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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 05:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 03:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 05:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor continues editing disruptively despite being warned on numerous occasions and by different editors, e.g.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5] and[6].

They've already been blocked twice in November for disruptive edits[7] and[8], and then once more 10 days ago[9] where they were blocked indefinitely from editing theAwdal article.

Following their block onAwdal, they've now moved on to make the same disruptive edits on theGabiley article, as can be seen on their history page[10], they're clearly not here to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Many thanks --Kzl55 (talk)18:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period ofindefinitelyEvergreenFir(talk)19:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:Buffy Sainte-Marie (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:2605:B100:324:E730:99CA:E2F3:8D51:B1D8 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[17]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[18]

Comments:
Indeed, the IP appears to be concentrating on just the one page, since coming to the project. AnWP:SPA situation, IMHO.GoodDay (talk)23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period ofone week2605:B100:324:E730:0:0:0:0/64 (block range ·block log (global) ·WHOIS (partial))Daniel Case (talk)00:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:List of Tom Hiddleston performances (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1192107637 byLady Lotus (talk) your removal of this information is based onWP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a filmography article and these are episode articles (not even redirects) which this actor appeared in. You have no wikipedia guideline that supports this removal other than your own bases opinions here"
2. 15:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1192089298 byLady Lotus (talk) don't link essays and who cares how long it makes it. This isn't paper and we aren't short on space. Would you remove all links to Mission: Impossible in Tom Cruz's list and just link the series?"
3. 17:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1191924645 byLady Lotus (talk) that is your opinion not a guideline. Links provide readers with the ability to access the articles and not guess to what article that belongs to"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User made an edit to add in 3+ episode names of each episode for the seriesWhat If, I reverted asWP:FILMOGRAPHY doesn't list any episode titles after 2 episodes. I wrote in my edit summary "Dont need episode names if over 2 episodes", they reverted saying it was only my opinion. The next revert I did then cited WP:FILMOGRAPHY as maybe the user wasn't aware of why I reverted it, it also makes the notes ridiculously long compared to other notes, was again reverted saying not to link essays (which yes I'm aware that WP:FILMOGRAPHY is an essay on style but most film/actor editors adhere to it so it has a consistency throughout wiki, he also stated "who cares how long it makes it", seemingly defensive. I did one last revert and told them they made aWP:BOLD edit, and to gain consensus or I'd have admins become involved, was reverted yet again. Note: other editors have gone it and removed the list of episodes he's trying to add, it's not just myself. Love to have some intervention here as to not keep going back and forth, and I don't see a dialogue between them and myself as being helpful, just round and round.

Other pages affected over the same edits:

• Jon Favreau filmography
• List of Benedict Cumberbatch performances‎
• List of Samuel L. Jackson performances‎LADY LOTUS •TALK17:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:FILMOGRAPHY is an essay, which means it has zero community backing, and even it does not say "do not link episodes". The articles in question are filmography articles, which means we list and link appearences that said actors appeared in. Arguing that one needs to find consensus to add valid links to a filmography list is just crazy. It's even worse when the argument usedDont need episode names if over 2 episodes is not used for film entries. Should we remove all 3 Iron Man links from Favreau's list and just writeIron Man (film series) with a date range? What is the difference? Valid links in a sub-topic should not need, ever, to be a product of a local consensus, because that will eventually lead to bad places. That could mean that in award pages, such asList of awards and nominations received by Robert Downey Jr., fan of a specific actor could get a local consensus to get rid of bad awards such as Golden Raspberry Awards.

Now if actor is a series main and appeared in all episodes of the season, then I can see the rational for just linking the season itself, but when there are 3 episodes in two seasons, how are we serving our readers by sending them to go look for themselves? I know where to look and it took me a while to find out what episodes the "3 episodes" was refering to. That is just horrible usage of a digital space.

