I'm not going to block for one edit; what does it mean? A machine translation of the subject header works, but I tried the body and got nothing.--Bbb23 (talk)17:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
“Breed of a beggar, dog. Breed of Bengali medium. You know nothing about wiki edit(with slangs), why have you come here? Tell me Where do u live? Otherwise I’ll call army and peel your skin. Breed of roadside slum.”
N.B chasa, baal has no English translation but a serious slangs inBengali language, I’ve not added this in the translation.
That's disgusting. Unfortunately, a range block that encompasses both IPs is too wide and has too much collateral damage. I've rev/deleted the posts and semi-protected your Talk page for one day.--Bbb23 (talk)17:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[12]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[13]
Comments: I do not often use ANI, as I feel that it is far preferable to discuss and find a peaceful resolution, but in this case I feel my hand has been forced. I attempted to speak with the edit warring editor many times, and even asked them to self revert on many occassions, both on their own talk page as well as the article in question's talk page. They mockingly said "Have fun I guess." about coming to ANI, though I would have much rather we continued to discuss the subject and the sources in dispute on the talk page. At this point they are 5 edits in to a edit war and I politely stopped at 3 edits so as not to violateWP:3RR. I am a bit surprised it came to this and I apologize in advance to any admin who may now need to block the offending editor and revert to the prior consensus and stable lead on the article which had been present for many months before this editor aggressively became involved just today.— Precedingunsigned comment added byIljhgtn (talk •contribs)
Well, the first edit is just a crappy source that I randomly found pop up in a change on my watchlist. The two edits are consecutive. I have attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page and offer a resolution. But since this seems to be a slow-motion edit war by OP going backmonths, we may have some OWN issues to unpack.GMGtalk18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
And again, I would just say that any points to be made should be made on the article talk page, but that reverting 5 times (or 4 depending on how you count them), still is in violation of the 3RR rule which is pretty clear and strict.Iljhgtn (talk)18:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I see three reverts,1.2, and3.This maybe could maybe be a revert, depending on how long that source has been sitting in the article and if you're squinting hard enough. Iljhgtn also has made three reverts.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)18:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
This edit counts as a partial revert not of the full text with all sources included but absolutely includes the primary material being discussed in the talk page.Iljhgtn (talk)18:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The request currently stands out there for the editor to self-revert and for the discussion to resume on the article talk page.Iljhgtn (talk)18:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Where have you been in this discussion since you mentioned that this article is on your talk page? My first seeing you there was today, and you proceeded to force a new version of the lead and revert in rapid succession to your desired version. Again, I am happy to discuss this on the article talk page if you would self-revert and continue the discussion there.Iljhgtn (talk)18:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
If you dispute a single source, I think that made sense for removal, due to the letter submission aspect of it, but in general I think it would have been best to discuss further on the talk page as well as maybe provide some reliable sources of your own or dispute the content of the other sources at the point of the talk page, and not simply to angrily enter into a series of reverts.
Cool. Go...like...get consensus. Just because you made a change and reverted it for a year and half doesn't mean you have consensus.GMGtalk19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Consensus is not always clear, and does not always merely side with a majority. Consensus is also reflected at least in part by reflecting what the reliable sources say. All I have asked is that we have a discussion around the reliable sources, and you self-revert in the meantime. Your response has been only to be dismissive and to not engage with the point raised, which is that we mustWP:STICKTOTHESOURCES.Iljhgtn (talk)19:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
User uses disingenuous edit summaries ("Edit Citation") to reassert edits[14], as noted by the difference between successive attempts[15] (addition of three do-nothing spaces to cite template).signed,Willondon (talk)18:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments: I made the table, so of course I would like to keep it in, but at this point neither the IP nor Hippo43 seems interested in a discussion at all. Please end this month-long edit war. :-(Mathnerd314159 (talk)00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
03:36, 3 January 2025 "Because you can’t use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent. Crunchy roll is a Joint venture of SPT and Aniplex"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: Hello, here I have a user who still removing the infobox field from articles related to streaming services, media companies, conglomerates, etc., without reason, explicitly saying that it should not be used to indicate which top-level property if It is different from the parent company if all this is demonstrated with or without sources than if they actually own the same company.64.32.125.197 (talk)07:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Because Crunchyroll is under Crunchyroll LLC. and is a “JOINT VENTURE” of both Sony Pictures Television and Aniplex. SPT is under Sony Pictures Entertainment which is under Sony Entertainment which is under Sony of America and the parent compamy Sony corporation. Aniplex is under Sony Music Japan which is under Sony Corporation. So yeah, Sony is not the direct owner of Crunchyroll. It’s owned through a joint venture, so that’s why i removed sony from owners fieldGachaDog (talk)05:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of48 hours First, Gacha's reported reverts are a) stale at this point and b) spread out over a period of several days so they would not have been a violation even if reported in a timely fashion. Second, in the interim, 64.32 has clearly violated 3RR in the last day or so. Since editing onall infoboxes is acontentious topic, I have blocked them for 48 hours and alerted them to CTOPS (I left a notice on the article's talk page a while back, also).Daniel Case (talk)05:36, 4 January 2025 (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. There's onlytwo, their first edits to the article in a couple of months. And, if there are issues at other articles, maybe this is properly handled at AN/I.Daniel Case (talk)05:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments:This editor has reverted many useful edits, and most of my edits, other users' edits, without explaining their reverting of edits with citations[18].
