Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive425

User:197.243.52.141 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Semi)

Page: Second Congo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 197.243.52.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Zimbabwe */"
2. 15:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Foreign supporters of the Congo government */"
3. 15:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Foreign supporters of the Congo government */"
4. 15:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Foreign supporters of the Congo government */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Second Congo War."
2. 15:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Second Congo War."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Angryskies reported by User:Pyrope (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

Discussion started at their talk page rather than the article page, as this seems to be a problem of editor behaviour in general rather than simply a content dispute at this one page. They almost tripped over 3RR on January 7, but obviously decided to resume the edit war a couple of days later (see edits here). Editor seems to be engaged upon a long-running campaign to ensure that they squeeze the UK home country into articles, to what end I don't know. They have tried to quote WP:PLACEDAB at me, but my reading suggests this supports my position rather than theirs. Complete failure to engage and explain their justification other than these brief edit summaries. Pyrope 17:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: All edits have been made in good faith and are factual and within parameters of WP:EL regarding the change from http to https link (which was reverted). "Woking, England." is used in the first sentence of the article without and issue, as this hasn't been reverted. The user has made a couple of disparaging remarks in the body of text: [8] and in edit summaries such as in this example [9] I pointed out WP:NPA in the last edit summary reverting the users previous edit. Angryskies (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I always assume good faith until it is demonstrated that this is not the case. Your failure to engage and justify your edits, despite polite request in line with BRD, was this demonstration, therefore I find your protestation of good faith now to be a little rich. If you don't like having your logic disparaged then perhaps it is time to stop using fallacious logic, and it is certainly time to stop aggressively trying to cow other editors with bluelink policy bafflegab that either doesn't apply (e.g. the EL invocation here) or is counter to your argument. Slinging around policy links without having read and understood same is also an act of demonstrated bad faith. Pyrope 18:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Another example of WP:NPA Angryskies (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as everything I have commented on above was either your edits or your demonstrated behaviour as an editor, it looks like NPA is another policy document that you really ought to familiarize yourself with before throwing out accusations yourself. Pyrope 19:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Angryskies is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at McLaren unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Fredm.ost reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)

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

User being reported: Fredm.ost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Updated. Only change back if you are heavily biased against osteopathy"
2. 11:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Misleading image denoting therapeutic value from osteopathy in regard to a gentleman’s erectile problem. As a public service we shouldn’t confuse people with this problem by intentionally or unintentionally implying that osteopathy can help them"
3. 08:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Osteopaths cannot claim to treat impotence. If you are looking for this type of treatment refer to a medical doctor"
4. 08:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Picture is an example of vandalism and misrepresentation of contemporary osteopathy. Perhaps relevant on a page describing historical therapies"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[10]

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely Blocked indefinitely for socking and edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Freedom over socialism reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Monosodium glutamate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Freedom over socialism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 999951049 by Alexbrn (talk) not natural, please show me one naturally growing non Genetically modified food that contains even trace amount of the full chemical compound C5HgNO4.Na. If you can, I'll gladly oppose my own revision."
2. 19:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 999949248 by Alexbrn (talk)"
3. 19:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 999947896 by Girth Summit (talk) = Auto-Impact"
4. 19:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Corrected untruthful description of MSG naturally occurring in cheese and meat. Added correct chemical composition as per PubMed, and proper FDA classification requiring MSG to be listed on any food label."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Monosodium glutamate."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I expect this will continue but for now... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Dana60Cummins reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked)

Page: Cranberry juice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dana60Cummins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000015679 by Zefr (talk) Please stop with your assertions of added sugar not being relevant. You obviously have a clear biased here."
2. 01:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Raw cranberry juice is not always commercially available, as "standard" fortified juice that can be found in every gas station. This is extremely important info for anyone on a ketogenic diet. The subject is cranberry juice, not cranberry juice plus sugar and micros."
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC) to 00:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Pure cranberry juice is often hard to find and very expensive. Added back to the article. Nutrition moved to talk page."
   2. 00:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Nutrition and composition */ Stressing the fact that "standard" fortified cranberry juice is not 100% cranberry juice."
4. 22:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 999973195 by Zefr (talk) give me a few hours. And u r a doctor. You know there is a difference between fortified foods and non fortified."
5. 21:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Pure cranberry juice */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Cranberry juice."
2. 23:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */ r"
3. 01:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Using talk page as forum on Talk:Cranberry juice."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Pure cranberry juice */ c"
2. 01:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Pure cranberry juice */ r"

Comments:

User persists in adding opinion-WP:OR content without providing a WP:RS source. Providing guidance on user's talk page and no consensus on the article talk page have gone unheeded. Zefr (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:W33KeNdr reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Pblock from article)

Page: 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: W33KeNdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Deaths and injuries: This info is simply not relevant to her murder"
2. 19:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */Political preference still not relevant to her murder"
3. 19:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */Political preference not relevant to her murder"
4. 19:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */The victim was killed"
5. 09:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Npov"
6. 07:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */Victim was killed."
7. Consecutive edits made from 05:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC) to 05:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 05:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */Removed attributing assumption by the killer."
   2. 05:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */Victim was unarmed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol."
2. 19:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol."

