01:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* History */ removing dubious POV history section; do you think I don't know when POV history is created by piecing together obscure sources; you don't have anything on the culture which is what the article is about and you are waxing about the history; take it to the Swat District page"
01:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Language */ again this is not about the language; cutting the bloated language section; you don't have anything other that a content fork of the language."
01:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ this page is not about the language; it is mentioned in the infobox. the language has a separate page where you can wax about indo-aryan; the culture has little to do with indoaryan"
01:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ it is not just sitar; it is also a percussion instrument; the naming of the instrument does not belong to the lead"
22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 996824946 byKautilya3 (talk): Anupam has been promoting toxic Hindu supre4mecist POV espeically in Pakistan related pages for nearly 14 years; he is now joined by LearnIndology and Zakaria; rv to K3's last"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
No 3RR warning given, but the editor is experienced enough to know. The edit summary #5 is also quite toxic personal attack. I think given the situation a serious warning at least is in order.Kautilya3 (talk)01:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't have the sense that I had reverted three times. Have I checked Kautilya3's accounting? I have not. Why? Because I think the more important issue here is something else.
India-POV-promoting editors have been relentlessly editing Pakistan-related pages, promoting Hindu majoritarian- (or anti-Pakistan) POV. It is toxic, utterly, and shamefully toxic. They don't know anything about Pakistan, but because the Pakistani editors on Wikipedia are exhausted, tired, and unable to counter, the Indians or India-POVers are getting away/ They promote culturalirredentism. They claim Pakistan by some fantasy ofIndian reunification, claiming Pakistanis, who are Muslim, as converted Hindus, or rubbing this in by whatever it takes. Someone has to come to the Pakistani's defense. I am the author of the FAIndia and the prime author of theHistory of Pakistan,Kashmir,British Raj,Company rule in India,Indus Valley Civilization,Partition of India,Indian rebellion of 1857, in other words, most things in Indian history that have anything to do with the current impasse between India and Pakistan. Do they really think I don't know what is going on here?
Do what you must, but please don't forget that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the creation of NPOV content, not nickel and diming rules and playing gotcha.Kautilya3, the reporter, engages in India-promotion himself. He routinely does this in India-China and India-Pakistan issues. What does he know about Swat? Nothing. The India-POV promoters, moreover, adopt comical identities: they pose as Pakistanis. As Pakistanis, they make only gnomish edits on Pakistan-related pages (why? because to do anything more would require knowledge). But they make reams and reams on Hindu-majoritarian topics. They award Pakistan Order of Merit barnstars to Pakistan-bashers from India. They award barnstars to each other at the drop of a hat. Have they written anything of consequence on Wikipedia? They haven't, nothing.Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I am a Pakistani from the the KPK province and have seen your edits on Wikipedia. They in no way "defend Pakistan" but promote your British imperialist POV in Pakistan -you wrote an essay in one of your subpages defending colonialism in pre-partition subcontinent. Look at the talk page and see that everyone reached a consensus and then you Fowler&fowler came and started edit warring on the article. You Fowler&fowler have made what I perceive as prejudice statements like the one you have in your edit summary and have been warned before, yet you still make them. Will you say you're sorry and stop? These are some I found disturbing:
If Hindu practice results in the deaths of thousands of individuals, as it does in this case, through water borne diseases, why should I "understand" why Hindus cause these deaths. Concern for human life is more important than cultural relativist kowtowing to a religion.[1]
We don't need papers in palaeogenomics to see that. We have only to look around to see the vast and brutal inequalities Hinduism has created in Indian society.[2]
During our visits to India, my family and I have very likely buried more stray dogs and cats, all either run over, or otherwise killed, by Ahimsa-loving Hindus, than the number of times editors here have uttered aloud the word Ahimsa. (Especially, cats (domesticated cats): have you wondered why their yowling is never heard in Hindu neighborhoods in India, except in the hills? That is because they are all shooed-away, or have rocks or sticks thrown at them, by superstition-loving Ahimsa-loving Hindus. You have to go to a Muslim neighborhood to see a cat.)[3]
Goodness knows, there were plenty European evangelists around to help them spiritually and British administrators to grant them economic and educational favors. But most Hindus chose to reassert their caste status or assert even higher caste status.[4]
If it is not old-fashioned racism, it is the kind that makes Indians (and I don't mean any WP editor) unload their insecurities about being equated with blacks (the Lord forbid).[5]Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk)02:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
A case in point. A relatively new editor, who knows more about my edits (with diffs to boot) than he does about anything substantive on WP. He pulls these diffs out of the hat on every occasion. He awards a barnstar a day to his POV pals. His POV pals pull the same diffs out of their hats and grant a barnstar every other day to him. See his talk page, and theirs; they will appear here soon enough. Is WP about this?Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The edit summary likeAnupam has been promoting toxic Hindu supre4mecist POV espeically in Pakistan related pages for nearly 14 years; he is now joined by LearnIndology and Zakaria; rv to K3's last" is really problematic. Also, portraying Wikipedia as a battle ground for editors of different nations and casting aspersions against other editors, including the editor who filed the report won't be helpful.See this diff. You need to avoid such behavior. ─The Aafī(talk)11:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
If it weren't a battleground, ARBIPA sanctions would not be there. If it weren't a battleground, I wouldn't need to do work for the NPOV lead and map in place in all Kashmir-related pages, especiallyKashmir,Gilgit-Baltistan,Jammu and Kashmir (union territory),Ladakh,Aksai Chin, andAzad Kashmir. Do you see that they all have the same NPOV format? That did not happen overnight; it took an enormous effort, mostly by me. Seethe RFC andmap discussion. View the admins on board there. I received thanks from them. But did I get any from the people here who are champing at the bit to have a go at me, including you? None at all. I do all the thankless work. But if in quickly fixing a POV-fork of the stubTorwali language I make a transgression, I'm dragged to ANI. Kautilya3 could not have left a message on my talk page? When he needed me to fix the2020 Delhi riots page (see it's NPOV state which has now held for 11 months) he was quick to askfor help on mytalk page. Where were you, my friend, The Aafi? I've never seen you anywhere on these pages, but you apparently watchmy edits with the eyes of a hawk and make sanctimonious admonitions here?Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Arbcom needs to take another look at India-Pakistan. There is entirely too much India-POV-tinkering going on in Pakistan-related pages, all by Indian or India-POV editors. The Pakistanis, in contrast, do very little on Indian pages. This has created an untenable and iniquitous situation. Just imagine: if someone like me, with a history of integrity in India-Pakistan issues, am being dragged to ANI for a relatively minor sin (which I haven't even bothered to examine because I think bigger issues are at stake), what chances do Pakistani editors have in stemming the rot of the Indian-POV on their pages? Arbcom really does need to take another look.Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
50 kbytes on talk this month (almost none of it by F&F) for a very poor, repetitive article at 7 kbytes! Talk page quotes to 3rd parties being dragged up from 3 years ago or more.... Business as usual in this area. Suggest close.Johnbod (talk)14:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Considering thatUser:Fowler&fowler has engaged in an edit war on the article without engaging at all in the talk page [[6]] means that they are not following wikipedia protocolWP:BRD. Since the issue is being discussed in the talk page, User:Fowler&fowler must discuss his ideas in the talk page first before engaging in editing the article again. I understand that it is a controversial article, but there has to be control and restraint by all editors before it gets out of hand. Find better sources, ask for an RFC, suggest another section in the article where Fowler&fowler's sources or views can be presnted, and above all try to reach a consensus in the talk page before editing once your edits are disputed. If such behavior persists then a temporary article block or temporary user block would be in order to enforce cooperation between.Ramos1990 (talk)07:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know who this editor is, but s/he has misunderstood my revert. I reverted Anupam because he had removed the POV tag added by Kautilya3, then moved the disputed text into the viewable quotes of the citations, and expanded that text significantly. After my revert, Anupam did not first open a talk page discussion per BRD, he reverted my revert, then posted on the talk page. Look, the article's talk page discussion has been going on for a long time. Anupam has been trying throughout to sneak in common POV insinuations (converted Hindus or Buddhists, etc, etc) by way of the most obscure sources (whose use can support the craziest assertions). I am going back to my vacation. Before I do so, I would like to apologize to Kautilya3 for some uncharitable things I said in my statement (which I have now scratched). He is an admirably neutral and NPOV editor with a much longer fuse than mine. I'm glad that he continues to be there on the article's talk page. I am a little disappointed by his filing this AN3. He could have left a note on my talk page. To the overseeing admins: do what you must. As I said, I am returning to my vacation. I do think that Indian (i.e. India-POV promoting) editors have swamped Pakistani pages. Arbcom needs to take another look at India-Pakistan 1RR etc does nothing because there are many more Indian editors than Pakistani. Consequently, many Pakistan-related pages are no longer neutral, the faults on average lying at the doorsteps of the Indians.Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank youFowler&fowler. I don't really need an apology, butAnupam does. His approach is different from yours or mine, but it is a stretch to brand him a "Hindu supremacist" (if at all anybody can be so branded). --Kautilya3 (talk)15:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
01:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996881998 byFowler&fowler (talk) rv mass deletion by long-term communal POV pusher User:Fowler&fowler; gain consensus on talk page for contentious edits"
01:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ partial rv: the DYK reviewer specifically requested that the lede be expanded to summarize the article; discuss on the talk page if you disagree"
I admit that I was not paying attention to the number of reverts that I made and I humbly apologize for this. For the past few days, I and other editors were working on the talk page to reach consensus on the talk page. We did that today and when the other editor started blanking sections of the article, I became a bit frustrated, especially after I tried using the talk page and received no response besides continued edit warring. If the reviewing administrator would like me to revert any of my changes or to revert all of my recent edits, I would be happy to do that. I am sorry for any inconvenience that this has caused anyone. I wish you all a joyful holiday season and a Happy New Year. Respectfully,AnupamTalk02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Anupam is a good faith editor who has positively contributed to WikiProject Pakistan and WikiProject India for a number of years. They have apologized for edit warring and are willing to revert. I don't see the need for any remediation here.Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk)04:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Anupam seems to have been following wikipedia protocol ofWP:BRD and was and still is in discussion of the changes withKautilya3 and another editor in the talk page[7]. The issue is howUser:Fowler&fowler just stepped in all of a sudden and started to revert without ever engaging in the discussion in the talk page. See the talk history of that page[8]. Fowler&fowler is not even found there. Since the issue is being discussed in the talk page, User:Fowler&fowler must discuss his ideas in the talk page first before engaging in editing the article. It looks a bit messy because of all of this. From my past intersections with User:Aniupam, I have not seen much edit wars of this kind so I think that if reverting stops, then there should be no further action aside from a warning. Clearly User:Anupam is trying to redirectUser:Fowler&fowler to go to the talk page and stop edit warring with the reverts.Ramos1990 (talk)07:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
Comments: User is a sock (see here for SPI), and they are edit warring with me on multiple of their user/subpages. Long story short, they copied a bunch of text off of my userspace. My main userpage, myuserbox page, myarticles page, mysandbox, mytalk page and more. For some (sandbox, talk, articles), they copied verbatim what was there. For others (main, UBX), they adjusted it to their own fit (but it was minor things like changing my username to theirs, specifying the userboxes, etc). I normally don't have a problem with the latter (User:JackReynoldsADogOwner is an example), I find it quite flattering. But, this is a sockpuppet who has annoyed me for months, and has caused me to catch every single one of their sockpuppets. I alsorequested speedy deletion of their userspace (by criterion G5), and they keep reverting me. Yes, I know technically we are bothexempt to 3RR (it's their userspace but I'm reverting a blocked sockpuppet), but I felt the need to report them anyways.D🎉ggy54321(happy new year!)23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I am very sorry. I didn't realize that my actions could constitute edit warring. I've opened a discussion on the dispute and I won't make any further reverts until a consensus is found.Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk)05:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (this is the link to the talk page discussion which started from the previous edit warring on this page over this same subject, for which this same user received a block)Talk:Rob Schenck#Inappropriate_edit_warring_re:_Norma_McCorvey_situation
Comments: Please note that there are really FIVE reverts in 15 hours, because the first edit is the continuation of an edit war on this page that this user was blocked for about a month ago.
