikipedia, there is no code that will prohibit me from doing that. I'm also a manager of this organization, and, as long as no employees are needing anything, I can edit this thing 24/7. Again, there is no code against that either, nor in Wikipedia, nor in the organization's policies.

Speaking of policies, have 109 read on WP:IAR? This policy explains why your WP:HOUNDING of my edits is not welcome here. I can ignore your edits as long as you will ignore mine.:) Also, please read on WP:Harassment. While we are not there yet, hounding of someone's edits is a precursor to that.

As for my sloppy editing, how can edit not sloppy if I am being hounded? I seen it.

And, my note to admins: If editor 109 have a right to question legitimacy of my IP accounts, keep in my mind that there are numerous of editors here under this IP. This leads to suspicion that user 109 is also, either edits from both IPs (which are registered to Vodafone), or is a sockpuppet of user:109.77.151.81 (formerly known as Mieszko 8). Note: In order for an IP to be considered a sockpuppet, the editing patterns and topics are not required to be the same. The IP could have just awoken from a "slumber" and decided to attack a different topic, using hounding tactic instead. I hope that the admins will look into that matter too and make a wise decision.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Admins? Still hoping for answers and clarification here.

Again Bankcorp108/Bankcorp45 didn't have to escalate this by accusing me of vandalism. He could revert and disagree without needing to call me a vandal in his edit summaries. He could try WP:BRD. (I do not have a problem with him using different IP addresses, but it wasn't clear if it was one person or two friends with the same editing habits.)

He thinks he was being hounded, but doesn't accept that it might be that he has been making lots of mistakes, and that not following the examples of the templates and not following various guidelines might be a bad thing, disruptive even. If he looks again at WP:STYLEVAR, it tells us both to leave well enough alone, and that includes his stripping out spaces from Infoboxes (also replacing first and last with author[27] is also the kind of thing STLYEVAR is trying to tell editors not to do). He thinks WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply to the changes he is making, only to other editors.

I do not like how he removes spaces but he's making plenty of other mistakes too that his stripping of spaces makes more difficult to see. Removing URLs does not improve an article.[28] When you add references to The New York Times include the URL too so other editors can easily WP:VERIFY and read the article. Removing (birth) date templates not good either.[29] (He removed an Amazon.com URL[30] but didn't replace it with a better reference, until a much later edit. WP:RSPSOURCES does say Amazon.com links can be used sometimes, and a it is still better than no reference at all.) Other edits aren't wrong, they just seem unhelpful[31] and don't improve the article.

I welcome comments from admins. I choose to edit anonymously, and as far as I know I'm following the rules, but there are a whole lot of rules, and we all make mistakes sometimes. But we don't all accuse people of vandalism when our edits get reverted. -- 109.76.130.104 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Under different IPs, 109.76.130.104 has received warnings for edit warring, not using sources, unconstructive editing, and removing maintenance templates (and those are what I could find). Their editing under different IPs may not be WP:ILLEGIT, but it's hard not to be suspicious of their reasons for doing so, especially since they cited a humorous essay in response to a suggestion to register as a user. KyleJoan^talk 03:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

People throw those warnings like candies at Halloween, most were spurious. I responded to KyleJoan at length already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.79.184.96 and when people raise concerns I DISCUSS on the relevant article talk pages (but not usually on user talk pages), and again here I have tried to discuss and learn more.

KyleJoan accused me of being a sock puppet and was told I was not. I think it is because KyleJoan is very protective of the Charlies Angels article, but it could be something else. You don't need to like me but your suspicions are unfounded. Take a look at the diffs, judge the edits not the user. Tell me you'd be okay with Bankcorp108 stripping spaces or removing URLs from any of the pages you protect. -- 109.76.130.104 (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring is a conduct policy, therefore, it is your conduct that's under scrutiny and not the content you added/removed. I'm merely presenting a theory about your reasoning for editing anonymously, as you put it, which is to give yourself a clean slate every few weeks or so to avoid blocks since registered users won't see past warnings on your previous IP addresses' talk pages. KyleJoan^talk 04:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have called you a vandal, but a hounder, you are. Admit it. My "unhelpful edit here does follow a policy, that is WP:EXTERNALLINK which clearly says that it "shouldn't be a collection of external links". For a stub, one external link is enough. There is nothing illegit about using an IP over a username but there is a problem why you are using it and how. For example, I use my IP to add sources to the content, there is nothing wrong about it. You, on the other hand, use it to stalk me, which is strange because I personally didn't do anything to you. Some articles do come stripped of spaces and as I see, not many editors really care. Edit warring over it is another matter. As for my errors, I would like to apologize, but knowing that 109 will come back, revert, and accuse me of being disruptive, or revert properly archived sources which are put there so that the links can be verified causes me to do all sort of errors. Please, stop following me around as I am here only to cause disruption. If you want to fight vandalism go to other articles/topics. I bet our Covid-19 articles are vandalized more then anything else now. Go do something useful there. :)--170.135.241.45 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, our anonym is being impatient because admins don't respond to his tantrums. But what he doesn't get is that admins are human beings, they are busy, and I bet many just ignore such impatient editors. You don't own Wikipedia. Nobody owns it, so stop demanding quick resolution, blocks, etc. You are not in charge here. If I would have been your manager, I probably would sent you home without a check for that day. Nobody likes annoying editors/employees who are gathering to cry about their rights as an editor. :)--170.135.241.45 (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: (Now, I don't who will respond first Kyle or Joan? :)), thanks for mentioning on the anonyms' possibly previous unconstructive activities. Should I file an SPI report? Because, how I see it, is that a possible sock have changed tactics. I think, those edits alone (of following users and reverting archived sources) worth an investigation.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

And, after looking at this I can see who 109 really is.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. See you all in couple of days.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If Bankcorp108 believes his deleting all those External links is in accordance with WP:EXTERNALLINK it would be better if he mentioned WP:EXTERNALLINK or WP:EL or WP:ELDUP in his edit summary. I think he is again misinterpreting the policies, 5 External links is not that many, and I think that delete was indiscriminate. The links to the AFI and particularly the link to Internet Archive which provides a public domain link to the whole film should not have been deleted.

I'm not the one who escalated this. Bankcorp108 is trying to suggest that my checking a few of his edits is somehow causing him to make more errors than he was already making. So I reverted an edit that wasn't entirely bad (it archive a link) and he cries foul, but when I added an URL to a New York Times reference he reverted it.[32] (It make sense little sense why anyone would add new references to the NYT without including an URL in the first place, but I've seen other editors do that recently too.)

You can file an SPI but you'd be wasting the admins time same as when KyleJoan did it. I don't pretend to be someone I'm not, I edit anonymously, I use the IP address randomly assigned to me.

The top of this board says "Sections older than 48 hours are archived" so I expected admins response time would be related to that but it seems response time is much longer. -- 109.78.193.104 (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, this thread is hard to read. Consider following the template given in other threads. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:170.135.176.108 and User:109.78.193.104 are warned. If I notice either of you reverting one of the other's edits on any article in the next thirty days you are risking a block, unless you have first obtained a consensus for your change on the article talk page. The methods of reaching consensus are well known and you are expected to follow them. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • So the conclusion of all that is follow WP:BRD? -- 109.79.88.232 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikiman122112 reported by User:Bastun (Result: Indef)

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

User being reported: Wikiman122112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:08, 29 October 2020 "Added note (Tag: Reverted)"
2. 12:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "Hopefully this New note will make it and be the official height. I will try and push it in the consensus . And end this confusion once and for all , Sherdog source added including the past 2 sources that were on the article"
3. 11:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986031888 by Bastun (talk) consensus can sure change , let’s discuss on there. It’s ok"
4. 11:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986031393 by Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk) check talk page . Let’s discuss, you can’t just revert such a reliable source and great note"
5. 11:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986028847 by NEDOCHAN (talk) check talk page , must get to a new consensus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "/* October 2020 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Here on article talk page;
2. Here on user's talk page.

Comments:

Hello , why is it that you people have to report whenever things don’t go your way , fellow editors take a look at the Conor mcgregor article and please help us out there to avoiding an edit war . I am trying to get to a new consensus because of some false consensus several editors have reached to . It’s time to start a new consensus but the editors, especially the Irish person won’t accept to start discussing like a normal person would on Wikipedia. I did nothing wrong . I could report the user who reported me for edit warring as well, but I understand wiki guidelines more and I am more patient. Please take a look at the new note edit I made and write back . Whether consensus is reached or not the sources they chose are in the note itself but I added the Sherdog source as well because according to multimedia wiki edits it’s the most reliable and has been used in many other mma articles.Wikiman122112 (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

3RR has been breached. 1, 2, 3, 4 (yes, this does indeed count as a revert). This editor previous block for edit warring expired just yesterday. They were removing Sherdog as a source, breached 3RR and received a deserved 1 week block. Now they've edit warred again, breached 3RR, but this time they're motive is to include Sherdog. Classic case of WP:POINTy. The "false consensus" this user speaks of was achieved through a lengthy discussion at Talk:Conor McGregor#Conor McGregor's Height Should be 5'11" and Certainly Not 5'8", in which several editors participated (including admins), of which the majority agreed that 5'9 is the height to be listed. – ².O.^Boxing 14:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And now a fifth revert. – ².O.^Boxing 15:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• N.B.: Wikiman122112 has now actually vandalised this report, which is a new one on me! Going to attempt to restore now while retaining Squared.Circle.Boxing's subsequent comment. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Baha I didn't even notice! Just to note, the editor in question has previously vandalised a report here regarding them in the past. – ².O.^Boxing 14:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – User has been blocked twice previously in the month of October alone! Now they are removing part of their own report. They previously removed an entire AN3 report on October 14. If they have any defense for this nonsense (either the constant revert warring on heights and weights of fighters, or removal of their own report) they should offer it in their unblock appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:243:2000:3610:B977:3959:92E2:C1A6 reported by User:Wjemather (Result: Semi)

Page: Jack Nicklaus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:243:2000:3610:B977:3959:92E2:C1A6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article ip user talk page: [39]

Comments:
IP user inserted problematic (NPOV) language to BLP, keeps reverting (later reverts with added cherry-picked sources) despite multiple contributors advising them directly and/or through edit summaries. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Kami2018 reported by User:Xerxes931 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Khalji dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kami2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41] 9 August revert
2. [42] 10 August revert
3. [43] 22 August Revert
4. [44] 28 August revert
5. [45] 2 September revert
6. [46] 11 September revert
7. [47] 4 October revert
8. [48] 9 October reverting sourced information
9. [49] 18 October reverting sourced information
10. [50] 20 October reverting it again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51] once by this user on the 18th and then by me [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:

The reported user is reverting this page for almost 3 months now against several users including me and has done more than 10 reverts. As you can see the user bounces the article back and forth against several users. The user is removing the word "Afghan" from "Turco-Afghan" or "Turkic-Afghan" several times and wants it to be "Turkic" Solely, although the information is well sourced. The user is warned already and in the edit summaries me and other users pointed out to the user that the user should use Talk pages for reaching a consensus for the user's "idea or Point of View". The sources are against the user so I do not understand the many reverts. This is obvious edit-warring for the same information again and again for the same goal against many users. Xerxes931 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week I realise that they haven't edited for around a week but it seems pretty clear what their intentions are. If they return and continue after the block expires please re-report or let me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Hanoi Road reported by User:Grandpallama (Result: Blocked 3 days)

Page: A History of Violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hanoi Road (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59][60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61][62]

Comments:
User quickly broke 3RR and is now kinda-sorta participating on the talkpage, albeit with a high degree of hostility. Characterized the reversions of their edits as "vandalism" and came roaring to my talkpage with threats. Extensive history of warnings on their talkpage about both personal attacks and edit warring. Grandpallama (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Solavirum reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Partial blocked for 3 days)

Page: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solavirum (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. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]
5. [67]
6. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments: This user has recently been blocked but still continues edit-warring. They have been on a revert spree for the past 48 hours: [71] and doesn't appear to stop. Some edit-summaries are misleading: "ce" ([72]) when in fact the user has reverted detailed information. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to answer too all of these one by one. I've been reported several times over this article, and all have been resulted in my favor. This isn't the first time I'm getting unjustly reported.