Comments:

Probably WP:NOTHERE applies, too. Additional warnings have been acknowledged and removed recently, [11]. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ive been working with other editors to achieve consensus. Have been for days. None of this is edit-warring. W33KeNdr (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have partial-blocked W33KeNdr from editing the article 2021 storming of the United States Capitol for a month. If they persist in adding their opinion to other articles, I recommend a general block. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Zero vandalism has taken place. Care to explain? W33KeNdr (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 reported by User:Debresser (Result: No violation)

Page: The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MaxBrowne2 (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. It started with this edit by an IP, not claiming this was MaxBrowne2 although it is possible, with the misleading edit summary "Fixed grammar"
2. [12] MaxBrowne2's first certified revert, with an annoying edit summary "bad edit summary is not a reason for revert, and the word "trauma" was a good contribution", annoying since this was not just a "bad" edit summary, but actually actively misleading, which is unacceptable, although I agree that had the edit been good, I would have probably kept it
3. [13] MaxBrowne2's second certified revert. The edit summary "I didn't ask you" as outright WP:BATTLEGROUND. In addition, MaxBrowne2 should have understood by now that I oppose to the bold change introduced by the IP and him, and should not have edit warred.
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: MaxBrowne2 opened a talkpage section: Talk:The_Queen's_Gambit_(miniseries)#"Emotional_problems"_is_a_crap_term. Let's start with the fact that the section header is again a WP:BATTLEGGROUND violation, and as such is not acceptable, but opening a talkpage section does not make up for edit warring..

Comments:
This is a report about edit warring in general, with a 3RR violation, including battleground attitude. Preferred outcome, warning to MaxBrowne2 to not edit war and be less confrontational. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – Only two reverts. Claiming that an IP is MaxBrowne2 would need evidence. If you believe that 'crap term' in a talk page header is a battleground violation you could ask the editor to change it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston What do you mean "no violation"? I remind you that according to WP:EDIT WAR: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Debresser (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

While I can't speak for Ed, I'm fairly certain what he means is "no violation of the three-revert rule that was alleged in your complaint". Going strictly by WP:EDITWAR, yes, the defendant would likely be guilty, but it's exceedingly rare that anything short of a bright-line violation is officially sanctioned at this board. More importantly, as far as everyday edit-warring goes, you are every bit as guilty as the defendant is, making it ballsy at best, unacceptable at worst to file a complaint against another without turning yourself in as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a shame that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (stress on Edit warring) deals only with a small subset of edit warring.

Regarding what you mention that I also took part in this edit war. I firmly believe there should be a difference between an editor trying to push his preferred change through with edit warring and incivility, and a civil editor who is trying to keep a consensus version. If editors here see things differently, then I agree that this forum is useless. Debresser (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• What in the world is going on? Didn't Debresser revert 3 times in that exact same edit war?? Can someone be blocked for hypocrisy? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going with you. Perhaps you account was hacked? Because any admin knows that three reverts is not yet an 3RR violation. And that when those reverts were made on three consecutive days they do not count towards a 3RR violation, which per definition is a fourth revert within 1 day. In addition I repeat that "I firmly believe there should be a difference between an editor trying to push his preferred change through with edit warring and incivility, and a civil editor who is trying to keep a consensus version." My previous interaction with you left me with a very good impression of you as an admin, so, as I said, I have no idea what happened to you. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:89.164.199.29 reported by User:Idell (Result: Semi)

Page: Automotive industry in Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 89.164.199.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Vandalism!!! See the talk page!!!"
2. 14:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Vandalism!!! See the talk page!!!"
3. 12:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Update & removal of false claims"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Automotive industry in Croatia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "— Preceding unsigned comment added by , re"

Comments:

See also the previous reverts made under 89.164.131.237. Idell (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Ymblanter due to sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:W33KeNdr reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2021 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: W33KeNdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */Fixed multiple errors"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 02:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 02:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */Say her name"
   2. 02:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */Victim was unarmed"
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 01:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 01:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */Fixed error"
   2. 01:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */The victim was unarmed"
4. 21:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */Npov and included victim's name."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Include her name */ umm..."

Comments:

The single-page block earlier this week just moved the behavior around; WP:NOTHERE. VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked This is an indef WP:NOTHERE block. Their edit history and user page say it all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:DominicRoberti2K3 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result:Sock blocked )

Page: Wizards of Waverly Place (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DominicRoberti2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "year"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wizards of Waverly Place."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Checkuser  Confirmed socking. Blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:HMWikiSoldier reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Warned)

Page: United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC) ""

also [15], [16], [17], [18] at United Kingdom, [19], [20], [21], [22] at Parler

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on United Kingdom."

Full list, including those re Parler today, at User_talk:HMWikiSoldier#January_2021

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC) to 19:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC) on Talk:United Kingdom

Comments:

Persistent addition of material despite warnings, no response to multiple requests to engage in WP:BRD, no engagement at article talk page discussion or at the user's talk page. Also warned today re warring at Parler. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:HMWikiSoldier is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at United Kingdom without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No further warring at the UK article since the warning but - and I'm not sure what to make of this - there's been some rather bizarre activity, effectively warring largely with themself at my talk page [23] [24] [25] [26] [27], Newcastle upon Tyne [28] [29] plus the kind of edit you wouldn't make if you're on your best behaviour, at Bony-eared assfish [30]. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

And now warring at Conservative Party (UK). Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A report at ANI has been opened. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

...the result of which was that they were identified as a sock and indeffed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C8:5D00:ED01:3124:F126:36F9:1441 reported by User:NotGirlfriendButLover (Result: No violation, reporting editor warned)

Page: Villain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A00:23C8:5D00:ED01:3124:F126:36F9:1441 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2A00:23C8:5D00:ED01:2998:CC8B:43EC:2608 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] [37] [38]