I have asked the person in question to provide reasoning for the issue with my edit, but they only reply with edit warring and false accusations of burying.3Kingdoms (talk)22:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – Indef.User:3Kingdoms is here at this noticeboard for the second time in a few weeks, after a previous block. (He has now made six reverts on 30 December). The user seems to have no intention of following our edit warring policy. AtTalk:Rob Schenck#Inappropriate edit warring re: Norma McCorvey situation 3Kingdoms he displaysWP:IDHT. In a line just above, 3Kingdoms asks others 'to provide reasoning for the issue with my edit'. If he was paying attention, the fact that he's here at the EW noticeboard ought to be a clue. Though the block is indefinite, other admins might consider an unblock if they become convinced that the problem will not recur.EdJohnston (talk)02:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Comments:
My apologies for any errors in the reporting of this incident. Wikipedia user ‘Doug Weller’ aggressively and abusively censored my attempts to contribute in the discussion of the above mentioned ‘Stop the steal’ page. Now, I understand this is a politicized topic, but an editor such as ‘Doug Weller’ should tread carefully. Wikipedia’s reputation is already shoddy when it comes to politicized entries. Aggressively shutting down individuals interested in collaborating to improve the neutrality of the entry is not a good tack. ‘Doug Weller’ posted obnoxiously on my own Talk page and then challenged me to report them. They clearly need a check. I understand that senior Wikipedia editors might revel in their ability to use this platform’s complex system of codes, rules, and procedures to their personal political advantage. I have been bullied by senior editors already. I’m sure ‘Doug Weller’ has done their best to portray themself as a very experienced, very fair moderator of knowledge. Perhaps, to some degree, they are. I’m sure ‘Doug Weller’ has a good deal of respect. However, this person and any editor should never abuse their power for the sole purpose of pushing a political agenda. We are dealing with the organization and preservation of the knowledge of humanity. I urge you to take a step back from power politics and consider what it means to be fair, balanced, and neutral when approaching our task here.
This is a malformed request which should be promptly closed. Doug Weller has done nothing but patiently point out to the reporting user that we require reliable sources for all material on Wikipedia - that "being "fair, balanced, and neutral" does not mean treating all viewpoints or ideologies equally.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)02:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a written lie. Look at Doug Weller’s Talk page. There are multiple reported instances on his Talk page of him overstepping his bounds and abusively interacting with well-intentioned well-sourced contributorsHaerdt (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byHaerdt (talk •contribs)02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
You have not provided a single example of Doug Wellernot beinga very experienced, very fair moderator of knowledge. To the contrary, they have shown nothing but patience with your bizarre insistence that we take the word of charlatans and grifters over every reliable source and court of law in the United States. We're not going to do that, ever, period, the end. You can stop demanding it, because it's not going to happen.Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, and you have three rights here - the right to your contributions (as licensed), the right to fork, and the right to leave. That you disagree with our policies and guidelines as applied toStop the Steal is unfortunate, but irreconcilable.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)02:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is NorthBySouthBerenof taking such a passionate stand here? He has been censoring me repeatedly in the past several hours in my attempts to bring some rational balance to one of Wikipedia’s pages. I have reported him separately for bullying me and posting abusively on my Talk page. See the report below.— Precedingunsigned comment added byHaerdt (talk •contribs)06:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
"Balance" does not mean even-handed or 50/50 or taking both sides at their word. That would be a ridiculous violation ofcore rules on neutrality. Perhaps WP isn't for you if you can't accept that we give due weight based on external sources, not based on editors' desires to see certain viewpoints. That's a problem that can getyou blocked. But again, I emphasize that if you are reporting Doug for edit-warring and wanting to see action taken against them, it isyour responsibility to back up that concern with specific evidence. No evidence==no action.DMacks (talk)06:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The editor ‘NorthBySouthBaranof initially took a stand for his similarly minded editor friend ‘Doug Weller’ — see my previous filed report. ‘NorthBySouthBaranof’ then aggressively twice censorsd my attempt to provide a legitimate link supporting the claim that evidence exists, which has been disputed in the Talk section of this article at length. ‘NorthBySouthBerenof’ then aggressively posted in my personal Talk section citing Wikipedia guidelines and claiming that in his opinion the weblink I provided was not legit. I have linked another website above in the diff section to a website I just discovered was on Wikipedia’s ban list. I will be attempting edit with another news article from The Gateway Pundit. Despite the reality that these are right wing news sites, the article cites only left wing news sites.Haerdt (talk)05:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBerenof is now abusively bullying me across several fronts, while preventing legitimate additions to the StoptheSteal page. He is citing Wikipedia code to support censoring information from legitimate right wing news sites. Clearly this contributor is an activist on the left wing.Haerdt (talk)06:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
censoring information from legitimate right wing news sites. Asclearly expressed by the community,The Gateway Pundit isnot a "legitimate" news site, and is in point of fact notorious for publishing fabrications, falsehoods, lies, and patent nonsense. As I alluded to above, that Haerdt believes anything published in The Gateway Pundit is fit for Wikipedia suggests that theylack the competence required to effectively edit Wikipedia, as they are unable to appropriately distinguish between the use of acceptable and unacceptable sources. They're welcome to find some other project to contribute to, such asConservapedia orMetapedia, where standards for sourcing are... different, and possibly more to their liking.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)06:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBerenof is championing a movement among Wikipedia contributors to censor the entire right wing of political news. This is an extremely dangerous practice.Haerdt (talk)06:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
No action seems necessary other than theECP protection ofStop the Steal which was performed by another admin as a result of a request atWP:RFPP. @Haerdt: You have not identified which edits are supposed to be an edit-warring problem. A look at the article history shows edit warring but not any problem from the reported editor. Please do not accuse an editor of "abusively bullying me" when it appears that all that has happened is that the basics of editing in accord with policies have been outlined.Johnuniq (talk)08:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
YouEdJohnston do have some nerve to drop censorship on a page like ZeroHedge.Little people like you is what's wrong with society. Enjoy your "wiki authority" from your parents' basement.The.Barbaryan (talk)12:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[21]
Comments:
I am presenting a combined report for 3 articles, because they all involve exactly the same content which has been added by InsulinRS. He took umbrage at my talk page message and a single revert I made of his work, and while I worked at three articles tossing out unreliable sources, he proceeded to undermine that, without reading any diffs of what was being deleted. He doesn't seem to comprehend that this is not about today's edits.Elizium23 (talk)18:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:WarningLook, you are not supposed to keep on attacking people after my small sanction (a mere block from one article and its talkpage). I'm referring tothis (implicitly accusing Beetstra and others of fascism) andthis (various offensive accusations against Doug Weller, and why twice?). Quit it or you'll get a sitewide block.Wikipedia:No personal attacks is policy.Bishonen |tålk14:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC).
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Bishonen is consistently attacking me for posting legitimate links to factual information that is widely available on the internet, yet suppressed through censorship techniques on websites that he seems to frequent and support. He has banned me for making legitimate edits, and strongly upheld policies that I was not aware existed. Once I was informed of those policies, I abided by them and will continue to. Nevertheless, Bishonen aggressively amd obnoxiously banned me temporarily from editing the oage in question and then posted on my Talk page threatening to ban me further. This is abusive and bullying. I am providing legitimate informational sources to real events and occurrances. Bishonen, do not make your blindness to world events my problem.
Bishonen has taken offense to me pointing out to other editors that their censorship of my edits is fascist. Well, I am calling a spade a spade. When you throw the book at me for legitimate attempts to provide factual basis for a Wikipedia entry, and then restrict my access, that is a fascist technique. Perhaps you should learn how to hold civil discussion and collaboratively build an encyclopedia with people of differing viewpoints from your own instead of directly applying censhorship techniques. Bishonen, NorthBySouthBerenof, and Doug Weller could have assisted with finding a legitimate source for the information I presented to the community for the above mentioned article. Instead, they harshly applied standing policy and aggressively bullied me. This is not the conduct of an open and free project. Freedom does not necessarily mean you bbully ithers and treat them with disdain. You have the option to be kind and take a supportive and nurturing tact, and others are watching your actions and words.Haerdt (talk)21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Haerdt, I mean this in good faith -- this request is ill-formed, illogical, and vexatious. I understand frustration, but please, withdraw this immediately and slow down. Rash editing is rarely the right move. Best of luck.Dumuzid (talk)21:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
But to be kind, I will take asupportive and nurturing tact. Haerdt, it is yourpersonal responsibility to read and understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines before editing. I and other editors have repeatedly linked you to those policies - you need to read and comprehend them. Your repeated references to "free speech" are evidence that you have not -Wikipedia is expressly not a platform for free speech and therefore those words have no meaning on this project. We are here to build an encyclopedia based upon what isverifiable inreliable sources.
It is verifiable in reliable sources that there was no significant electoral fraud in the 2020 American presidential election, and that Joseph R. Biden has been elected by the Electoral College as the 46th President of the United States. That you disagree with these conclusions is irrelevant - they're what reliable sources say, unanimously. You can either edit in compliance with those sources, or you can choose to edit other parts of the encyclopedia, or you can choose to depart from the project. Those are your choices. "Telling Wikipedia readers that the election was stolen and Donald Trump is the real president" is not one of those choices.