Finally, no other editor removed the links while this happend.Gonnym (talk)21:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You are linking individual episodes that happen to have a wiki page to their notes section, it is not the same as linking Iron Man, Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 which are separate films. If someone wanted to look at the specific episodes, they can as they are linked inWhat If..., adding 3 or more makes the notes look sloppy and long when other notes are short and concise. And another editor did remove them, seethis edit andthis one.LADY LOTUS •TALK22:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no difference between an episode and a film other than one's opinion on their worth. The episode's themselves areWP:NOTABLE. If you think they aren't, you are more than welcome to send them to WP:AFD. The criteria for entries in a filmography list cannot be "every film can be included" (including Jon Favreau "deleted scene" only entry), yet episodes with articles are excluded if an actor was unlucky to appear in three episodes and not one. One edit was after you started this. Also both edits are the same editor and you wrote plural. You've also reverted their edit in your rush to revert, so not only are you edit warring yourself, you revert unrelated stuff as well.Gonnym (talk)22:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

noexDaniel Case (talk)23:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No other input?LADY LOTUS •TALK03:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:09:49, 25 December 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:User's preferred version is to re-insert an external link to{{Curlie}}:

1. 20:38, 27 December 2023
2. 01:08, 28 December 2023
3. 08:34, 28 December 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is already aware of WP's edit warring policy. They were previously blocked fortwo years (with many other EW blocks leading to that) before being unblocked in 2022. Intheir unblock request (accepted byJoe Roe) they claimed:

I would like to be a productive member of the community again, engaging in constructive and collaborative edits and not using reversions as a means of edit-warring. Future disputes will be handled with the dispute resolution process.

That's not consistent with their current actions.

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[19]

Comments:
The user claims in their edit summaries that "there needs to be a consensus to remove", but they are solely reverting two other editors, with no demonstrated support to their preferred version. In fact, it seems they added this content four years ago under a non-transparent edit summary of "fixed dashes using a script" on a mislabeled "minor" edit.[20] Their edit warring now is claiming four years ofWP:SILENCE as justification, an essay which itself says thatSilence is the weakest form of consensus.—Bagumba (talk)09:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Expand report by sbaio. Adding the same behavior atArizona Coyotes (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) (6 December 2023,27 December 2023,28 December 2023) andCharlotte Hornets (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) (27 December 2023,28 December 2023). In addition, regarding theIndiana Pacers page – the link to Curlie was originally added by the reported editor on1 February 2020 so it looks likeWP:OWNERSHIP at this point. A discussion in early December 2023 atWikipedia talk:External links#Curlie as spam has taken place, but the editor's behavior seems to beWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at this point (evenWP:POINTY some times) and the editor has been blocked for edit warring many times (despite making promises not to do it). –sbaio11:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  It seems like they believe that merely because the link might not be spam, that they alone have carte blanche to add a link that isWP:ELMAYBE at best, even if others don't think it is an improvement.—Bagumba (talk)11:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk)12:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have to point out that the diffs

  • 20:38, 27 December 2023 by Koavf

  and

  • 08:34, 28 December 2023‎ by Koavf

  may have been legitimate.

  PerWP:EDITCONSENSUS,

  All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clearedit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important whenreverting another editor'sgood-faith work.

  User:Sbaio did not provide a substantive, informative explanation about the revert09:49, 25 December 2023‎ (I still don't know what discussion they were pointing out) and did not provide an edit summary nor any explanation in the diff07:40, 28 December 2023‎ that Koavf reverted. Regards,Thinker78(talk)06:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  ...may have been legitimate: One bold revert is fine. However, there's nothing "legitimate" in this case about the continuous reverts, especially given their history. —Bagumba (talk)06:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Which is more the case about unexplained or poorly explained reverts. Regards,Thinker78(talk)07:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:[25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[26]

Comments:

The userUser:Zefr reverted 3 times a statement that berberin inhibits CYP3A4 without prior discussion on a talk page. Each time, I wrote a better version on my opinion, but still all 3 were reverted without prior discussion on a talk page, which I started. I also asked in a comment to request 3rd opinion rather than revert, but it didn't help. Please let me know whether my behavior was appropriate or not, and whether the behaviour of userUser:Zefr was appropriate, I'd like to know for the future. Thank you!Maxim Masiutin (talk)11:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Which does not absolve Zefr of their responsibility to take it up on talk.Daniel Case (talk)18:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:Battle of Barawa (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Togawa11 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[33]

