This user has been reverting mine and three other editors edits at least 12 times in the last hour on theGodzilla vs. Kong page. I have warned them and they even stated that they had recently been blocked for edit warring. This can be seen on the edit history of the page. They begged me to stop because I am "small minded." They are tagging their edits as undoing vandalism when that's clearly not the case. Thank you.(Samurai Kung fu Cowboy) (talk)19:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
20:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "i checked that like you gave me, and there is nothing about US federal government documents and transcripts being not reliable, indeed to the best of my ability, it seems they are TOTALLY reliable, and bear in mind I am taking information directly from quotes in the very words Hicks used herself"
20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from a SENATE hearing, a matter of public record, is NOT RELIABLE, are you freaking out of your mind? You think this is misinformation, its from 2012 ... for crying out loud, google it yourself!"
20:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "why not, sure looks good to me and checks out with other sites, maybe you don't like it because it is an information aggregator or collector like wikipedia"
20:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "This information is not poorly sourced, and most importantly, it is TRUE! That counts for something, right?"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Since filing, they've continued to revertthree more times despite an active discussion on their talk page and the article talk page.CUPIDICAE💕20:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
08:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001571661 byNedFausa (talk) You cite splc as a source...that’s as authoritative as using the dailybeast as a fact citation."
The IP has been removing the source and changing content without adding another source to back up the added claim. They have been reverted by two different editors (NedFausa and myself). Has violated 3RR, I've initiated a discussion on the article talk page to which they haven't responded. Yet they continue with this behaviour.Ashleyyoursmile!08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
02:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "After careful consideration, taking into account approximately 10 articles, no quote supports the assertion she "supports" QAnon. One single statement, taken out of context, which she later said was "vague" and said is being used to "attack" her, does not belong in the opening. She even clarified the vague statement by explicitly stating that she does not follow QAnon, and is not into conspiracy theories. The talk page provides no quote or statement by her that she believes or follows QAnon."
21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "3 citations, none of which provides any quote or statement by her that she "supports" it."
21:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002098805 byPraxidicae (talk) Neither link says that she "expressed support" for QAnon. The Talk page says this. Saying she "expressed support" for it is literally not in the citations."
21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "This has two citations. Neither one says she supports QAnon. Sentence was factually incorrect, and should probably be entirely removed."
22:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Neutrality is disputed */ i'd deny this too if i had stoked the fires that lead to 5 people being murdered by insane conspiracy theorists too."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[8][9]
Comments:
Easy enough to understand, that this user has clearWP:IDHT andWP:CIR problems. He is using misleading edit summaries all the time such as "Added information with citation"[10] or treating reverts as "vandalism".[11]
Ultimately, he is already caught misrepresenting sources[12] and he has provided no explanation against it.
That wasn't enough for him. Heswitched to IP address to continue the edit war after he was warned to stop making repetitive reverts.[13]
Compare these 100% identical edits with each other forevidence of socking:
He has been warned for years of years to stop using traditional religious knowledge and instead use dated scholarly sources,[18] but he continues to make edits against it. I believe a block is totally warranted.Dhawangupta (talk)13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
There appears to be an edit war involving two users on this page adding and removing the "reception" section; additionally this user removed NPOV and other tags without discussion.— Precedingunsigned comment added byFrogCrazy (talk •contribs)22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
While there exists a wealth of good material about math and science on Wikipedia, there are also many important articles that need a lot of work. STEM articles are extremely underrepresented inWP:FA, particularly articles about math and computing. It would be dishonest of me to say that I think it's simply for lack of editors. Trying to get almost anything changed is a big dispute and I feel disillusioned by the experience. If I am not welcome here and you find it convenient to ban me for "edit warring", then that's fine, I won't argue.AP295 (talk)21:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
20:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "It's stupid to use the weasel words to argue against the article itself which then goes on and presents multiple facts how g-factor correlates with different outcomes on the next paragraphs. And the previous editor who made this change, judging from her history she is politically motivated, far from objective. If such persons are allowed to make anti-scientific claims on Wikipedia, guess we are next asking creationists to write the page about evolution theory?"
20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "It's not a personal attack, it's a fact that you are a part of this anti-scientific group whose ideology builds upon the belief that genetics as the basis of individual development don't matter. You have been vandalizing Wikipedia regarding to this matter for months, therefore you are on an ideological crusade against the truth, which must stop."
Four reverts within the past hour, including two after being warned byUser:MrOllie. Personal attacks in edit summaries as well.Seems pretty disruptive and not likely to stop without intervention.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[30]
Comments:
Sup34cj has not committed a 3RR violation, but given the combination of edit-warring, vandalism and and now logged-out editing I have decided to file the case here. In a nutshell, in 1996 the MPAA redefined the NC-17 rating to prohibit patrons under the 18. It is is worded "No One 17 and Under Admitted" (it used to be worded "No children under 17 admitted". This is all clearly documented and there are plenty of sources in the article to back it up, but the editor simply refuses to back down. He keeps reiterating the same nonsensical argument that if under-18s were prohibited it would be an NC-18. I don't dispute the eminent logic of his position, but that is simply not what happened: the MPAA raised the age limit and then re-worded it in a funny way so they wouldn't have to change the rating. This isn't a neutrality issue, it isn't a challenged fact, it is simply the case of an editor refusing to accept a fact.Betty Logan (talk)23:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Jaydoggmarco has made this talk page comment, before their second two reverts:[35]
Comments: User was already warned about editing at Kiki Camarena previously[36], and recently came off of a 6-month American Politics topic ban[37].Darouet (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)I've notified the editor here[38]. -Darouet (talk)02:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Joefromrandb did not break 3RR, and Jaydoggmarco, whose talk page message involves no substantive discussion other than a statement of disagreement, has been warned and sanctioned recently in this same topic area. -Darouet (talk)16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, Joefromrandb has alengthy block log for disruptive editing (although, admittedly, nothing recent), didn't discussat all, and reverted four times in 33 hours. Presumably any administrator will take that into account when ruling on this case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Joe has also stalked my edits and reverted a lot of them after i edited the Jon Schaffer article. Look at his edit history. Darouet also has falsely accused me of using a sockpuppet.[1][2]Jaydoggmarco (talk)23:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's the link to the referenced sockpuppet complaint[39], which didn't include an accusation, and at this point is stale — the IP disruption stopped after my complaint. -Darouet (talk)18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The very conspicuous out-of-nowhere appearance notwithstanding: meh. Was my behavior "equally objectionable"? No. Was I equally guilty of edit-warring? Yes. I indeed did have a look at this user's edits after he trolled theJon Schaffer article; while not rising to the level of what he did there, this user has myriad inappropriate edits recently, including unmodified recidivism at biographies of living persons. His edits to theKiki Camarena article were egregiously inappropriate, as was the pathetic attempt to insist that talk page consensus is necessary to maintain the status quo of the article, and until such a consensus is achieved, his changes are not to be reverted. At a minimum, this user has serious competence issues. Again, I was absolutely edit-warring. I don't say that proudly, but as I'm disgusted by the perennial ubiquitous hypocrisy at this board, I won't be a part of it. Yes I was. I was editing at a time at which I was stressed out and pissed off, something I certainly know is not a good idea.Joefromrandb (talk)06:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Enough with the personal attacks, I'm not the only one who has edited on the Kiki article and who disagreed with Darouet, My edits were supported by several users. Talk page discussion is important given that the information in the documentary is being challenged in an ongoing lawsuit and There are documents that contradict several of the claims in the documentary. You don't even know the information that's being debated on. None of my edits have been trolling.Jaydoggmarco (talk)06:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You're the one who's refusing to engage in discussion on the talk page, and who has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and battleground mentality.Jaydoggmarco (talk)02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002111060 by46.196.85.168 (talk) I just wrote a little info for MPT. No government website says that K.irpi is a copy of another vehicle. Variants of the Altay Tank have been added again. Hisar-A's photo has been added again. It was added to the variants of the Yıldırım missile. Reference will be added to these. Please do not delete it. Don't swear at my talk page. I will correct the wrong places. But here are t"
21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002095094 by46.196.85.168 (talk) Don't be disrespectful. Don't make changes to your mind. Don't swear on my talk page and the changes you made are wrong. The changes have been reverted."
Some of the systems that this editor trying to explain are not in the air force, but well in Land forces command whichUser:Shadow4dark constantly reverting and that's true that systems belongs to Land forces command. You always reverted but when he revert you report to admin page.. This is not sincere. Also the one & only wrong thing he did is adding additional info for some systems. You could let him know on hes talk page that this is unnecessary edit before complaining here.
ForYıldırım systems the different versions need additional information.If you have a little understanding of the military. You need to tell the difference between the rocket launch system and the ballistic missile. Yıldırım system has 4 It has several variants and requires minimal additional information.
As for the Armored vehicles i see he just add additional information aboutAltay (tank) variants. It might sound funny but there was a ceremony in the defense industry even today few hours ago and you, as someone who wrote an article about the military, must have seen different variants of this tank & must mentioned in the article about types of the tank. See below ceremony of today about tanks & variant of this tank..
17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC) "They are editorials because they only contain the biased opinions of their writers, and not objective details. This is has already been discussed on the talk page, but the article is being locked down by political trolls."
17:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC) "Removed opinionated assessment of the historical relevance that only referenced cherry picked editorials. Snooganssnoogans, stop injecting biased, untrue language to fit your political agenda."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:This has already been discussed in the talk page. Snooganssnoogans and Caius G. both have extensive editing histories that show political motive, which brings discredit to Wikipedia.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[45]
Comments:
This appears to be a violation of American politics discretionary sanctions, where a bold edit has been reverted and the editor has restored the content shortly afterwards. It is clear that if I was to revert again, the editor would revert back again. In filing this report, I have only now noticed that I actually reverted the same content a couple of weeks ago as well, and left a message on their talk page about it.Onetwothreeip (talk)23:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It isOnetwothreeip who is edit warring, reverting without engaging in the talk page discussion. They did not respond in the talk page about the issue. If necessary, I can provide diffs, but I don't think it's necessary.Banana Republic (talk)00:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I have no reason to believe there is 1RR on the article. Is there not a discretionary sanction on American political articles that restricts editors to reverting content once a day and not being allowed to restore content they added that has been reverted?Onetwothreeip (talk)08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
sorry for the seemingly messy report but this is my first time doing it , I would love to report the user nedochan for reverting edits and starting an edit war in the georges st Pierre pageLegendstreak0 (talk)10:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
we are trying to reach a consensus just like the Conor page will be changed tomorrow , the gsp page should always be 185 for the weight and so does nick Diaz’s weightLegendstreak0 (talk)11:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
while reverting nedochan completely ignored the RFC , and kept on reverting and reverting like it’s ok to do and acted like they own the article. The RfC clearly found that Sherdog needs to be used with caution and that higher quality sources like ESPN are preferred. But as usual nedochan was carelessly reverting with no thought .Legendstreak0 (talk)12:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not , but keep on wasting your time and assuming . Anyways back to the point , while reverting YOU completely ignored the RFC , and kept on reverting and reverting like it’s ok to do and acted like YOU own the article. The RfC clearly found that Sherdog needs to be used with caution and that higher quality sources like ESPN are preferred. But as usual you were carelessly reverting with no thought .Legendstreak0 (talk)14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
and I hope the results get here sooner , it’s about time people like you get banned after this much time on wiki abusing articles with reverts and being close minded to any other opinions out there from other users, you IGNORED the RFC and broke the 3RR.Legendstreak0 (talk)14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)There’s no violation of 3RR on NEDOCHAN's part. PerWP:3RRNO point 3,reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users is considered an exempt. I have no comment on NEDOCHAN's 3RR report, butLegendstreak0, you need toWP:AGF and calm down. No one deserves to be banned from Wikipedia just because they ignored an RfC. While a temporaryblock might be needed, a ban is very different.D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!)14:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Didn’t mean to refer to it as a “ban” , it’s a temporary block is what I meant . Nedochan should take sometime off and take a brake from this stuff and go over the RFC and know how the rules on Wikipedia work with MMA infoboxes, since they got so much free time reverting so much edits daily, thanksLegendstreak0 (talk)14:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) NEDOCHAN's behavior in these threads is strange, and a quick review of their edits shows multiple past 3RR violations and a strong editwarring/reversion history. Asking that an admin take a closer look here, something's fishy with both involved users. I feel the sockpuppet claims are anything but good faith,Doggy54321. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.)14:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There is already a report. Moony, you seemed to contribute to it then revert yourself. I'm unsure why. I would appreciate it if you conducted at least a cursory review before any further assessment as to my editing. And have a good read, please, of WP:EVADE.NEDOCHAN (talk)17:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
i would like to make my case clear , why are users like you seemingly biased and make edits that don't seem constructive when it comes to conor mcgregor . you should know that many other people before me tried to add secondary sources tp other fighters just like you did to conor mcgregor's page only to get banned , but with you its all butterflies and no one stands up for the reverts you make . this shall stop , follow sherdog or leave the secondary sources i made on the nick diaz, gsp , and tony ferguson pageLegendstreak0 (talk)01:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
hello, i wanted to add that actually the last revert edit that i made was the agreed upon result in the talk page and discussion over the article that we had a "war" inLegendstreak0 (talk)01:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know what you are talking about but accusing others of being “sockpuppets” won’t work and you will be reported now for the 5-7 reverts you made under 24 hoursLegendstreak0 (talk)10:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I got into both of you , and you both are biased editors, if you add ESPN sources to Conor then you can add ESPN sources to gsp and nick diaz , end of storyLegendstreak0 (talk)14:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Still really not sure what bias it is I am supposed to have. By all means, if ESPN has reliably sourced information that can be added to other articles - knock yourself out and add it! No pun intended. Theonly reason I reported you here is because you were edit-warring and broke 3RR.BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!17:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
“broke the 3RR” but my revert edit was the agreed upon result , yeah I don’t think that’s how reports and banning works , hypocrisy is a bad thing ..in all fairness you should be the one reporting yourself in this case since Your result was the one that didn’t make it on the consensusLegendstreak0 (talk)09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
nedochan, is wrongfully accusing all kinds of different users to be other people who were banned a long time ago. Please look into it . I believe nedochan is a sockpuppet or was a sockpuppet at one pointLegendstreak0 (talk)12:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
14:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "adding exactly the same information as the previous United States Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist has on his page"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Immediately following the last block of this IP for edit warring, their first return to editing is to restore the material that is contested on a BLP and actively being discussed on the talk page. They are continuing to engage in an edit war the second the last block was released. I realize this was only two reverts but given that this is a BLP and past behavior, it's still edit warring.CUPIDICAE💕14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
On the page about Navalny someone constantly changes the main photo to the bad one. If this is a wrong place to report, please point out the right one.
18:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) "The map was put on the page very recently and is problematic. It was created by a wikipedia user and doesn't match anything at all. The problem is not solved in the Talk. It is contrary to the principle of wikipedia to impose a completely false image."
11:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "Problem with the subjective map. This map was made by a wikipedia user and only represents his personal vision. Maps were discussed in the Talk and a new section is there specifically for this map."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
The user has been blocked before for edit warring[47]. And now falls back to the same behavioral pattern, by forcing their preferred version of the page. Their edit summary "The problem is not solved in the Talk" sums it all up.Austronesier (talk)19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello everybody, the problem is with the user KIENGIR. He tries to put a map created by a wikipedia user on the Southern Europe page. However, this card only represents this user. This map does not correspond to the geological, geographical or climatic map of Europe. It does not correspond to any world body like the United Nations, EuroVoc, CIA, etc ... This map also does not match historical or ethnic maps. It is therefore totally subjective. We cannot invent maps and install them on wikipedia. This map was created by a wikipedia user and represents their vision only. You forcefully pass a map that is not scientific or official. The problem is that you impose this map in the page. If you stop imposing it and there will be no more problem. It is not because a user has had an account for 10 years that he can do what he wants on wikipedia pages. To avoid being blocked by these people, a lot of readers don't want to get involved, so I'm telling you, we have to stop. It must stop.--81.67.153.44 (talk)09:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Boring, the talk page as well reinforce you've completely missed the point (and since then other editors reinforced this, e.g. ([48]). Yes, it must stop, in this we agree.(KIENGIR (talk)16:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC))
06:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Their previous name isn’t relevant at the start of the article and is explained in detail below, giving clarity and removing any confusion"
22:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC) "" — This is the first edit and only edit where "Everything Everywhere" was removed from the intro by another IP, however I believe the other 8 by the IP being reported is the same person.
9 times this IP (one with a different IP) has reverted mine and two other editors reverts of this IP's persistent removal of "Everything Everywhere" from the intro text of the article. IP already warned and discussion on the inclusion of this already initiated on the talk page of the article.Steven (Editor) (talk)23:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The WP-user Rafaelosornioreverts all of my new changes and information in the articlePadre Pio. Rafaelosornio obviously is a religious fundamentalist believer, writing from a strictly Catholic point of view. He deleted several of my information and sources. He claims f.i. that a whole passage would be sourced with the historian Luzzatto, which is in fact sourced by Urte Krass. Additionally, he even cites long passages of interviews and puts that in Wikipedia, which itself is an encyclopedia. It is not a textbook of fundamentalist Catholic believes. I also think, that Rafaelosornio in several cases does not understand the true meaning of whole passages in the originals texts. So he obviously often distorts the content of theses sources.Mr. bobby (talk)09:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: It would be great if you were as diligent about stopping socking as you are about edit-warring. Please look at the page and review the actions of IP: 216.209.50.103 against whom I am preparing an SPI as we speak. I don't believe that I have breached 3RR as my edits were made selectively to different sections of the page.Mztourist (talk)10:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Why do you keep calling me a sock? This is so absurd its hilarious. This was some night, I do now have a glimpse of who you are, as someone who likes to call reports of sexual assault 'wartime romances', you clearly have an agenda. This is both disturbing and comical. I pity you, honestly.216.209.50.103 (talk)10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
AdministrativeCommentSweetkind5, in your latest revert, you have mentioned that all the changes you have made have been discussed by you on the talk page. Where? There is no comment or discussion by you. Will you self-revert, and stop reverting, and go ahead with discussions on the article talk page? You are close to be blocked for edit warring with multiple editors, therefore requesting your early response. Thanks,Lourdes11:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Sweetkind5, you are expected to raise your reasoning for the edits in question at the article's talk page, not your own talk page, so that a consensus can be formed among all editors working on the article. Please do not attempt to reinstate the above contested edits without first gaining a consensus for them atTalk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict.signed,Rosguilltalk06:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course! This is what is supposed to happen. But the thing is, users in the mentioned talk page had already agreed to discuss it on my talk page. So if anyone is new to the discussion, they will see that the discussion is going on in my talk page and as a result they will go there. It was NOT my idea to ubicate the discussion on my talk page.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySweetkind5 (talk •contribs)07:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Chipmunkdavis, I suggest you stop spreading disinformation. I'm not edit-warring anywhere. If I were to edit war in mentioned articles, then the users there would have long reported me. Now, regarding the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict article. You claim that I'm engaged in an edit war there and don't give any explanation for my edits.1) As I mentioned numerous times before, all of my edits are explained in the edit history.2) I did take part in the discussion. All you have to do is look at my talk page.3) What about you? Did you take part in the discussion? No. Not a single comment. So instead of complaining, why don't you actually discuss the matter appropriately in the talk page?— Precedingunsigned comment added bySweetkind5 (talk •contribs)11:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
All you do is keep reverting my edits under the pretext of "unexplained content removal" and not give any meaningful explanation for the reversals (which is what you accuse me of).— Precedingunsigned comment added bySweetkind5 (talk •contribs)11:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments: TheIP is also edit warring, but IDK if can be reported. I just linked one set of reverted content above, there are 3-4 more reverts in the last day there. I am not involved in the dispute, I saw the flareup and think it needs attention--Astral Leap (talk)16:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
"Astral Leap", you're not even involved on this pretty obscure article. And this is an established user reverting an anonymous IP. May I ask how you came to find this particular dispute and then immediately filed a 3RR report? Volunteer Marek16:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Astral Leap, an account with relatively few edits, since it's debut on February 8, 2020[74], with months/weeks-long breaks in between editing (for example, Feb. then June break[75]) was last active on January 4[76] then on January 25 appeared again[77] with a few edits and this one-sided report. Please note that, thanks. -GizzyCatBella🍁18:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to make one point about user Astral Leap, in this past example, here[78] Astral Leap reverted an edit citing"undid disruptive IP editor", so I don't understand why now Astral Leap is reporting me for "edit warring" and not the IP user, ignoring the fact that on theFB MSBS Grot rifle article IP:91.237.86.201 continued to add questionable material, despite being made aware of theWikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and the reason why their edits were problematic. --E-960 (talk)07:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Astral Leap, I do not feel comfortable with you "policing" my interactions on Wikipedia, it's the second time that you reported me for matters steaming form discussions/edits you were not even involved in. You also seem to ignore repeated use of corse language used by IP user 91.237.86.201, here (I blanked out the curse words):"its bulls..t, Ukraine is looking for AR15 rifle"[79],"Onet is high quality source, you write bulls..t" [[80],"Response from Ministry is bulls..t"[81]. Is cursing and disruptively re-adding disputed text ok in your view? So, instead of you reporting the IP you report me for removing the highly questionable material and following theWikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --E-960 (talk)08:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
AdministrativeCommentE-960, next time, don't cross the bright line ofWP:3RR. it's fortunate you did not get blocked this time despite breaking 3RR over a content issue. Next time, report other warring editors rather than and before getting baited.Lourdes12:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
01:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC) "Noah van den Heuvel is an extremely important person in history. You cant find alot about him on the internet but back in the day he was very famous. I have cited a news paper clipping confirming he is the most aesthetic."
00:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC) "As allegations referred to in the media have now been dismissed by an Australian Court it is incorrect and defamatory to continue to allege them as true. If they are to remain on this page then an explanation in full is required for a living person"
00:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC) "Sexual harassment allegations in the media have now been legal dismissed by a Court it is incorrect and defamatory to continue to allege them as true."
23:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "As a matter of law, Craig McLachlan is innocent of those alleged Offences'. As those allegations have now been legal dismissed by a Court it is incorrect and defamatory to continue to allege them as true."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Both myself and Ponyo have reverted this users edits. The information on Wikipedia reflects what it says in the sources. We've told the user that if they don't agree with what is in the article that they need to take this up on the talk page of the article and they've continued reverting the edits and not started a discussion there.5 albert square (talk)00:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003198248 byEquine-man (talk) No - quoted from Wikipedia:Criticism "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location. However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it"
21:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Controversies sections are not appropriate on this kind of article, especially inane controversies of this kind. Adding every single time some obscure MP did or said something that someone else objects creates most ridiculous articles."
It's not edit warring - its removing totally inappropriate content from a page which in its previous form, met Wikipedia guidelines on precisely zero grounds. Equine-man actually hasn't bothered to explain why the removal of such inappropriate content was in any way objectionable. --150.143.117.154 (talk)21:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, I was bored. I’m going back to sleep now. Expect no further action from me in relation to the other user’s edits. They’re wrong but I’m gonna let someone else sort it out. I have more important things to do today. Sorry again. –PeeJay09:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
10:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC) "addition of section relating Star of Bethlehem to Hellenistic astrology: Stationary Point of a Planet and Conjunction with Praesepe"
10:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus */ addition of Stationing of a Planet and First Stationary Point in conjunction with the Manger"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: Above diff shows previous "good" version versus the current version. There is far too much warring to display all the intermediate diffsArcturus (talk)17:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I also stopped. The article is currently in the state without my edit. I have requested a third opinion on this. I have no intention of violating any guidelines. I also have no opinion about Roxy as this is my first interaction with him. Communicating with him has been frustrating to say the least, though.Edsanville (talk)17:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Alexbrn is at 3RR, Roxy is at 5RR, and Edsanville is at least 5RR or more. I cannot really tell with Edsanville without diving more, could be up to 7.PackMecEng (talk)17:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Who wants to delve into all of that? I'll leave the edit warring bit forEdJohnston, but Idid just block Edsanville for blatant disruption, including incorrect claims about sourcing (likehere) and introducing POV materialvia an indirect way, andhere also (synthesis). That they were edit warring is obvious; whether the other participants edit warred or simply reverted unacceptable material, that's not a matter I can dive into right now.Drmies (talk)17:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Also note that one of my "reverts" was of a direct copy/paste from a copyrighted source, so I explicitly claimed exemption[86] because this was addressing a copyvio/plagiarism issue. The OP might have mentioned that, and since they are in dispute with me on other articles it seems a rather careless omission, that could look a bitWP:GAMEsome.Alexbrn (talk)17:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes,Alexbrn, thank you--those edits make it clear that Edsanville was seriously edit warring about content that was also seriously in violation of our copyright policy. And all that should clear Roxy the dog and Alexbrn from any charge of edit warring.Arcturus, I suppose I appreciate you looking out for our policies, but you filled this out incompletely; if you had done it completely, and you had looked at these edits, you wouldn't have pointed fingers at the wrong people.Drmies (talk)17:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Get into the detail of that extensive edit war? You must be joking. It was a clear, gross example of warring on the part of all those involved, especially the first two named, and justified an immediate report. As for pointing the fingers at the wrong people, I don't think so. SeeWP:EW, in particular; " An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. "Arcturus (talk)17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, I think it was only that edit I reverted explicitly as plagiarism which was a direct cut/paste; subsequent ones were moreWP:CLOP I think, but by that time I'd tuned out and was playingDyson Sphere Program, which is much more interesting than fad diets!Alexbrn (talk)17:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The exemption would be for the removal of copyvio stuff and the later reverts seem unrelated to that. Which from what I can tell was none of Roxy's reverts were exempt.PackMecEng (talk)19:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You went pastWP:3RR and you keep insisting you, and only you, are right when two members who have been on the music project for at least a decade each are not.You used the term edit warring to try to bully me away from 1) correctly alphabetizing the list and 2) removing artists that do not meet the associated acts criteria, but now you claim to not know why you were brought here. Do you really not know what edit warring is or howWP:3RR works?
Explaining the way the documentation reads is not bullying you. I am open to seeing diffs of how and where I bullied you.
As I suggested on the talk page, I am happy to take each subject you think is an associated act but I do not think that the current content supports, to an RfC and let the community decide.
If you self-revert your final revert and continue the discussion on the talk page, this may go away, but then again, nothing at all may transpire if you leave it. I do expect that over t he next few days it will be reverted to the previous state until the additions are vetted and agreed-upon.Walter Görlitz (talk)03:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not insisting that I, and only I am right. You keep undoing my constructive editing without even considering it. Furthermore, the fact you are removing them in the first place shows you don't have enough knowledge on the subject. Many users have agreed with me in the past, yet you ignore them, because you don't want me to be allowed to edit the page so it is correct. This is for no particular reason, I have not caused this; this is clear BULLYING. Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia considering a large range of opinions, but it is becoming a dictatorship with people like you throwing your weight around for no reason other than satisfying your own ego. I have done nothing to cause this; you are unnecessarily tormenting me: BULLYING. Furthermore, I have never mentioned anything about capitalisation, I couldn't care less about that and am not stopping you from doing that. You are saying the artists do not meet the associated acts criteria, but I have proven that they do. I have done this so many times. You ask for sources of significance, so I provide them, proving their significance; yet you choose to ignore them. I am trying to do the best for the community by adding correct information, and you are terrorising this.Benarnold98 (talk)11:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
When no new content is supplied, and there is aWP:CONSENSUS that there is no association, what is t here to consider?
Knowledge is not the issue. There is not enough detail to support the claim. Please, edit the page to support the claim, but do not keep adding unsupported claims back into the article. You have proven nothing by listing songs and a few articleson the talk page. Binksternet and others have removed the claims from the infobox because the arenot clearly supported in the article. You understand the issue, right?
Opinion is wonderful, but not one of theWP:5 pillars of Wikipedia.
That was not a tangential comment; you have mentioned the capitilisation of the artists, so I responded to your accusations saying how editing that was never my intention, and your correction does not bother me in the slightest.
I don't really know what you want me to do. You are telling me to take it to the talk page, I do so, and then you decide to shoot me down for making suggestions. Am I not allowed to feel a certain way about something and express how I feel an article should be improved?
Interesting you bring theWP:5 pillars of Wikipedia. If you had respect for the community you would stick to these pillars, but you are violating many of them.
You violateWikipedia:5P2: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" by being biased against me, and completely ignoring and dismissing everything I say. It really feels like a personal attack.
You violateWikipedia:5P3: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute" by doing whatever you can to prevent me (anyone) from editing.