Comments:
the reverts have been done from different IP addresses, geolocate places both of them in the same english city of 2000 inhabitants; the reverters edits where not summarized nor was the talkpage used. the user did not respond to a message i left on their user talkpage. i think the matter is important because of the antisemitic action this user keeps reintroducing. NotGirlfriendButLover (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The reporting editor is warned that they are edit-warring, and that they should wait for talkpage resolution for the WP:BOLD edits that have been reverted. Other editors may wish to weigh in, and the assertion that Snidely Whiplash is an anti-Semitic caricature is interesting, but you'll need reliable sourcing to support your assertions. In the meantime, please stop accusing the IP of anti-Semitic edits. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Aloha27 reported by User:IceFrappe (Result: Protected)

'Page: Dawn Wells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aloha27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[45]

Comments:
This case should be very straightforward. User:Aloha27 has blatantly violated both the spirit and letter of 3RR. After taking issues with the addition of Wells' dementia diagnosis and her arrest (not a revert), he has reverted FOUR times within a 22 minutes stretch in order to enforce his preferred version. This is not only a clear-cut violation of 3RR, but a violation of WP:OWN. He also falsely accused me of violating 3RR by abusing the warning templates [46] [47] to try to intimidate me. Such cynical behavior has no place in Wikipedia. In any case, he should be sanctioned for blatantly violating 3RR at the very least.IceFrappe (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I advised the other user that I'd reverted his initial edit in good faith here that we'd been through this before on the DW talk page. I left a comment at thet time here on their talk page. A subsequent rollback with the advice to take it to the DW talk page and that edit-warring does not fly here here. Yet again, another rollback with the warning I issued here. I'll not bore you admins with the subsequent back-and-forth. WP:BOOMERANG is in order here IMO. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The so-called "warnings" you spammed my talkpage with was a political attempt at gaining an upper hand in a content dispute, a blatant abuse/misuse of warning templates, and a clear-cut case of intimidation and gaming the system. The reality is you're the one who deserve the very warnings you falsely accused me of. You not only blatantly edit warred but violated 3RR in both letter and spirit all within a 22 minutes span; I did not. As for your objection about the content, your only reasoning to justify the mass removal of well-sourced, well-researched content was WP:UNDUE and I challenged you to summarize, yet you insist on continuing on a destructive path of censorship and sterile reverts (including pertinent information about Wells' dementia diagnosis in June). That's a clear violation of WP:OWN.IceFrappe (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Technically, Aloha27 has violated 3RR, but both editors are edit-warring, and IceFrappe has completely ignored WP:BRD; Bold (IceFrappe's addition), Revert (by Aloha27), DISCUSS. Also, I am unconvinced about adding a paragraph aout a trivial pot bust from 13 years ago to a BLP (and this is still a BLP) without a discussion. Article protected. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

reuser:Black Kite: There was discussion on my talkpage. Aloha27 refused to use the article's talkpage as a forum to discuss until I submitted this report. As I noted in my talkpage, the pot bust was big news at the time and Wells even explained herself on The View. Not to mention, he also removed Wells' more recent dementia diagnosis, which highlights the fact that his concern isn't about the pot bust but WP:OWN. In any case, the fact that Aloha27 isn't blocked despite his callous disregard for 3RR (4 reverts within 22 minutes) and his preferred version is allowed to stand during protection set a very dangerous precedent. It seems to encourage violating 3RR.IceFrappe (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no dangerous precedent here and whichever admin closed this would have closed it in the same way. There have been at least six discussions about this material, the most recent one being an RfC only two months ago, and the consensus (5 to 1) was that it be excluded. I am not sure why you believe you can override that consensus, let alone edit-war to do so. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:909wall reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Spider-Man: Far From Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 909wall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Comments:

Previously edit warred on a different article: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive424#User:909wall reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: )
Sundayclose (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Facu-el Millo also warned for edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:HarrySime reported by User:Daveout (Result: Both blocked 2 days (partial))

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

There is no 3rr violation but this has been going on for days.
The user was warned twice on their talk page: here.
Article's history showing the edit war: here.

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 days (partial block from the article) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is insanely unfair. - Daveout(talk) 23:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Verman1 reported by User:Armatura (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Verman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version before reverts [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&oldid=999825640 link]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: diff

Comments:
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article is under 1RR rule, I notified about this on article talk page and user's talk page, but no response from them and no revert to original version by any other editor of the article either for 3 days. The user's history is full of edit warring, previous topic ban and parole violation. Apparently Not There to build encyclopedia --Armatura (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:CorCorCor reported by User:Zazpot (Result: Alerted)

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

Previous version reverted to: [54] Note: this diff is not especially meaningful, as it spans several hundred edits by myriad users. So, probably best to skip it and focus more on the evidence below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]
6. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]
5. [69]

Comments:

CorCorCor is a WP:SPA that has repeatedly reinserted similar content not supported by WP:RS, despite concerns raised on article talk page and user talk page by several experienced editors (Jayjg, MelanieN, and me, see above), and despite reverts/deletions by experienced editors:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

I suggest a page or topic ban would be appropriate. Zazpot (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC); edited 21:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:CorCorCor has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:The One I Left reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Warned)

Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The One I Left (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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:
Violation of WP:1RR restriction on the contentious article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Onetwothreeip why didn't you reach out to me? I added a sentence or two about the National Guard which I believe was important to the article. Someone asked me to self revert which I dont have the capability to do. You are free to remove it, but I would like to discuss why you think it important to remove. This isn't spam, and this isn't unsourced material I added. The One I Left (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Doesn't look like a violation. Then unknowingly broke 1RR, and then the reporting user asks them to "self-revert", which they are once again, not allowed to do per WP:1RR. That’s a bit confusing. I don’t know why there was a report made here, as blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. In other words, blocks are to stop the disruption of articles, not to punish users. There’s no need for a block as the user didn’t know there was a 1RR on that page (to be fair, neither did I and I’m sure a lot of other people don’t know either), so I don’t get why the report was made. D🎊ggy54321 ^{(happy 20 years of Wikipedia!!)} 12:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: I reached out to you at 07:36, 14 January 2021. I made sure that you had made edits after I left the message before reporting here, to make sure that you had seen the message first. I asked you to self-revert, which everyone has the capability to do. I was not free to remove it myself, as I would be violating 1RR myself since I reverted it once before. I'm more than willing to discuss content, but that has to take place after the content is reverted. I never claimed it was spam or unsourced, I gave the reason in my edit summary when I first reverted it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Whether they unknowingly broke 1RR or not at the time of the edits, they were alerted to it by myself. Self-reverting is always allowed and does not count as a revert for 1RR or 3RR. When anyone makes an edit to the article, the following message is displayed, in larger font and in bold: If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. Instead of discussing on the talk page, The One I Left reinstated their edit shortly after it was reverted. Whether or not a block should be in place is something completely for an administrator and I am not asking for any particular outcome. If this is not the place to report this kind of edit warring violation, I would appreciate an administrator directing where it should take place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:  Self-trout, I forgot that self-reverting doesn’t contribute to the various degrees of RRs.

When anyone makes an edit to the article, the following message is displayed, in larger font and in bold: 'If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit' — That’s not true. I made a dummy edit to Donald Trump (diff here), and I didn’t get a message whatsoever. Sure, it’s listed at the top of the article as an invisible comment, but if I was editing a section, I wouldn’t know that.

I also think they just missed your talk comment. So many users do this on a daily basis (including me). I miss talk page comments all the time, even when the pings go through. It’s up to the editor who left that message to now assume good faith and think that the user just missed it. And, by the looks of it, they had already made both edits before you left them a message, so there was nothing they could do at that point. If you are not of legal drinking age and you have two glasses of wine before anyone tells you it’s illegal, what is there to be done? You already consumed the alcohol, but it was unknowingly. In the same manner, if The One I Left does not know a page uses 1RR and they revert two times before anyone says "hey this page is under 1RR", what is there to be done? They already reverted twice, but they were both unknowingly. D🎊ggy54321 ^{(happy 20 years of Wikipedia!!)} 20:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The message appears as an edit notice. The message I sent them also wasn't a ping, it was directly on their talk page. The One I Left still hasn't self-reverted the content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Warned I've warned The One I Left for breaching the 24-hour BRD cycle restriction. Just noting (FYI Onetwothreeip) that this article isn't subject to a 1RR but a 24 hour BRD cycle which is similar but different to straight 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention, Callanecc. Given that The One I Left hasn't self-reverted the content, am I able to revert it myself again, without them being allowed to restore it again? What is the difference between 1RR and a 24 hour BRD cycle? Is the following part of the article's edit notice wrong, or misleading: Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight and such reverts are not limited by WP:1RR restrictions? Should violations of a 24 hour BRD cycle continue to be reported here? Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Yep, I'm happy for you to revert it to enforce the BRD restriction. Just link to this when you do. 1RR applies to any edit on the article (whether the same content or completely different) whereas the BRD restriction applies only to the same content. For example, the BRD restriction would not have applied to The One I Left if their second edit was about different content but 1RR may have (if both were reverts). See User:Awilley/Enforced BRD FAQ for more detail. I've removed the reference to the 1RR in the edit notice - I think it was a mistaken leftover from when there was a one-revert rule on the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:CatCafe reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81] and [82] (consecutive)
4. [83] this part of a sequence reverted text to the immediately previous version
5. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: current state of discussion

Comments:

Note that this article is covered by the gender-related (Gamergate) discretionary sanctions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(I'm involved in this discussion, so this is not to be taken as a comment by an uninvolved admin). Thanks for filing this, you beat me to it. CatCafe appears to be under the (mistaken) impression that the belief that they are properly engaging in the BRD process (they are not) overrules 3RR. It's worth noting they're also becoming antagonistic towards the other editors involved in this conflict. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why wasn't I notified of discussion by way of *subst:an3-notice*? Anyway I'm sorry and the antagonism all started when other editors made derogatory and hurtful comments about me, accusing me of mis-gendering - and I shouldn't have to be exposed to this. In fact, I believed I was trying to stop other editors arguing to currently mis-gendering on the page and presume their gender. And since then I tried to used WP:BRD to bring discussion back to talk. Anyhow, I will backoff the page now and let the other's sort this out. And hopefully they will do so and without assuming other people's gender on the talk page inflaming the issue.CatCafe (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This diff 22:45, 14 January 2021‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 12,285 bytes +555‎ →‎3RR 3RR noticeboad: new section shows that CatCafe was in fact notified just after Newmpartial filed the report, per policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the discussion on the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to concur with GW, CatCafe's comment is a gross misrepresentation of the talk page discussion. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts you're a bit too involved, as you were one of two people making personal insults of me, further aggravating the issue. That was after the other editor was inflaming sensitivities by taking it upon themselves to 'presume' the current gender of the people in question rather than stick to the sources. That was out of line and both those instances of disrespect become naturally inflammatory. CatCafe (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, respecting people's latest gender self-identification as reported in the source isn't "presuming". Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Newimpartial, you got it the wrong way around and are not following. It was others stating they were 'presuming'. The editor in question inflamed gender sensitivities when they claimed: "So these comments are about trans men i.e. boys" (without quoting a source) and said "Given that the "girls" named in the book presumably mostly or entirely identify as male to date". This is WP:OR as they admitted their own presumptions. It was I and a few others trying to use the sources literally using their term "girls". I'm not the one doing the misgendering here - and should not have that insult put to me. So far on that page, no editor has come up with a source for what the group alternatively wish to be gendered as. And ongoing debate on talk has produced no source to challenge the current sources. If you want this resolved please find sources stating what gender-term the group now are comfortable with, I encourage you to do so. CatCafe (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:GENDERID, we should be referring to people (in articles) according to their latest self-declared gender identification. Given that many of the AFAB people discussed in the book were identified as trans or male at the time of the author's analysis, those subjects should not be referred to as "girls". Of course these were not the only people the book refers to, but for the people who identified as trans or male at the time of the analysis, your use of "girls" is not policy-compliant, i.e., it is misgendering. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well provide cites and place them next to the text you claim. So far you or any other's have had initiative to quote the sources literally proving your claims. That's what we are supposed to do on WP - not WP:OR. CatCafe (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The book reports itself as being about AFAB teens identifying as trans, and how they shouldn't do that. It is not OR to say that a book talking about how too many AFAB teens identify as trans is talking (at least in part) about AFAB teens who identify as trans. That is a matter of simple reading comprehension, and doesn't require citations. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