Comments:

Note that the edit Togawa11 is trying to impose ([34]) appears to be a repeat of their previously reverted edits in October 2023 ([35]).R Prazeres (talk)21:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of48 hoursAoidh (talk)11:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:Peranakans (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Visnu92 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[42]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[43]

Comments:

• Page protected byUser:Ymblanter for 1 week.Aoidh (talk)11:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:List of countries by Human Development Index (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:European Union Fan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]
5. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user started a talk page discussion themselves, but apparently are not interested in waiting

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[51]

Comments:

The user has 12 edits at the moment.

• Blocked – for a period of36 hoursAoidh (talk)13:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:Atrocities in the Congo Free State (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:31.124.97.149 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]

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

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

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

Comments:

This has in fact been going on since [[57]].Slatersteven (talk)12:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of72 hoursYmblanter (talk)13:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:Talk:Auditing (Scientology) (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Cambial Yellowing (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to: Cambial Yellowing 4 times changed/reverted the heading frommy talk page post of 01:12, 30 December 2023.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:36, 30 December 2023
2. 19:11, 30 December 2023
3. 19:15, 30 December 2023
4. 19:33, 30 December 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Cambial Yellowing is already quite familiar with edit warring policy. They have been warned numerous times. They were given a 1-month block byDrmies in January 2023.[58][59] Warned againin May 2023 bySoftlemonades. Cambial has availed themselves of 3RRN several times. They were given a warning on 3RRN June 2022.[60] followed by a partial block the following week.[61] Their user talk page history is littered with even more warnings about edit warring, usually getting insta-deleted, and sometimes withsarcastic edit summaries.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:In edit summary: "There is no reason toWP:REFACTOR my talk page edit", repeated twice more.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:Done.

Comments:

Cambial Yellowing has a history of incivility and aggression towards me (as well as other editors, from what I read). I'm quite sure today's heading change is simply an attempt to goad or harass me following yesterday's content dispute over the use of the terms "tin cans" and "god/godlike" in the lead section which I tried to correct and they reverted me partially multiple times (perhaps too complex for its own 3RRN report, but I could try if deemed important). After I stopped trying to correct the article, Cambial followed up with around 20 more edits to the article including hyper-tagging the article, mostly my content, to which I didn't respond.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀20:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Only one of those is a revert. You have made three reverts on the article talk page, with the same edit summary. You provide no evidence of an illusory "history of incivility".Cambial—foliar❧21:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

FromWP:EDITWAR:The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀21:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Re Cambial's request to provide evidence of "history of incivility", I'll mention just one (because it's enough of a doozy and this isn't ANI):This discussion where Cambial attempted to force their viewpoint that a list-article wasn't notable. Myself and editorNorth8000 were involved in the resulting talk discussion, during which Cambial insulted me and the other editor, responded to one of my comments calling it"histrionics", completely ignoredmy contribution which included a dozen reliable sources, while continuing torepeatedly insult the other editor including"the exact practice you employ in your comments look like projection and are not acceptable conduct on this website" and"No doubt you’ll not allow that obvious a priori truth to worry you", after whichthe other editor walked away, and I quit discussing anything with Cambial and justexpanded the article from a list-article to an article, effectively ending the discussion. This exchange is representative of many similar exchanges between Cambial and editors.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀22:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of72 hours.Bbb23 (talk)23:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:2023 Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras season (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Page:2024 Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras season (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Claudiogostoso (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[66],[67]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[68]

Comments:
After trying to talk to him a lot of times, through the article talk page and directly to him, he did not responded and deleted the message that i sent to him.