You violateWikipedia:5P3: "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility". This is obvious really, go through our conversations and see if you think how you are speaking is treating me withrespect and civility. You are bullying me.Benarnold98 (talk)02:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I have provided proof, on the talk page, on a vast number of occasions, it is not unsourced. Why do you keep ignoring this? All the proof is there.Benarnold98 (talk)12:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You have offered proof, that two long-standing editors have stated do not show an association, and the article remains without sufficient proof. Do you see a problem with this or are you convinced that you (and only you) are right and we should leave you to your expert opinion; one that you can edit war to continue to force on the project?Walter Görlitz (talk)23:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Warned.SSSB,WP:3RR exists for a reason in content disputes. While the IP has crossed the 3RR line, I would have to block you too for edit warring. Please stop. And in the future, stop edit warring and report other editors to appropriate forums when they edit war. Doesn't behove your clean block record. Most administrators would not be advising so much and would have blocked you till now. I would advise that you andJoseph2302 open up a discussion section on the article's talk page (why haven't you done that till now?!), invite the IP to discuss and see how it goes. For the next 24 hours, I am partially protecting the page. Let me know how it goes. Thanks,Lourdes14:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Repeated reverts to remove sourced content from the article's lede.Wham2001 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)I will add there seems to be a lot of activity from IP range 2a00:23c8:aae:4b01...Slatersteven (talk)13:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I concur: lots of editing, all trying to hide embarrassing details of a political candidate, no attempt to engage on Talk page.Bondegezou (talk)13:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments:Continuously removes cited template,PailSimon has been reverting edits made bySeoul1989 and me on the pageJoseph Stalin. Disregarding reliable sources, removing cited material, and edit warring. PailSimon was warned previously about thishere, and was blocked previously for similar actions. Despite giving clearly the citation "Stalin's genocide against the 'Repressed Peoples'" by theJournal of Genocide clearly verified on atrocities of Stalin and genocides of Stalin. He states Stalin's atrocities as "personal viewpoint" stating scholarly citations don't state it. Despite not giving a single source to these "academics", he completely disregards the actual academic peer reviewed papers and keeps reverting the page, with no actual proof, for his made up claim.
This is just about the silliest thing I have ever read. You're the one who has been consistently disregardingWP:BRD and have yet to gain a consensus for your favored edits. User:Seoul1989 introduced a category (i.e changing the stable version) which I saw as objectionable, since then you have continuously reverted with blatant disregard forWP:BRD. Its also interesting that Des Vallee brings up a past block given his ownrap sheet.Edit: Also discussions about article content do not belong here and you have completely misrepresented what Iactually said, please see the talk page of the relevant article to see what I have actually said.PailSimon (talk)12:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You have provided literally no sources, and are editing warring against consensus, and against reliable sources, in favor of Stalin. You are changing the edits irregardless of the fact you have been shown to wrong.Des Vallee (talk)13:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Your right you have been reverted multiple times, with no sources to support your claim, keep edit warring disregarding the talk to have your version of the article, and consensus of three separate editors. You were warned and unlikely to change.Des Vallee (talk)13:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
AdministrativeComment:Des Vallee, consensus is against you on the talk page. Stop reverting and do not revert the challenged material again until you gain consensus on the talk page for inserting the change. You will be blocked if you try to insert the material even once again. Thanks,Lourdes10:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
1. I did not revert this as claimed sincehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_D._McCarthy&oldid=1002769384 shows I entered a peaceable medium by allowing your deletion. I also began a discussion on thetalk page2. This revision was proper since you cited not a single outlet in the article for your claim. You also refused to engage in the talk page discussion at this point in time.3. This revision was proper since you cited not a single outlet in the article for your claim. The "talk page" discussion comprised of not a single quote from Milley, McCarthy, Harris, Biden, Klain, Berger, Schultz or anyone who actually runs the military, just a couple fringe media comments.
I did not violate theWP:3RR because I did not revert 3 times in a day, and I believe my edits are proper and the article should stand as is. SmartyPants22 should be concerned about making major edits without a source, and claiming that a revert is a "revert" despite the fact that I described a peaceable medium instead and tried to engage in discussion about high level government officials. You can also see here that my proposed revisions attalk:Sean Conley were correct and my proposed revision ofSean Conley was therefore proper in that I questioned the article in its unsourced state. I understand how SmartyPants22 could feel passionately confused, but we should not jump to conclusions before hashing out discussions of official commentary from top officials.Sucker for All (talk)23:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
AdministrativeCommentSucker for All, I can appreciate your rooting forWP:BLP in demanding top quality sources and not allowing SmartyPants to insert the fact that Ryan is no more the secretary and all. Well, I would not want to sound patronising, but there is something calledWP:COMMONSENSE which could have been employed by you. Claiming that Military sources are primary sources and therefore cannot be used to confirm that Ryan is not the secretary – umm, you really need to read upWP:PRIMARY again. While you don't need to do this, and while it is totally the responsibility of the party inserting the change to a BLP, you should perhaps take the higher ground and help editors rather than simply warn them of edit warring. If I may suggest, please revert your revert and show good faith in getting the BLP's details correct in noting that Ryan is no more the secretary. You can usehttps://www.defense.gov/Our-Story/Biographies/Biography/Article/1267101/ryan-d-mccarthy/. And yes, it is okay to use this Primary source. Please help fellow editors; and you'll see them helping back. Thanks,Lourdes10:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
With respect,Lourdes, I do not believe that to be a fact according to wikipedia standards; officials such as Biden, Harris, Milley, Berger, Schultz, Klain have not issued a comment on the subject and are more concerned about reality than official websites in some cases. However, in looking at the page, the edit I just made, to re-add the "current" tag is appropriate given McCarthy's still a high ranking military official.Sucker for All (talk)22:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
User:SmartyPants22 reported by User:Sucker for All (Result: Declined)
And as is shown clearly in thetalk page, I was the first to engage discussion.
All in all, I believe the article should stand until a comment's made coming from a ranking official such as those mentioned in the threadhere. However, pending comments from an official, I added current tags pending official reporting. Whereas he reverted edits of mine 3 times, I only reverted his twice (both times because his edits were unsourced), and since neither of us made our edits inside of 24 hours neither of us violatedWP:3RR, though he was the user with 3 revisions.Sucker for All (talk)23:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
ok. For the record, "SmartyPants22" has reverted 5 times, whereas I only reverted 2 unsourced edits. I'm disappointed you feel that that abusive editing is not as bad as me holding wikipedia to the BLP standards with which we liveSucker for All (talk)22:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Same person as the most recent IPs194.223.51.69 (talk ·contribs),124.148.232.171 (talk ·contribs). Also onSolo (Jennie song) andDdu-Du Ddu-Du. Severe slow motion edit warring coming from a stubborn IP-hopper from Melbourne, Australia. This disruptive editor has been edit warring over many, many inaccurate trivial things over a wide range of pages since last summer. Despite the numerous warnings left on the talk pages of their multiple IPs, they have never bothered to respond to any of the warnings or engage in any form of community collaboration, rather they ignore them all and continue to re-add their edits on different IPs. See page histories for editing behavior andUser:Nkon21/sandbox3 for the list of all associated IPs.ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk02:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I have been working withNkon21 on this since October. This user has exhibited behaviour reminiscent of theHanoi vandal. No edit summaries, ignores all warnings, and edit wars until they switch IPs. They have also received multiple warnings and have gotten blocked countless times for unsourced content, disruptive editing and, of course, edit warring. As well, Nkon21 and I are in the process of filing an officialLTA report on this user. If you look at any of the page histories of the pages they have hit in the past month, you’ll see a bunch of "manual revert" tags on behalf of the IP, as well as a bunch of rollbacks on my part. It is and has been a constant battle/edit war forfive months now.D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!)02:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Whitewashing at the Council of Conservative Citizens
Greetings. This is my first time here. Pointers and advice are most welcome.
I need help with an edit war launched by highly experienced userBeyond My Ken at theCouncil of Conservative Citizens page. It was launched preemptively, with a summary revert ofmultiple edits all at once, justified as undoing "whitewashing". I invite you to review each and every edit made in the series prior to the summary revert and honestly argue that any of them were "whitewashing". They areencyclopedic, in all but one instance making the article better copy, a better piece of work from an editorial point of view, and if anythingeliminating significant POV bias.
One entry included the summary headings of the Council's "principles", which were singled out for criticism immediately in the lead. How can it be "whitewashing" to actually present themverbatim, and allow readers to make of them what they please? There's no "hate speech" involved. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is for? It is not our job to whitewash what we may find repugnant, either outright, or another's use of language and ideas we may hold a different view on.
It does not matter whetherI lean towards or against the Council and its views. We are not required to swear to or sign "loyalty oaths" here. Only make contributions in accord with the encyclopedia's Manual of Style, and, ideally, maintain civility towards others - which I sought to from my very first edit summary, trying to head off where the above user was clearly determined to send things, and immediately after at their Talk page. And so we end up here. It would be despicably McCarthyesque to force me or any other user to declare "sympathies" in order for their edits to be allowed to stand. In over 50,000 of them here mine speak fully for themselves. All I seek is a fair address of any subject, even if that means undoing some very POV skewed content at a guaranteed hot-button page. Yours,Wikiuser100 (talk)00:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not a 3rr report and will likely be removed or collapsed shortly. There are other places to deal with content disputes starting with the talk page for the article.MarnetteD|Talk00:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the counsel,User:MarnetteD. I am unfamiliar with the proper route here, then, as I was only turning the above user's threat to report my defense of my edits to this page into direct action, confident they would stand on their merits. Can you please advise the proper route then to report the above for three successive reverts in spite of an admonition in my first restore edit summary and caution placed on their talk page (erased there by that user, along with subsequent warnings placed there). Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk)00:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to get the facts straight: Wikiuser100 made Bold edits[111], which I Reverted, perWP:BRD,[112] since I assessed them as PoV, softening an article about a white supremacist organization by using primary sources from the organization itself. Wikiuser100 then restored those edits[113],thus taking the first step in edit warring. I urged them to take it to the talk page to get consensus,[114],[115] which they did not do, but restored again.[116]. I posted an edit warring notice on their talk page[117], and once again urged the editor to go to the talk page[118], and indeed began the discussion there.[119]. In that ongoing discussion, no editor has yet agreed with Wikiuser100 that their edits were justifiedTalk:Council of Conservative Citizens#Whitewashing.Wikiuser100's edit to that article and toLester Maddox, of a similar nature, have resulted in a discussion on ANI about a possible topic ban.[120].Beyond My Ken (talk)20:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
One other point: Wikiuser100 never informed me of this "report", despite beingrequired to do so. True, I had banned them from my talk page for abusing it, but the ban notice[121] was quite clear in specifying that required notifications were exempt, as they must be.Beyond My Ken (talk)20:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
18:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003793616 byAlexbrn (talk) removing unsourced label. Can be re-added if a reliable source is shown referring to nutrisystem as a "fad diet.""