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[19], the whole section
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[20]
Comments:
User insists on adding irrelevant material in the lede. Irrelevancy aside, he fails to get consensus to include the challenged material (by 2 users at least in the talk page) perWP:ONUS and edit-wars instead to get it in.
I'd love to add also that he argued that the religion of the suspect in the lede isAbsolutely relevant to the potential motive for the attack and therefore in this[21] edit summary which can only imply that he believes that being a Muslim is enough of a motive to commit terrorist attacks.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Repeated edit warring on multiple pages with multiple users. User has strange knowledge of Wikipedia policy for an account only 5 days old, I would request aCheck User on this individual also.Inexpiable (talk)19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a bad faith report by a user who is seemingly just enraged that I can find guidelines in the manual of style and follow them. They reverted four times atList of people executed in the United States in 2007, where I had removed a redundant restatement of the article's title. Then they evidently decided they would like to bother me more, so reverted an edit I had made several days ago to2017-2019 Saudi Arabian purge, for no reason whatsoever. I find their behaviour to be extremely unpleasant and very consciously harmful to Wikipedia.Jabust (talk)19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jabust I've seen your frivolous edits in multiple pages of "List of people executed in the United States (Yearly)" and I blatantly disagree with your edits.
He isn't "enraged", @Inexpiable is actually right about reporting you, you've made multiple frivolous edits on other pages such asList of people executed in the United States in 2024, in every article, you'd see a "talk" page, which you can discuss about what to edit, and you've blatantly ignore his messages and repeatedly purging his message in your profile talk page.
In your message, you've stated that his behavior is "extremely unpleasant", but apparently, you're the one that is purging his messages in your profile talk page as stated above, ignoring his verbal warning, therefore, you are being condescending by doing so.
You're currently blocked by @EvergreenFir for 24 hours, next time before proceeding to edit, please kindly used the "talk" page to discuss before proceeding to make frivolous edits.TheCheapTalker (talk)19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jabust: I am not the one continuing to revert edits. You found the guidelines on the manual of style only 4 days after creating a brand new account??? That is extremely suspicious. You also refused to even discuss the matter and just reverted all the edits. I undid my edit on theList of people executed in the United States in 2007 in good faith because I am not continuing to edit war unlike yourself.Inexpiable (talk)19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
I understand I should have discussed this but I can't seem to find the discussion page.
I think some people are talking a Wikipedia page personally. Especially the anti Islam users.
A translation for the name chosen by Allah in his holy revelation to humanity sounds illogical to me. Do you use the translation of your name when you travel to a new country?
It's very clear some people are deliberately ignorant because of their personal beliefs. I am surprised this is even allowed from a non Muslim to edit a page about Islam. Clearly you're doing what you like. This is a Wikipedia page where people come to learn. How would they even say the Shahada if you misguide them like this. The Shahada must be said with the True name Allah.Zyn225 (talk)18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Zyn225: The place to discuss your change is atTalk:Shahada. The reasons I'm not blocking you for edit-warring is because you are new and because you were not warned about edit-warring. I must also tell you, though, your idea of how Wikipedia works is wrong. We work by consensus, not by an editor's personal beliefs. Also, we do not restrict editors from voting on articles because of their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even their "expertise" in the subject matter. You arewarned that if you return to edit-warring, you risk being blocked without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk)19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
New yes but if I knew this is how information is served to normal people I would have stopped coming to this site ages ago. So let's be logical about the Shahada; the Testimony. So basically according to editors and consensus if someone says "There's no God but God" and "Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the servant and messenger of God" -- th
FYI Prophet Muhammad did not even know the word "GOD". This is not the message that the messenger delivered. The Holy revealation; The Holy Quran is very clear about the identity of Allah. If you make a translation of the name you literally misguide everyone including yourself. This needn't debating when you think of it. Basically if a non Muslim from Siberia would come to Shahada page they'd get a word that English speakers non Muslims use. No Muslim uses the word "God" not in the Adhan, not in the prayers. Somethings should be transliterated otherwise it's misinterpretation. Also some translators in hope of selling religion and making people believe have normalized using the word God. Because let's be honest there is some kind of fear in some non Muslims when used the word Allah.