• 1 – this isn't a revert. There's a difference between a revert and removing something from the article. In any case, nobody contested it.
• 2 and 5 – there's a discussion going on about it. I've explained it [73], but EtienneDolet didn't even cared to respond. This is totally justified on my behalf. You'd got to respect WP:CONSENSUS.
• 3 and 4 – yet again justified. The footage was literally copied from Telegram with the watermark stuck to it. The footage was replaced with a free one later on by another user.
• 6 – you seem to fail to understand what WP:COPYEDITING means. If you objected my ce, you could have headed over to the talk page. Copyediting might include removal of certain content too. Putting WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH here.

Furthermore, this is not the article's talk page, it's my talk page. And that's not even an attempt to resolve dispute, it's just a warning spam on my talk page. Such actions won't put weight to your point. recently been blocked doesn't represent the reality too.

That's it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum it appears you made three reverts within 24 hours on 21:13, 27 October 2020; 13:44, 27 October 2020 and 21:18, 26 October 2020, is not that right? Citing WP:Reversion policy “A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting. If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it... Assuming good faith that all you want to do is to make the article better, still getting into a habit of reverting others' edits may make others feel that somehow a particular user has taken extra rights on editing the article, obstructing others from doing so without the permission of that user. Regards, Armatura (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC) ‎

@Armatura: it's actually five reverts within a span of 24 hours: [74][75][76][77][78]. Please see the time stamps. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Blocked – for a period of 3 days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC) There are definitely four reverts that I am very comfortable are clear reverts: [79] [80] [81] and [82]. While I agree that [83] is technically a revert I'm not 100% convinced that there was an intention to revert the actions of others. While there could be an argument made that the reverts of the video were covered by the 3RR copyright exemption I'm not convinced that the action taken by Solavirum was done so with the intention of being covered by it. Additionally, having also seen some incivility and battleground conduct above (e.g. you seem to fail to understand what WP:COPYEDITING means) and the user's history of edit warring I've decided to block them editing the article for 3 days which is a little longer than normal for a block in this situation primarily because of their previous block. I'll leave this as a warning on their talk page but there's some thin ice particularly around edit warring and continuing it will likely lead to a discretionary sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

User:CuriousGolden reported by User:Գարիկ Ավագյան (Result: Agreement)

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: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CuriousGolden (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:

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

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]
5. [88]

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

Comments:

This user mostly without discussion reverts other users' edits to his advantage. Look at the user's contribution page. He has already done 14 reverts within 48 hours in 4 articles, connected to the Nagorno-Karabakh ongoing conflict.

Hello. I'll address all the edits one by one:

1) User tries to remove an already established paragraph about a video because he thinks it's not WP:RS, yet he provides no reason why he thinks it's WP:RS other than apparent WP:IJDLI. You're supposed to start a discussion on the talk page before removing established content for a reason only you have brought up so far.

2) User tries to add a new paragraph about a very serious claim with only 2 sources, one of them being a government claim from the separatist regime (accuser) and the other is a source directly quoting the separatist regime's government without any making confirmation of itself. An accusation as serious as beheading a soldier needs a reliable source that isn't from a separatist government, whose only purpose is to show the accused side in a bad light.

3) Somewhat confused as to part of that revert you thought is an "edit war" or "wrong". I've explained it in my edit summary. "Accused" already means according to the accuser and has not yet been confirmed by anybody else. The user was trying to repeat the point in an article which only needs shortening, not expanding.

4) User is trying to change a direct quote from a source that accuses one side of something. You can't change a quote.

5) Again, very confused as what part of this edit you thought is an "edit war" or "wrong". I could even report you for that edit. You've removed a whole paragraph because one word in the paragraph was not the same as in the source. I restored the paragraph and in my next edit, changed the word (that you deleted the whole paragraph for) per source.

Comment: Are you sure these edits are me reverting things to my advantage, or me reverting things to a way that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? I've provided reason in all of the edit summaries about why they were reverted and took time to explain them further here. And I'm also confused as to how any of the provided edits of my are an edit war when none of the edits I made led to one or were reverted back by another user. (if someone did revert my edit, I would take it to the talk page and discuss it to reach consensus and wouldn't start an edit war, like I haven't so far). — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

User:CuriousGolden, you seem to be admitting that the five edits listed in the report really *are* reverts. Is that correct? Your argument is that the reverts are beneficial, but they still are reverts. Even #5 is marked 'Undid' in the history. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: They are 5 different reverts in completely different times about completely different subjects between different users, in none of which 3RR was broken. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Check the wording of the policy in WP:EW:

The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.

The five edits at the head of this report are all by you, they are all reverts, and they all happened on 28 October. That clearly violates WP:3RR. You might be able to avoid a block if you will agree to stay away from this article and its talk page for a period of two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'll choose avoiding the article for two weeks. Thanks. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the the history of the article it is quite visible that CuriousGolden is in one of the leading editors per number of its reverts. I can attest that by far not all his / her reverts are discussed in talk / user page as claimed, but rather "last word" statements are made in the reversion comment instead. Regards Armatura (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't been able to provide any source for any of my reverts breaking any rule as you love to claim everywhere. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: To avoid a block, User:CuriousGolden has agreed to stay away from the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article and its talk page for two weeks. I hope you will also refrain from mentioning Nagorno-Karabakh in other places during that time. You were previously alerted to the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions back in April. I hope that all the Nagorno-Karabakh editors will keep those sanctions in mind. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston I hope this includes articles related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as well, where many reverts were done by the user, such as, 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks, 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, Timeline of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and others. I would appreciate seeing admins in the article 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and other articles connected to this ongoing conflict, especially on the Talk pages. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Գարիկ Ավագյան: for bringing this to the attention of this board and many thanks @EdJohnston: for the justice promptly served. I can see, however, that now this user is busy editing the article on Barda ballistic missile attacks - a direct part of the same ongoing NK conflict, with his last edit in that page at 19:26, 29 October 2020‎. Is this allowed? Regards, Armatura (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I notice that User:CuriousGolden removed a valid move discussion from Talk:Barda ballistic missile attacks. I've asked them to self-revert. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Hey, I have reverted my move request. And if I remember I agreed to not edit 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for 2 weeks specifically. Nothing about not editing any pages relating to Karabakh. Respectfully, — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 06:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden:, I am citing @EdJohnston:'s polite request to you I hope you will also refrain from mentioning Nagorno-Karabakh in other places during that time. Was this not clear enough? Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat having a hard time understanding your active participation in this report and trying to keep me out of the said articles, but here's how the conversation between me and him went:

EdJohnston: You might be able to avoid a block if you will agree to stay away from this article and its talk page for a period of two weeks.

Me: I'll choose avoiding the article for two weeks. Thanks.

It's clear what I agreed to and I would be happier if I cleared any confusion there might be in our conversation (me and EdJohnston) between ourselves rather than other users trying to explain what another user meant. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:34, 30 October 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:LocalContributor281 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jet Jurgensmeyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: LocalContributor281 (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 16:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC) to 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC) "Please see rationale for explanation. Evidence will be posted there later."
   2. 16:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 16:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC) ""
   5. 16:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC) ""
   6. 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC) ""
   7. 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC) to 15:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC) "The channel Jet Jurgensmeyer is a confirmed and reliable channel."
   2. 15:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 15:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC) "Geraldo. His account is confirmed."
4. 15:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC) "He specifically confirmed his information and it is said to be true from him. His channel is official and is not spam. Please stop reverting my changes. If you feel these are not acceptable, please talk to me."
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC) to 15:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 03:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986065174 by IJBall (talk)"
7. 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring since yesterday and refusing to adhere to WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. 3RR warning can be found here, and a discussion can be found at Talk:Jet Jurgensmeyer#Name and Birth Date, but that is no excuse to continue trying to implement controversial changes, as that ignores the status quo. However, also note that the discussion was just started. As such, there has been no actual discussion yet; therefore, there is no WP:CONSENSUS. Amaury • 16:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did not "refuse" to refer to the guidelines. I took 2 other editors advice who recommended the same and I have provided sufficient info. LocalContributor281 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see also User talk:IJBall#Referencing and User talk:Geraldo Perez#Why are you reverting my changes?. The issue here is not a lack of communication, but a failure to listen to what two experienced editors are trying to instruct about WP:BLPs and sourcing. I suspect a warning should be sufficient here, but LocalContributor281 needs to start listening to what other editors are telling them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You know what? I'm actually starting to get really annoyed with this controversy. Just go ahead and block me, because at this point, nobody cares about my opinions. I always try to contribute, but because everyone is a fascist, they delete my changes and threaten to block me. In summary, please block me as soon as possible, because this is getting out of hand and I won't let this ruin my day, if not, my life. LocalContributor281 (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This has gone far enough. If you think I'm an abuser, boy are you wrong. You have no idea how much I can do to this discussion. Just block me and get this over with now. LocalContributor281 (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:C080:1610:F89E:725C:F945:5013 (talk)

And now further disruption/WP:EW at Jet Jurgensmeyer – clearly the above IP is LocalContributor281 editing while logged out – I now support a block of at least the IP until this is sorted out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. IP blocked 72 hours for logged-out editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

User: 95.122.136.229 reported by User:Hobomok (Result: Block, Semi)

Page: Genocide of indigenous peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) & Spanish colonization of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.122.136.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]
5. [94]
6. [95]
7. [96]
8. [97]
9. [98]
10. [99]
11. [100]
    

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]
5. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107]
[108]

Comments:
It's probably easiest to just look at each article's history, but this ip has been deleting or changing large swaths of the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples' article for the last week, from Spanish colonization of the Americas, to headings about Pequot massacre, to Genocide in Bangladesh. I have not debated anyone on Genocide in Bangladesh; however, I have tried to talk the user into discussing sweeping changes on the sections regarding the Americas and the page as a whole. Multiple editors have tried to revert sweeping edits, but ip reverts them. As you'll see on the talk page, discussion is met with combative and demeaning behavior. I and another user have tried to discuss with them on their talk page, but are met with user responding in kind on my talk page that, "the page is a mess and it should be clear what [they're] doing." I have come close to edit warring with the user, but in the interest of not doing so and stopping the user from continuing to make edits like the ones above on pages related to genocide and colonization, I bring the issue here, as user is now trying to make similar edits on the page Spanish colonization of the Americas, which are reflected in a separate set of diffs after examples from the first page. Hobomok (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