• Blocked – for a period of1 weekAoidh (talk)15:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:Ancel Keys (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Psychologist Guy (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1192813479&oldid=1192791572
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1192748089&oldid=1192726433
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1192720717&oldid=1192717503
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1192647845&oldid=1192633737
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1171587027&oldid=1171556580
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1165018367&oldid=1164989114

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[71]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[72]

Comments:

Repeated reverts involving multiple users with no attempt to make consensus or engage in Talk page discussion and not engaging in good faith discussion. Discussion inTalk:Ancel_Keys#"Strong Consensus". Seems to refuse to engage with theWikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements process where the matter was listed. Previously engaged in similar reverts for other editors on the same article. 13:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

User is adding pseudoscience to the article and is entirely destroying the lead. There is blatant disregard ofWP:Fringe andWP:MEDRS here. "Repeated reverts involving multiple users" is inaccurate. The diff he listed here was from July 2023[73], that is irrelevant to this. It's only DrJoHeiter recently who is spamming the lead with unreliable low-carb authors.Psychologist Guy (talk)13:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The claim by the reverter that sources were of “unreliable low-carb authors” is wholly inaccurate and misleading, and I encourage the Administrators to investigate this in the edits and Talk page. In total I provided around a dozen peer-reviewed secondary publications in both the edits themselves and the Talk discussions which the reverter refused to engage with, not to mention criticism issued by Harvard University on their website. This sourcing is wholly within Wikipedia’s policies for medical articles.DrJoHeiter (talk)14:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Article is atstatus quo ante condition; no administrative action necessary if no further reverts byeither editor. @DrJoHeiter As the user initiating the bold changes, the onus is on you to get consensus for the changes. I suggest that you do not edit the article any further until a third opinion is offered on the article's talk page or there is other demonstration of consensus for a change, lest you be blocked for instigating the edit war. —C.Fred (talk)14:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @C.Fred - I’m not making any further changes until a third opinion is offered.DrJoHeiter (talk)14:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Declined per C.Fred aboveAoidh (talk)15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Created article talk page thread while edit warring was occuring

I created a talk page thread while the edit warring was ongoing and even suggested the user to provide additional opinions there rather reverting my edits. Reported user continued to edit war rather than to continue discussions on the talk page thread I created. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk)12:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Comments:

For several months,Guillermo Lasso's 2023 image went undisputed, yet this user has been consistently edit warring to add, what he believes was a more appropriate image. In my revert notes, which you could see on the page's history, I have told the user to take it up to the talk page, I even created a discussion thread, but yet the user decided to edit war instead. I provided reasons as to why the 2023 image should remain on the infobox and that any additional opinions/suggestions should go to the talk page thread I created. This is my first time making an edit war report so please forgive me if I've goofed this up somehow. Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTDKR Chicago 101 (talk •contribs) 12:24, 31 Dec 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected In looking at the article, it's been semi-protected. —C.Fred (talk)14:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you for the prompt response! Should another edit war occur, which I noticed from another user (aside from the reported one) should occur, should I report back or wait for another user to intervene?TDKR Chicago 101 (talk)14:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101 If the protection isn't working, I'd say to report back. —C.Fred (talk)17:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[78]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[79]

Comments:
User HetmanWL is engaging in disruptive behavior and edit warring on thePoland page by inserting into the article's Infobox formation section unsourced and dubious claims of when Poland formally became a recognized state, thus upending longstanding content (note: in the latest edit user HetmanWL inserted a phony citation, which does not say anything about the claim that was added to the article). This new edit is contrary to reliable reference sources cited in the article and externally such as Encyclopedia Britannica[80]. The contentious topics procedure applies to the Poland article, as the page is related to Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Also, user HetmanWL has been notified of theWikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle process, however despite this user HetmanWL did not justify his edit by providing a reliable reference source to back up their view and instead has went back and re-added the dubious claim. As this article falls under the contentious topic procedure, I ask that user HetmanWL is sanctioned appropriately in order to prevent a further edit war from breaking out and that the original longstanding sourced material is restored. User HetmanWL is welcome to continue the discussion on the talk page, however the original longstanding version needs to stay in place. --E-960 (talk)21:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk)22:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:Josh Cahill (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:80.155.39.221 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC) "only consent by Jpatokal who is a paid editor. Needs your opinions and no sources provides any evidence."
2. 05:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC) "sources refers to Christian Meyer and you can't check in on a flight with a kunstlername. No clear sources states that Josh Cahill is the person in question. It also falls under WP:PRIVACY - ongoing discussion on talk page states no support for these changes including citizenship"
3. 04:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC) "as agreed per talk section to not include name and nationality"
4. 03:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC) "as agreed on talk section to not include the name"
5. [87]
6. [88]
7. [89]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:[90]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC) "/* Request for comment on inclusion of "Aljoscha Wendholt" as name */ Reply"