Well what can I say except that everything would be clear when our soul reaches the throat. When we become corpses decomposing to skeletons. Then would we believe. Then would we become mindful of our creator. Grateful for every creation of Allah we enjoy everyday and every breath we take without paying anything. Gratitude that is not within disbelievers. Wikipedia needs better management. This is not acceptable that you let whoever hav upe an opinion about things they don't know. What do you except from disbelivers when you put this to vote? Do you expect them to accept the name Allah?Zyn225 (talk)19:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
No disbelievers have the right or the knowledge to educate the world about their creator Allah, and about religion. It's mockery when you do that. I am working with disbelievers; the Shahada should be properly translated so they are properly educated. If you say the translation you made of the Shahada you are not a Muslim. Jibrail (as) brought the word "Allah" with the revelations as per the command of Allah. Its not from Arabic speaking people and their tradition as you've stated.
Listen wether you believe or not believe its your choice, wether you accept or not that too your choice but to put the wrong and misinterpreted knowledge to the mass that's a heinous crime. It seems to me all the fuss and debate about this issue because these editors just can't accept the word Allah. Muslim is someone who submits their will to Allah as every other creation have done. Because the will of Allah is what people call the law of physics but its the law and will of Allah. So a non Muslim disbeliever should go elsewhere and not try to edit an Islamic page.Zyn225 (talk)20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
"There is no God but God" --- is that your translation of the Shahada? Do you realize how illiterate and illogical the translation sounds when you don't use the true name of Allah? Not to mention the above statement is not the Shahada anymore. One of the 3 questions asked in the grave is Who is your Creator/Lord/Ilah/God? The true answer is Allah, I suppose you would not answer them with the very question you would be asked. Majority of humans can not say the truth. Because they did not worship their creator and now we are here trying to debate the Name? Well guess what all these translations would do no help. You would be called a liar. So consider the information people taking from here; it's far from being right and the truth. I do not accept this as a Muslim. How is this even logical that non Muslims are creating and editing topics about Muslims. Like thanks but no thanks. Not like this; misinterpreted to the core.Zyn225 (talk)19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[28]
Comments:
Note attempt to invite user to self-revert 1RR violation. Yes, consensus required is also active on this page, but 1RR is still being violated here.Andre🚐07:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
And in my view the edits make sense and I thought edit warring is wrong, even if you're right? Are you weighing in on the content, or the behavior?Andre🚐21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Wow, this is so petty AndreJustAndre.WP:POINTY vibes. When they brought this up on my talk page, theynoted the tenuous nature of their grievance:Whilethe two edits are slightly different, in both cases you removed the addition of 1885,arguably, two reverts,violating the 1RR sanction on this article, emphasis my own. When theyinvited me to self-revert, Iinvited them to seek consensus on the talk page. Instead, they decided to waste everyone's time at ANEW.
I didn't go in and explain my edits because I didn't think it was worth it, but it appears the first time Iremoved 1885 was accidental as I was trying to manually manage an edit conflict. I thought the only addition was the source. (Pharospointed out on the talk page that AndreJustAndre's information aobut 1885 information was erroneous; AndreJustAndre then felt it wasstill necessary to include 1885 and used wording that makes no sense.إيان (talk)19:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
POINT is when youdisrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. I invited you politely to revert yourself and reminded you of 1RR. Is 1RR waiveable?Andre🚐21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Also it's not at all clear that the 1885 information is erroneous. That's in an active discussion on talk.Andre🚐21:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, if I see correctly, this complaint is mostly about formalities. I can do this too. Where was the reported user formally notified about the contentious topic restrictions in this area?~ ToBeFree (talk)05:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
He was in 2021:[30] [05:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)] Nvm, that's another area. [05:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)] He was warned in 2021[31] for unrelated area. I'll withdraw this report since user was never warned of A-I sanctions that I can tell. That is my mistake. I've seen him around this area a lot but apparently, nobody ever warned him. Have now done so.Andre🚐05:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "If you believe that my intentions are chauvinism, then you are mistaken, for the previous sentencing implies to misinform the general audience. My intention is to present what is the truth and what goes on a global scale as well as the status of the Eastern nagari -script. Bengalis are not the only ones who call this the "Bengali script", even though officially this should be called the "Eastern Nagari script". Both Bengalis and the layman global public sphere refer this as the "Bengali script"."