Bishonen, NorthBySouthBerenof, and Doug Weller could have assisted with finding a legitimate source for the information I presented to the community - There is no "legitimate source" for the claim that there was any significant electoral fraud in the 2020 election or that any such fraud affected the outcome. That "information" is false, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Again, that you disagree with that conclusion is regrettable, but not solvable here. If you don't like Wikipedia's content policies, you have two choices: attempt to change those policies (good luck) or leave the project and find something more to your liking. You might tryConservapedia orMetapedia.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)21:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Note This is not a 3RR report, and I am not going to take action.Haerdt, if you think your report has merit, you can present the situation, with diffs, atWP:ANI, but have in mind that likely not only actions of Bishonen but also your actions will be investigated.Ymblanter (talk)21:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
NorthbySouthBerenof continues to attack me and bully as seen above in his posts here. RealClearPolitics, a website that is not blacklisted or whitelisted from Wikipedia to my knowledge, yet, provides plenty of accounts of verifiable election fraud. I have linked it on the Talk page for Stop The Steal. Here is another link:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/23/propaganda_election_fraud_and_the_death_of_journalism_144705.html -- I will read and understand all of the Wikipedia politics and guidelines that I can find. I have read the ones that i have been linked to by these other editors, in between dealing with their abuse and bullying. I am attempting to provide a legitimate, factual citation to real life world events from a source that is legitimate according to Wikipedia code (to my knowledge at this point in time) and I have been aggressively attacked and threatened by three editors - NorthbySouthBerenof, Bishonen, and Doug Weller. I am extremely frustrated, and I am engaging with you politely using all of the established community guidelines that I am aware of. I am not disagreeing with election results, as I have written before. I am linking to established, widely read, legitimate sources demonstrating verified election fraud that occurred.Ymblanter - thank you for your support. I will open complain at WP:ANI. I do not appreciate the abusive tone from these three editors and I believe that it goes against Wikipedia's purpose and spirit.Haerdt (talk)21:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
In co-operation with User:Eggishorn, this user has vandalized theDavid Prowse page by removing the information that he died of COVID-19 and deleting all sources that state this, while replacing them with others that use the euphemism "short illness". These users have abundantly engaged inWP:Gaming the system, namely:
1) claiming that this information comes exclusively fromThe Sun andThe Daily Mirror, whose use is discouraged by Wikipedia rules, when in reality there are far more sources claiming the same (and linked in the article, but removed by them) and quoting, among others (but not only), Prowse's own daughter;
2) opening a discussion in the talk page about what should be reported as CoD; failing to reach a consensus; and then proceeding to change the CoD anyway and rolling back any attempts (by multiple users) to restore the old version while claiming that the matter is to be discussed in the talk page - whilethey should have waited for a consensus to be reached before changing the page in the first place.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTognella99 (talk •contribs)00:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Uninvolved user comment: I believe the reporting user needs to be blocked for failing toassume good faith, failing toassume theassumption of good faith and foredit warring. Case in point: they did not assume good faith when they saidfurther vandalism will result in you being reported. whenIvanvector reverted one (1) time because they removed the use of a deprecated source (The Sun, which islisted as deprecated atWP:RSPSOURCES), on Wikipedia, which isn't vandalismby any means, nor should it be reported. They did not assume theassumption of good faith when they saidshow beyond doubt that you are in bad faith., that one is obvious. They also proceeded to edit war with three reverts in one day (20:42 December 31, 202020:43 December 31, 202000:12 January 1, 2021), and they have used edit summaries as their form of communication. Considering this was all on aWP:BLP, Ivanvector andEggishorn are both exempt to 3RR perWP:3RRBLP.D🎉ggy54321(happy new year!)04:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
In co-operation with User:Ivanvector, this user has vandalized theDavid Prowse page by removing the information that he died of COVID-19 and deleting all sources that state this, while replacing them with others that use the euphemism "short illness". These users have abundantly engaged inWP:Gaming the system, namely:
1) claiming that this information comes exclusively fromThe Sun andThe Daily Mirror, whose use is discouraged by Wikipedia rules, when in reality there are far more sources claiming the same (and linked in the article, but removed by them) and quoting, among others (but not only), Prowse's own daughter;
2) opening a discussion in the talk page about what should be reported as CoD; failing to reach a consensus; and then proceeding to change the CoD anyway and rolling back any attempts to restore the old version while claiming that the matter is to be discussed in the talk page - while they should have waited for a consensus to be reached. --Tognella99 (talk)00:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
While I am amused that I could "abundantly engage" (sic) in anything at my age, this is self-evidently a feeble attempt to weaponize AN3 to settle a content dispute that is currently under discussion. I have made exactlyone (1) revert without cooperation, collusion, or coordination with anyone. OP should be blocked for bad-faith reporting.Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)01:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Didn't notice I had passed 3 reverts. I wanted to revert my 4th revert, but since there's been many edits since my 4th edit, I decided I shouldn't mess things up. Though, I have to say thatthis diff andthis diff were me reverting obvious vandalism which is an exception inWP:3RR. —CuriousGolden(T·C)08:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"Didn't notice" wasn't an argument, it was there to inform that I didn't pass 3rd edit intentionally. And no, I wasn't topic banned as you implied, me and the admin made an agreement to avoid a specific article for 2 weeks, which I did. "and whom you managed to get blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation" The guy reverted 5 times, which means he can't self-revert and he was given 3RR warning before the report or else he wouldn't have got banned. If you have problem with his ban, talk toYmblanter, not me. And no, I didn't call Haydar Pamuk's edits vandalism. I calledthis diff andthis diff vandalism, both of which you failed to address. The diffs' bad faith and vandalism are further proven by thediscussion opened by one of the vandals on the same article's talk page. Rest of your comment is baseless and offensive accusations (which cross the line forWP:ASPERSIONS), so I won't waste my time replying to them. —CuriousGolden(T·C)14:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
CuriousGoldenI am sorry to say this but yourhabit of reverting rather than trying to reach a consensus goes above and beyond a single article or a single editor's edits, one can just have a look in your contributions log to see how many times you reverted others in various articles in last couple of months inNKR-related articles, pushing your POV, whenever you didn't like somebody else's edits; are you going to claim that all those editors were vandals? I have not "implied" anything, please do not skew my comment, you were given a choice between a ban and abstinence for 2 weeks by a very kind adminEdJohnston, not that you had a better option, and this repeated violation of the same rule within 2 months tells me the first measure did not result in improvement of your methods. I have elaborated about the case of Haydar Pamuk in the discussion above this one, to keep this one focused. Regards,Armatura (talk)15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Yep, still no mention of the fact that 2 of the 4 reverts you provided were me revering obvious vandalism, which is an exception inWP:3RR. If you have a problem with any of my reverts on any articles, point them out in the appropriate article's talk page and we'll reach a consensus, like I have done so many times. Unfortunately, when you don't do that and come here and complain about my edits on random articles, I see nothing exceptWP:JDLI. —CuriousGolden(T·C)15:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
CuriousGolden Justone of the possible examples, where you were repeatedly asked by another userSataralynd to stop repeated reverts and engage in discussion to reach a consensus. Roughly at the same time when you have done 14 reverts within 48 hours in 4NKR-connected articles asreported by another userԳարիկ Ավագյան. This is despite beingalerted to the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions back in April 2020. Also, perhaps before labeling others' edits as "vandalism", I think it would be useful to have a refresher onwhat is vandalism andwhat is not vandalism, especially the section on "Disruptive editing or stubbornness" ("Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. All vandalism is disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism").Armatura (talk)18:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Armatura, did you look carefully atthe fourth revert you put in the list above?. CuriousGolden was removing this fascinating bit of unsourced speculation by an IP editor who said that Erdogan was planning to settle Syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh:
There Syrian Jihadists participating in the battle on the Azerbaijani side sent there with weapons after they crossed on foot into Turkish borders. They were sent by Erdogan, where he plotted a plan to settle syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh. It is now a confirmed fact. This article left out everything about the Syrian Jihadists and its a shame they are hiding the fact that Armenia was fight a war against terrorists whom said themselves that the Azerbaijanis stayed at the lines getting drunk while they sent the mercenaries forward to die. If this truth is removed than this article is nothing more than a make believe trophy because all shit floats to the surface one day..