Comments:

This page underwent full protection owing to this edit warring on 23 December. Edit warring resume immediatley upon unprotection. There appears to be a consensus for inclusion on the talk page. Also worth adding that there has been continual bad faith from this IP as they continually accuse other editors of being paid without evidence[91]. —Czello^(music)10:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment Worth noting there is irony in this as all this IP and others have no contributions outside this page (except for a few edits in 2020).RetroCosmos (talk)14:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of72 hours Easy call. IP has not only violated 3RR, they have in the process of doing so repeatedly removed material that there was a consensus to include, and compounded that with their puny efforts to gaslight the entire talk page into believing that there wasn't. Single-purpose devotion of recent edits is also noted.

I will also be adding a CTOPS notice to the talk page given the recent need to full-protect the article; I have the feeling this will not end soon.Daniel Case (talk)19:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[95]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[96]

Comments:
KyleJoan is editing BLPs and revising longstanding content based on their clear editorial bias. Louisiana Creoles are a mixture of different ethnic groups, which is proven fact. Louisiana Creoles were free & mixed race people. How does that fall under the African American category when they are mixed race?Solange Knowles isBeyoncé full blooded sister. Beyoncé's bio states how her mom is a Louisiana Creole. Why does Solange's bio say that her mom is an African American of Louisiana Creole descent? It makes no sense. Both share the same parents. Beyoncé has stated in her biography & songs that she is a Louisiana Creole. In her song Formation she talks about her parents. Here are the lyrics: "My daddy Alabama, Momma LouisianaYou mix that negro with that Creole make a Texas bama." In her song Creole she talks about her being a part of the Louisiana Creole community and talks about her Creole features. Tina Knowles parents last names are Beyincé & Deréon. Both last names are French from her white ancestors. Tina Knowles parents were mixed race. Louisiana Creole is an ethnicity I don't know why KyleJoan wants mixed race people to identify as black so badly.