16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003773069 byAlexbrn (talk) We just had a discussion in which you agreed that your "better" version entails synthesis and OR."
16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "removing OR ("tentative evidence") and synthesis. Making language clearer and more specific."
I ask that any admin who is considering sanctioning me for edit warring please carefully read the dispute resolution noticeboard posting, as it will confirm that OP is engaged in policy-violating edits, and therefore will tend to exonerate or at least mitigate my conduct, in attempting to revert him.LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk)21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This wasn't a reversion. It was a copy edit+adding more context behind the quotation. I kept the quotation and the information about the majority of people re-gaining weight, but simply added more context from the same source.LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk)21:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
You removed a time-specific "asof" template (used to alert to the need for update), and the information that these prices are USA-specific. This damages the encyclopedia. Your rampaging revert-spree is creating disruption now, and the need for further work from editors down the line. I also note that you have introducedWP:CLOP in your use of the Gale source. This will need editorial work by others to remedy.Alexbrn (talk)21:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment - Both editors are edit-warring. (Edit-warring usually takes two editors.) I recommend that both editors bepartially blocked from the article for an extended period. I was trying to offer an opinion as to whether particular edits accurately summarized the results of a systematic review, and the proposed edits had the nature ofsynthesis amounting to original research. A neutral editor should edit theNutrisystem article to say exactly what the systematic review says, nothing more, nothing less.Robert McClenon (talk)00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a tad harsh to equate the edit-warring, since I consciously stepped-back from attempting to modify the systematic review text after two different tries, and concentrated instead on fresh sourcing and article expansion (IME, the way out of disputes is usually via improving the sourcing/content). LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08's continuing reversion have been of these, and of edits by another editor. However, I hear what you say, have unwatched the article, and will happily observe a self-imposed ban from editingNutrisystem andTalk:Nutrisystem for 12 months. Other editors are aware of article so I'm sure all will come good in the end.Alexbrn (talk)07:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem with a topic ban from Nutrisystem provided that it is also applied to Alexbrn. My concern is his tendentious editing and OR (which, I am pleased to say, RObert McClenon has just reverted); I have no real interest in the Nutrisystem page.LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk)09:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
14:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003953462 byTunkki-1970 (talk) Content does not violate BLP policies in any way. Please show precisely how policy is violated if you disagree. There is nothing stated that is false. Topic is of relevance."
13:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003945386 byTunkki-1970 (talk) Don't remove section until the consensus in the talk page supports your position. The default is to keep content unless there is a good reason to remove it."
12:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003938552 byTunkki-1970 (talk Prev. edit misunderstands NPOV and general policy. The source merely has to be reliable and support the wiki text. The wiki must and should be NPOV, but sources will have varying quality. (If only NPOV sources were allowed, Wikipedia could never have biographies.) The text you are deleting is stating uncontroversial facts. Please refrain from deleting content you don't like.)"
11:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003353218 byTunkki-1970 (talk) Removing content for spurious accusations of bias in sources should be frowned upon. Nobody disputes the reality of this controversy, or its impact in the field."
Post-3EW warning, added disputed content back manually and reworded so it wouldn't appear as a revert:[124](Tunkki-1970 also exceeded 3 reverts in one day, but has not reverted since being warned.)Schazjmd(talk)19:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Appologies for the multiple reverts, I though someone was vandalising the page because they didn't like the old content for political reasons. Since I am new, I wasn't aware of the 3-revert-rule. However, the comment above is wrong. At the end I did not add the disputed content again manually. I added newly written content (on the same topic of course), but consistent with all the rules. Faulty sources were removed, as was concluded from the discussion on the talk page. Please compare.ElPikacupacabra (talk)19:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[127]
Comments:
While the four reverts aren't identical (it's a 2x2) the core content of all four is the same, making it a rather clear violation. All four are about trying to push a fringe theory as academically respectable by referring to one lone fringe scholar, against consensus. Needless to say, this is about edit warring and not content, so the edit warring would be wrong even if the user would be right.Jeppiz (talk)19:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes. User:2db violated the 3RR on the article. There already is a talk page discussion, but he continued to revert. I gave him the warning because 2db is not following wikipedia protocol. Basically he has one source that makes a passing claim from 1 fringe author (who is a no expert on the topic) and wants to eliminate the views of at least 10 mainstream experts on the topic. The consensus is not on his side so he is trying to push his edit through.Ramos1990 (talk)20:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a kid or young adult who is hell-bent on adding his name as an uncredited, unverified cast member to a film article (unsourced of course). He has been reverted by three editors and received numerous warnings. He has made no attempt at communication. On his user page he describes himself as a child actor, but he has no notable roles in film.Sundayclose (talk)01:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
10:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "sexual assault is disputed so it should not be referred to as a given in the lede"
10:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "reverted stable into language, follow WP:BRD and take it to Talk Page, some are due to sexual assault, some are due to wartime romances, all covered in detail further down in the article"
09:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003083377 byXiAdonis (talk) not sneaking anything, Lai Dai Han are a pressure group and Straw's role is irrelevant to the points being made; stop edit warring of you will be blocked"
09:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003082024 byXiAdonis (talk) the link doesn't exist, they are a pressure group and Jack Straw is irrelevant; take it to Talk per BRD, don't edit war"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:It would be great if you were as diligent about stopping socking as you are about edit-warring. Please look at the page and review the actions of IP: 216.209.50.103 andUser:XiAdonis against whom I am preparing an SPI as we speak. I don't believe that I have breached 3RR as my edits were made selectively to different sections of the page.Mztourist (talk)10:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
From216.209.50.103 (talk)10:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC): Here are a few more edits the user did, he has a history of guarding certain pages, blocking all edits. On just that page, Lai Dai Han alone, he engaged in several edit wars with several users. seems to have an agenda in denying reports of sexual assault and calling it 'wartime romances' and other colorful, bizarre language. also keeps accusing me of being another user and thinks I am edit warring him when I have not reverted his edits a 2nd or 3rd time.
Worth noting that the user seemingly intentionally talks past me in my talk with him, making it less of a talk and more of a monologue.8ya (talk)21:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The logic is. "If they disagree with me, they must be a sock." I am just going to stop there. I am already quite disgusted with you, since you have the audacity to just conduct original research and characterize things reported by BBCNews as fake information, and labelling reported sexual assault as 'wartime romances'. Clearly you never understood what romance means if you want to believe that.216.209.50.103 (talk)10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
On reviewing my edit history I see that I inadvertently breached 3RR by reverting the IP after reverting the same point 3 times.Mztourist (talk)11:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Attempting to discuss a content dispute does not mean you're being "HOUNDED". The issue at hand here is you edit warring not whatever grievencanes you have with other editors please stay on topic.XiAdonis (talk)17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I told you to stay off my Talk Page and you ignored me, that is harassment/Hounding. You were warned about this by another uninvolved User as well:[138] even despite that you continued to post of my Talk Page:[139]. Content disputes are discussed on the Article Talk page, not a User's Talk Page. Unlike you, I raised the discussion on the Article Talk Page and the IP deleted it. I reinstated the discussion and you have only engaged on 1 of 3 points, raising an argument that I believe has no merit.Mztourist (talk)09:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Dont bring up unrelated things this is not the place to go off and list off whatever grivances you have, the reason why you're here is because of your edit warring, defend yourself from that dont try to win an imaginary argument.XiAdonis (talk)02:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:See users talk page
Comments:
We have the same revert problem onEngland,Scotland and related territories. Editor is talking with a few of us but does not seem willing to abide by our editing policy. Perhaps just protection of the pages involved might be better as they are engaging us.Moxy🍁04:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Editor is continually reverting about a controversial deceased subject and now at the related police officer's bio as well. No other support to date for their changes on the talk page.
Edit warring, reverting to your preferred version, is not an accepted practice. It's especially disruptive for controversial BLPs like Floyd. You have continued, despite warnings, and without establishing consensus.—Bagumba (talk)10:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: You'll have to explain to me how continued edit warring following the warning as I don't see any evidence of this. Kind regards,Willbb234Talk(please {{ping}} me in replies)10:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.", you made 4 reverts.Slatersteven (talk)11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Well actually you did as everything you added or removed has been added or removed before. OK it was a while ago the last time, but there is no statute of limitations. Its why I warned you on the 31st [[142]]. It has all been discussed at length, many times. Which is why I told you to take it to talk. Note this [[143]] was done after my warning.Slatersteven (talk)11:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed the content per number 7 ofWP:3RR: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". This was exactly that. The editor in question had no reason to place the content back in. Kind regards,Willbb234Talk(please {{ping}} me in replies)11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
None of it was libelous or unsourced, it is questionable whether it is biased or poorly sourced. But it was long-standing content added via consensus (you need to read the talk page archives), you should have made a case at talk.Slatersteven (talk)11:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
TLDR version The above can be summed by whether this applies here:... it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.—Bagumba (talk)11:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba came into this matter narrow minded. DespiteSlatersteven edit warring (evidence of said edit warring can be seen on the article history), Bagumba's first action was to place a warning on my talk page but not Slatersteven's talk page. I appreciate that I made further edits to the article, but this still doesn't excuse Bagumba's actions, and this should also be looked at. Kind regards,Willbb234Talk(please {{ping}} me in replies)12:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
[145] 19:03, 29 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 46,526 bytes +483 restore other sources that were added by GSS
[146] 19:23, 29 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 46,526 bytes −487 Restoring revision 1003594243 by Walrus Ji: One of the source is opinion. I have already disputed this on the talk page. please do not add back. Kindly share neutral international source for this incident on the talk page (RW 16)
[147] 09:48, 30 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 46,759 bytes +59 The claim needs to be mentioned other wise it is not clear why the post mortem report is relevant here. See talk page.