Armatura, do you seriously think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to keep these words in the article (including 'all shit floats to the surface one day'), and with no source?EdJohnston (talk)22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree withArmatura, I have also seen signs ofWP:GAMING in CuriousGolden's activity regardingNKR articles over the past few months. Time and time again the user's pro-Azerbaijani agenda becomes more evident. The user has a habit to make edits which clearly have a pro-Azeri bias. I've noticed the user tends to make vague edit summaries while sneakily altering information to tip articles towards a more pro-Azeri stance. In the case ofUzundara, the user and I came to a consensus in September, the editor then made edits in October contrasting the consensus (without engaging in any discussion). I proceeded to leave a message in the talk page of that article, which was ignored. Meanwhile, over atPolitical status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the user ended up making changes to the article while on-going talk page discussions were taking place and before a consensus was reached. When I advised the user of this, the user was very quick to point fingers and talk about "maintaining etiquette". The user has been very quick to accuse myself,Laurel Lodged, and others of either POV pushing or edit warring in the past, when they themselves have been sanctioned from editing due to edit warring. Quite hypocritical behaviour. All in all, this user knowsexactly what they are doing and I also urge Admins to have a deeper look into their general pro-Azeri bias and manipulative editing tactics. Regards,Archives908 (talk)15:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I can confirm that gaming is afoot; hismodus operandi is to revert edits he does not like, accuse the reverted editor of edit warring and then leave boiler plate, passive-aggressive-official-sounding warnings on the talk page of the offending editor in the hope of bullying him away from making further reversions. See my edit log for a sad litany of these kinds of edits and bullying behaviour. He is protected and supported in this behaviour by a coterie of like-minded editors with Turkish/Azeri sympathies.Laurel Lodged (talk)17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Well said,Laurel Lodged. He has been and is unrelenting in pushing his pro-Azeri views; backed by a loyal band of followers. It is more then clear that the user has a biasedWP:POV andWP:UNDUE agenda. Glancing at their edit history, this becomes self-evident. The user has switched language translations and de jure/de facto status in several articles to put Azerbaijan first and Armenian second, has removed or re-adjusted wordings to tip information in favor of Azerbaijan, and so forth (often times providing zero explanation). When editors try to restore balance/neutrality, the user is quick to revert and/or proceed with a hostile critique. This uncivil behaviour, backed by their aggressive editing tactics, is by far constructive... yet alone appropriate. Furthermore, nothing has changed since they were sanctioned last- so, "not knowing" cannot justify as an excuse anymore. I fear this behaviour will continue indefinitely. Regards,Archives908 (talk)23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I believe this case should be reviewed by another Admin. No valid explanation or rationale was provided why (despite all the evidence/testimony) this resulted in "no action". The biasedWP:POV andWP:UNDUE edits, generalWP:GAMING, continual violation ofWP:3RR, and "bullying" tactics described by 3 different editors deserves recognition. Regards,Archives908 (talk)16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Guys, do you think we can not see anything? Do you think we do not see that there are requests here against Armenian editors with Azerbaijani editors piling up, and there are requests against Azerbaijani editors with Armenian editors piling up? Do you think we do not know that some of you support the Armenian side in 100% cass, and other support the Azerbaijani side in 100% cases? And that all of you clearly demonstrate battleground behavior? We block the most egregious cases, but, fine, we can start blocking in all the cases for edit-warring or even for disruptive editing - then all of you are going to be blocked within a week.--Ymblanter (talk)16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
That statement is a tad bit dramatic, and generalizing is very dangerous. While I don't disagree with you that tensions are high, this is more then just simple "vandalism"- we are noticing a pattern of behaviour here. It's best to stay focused and examine the information presented on a case-by-case basis, rather then making generalizations or rash assumptions.Archives908 (talk)16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, nothing is wrong with asking for explanation as to why this case resulted in "no action". Especially since, no explanation was even provided.Archives908 (talk)16:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
DearYmblanter,EdJohnston, elaborating on the logic of the decision would be appreciated. It is understandably easier to diagnose/rule out an issue in a given article rather than in the user's general behaviour, but as others mentioned there aresystematic signs of gaming the system, article ownership, chronic edit warring in the user's log, have you looked into it carefully? No action is going to mean green light for further reverts, and if the user avoids revert warring in Battle of Shusha, he is going to continue in otherNKR/Armenia/Azerbaijan-related articles, as before. I would avoid generalizations please - e.g. the profile / interests ofLaurel_Lodged do not look Armenian and I am noticing the profile ofArchives908 for the first time here in this discussion, in case you are wondering about some anti-Azerbaijani conspiracy. I would rather be interested to hear what you call the phenomenon when several Azerbaijani editors do the same revert, careful not to exceed the limitation of reverts over 24 hours and yet succeeding to keep the version of the article theycollectively like - same Battle of Shusha and Nagorno Karabakh war articles are bright examples ofcollective reverting, is there no regulatory measure for this? Now please look into my log and find any such behavior. And I don't see why you would treat Azerbaijanis and Armenians differently from the rest of the editors - could you please apply the same WP rules regardless of nationality, race, color, gender, religion and other protected characteristics? Regards,Armatura (talk)19:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I justknow there is off-wiki coordination. In 2010, I was an arbitrator in the Russian Wikipedia, and we had to consider a case about Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination similar toWP:EEML (and some of the current warriors were on the mailing list). We knew about its existence because someone infiltrated in the list and sent the content to us. We never considered a similar Armenian list, though I am sure it exists, just nobody managed to infiltrate there. Concerning your remarks about the editors background, what I see is fully polarized partisan editing, when every user here takes either 100% Armwenian side, or 100% Azerbaijani side. May I please remind you that a few days ago you repeatedly appealed to me to protect a NOTHERE pro-Armenian user with 25 edits, arguing they have not been warned enough? And the user was subsequently blocked (not by me) for sockpuppetry. When I see any of you defending NOTHERE Azerbaijani users, I might change my opinion, but for the time being what I see is a clearly partisan division, and in this episode we see a bunch of Armenian or pro-Armenian editors, who found a way to this closed discussion at an obscure noticeboard to try to block one editor on the opposite side. You see, even if the user is eventually blocked, this is not going to help you as soon as this partisan editing persists. As soon as every side consider reverts the main dispute resolution avenue there will always be someone reverting. The supply is sufficient, and what we (administrators) are doing is to reduce the demand.--Ymblanter (talk)10:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Ymblanter thanks very much for elaborating on your previous replies, I am glad an admin raises the issue of off-WP coordinated action. One can vouch for what oneknows, though, not for what one therorises. I, too, haveseen Azerbaijanitrial of off-WP coordination resulting in violation of WP:CANVAS. May I ask how come people on a known list of off-WP coordination are still allowed to edit? Why is it tolerated by English WP admins? We should look at users'actions, and not nationality: being of Azerbaijani or Armenian nationality/sympathy should not protect any user on WP. Being of Russian background might have resulted instereotyping Caucasian people from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, etc, but may I ask to avoid stereotyping nationalities on WP, please? The pro-Armenian user wascollectively reverted by virtually every Azerbaijani editor in Battle of Shusha 2020 article, and I wanted to make sure admins realise that, even if he violated a rule (for which he was rightfully blocked). I don't support vandalism or "khaltura" from either side. You wanted an example of non-partisan behaviour, you can see mewarning a pro-Armenian user who was uncivil against Azerbaijani editors on at Battle of Shusha Talkpage, I asked another pro-Armenian user toself-revert their 4th edit over 24 hours and you have seen measking for 1RR protection rather than engaging in the battle, are you still of the same opinion? And you saidAs soon as every side consider reverts the main dispute resolution avenue there will always be someone reverting., can you please look in my log to see the number of reverts? Indiscriminate blaming and stereotyping both sides is not going to benefit Wikipedia, either. Regards,Armatura (talk)12:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not think we should be discussing this any longer, as soon as you have come to this conclusion. You are welcome to report me toWP:AN or even toWP:AE of course. Have a nice day.--Ymblanter (talk)12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[27]
Comments: User actions evidently indicate failing the edit warring policy on multiple account, It appears to me that he is doingWP:PLAYPOLICY,WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is driven politically and in favor of the unrecognized de factor State of Somalia (Somaliland) he has refuse to get the point and it's been 4 reverts in less than 24 hours period. Not good faith signs of the user engaging in the talk page discussion. Whereby this matter should have been rather simple and if you ask globally or any community about rightful details about this article here a few external maps as referenceBadhan, Somalia or here[28] and here[29]. Please urgently stop this user. Iappreciate your assistance in this matter.SultanSanaag (talk)01:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Somalia has no jurisdiction overSomaliland, it is therefore misleading to indicate this area as being under Somalia, as that would indicate Somalian control, which is false.
Just like how Taiwanese towns aren't marked as part of China, Somaliland towns shouldn't be marked as part of Somalia either. I believe a consensus has already been reached earlier in regards to this.
It seems you're driven by your political affiliation and your bias is at play here. No one is disputing Somaliland's lack of recognition, but marking its towns as part of Somalia is very misleading. Somalia isn't a complete state either.
Three more reverts since this report was filed. Sincethis was his response to the notification, I suggest a long, probably permanent, vacation from Wikipedia is due. --Calton |Talk12:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments: this user is really getting on my nerves. If I add something into the page as a separate article, they will revert the edit, then I will revert it back to how it was when I added it, then they will revert it etc. This has been going on for quite some time now and I'm getting sick of it. I just don't understand what the problem is, and why they just can't leave it as it is. Can someone maybe look into this please.L1amw90 (talk)22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean? I don't see anything as to where I should follow up with really. But this edit/revert war is getting a joke now, and it seriously needs to stop before either/both of us end up getting blocked.L1amw90 (talk)00:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments: On the page above vandalism after final warning. The user in question is constantly grossly attacking me personally and harrassing me, obviously incapable of controlling his emotions. (diff) Simply put, we can't agree on placement of one (sub-)section within the article. However, the user behaves like the owner of the article, does not allow me to edit it and dictates to me what I can and cannot do. Regards. Penepi (talk)23:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I am NOT vandalising the page, nor am I attacking or harassing you, so quit lying. I never said I was the owner of the article, but it seems you have a problem with how one particular section looks to the rest, and where was my "final warning"?. Neither you or anyone else on the above article in mention have issued any warnings. So that's another lie. Also, I have NOT said/done anything to dictate you in anyway. Jesus, how many lies just you come up with?!L1amw90 (talk)23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
As I provided above – (diff) – you are clearly attacking me. Or do you not consider this an insult?"Seriously, get a life and grow up you pathetic idiot". So you are either rude or you are deliberately and brazenly lying. Possibly both. Penepi (talk)23:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
And your point being? You clearly attacked me with the following: (diff) and you're trying to tell me that you DIDN'T aim an abuse at me? Also, would you care to explain this?..(diff) as I'm aware, this is clearly an attack on other users by simply slating them "mentally incapacitated idiots"?...L1amw90 (talk)23:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that was a reply to your insult that I mentioned above, and you know it. So no, I did not aim an abuse at you. It was absolutely justified given the content of your insult.
Regarding your second point, I hope you are joking. On the opposite, I was defending other readers and telling you to stop making them idiots. Please learn to read with understanding. But this is getting awkward. Obviously you are incapable of having a decent and constructive discussion, so I would end it here. Administrators - or whoever is in charge of these disputes - will be able to evaluate the facts themselves. Penepi (talk)23:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not incapable of anything, it's you who has an issue with me. All I'm trying to do is assume good faith by adding a completely new section into a separate article, but you keep going behind me and undoing it for no reason. I've told you multiple times about it being the same on2020 PDC World Darts Championship but you just keep ignoring the fact that it has to be under the draw section etc, whereas if it has its own section, it is much easier to find and less confusing, but no, you just won't have it. Anyway, I'm not going to keep arguing on a page what doesn't even concern neither me or you. If you want to discuss it further, then we can discuss it on our talk pages.L1amw90 (talk)00:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
And no, I don't "have a specific point of view". I am trying to clean up articles written like bad blogs, usingWP:RS, and removing unsourced material. The only "forcing POV" is coming from Beyondmyken and Ewulp.
I have repeatedly tried discussing these issues on the relevant discussion pages, but these get ignored.
Also, take note of the Robert O'Meally "quotation", which both Beyondmyken and Ewulp had no problem with. That "quote"(around which ALL this has been built out of whole cloth) turned out to be a deliberate LIE.197.89.10.25 (talk)06:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's put things in perspective. The entireBaby Esther article was created by someone called "Isabelortiz42", who also made the first edits. Here's their preferred version..
First, the singer was best known as "Li'l Esther". Second, she NEVER "performed regularly at the Cotton Club".Third and Fourth, it matter-of-factly states that "Helen Kane appropriated her singing style", something that (obviously) has never been verified, just as it has never been verified that Helen Kane had ever even heard of Esther before the Fleischer trial.Fifth, "Jone's style went to become the inspiration for the voice of Betty Boop" So, Esther sang in a sexualized New York accent, did she?Sixth, Boltonclaimed that Kane saw Esther perform in 1928. Yet the article says that Kane and Bolton saw it "together". Wrong again.Seventh, it is claimed that "Boop oop a doop" was "Jones' trademark". Well, show me ONE source that says that.Eighth, nobody ever claimed that Kane originated a "baby singing style". And such a style existed before Esther was even born, whenever that may have been.
Note how there's NO SOURCE for any of the above. There is however, ONEWP:RS in this article.. So, let's read on, as pretty much EVERYTHING up to this point has been both unsourced, and a blatant LIE, to boot..
Here's what the creator of the article stated..
"Jazz studies scholar Robert O'Meally has referred to Jones as 'Betty Boop's black grandmother.'
However..here's what Robert O'Meally actually said..