In my view the situation is diametrically opposed to what Hobomok portrays. He has a very strong stance on a specific issue related to American history and openly refuses to accept any source which runs contrary to his opinion. He has been warned by other editors of his WP:OWN attitude [109] and is now tracking my edits to other articles where he also wants to impose his view regarding a very narrow issue and is already encountering opposition [110] - It seems he wants it to be clear the Spanish presence in the American continent was based on genocide and anything questioning this manichean view must be eliminated or censored. He has rejected sourced statements by world renown historian Henry Kamen which he wants eliminated from the article, pushing his own view on the basis of very obscure non-specialized sources from second or third rate institutions in the United States. He has expressed his openly uncompromising (and sadly misinformed) POV here [111] and here [112]. Note that his argument for censoring Kamen is basically that its a "tired narrative"(sic) which he doesn't agree with. All of this while sabotaging my attempts to recover a section in Genocide of indigenous peoples article which had been vandalized by substituting the 1971 Bangladesh genocide for the Chittagong hill track conflict which thankfully has been restored with the collaboration of other editors.95.122.136.229 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I was very clear that I did not wade into, nor do I care, about edits to the Bangladesh Genocide section of the page. The other editor that ip claims defended them did so believing that I was wading into the Bangladesh debate, and corrected themselves when I explained what was happening on the talk page here. R/t other editors warning ip, another editor attempted to remove their ad hominem attacks here, as that editor saw them as "toxic behaviour" that "is harming the whole community." Finally, I can assure you that I am not "tracking" ip's edits, as you will see that, first off all, ip has been reverted again here by another separate user, and further, a separate user first reverted ip on the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples' page here and here and the Spanish Colonization of the Americas page here (these are both reflected in the original diffs, as ip was attempting to edit war with this user prior to me). Multiple users have rebuffed this user's sweeping edits on both pages. I can assure you just because I watch two pages does not mean I am tracking a specific user's edits.Hobomok (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: IP blocked 48 hours and both articles semiprotected one month. The IP has been reverted by several different editors, many of them saying that the IP's changes are unsourced. Please wait for agreement on Talk. The issue of what counts as a genocide is obviously important, but it's unlikely to be settled by edit warring. The IP's scornful comments in many of their edit summaries are unlikely to win over other editors. User:C.J. Griffin has suggested this IP might be the same person as User:Filologo2 who was a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azerti83/Archive. Per that report, Filologo2 was known for their "relentless POV-pushing on Spanish history". The Azerti83 case mentions IPs who were based in Madrid, just like the IP editor reported here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Sword313 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Blocked)

Page: Republic of Artsakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sword313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113] (The initial edit)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]
5. [118]
6. [119]
7. [120]
8. [121]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [123]

Comments:

This is not a 3RR case, but a tendentious repetition of an identical unsourced edit that has been almost the sole focus of the user since the first of these edits on 20 October. I opened a discussion on their user talk page, but this doesn't seem to have affected the pattern. There are past notices regarding sourcing and edit warring on their talk page, so this does not appear to be a new issue. CMD (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Four UN resolutions on the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia were mentioned in the "de jure". This is the biggest reference. Someone have repeatedly stated that it is recognized by three non-UN member states. This is not important, because they are separatist organizations like Arsakh. Two separatist organizations belong to Georgia and one to Moldova. And someone mentioned the country to which the status of those separatist organizations belongs. But when it comes to Arsakh's article, the opposite is true. Georgia's two separatist organizations are recognized independently by four states. However, no country recognizes the separatist organization called the "Arsakh Republic" and considers it the territory of Azerbaijan. I'm sorry, this is a double standard.

The status of this unrecognized state is not true. If it is not recognized, the territory of the state must be written. Now I have already added references. These references are documents of 4 UN resolutions. Everything is proven. Thank you. User:Sword313 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for long-term edit warring. User:Sword313 kept on making the same revert, from 10/20 through 10/31, but never posted on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User:YoungForever reported by User:theOnlyWayUpIsDown (Result: Semi)

Page: Next (2020 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YoungForever (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. [124]
2. [125]
3. [126]
4. [127]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

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

Comments:
User ForeverYoung belives the series episode 3 named "File #3" was not aired on TV on the 27th October 2020 within the U.S; though the series third episode did air on the 27th; after it had been postponed the previous week. As a result of it being postponed the episode was made available on Hulu and Fox's online streaming services on the 14th.

There are various sources online, and the fact that viewers watched the third episode on TV on the 27th of October. Multiple users have attempted to correct this mistake, of Forever Young believing that it has not been aired yet, and will on the 10th of November. Though user ForeverYoung has undone changes by any user attempting to resolve this multiple times.

I have tried to inform them of so yet he fails to acknowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by theOnlyWayUpIsDown (talk • contribs)

The reliable sources on the article stated that it did not aired on FOX due to the World Series game. The World Series game was airing on FOX on October 27, 2020 during that time of the episode was supposed to air originally, but the episode was postponed again because of the game. In addition, 3 out of 4 of diffs of reverts that the reporter provided above are links from the Talk discussion of the article (just edits of my own comments) which aren't reverts of the article itself. The reporter also failed to participate in the Talk discussion as well as you can see here Talk:Next (2020 TV series)#Air date. They have continued to add WP:OR. When they restore the same WP:OR for the third time, it was reverted by another editor as shown here. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Non admin comment: reporting user did not notify users involved. I took the liberty of doing that. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Also - the reporter seems to be the one in the wrong here. They are going against sourced content and disruptively editing. Furthermore, they have not taken the proper precautions when reporting, as they are subject to edit warring and a block as well. I will be requesting 30/500 protection on the page involved as well. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Next Episode 3 did not air, see [129] and the Next Fox official twitter account [130]. The topic creator is incorrect and is technically adding unsourced information to the article. Which makes any reversions by Youngforever justified. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's the television ratings for the night for Fox which shows that the World Series aired and not Next.[131] 81.96.245.175 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverts by YoungForever can’t be justified by removing unsourced content. But, as they pointed out, 3/4 of the reverts provided were to the talk page, so the 3RR isn’t applicable. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. Getting a show of hands about the air date should be easy, since it's a precise question (assuming that 'air date' refers to over-the-air broadcast of the show). Does anyone need help writing up an WP:RFC? EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  @EdJohnston:

  Per Talk:Next (2020 TV series)#Airdate, this even a clear consensus back up by 4 reliable sources that the broadcast airdate is November 10. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Hasib201937 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Sheikh Inzamamuzzaman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hasib201937 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 20:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 20:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet of User:Faisal.proyash."
2. 20:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Sheikh Inzamamuzzaman."
3. 20:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Sheikh Inzamamuzzaman."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Sheikh Inzamamuzzaman."

Comments: The editor is not listening and engaged in edit war and vandalism only ~ Amkgp 💬 20:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Hasib201937 has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts by User:Ivanvector per a complaint at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Appleinthell reported by User:Excutient (Result: Partial blocked 48 hours)

Page: Etyen Mahçupyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Click to view diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Diffs of the user's reverts: Consecutive edits made from 08:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC) to 08:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 08:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "No, he hasnt been attanding any of these since 3 years. That is an incorrect information.The last one he attended was almost 4 tears ago and it wasnt as a part of Davudoglu support.That s another incorrect information.His ways with AKP got into a conflict since 4 to 5 years ago and almost all his activities ceased then.As it is mentioned in the page currently all he does is to support Davudoglu in future party. He doesnt do anything else." 08:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "He doesnt write in Karar as of 2018." Consecutive edits made from 03:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 03:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Etyen Mahcupyan is a joyrnalist.Ge does not have any firmal education in meduce.Yet in his very old columns, he opened up fight against medical professionals who carry out chemotherapy and blamed them not implementing immunoteraphy.In this section his fight against chemoteraphy has been praised.I stro gly believe this is a very misleading information that can badly influence people.Without providing a solid evidence, his arguments about immunoteraphy should not be praised especially since this i" 03:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Title is not needed" 03:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "I removed the section that talks about his conferences from 5 years ago andvrefers it as recent..that is a misinfo..5 years is not recent" 03:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Title unnecessary thus removed.I also temoved certain sections that subjectively praises the person without any evidence. Wilipedia provides objective facts. Not subjective opinions, I believe" 03:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Again I only removed subjective opinions" 03:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Unnecessary title removed only" 03:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Left over word removed" 03:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Unnecessary title removed I also removed a personal unreferenced information about Mahcupyan.he doesnt have such a statement im none of his interviews." 03:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Unnecessary title removed only..early life shouldnt be divided too much subtitles..it is disriptive" Consecutive edits made from 03:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 03:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" Consecutive edits made from 03:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 03:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" Consecutive edits made from 03:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 03:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" Consecutive edits made from 03:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 03:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 03:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" Consecutive edits made from 02:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 02:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 02:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 02:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" Consecutive edits made from 02:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 02:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 02:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 02:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Incorrect info removed" 02:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 02:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 02:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 02:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "" 02:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RW 15)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No resolution initiatives found. Excutient (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 reported by User:Governor Sheng (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Our Lady of Medjugorje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [132]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

Comments:

I am glad that it was reported here because he is refusing to talk about this issue on the talk page. I brought it up in a number of places and he continues to fight.

We need independent editors that understand Wikipedia guidelines to oversee what is happening here. Thank you Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad as well. Because you're the one that's edit warring. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: If there's an edit war, you are both involved. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, by definition yes. :) However, Red Rose did 3+ reverts. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No, they have not hit 4 reverts in the last 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

They haven't hit revert button itself, but their edits are same as reverting. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Note to be taken. I'm the one who insisted we take the discussion to the talk page, and Red Rose is the one that reverted my edit and said "take it to the talk page"... Mimicking me, maybe? --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred:, whatever the case. I'm glad the edit warring was prevented if there ever was any. As far as I'm concerned, you can close this "investigation". --Governor Sheng (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Complaint withdrawn by the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Urugandu reported by User:Ezlev (Result: Warned)

Page: Nottinghamshire Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC) "Restored clearly relevant news to this article"
2. 22:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC) "The chief constable expanding his jurisdiction in this way - resulting in an article published on BBC news - patently is news, however much you dislike it. So if you want to waste time arguing that a BBC news article isn't news, why don't you discuss on the talk page."
3. 21:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has made three recent reverts of two other users' edits. Edits in question were to remove user's addition to article, which was clearly opinionated. User blanked two talk page warnings, referring to them as "rubbish," and refused to initiate a discussion on the article's talk page. ezlev signed this. let's talk about it? 22:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Magnolia removed the material on the basis that it wasn't news. it clearly is news: it's reported in a BBC nbews article. Given that he/she is so clearly and obviously wrong, what is there to discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urugandu (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Urugandu: Everything. You need consensus that the material belongs in the article, and the material needs written in proper encyclopedic tone if it is included. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

With respect, you don't seem to have read what happened. The only argument Magnolia gave as to why the material did not belong on the article is that it wasn't news. But since it's in a BBC News article, it obviously is news. Why do we have to waste time discussing this when he/she is so obviously wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urugandu (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Urugandu: Please take a moment to read WP:NOTNEWS, as you appear confused. The policy does not mean that what you added was "not news", since clearly it was, as you cited a newspaper. The policy states that Wikipedia is not intended to be a newspaper. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Urugandu is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again, before getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Scandevi reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Warned)