[148] 11:11, 30 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 46,759 bytes +419 Reverting edit(s) by Accesscrawl (talk) to rev. 1003716401 by Walrus Ji: Reverting good faith edits, I edited as I meant it to be. Deep Sidhu, death of protestor have all
[149] 15:51, 30 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 50,999 bytes +367 Add details, See the discussion about Sidhu in talk page
[150] 16:04, 30 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 50,186 bytes +3,486 Remove refs that are over cited with better source already
[151] 16:10, 30 January 2021 Walrus Ji talk contribs 50,300 bytes +3,600 Add details undo Tag: Reverted
This is retaliatory filing in response to my thread above. These diffs are not reverts and all of them involve content different to each other. Also is should be noted that the difs 1,2,3 were already discussed on the talk page and resolved with GSS. Diff 4,5 was also resolved with explanation on the talk page. Dif 6 and 7 were caused due to Raymond3023 edit warring and causing edit conflicts while I was adding more content to the article. After adding my cotnent and resolving the edit conflict I did not make any further reverts or edits on the page. On the other hand Raymond3023's only contribution so far on this page is to edit war and remove sourced content without specifying the problem despite being asked. At the time of this writing Raymond3023 has still not explained what specific problems they have with the content.Walrus Ji (talk)17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Warned.Walrus Ji, in your aforementionedAE complaint, I noted to you that you should:respect and observe the spirit ofWP:ONUS, especially for a page that is covered by theWP:ARBIPAWP:ACDS regime. Also, please do not make accusations about personal attack without citingproof in the form ofdiff-evidence. Failure to do so counts as anWP:ASPERSION, which is not permitted. Thank you.El_C16:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments:This user along with another[156] has been repeatedly removing sourced content and references from the article. He is only posting one liners saying "problem exist" without specifying them, I have asked them 3 times now but it seems they are only interested in disrupting the page.Walrus Ji (talk)16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
El C, Noted. But please understand that I had made this Edit war report 'before' I had checked his talk page history about the Discretionary sanctions. At that point I did not know that there was a topic ban on this user. Had I known then I would have not reported him here.Walrus Ji (talk)16:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
11:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the individual responsible to behave in a more professional manner."
11:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the person responsible to behave in a more professional manner. There is no on going discussions, the person behind posting that hideous picture is clearly biased, we have posted a more recent clearer picture so we ask the individual in question to stop this childish behaviour."
11:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the individual responsible to behave in a more professional manner."
09:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the individual responsible to behave in a more professional manner."
08:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "I have changed the current image to a more professional and suitable picture of the former president of Somalia, once again, we ask the wiki community to behave in a more professional manner, we ask that you stop changing a respectable neutral picture of the former president to a picture that is visibly hideous, unflattering and unprofessional - we ask that you stop this childish behaviour and take this matter serious. As previously explained this is critical election time."
06:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "I have changed the current image to a more professional and suitable picture of the former president of Somalia, once again, we ask the wiki community to behave in a more professional manner, we ask that you stop changing a respectable neutral picture of the former president to a picture that is visibly hideous, unflattering and unprofessional - we ask that you stop this childish behaviour and take this matter serious. As previously explained this is critical election time."
Abdallem isn't backing down and continues to insert his copyvio image in the article, even after this report. —Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me)15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
There's a election approaching momentarily in Somalia, where this former President is a potential key playerand it appears that u:Abdallem has aWP:Conflict of Interest, as self-reported saying the user would speak with the subject of the article about the matter.Buckshot06(talk)16:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
No, Alexis Jazz, I missed something. I apologise without reservation to all concerned and particularly to Abdallem. However, there is no justification for the repeated edit-warring against consensus, and I would kindly ask for prompt administrator attention to this matter.Buckshot06(talk)17:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Oshwah: I am really getting tired of this, Abdallem changed the picture again without consensus. (though at least they stopped uploading and inserting copyvios..) I'm pinging you because.. you responded on this page yesterday. Any admin is obviously welcome to deal with this. —Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me)19:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The article was up for a rewrite and it was completed on18 December 2020. Since then some caste POV pushers (IPs and users) started reverting to the old unreliably sourced version[160][161][162][163]. It was protected byIvanvector on23 December. But since the expiry of the protection, these IPs and new users have again started reverting to the old unreliable/poorly sourced version[164][165][166][167][168]. It is very much possible that the other IPs and user aresocks of Majoka4321. -Fylindfotberserk (talk)15:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the user's conduct has been confrontational and counterproductive. However, I think there could be a legitimate concern ofWP:Systemic bias at the root of it all. Marginalized groups often find themselves written about by the dominant culture in a historical perspective they believe is inaccurate or unflattering. The user's last comments hint at that feeling of despair. I've asked them to consider the more productive alternative of discussion and compromise in an attempt to achieve consensus. --Drm310🍁 (talk)15:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia should be removing sourced stuff because some user from some community is "feeling despaired". Caste warrior have problem with everything written in Wiki articles. This specific article was the target of a POV pusher pushing unsourced content[169][170]. That time the article was full of glorification, even then they wanted more. When I reverted their unsourced changes, they came to my talk page with threats of legal action with comment laced with cuss words and slangs[171]. I'm quite sure this is teh same user, since they too asked me instead to search for the sources in support of their POV edits. -Fylindfotberserk (talk)16:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Majoka4321 continues to edit war and remove content they claim to be factually incorrect, but is not providing any evidence to prove their statements.Chariotrider555 (talk)22:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Result: Malformed report. Please see the instructions at top of page for how to open an edit warring report. We need you to include the article name as well as the diffs.EdJohnston (talk)22:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Result: Semiprotected two months. Numerous IPs are reverting, and there is not much IP participation on the talk page. The registered editors should also make a better effort at discussion. Otherwise full protection should be considered.EdJohnston (talk)22:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The WP-user Rafaelosornioreverts all of my new changes and information in the articlePadre Pio. Rafaelosornio obviously is a religious fundamentalist believer, writing from a strictly Catholic point of view. He deleted several of my information and sources. He claims f.i. that a whole passage would be sourced with the historian Luzzatto, which is in fact sourced by Urte Krass. Additionally, he even cites long passages of interviews and puts that in Wikipedia, which itself is an encyclopedia. It is not a textbook of fundamentalist Catholic believes. I also think, that Rafaelosornio in several cases does not understand the true meaning of whole passages in the originals texts. So he obviously often distorts the content of theses sources.Mr. bobby (talk)22:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
R. cites the Castelli-book and asserts it as a source which documents fifty (!) years of blood flowing, that smells like perfume. Absurd! (This is what Pio might have told his audience.)
R. delivers a quotation in English, citing an Italian collection of primary sources, this time citing Pio. Obviouslys Rafaelosorni translates form Italian (is he able to understand Italian?) ino English (is he able to understand English???) Thereby he contradicts the depiction of Luzzatto and deletes it without any discussion! This an act of vandalism.
Again, Rafaelosornio translates Italian into English without any hint to this process. This is misleading any reader.
And several further destructive changes without any consent.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Response to the accusation
The user "Mr. bobby" in question does not accept any other source but only that of Luzzatto's book as if this book were the absolute truth. I have already told him that Wikipedia is a neutral place, where other reliable sources are allowed. The article is about Padre Pio, it is not only about Luzzatto's book, but he wants to eliminate all sources other than Luzzatto's book.
By the way, the user (whose native language is German and has little knowledge of English) cites an article in German of dubious origin which quotes Luzzatto saying that Padre Pio was a follower of Mussolini, but in Luzzatto's book not said phrase comes.
He accuses me of being a fundamentalist only because I quote the texts of other authors and of the same inquisitors of Padre Pio. The only fundamentalist is this user who does not accept anything that is in favor of Padre Pio, but only accepts everything that is against him. He clings to eliminate all content in favor of Padre Pio, said content is not mine, but the authors and documents of the Holy Office. You can see the conversations that I have had with this guy and the behavior of this user on the "Padre Pio Talk Page".Rafaelosornio (talk)05:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I admit to have broken the 3RR. But I have to add that some days befor I have reported Rafaelosornio for reverting my work without any discussion. And nothing happened! So I could not help but revert his religious remarks. The article needs help by a third, neutral party. Every change of Rafaelosornio hast to be discussed. He simply adds suprnatural assertions and fundamentalist Points of View.Mr. bobby (talk)13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I remind you that the Wikipedia article is not yours. If something that is properly referenced, you don't have to delete it only because you don't like. I have already spoken to you on Padre Pio's Talk Page. Wikipedia articles must be neutral. Clearly you have a conflict of interest.Rafaelosornio (talk)13:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week fromPadre Pio. Please resolve your content dispute on the talk page.Mr. bobby,Rafaelosornio, simply participating in a talk page discussion does not exempt you from edit warring restrictions: do not reinstate contested content until the issue at the talk page has been fully resolved. Additionally, please stick to commenting on content rather than other editors' motives, as the latter can be consideredpersonal attacks and will lead to further blocks if continued.signed,Rosguilltalk23:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Both users warned:[212][213]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I'm an uninvolved user in this edit war, but these two users have been at each other's throats for the past three days. Edit warring has spanned from Jan 30 to a couple hours ago, and both have broken 3RR. Both users discuss through edit summaries, which is obviously not encouraged, but they have both been very disruptive. The page history for the past 3 days is 90% composed of this edit war, as demonstrated in the several diffs above.D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!)12:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts (II): IP:91.237.86.201 again restored the disputed text on 30-31 January, 2021 — in order to avoid more disruptions to the page after the initial flare-up, I did not revert these latest edits and reported IP's new attempt at restoring the reverted text.