From Page 290 of Uptown Conversation: The New Jazz Studies (2004):
The climax of the case (a further Ellisonian twist) came when the court viewed archival film brought in by the defense - footage shot in the early days of sound, featuring yet another singer, this time a black cabaret artist billed as Baby Esther, who on film performed a song that contained the heavily debated phrase "boop-boop-a-doop". The Fleischers' lawyers further surprised the court with testimony from Baby Esther's manager, Lou Walton, claiming that Helen Kane and her manager had heard Baby Esther sing in a cabaret in 1928. The point of course was that even if the Fleischers' singer(s) had copied Kane to create Betty Boop, Kane herself, if the evidence could be believed56, was an imitation of black Baby Esther.57 In other words, Boop herself was an imitation of an imitation and had, as it were, a black grandmother in the background.58
and here are those notes..
56. Cabarga, The Fleischer Story makes clear that this evidence might very well have been cooked up by the Fleischers to discredit Kane, whom they later admitted to have been their model for Betty Boop.
57. See Klaus Strateman's Louis Armstrong on the Screen (Copenhagen:JazzMedia 1996), pp. 17-26.
58. One can only wonder if there was some sort of sideline deal with Mr Walton. Was Miss Esther paid for her presumed loss of revenue?
Well, that certainly is not what Isabelortiz42 claimed O'Meally said, is it? Yes, the ENTIRE article was a LIE, with its ONE RS turning out to be almost the complete opposite what the music historian REALLY said.
And despite both Beyondmyken and Ewulp taking a keen interest in this article, this O'Meally misquote/falsehood never bothered either of them. It took someone else to correctly quote O'Meally.
Next, an image of a girl KNOWN TO NOT BE "Baby Esther" was used for years on the article. Again, neither editor found fault with that.
And yet, someone tries to tidy up the article, and now that is "edit warring"? How exactly was someone that nobody knows when they were born, nobody would have even heard of them without this trial, and nobody knows whatever became of them...was an "international celebrity"? I started a discussion for this on the discussion page, yet both editors simply ignored it.
Of course, as stated on the discussion page as well, the article isn't even about the person/performer. It's about her part played in a trial between other people, and even then we get to...
Lastly, contrary to what is claimed, the judge's summary IS available to be read. I asked precisely WHERE in that summary Esther is mentioned, even in passing. The response? Report me here. That speaks volumes. (But not about Esther, who was never mentioned at all in the verdict.)197.89.10.25 (talk)07:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I can acknowledge my consecutive edits were hastily enacted but I'm sure we all make mistakes on this website and in life itself, I've had similar mistakes befallen me and I've sought no further greviance in both cases. This decision I feel is one of hastiness and lack of intent to discuss, I haven't seen you partake in the discussion that later fell to the talk page, this seems to have been your first decision and it is to try and ban me, we haven't interacted up until now in that regard.MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk)12:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
SorryMyPreferredUsernameWasTaken but your violation of the 1RR discretionary sanctions at that page got the whole article locked to non-admins. Nothing personal, I just don't think it's fair we were all locked out of the article because of one (or two) editors actions. Thankfully it's all sorted now.Bacondrum (talk)21:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
18:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC) "hey M.bitton the sources are down there...can you read? you can see all the sources in external, you can see "Ruling dynasty of Morocco" you are against your own logic"
17:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC) "I didnt put Any links Guys, i just teach you History, even if you Fake all the think you guys do, History is History...
Btw why There is "History of Morocco" there and you guys put "north African" instead of "Moroccan"? This make no sense...and it make me laugh at you...also the "Moroccan Flag" lmao"
17:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC) "M.Bitton you dont put any Point in this debate, you only Change the "Moroccan" part, i put my point yet you dont Respond with Arguments... so please stop Faking Wikipedia you are Ruining it.
Btw what is "banu Abdul Mumin"?? This Term it never existed, Abdul Mumin was Caliph And Studdent of Ibn Tumart...I smeal Algerian Money Here..."
15:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC) "First of all My Friend The Almohads Berber Group of MOROCCO, they are Different groups amongs Berbers, Berbers of Morocco are not same as Algerian Or Mouretania Berbers for example the Kabyles in Algeria are not The same as Masmuda Of Morocco...is like Saying all Europe is the same, like Prussia is Western European Empire and Not German...its Make no sense.
Do you understand now? About Almoravids... the founder of this Empire Was ABDALLAH IBN YASSINE a MOROCCAN Berber from SOUSS (Central Mor..."
16:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC) "The Almohads were Etnicaly Moroccan Amazighs (Berbers) from Atlas Mountains of Morocco, you cant Say "north Africa" since North Africa was Ruled by Different Groups and States"
Comments: Three reverts in four hours before the page finally got a protection. Thanks to that protection they did not specifically violate 3RR, however, they were uncivil when I warned them on their talk page and refused their disruptive behaviour. They also ignoredWP:NOTTABLOID on the page and continued theirownership. They wrote that I "outta know" the 3RR, forgetting the fact that they wereblocked for edit warring. At least another editor's warning is appreciated.nyxærös17:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user editing from this IP is repeatedly and actively blanking a well-sourced and relevant section of an article despite multiple talk page warnings.warmly,ezlev.talk20:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments: Can someone please consider blocking79.68.129.39 (or page protectingMidfield, County_Mayo)? As above, IP user continues to remove reliably referenced material with the same dubious rationale. Multiple attempts to engage (from multiple editors) have yielded no fruit.Guliolopez (talk)13:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that he is born in Naissus, Moesia Superior, Roman Empire ( present-day Niš, Serbia) should be clearly displayed throughout the page, instead of its muddled portrayal. As well, the infobox is supposed to display the present-day place of birth, according to Wikipedia rules. :Therefore, Niš, Serbia must be shown.75.156.45.126 (talk)14:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Why would you change factual information which is being updated for clarity? Do you have some ulterior motive for historical negationism?
I am editing based on genuine resources, such as the references provided at the bottom of the wiki page.
The fact that he is born in Naissus, Moesia Superior, Roman Empire ( present-day Niš, Serbia) should be clearly displayed throughout the page, instead of its muddled portrayal. As well, the infobox is supposed to display present-day place of birth, according to Wikipedia rules. :Therefore, Niš, Serbia must be shown.75.156.45.126 (talk)14:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Where do you see a MOS guideline for displaying present-day place of birth and not the place as it was known at the time? —C.Fred (talk)17:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
User is repeatedly reverting content without attempting to discuss it first. I invited them to discuss the changes but they ignored my invitation and continued reverting.RoxySaunders also warned the user about edit warring.Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk)15:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
16:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "I had attached sources of castes and tribes of bombay and Mysore which included Saraswats under the brahmin sub section yet these articles written with malicious intent are back again"
16:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Maharashtra, Konkan and Goa */Cherry picked articles which were never present on this article about Saraswats have appeared of late and the intent is malicious"
16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Maharashtra, Konkan and Goa */Saraswats are included under Brahmins in the tribes and castes of bombay vol 1"
16:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Karnataka and Kerala */Saraswats are included under Brahmins in the tribes and castes of Mysore under the section Tulu Brahmins
16:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Maharashtra, Konkan and Goa */False information removed Saraswat brahmins were not called as chettis in any reliable historical source"
16:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Karnataka and Kerala */In the coastal districts of Karnataka Saraswats are one of brahmin communities as per the official census reports ."
Blocked – for a period of72 hours from editing the article. I blocked based on a report at AIV before I saw this. I agree it's not vandalism but it's definitely edit warring.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)19:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Randam has taken upon themselves to edit and revert all templates (150+) regarding Foreign relations of all nations that a template with relations to Turkey in Wikipedia. This is an ongoing battle for several years where editors continuously move Turkey to Europe rather than leave the nation within the Asian articles. Numerous reversions have been made and several consensus over the years have been conducted and it has been agreed upon to leave Turkey within Asia as the majority of it's territory is in that continent. We cannot continue to have disruptive editors take it upon themselves every so often to move Turkey into the European section while removing it entirely from the Asian section on the templates.Aquintero82, (talk), 4 January 2021, 11:24 (UTC)
Comment by the reported user: I reject the accusations because (1) there is no 3RR, (2) as can be seen in the example given by the user:Aquintero82 (Template:Foreign relations of Mexico) I stopped reverting after I noticed user:Aquintero82's message, (3) after seen his message, I took the initiative to start a discussion on his talk. Instead of engaging in dialogue, I receive this noticeboard message after 18 minutes. (4) I find it dishonest of the user to revert all 150 of my edits, without first discussing or notifying me. I suggest leaving this behind and start the dialogue on your talk about the content.Randam (talk)19:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a discussion that would not end with a mutual consensus. I've engaged in this discussion numerous times in my 10 years of editing with Wikipedia. It's always the same. You made edits without consulting any members and as you said, if not to be consistent, why not move the other countries that you mentioned over to their respective continents and not just focus on one country per personal bias.Aquintero82, (talk),17:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
(1) That article is only reverted 2 times. (2) That was a singular attempt to grap your attention (see thedescription). Because you kept continuing reverting my edits while my message was left unanswered in your talk. (3) It was also a warning to you because you were reverting the whole text instead of only the part that bothers you. Why? (4) You claim that I didn't move other countries to their continents. I present to youcase 1 andcase 2 of the many cases where I put Russia also in Europe.