21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "The reference indeed mentions "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'", because certainly an ethnic group will attribute the script/alphabet they utilise as THEIRS but it still disregards on what goes internationally and how people approach this script in general; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The point still stands within the limitation of the reference and takes this terminology on a broader scale."
21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "It is apparent that the reference hasn't been utilised correctly. The sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis" is simply incorrect, for it emphasizes that ONLY Bengalis are the one who refer this script as the "Bengali script". The reference study attached to this sentence says otherwise; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", which should tell you that not only Bengalis refer this as the "Bengali script", when non-Bengalis do it too."
Makes changes to longstanding version to contentious topic, removes source, doesn't abide byWP:BRD, keeps edit warring and even when discussion has started in the talk page. Note similar POV removal dated10 December 2023 and also the use of minor (m) in some of the edits which are notWP:MINOR.Fylindfotberserk (talk)22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
One editor is repeatedly restoring unsourced content to lead that is currently under discussion on talk page. Including me, two editors have reverted their edits and three editors have objected to the content on the talk page. –notwally (talk)04:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Listen.
Notwally, you started this whole ordeal by reverting everyone's edits without taking any into consideration, and attempting to bludgeon the talk page with your comments. You have also broken 3RR rule multiple times. Now stop please.Æ's old account wasn't working (talk)04:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
You can make up whatever narratives you want. I think your contributions to the talk page discussion speak for themselves. If you think I have violated a policy, then feel free to provide that evidence. You have also now made 5 reverts in 24 hours[34]. –notwally (talk)04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[41]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[42]
Comments:
Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "a [[meteorite]] containing an [[anthropomorphic]] alien [[hedgehog]]" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words"red-striped black hedgehog" at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for thefictional hedgehog in question). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself,User:Carlinal andUser:Barry Wom, citingMOS:OVERLINK as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article.silviaASH(inquire within)12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert atSonic the Hedgehog 2 to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page.Barry Wom (talk)15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Wikipedia works" today they have gone back to reverting it again.Belbury (talk)18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments:This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion.Vestrian24Bio02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it...Vestrian24Bio02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1267996553 byHipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[55] he removed my warning for whatever reason
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[56]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[57]
Comments: Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (Someguywhosbored (talk)15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
Comment: This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question,History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request[58] because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources[59][60][61][62], despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason[63]. Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article[64]. Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin[65].
Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request [31] because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources [32][33][34][35], despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out[66]. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy.Someguywhosbored (talk)16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here.Someguywhosbored (talk)16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined Garudam, whois aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, hassaid he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order.Daniel Case (talk)23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[70]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[71]
Comments:
I editedChild sexual abuse in the United Kingdom and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced followingWikipedia:Edit warring#How to avoid an edit war. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
WP:AVOIDEDITWAR This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page.NotQualified (talk)01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They have been warned before about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Wikipedia regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked perWP:NOTHERE. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for exampleTalk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024 (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do.Hemiauchenia (talk)01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Wikipedia regarding British politics."
Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock ofReform UK abuse scandal, amongst other things.James McMurdock#Assault conviction
Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked perWP:NOTHERE."
Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin withNotQualified (talk)02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one momentNotQualified (talk)02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@NotQualified: Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--Bbb23 (talk)02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm still learning how to format on Wikipedia, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page.NotQualified (talk)02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
I add templates to an article with faults
The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing [propaganda]" recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
I notify the user
I am not familiar with all the protocols of Wikipedia so my report is messy
Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysisNotQualified (talk)02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."
It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped.80.200.232.89 (talk)02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it.80.200.232.89 (talk)02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors.MrOllie (talk)03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources.80.200.232.89 (talk)04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you.MrOllie (talk)04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself.Zenomonoz (talk)03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article 'heritability of IQ' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws80.200.232.89 (talk)04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
04:26 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
04:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
04:43 9 January 2025 (UTC): "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
Comments: Taken from theANI report i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
Ger2024 has beenWikipedia:Edit warring and violatedWP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possiblyWP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them tonot engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Wikipedia user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I thinkWP:SPA might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within38 minutes after being inactive sinceMay 18th, 2024 based off theiruser contributions history.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[77] (7 January 2025)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[78]
Comments: The user was warned multiple times to not insertpoorly sourcedcontentious material in a page which is aliving person's biography. Despite this, the user has continued to insertoriginal research, while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.