See this is the hub of the dispute, and I think you'll find you need citations on WP, not speculation. Here's a suggestion you should have articulated this on the talk page (not after the fact when reporting me here) specifically referring to the source and text supporting your claim, and get consensus for that, and use a supporting cite. There's a lot of avoiding specifically referring to sources and cites for your argument. CatCafe (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note: Look I've apologised and said I'd back off the article. If these other's like Newimpartial want to speculate the gender of the people with no hard cite, or show an unwillingness to cite supporting sources, then good luck to them. Someone else can deal with any WP:OR they create. CatCafe (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Saying that others need to produce cites isn't an excuse for edit-warring, particularly when most of the removals you reverted were covered by WP:ONUS. It's not as if any of the reverts here were cases where you were correcting what you might have thought (mistakenly) to be other editor's misgendering. This was old-fashioned Edit Warring and WP:OWN behavior, with a dash of Whataboutism here at the 3RRN. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Result: User:CatCafe is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Irreversible Damage without getting a prior consensus in favor of their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kimand299 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: Warned)

Page: Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kimand299 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "I wrote it as disputed in order to ensure that it is not offical"
   2. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000399799 by NekoKatsun (talk) This wasn't the status quo, the status quo was actually originally the US as the sole country until the UK was added. It should remain blank until the issue is resolved, otherwise it just fits a certain narrative."
3. 22:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Ok then, until a consensus has been reached, lets leave it blank and by the way I have put up my question on the talk page"
4. 22:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a much better source"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Need another source beacuse that is a British website, is it internationally recgonised."
   2. 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000390534 by Kimand299 (talk)"
   3. 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a good reference for the country it was made"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Aliens (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Which country was Aliens made in? */" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: User:Kimand299 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in favor of their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Darkwarriorblake reported by User:Kimand299 (Result: Filer warned)

Page: Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: [[User:User:Darkwarriorblake|User:Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:User:Darkwarriorblake|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/User:Darkwarriorblake|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/User:Darkwarriorblake|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/User:Darkwarriorblake|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/User:Darkwarriorblake|block user]] · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "I wrote it as disputed in order to ensure that it is not offical"
   2. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000399799 by NekoKatsun (talk) This wasn't the status quo, the status quo was actually originally the US as the sole country until the UK was added. It should remain blank until the issue is resolved, otherwise it just fits a certain narrative."
3. 22:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Ok then, until a consensus has been reached, lets leave it blank and by the way I have put up my question on the talk page"
4. 22:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a much better source"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Need another source beacuse that is a British website, is it internationally recgonised."
   2. 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000390534 by Kimand299 (talk)"
   3. 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a good reference for the country it was made"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Aliens (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Which country was Aliens made in? */"

Comments:

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

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

Comments:

• Result: The filer User:Kimand299 has been warned for edit warring per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sseevv reported by User:Will Tyson for real (Result: Both warned)

Page: Turks in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sseevv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A (he reverted to the previous version but then heavily modified the article and engaged in further reversions despite an ongoing discussion multiple times adding as many sources as possible)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Started with him reverting myself (I explained why I edited the article in the talkpage) here[86], this was about the reliability of the 7 million Turks in Germany figure sources that he had originally added here [87], which I proposed should instead be moved to the demographics section only and essentially return the infobox and demographics to its version as of October 14th 2020.
2. I didn't see he had reverted me for a few days, but when I did I found his revert explanation demonstrably false (he accused me of inventing estimates even though I put sources and was trying to bring back the article as it was before) so I restored my edit, which he then reverted again. [88]
3. Right after this edit [89], while not an outright revert, he continued to remove sources previously added by another user [90] under the accusation of sock puppets.
4. Most recently with another user after multiple people brought up his bold editing (not just reverting) while refusing to allow others to alter the infobox and demographics section.[91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92] (too many to post diff' individually)