In conclusion: you secretly reverted all my 150 edits (no tagging), you falsely accuse me of not editing Russia in Europe, you leave my message on your talk unanswered, you instead go to this noticeboard to get rid of your 'problem' by getting me blocked. I try to assume good faith, so feel free to explain to me why this isn't misusing the noticeboard?Randam (talk)05:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
You mention that I "secretly" reverted all 150 edits. I do not remember seeing any comments of the edits you were making when you reverted the articles as they originally were. In some, you said that you were "standardizing" the article. To which "standardization" are you referring to? Who mentioned anything about Russia? There is no record of me mentioning that to you or to anyone else. This is not to get you blocked, this is to bring to attention that personal bias has no place in Wikipedia or in its edits. Please refer to Wikipedia's pages onEurope andAsia as a reference.Aquintero82, (talk), 5 January 2021, 11:31(UTC)
Result: Both editorswarned. (This is a dispute as to whether Turkey is in Europe or Asia. It has been fought out in various foreign relations templates). Any further reverts of templates inCategory:Foreign relations by country templates regarding *which* countries are in *which* continents are risking a block unless prior consensus is found on a talk page. As pointed out byUser:Aquintero82, our current articles onEurope andAsia show an assignment of countries to continents which has survived on Wikipedia up till now. If there is no way for either of you to find the prior discussions, anWP:RFC might be considered.EdJohnston (talk)20:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Removes "Conspiracy Theory" frompredicate nomitive using a misleading edit summary (talk page does not indicate support for proposed change),reverted by Feoffer: "per existing inline comment and talk page, this change will require consensus that does not presently exist"
There's an interesting discussion atUser talk:Roy McCoy#December 20 withUser:Guy Macon where Roy says " Moreover, the actual fringe theory in regard to 9/11 is the official fantasy, which if I'm not in error only a minority of the population believes despite the relentless propaganda in its favor." AtTalk:Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist)#No consensus for Page move after failing to get "conspiracy theorist" removed we have "Speaking of sources, Wikipedia's are often duplicitous and unreliable, so one can keep regurgitating the RS policy till the cows come home, and it will still fall flat with anyone aware of the dubiousness of the WP-approved sources and of the frequent value and acceptable quality of the disapproved – for example the Gateway Pundit on the 2020 Election. The graphic at Investment Watch provides a picture of the ideologically motivated division of sources and "explains a lot of the bias". If the purpose of Wikipedia is to serve as a propaganda rag, the childish "conspiracy theorist!" finger-pointing/name-calling may make some sense. Otherwise I'd say that what the encyclopedia actually needs, Hob Gadling, is fewer tired reiterations of the policy of aping often-discreditable sources. I think it could use less of that even if propagandizing is the purpose, since the RS policy perhaps shouldn't be over-advertised given current public disillusionment with "the lying media" – a phrase today yielding over a million estimated Google finds."Doug Wellertalk08:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Feoffer,Doug Weller: I'm not sure there's a violation here, as I don't consider[84] to have been a revert. At least I started counting from what I considered to be the first revert,[85]. I have since seen and understood that the 3RR rule "is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times", but honestly I feel that this is a case in whichWP:IAR might rightfully be invoked in any event, as well as perhaps another guideline whose name I don't remember that says (or used to say) that a proper consensus doesn't necessarily require a majority. I've been drenched with this reliable sources, reliable sources recently, and my edit in this case is perfectly in accordance with the RS while Feoffer's totally isn't, as I've clearly established in detail. Thank you, Doug, for saying my posts were interesting. I think Feoffer means "nominative", and if I really must say so my preferred pronoun is "he". –Roy McCoy (talk)20:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I protest Feoffer'sinappropriate reversion to "conspiracy theory".I will do as I said and bring a complaint against him and his collaborators. [Anachronist has changed to "campaign", resolving issue and obviating need for further action.] The irony is that "campaign" doesn't even approach an adequate correction of the sentence; but it will still be recognized as an obvious improvement by any sane, honest, and reasonably intelligent person with a basic command of the English language. "Campaign", again, is in complete accordance with the cited sources, as "conspiracy theory" is not, this having been demonstrated with references to all the cited sources. –Roy McCoy (talk)04:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I came here to report the same thing. I suggest a six-month topic ban from American politics, broadly construed.Jeppiz (talk)01:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This [[86]] is a clear statement that they have no intention of abiding by our policies, and will continue to be disruptive. I think a TBAN is in order, they are just going to be a net drain on our time.Slatersteven (talk)15:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Result: No action. It appears that the 3RR violation is now too old to take action on. If you believe this is a case of long term warring, please open a new report and supply the relevant diffs and arguments. If you think a TBAN is needed, considerWP:AE.EdJohnston (talk)18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
18:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 998288711 byRusted AutoParts (talk) As I just said but you appear too stubborn to read, this has been discussed and approved on the talk page, you must refer to there before making anymore edits such as this. Again, these were confirmed as "Star Originals" this morning."
18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 998287680 byRusted AutoParts (talk) Undone. This has already been discussed on the Talk page, furthermore it was confirmed this morning (on the source you deleted) that these shows are going to be promoted as "Star Originals.""
User has repeatedly reverted other users' reverts of the addition of programming labelled as Star originals in international markets. Exacerbated by their statement on the article's talk page saying "I am open to discussion and change and compromise, but any rash editing decisions to undo this without further discussion I will continue to revert."TheGrandDelusion(Send a message)21:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I have stopped editing, realizing it is a winless edit war. I did not initiate this editing war but as a newer user it appears I am forced to abandon it and be assigned blame.MarvelousMusician397 (talk)21:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
He has not stopped. He reverted edits on the Star page related to the same discussion. He also added a question mark to one of my comments on the talk page, attempting to alter it.Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 5:14 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – 5 days. The user has persisted in spite of many explanations, and they continued the war while this report was open.EdJohnston (talk)05:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Multiple
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Multiple
Comments:
(non-admin comment) Blocks for both or a two way IBAN appear to be in order, nominator does appear to have done a decent job opening talk page discussions but that level of edit warring across multiple pages before opening a discussion here was probably a mistake andWP:BOOMERANG applies.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of31 hours Last time I was clear that both parties (i) have to stop edit-warring (ii) start talk discussions.Ymblanter (talk)20:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – 72 hours toUser:Dibosh Chakma. This user had a prior block back in November for making unsourced changes, the same problem as here. I am also warningUser:Emdad Tafsir to stay under 3RR even if you believe you are defending the well-sourced version of the article.EdJohnston (talk)22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[104], plus previous history of 4 edit warring blocks, so it's not like they don't know how it works.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not invested in the content dispute; I don't care what it looks like.
Comments: I came across this when I saw edit warring atWP:AIV. I tried to compromise between 2 edit warring parties (this user andUser:Vif12vf), but don't care if my suggestion is accepted. However, I'm sure that attempt at compromise makes me involved. But one editor stopped reverting, and the other didn't stop, so I'm suggesting blocking Obsuser, not Vif12vf. Last edit warring block was for 2 weeks, and happened 4-5 months ago. --Floquenbeam (talk)18:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
17:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC) "It is not nonsense. I see your profile and realize you have some personal vendetta against pseudoscience. That does not mean any online article you find appeasing is automatically correct. Typing something on the internet with no sources then quoting yourself as a source for future articles does not make the claim true."
17:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC) "The only source for the claim of "pseudoscience" is another article by the same author. None of the documents by the experts referenced in these articles use the term "pseudoscience". A clickbait article referencing another clickbait article written by the same author is not a credible source."
12:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC) "Nowhere in the letter or the report by experts referenced in these articles is the word "pseudoscience" used. The reference used for the claim by the journalist (with no medical credentials) who wrote the article is another article written by themself."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[124] (by other user)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: User is edit warring in multiple articles, constantly accusing others as "trolls", removing census material and making non-neutral edits.209.216.92.203 (talk)00:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
sockpuppet IP hoper keeps following me around and reverting my edits. Themultiple users he talks about is him on other new IP adresses. Didn't even bother to create a new sock profile and reported me with an IP with a history of 4 edits.Belevalo (talk)01:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
talking to yourself? i find it odd that an IP with 4 edits has this sort of knowledge of not just wiki lingo, but how to post, report, disrupt. Given that i've been followed by multiple such IPs, I believe said IP and other IPs he hoped on, is one person with multiple years of wiki trolling experience.Belevalo (talk)02:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
[127] , use of personal opinion to delete content.
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
[128], the pretext of poor source is used to remove content from a lot of articles in past.[129],[130]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Comments:
The user is edit warring on a number of page includingJadeja. Basically, indulged in replacement of high quality stable sources on which earlier the other editors were agreed to, with other sources without discussion, for promotional reasons ofcaste.Also there isWP:COI as in his user page he confirms to have belonging to same caste. Also personal attack on editors."This is old jadeja wikipedia history a m#f# named hindu kshtrana removed it"[131]Heba Aisha (talk)04:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
No vio? The first diff shows adding information, the 2nd is a revert. Please let me know if I have misunderstood that, but AFAICS that's only 1 revert.Black Kite (talk)18:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The 2nd diff is a revert, yes. I can't see that the first one is, though. Also, does the article even have a 1RR restriction? If it does, I can't see it.Black Kite (talk)21:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I'm confused as well; I was under the impression that I had not violated the rules regarding Edit Wars in this case. If I did violate the rules I would like to note even though I was unaware, I apologize for doing so and will take greater caution in the future. I would have removed the content at issue and taken it to the talk page but as other editors had made changes to it I was unsure what my obligations were.OgamD218 (talk)06:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
14:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "Europe: now everyone is included without having to mention every single person elected in the UK. BBC article mentions many leaders."
14:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Europe */ the First Ministers of Wales & Scotland are not leaders of their devolved parliaments."
14:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 999101725 byDomeditrix (talk) this is becoming a mess & this should be kept to a minimum. We don't need every politician in the UK."
Some of my edits were editing mistakes or trying to tidy up the page. Plus I have engaged on the talk page.Erzan (talk)14:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any tidying up in the reverts listed, and even then, that's not an excuse for violatingWP:3RR, perWP:3RRNO. Even if you were attempting to resolve the dispute, that isn't an excuse to continue reverting, unfortunately.Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk)14:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see, none of those users have crossedWP:3RR or continued reverting without requesting and working on building consensus. Furthermore, two wrongs don't make a right. If those other users were edit warring it would be wrong, but that's still no excuse for you making 10 reverts in 24 hours.Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk)15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[144] - Since the edit warring activity was strictly reverts (no other comment or activity), I tried reaching out on their Talk page directly. The response was to blank out their Talk page[145] and continue edit warring[146].
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[147]
Comments:
Galkalam is a single-purpose account created for edit warring, specifically article reverts on the Talfah article. Their first revert was made within a minute of account creation.[148] The subsequent reverts on the account and logged-out IP address were also reverts on the article.Saucysalsa30 (talk)03:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
02:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Efficacy */ 1) no source specifically mentioned "+90% efficacy" 2) arbitrary classification -> WHO requires 50% for approval while certain countries require 70%"
01:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Efficacy */ remove NIH and NEJM, can't use primary sources [WP:MEDRS], NIH is primary since they also co-develop, just use a normal article from RS"
I would also like to raise the community's awareness of this user's long-term behavior of maneuvering the editing processes and policies, which has the effect of censoring and removing significant views and information[149][150][151][152][153], as opposed toWP:PRESERVE. Many more of such edits by them were done in the name ofWP:SOCKSTRIKE, especially on geopolitics- and China-related topics.Normchou💬03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Consecutive edits count as a single edit forWP:3RR purposes (as you may already know, since you grouped them together?) That being the case, how is this a 3RR violation? --Aquillion (talk)03:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Admins, thanks for bringing this to your attention.
1) There are a series of edits fromNormchou starting from 22:46 7 January 2021 which involve incorrect synthesis and arbitrary classification of vaccines into a group of less than 80% efficacy vaccines and above 90% efficacy vaccines. This classification is misleading because according to reliable sources, an efficacy of 50% is required for approval from WHO, FDA, and EMA while a 70% efficacy is suggested in other literature as necessary for effective herd immunity. Even if we were to follow Normchou's reasoning, it is unusual he omitted the Astra-Zeneca vaccine which is widely published and well known to have an efficacy of 70% from his list of vaccines under 80% efficacy. Also, there was no mention in his edits of BBV152 which is known to have been approved of before any efficacy results were announced. Although I cannot conclusively prove WP:NPOV violation, I do suggest the admins look into this given his previous edits at COVID-19 vaccines. Normchou has previously extensively contributed to COVID-19 vaccines and has edited the vaccine tables so he is presumed to know the efficacy of at least the well known vaccines (there are only 7 approved as of now).