I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk)19:41, 8 January 2025 (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. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant).Daniel Case (talk)23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the userCNMall41 has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted.Shecose (talk)09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
That is becauseCNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if thisis block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable.~ ToBeFree (talk)19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither forG5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer.~ ToBeFree (talk)19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I realize the policy states,An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right?This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation.Shecose (talk)07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime.~ ToBeFree (talk)19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[84]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[85]
Comments:
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating[86]. Threats to report my 3RR message[87]. Is this how unwelcoming Wikipedia is supposed to be?PhilipPirrip (talk)09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "←Created page with '== January 2025 == Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read abouthow this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You didn't read theMOS:TVCAST carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources.JRGuevarra (talk)03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user was not following theMOS:TVCAST correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing.JRGuevarra (talk)03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!!Winaldcruz088 (talk)03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED.Winaldcruz088 (talk)03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The latter four reverts were made within a two hour period and therefore a clear violation of the three revert rule. In each of these reverts they were restoring "several" as an estimate despite it being completely unsourced. In their reverts they claimed that the sources cited such as Amnesty International and NBC news are "clearly biased and politically motivated". They further claimed that "thousands" which I added from the sources was unsourced even though I quoted the relevant text from Amnesty. They were warned four days before for edit warring over this exact issue on the relatedRuhollah Khomeini. User:HistoryofIranreverted them and told them to go talk. They also warned them for edit warring but Taha Danesh quicklydeleted the notice. A couple days later Taha Danesh resumed edit warring this time on Ebrahim Raisi.
18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) ""These are all poorly sourced" sources are taken from the respective wiki pages for each dish. They are properly sourced. The Arab, Indian, and Chinese sections were not even sourced, and you're okay with that."
17:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Please note that there is more to the story than just Upin Ipin. I kindly request that you review the entire content before making any changes. Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from reverting the edits solely because of the inclusion of Upin Ipin, as it is only one aspect of the broader context."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[118]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[119]
Comments: Not a 3RR violation, but definitely slow-burn edit warning. RobinCarmody has repeatedly edited in redundant, clumsy andWP:POINTy phrasing into the sentence. I have explained why I don't think it is necessary or valid on the talk page. He is free to disagree of course, but a resolution cannot be reached by avoiding the dsicussion. After 20 years on Wikipedia he should know the ropes by now.Betty Logan (talk)13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Indefinitely pblocked. In addition to the edit-warring, the user's failure to discuss their edits on the article Talk page is concerning. Also, the user should use edit summaries, particularly when reverting other users. The user has some 16K edits, of which just a bit over 4% include edit summaries. Edit summaries are not required, but many unexplained edits are looked at with suspicion.--Bbb23 (talk)16:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
19:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Rollback to last version of this article approved by senior wikipedia editors, please go to talkpage and build consensus before further edits"
19:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1269039619 byNatGertler (talk) This will have to go to the talkpage, as at the moment it is looking like a concerted attempt by certain editors to whitewash a sexual offence. The current edit is absolutely ridiculous, making it look as if Ritter knew he was speaking to a police officer. To the talkpage."
06:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Omitting the sentence entirely like what we have done withThe NeverEnding Story I feel might be the best strategy, seeing as both films have wildly differing RT and MC scores."
This editor was banned last week for 7 days after 5 reverts about this same content (link). They have now made 5 reverts again today, the first day that their block ended. They have barely contributed to the extensive talk page discussion, where other editors have been working towards a consensus. –notwally (talk)23:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
You are already at 5 reverts on the day your block for making 5 reverts about the same content ended, and now you are also sending out 3RR notices to other editors such as me[125] (despite me only reverting twice, as there were 2 other editors who also reverted you today). The talk page discussion has been ongoing for over a month, and I think your contribution there so far speak for themselves. –notwally (talk)23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
You only seem to focus on my contributions to reverting the changes, not my contributions to the talk page discussion. If you want this edit war to end, best you stop by on the talk page to do some civil discussion.Æ's old account wasn't working (talk)00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Æ, you madeyourfirst contribution to the talk page discussion three minutes before writing this reply. You aren't really in a position to demands others "stop by on the talk page" when it took four reverts from three different editors before you did the same.–Rhain☔(he/him)00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I guess my ADHD brain thinks reverting is better than discussion on the talk page. At this point I don't even know why I keep edit warring. Maybe I have inherited this "bludgeoning" from my father. Don't know anymore. I just don't.