Comments: This is not a blatant violation of the 3RR I am reporting but rather a string of behavior from his accusations on the talkpage and his edits on the main article, in a nutshell : removing multiple users edits over an extended period of time without consensus and accusing others multiple times of Vandalism and using Sock Puppets. Note the talkpage subject in question - Revising Demographic stats in the infobox - has become quite long and arduous to read. [93] He reverted me twice last month and made accusations of vandalism (and said he was reporting me, though he didnt follow through[94]) because I wanted to move what I regarded as unreliable sources from the infobox to just the demographics section. I decided not to restore my edit a second time and try to discuss on the comments section but he dismisses my sources without explanation other than they differ from his. I asked multiple users to weigh in on this, three of which have expressed opposing opinions to his, he made another accusation of sock puppeting ("Well the majority of you have barely contributed to Wikipedia, yet are suddenly here together with the same aim.") even tough two of the users have contribution histories going back years. He dismisses this anyways. From the talkpage he said "The Germany Embassy report must stay, you haven't made any convincing arguments why it should be removed.", there were multiple arguments made against it but he dismissed them while continuing to only allow his sources to appear and not include the lower ones. Note he has been constantly editing the article since each revert and in between meaning its hard to point out everything he has changed. Another edit he made claimed it was in accordance with the talkpage, but no one agreed to it[95]), he just took one aspect of something Buidhe brought up and applied it to the article, but nothing else he proposed. I asked why has he been editing the contested parts of the articles none-stop since this dispute began but got no response. Finally another user asked him too. He then went on to revert another user who had made changes to infobox himself, then he said he would "refrain from further changes", yes, after he reverted another user[96] to the way he wanted the article he won't do that again, convenient. The point in question here isn't who's argument is "right" about the sources but rather his bullying to prevent anyone from changing the information he deems unilaterally correct, he has demonstrated this attitude on the talkpage and article that only he can edit the infobox even when consensus has thus far been against him but he removes anyone else regardless of the discussion on the talkpage and accuses them having an agenda, sock puppetry, and vandalism while dismissing sources that don't corroborate his own. The fact he continued to do so even when much more experienced editors than me have commented is worrying. Will Tyson for real (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

My edits are not malicious nor have I bullied anyone. Yes, I did ask for a sockpuppet investigate, because there was a sudden interest in the Turks in Germany infobox by users who are not very active on Wikipedia. The investigation found that "User:Will Tyson for real" was also likely to be "User:Charlie Bostoner". Overall, I have tried to express the flaws in some of the sources this editor has pushed for. Although I did make a recent edit, once I saw a message by a user asking not to do so until a compromise was founded, I agreed. In fact, this edit was a sincere attempt to please "User:Will Tyson for real" by placing the German census figure which they have insisted on. I did not realise that my good intentions, which was an active attempt to show my willingness to compromise, would backfire in this cruel way. Sseevv (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware you opened a sockpuppet investigation, since I saw you make other accusations too without reporting. But the way you brought it up on the talkpage was dismissing anyone who disagreed since the statement I put in bold above was also addressed to Buidhe and Tserton. Even before anyone else weighed in on just my second edit you said you were going to "report this"[97]. There was the accusation of Vandalism made because I made a single mistake with one of the sources, rather than correcting this mistake he just reverted it entirely, this includes sources myself and others tried to add and other changes to the infobox without consulting the talkpage. Your statements on the comment section along with your actions on editing the article amounted to you weren't going to allow anyone to change the infobox without your expressed permission. And yes I brought up your constant editing between reverts on the talkpage because you weren't allowing others to edit the infobox multiple times, and you didn't respond on this point until someone else brought it up. This is not how it works, everyone has a say not just one editor. However, "Although I did make a recent edit, once I saw a message by a user asking not to do so until a compromise was founded, I agreed. In fact, this edit was a sincere attempt to please "User:Will Tyson for real" by placing the German census figure which they have insisted on. I did not realise that my good intentions, which was an active attempt to show my willingness to compromise, would backfire in this cruel way." this is not why I reported you and thats not your most recent edit to the article: (even after Tserton commented) someone else changed the infobox and you reverted again.[98] From WP:EDIT WAR:"An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." Note the dispute at that article pertains to more or less the changes introduced to the infobox here.[99] Will Tyson for real (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Sseevv and User:Will Tyson for real are warned. Each of you is risking a block the next time you revert the article unless you have first obtained consensus for your changes on the article talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:108.26.53.151 and User:LarryMac653 reported by User:The Only Zac (Result: Article protected)

Page: Asian pride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

1. 108.26.53.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 2600:1017:B0D3:E668:544A:3A49:A569:F262 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in this edit note they claim to be the same user[100]
2. LarryMac653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [102] 108.26.53.151
2. [103] 108.26.53.151
3. [104] 2600:1017:b0d3:e668:544a:3a49:a569:f262
4. [105] 108.26.53.151
5. [106] LarryMac653
6. [107] LarryMac653

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [108] 108.26.53.151
2. [109] 2600:1017:b0d3:e668:544a:3a49:a569:f262
3. [110] LarryMac653 (soft warning for new users)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:

These users are edit warring to add controversial language to Asian pride, despite being reverted multiple times by several different users. Myself[112] and other editors[113] have tried to engage them in discussion at the talk page, but they have refused, claiming their changes have consensus.

• The IP has violated the 3RR and has previously received a three-month block for edit warring at this page (see here).
• The User:LarryMac653 account was created last night and its only edits have been to restore the contentious content added by the IP. Their last edit note says "Please collaborate with us or else this edit will keep coming back."