2) Normchou has also been an active member of project COVID and has over 10 years tenure on wikipedia per his profile. He has been previously warned about [WP:MEDRS], as have I, so we both know what only secondary sources are reliable. He knows that you cannot put uncited sources of efficacy for vaccines, and also that primary sources (i.e. medical journals) cannot be used.
3) I can't comment on the nature of the 3RR warning because I do not believe I have reverted any unique edit more than once. For the same reason, I believe he is also at 1RR since nothing is his contributions is a repeat of my edits.
4) I believe the last edit I made truly represents the most accurate and objective analysis of vaccine efficacy which is useful to the reader. It also represents a significant improvement from a WP:NPOV compared to what was previously there from Normchou. Until the arbitration is complete, I suggest both Normchou and I refrain from further edits to COVID-19 vaccines.
5) I suggest the admins review the full series of both my edits and Normchou's starting from 22:46 7 January 2021, there were no intermediate edits from 3rd parties between the two of us that could obfuscate the full edit chain.
6) I am puzzled as to why Normchou decided to post 2 times to my personal talk page, one time to the admin noticeboard, and one time to COVID-19:talk page in a span of just 2 minutes. I presume that if he wanted to initiate an actual dialogue or consensus with me, he would have waited a few hours or even minutes for a response. Instead this seems like bullying/threatening behavior for which I am now forced to respond. I think there should be some WP:BOOMERANG that should apply.
7) I am uncertain how to respond given the following disclosure on his talk page.Since December 2020, he has been working on a project that utilizes BoW, POS tagging, sentiment, and GloVe and Word2vec embeddings to identify hard-to-detect abnormal connections among Wikipedia accounts. The project will help with WP:SPI and enforcement against WP:SOCK, especially in relation to accounts that evade WP:CHK (e.g., WP:SPA and WP:IP behind WP:PROXY). It is not clear to me from such disclosure if he is in fact an admin or another senior member with additional rights associated with the wikipedia foundation, and that additional consideration should be shown to his comments. If that is the case, please also let me know. I am especially unsure because Normchou does have significantly greater tenure and experience than myself, based on both the speed of his edits and the fact that he has been on wikipedia for 11 years. I also can't seem to link diffs effectively but that is more on me.
ReAlbertaont's point 6): Their last revert, i.e. complete removal of this part of my contrib despite all the piecemeal improvements that had been made—which they were also a participant of—clearly shows they were NOTWP:AGF, and that's why I chose to report them directly. I have no comment regarding the rest of their statement.Normchou💬03:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Admins, asAquillion pointed it out, I am not sure what the charge is, since its not a 3RR. If an admin or someone from WP:Project COVID could review our edits and provide guidance or wish me to explain any of my edits, I am glad to do so. Again, my edits to vaccine efficacy have not been challenged by other editors (I'm unsure if Normchou is even challenging the final edit). In the absense of that, I would still like to request clarifications onSince December 2020, he has been working on a project that utilizes BoW, POS tagging, sentiment, and GloVe and Word2vec embeddings to identify hard-to-detect abnormal connections among Wikipedia accounts. The project will help with WP:SPI and enforcement against WP:SOCK, especially in relation to accounts that evade WP:CHK (e.g., WP:SPA and WP:IP behind WP:PROXY). whether normchou is a member of an admin team or another member of the foundation given his 10 year tenure on wiki, and if additional disclosure is required. Thanks again and I look forward to closing this.Albertaont (talk)16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I have repeatedly attempted to discuss with this user but they are only interested in promoting Yang by adding poorly sourced puffery, copyright violations and moving to inappropriate titles. They've refused to discuss and short of a block, I'm not sure what to do.GRINCHIDICAE🎄19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've partial blocked them from Yang Yang (scientist, educator) indefinitely. I have concerns that they may just create new page names for the same material; if that happens please ping me and I'll modify the block to site wide.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots20:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: Only a couple of examples shown above, the user has been editing the article and reverting, misrepresenting, and obscuring the slightest criticism by me or anyone else since 2014. Most reverts are done without giving a reason or explanation, when there is one it's often disguised as "reorganizing" and "minor edits" but in reality he deletes criticism alongside that. Citing "unreliable sources", but continued doing so even after the sources were provided without giving any legitmate reason. Also, citing that there isn't a neutral point of view but the criticism is completely factual.I believe the user has some conflict of interest with the article and the company, and is in some way associated with them, because his edits range back to 2008 and has been actively removing critcism since 2014.Blackbirdxd (talk)14:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Declined. This report has no merit. Edits over a couple of weeks, the last of them 8 days ago, do not constitute edit warring, nor, in this case, disruptive editing. Let alone editing going back to 2014, as the OP suggests... Please read this page's instructions ("This page is for reportingactive edit warriors andrecent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule", my bolding) before offering a report here,Blackbirdxd. If you believe Barkeep "has some conflict of interest with the article and the company, and is in some way associated with them", you might try the Conflict of interest noticeboard. Although I doubt you'll get any traction there either if all you have is unproven aspersions.Bishonen |tålk15:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
18:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "User was told a and shown that a discussion began in a previous thread 2 days ago. Earlier today, a thread was created and he is warning about that “newer” thread. Completely ignoring the thread started 2 days ago (No consensus at the moment). Removal again will result in an admin board notice."
18:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "See talk page (Your warning was rejected. You didn’t consider a discussion above that was on-going about the topic before undoing)."
17:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC) "I have no idea who added it back. There is an on-going discussion on the talk page about this. (Before discussion began, it was removed, so it is removed until consensus to add back.)"
User has declined to engage in talk page discussion, instead apparently believes that his "WikiProject" has authority to override local article discussion, which is of course patent nonsense, and has decided to edit war in order to enforce this.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)18:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Stating for admins. On January 7 (1 days ago) a discussion on the topic began originally on the WikiProject of Current Events. After a post from me and an IP, it was moved to the talk page of the article. (See that here:Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Discussions on the first sentence.). After it was moved, other editors contributed to the discussion. At the moment, there is no consensus on that discussion. Earlier today, this discussion:Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Unacceptable removal of key facts from the first sentence which states in the opening statement. “Unrelated to the one above”. I do not understand how a discussion above that has a no consensus can be disregarded and in a matter minutes to hours just be deemed “I don’t care about the discussion above...this discussion is the only thing that matters”. I would be ok being warned for edit warring, but I would also like to have other editors warned that the discussion needs to include previous on-going discussions. Thanks.Elijahandskip (talk)18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
That thread you linked contains absolutely no discussion of the wording you are removing, much less any discussion which shows a consensus to remove that wording. The fact thatother wording in the lede is under discussion does not give you license to remove anything from the lede that you apparently disagree with. To the contrary,this discussion shows clear and broad support for the wording that you are removing, and demonstrates a clear rejection of your proposed removal. Self-revert and this can be closed.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I will not undo it again. If an admin decides that I am in the wrong, I will be ok with the discussion. I never purposely edit war, so please take that into consideration. (Maybe just a warning, no ban?)Elijahandskip (talk)18:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
On the discussion Northbysouthbaronof is referring to, I had a mistake. I didn’t fully understand what that thread was for. I have apologized on that thread and understand that my actions were wrong. The discussion are related but unrelated. (Kick the can down the road) is basically what has happened today). On the thread, there is a clear consensus that I did violate, so I was edit warring. I understand that I was and have made amends with the editors involved.Elijahandskip (talk)19:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Slightly disappointed that the other user wasn't warned also as he did lie when reporting. Said "Declined to engage in talk page discussions" when there is a very long discussion on the talk page. Either way, I accept the warning.Elijahandskip (talk)15:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
00:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC) "No. You are making up reasons to inject your bias into the article. The elected majority is 48 Democrats plus 2 independents, plus the vice president. That's how the system works, and just because they don't take office the next day doesn't change that. I agree we should reformat the infobox to better show who the winning coalition is but falsely saying Republicans were elected the majority is not the answer its just misinformation."
00:18 9 January 2021 (UTC) "Just because the elected majority doesn't take office the next day doesn't mean they aren't the elected majority. We don't say Trump won the election because Biden isn't being sworn in until the 20th."
I believe this relates to a user from a range of IP addresses. They've breached both the 1RR and Consensus required restrictions on this page, after I notified them of the restrictions and told them to get consensus. I'll add the other reverts in as well.Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk)01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Result: Page semiprotected one month. Reverts by an IP-hopper are hard to reconcile with a 1RR which includes a discussion requirement. See talk page header for all the restrictions that have been imposed underWP:ARBAP2. IPs can still request changes on talk.EdJohnston (talk)18:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[171]
Comments: This user tries to create disinformation by making unrealized events appear as if they had happened and participates edit wars over it. Even though he is warning people to not edit war but actively fueling people to do. It is a personal interpretation to say that it will be used for the same purposes as earlier versions of the satellite were used for different purposes, I think personal comments written with xenophobic motivation should not be included in Wikipedia articles.
A user account created 27 minutes ago finds theTürksat 5A article, (believes to) know what edit warring is, installs twinkle and reports me atWP:AN3. They also happen to use the same language ("xenophobic", "disinformation") as the editor (User:Klevehagfd) I reported earlier on this noticeboard. Would requesting aWP:SPI be considered vexatious? Best,Caius G. (talk)17:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not (User:Klevehagfd), I was editing Wikipedia without logging in and had to login to just report you, since Wikipedia rules say i must warn the user i am reporting, i have copied warning text from somewhere else and adjusted it. Please just talk about edit warring you did, more people seem noticed your motivations, please refrain ad hominem or conclusions about who is who.Fuzzymenge (talk)20:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC) "removed disinformation: this satellite will not allow any drones to be operate, as Turkey already have satellites to control drones. pls dont edit war with me thx"
10:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC) "no, this satellite will not allow anything new to Turkish Armed Forces, as TAF already using satellite controlled drones without 5A"
19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC) "Necessary description that matches description of Walt Disney Co.‘s page description. Wiki editors should refrain from making edits that are unnecessary and destructive to article pages."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
18:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC) "Revert changes to status quo. Describing the Disney Company as an "diversified multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerat" is unnecessarily verbose and not relevant to this article. Please discuss on the talk-page before reintroducing these changes.)"