Since Æ's old account wasn't working cannot keep himself from reverting on this article even after having been previously blocked from edit warring at the same article, I've partially blocked him from the article for a month. If he gets talk page consensus for the disputed edits prior to the block expiring let me know and I'll lift the block.--Ponyobons mots00:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected for a period ofthree months This has been going on regularly since the last protection expired, and got really fierce lately. Since the article comes under ARBIPA, I will leave a CTOPS notice on talk.
Even though this can be considered a low-intensity edit war, Boackandwhite'sseeminginability to understand Wikipedia's sourcing/content policies and insistence on reverting to restore the perceived"truth" to our article, coupled with a break in communication from this user, has reached a point where some kind of administrative action may be warranted. Thank you for your consideration.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."
No it’s not a 3RR violation - but it’s a user that’s consistently edit warring across multiple pages and refusing to engage in talk pages, which is why I believe it still belongs on the edit warring noticeboard.
11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Posting the photo of a deceased tagged to such an intense tragic story would greatly hurt the family. Imagine this is your daughter mug shot, killed by her husband, with her summarised tragic story plastered for the world to see. All I did was to remove her picture and you youngsters spare no effort in reverting it."
11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "This man, worked hard his whole life, faithful his entire life, fell ill to a mental illness, does not deserve to have his face tagged to a summarised wrong version of the story for the entire world to see. Imagine this is your brother, who spent his old age in agony. Are you sure this is the right thing to do? What good does it serve to publish pictures of an old case other than to serve what grandiose ideology?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1269714333 byMikeAllen (talk) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there.
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This is an ad hominem attack: "POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there." I would appreciate if Avatar317 would please stop with the ad hominem attacks in the edit summaries. They violateWP:NPA.
I agree with some of Avatar317's removals. Other removals seemed to be stalking to see where I added the chart. The regular editors of articles are capable of making up their own minds.
I addressed Avatar317's points in my edit summaries. But he sometimes did not address my points in his 2nd reversions.
Every article I reverted you on was on my Watchlist. I did not (yet) go through the list of your edits other than to count them.
You've been around long enough that you should know that perWP:ONUS "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."; so you COULD have started discussions rather than continuing to push that content into all those articles.
And youcould have addressed my points in your 2nd edit summary instead of doing a kneejerk 2nd reversion in some cases without directly addressing my points. That would save some time before going to the talk page.
All of your "points" are Original ResearchWP:OR based on your BELIEF that the chart is relevant to the 36 articles you added it to. Again: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
And if you post the same content into many articles, I will revert those which are inappropriate the same way I would go over a new editor's edits who adds spam to many articles. In case you can't tell, I have an interest in Economics, and keeping extraneous content out of Wikipedia. Hounding would be following you to articles OTHER than ones I have an interest in. ---Avatar317(talk)01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[154]
Comments: Single purpose account dedicated to removing relevant and properly sourced content. Their only excuse is: "guys im gonna be honest idk why im doing this".Sundayclose (talk)17:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide completediffs.Daniel Case (talk)20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
It's an IP that has no will for encyclopedic cooperation. Since when do we need to open discussions with them? I've seen admins blocking IPs by other users just notifying them on their talkpage. And I did provide diffs.AlexBachmann (talk)20:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I know it seems bureaucratic, but we have that form fora reason. It makes it much easier to review these reports. It shouldn't take you too much time to re-enter it properly.Daniel Case (talk)20:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1270003652 byTerrainman ([[User talk Sorry, but they don't stand up historically.To claim that stout is a strong version of mild ale is just embarrassing!"
You have not linked to efforts to make a compromise or even warned other editors that they might be edit warring. "Nationalistic Indians" is a very serious thing to say and I suggest that you focus on the content and less about the nationality of the editors involved.331dot (talk)10:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[166]
Comments:
It seems like the user indeed adds suitable content for content that relates to Serbia. Therefore, a topic ban for Kosovo and Albania would be convenient. I don't know if that's possible here, though.AlexBachmann (talk)23:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[174]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[175]
Comments: This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuineWP:BLP concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable.ElKevbo (talk)12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Editor wasasked to respect BRD andwarned that one more revert would result in them being reported for breaching 3RR. They made the fourth revert immediately after responding to the warning.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[176]
Comments:
User:Thomediter, I am going to revert your last (fourth) revert; you are indeed edit warring and you're not giving any reasons for your edits, never mind for your ongoing reverts. If you revert one more time you will be blocked. Please don't let it get that far. Seek the talk page.Drmies (talk)17:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments:The last revert follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert:[181].JBL (talk)17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Both editors blocked Rauzoi for 36 hours and Crasias for 24 (one less revert over the limit).3RRNO does not cover this. Furthermore ...