Diffs of the user's reverts (III): IP:91.237.86.201 is again engaged in an edit war and restored the disputed text on 1 February 2021 — after it was reverted by another editor. Again, there is no consensus to include this text.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[224]
Comments: IP:91.237.86.201 continues to insert disputed text to theFB MSBS Grot rifle article. It was explained to the IP why the text was reverted (for reasons primarily related toWikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight concerns). Also, the IP user was asked to follow theWikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle approach and discuss the disputed text on the talk page, where a couple of other editors also joined in on the discussion.
Also, IP used vulgar language to respond to comments by other editors (I blanked out the curse words):"its bulls..t, Ukraine is looking for AR15 rifle"[225],"Onet is high quality source, you write bulls..t"[226],"Response from Ministry is bulls..t"[227]. At this point, there is no consensus on the article's talk page for the inclusion of the disputed text, and other editors involved in the ongoing discussion either think that all of IP's text is problematic or at least parts of it. --E-960 (talk)13:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Response to the accusation
My sources are high quality like Defence24[1] and Milmag[2] military magazines together with FB Radom - producer of Grot rifle. All problems and defects are confirmed by manufacturer, they even has already started repairing all defective Grot M1 rifles by upgrading to the improved M2 version. Ukraine is looking on AR15 type rifle with weight under 3,26 kg. Grot don’t meet this requirements. Wpolityce and TVP are fake political news pages. This means that the allegations are unfounded and the user E-960 istrolling, makingvandalism andremoving content from page. More in article talk page [[228]]--91.237.86.201 (talk)13:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
hmm... your source Defence24.pl[229] states that:"Referring to the article by Onet, FB Radom [manufacturer] issued a statement in which it stated that the article was unreliable and mislead the public opinion. Since, before the first delivery of the carbines to WOT in December 2017, all technical and legal requirements were met." Yet, above you wrote"All problems and defects are confirmed by manufacturer". So, it appears that your statement above as well as your article edits are inaccurate and carry a potential bias, as well as undue weight. Also, the article talks about the rifle in use by the Polish Territorial Defense Forces (WOT) and nothing about Ukraine. Misrepresenting sources and what they say is harmful to Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk)15:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
You are lier because your source is diferent than my, yours is older and is misrepresenting because this statemant is older than my source[3]. If problems don’t exist why manufacturer has started repairing defects by upgrading all defective Grot M1 rifles to the improved M2 version? About Ukraine you are writing above, and they are writing in diferent source[4] My contributions to Wikipedia have long history. --91.237.86.201 (talk)15:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
...and one of those articles talks about Ukraine looking for a new service rifle, and nothing about MSBS Grot. While the other one talks about how to "improve its [MSBS Gort] parameters" not "problems" as you put it. --E-960 (talk)16:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It mean you are lier writing in talk that Grot was in fight in the market on Ukraine, because Grot even don’t meet Ukrainian requirements for new service rifles. Described problems and defects in variant M1 and changes in improved M2 variant are not parameters..--91.237.86.201 (talk)15:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Follow up note to Admins
IP:91.237.86.201, again today (1 Feb, 21) re-added the disputed text after it was removed by another editor, here:[230]. At this point IP has continued to edit war and engaged in the use ofprofanity during the discussions (as noted above in an earlier comment) andpersonal attacks calling me a "lier" here:[231] and[232], the IP is still not sanctioned, and in the last 36 hours made over 40 edits to the article. --E-960 (talk)18:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Stale, both editors violated 3RR when the warring was in full swing, although I do note that the onus was on IP to build a consensus for their desired changes. If edit warring resumes, please file a new report rather than edit warring back.signed,Rosguilltalk23:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none]
Comments: – User:Dervenagas ignored warnings about edit warring in both Edit Summaries (Diff 1) and an {{ew}} notice on their User Talk page (Diff 2) – User:Dervenagas was advised to take the issue to the Talk page three times in Edit Summaries and several more times on my User Talk page (Diff 3) – User:Dervenagas has been warned of disruptive behavior previously on their User Talk Page and unjustly accuses other editors of vandalism – on my User Talk page, User:Dervenagas repeatedly accused me of vandalism and of acting in bad faith – the appropriate guidelines were provided (WP:AOBF andWP:NPA), but User:Dervenagas continued to make accusations – User:Dervenagas has also been warned about edit warring on their User Talk page on the articleDerbe – thanks,Epinoia (talk)01:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Uninvolved comment I came across this intense edit war as I follow many articles on early Christianity, though I haven't interacted with anyone involved myself. It's a rater sorry example of a typical edit war with both sides being at fault.User:Dervenegas violates several core polices, including violating 3RR and repeatedly attacking other users. They definitely deserve a break.User:Elizium23 also deserves a break (probably a shorter one) for edit warring. While a strict wiki-lawyer might argue Elizium23 did not violate 3RR, I have no time for users gaming the system by reverting three times themselves and then report the other side for the fourth revert. (I believe Elizium23 is correct on content, but Dervenegas edits are not vandalism hence reverting them multiple times remains incorrect).Jeppiz (talk)18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none]
Comments: : User Elizium23 vandalizes sourced content. He keeps deleting a long standing quote, even after I pointed to the sources (such obvious sources, that nobody ever asked for them) that clearly prove why this quote stands for such a long time. The quote refers to the trust Paul had to Timothy. The aforementioned user Elizium23, for unknown reasons, wants to confuse the reader of the article regarding the trust Paul had to Timothy.Dervenagas (talk)22:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
– this is a revenge report as User:Elizium23 reported User:Dervenagas for edit warring – User:Dervenagas ignored warnings about edit warring in both Edit Summaries (Diff 1) and an {{ew}} notice on their User Talk page (Diff 2) – User:Dervenagas was advised to take the issue to the Talk page three times in Edit Summaries and several more times on my User Talk page (Diff 3) – as can be seen in the reason for this report, User:Dervenagas unjustly accuses other editors of vandalism – on my User Talk page, User:Dervenagas repeatedly accused me of vandalism and of acting in bad faith – the appropriate guidelines were provided (WP:AOBF andWP:NPA), but User:Dervenagas continued to make accusations – thanks,Epinoia (talk)01:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Uninvolved comment As outlined above, bothUser:Dervenegas andUser:Elizium23 were edit warring actively and both deserve a break (see my reasoning above). In reply toEpinoia: the fact that somebody else edit wars is not an excuse to edit war in return. You and Elizium23 are right about the content, but not right to edit war.Jeppiz (talk)18:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:December 5, 2020
Comments:
The article previously[251] was stable, with proper wikiformatting, images, and many references.User:Peterungar repeatedly replaces the article with his version[252] that is a wall of text with original research, with improper wikiformatting, with few or no images, and almost no references other than a YouTube video and a link to Mathworld's front page which doesn't even discuss the subject. He has been reverted byUser:Jni[253], byUser:ReyHahn[254], by myself[255], and byUser:Eridian314[256], but despite being reverted by so many different users, he has ignored a request to stop on the article talk page and continues to repeatedly reinstate his version.
The difficulty is that Peterungar never violates 3RR, instead doing long-term edit warring over a period of many months (this has now been going on for half a year) by periodically reverting (Jul 30Oct 8Oct 13Dec 3Dec 7Jan 23) the page to his preferred version whenever he visits the page again. Banning Peterungar from editing the article for a few days or even a few weeks might be ineffective given that his edit warring is long-term and spread over months. He has been behaving like asingle-purpose account, with almost all hisarticle space edits over the past year being on thisillumination problem article.
I was one of the people who reverted Peterungar's edits. He seems to be convinced that the information he put in was correct, despite it being unsourced and not following the Manual Of Style. Not much else for me to sayEridian314 (talk)14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
PartialBlockedindefinitely from editingIllumination problem. Given the long-term nature of the edit war, with edits starting in July and with talk page discussion ignored since December, the lack of disruption in the past few days doesn't seem like enough evidence to say that this is stale. The p-block should be appealed ifPeterungar is able to constructively participate in a talk page discussion and help build consensus for proposed changes.signed,Rosguilltalk23:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments: These three IPs -- obviously the same person -- have been removing sourced information from this article, claiming it is "slander". The subject of the article is dead (1988), and this is not a BLP issue. The information is sourced in the body of the article to a reliable source. I have invited the editor to discuss their concerns on the talk page, but they have refused to do so, they just continue to delete without comment except "slander".Beyond My Ken (talk)19:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments:Continued disruptive editing despite infobox talk page consensus, being made aware of WP and attempts to resolve on user and article talk pages. Update: The page is now protected.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
None. I have not really involved myself in this dispute.