Comments: User seems to be editing in good-faith, but does not understand Wikipedia's project guidelines. Theirlocation (near theUniversity of Pittsburgh) suggest that their contributions toWPTS-FM may be a conflict-of-interest, but attempting to educate them about COI disclosures in addition to properWP:BRD etiquette may only disorient and confuse them.RoxySaunders (talk)19:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Gary Barlow discography: adding a slew of fake positions, certifications and shifting numerous songs around such as songs from 'featured artist' to 'lead artist'
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[204] (by another user on their talk page)
Comments:
93.164.22.202 is inserting fake chart positions (most commonly that of Denmark) and information on the pages of Gary Barlow's songs and randomly removing sourced material without explanation. I am sure to fact-check everything before reverting and if they were actual, true, sourced positions I wouldn't have a problem with it but unfortunately they are not. They have already violated the 3-revert-rule on Music Played by Humans by reverting four times in 24 hours a few days ago so I sent them a warning and advised them to self-revert but they did not seem interested. I also suspect they operate on more than one IP and account based on the behavioral similarities between them.They also seem to have been reported for edit warring before.TCloseDatMouf16:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – 6 months. Long term edit warring on music articles. User has hardly ever posted on a talk page and does not leave edit summaries. Adding fake chart positions is considered falsification. Leave me a message if you think they also use other IPs.EdJohnston (talk)18:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
[207] and[208] (significant removals of content by IP editor that ThereWillBeTime has declared is them, so I believe this counts toward this editor's revert total)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[213]
Comments: This user removed an entire section onSeason of the Witch (song), claiming that it was not notable,then opened a section on the talk page stating so. They have not claimed any significant reasons as to its removal, just an opinion. I was notified that the image I uploaded for the cover version of this song was orphaned, and thus contributed at the discussion and made clear my disagreement, especially in the absence of any reason other than "its notability is quite small", so reverted. This editor then reverted me in two parts, and I reverted this, reminding them to "please followWP:BRD", as I thought they weren't aware of the protocol considering they're a relatively new editor and may have missed this in my response, but was reverted again and had my reverts called "bad faith". I stopped, and made this report. The user is also editing in tandem with their IP address,173.88.250.97, which they have declared is their IP address on theiruser talk page, but I have told them to not do this as it can be considered sockpuppetry. They have very clearly gone overWP:3RR, making more than five reverts if all their registered account and IP's reverts are taken into consideration.Ss11208:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
My apologies if I'm not supposed to comment here. I couldn't find any articles regarding how to respond to reports and I did see users who had been reported in the past commented on their related report. I just wanted to mention that I feel at least two of these statements are demonstratively false; one, I have never claimed this cover was not notable. I also have claimed fact based reasons as to why I made the edits I did. I've already written quite a bit about this incident on my talk page, and on the article talk page,, and I do trust you, the admins, you review it all, so I'm not going to rehash it all here. I of course trust and respect your judgement, but I do feel I am being misrepresented strongly here and this editor has been very uncivil towards me, both in the article discussion and on my own talk page.ThereWillBeTime (talk)12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
18:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC) "if your "not sure what's wrong with it" (apart from the grade school-level prose), you really have no business editing articles that concern living people; readWP:BLP, then read it again - I don't give a flying fuck how "other articles" about cosa nostra in America handle things; for the moment, I'm dealing with this one"
Comments:Besides the personal attacks and unproductive attitude of Joefromrandb, he has gone overWP:3RR after a large removal ofreliably sourced information in aWP:BOLD edit. I reverted this edit and Joefromrandb was urged to then follow theWP:BRD cycle, but was seemingly unwilling to take the matter to the talk page, so I eventually took it to the talk page myself. Per BRD, however, the original version should remain until after discussion. Joefromrandb was also unresponsive to the 3RR warning on his talk page, thinking I was trolling him. It does seem this user has a long history with civility and edit warring issues. Joefromrandb claimedWP:3RRNO due to supposedWP:BLP issues, however, the information is sourced by U.S. Department of Justice, The Philadelphia Inquirer, CBS, etc. that specifically state the persons' roles in the crime family. Therefore, WP:3RRNO states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." We go by reliable sources, not what you think is "garbage". This is not a crutch Joefromrandb should stand on to continue edit warring, or one that should replace the need for discussion as outlined in BRD.Vaselineeeeeeee★★★16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I invite any admin to have a look at my edits, summaries, and talk page comments, as they speak for themselves.WP:BLP is not "a crutch" (yeah, he really did say that), but a black-letter non-negotiable mandate which must be followed by all editors, all the time.Joefromrandb (talk)06:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This user's latest edit was to "make the information LESS DEFAMATORY (my emphasis)"; "less defamatory"? Wtf? I'm sorry I have to repeat it a third time: "less defamatory". I couldn't make this shit up if I tried. He is openly advocating libel in Wikipedia articles. Are you fucking kidding me?Joefromrandb (talk)06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Followup:EdJohnston, it seems to have been overlooked that Jrfrb is under a 1R/page/day restriction[214]. In his spare time he's been repeatedly reinserting mixed-up stuff, accompanied by ponderously oblivious edit summaries, on one of our most-read articles at a most inopportune time[215][216][217][218]. Keeping a death grip on the wrong end of the stick is a longstanding habit with this editor[219] and I would suggest that a stern word is in order.EEng00:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
You know, I was all ready to respond to our self-appointed colourful jester EENG with a response equally, if not more colourful, but as strife begets strife, I'll simply say that the restriction of which EENG speaks is subject to the usual exemptions, and he knows this. His attempt at stirring the pot is noted; moving on.Joefromrandb (talk)10:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this dispute but I just want to say that Joefromrandb has been less than civil during this dispute. The text here and edit summaries both here and at the contested article are filled with personal attacks and instances of not assuming good faith, which can be seen above. I don't have any opinion on the edit warring, this is something for others to decide, but Joefromrandb shouldn't be continuing to make these personal attacks, there's no place for that on Wikipedia.Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk)15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you're confusing "response" with "jacket" or "reservation"; bullshit this egregious indicates a response is in order, if not outright requiring it. I guess your "1RR" straw man didn't get you enough attention? I'll play along.Joefromrandb (talk)17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments: Editor reverted three different users (2 editors, 1 bot) with a total of 13 edits to the same content in a 41 minute span. This user makes extensive use of edit summaries while warring, but refuses to engage on talk pages, despite personal request to do so. -wolf08:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: User has been reverting every edit to the pagesince November 13, 2020. Their edit summaries are mostly either "Restored" or something that can be said on a talk page. They clearly have aWP:OWN problem (If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page). If I were to restore the version from November 2020 (three months ago), there wouldn’t be much of a difference. They revert everything, I’m not being dramatic.Look at the page history. Furthermore, they are suspected (but not assumed) to be gaming the system by reverting 4 times in 26 hours, as shown in the diffs above.D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!)01:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse report - I looked in the revision history and the user has made an absurd number of reverts, both approaching violating 3RR and over a long period of time. This is pretty clearly disruptive editing to me.Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk)02:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Result: Page semiprotected three months, due to material being added by IPs without proper sources. Hotwiki was reverting some of these IPs. If there is still a dispute on this article (even without the IP contributions) please report again. This is now the 17th time the article has been semied, which might indicate a need for long term semiprotection.EdJohnston (talk)04:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[246]
Comments: user appears to be stridently insisting on editing against consensus.@Muboshgu: semiprotected the page, but they slipped through because the account had made a single edit atGuantanamo Bay in 2007 before being inert until yesterday[247]. User has also made disruptive edits toNancy Mace[248].
Result: Indef EC protection for the article. There is a dispute on whether this congresswoman should be described as a conspiracy theorist, due to statements that she made. It is possible she may have revised her position later. I've applied indefiniteEC protection underWP:ARBAP2. Please pay attention to the sourcing requirements of ourWP:BLP policy when discussing whether 'conspiracy theorist' should remain in the article.EdJohnston (talk)04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments: Note: I have not made any reverts on that page. I have placed the warning though. They claim that it was exempt from3RR because it was vandalism, which I do not believe it is so.Note: For the 3rr warning, I forgot to subst, but in the next edit, I fixed it. Also, they have deleted the warningOne more thing: This is my first time at anew, so I have edited this many times. Sorry!ThatIPEditor (talk)05:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have escalated to several different noticeboards the usernames undoing my meticulously made and good faith edits to reliable sources in line with making the articles fit NPOV via multiple usernames (there is coordinated activity here on a contentious subject matter), who also will not subject any of the changes to debate. I have requested the page be fully protected and reviewed. The original content ofPress TV had multiple inaccuries, NPOV issues, and spelling/grammatical errors of an egregious nature. I re-organized the article, I made it more neutral reflecting both pros and cons of the subject matter, I did not erase anything that came from a reliable source, and I performed everything in good faith. I am new here as well and think I am being ambushed by political actors who have a need to see that these articles malign or promote the subject matter. OnMaryam Rajavi, several times, they undid my good faith revisions with attributions to very reputable and reliable sources. Further, they appear to be scrubbing the articles of anything that is contrary to their viewpoints rather than being neutral and reflecting both sides like I am. Again, I have asked for debate, discussions, as have others, and they just undo the edits instead.DeweyDecimalLansky (talk)05:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Simon T8W is repeatedly removing sourced contents and edit warring with multiple users. Looking at the history ofKingsley Fletcher they are doing this since October 2017 and possibly abusing IP addresses.GSS💬04:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours. Simon T8W is engaged in a long term struggle to keep out a report that Fletcher received a knighthood from a bogus version of the Knights of Malta. Opinions may differ on whether this report is important enough to include, buta source exists. The normal BLP rules apply, but the matter can't be settled by edit warring.EdJohnston (talk)05:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
08:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "The article is not about a region, it’s about a ‘country’ with a government in exile. East Turkestan is about Uyhgurs. The region is named Xinjang, so if you want to edit that, you need to go to the page about Xingjang."
Blocked indefinitely forsockpuppetry.D🎉ggy54321(happy new year!)00:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – Indef.User:3Kingdoms is here at this noticeboard for the second time in a few weeks, after a previous block. (He has now made six reverts on 30 December). The user seems to have no intention of following our edit warring policy. AtTalk:Rob Schenck#Inappropriate edit warring re: Norma McCorvey situation 3Kingdoms he displaysWP:IDHT. In a line just above, 3Kingdoms asks others 'to provide reasoning for the issue with my edit'. If he was paying attention, the fact that he's here at the EW noticeboard ought to be a clue. Though the block is indefinite, other admins might consider an unblock if they become convinced that the problem will not recur.EdJohnston (talk)02:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Page protected – Until 17 January byUser:DMacks.EdJohnston (talk)19:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Declined. This report has no merit. Edits over a couple of weeks, the last of them 8 days ago, do not constitute edit warring, nor, in this case, disruptive editing. Let alone editing going back to 2014, as the OP suggests... Please read this page's instructions ("This page is for reportingactive edit warriors andrecent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule", my bolding) before offering a report here,Blackbirdxd. If you believe Barkeep "has some conflict of interest with the article and the company, and is in some way associated with them", you might try the Conflict of interest noticeboard. Although I doubt you'll get any traction there either if all you have is unproven aspersions.Bishonen |tålk15:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Already blocked indefinitely as the account iscompromised.D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!)19:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
No violation. Appears to be a retaliatory counter-report based on the above report. —C.Fred (talk)04:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)