Page: Association for Behavior Analysis International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986715551 by Binksternet (talk)"
2. 12:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986434547 by Wikiman2718 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Please see Talk:Association_for_Behavior_Analysis_International#Edit_warring_by_IP and Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2020_October_21#Malicious_Edits_to_Page_-_Association_for_Behavior_Analysis_International Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Warned by Binksternet here. User's reverts also include ones made via IP: [135], [136], etc. This is explicitly an edit-warring report, not a 3 revert rule report. Through this account and IPs, this user has been edit-warring information that negatively reflects on the organization since August. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This editor Scandevi continued a series of IP edits here, correcting a coding mistake by the IP. The IP range Special:Contributions/2600:6C4A:797F:F9E3:0:0:0:0/64 is from Kalamazoo, the first location of ABAI, the topic of contention. (ABAI later moved to nearby Portage, Michigan.) The IP range and Scandevi have been trying to whitewash the article, to remove the very close connection between ABAI and Judge Rotenberg Educational Center which the U.N. says is using torture methods on autistic children. Scandevi demonstrates a conflict of interest, and is edit-warring. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Scandevi is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Association for Behavior Analysis International unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User:JamalGold reported by User:Mr.User200 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JamalGold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[137]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]
4. [141]
5. [142]

Comments:

New created account makingunsourced and POV edits on 2020 Nagorno Karabakh page. Posible Sockpuppet of User:GoldyMcDonald or User:SalahGood same POV push and similar name.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow they’ve reverted 15 times and counting in the past 24 hours. That is definite edit warring. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

He reverted you twice.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours by User:Materialscientist for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

24 hours-block not enought, he still disrupts other users edits, here one of Ekograff and here 5RR. Also there is a current Sock Puppet investigation taking place on him.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User:HersiliaAramazd reported by User:FrankCesco26 (Result: Take to Commons)

Page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg
User being reported: HersiliaAramazd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/1f/20201102101720%21QarabaghWarMap%282020%29.svg

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg&diff=prev&oldid=509617066
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg&diff=prev&oldid=509447932
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg&diff=prev&oldid=509328451
4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg&diff=prev&oldid=509628098
5. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg&diff=prev&oldid=509617588

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg I state in my edit "Reverted to version as of 09:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC) The source is outdated, it clearly said that azeri infiltrator groups were near the town of Shusha, but since they have been repelled.The source is from 29 October and such not up to date. Please stop edit warring, otherwise we'd have to contact the administrators, since you already broke the three-reverts rule that can lead to a ban."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg#Warning

Comments:
The user has reverted the file ten times since his edit, without any explanation of sort, despite having received explanations on the reasons why his edit was not correct and having invited to stop edit warring multiple times from multiple users. He did not care, showing aggressive and uncollaborative behaviour, and continuing his edit warring. I alerted him of the three-revert rule and invited him to stop, as you can see in the changelog, but I was attacked as a "troll".

• Result: This is a dispute on Commons. The admins here have no authority over such matters. See the advice at c:Commons:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a ongoing Sock Puppet investigation on that user. Maybe a quick CU could be carried out?.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User:HersiliaAramazd hasn't edited English Wikipedia since 23 October. The last ANI about him was here but it concerned a revert war about notices, and did not lead to any action. There is an open SPI about User:JamalGold but so far no clerk has endorsed a check. Even if a positive sock result isn't reached in this case I wonder if EC protection is sensible for the article on Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. So far that is the only article edited by Jamal Gold. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I've now blocked User:JamalGold one week for edit warring on Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. They continued reverting that article on 3 November after a 24-hour block for the same thing. That page remains under semiprotection as of now, though ECP has been requested at RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User:34syd4t4 reported by User:GSS (Result: Warned)

Page: Jaan Kumar Sanu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 John B123 but I can see no effect of the warning and they are constantly removing the redirect from Jaan Kumar Sanu. GSS ^💬 14:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Result: User:34syd4t4 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert this article unless they have received a prior consensus on the talk page. There seems to be a dispute to whether this page ought to be a separate article or be a redirect to 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)

User:SnowFire and User:Leitmotiv reported by User:Nightenbelle (Result: Both warned)

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 WP:DRN. Over spacing. Which is removed automatically anyway. Nightenbelle (talk) 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)

User:1.144.107.217 reported by User:Cutelaba (Result: Page protected)

Page: Mawlid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1.144.107.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[143]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [144]
2. [145]
3. [146]
4. [147]
5. [148]

Comments:

User IP is engaged in repeated edit warring. The user has been warned [149] but they continue to do it. The user deletion of sourced materials is persistently engaged in disruptive editing. Cutelaba (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please let it be known that the IP, the reporter (Cutelaba), and Jorgensen William have all been involved in an edit war to the Mawlid page. They have all been reverting each other’s edits (both Jorgensen and Cutelaba are at three reverts in 24h), and I have read thru the history and it is very disruptive. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, Jorgensen gamed the 3RR system by reverting just outside the 24h period. Diffs:

• 03:45 UTC November 3, 2020
• 05:37 UTC November 3, 2020
• 00:51 November 4, 2020
• 03:57 November 4, 2020

D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe Jorgensen and Cutelaba are sock puppets of same ideological-driven editor. I have requested help on sock puppet talk page to open an investigation into them. Their edits regarding Mawlid clearly contradict what even the provided quotes from citations clearly state. They are simply rewording wiki content to suit their prejudices rather than accurately stating what is mentioned by the sources. 1.144.107.172 (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. It is unlikely that people can find a source that says, Mawlid was invented by Group X and was definitely not invented by Group Y. On the talk page we have one person saying this is a dubious Shi'ite custom and someone else saying that the Shi'ites aren't being properly credited for originating the festival. Wikipedia may not have to answer the question of who invented Mawlid. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

User:82.35.79.144 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Partial block)

Page: Boxing career of Manny Pacquiao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.35.79.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/987059261

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/987239597
2. Special:Diff/987241148
3. Special:Diff/987242518
4. Special:Diff/987244106

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [150]

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

Comments:
The IP is edit warring to include lineal titles in the record table, which is against MOS:BOXING/WEIGHT and NPOV (lineal titles are a matter of opinion). I left a message on the IP's talk page to let them know (before the 3rr warning) that their edit goes against MOS (Special:Diff/987241116). – ².O.^Boxing 20:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note I normally ask registered editors to self-revert. I went ahead and reverted for them and explained why they need to take the matter to the talk page. I'm prepared to partial block the IP if they revert again. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Partial block from the article in question only. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

User:185.109.66.188 reported by User:Nightenbelle (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Death of Jimi Hendrix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 185.109.66.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[151]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [152]
2. [153]
3. [154]

Comments:

IP USer is vandalizing page and continually inserting a fringe theory even after warnings and reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs)

User:Hipal reported by User:Right cite (Result: Withdrawn)

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

Previous version reverted to: 09:56, 14 October 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:52, 3 November 2020‎, Undid revision 986802961
2. 03:55, 3 November 2020‎, Undid revision 986803000
3. 05:33, 3 November 2020
4. 05:34, 3 November 2020
5. 05:36, 3 November 2020
6. 21:23, 4 November 2020, Undid revision 987087871
7. 23:39, 4 November 2020‎, Undid revision 987094219
8. 23:42, 4 November 2020, Undid revision 987093612
9. 00:40, 5 November 2020, Undid revision 987114385

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. August 2019 -- prior block for same behavior on same page, unblocked on condition per blocking admin, "per condition agreed to on Talk page: user will not edit Al Seckel for any reason for two weeks".
2. Blocking admin in 2019 explained policy to the user: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material."
3. User at that time in 2019 stated, "I wasn't aware that removal of any information can be considered a revert."
4. User is since after their 2019 block aware of site policy. User continues to edit-war multiple times, on same page.

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

Comments: Per WP:3RR, policy states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." User has engaged in reverting, rather than discussing first, multiple times, on same article. Right cite (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. How about we remove all the edits and start from scratch? Otherwise we're equally in violation of this policy. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I've made no reverts after being notified, other than to undue my last edits in good faith. As I identify on my talk page, I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I have made zero reverts or undoing of any edit whatsoever to the page in question. User seems to communicate mainly by the edit summary Undid revision... over and over again, many many times past 3RR. User is aware of site policy, having been educated about it by an admin to his block log in 2019. Right cite (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you comment on my good faith attempt to settle this. I've no reverts after being notified, and my standard 1RR offer stands. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

User has not undone their multitude of edits that used edit summary Undid revision... to the page. User has not shown they have learned more about site policy regarding edit warring and disruption from their block back in 2019. Right cite (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So you want me to revert all my edits, and leave yours? Is this correct? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is about the user not displaying they have demonstrated they will permanently cease the edit warring and undoing of edits multiple times on a page, through the Undid revision tactic, as they were blocked for in 2019. Right cite (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So is that a yes or a no? You brought it up, so I assumed you were offering a solution. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately user shows no compunction not to edit war. They appear to do so without concern for site policy, repeatedly, and do not stop at one, two, or three times, or more. It did not stop after the block in 2019. It is likely to continue to be an ongoing pattern of disruption to the encyclopedia. Right cite (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that I started discussing the matter with you by thanking you for your work 20:21, 4 November 2020, you responded there without indicating there was a problem 21:52, 4 November 2020, though you had in the meantime started the talk page discussion 21:38, 4 November 2020 ; I don't see how this furthers our efforts to improve the article. That is our goal here, correct? You've disputed a single one of my edits. Are you disputing others? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

User has commented five (5) times so far in this section. At no point have they demonstrated they have learned about site policy regarding causing edit warring and disruption to the encyclopedia or demonstrated a desire they change their behavior pattern, since their block in 2019. It is likely to continue to occur repeatedly. Right cite (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

So nothing else is in dispute? There was no indication (WP:BRD) that we weren't simply working through an article that needed cleanup. My offers to resolve the situation are being ignored, so I'll leave it to others. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the user has ignored above regarding learning anything from their block in 2019 and their two-week ban off the article mainspace of the exact same article from 2019. It is therefore likely their pattern of disruption will continue. Right cite (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: I don't understand this discussion at all. You can't simply report someone, grab discussion items from over a year ago, and then go WP:IDONTHEARYOU when the user is offering a resolution. I want to assume good faith on this but you're really bludgeoning here. – The Grid (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Grid:I would very much like to assume good faith as well. I would like to hope that the disruption will stop after this report. Unfortunately I just don't see that from the tone of the user's comments and responses and repeated pattern of behavior. The Grid, I'm open to whatever you feel might be a productive way forward here, if it will encourage the user to stop the disruption and engage in mutual collaboration with the community. Right cite (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: A productive way forward would be seeking a resolution. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see any attempt of discussion on the associated talk page? No attempt of you opening a chat, mentioning WP:BRD, and/or an acknowledgment on the user's talk page that they were reported here which is mandatory. I don't see a tone from the user but this is where you shouldn't make matters personal on edits you make to this site. Communication is always key. – The Grid (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Grid:I agree with you. There have been attempts at communication. The user reverts, multiple times per day, across multiple pages per day, many many times. It is disheartening. Right cite (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Now I see a discussion has been made on the talk page since this report? You should have done that first before making this report. – The Grid (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, i think right cite has been stressed out over Hipal following him to multiple articles that he edits such as on the talk pages of Alexis Texas, Casey Calvert, Paul Seckel and List of think tanks in the United States. It's hard to have a discussion with Hipal, he just repeatedly accuses right cite and his work as being non-neutral and reverts it or edit wars over it without discussing it. I think some deeper examination of the behaviour here is needed, it's bleeding out in multiple articles and if Hipal is following right cite around to every article he edits - indicative of a negative environment brewing. GuzzyG (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing "fair" about it. I hope your assumptions about Right cite's behavioral problems are being caused by stress. That would imply that it will end. Meanwhile, you should watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, i have not noticed any behavioral issues in right cite and to imply that was to put words in my mouth. Quite the opposite, he's been super cooperative and has been trying to get you to cooperate as shown on the Alexis Texas talk page. You seem to ignore cooperation and rather threaten Arbitration Enforcement, assume bad faith in people, repeatedly tag the article with the contentious tags and cry harassment (despite you following right cite to most articles he edits and comment on people's talks). GuzzyG (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop misusing this noticeboard to attack me. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: To be fair, none of the previous behavior was mentioned in this report. If anything, drop it and resolve the issue at hand here or take this discussion somewhere else. – The Grid (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Per mutual discussion, I'm withdrawing this report and disengaging from the user. Thank you all and have a great weekend, Right cite (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Much appreciated. Glad we were able to work something out.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua reported by User:Calthinus (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158]
4. [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161]

Comments: A very simple case. As you can see, Alexikoua has made four reverts in fairly quick succession to remove the RS Osswald 2011 from the page. A bonus though: he told Ahmet Q to take "lessons" to learn French "try some French lessons instead", his mother language according to his userpage [162].--Calthinus (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree on the argument that those reverts were done in full succession. Per AGF there was a self revert [[163]] inside those 24h. Moreover this the 1st rv [[164]] was a partial one.