Page protected Extended-confirmed for a week since, as both editors are autoconfirmed only, they will not be able to resume hostilities once the blocks expire. The talk page hasn't been used in months.Daniel Case (talk)23:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Eu não sou essa pessoa que você está a citar eu comecei a alterar essa página essa e a minhas primeiras vezes , eu estou alteração está página porque eu gosto de ver a área da ZEE de cada país um abaixo do outro ."
01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of each country in the world, please don't make changes"
01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of each country in the world, please don't make changes"
00:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Eu não vou mais fazer alteração se deixar o Rankings by area porque eu gosto de Rankings by area"
07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270112351 byNoorullah21 (talk): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.."
23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements.
Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leavingthe Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimedthe victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhicvictory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -Lee, (calls it a phyrric Afghan victory), and Hussain isn't on google scholars."
This is not the first time they are edit warring and breaking 3RR, they were previously warned by an admin[192]. There seems to be a habit of them continuously misinterpreting the sources[193][194] and pushing certain PoVs. They have opted for 3O by themselves but disagreed with the opinion given.Indo-Greek12:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Im not that involved(haven’t reverted anybody, just made a comment on the talk page). As a word of advice because so many people seem to forget this fact, when your adding disputed content, ONUS is on you to attain consensus. Which hasn’t happened here.
“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”
It seems that you yourself were also edit warring, except your the one who’s adding disputed content so per ONUS, you were never supposed to revert him to begin with. You need to wait until talk page discussions conclude and gain consensus.Someguywhosbored (talk)15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
A. The instance you pointed out was an administrator warning me for one revert on the History of India page. (Talking to Indo-Greek, the person who reported and I had a dispute with here..)
B. When the individual hasn't concluded theirWP:3O, you immediately reverted the page again saying they did. There's still a very open discussion with the user... (They've even edited the page most recently!.. I'd also like to remind youWP:3O is non binding even when the opinion is given, meaning whether they say either or is in the right.. the dispute can still continue until aConsensus can be made. The burden of proof is on you forWP:ONUS (you also kept readding a nonWP:RS source.. (Farrukh Hussain). I pointed outWP:3O as a solution, and you keep reverting the page far before they've given their opinion. Lee... (this is now bringing the argument from the talk page here..) calls it a phyrric victory.Noorullah (talk)16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
This seems likeWP:TAGTEAM, but anyways. The admin had warned you for the same edit warring issue, not 1RR. You had asked for 3O which an editor eventually gave one[198] quoting:I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans" which was later discarded by you which is fine, but if other editors accusing you for overlooking the source and found you contradicting yourself then you should have been more cautious rather than outrightly reverting my changes.Indo-Greek16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Have you not read the rest of the discussion..? theWP:3O is being discussed.
I also didn't violate the 3 revert rule. I didn't revert 4 times, I reverted 3 times. Although of course, this seems to be more inclined toward edit warring, which both of us did.
@Someguywhosbored has just jumped into the discussion (and they seem to be more in favor of my argument) -- per their most recent talk page msg on the battle of jamrud, which shows a growing consensus on my side? .. Nonetheless, I still find this report baseless.Noorullah (talk)17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Both of us did No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go throughWP:3RR, don't confuse it withWP:4RR. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign ofWP:MEAT.Indo-Greek19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
What?
"No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR" -- Yes, I'm talking about myself.. I reverted 3 times, to break the 3rr rule, you have to revert more than three times (i.e 4 times) "An editor must not performmore than three reverts on a single page" -- I also self reverted per the former.
"Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to?" -- He responded on the talk page (of the page), he responded here, and he also re-reverted the page.
"The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT." - Are you insinuating @Someguywhosbored is a Meatpuppet? Because you've drawn effectively numerous flanks into the air on what this report is really about.
A. In your edit summary you said the Third opinion was concluded.. (it wasn't.)
B. You report here for 3rr (when 3rr wasn't violated, and I'm assuming this is more inclined toward edit war..?)
C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?
I'm sorry but there's no way this discussion is remaining civil anymore. Did you even read the Meatpuppet page?"The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."
You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours.Indo-Greek21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of breaking 3RR, I'm saying you reverted three times. To break 3RR it has to be four reverts. (you have to revert more than three times). Your reverts were also in a 24 hour period. (Or just shy of it?)