— The Only Zac (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected for six months. This page was protected for three months in September over this same issue. I have re-protected the page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton reported by User:Xuxo (Result: No violation)

Page: Arab diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [114]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [115]
2. [116]

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

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

Comments: Yesterday, I added several sourced information about the number of Arabs in Brazil and even used the talk page to explain everything. However, user M.Bitton ignored the talk page discussion and reverted my contributions, starting an edit-warring, under the argument thay I need to find "consensus" to write in the article. He is obviously acting as the owner of the article.

One of the sources used in that article claimed that the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics found that there are 15 or 20 million Arabs in Brazil. However, I checked the original research (I speak Portuguese and could find it) and this is obviously a false claim, as the 2010 census conducted by this Brazilian Institute did not find 15 or 20 million Arabs in Brazil; it actually found only 12,336 Lebanese in Brazil (table 2 - writen in Portuguese - "Líbano" means "Lebanon").[118]. Moreover, this Brazilian Institute does not ask about family ancestry, only about nationality - hence the actual number of Brazilians with Arab ancestry is unknown, even though I also added a research showing that only 0.48% of Brazilians claim Arab ancestry, a number that would represent less than 1 million people - not 15 or 20 million (Brazil has 200 million inhabitants). I added all those information to the article. Ignoring the truth, for some unknown reason, M.Bitton started reverting my contributions and edit-warring, acting as the owner of the article and trying to prevent me from adding the Brazilian sources which show that the actual number of Arabs in Brazil is much smaller than those English-writen sources are claiming. Xuxo (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. @Xuxo: I suggest you engage in discussion at the talk page about the changes, lest the article wind up semi-protected to prevent further changes—and which would probably include a revert to the status quo version before your changes. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Could you please have a look at the initial report (the one that I filed about this editor)? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred I did [119] start a discussion in the talk page, but user M.Bitton ignored it and started edit-earring and removing my contribuitions. That's why I opened this report against him. I guess his plan is to get me blocked so that he can freely remove my contributions. C.Fred I kindly ask you to observe the page so that the information I added there are not removed by him. Xuxo (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Xuxo: I don't see enough of a pattern in M.Bitton's edits for it to be actionable as edit warring. As for your edits...see my comments about about your 3RR violation at Arabs. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred, user M.Bitton removed my whole contributions to articles Arab and Arab diaspora. I wrote an entire text, with reliable sources, that was enterely removed by him. If this is not edit-warring, it must fit another type of violation. Xuxo (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You should count yourself lucky you weren't blocked for the 3rr violation. I suggest you self-revert your last edit to Arab diaspora. M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Xuxo: No, no violation. And I suggest that you review the essay WP:BRD and take its advice. You've made bold edits, and they've been reverted. Your next step is to discuss the edits on the talk page, not try to brute-force them into the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Gorbe122 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Partial block)

Page: Al-Tabari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gorbe122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [120]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [121]
2. [122]
3. [123]
4. [124]
5. [125]
6. [126]
7. [127]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Gorbe122 has chosen not to use the talk page, instead giving their opinion through edit summaries.

Comments:

Not sure what Gorbe122's concerns are. The information is referenced. Per Gorbe122, "Western scholars (eg, authors of the Encyclopedia of Islam) seem to be unable to understand the complex transformation of the identities of the people who lived in the early Islamic period. They tend to use simplistic terms such as Persian, Arab and Greek to describe what happened. Early Muslims were not an extension of the pre-Islamic Arabs and Persians. Should Al-Tabari be grouped with Khosrow I, or Muhammed with Philip the Arab? Only nationalists would push for such distortion of history."
Which is odd since it is the Iranica being used as a source, not the Encyclopaedia of Islam. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Said editor, continues to edit war, and again.--Kansas Bear (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours from Al-Tabari. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User now blocked indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Log47933 reported by User:IceFrappe (Result: Both warned)

'Page: Eric Bieniemy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Log47933 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [130]
2. [131]
3. [132]
4. [133]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is not a dispute because User:Log47933 is clearly a single-purpose account created specifically to sanitize Eric Bieniemy. This account was created on 5:30, January 14th, 2021 and made his first revert to Bieniemy's article 8 minutes later. The repeated mass deletion of content with no discussion on Bieniemy's article is this single-purpose account's only activity (he has not edit any other pages) [135]. I believe he should also be investigated for violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and has a high likelihood of being a paid editor. I would also urge a checkuser to be performed to make sure he's not the sockpuppet/bad-hand account of someone. Thank you! Regards IceFrappe (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments:
I admittedly am a new user to Wikipedia. Yesterday I noticed that over the half word count of Chiefs' Offensive Coordinator Eric Bieniemy's article was a Controversies section, recently created by user IceFrappe few days before (in what looks unilateral to me, I do not see any discussion in the talk section). I condensed this, removing entire subheadings that focused on speeding tickets he had received over 30 years ago, including two separate subheadings focusing on driving violations he had committed. I felt this was not pertinent information. I explained my rationale for the changes but IceFrappe repeatedly claimed I was a paid editor and a sockpuppet and reported me for edit warring before engaging in any discussion or defense of their edits. Log47933 (talk) 6:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