On the other hand an editwar has two sides and Calthinus needs to explain why he does not report:

1.User_talk:Ktrimi991 who performed a clear 4 rvs in 12h [[165]][[166]][[167]][[168]] (without slightest talkpage participation before his last revert).
2.user:Maleschreiber with 4 rvs (2 full and 2 partial rvs) in less than 10h [[169]][[170]][[171]][[172]].

So I really can't under understand Calthinus selective report against me. The article has been a target by various editors. Some of them never participated in the correspondent talkpage and page protection was requested.Alexikoua (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(1) Except your self-revert was of different material [[173]]. While you performed reverts to remove Osswald, your "self-revert" reinstated Isufi on an entirely different topic.

(2) As for Maleschreiber, this one [174] and this one [175] are in fact back to back (i.e. no intervening edits), so not applicable.

(3) But even if he had violated 4RR, that would have no bearing on the fact that you did. It's that simple. --Calthinus (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

From the above evidence it is clear that your report is selectively targeted against me. Especially in the case of User_talk:Ktrimi991 who performed 4 clear rvs in less than 12h in the same article (per diffs above).Alexikoua (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Alexikoua, it is sad to see that you again have problems with edit warring. It is sad also that you make false accusations against me. Two of my rv were successive, so when 3RR is applied, they count as one. As I said a few hours ago somewhere else, I have made 3 rv. The rules on your reverts are clear: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. In addition to all of that, why have you again made personal attacks on the talk page of the article? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I disagree that it is mine editwarring. In fact it takes 2 for edit-warring and the other part (Ktrimi991) performed 4 clear (full) reverts in less than 12h and without participating in talkpage before the last revert.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't done 4 reverts - 3 of those difs are consecutive edits (of which only 1 is a revert), which Alexikoua as any admin and editor can observe didn't link in the correct order. It highlights that in addition to edit-warring Alexikoua is making extreme false claims against other editors in a report which was filed about his verifiably 4RR activity. It shows that the editor instead of explaining his editing history resorts to false accusations. It's also part of the bigger problem with Alexikoua's editing history: they put forward continuous false claims whether they involve other editors' activity or the edits they put forward. There are countless examples in the last months where they used bibliography in a way that had no relation to what the citation put forward. Just yesterday, I found out that on Zagori he had placed content that wasn't put forward at all by the source he used. At first the editor provided a wrong page, then when I verified that it was wrong, he tried to provide a cropped quote and then accused me that I didn't understand the text Talk:Zagori#Statistics and he kept with the same narrative until another editor stepped in. Recently he was again warned for reaching 3RR[176], so the editor knows how 3RR works and knowingly followed the reported editing history. His editing also includes POV-pushing for WP:FRINGE theories about the age of the presence of the Greek language on the Balkan peninsula and the situation deteriorated to the point that other editors complained that he was messing up their comments on the talkpage Talk:Proto-Greek_language#Editing_Talk and because he never accepted to WP:DROP other editors had to ask from everyone involved to not reply to Alexikoua anymore[177]. To recap, we have a 4RR breach, consistent edit-warring/3R warnings and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Ideally, no situation should reach the point where a report is necessary but Alexikoua's activity has required admin oversight for quite some time now. This report is a step towards the right direction. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree, I'd like us all to stay focused here and not give the poor admins a mountain to read. The matter at hand here is 4RR. He's clearly guilty of that. Let us all allow the admin(s) to inspect the diffs and come to a conclusion. --Calthinus (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Since I've been accused that this is "mine" edit war, it might be helpful to provide the 4rvs by User:Ktrimi991:

• [[178]] (restoring again this text [[179]])
• [[180]] (restoring again this text [[181]])
  
• [[182]] (identical with the previous rv)
• [[183]] (restoring altogether removed parts as in 1st&2nd rv)