Comments:
I seriously can't remember the last time I filed a report on this board. This user is just edit warring to mess with the established ideology ofMPP. –MJL‐Talk‐☖18:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute onarticle user talk page:[278]
Comments: Straightforward edit-warring by IP, who created an account after they were warned (by me) that their next revert would trigger an EW report.[279] IP/account is attempting to remove sourced information from the article without a consensus discussion on the talk page; edits are most probably an ethnic PoV edits. IP should be temp blocked, and account indeffed as sock created for illegitimate purposes.Beyond My Ken (talk)15:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Just seen this thread after reverting him a few more times. As I considered this to be obvious vandalism (introduction of deliberate factual errors and deleting things because hejust plain doesn't like it) I've been liberal in reverting his edits and have reported him toWP:AIV. However now that I see it's been reported here I've undone my edit just to stop the back and forth. As far as I'm concerned thisis unambiguous vandalism, soWP:3RR shouldn't apply, but to be on the safe side I'm leaving it as it is for now. —Czello18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Follow up: The AIV report has led to him being blocked for 31 hours for vandalism: consequently I've made a final revert. I hope this is okay with everyone given that this been determined to be unambiguous vandalism. —Czello19:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Fine with me, although I think 31 hours is a bit lenient considering the amount of reverting that multiple editors have had to deal with.Beyond My Ken (talk)19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Page protected byMelanieN. While the above discussion says that the IP was blocked for 31 hours, I don't see any evidence of this in their block log.signed,Rosguilltalk23:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
01:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC) "Wrong reversion by MrOllie and FyzicFighter- independent publishing is not the same as self-publishing. Read the Wiki description. You are discriminating. I will report you if you keep vandalizing my edits."
01:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC) "Wrongful reversion by Mr. Ollie - it's independently published not self-published. Read the Wiki descriptions."
Comments: This user has repeatedly reverted content on theMiss Universe page without discussion. The user was also warned multiple times, and has removed the warnings on their page which means they saw the warnings. This has been going on for a few days now. The user's edit summaries also do not show good faith, assuming another editor of bias, and also shows that the user does not understand what vandalism on Wikipedia actually is.Mr. Gerbear|Talk14:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Could not edit due to protections on page. Other users contacted Wes sideman.Some Discussion
Comments: Wes sideman continue to make an unverifiable addition to the Zeta Psi page. The edits and citation used should be removed and Wes sideman should be blocked.QuietMedian (talk)22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
My Response
I will admit that I am not 100% sure what is going on here. But I do have some idea. I will start with saying that the "some discussion" link thatQuietMedian points to up above was about an entirely different topic on the same article - I had removed a long section because I noticed it had been copy-pasted from the Zeta Psi website.Citizen Sunshine reverted and told me he had written the website copy for Zeta Psi and had also added his own work to the article, and I am satisfied with that. It has nothing to do with the motto that (other) various user accounts have been removing from the article.
Now, on toQuietMedian. This account was created 15 hours ago, and immediately made a semi-protected edit request atTalk:Zeta Psi. He then erased it.User103214, another account created yesterday, also made the same edit request at nearly the same time. Two more accounts,Phippap andBadaBing72 were also created in the last two days and made the same removals from the page. Finally,QuietMedian, mere hours after creating his account, made an edit-warring report against me and left a notice on my talk page. 39 minutes after the last edit to the Zeta Psi talk page,Volteer1 showed up to make the edit requested, although that account had never edited the article or the talk page before.
@Wes sideman: Huh? I just responded to an edit request, I do that all the time. If you have a look at the book you're citing (you can find it pretty easily on google), the motto does not seem to appear, so it was a fairly easy edit request for me to respond to. I don't know QuietMedian, and I don't care about Zeta Psi, all I can see is you engaging in an edit war and adding what appears to me to be unsourced material. That dispute should be handled on the take page, not through reverting people's edits.Volteer1 (talk)13:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I already said that I'm not 100% sure what's going on. All I know is that a lot of new accounts suddenly descended on the Zeta Psi page and/or my talk page, within a very short amount of time. And your account happens to be one of them. You may be innocent in this; I have no idea. I just got done with a user harassing me with multiple accounts and at last count,7 accounts were blocked for "sockpuppeting". I only reported what happened.Wes sideman (talk)13:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wes sideman: I had been watching the page and did not have a wikipedia account. Your repeated attempts to post unverifiable information and improperly cite it to Baird's Manual and revert it compelled me to make an account. I removed my edit requests as they were superfluous. I do see that you had to deal with a recent issue of socket puppet accounts. I can assure you I am wholly disinterested in the controversies surrounding Chad Johnson. Your behavior on the Zeta Psi page is however antithetical to this site's standard of verifiability.QuietMedian (talk)16:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
So that I make sure everyone reading this has the background - QuietMedian created an account less than 24 hours ago. He is already an expert on edit warring, andsock puppets, and pinging me in the above comment, and he's saying he's not the same person that's been making the edits to the Zeta Psi page under multiple accounts.Wes sideman (talk)19:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wes sideman: I understand your suspicions given the ongoing issues with your addition to the Chad Johnson article. That said, it is confusing that you paint me as an expert after pointing out deficiencies in this report. I am not connected to the accounts listed above. Considering you made 7 attempts to publish unverifiable if not false information and pass it off as true by inaccurately citing sources, I will posit that it is equally plausible if not more likely that several people noticed your behavior and decided to confront it. I do appreciate the compliments to my future as an editor on Wikipedia, and I welcome any pointers on diffs as I am still trying to figure those out.QuietMedian (talk)20:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Result:User:Wes sideman iswarned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. They have added "Honor and brotherly love' as the fraternity's motto seven times since mid-January. Others have reverted their change, saying that such a wording for the motto is unsourced and is not to be found in Baird's Manual.EdJohnston (talk)04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I'm a new editor and I think I did that report completely wrong... but the user above keeps restoring their desired content to the article today, having been reverted by UserNicoljaus and myself. They have been warned about edit warring, but they have continued with this, and also the content they keep adding is referenced to unreliable/questionable sources (blogs, for example).LauraWilliamson (talk)21:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi LauraWilliamson, the problem is that you are removing certified sources (youalso removed the Navalny's blog link). Fortunately user Nicoljausunderstood the situation. Next time, could you please open a discussion before removing sources insted of starting a revert-war?--Mhorg (talk)21:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg: I'm not the one "starting a revert-war", I only reverted you twice. You, meanwhile, have inserted and reinserted that content 6 times today, twice as many as you are allowed. You've also never taken to the talk page to explain your actions despite being asked to.LauraWilliamson (talk)21:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg: Your original edit contained obvious defamation of a living person. Subsequently, you also seriously distorted the actual content of his statements. Based on theWP:BLP I reverted your edits. Next, you had to go to the discussion page and work out a consensual text there.--Nicoljaus (talk)22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
No,check this, Nicoljaus literally removed the Navalny's blog link. Thenyou removed theatlantic.com source and the Navalny's blog saying that "Those aren't even reliable sources", without opening a discussion. Instead, I openly asked you toopen a discussion before removing sources.--Mhorg (talk)22:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
No,Nicoljaus asked to open a TP about the word "ethnic", andmy next edit was removing the word "ethnic", because the correct translation was effectively without that word (the meaning remained pratically the same). Then you continued removing the sources all the time without a valid reason and against Wikipedia policies.--Mhorg (talk)22:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
What? Of course i know what it means... He asked to open a TP about the word "ethnic", i simply removed the word "ethnic" because the correct translation was without that word. Then you started removing the sources:one,two,three,four times.--Mhorg (talk)23:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
{@Mhorg:Which defamation? -- You accused a living person of calling for ethnic repression during the war. Since you referred to the blog, you could not fail to notice that he objected to the participation of Russian Army: "Of course there is no question of any additional Russian ground forces in the South Ossetia ("Конечно ни о каких дополнительных русских сухопутных войсках в ЮО речи сейчас идти не может"), and the deportation of Georgian citizens (not Georgians, and not even ethnic Georgians, as it was in your edits:[280]) he proposed as a non-military form of pressure on Georgia. And, once again, this discussion should start on the TP after the first revert of your edits.--Nicoljaus (talk)07:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Blocked –User:Mhorg is blocked 24 hours for edit warring. There may be a question about the quality ofUser:Mhorg's sources here, but whatever the answer to that, there is no excuse for Mhorg to break the 3RR rule. Whether Navalny's blog can be used to document his opinion on Georgians is something for consensus to agree on. (If Navalny really made outrageous statements in his blog about Georgians, wouldn't we expect the mainstream press to have commented on that somewhere?) With blogs we also would like some verification that the supposed blog is the genuine work of the named person.EdJohnston (talk)23:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello@EdJohnston:, I would like to inform you that theUser:LauraWilliamson was a sockpuppet[281]. He\she tried in every way to make me fall into the revert trap, deleting RS. I wanted to ask you if it was possible to remove that banner of the 24h ban from my discussion page, because it embarrasses me a lot, and I don't think I deserved it (even if I actually didn't know the reverting rules). Do you think it is possible?--Mhorg (talk)21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No violation There is no 1RR restriction on that page. If you think there's a broader issue with Banana Republic, file atWP:AE.EvergreenFir(talk)00:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – Indef, perWP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiman122112.EdJohnston (talk)18:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Already blockedLourdes12:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment Come back if this continues.Lourdes12:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Page protected Report onWP:ANI if behavior on talk page becomes a problem. I think page protection will better solve this specific issue.EvergreenFir(talk)21:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Moved fromUser talk:ToBeFree
Warned.SSSB,WP:3RR exists for a reason in content disputes. While the IP has crossed the 3RR line, I would have to block you too for edit warring. Please stop. And in the future, stop edit warring and report other editors to appropriate forums when they edit war. Doesn't behove your clean block record. Most administrators would not be advising so much and would have blocked you till now. I would advise that you andJoseph2302 open up a discussion section on the article's talk page (why haven't you done that till now?!), invite the IP to discuss and see how it goes. For the next 24 hours, I am partially protecting the page. Let me know how it goes. Thanks,Lourdes14:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Declined See above.Lourdes10:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely from editingIllumination problem. Given the long-term nature of the edit war, with edits starting in July and with talk page discussion ignored since December, the lack of disruption in the past few days doesn't seem like enough evidence to say that this is stale. The p-block should be appealed ifPeterungar is able to constructively participate in a talk page discussion and help build consensus for proposed changes.signed,Rosguilltalk23:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)