Troian Bellisario momDeborah Pratt parents were Louisiana Creoles. This is a known fact. Deborah even stated it herself. This user has a problem withmultiracial people identifying with what they are. KyleJoan only wants Louisiana Creoles to identify as black.'Connii93^talk12:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Based onthis declined submission, I believeWP:NOTHERE should be considered. At the very least, Connii93 should not be editing BLPs.KyleJoan^talk13:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think based on KyleJoan's repeated warning and reports against him. He shouldn't be editing BLPs. KylieJoan has multiple warnings from Wikipedia. While I have none. Also that was my first article and only article that I created. That's not a warning, like the many KyleJoan has. It was declined because it needs more information. Not enough yet and nothing is wrong with that.Connii93 (talk)13:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This user: KyleJoan is reverting an unknown user who doesn't have an account (and goes by their IP address)166.194.204.33 back. That also lets you know KyleJoan shouldn't be editing. Tina Knowles being anLouisiana Creole is very accurately sourced. He just doesn't want her to be one. He wants her to beAfrican American.Connii93 (talk)13:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Well, first of all, Louisiana Creole is not a racial designator, so there is no problem with Knowles actuallybeing African-American (indeed, Louisiana Creoles can be ofany racial group). However, neither the current sentence ("She is an African-American of Louisiana Creole heritage.") nor Connii93's "mixed-race" version is actually sourced, so it should eitherbe sourced or it should be removed completely.Black Kite (talk)13:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Louisiana Creole is an ethnicity. Tina Knowles is mixed race not African American. I disagree with you saying the mixed race part isn’t accurately sourced because Louisiana Creoles are mixed. But even when I only stated that she is of Louisiana Creole ancestry: “She is of Louisiana Creole descent.” KyleJoan & an unknown user kept on saying the following: “She is an African-American of Louisiana Creole heritage.”Connii93 (talk)13:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's an ethnic group but it's not a racial designator. Louisiana Creoles are not necessarily mixed-race (they can be, but they can be any other race as well). Simplybeing of Creole heritage does notmake someone mixed-race.Black Kite (talk)14:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  TheNYT ref says the Knowles family has "deep Creole roots" and that Tina Knowles says she's "always been proud to be black".KyleJoan^talk13:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Connii93 isstill edit warring onTroian Bellisario.[97] Since that's acceptable, I'll refrain from this dispute entirely.KyleJoan^talk13:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I'm looking at that now as well. On this article, an actual "African-American" source would be better (after all, not all Black people are of African heritage).Black Kite (talk)14:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Here’s Beyoncé talks about her heritage in a Vogue magazine:https://www.vogue.com/article/beyonce-september-issue-2018Connii93 (talk)13:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  KyleJoan is trying to use the outdated slave one drop rule for Louisiana Creoles. Just because someone has one drop of black in them doesn’t mean to erase their other parts & make them black.Connii93 (talk)14:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked OK, I've seen enough. Connii93 is not using sources and in some cases is actively altering text to what sources donot say. KyleJoan - a source for that Knowles sentence would be good, though - it is after all a BLP.Black Kite (talk)14:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page as well.Daniel Case (talk)19:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Page:2024 Green Party presidential primaries (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Alexcasperphilly (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [99]
2. [100]
3. [101]
4. [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[103]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[104]

Comments:
This user continually, and against consensus, attempts to add poorly-sourced edits to add candidates which do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the article, and then attempts to move the goalpost and change the requirements. The user in question continually accuses other editors of "projecting white supremacy" and censoring minority voices. I believe this user is acting in bad faith.

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk)21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Page:Jean-Pierre Pury (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Sapphorain (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [105] December 31, 2023
2. [106] December 31, 2023
3. [107] December 31, 2023
4. [108] January 1, 2024
5. [109] January 1, 2024

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[110]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[111]

Comments:
This same conversation had already taken place before, with this same user, on another article (David de Pury), so it is the second time experiencing this conflict in regards to Swiss nationality in biographies with this editor. No consensus has been reached. -Willthacheerleader18 (talk)15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of72 hours.@Willthacheerleader18: I have not blocked you, but very much considered it due to your part in the edit warring. When there's a disagreement that cannot be resolved, there aredispute resolution options available such asWP:3O or if 3O does not resolve the issue,Wikipedia:Requests for comment (in this instanceWikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies). Please take this as a warning to not engage in edit wars yourself when it's known that there is a dispute like this. -Aoidh (talk)19:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Page:Japan Airlines Flight 516 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff 1
2. Diff 2
3. Diff 3
4. Diff 4
5. Diff 5
6. Diff 6
7. Diff 7

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. User Talk
2. JAL Talk Topic

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[112]

Comments:

At the time of these edits, the consensus was that hull loss was an inappropriate term to use. That consensus has now changed, so the latest edits do not need to be reverted. However, the user still performed >3 reverts within 24 hours, across multiple disputed terms.

I don't *think* I performed >3 RR - here's the 3 I believe I've done, but if I did do a 4th I will accept a block as well of course.