All of them are full reverts (restoring previously removed versions) and done in 12h. It is also evident that Ktrimi's first participation in the correspondent talkpage was done "after" the 4rth revert [[184]]. Admin intervention has been requested here [[185]].Alexikoua (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• To the editors above: do not respond to everything Alexikoua says here. He seems to be willing to redirect attention by accusing me of things everyone can easily verify I have not done (a 3RR breach). Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  No more responses, admins don't need TL;DR - but I do want it to be noted that Alexikoua first accused me of a 4RR and when I very easily showed that I wasn't even close to doing such a thing, he refactored his accusations towards Ktrimi991. It perfectly sums up how the editor operates.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't done a 3RR breach. But you are edit warring [186] [187] [188]. And we know you have a history of that. What's going on here is yet another instance of a well-organized tag team of Albanian editors trying to ram through by force material that is controversial. The way this works is to find any source, no matter how obscure, to claim "X was Albanian", and then use tag-teaming to ram it through by force. In the case of Parga, a town in Greece, they are using an obscure French language Ph.D. dissertation to claim that In the late medieval period, Parga was the southernmost area of Albania. despite the fact that Albania did not exist before the 20th century (note the wikilink to the modern 20th century state). This is the typical "flag-planting" POV-pushing, to prove to the world that "X belonged to us once!". I opened a discussion on the talkpage and multiple users have objected on the grounds that the material is not really relevant, but the team is edit-warring with ferocious intensity to ram the material through by brute-force (I'm counting 8 reverts within a 24 hour period by team members [189]). This has been happening on a regular basis in Balkan articles, e.g. here [190] [191] [192] [193]. Reverts are performed in round-robin fashion to game 3RR. Khirurg (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition, whenever one of these people is accused of edit-warring, his compatriots flood the report and turn it into a tl;dr shitshow, attacking the reporting party, as happened here [194]. Now the instigator of this dispute is demanding "no more responses" to avoid tl;dr. It perfectly sums up how this team of editors operates. Khirurg (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Khirurg was grouping Croat-Bosniak-Albanian editors who disagreed with him a few months ago: everyone knows Bosnia and Croatia have a history of hostility with Serbia (and by extension Greece), while Bulgaria does too though to a lesser extent.[195] Grouping editors together and claiming that they have a "history of hostility" is typical WP:BATTLEGROUND logic. There's an attempt here to turn a report about someone's activity (admins will judge it) into a TL;DR battleground so that it doesn't ever get checked by any admin. Ahmet Q. (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Because everybody knows that Balkan editors are POV-free, and would never vote along ethnic lines. Oh no, not in the Balkans. But thanks for bringing out more attention to your side's tag teaming behavior. I had forgotten about that episode. Khirurg (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week by User:Johnuniq. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Undid my close per a request. See bottom of report. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• This seems to be more of a dispute rather then edit-warring, which should have been taken to dispute resolution, civilly. Most reports of this sort get little attention by admins. Another important thing, several editors who are claiming that there is edit-warring done by one side, are doing exactly the same, only by gaming the system and joining with undo, one editor followed by another. Wikipedia editors are not dumb, and we can see the pattern. I am inviting admins to take a closer look at that sort of behaviour. I think that advice on gaming the system can be found here. [196] Furthermore, it is obvious that there was a lot of ignoring and stonewalling the Greek position and arguments in the dispute, as seen on the TP. Good God, attempting to show Parga as "southern area of Albania" is a major WP:NATIONALIST, WP:FRINGE and not per WP:NPOV. Ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that claims about "dehumanization" deserve admin oversight. Sadko has already been warned on AE for using reports and AE in particular in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes. Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Eastern_Europe, so maybe it's time to enforce the warning.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• I second what Sadkσ said. I have already and for a long while warned about the WP:NATIONALIST flag-planting attempts by these editors who tag-teamed to brute-force content into the articles without WP:CONSENSUS.. My warnings can be found both on Parga's Talk Page: [197] and on the Template: Cham Albanians Talk Page: [198]. Just use CTRL+F and locate my name. In the comments signed with my name, you can find details of the problem with these editors's nationalist POV-driven edits. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Analogous accusations/aspersions can and have been made going the other way regarding "flag-planting". That is orthogonal and if it is that much of a problem and you care enough, take it to ANI or AE. Can we have decorum, for once, please. The point of this board, ANI/3RR, is violations of 3RR, the basic rule for defusing edit wars, not the rampant aspersions and personal attacks and fringe theories being pushed in the topic area. I recall I was once told by that accusations of such things do not change a violation of 3RR, back when I was a 'novice' in the topic area. It was a case for Resnjari. At the time, I very strongly protested what I felt was evidence of tagteaming against a highly productive editor, who by the way has now largely disappeared from the topic area probably due to all the unpleasantness he was subjected to -- though thankfully he is now doing great work making maps for the history of Welsh and German in the Alps -- that doesnt change that the topic area lost one of its most productive editors. I was told that wouldn't matter, and I learned that such accusations should not be voiced. So now I am perturbed. I ask you Ed, as it was none other than you that handed Resnjari his block-- why is this different?--Calthinus (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: here is the case I am talking about [199]. Please explain what is different. Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, neither side of this dispute has been showing us a model of good conduct and willingness to compromise. So far as this board is concerned, please confine yourself to getting consensus on the Parga article. As for User:Resnjari, I hope he feels encouraged for his good work by your statement here. For all of the participants, reading sources and working on the content is a better approach than trying to work the enforcement system against the other side. I'm sure that an WP:RFC can be opened if necessary. I'm not the admin who decided on article protection so don't intend to parse the wall of text above to see who reverted more. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: So, as I understand it, if "neither side" is "a model of willingness to compromise" both are insulated from the possibility of the block, especially if they turn the report on this board into an unreadable wall of text? I would not say either side was exactly a paragon of compromise in this dispute either [200], yet it was you who imposed the block on only one user, with the exact same users here defending Alexikoua being on the other "side" of the dispute. I understand if you are busy, and to be honest, many of us are probably stressed by the ongoing election situation. All one needs to do is look at the diffs to see what is a revert, but I don't demand you do it -- all I ask is that, if you are not willing, allow another mod to examine it. We cannot have endless reverts with impunity in this fragile topic area, nor can we have the appearance of partiality (I make no assertions about partiality whatsoever, but I am warning you about the dangerous effects of the appearance of it). What I ask is that you reopen the thread, and ask another mod to inspect it if you are not willing to inspect the diffs yourself. Thank you for listening to my concerns. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have undone my close of this report, per the request of User:Calthinus. Any other admin is welcome to take on this report and make their own decision. The Pargas page that was the one in dispute remains fully protected (as before) through an independent decision by User:Johnuniq. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: the full protection request[201] occurred before Calthinus filed the 3RR report. I don't necessarily disagree with the full protection of the article, but it's an independent event which wasn't linked to this report. Admin oversight should be applied here. An editor did breach 3RR and has been causing much trouble across the topic area because they are putting forward content which doesn't appear in the bibliography they are using. Just today, Alexikoua is again involved in an edit-war which began because another editor found that Alexikoua has been misusing bibliography again Talk:Korçë#Sourced content restored --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is guilty of source misuse, it is you, as explained here This is source misuse. So it's a bit rich of you to go around constantly accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. Khirurg (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a reference to a disputed interpretation to which of course the other editor is entitled, but it's not about the content - and it's not a good defense if for every reference to Alexikoua's activity all you have to add is WP:WHATABOUT. What is being discussed about Alexikoua's activity is actual material that doesn't appear at all in the sources, which Alexikoua tries to add back with excuses like it's in the source, you can use google (October 20) and then I have to ask from admins to apply oversight [202]. The 4RR report needs to continue so that the basic function of wikipedia gets restored. An editor breached 4RR and is continuing to edit-war and abuse bibliography on every article they get involved in.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out that you are yourself guilty of what you are accusing others of is not WP:WHATABOUT. It's calling out bs. Khirurg (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Using a cropped quote to relativize between two different interpretations of the same content and edits which can't be verified at all at all in bibliography is not a good defense.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• The page is fully protected, and no reverts have taken place in almost 24 hours (well over 24 hours in Alexikoua's case). What we have here is clearly one side of the dispute demanding blood. Why? Because three years ago, another editor, unrelated to the dispute, was blocked by the admin who originally closed the report? This isn't about preventing damage to the encyclopedia (which is what blocks are for). It's "gotcha" politics and an attempt to leverage wikipedia procedures to "score" against the other side. The is clearly WP:BATTLE behavior, and in itself sanctionable. The OP is heavily partial in this topic area, having been involved in innumerable disputes against Alexikoua, and appears (to me at least) to be motivated by a desire for revenge. Khirurg (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Update: It has just come to my attention that the OP is engaging in WP:ADMINSHOP [203]. This is deep into WP:BATTLE at this point. Khirurg (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reverts haven't taken place because the page is fully protected and because there's a report. Now, arguing that Calthinus (who supports something very different altogether [204] to what everyone else has supported) reported Alexikoua because he is "motivated by a desire for revenge" itself is a very heavy WP:ASPERSION. It highlights how bad the situation has become because there is no admin oversight. So, because Alexikoua has breached 4RR and was reported, the editor who reported him is getting a personal attack. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If any of this were true, then take me to AE right now. That this is at all motivated by "revenge" rather than a desire to maintain the sanity of the topic area by actually imposing punishments for those who violate our rules as a community is a very disappointing bad faith accusation, as are the statements about keeping "score" and my supposed partiality and "demanding blood". Please, everyone, all I am asking as that the basic rules of editing are enforced or at least investigated, for once. I ask a mod to look at the all diffs presented, and act as our community rules dictate. And yes, I went to Doug's talk page, not to ask him personally to look at it, but for advice as I wasn't sure how to proceed -- as my post there makes abundantly clear [205]. Please desist from attacking me, this time is stressful enough for us all, thank you. --Calthinus (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Both of you know (or should know) that blocks are preventive and not punitive. Since the page is protected, such action is unnecessary. Yet here both of you are, basically demanding a block. It's as if you really really want it. And yes, you were adminshopping, anyone can see that from what you wrote. You tried to conceal by couching it in "asking for advice" terms, but it's plainly obvious what's going on. And if you're feeling stressed out, maybe you should sit this out, instead of demanding that others not call out your actions for what they are. Khirurg (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• And because there is no admin oversight on this report, Alexikoua openly admitted that he'll begin another round of reverting[206] based on yet another false claim he's putting forward about bibliography. Blocks are preventive of both present and near-future edit-warring and establish how wikipedia should function. The editor is edit-warring and making some of the most obvious false claims and will continue to do so if there are no consequences for their activity - just as he continued to do so on Talk:Proto-Greek_language#Supposed_Proto-Greek_in_1200_BC where it took intervention by six editors for him to stop. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Saying "I will remove falsified material" is not "openly admitting" to "begin another round of reverting". But yes, admin oversight of that article is necessary, given that editors sympathetic to you (to put it mildly) conducted about 8 reverts within a 24 hour window. So don't pretend like this is all out of the blue. You misused sources and then edit-warred to keep falsified or irrelevant material in the article. Khirurg (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Alexikoua is civilly discussing on multiple talkpages in contrast to you, with literally every single talkpage post of yours laced with threats and taunts [207]. Khirurg (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) It is openly admitting that they'll begin another round of reverting. Everything that has been reverted is what bibliography puts forward - unlike Alexikoua's extreme false claims and WP:FRINGE editing attempts to show that Greek was spoken 5,000 years ago in the Balkans (on Proto-Greek language). The fact that even now he claims that a quote on the talkpage, puts forward the exact opposite of what every editor can read, is yet another proof that the editor will continue on the same path. Just so the closing admin has some knowledge: Alexikoua is claiming that the quote Vlassopoulos's diplomacy focused on defending the neighbouring population of Parga, whose leader, Hasan Agha Tsapari, had sought Russian support. doesn't say that Hasan Agha was the leader of the "population of Parga" and that he was never a leader of Parga. That is what everyone has to respond to when dealing with Alexikoua's POV-pushing. Even the most obvious of discussions get messed up because the editor can't accept what bibliography says when it doesn't confirm his narrative. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
      • It's not so clear cut. And you yourself are guilty of the same thing, for instance, when you misused a source to claim that a city in Greece was at one point considered to be "southernmost Albania" [208], based on a source that did not back that claim. You even had the temerity to use a wikilink to modern Albania, which did not exist before the 20th century. You were called out for this in the talkpage 1#Claim_not_backed_by_source by multiple editors, yet even now, days later, you will not concede the point. A single "yes I was wrong, I will be more careful in future" would suffice, but no, it's all misdirection, obfuscation and sophistry. Anyone who reads the discussion at Talk:Parga can see this. Khirurg (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"Civilly" is not telling someone to "take lessons" to learn their native language, one of many examples (["try some French lessons instead"], he says). This thread, this cesspool of dysfunction with more aspersions than oxygen, is the exact illustration of why this report is preventative -- the widespread impunity for the total disregard of rules is what has led to the exact editing environment we all see above. Could someone please close further discussion by involved parties so the diffs on all sides can be investigated? --Calthinus (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Bull. This is a vindictive report, and you have made it obvious by stating that he should be blocked because another editor was blocked 3 years ago [209], because otherwise "it's not fair". And you are the last person to talk about civility, what with your borderline racist taunts about the invented concept of hypocrisy (implying that Greek editors are inherently hypocritical or more prone to hypocrisy) or collectively referring to Greek editors are "you guys" [210] (to assigning collective responsibility based on ethnicity). And when I pressed you about it [211], you went pretended not to hear. You should have been topic banned from anything Greek-related for those diffs alone, but I made the mistake of letting it go. But yeah, there's a civility problem in the topic area, but there's one individual that stands out. Khirurg (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have explained to you a gazillion times that I was referring to the concept of hypocrisy, like the hypotenuse -- obviously as someone who has learned Greek, studied abroad in Greece, studies Greek history I do not effing have anything against Greeks and it is a ridiculous PA you are pulling here. Furthermore, on the COVID page, that argument where I was accused of being "anti-Greek" and even supporting "Ottoman interests" (?!!) for arguing against the inclusion of a statement that Turkey was using refugees and migrants as biological warfare (!!) against Greece (yes everyone do check out | that debate, it is an awful illustration of how things happen here...]), my "you guys" did not single out ethnic Greeks but instead those involved on the same side of hte revert war, and this becomes incredibly obvious when you consider that another ethnic Greek, Cinadon36 was on the "other side". But I can't say anything, without being submitted to a barrage of personal attacks. Someone please impose order here -- admins we really, really need you guys. --Calthinus (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't care how many times you "explain" it, you fool no one. It's there for everyone to see. And you were directing it at Alexikoua, and clearly implying that he is being hypocritical as a result of being Greek. It does not strain the imagination to think how you would react if Alexikoua or I had made a similar remark about you. And yes, you were collectively referring to Greek editors with "you guys", because you made the remark in reply to me [212], when in fact it was I who removed what you were objecting to [213], so I was not "on the other side" of the edit war, but in fact on the same side as you. And could you please stop with the constant shouting in boldface? Khirurg (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Alexikoua's misuse of sources and his engaging in edit warring when other editors tried to correct his mistakes can be seen in these articles: [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220]. He has been advised several times to improve his contributions and to not add material not backed by sources, but he continues the same behavior ([221], [222], [223]) justifying himself in endless discussions, without any improvement. – Βατο (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

What's really weird is Maleschreber's new round of accusations about a new topic I've filled in the talkpage. Beginning a discussion in a fully civil manner: [[224]] then Maleschreiber all of the sudden gets mad [[[[225]]]] warning about "admin oversight" and immediately threatening if I present something different, using also sarcastic language [[226]]. It appears that something is really wrong with this reaction. Obviously someone needs to calm down.Alexikoua (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bato: Throwing around links to article page histories proves nothing. You should know that making baseless accusations is sanctionable. And you yourself have been reverting a lot lately [227], perhaps more than anyone. But it's easy to stay out of trouble and game the system if you're part of an organized WP:TAGTEAM. Khirurg (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• I recommend this be closed as no action because it is too complex, with too much background, for resolution here. Whether or not a particular editor made an inappropriate number of reverts seems to be a bureaucratic concern that misses the point that there is an extraordinary dispute. If invited, I suppose I could help draft an RfC and monitor activity to encourage/enforce reasonable behavior during subsequent discussions. I have no idea what the conflict is about, nor whether the reported editor is on the "good" side or otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Regarding your offer, RfCs have a bit of a checkered history on our topic area, but I personally would support an agreement to not use the templates for the Chameria and North Epirus on non-historical geographic entities (context: both cultural/ethnic/irredentist regions for Greece and Albania in the other one respectively, more or less), but I personally have no idea how broad support for that idea would be, it may very well be just me. --Calthinus (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly accused about source misusse by specific editors however those accusations remain largely unfounded and the diffs provided do not confirm this. In general I'm extremely carefully in the selection of sources and their use. As such after a recent admin intrevenetion it was clarified that I was correct on the use of secondary sources here User_talk:El_C#State_army_publications_as_sources. No wonder El_C stated that he agrees with my point [[228]] contrary to Maleschreiber's disagreement.Alexikoua (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: About the use of templates I agree with your proposal (no use in modern settlements), like in the Commache template. I've already expressed similar concerns in the correspondent talkpage that its use should be limited to 1-2 settlements.Alexikoua (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

To the Administrators, Alexikoua's misuse of sources can be verified here: [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234].

Other editors attempts to highlight Alexikoua's misuse of sources: [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240].

Alexikoua's refusal to admit his misuse of sources: [241], [242], [243], [244].