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. As noted in theloooong discussion above, which again proves that using the talk page is a much preferable alternative to taking it over here. Also, this is getting a bit stale.Daniel Case (talk)12:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[214]
Comments: User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding thelight middleweight andmiddleweight divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing,MOS:BOXING, says to only include weight classes in which a boxer hasnotably competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division waswelterweight for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.
As far as middleweight goes, Benn hasnever competed anywhere close to that weight class. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings,WP:CRYSTAL andWP:V should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we hada similar RfC regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance.WP:IAR would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles.Mac Dreamstate (talk)18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It continues:[215], this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page.Mac Dreamstate (talk)00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy.Mac Dreamstate (talk)19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better.~ ToBeFree (talk)19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
All I did was self-reverting, the article had no significant history before my contribution. What you are describing as "copy-pasting", is me putting my own creation in a new page. As I have explained in many places, in theWP:Teahouse, and elsewhere. My rationale is very simple, Wikipedia must distinguish betweenvalid-article-creators andredirect-page-creators. I currently count as the latter. Which don't think is fair.Xpander (talk)08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of72 hoursLike Wikishovel, I am mystified—no, make itstunned—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that thepage creation log isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something thesoftware does, that by design no one has control over.Wetman is going to get credit for creating thepage, yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created thearticle by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.
19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1270059834 by25 Cents FC (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1270040967 byRatnahastin (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
01:28 15 January 2025 "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
Page protected I also note the user has been alerted to CTOPS, which I protected the page under, so there will be no room for argument if this behavior continues.Daniel Case (talk)23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Hellothe user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from theSoka Gakkai page. He's been pursuing an edit war on theDissidence page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times.— Precedingunsigned comment added byRaoul mishima (talk •contribs)19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand the user always keep targeting me. I am more of a silence contributor. I had seen how the complainant had argue with other contributor in other talk page and after a while the complainant stay silent and not touching certain topic and instead keep making edit on articles related toSoka Gakkai orDaisaku Ikeda. Now, he is making a lot of edit onSoka Gakkai International.Kelvintjy (talk)05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1270880207 byEF5 (talk) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source listWP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Anti-Defamation_League"
@Objective3000 So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page.Ergzay (talk)18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:3RR: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. – Muboshgu (talk)19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience.Ergzay (talk)19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page.Ergzay (talk)19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:3RR:There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons. –RodRabelo7 (talk)19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that.Ergzay (talk)19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change.Ergzay (talk)19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war.O3000, Ret. (talk)19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves.O3000, Ret. (talk)19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Wikipedia is gonna be Wikipedia.Ergzay (talk)21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is gonna be Wikipedia. If your argument is that Wikipedia is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3.O3000, Ret. (talk)22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
This is an incorrect characterization of the discussion. The people you were edit warring with said, correctly, that he was accused of having made what looks like the Nazi salute. As you know from the video and the sources provided, this is objectively correct. You just don't like the fact that reliable sources said this about him. Nobody is trying to put "Elon Musk is a Nazi" in the article.MilesVorkosigan (talk)23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion,"I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it",[221] I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR whenpreviously warned for edit warring in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive ofWP:NOTGETTINGIT. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the generalWP:NOTHERE based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner.CNC (talk)23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given thatsome of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that coversall edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with theletter, but not thespirit, of 3RR (In other words, another case ofwhy we can't have nice things)) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS.Daniel Case (talk)00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision.O3000, Ret. (talk)00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents.CNC (talk)00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Wikipedia and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Wikipedia at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking.Ergzay (talk)09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
"Wikipedia at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources" SeeWP:VNT.Daniel Case (talk)19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
07:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "there is no consensus in talk. there is no government election today that uses your exact Droop. it is not what Droop says his quota was"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
68.150.205.46, thanks for self-reverting. Can you agree not to re-add the same material until a real consensus is found? AnRfC could help.~ ToBeFree (talk)00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
No violationIljhgtn andGreenMeansGo, take the discussion elsewhere.EvergreenFir(talk)19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Already blocked~ ToBeFree (talk)03:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period ofone week Both editors, from the article.Daniel Case (talk)05:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Warned No 3RR violation and user was warned of the 1RR restriction after their last edit.EvergreenFir(talk)07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected~ ToBeFree (talk)02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely asNOTHERE.Daniel Case (talk)21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined Garudam, whois aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, hassaid he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order.Daniel Case (talk)23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did atHuddersfield sex abuse ring, you may beblocked from editing.FoxtAl (talk)14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