1. Diff 1
2. Diff 2
3. Diff 3

Timtjtim (talk)18:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to take no action at this time, assuming there are no subsequent reverts by PCK. This is in large part due to them having made no reverts afterreplying to the closest thing to a 3RR warning I see on their page. —C.Fred (talk)18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Declined per C.Fred.Daniel Case (talk)19:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:COLTashrif1499 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193344224 byGotitbro (talk)"
2. 09:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193343921 byGotitbro (talk) It is evident thatAtisa was member ofChandra Dynasty ofSamatata which comprises modern dayMunshiganj andComilla area there is no speculation at here about his early life"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC) to 09:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
   1. 09:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193343582 byGotitbro (talk) Bikrampur is situated in at present dayMunshiganj it is not even speculated anymore"
   2. 09:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193343692 byGotitbro (talk)"
4. 09:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193292944 byGotitbro (talk) Don't change without explanation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated appeals to start a Talk page discussions in edit summaries went unheeded, the editor (apparently new though, logged out IP editing/warring is visible in other articles) refuses to familiariaze himself with the given topic or even look at the contextual information within sources or the given article and has resorted battleground edit warring in enforcing edits on the given article.Gotitbro (talk)09:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for making the concern. I am here to say, I did not involved warring in consent to make a battle edit but rather correct the source in proper way. In case ofAtisa, he was indeed born inBikrampur which is currently in modern dayBangladesh. I only corrected his early life source rather than touching other topics about him. Besides that, I acknowledge the policies and only make sure to observe and correct if needed of currently all theBengalis I encounter, (if not fromBangladesh). I apologize if I did anything wrong and would not repeat the mistakes again. RegardsCOLTashrif1499 (talk)09:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Your IP socking (Special:Contributions/142.113.138.93) is not helping your case here. Besides I have started a discussion at the talk page which you refused to do so repeatedly.Gotitbro (talk)10:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As the edit was restored by the IP minutes after COLT promised to stop, I've started an SPI:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COLTashrif1499 —Czello^(music)10:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not my IPCOLTashrif1499 (talk)10:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• AtWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COLTashrif1499 I blocked the user for two weeks and the IP for one month.--Bbb23 (talk)14:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Page:2024 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193379477 byHeathy94 (talk) Domestic"
2. 03:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC) "How many times do we have to do this before these idiots realize it's domestic"
3. 21:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193251390 byUsername1928374 (talk) No, it's not noteworthy. It's one person, and there are other Palestinian deaths who have not had a mention."
4. 20:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC) "Domestic"

Comments:

The editor persists in engaging in edit warring, disregarding previous warnings to address content disputes through the talk page at adeclined RFPP request. Editor waswarned regarding these edits byFirefangledfeathers. It appears that this editor is one of thoseexhibiting behavior akin to page ownership.33ABGirl (talk)15:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of48 hours.Bbb23 (talk)16:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Page:Josh Cahill (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. as IP
2. 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1193389398 byCzello (talk) Talk page shows a clear support to not include nationality and name, how come this is constantly ignored. This doesn't seem contructive at all."
3. 16:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC) "None of the sources provided state Josh Cahill in the source and talk page shows clear support to not include nationality or name. Until now none of the 3 individuals have been able to produce any proof and ignore ongoing discussion."
4. [113]
5. [114]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:[115] and[116]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[117]

Comments:

User was reported here very recently for the exact same edit war and was warned[118] User has been edit warring on this article for a couple of weeks now, against the consensus on the talk page. I'm bringing this to EWN before 3RR is violated as it's clear they aren't going to stop. They are almost certainly making logged out edits on139.28.84.5 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log) (as well as others) based on the timing in order to circumvent 3RR. —Czello^(music)16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

3RR has in fact been violated.ChaotıċEnby(t ·c)17:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Aye, it hadn’t been when I wrote that but now there's no doubt. —Czello^(music)17:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

PingingToBeFree as they dealt with this last time. —Czello^(music)16:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hours –bradv17:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Page:Power set (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Tzv06887‎ (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

History of the user's reverts:[119]

History of edit warring / 3RR warnings:[120]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Power set#Python implementation

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[121]

Comments:
Tzv06887‎ is aWP:SPA[122] who is edit-warring for including his Python program inPower set: 11 additions (without any summary) of their out-of-scope Python program, which was reverted by four different editors (including myself). Tzv06887‎ got three warnings on their talk page, to which they answered three times by blanking their talk page. No answer atTalk:Power set#Python implementation. This is not only a case ofWP:edit warring, but the refusal of any discussion shows thatthis is also a case ofWP:NOTHERE.D.Lazard (talk)16:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)