A very long discussion can also be found here [245]. His activity should be evaluated carefully to avoid further problems. All the best. – Βατο (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually none of the above diffs confirm the above accusations and I'm really astonished that Bato repeats again these hostile comments against me. On the other hand third part users and administrators have expressed their agreement about my knowledge evaluating and using sources (such as: [[User_talk:El_C#State_army_publications_as_sources]). What's also important for this report is that Cplakidas [[246]] & even Calthinus [[247]]

agree with my point in talk:Parga that the controversial part should be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action at this time. Per my earlier comments, the issue is too complex to be resolved at this noticeboard. Another admin might have taken the time to investigate who breached 3RR but no one has been willing to do that at this stage and we have to move on. I am now watching Parga and will post a warning at Talk:Parga about the future. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

User:PFVF reported by User:Ezlev (Result: )

Page: Kristi Noem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Trade */ added quotes from Governor Noem on trade"
2. 21:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Interesting that multi-personality vandal opponent of Governor Noem finds direct quotes from her to be "unreadable.""
3. 21:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Snooganssnoogans is an obvious vandal who does not like Governor Noem, her stand on the China trade agreement, her support for President Trump, nor is Snoogansnoogans current with Governor Noem's most recent statements."
4. 21:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Trade */ update, shows that Noem has supported President's trade policy for the past year."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kristi Noem."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Current edit dispute */ new section"
2. 02:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Current edit dispute */"

Comments: After this user's initial edit was reverted by Snooganssnoogans, the user chose to revert the revert; this had happened twice before I came across the dispute. I made one revert, which was a poor decision on my part as I could have edited user's addition to improve its conciseness and relevance, which may have led to a better outcome. I also issued an edit war warning on user's talk page. After the warning, user made another revert, apparently perceiving me and Snooganssnoogans as the same editor and ascribing malicious intent to our actions. I pinged user on the article talk page with a comment in which I explained my actions and my intent to make one more revert, which I then did; user responded on talk page with mild hostility and referred to me as "abusive, harassing, obstructionist." I attempted to respond constructively; user subsequently made a slightly modified edit to the article which continued to be in violation of the policies I shared with user, at which point I made this report. User has since replied again on the article talk page. Sorry for the long explanation, by the way. ezlev signed this. talk 03:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User:risingstarpk reported by User:Asim mz (Result: )

FYI

 – This case was moved over from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring so that admins actually see this. The original title was "Vandalism | Removing Content from Page", and {{courtesy link}} has been converted into {{pagelinks}}. Both users (Asim mz and risingstarpk) are actively participating, so I will ask them to continue discussion on this page. Asim mz, please provide WP:DIFFs of risingstarpk's reverts. Comments made before this time signature have been moved over. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Page: Islamia University of Bahawalpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

risingstarpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He is continuously reverting my edits on Islamia University of Bahawalpur page because he disagrees & jealous of the noble alumni content. He has deleted the notable alumni section many times & removed data from time to time. He wants to put himself in notable alumni but don't have an original reference. I have given warning on his talk page but he deleted all warnings from talk page.

(Non-administrator comment) @Asim mz: Per policy at the top of this page you must notify the person whom you're reporting on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You also posted this in the wrong page. Please follow the style of the templated posts over in WP:ANEW. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Asim mz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The guy Asim mz acting totally immature and showing unprofessional behaviour on Wikipedia and out of anger now using childish words. Just look at the history of Islamia University Bahawalpur page, especially the Notable alumni section. On 05:01, 15 October 2020, he replaced someone's name from Notable alumni section with his name and now labelling me as being jealous of him. I think he is perceiving me as someone else of which he himself is jealous of. It's not just me who identified his conflict of interest, indeed his name was removed by other senior Wikipedia editors as well (Viewmont Viking). Putting someone's own name on any page is simply a violation of Wikipedia rules. He also tried putting his name on Bahawalpur page, which was also removed by senior Wikipedia editors/contributors from there (Ohnoitsjamie). To stop me from reporting his conflict of interest, he started writing threatening messages on my Talk page that my ID will be removed, if I keep doing so. I would let Wikipedia editors decide who is doing vandalism and acting immature. A special thanks to Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) for bringing this into my attention. — Risingstarpk (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

risingstarpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Alright, let's start with a bit history of the case, the vandal risingstarpk is a constant offender of the Wikipedia policy. He created his ID for his own promotional purposes and for that he started by putting his name in the following page Islamia University Bahawalpur on 03:27, 4 August 2020 and claiming him (Ahsan Saleem) to be one of the youngest PhD in Pharmacy even without a single suitable reference. He mentioned an orchid ID as a reference & not with any an article/news of any credible website to verify his claim. When I got through this, I undo his editing quoting improper referencing. For that enviousness, he removed the name Muhammad Asim Masoom Zubair (Former Campus/Youth Ambassador, Youth Assembly at United Nations) from notable alumni section, edited by me on the same page Islamia University Bahawalpur with a proper reference from credible Pakistani news-site. Since then his childish and unprofessional behaviour is still continued and he is violating Wikipedia's policy on edit warring and constantly removing the name from notable alumni list. To stop him, I didn't threaten, I simply followed the Wikipedia policy of warning him of vandalism on his talk page. For his comment to the page Bahawalpur, I agree with the senior editor (Ohnoitsjamie) that the name didn't qualify for the "notable person" list as there is no Wikipedia page or article exist on it and was removed rightly. But here at the page Islamia University Bahawalpur as part of notable alumni (with a notable achievement), it should stand. I request the editors to stop the vandal from constant re-edits. Also, I request Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) to review this issue and I would be happy with whatever decision he made. Thank you Asim mz (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Asim mz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have gone through the history of the Islamia University Bahawalpur page, but I could not find any vandalism or personal attack on you made by risingstarpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The response provided by risingstarpk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is purely professional and just reporting of a conflict of interest. As I have gone through the history of the disputed page, I would suggest you to not take anything personally. Clearly, you do not qualify to be listed as notable alumni at the moment. Moreover, you have wrongly tagged risingstarpk for ID deletion. I hope you would not wrongly tag anyone else in the future. Talk pages are just for friendly discussions, not for tagging someone's profile for deletion. I hope you would take my response positively — AlexanderD01 04:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Please note AlexanderD01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has no previous edits) has just blanked this section. MarnetteD|Talk 04:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Appologies for blanking. Blanking might be inappropriate, but not my response. AlexanderD01|Talk 04:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Shycush reported by User:timmccloud (Result: )

Page: Wisconsin State Journal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shycush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [248]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [249]
2. [250]
3. [251]

Comments: So I have seen the users talk page, they were warned 3 times and aren't paying attention. It appears to be a neophyte, who doesn't understand what a reference is - their most recent revert the "reference" was only in the edit message. Maybe a temp block will get them to read their user page and learn about edit warring.
Timmccloud (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to read how to do this. The directions make no sense to me. People keep responding to this when I have stopped making changes. I put my source in the wrong place obviously, but I am new to this and I have been researching how to even respond to people to give me some actual direction and not reprimanding me for doing it wrong. I'm sorry. This sight doesn't make sense to me. But I was requested to update it from my boss, so that is what I am trying to do. Sorry!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shycush (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User:VladBelousov reported by User:Solavirum (Result: Both warned)

Page: 2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [252]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [253]
2. [254]
3. [255]
4. [256]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] [257]

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

Comments:
Single-issue editor constantly reverting edits, uses Liveumap and Twitter as source. He was warned by me, but then deleted the warning. He makes it impossible to edit the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• I self reverted to avoid edit warring. VladBelousov (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

VladBelousov, the deed was done beforehand. Doesn't change the fact that you were one, edit-warring, two, avoiding my invitation for discussion, and three, you've deleted the 3rr warning on your talk page. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I've warned both users in regards to edit warring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Geremy.Hebert reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Parler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Geremy.Hebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [258]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. first removal, summary "Editorialized description of content can go under 'controversy' sub...not in lead."
2. revert 1, summary "Editorialized description of content can go under 'controversy' sub...not in lead.Ed You dont say C.I.A. kills illegaly its opening lead do you?"
3. revert 2, summary "You may want to smear the website, but the description of the website or platform does not include content created by individuals"
4. revert 3, summary "All social media has extremists, either put the line in all social media wiki pages or leave it out"
5. revert 4, no summary
6. revert 5, summary "Your hate runs deep, i can see that, but labeling an entire community as anti-Semitic is crossing a line"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit warring warning, 3rr warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [259]

Comments:

There is an open RfC at Talk:Parler#RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead? about whether the word "antisemitism" should be included in the lead. Geremy.Hebert is circumventing the RfC process by making unilateral changes to the lead to remove that content, as well as removing other sourced material based on what appears to be a flawed understanding of policy. Please also notice they are also casting aspersions about editors' motivations in the edit summaries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Primefac (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

User:24.17.57.169 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Massacre of Glencoe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.17.57.169 (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. [260]
2. [261]
3. [262]
4. [263]
5. [264]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [265]

Comments:

Has removed content w/o explanation from Massacre of Glencoe. Reverted by multiple editors including myself. Seems to have paused for the moment. Adakiko (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

User:71.234.217.123 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: 21st century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.234.217.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988079555 by FDW777 (talk) Stop promoting fake news."
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC) to 22:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988072903 by Dimadick (talk) Please stop promoting fake news. Biden has not been elected president of the United States."
   2. 22:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC) "/* 2020s */"
3. 21:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988071165 by Dimadick (talk) Stop reverting, this information is objectively false. Biden has not been elected, the election is not yet over. Those who say so are pushing a fake news leftist agenda."
4. 18:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC) "/* 2020s */ Joe Biden has not officially won the election, just because the media declares something doesn't make it true. The legal process on who won the election is still being held in the United States. Anyone who says otherwise is touting fake leftist news."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 3RR warning from FDW777

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 non-consecutive reverts on US politics against multiple other editors after a 3RR warning — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dimadick and FDW777: pinging the editors in the EW with the IP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the main page to currently say Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris win the United States presidential election, there's no problem with 21st century making a similar claim. Also the page is a target for Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Yaysmay15 (whose most recent edits slipped under the radar and I've just had to remove), so would suggest semi-protection be applied irrespective of any other measure deemed necessary. FDW777 (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The election is over and Trump has not won enough electors for re-election. The information that Biden is the president-elect is factual, and not "leftist news". Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Vallee01 reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: Partial blocked for 3 months)

Page: Anarchist symbolism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vallee01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 21:25, 3 November 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:51, 11 November 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:35, 28 October 2020

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Anarchist symbolism#Williams, 2017
• Talk:Anarchist symbolism#Self-published sources
• Talk:Anarchist symbolism#Recent edits
• Talk:Anarchist symbolism#Evren, 2014
• Talk:Anarchist symbolism#Protected edit request on 2 November 2020

Comments:

Even though this user has not breached 3RR on this page, their latest (undiscussed) revert is a continuation of previous disruptive editing to this and other pages (see previous AN3 report). Despite demanding that others "discuss please, try to find compromise", the user has failed to listen to others' talk page input or respond to specific comments about the very edits they reverted here (see above links to specific talk page sections). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC) (struck link to unrelated talk thread, 12:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC))

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months (partial blocked from editing Anarchist symbolism). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

User:218.155.164.106 reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of future tallest buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 218.155.164.106 (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:

IP user has edited numerous building articles and has been warned via edit summaries and talk page. Please block this user for a significant time as they are continually disruptive Robynthehode (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – 72 hours by User:EvergreenFir. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

User:94.54.255.43 reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Semi)

Page: Genetic history of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.54.255.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [266]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [267]
2. [268]
3. [269]
4. [270]

Comments: I tried to file a report here using Twinkle some hours ago, but for some reason that didn't work.
--Rsk6400 (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• The IP has now engaged in massive copyvios in the talk page Talk:Genetic history of Europe. –Austronesier (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

source one says;"there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world" source two is not about only assyrian people and their languages about all near eastern My sources is based a lot of different sources if you look at these source you will see in reference part please read carefully all of these source and these sources' sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

if we have disagreement, we can talk and solve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

we are civilized people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

such as Balkan peoples (such as Phrygians and Macedonian Greeks) sentences I added to page and it is a my mistake which I wrote to sources and I would like to my mistake fix

and other information which I write is based a lot of sources including sources' source and if you read to carefully you will see these informations and if you have a different arguement and scientific research you share same topic thus People see the different scientific sources which have different opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether you're citing sources. This has everything to do with repeatedly reverting an article or otherwise edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding mutually and two side don't have a bad intent My sources are these

Collapse sources. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My best regards References

In striking contrast, there was an "extremely close affinity of Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations [Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Druze, Saudi Arabians]

and genetically there is very little difference between Turkey and the neighboring countries (Turkey's neighboring countries are Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Syria, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran, Cyprus)

The results of these scientific studies lead to the startling realization that Turks, Iranians, Kurds, Iraqis, Jordanians, Lebanese are more closely related genetically to Assyrians than they are to other members of their own respective language families in Asia. These seven groups (and Jews) are genetically close

The differences between the populations were not statistically significant, demonstrating once again the close genetic relationship of Middle Eastern populations to each other. In fact, the Palestinians and Syrians were so close to the Jews in genetic characteristics that they "mapped within the central cluster of Jewish populations." As one of the Israeli scientists on the team said, "Eventually people will realize that they are not that different." Peace through Genetics?

Seven different Jewish groups from communities in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East were compared to various non-Jewish populations from those areas. The results showed, first of all, that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level.

The latter point is also made in studies of Jews. Based on earlier studies using classical genetic methods7 , Cavalli-Sforza et al. came to the conclusion "that Jews have maintained considerable genetic similarity among themselves and with people from the Middle East, with whom they have common origins."

The PCoA clearly identifies four widely dispersed groupings corresponding to Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, and Africa (figs. ​(figs.1A,1A, ​,1B,1B, and ​and2).2). In these figures, PC1 appears to separate the Africans from the other populations, whereas PC2 divides the Asians from the Europeans and Africans and PC3 splits the Central Asians apart from the South Asians.

there is low apparent diversity in Europe, with the entire continentwide sample only marginally more dispersed than single-population samples from elsewhere in the world.

and their correletaions 

I behave to respectful to wikipedia administration's decision but I would like to share information in my hand last time
I don't would like to misunderstand, I love every people in the world, I don't care their origins.I admire and love plurality origins and cultures. I only would like to contribution in this article   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.255.43 (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC) 

References

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. An IP editor seems to be here on a mission and has made seven edits on 4 November. Over that period they have added thousands of bytes of material. Others have been removing it. The IP seems to have violated 3RR. Use the talk page to persuade others that your material belongs here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Lord Such&Such reported by User:Elmidae (Result: No action)

Page: Black marlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lord Such&Such (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [271]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [272]
2. [273]
3. [274]
4. [275]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [276]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [277],[278]

Comments: After a short spat on my talk page that descended into mudslinging pretty quickly, no engagement on talk page but busy re-instatement of challenged edit.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

User not in breach of 3RR at this time. Attempting to engage on their talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

All right, we made it to the talk page now; thanks. In absence of stonewalling-by-edit-summary, I can live with the disputed version being up while this is being sorted out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action at this time. Let us know if the reverting continues without any agreement on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bhoke2081 reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Blocked)

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

User being reported: Bhoke2081 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 06:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC) "This is what the fact check websites say Epoch Times is. They are listed with Fox News."
3. 06:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC) "It is not far right. According to all sides it is right leaning. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias"
4. 05:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC) "It is not far right. According to all sides it is right leaning. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias"
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC) to 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC) "Libertarian is an individual rights ideology that is not ethnocentric. For-example it is pro-immigration. From the Libertarian website, https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/ “ Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful. We welcome immigrants who come seeking a better life. The vast majority of immigrants are very peaceful and highly productive.” This is a direct conflict with white nationalist ideology including Patriot front."
   2. 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC) "More evidence this is right leaning not far right https://www.adfontesmedia.com/epoch-times-bias-and-reliability/"
6. 15:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC) "It is not far right. According to all sides it is right leaning. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias"
7. 15:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC) "It is not far right. According to all sides it is right leaning. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/epoch-times-media-bias"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [279]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Bhoke2081 was given two discretionary sanctions warnings, one for post-1932 US politics,[280] and one for the Falun Gong topic area.[281] This user is cleary not very concerned about 3RR or any sanctions. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Resolution attempted at Talk:The Epoch Times § Far-right descriptor. — Newslinger talk 06:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Just pointing out that in addition to this, this editor also vandalized Patriot Front (I reverted it as unsourced, then stopped and realized the organization is described as alt-right in the lead with numerous sources and is an infamous... well, look at the rest of the lead. It's not really something that they could legitimately be confused about.) It might be simpler to take this to ANI (or AE due to it all falling under the AP DS), since by my reading this editor has no constructive edits and appears to be WP:NOTHERE. They've done literally nothing in their entire time here but remove sourced content and add unsourced content, despite numerous warnings. --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• While the sourcing to declare Epoch Times conspiratorial is fairly established, the sourcing in the article (at present) to call it "far right" in WP's voice is spartan. However, that's somewhat beside the point. The editor should familiarize themselves with other ways to resolve content disputes than 3RR. A brief restriction of editing privileges may give them time they could use to better familiarize themselves with our processes. If they fail to do so, I would suggest Binksternet is correct and they're not concerned about sanctions. Chetsford (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that the best solution is an indefinite block as NOTHERE - I noticed the edit-warring last night but they hadn't had a 3RR warning. This morning I saw them pushing the argument that Nazism is left-wing. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely --RegentsPark (comment) 14:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Alex.nezz reported by User:GPinkerton (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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: Caracalla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Alex.nezz (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 03:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 03:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 02:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Add specs. Get informed before twisting historical origins. His father is Libyan making him Amazigh (north african ethnic group)"
   2. 02:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 02:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Get informed before trying to arabize historical figures."
   2. 02:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Early life */Stop trying to arabize people. Focus on the bedoins."
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 02:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Added specific detail"
   2. 02:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Early life */There were no such things as an arab during that period. North african are Amazigh."
5. 02:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 02:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Caracalla."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see; User_talk:GPinkerton#Caracalla)

Comments:

Repeated insertions of unsourced and incorrect ethnic claims. Attempted resolution at my own talk page, which was blithely ignored and responded to with a tirade of falsehoods and intensified edit warring. User then created my own user page, which I do not want and want deleted please. GPinkerton (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG appropriate here; GPinkerton has been repeatedly asked to begin a discussion on the article talk page and refuses to do so, keeps edit-warring against Alex.nezz. Elizium23 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The comment above is ill-informed pearl-clutching and derives from a long-standing vendetta Elizium23 has against me and should therefore be disregarded for the POV (and baseless) attack it is. @Elizium23: I have not refused to do so; avenues of discussion have been exhausted already, and comments have already been made on the article talk page. GPinkerton (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Had Elizium23's judgement not thus been clouded, they would remember that reverting vandalism does not count as edit-warring. GPinkerton (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The user changing established content (by removing sources and instead writing their own opinion) should go to the talk page, not the user reverting vandalism. The user in question was invited to do so, but they presented no argument and no sources and complained about "dirty arabization". We also had a brief discussion on my profile. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• The editor concerned is also vandalizing articles including Septimius Severus, Geta, and Severan dynasty. Indeed, their entire history of contributing is basically vandalism. GPinkerton (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• The POV-pushing vandalism extends to Publius Septimius Geta (father of Septimius Severus), History of Algeria, Tipaza, History of the violin , Andalusian Arabic , Catholic Church in Africa, as well as this very page. This editor needs blocking ASAP. GPinkerton (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Uninvolved comment - I request any passing admin to first look at WP:ANI#Alex.nezz before using the block button here. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 04:17, 7 November 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:Khmm-hmm? reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Khmm-hmm? blocked 24 hours, FilmandTVFan28 warned)

Page: Elinor Wonders Why (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Khmm-hmm? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "All signs point to they are rea l"
2. 02:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "IMDB sources these New episodes, leave them on there, is like Harvey Girls Forever season 5!"
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 02:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 02:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 02:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "You just don't get it!"
   2. 02:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "IMDB sources these New episodes"
   3. 02:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 01:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Characters */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 00:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC) to 01:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 00:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Coincidentally, these episodes are also part"
   2. 00:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Broadcast */"
   3. 00:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Broadcast */"
   4. 01:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC) ""
7. Consecutive edits made from 21:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC) to 21:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 21:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on Elinor Wonders Why."
2. 03:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Elinor Wonders Why."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps adding false and unsourced content. Keeps wanting to use IMDB as a source which is not reliable. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Khmm-hmm? has been blocked for 24 hours, and I've warned FilmandTVFan28 to be careful and not engage in edit warring themselves. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Eleanorlorraine reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: Warned)

Page: Not Fucking Around Coalition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Eleanorlorraine (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 06:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC) to 06:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 06:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Third attempt to correct inaccurate information in this article edit request on 08 Nov 2020 For The Page NFAC per John Fitzgerald Johnson's request"
   2. 06:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Third attempt to correct inaccurate information in this article edit request on 08 Nov 2020 For The Page NFAC per John Fitzgerald Johnson's request"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC) to 05:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 05:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "Fixed Name from John Jay to Just John Fitzgerald Johnson. Also corrected Established information to reflect the true purpose according to the Founder. Finally, removed Texas as the state of origin that is incorrect information."
   2. 05:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 05:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Background and organization */Changed name From John Jay to John Fitzgerald Johnson."
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 03:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Background and organization */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC) to 03:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 03:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "article"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 06:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC) "reply"

Comments:

user keeps changing from sourced to unsourced material. Will not engage on article or user talk page MartinezMD (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Eleanorlorraine is warned for violating WP:3RR on this article. She is now discussing on the talk page and listening to advice from User:C.Fred. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Scandevi reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Warned)

Page: Association for Behavior Analysis International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986715551 by Binksternet (talk)"
2. 12:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986434547 by Wikiman2718 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Please see Talk:Association_for_Behavior_Analysis_International#Edit_warring_by_IP and Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2020_October_21#Malicious_Edits_to_Page_-_Association_for_Behavior_Analysis_International Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Warned by Binksternet here. User's reverts also include ones made via IP: [282], [283], etc. This is explicitly an edit-warring report, not a 3 revert rule report. Through this account and IPs, this user has been edit-warring information that negatively reflects on the organization since August. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This editor Scandevi continued a series of IP edits here, correcting a coding mistake by the IP. The IP range Special:Contributions/2600:6C4A:797F:F9E3:0:0:0:0/64 is from Kalamazoo, the first location of ABAI, the topic of contention. (ABAI later moved to nearby Portage, Michigan.) The IP range and Scandevi have been trying to whitewash the article, to remove the very close connection between ABAI and Judge Rotenberg Educational Center which the U.N. says is using torture methods on autistic children. Scandevi demonstrates a conflict of interest, and is edit-warring. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Scandevi is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Association for Behavior Analysis International unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)