First, you violated 3RR. That's an automatic block. Second, it was not unilateral. The vast majority of of the incidents were already in the article for months [136]. I simply organized them under a new "controversies" subheading. This is well-established by precedents, such as Richie Incognito, Pacman Jones, Chris Henry (wide receiver), and Antonio Brown. You're not entitled to mass removed contents because you find it "unfair" to Bieniemy. Give me a break! It's clear you are a single-purpose account created specifically to sanitize and whitewash Eric Bieniemy's legal history and likely a paid editor employed by someone associated with Bieniemy. This is a clear-cut instance of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.IceFrappe (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to your claims that I am trying to "sanitize" or "whitewash" Bieniemy, I left every single incident that was in the article before your massive edits because they are noteworthy. The fact that a football assistant coach received a speeding ticket in 1989 is not noteworthy. I have no relationship to Bieniemy whatsoever. Comparing Bieniemy receiving a speeding ticket in 1989 and having a dispute with one of his players almost 20 years ago to the Richie Incognito scandal or Antonio Brown's off the field controversies, which were both major news stories for months and extensively covered by pretty much every sports media outlet is absurd. Log47933 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Just because you're too young to remember Bieniemy's crime spree doesn't mean they weren't covered extensively by sports media. Anyone younger than 25 years old don't remember Chris Henry (wide receiver)'s crime spree, so should we delete Chris_Henry_(wide_receiver)#Criminal_history_and_suspension section too? Most of Adam_Jones_(American_football)#Legal_issues occurred before 2008, so should we delete those too? Read Wikipedia:Recentism. I also take issue with the fact that you seem to think just because something happened in 1989 or 2001, it should be hidden. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I suggest you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Bieniemy has been a public figure since the late '80s and was a Heisman Trophy finalist in 1990. The fact that there was a warrant out for his arrest literally 2 days after he got drafted in the 1991 NFL Draft is clearly noteworthy and it was "extensively covered by pretty much every sports media outlet" (using your words) at the time (as my sources have proved). It's certainly more noteworthy and encyclopedic than Richie Incognito getting into a Twitter food fight about Mike Zimmer and his funeral home outburst, so should we delete Richie_Incognito#Commentary_on_Minnesota_Vikings'_head_coach_Mike_Zimmer and Richie_Incognito#Funeral_home_incident_and_arrest too? You can't have it both ways. There are plenty of precedents here. You don't get to unilaterally decide what is noteworthy and what is not. You don't get to unilaterally remove huge chunks of content from article due to your obvious pro-Bieniemy bias. You don't seem to grasp what Wikipedia is about. Please read WP:COMPETENCE.IceFrappe (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to remind everybody that User:Log47933 still hasn't made any mainspace edit except sanitizing the Eric Bieniemy article through mass removal. You can claim you have no relationship with Bieniemy all you want, but your activity as a single-purpose account clearly indicates otherwise. You obviously spend a fair amount of time on Wikipedia and have enough time and energy to "forum shop" dispute resolution Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eric_Bieniemy [137]. In light of all this, do you really expect anyone to believe you have no mainspace interest other than a football assistant coach? Given your familiarity with dispute resolution, you come across as a sleeper sock/bad-hand account of an established editor. A checkuser and SPI seem warranted at this point. IceFrappe (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You still have offered no explanation of why speeding tickets that happened 31 years ago deserve their own subheading. Sure, this is an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean every news story you think is relevant concerning a living person should be included. Despite claiming my changes are "unilateral", You reported me for edit warring without warning me and did not make any attempt to reach editor consensus before making your massive edits. Now 30% of the page are news stories that you personally feel are important and relevant like him receiving a speeding ticket in 1989 and having a dispute with a former player. Log47933 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Log47933 and User:IceFrappe are warned for edit warring. Either of you may be blocked if you revert this article again without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page. This issue has also been discussed at WP:ANI#IceFrappe and BLP. It is not whitewashing to remove or shorten negative material if editors agree that it helps with article balance. But the agreement of editors is what is required, and needs both of you to use the talk page if you want to add or remove negative material again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 reported by User:SpectresWrath (Result: Declined)

User being reported: 2600:8800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]
4. [141]
5. [142]
6. [143]
7. [144] This is latest with no source.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]
5. [149]
6. [150]
7. [151] I undid it.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:
This user will continue to add false information even if you try to talk to them or threaten them with a block. I even had three page protection requests for NXT UK TakeOver: Dublin because he won't stop. JDC808, Donnowin1, LM2000 and TheDeviantPro are witnesses to this as they had to undo this ip's edits. SpectresWrath (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Declined. A /32 range is too wide to block for this amount of disruption. You should make semiprotection requests on whatever wrestling articles are being disrupted. Or perhaps make reports at WP:AIV for individual IPs or /64 ranges as they occur. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:The expert101 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Blocked)

Page: Raz Simone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: The expert101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Personal life - redacted due to libel/slander */"
2. 08:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Libel */"
3. 08:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
4. 08:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Note: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
2. 08:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
3. 08:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Raz Simone."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor keeps on changing content to how they think should be and removing sourced content from the page. Has been reverted by two different editors (B732 and myself, but keeps on removing information. Clearly POV pushing. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: Looks like they're now present as Thescholar101 as well. B732 (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – Indef by User:Materialscientist for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Xuxo reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Self-revert)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000774739 by M.Bitton (talk). I don't need to ask your permission to add sourced information in this article. You are not the owner of this article It is not up to decide what users write here - this is vandalism"
2. 17:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000759504 by M.Bitton (talk). You cannot remove my sourced contributions . They come from official figures from the Brazilian government."
3. 04:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "According to the 2010 Brazilian census, only 12,336 Lebanese were living in Brazil and other Arab nationalities were even small. The Brazilian census does not ask about ancestry or family origin (unlike the source used is claiming). Those figures are fake and contradicted by the Brazilian censuses (see talk page)"
4. 05:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Giving more information about the actual numbers of Arabs in Brazil)"
5. 03:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000031337 by The Sr Guy (talk). This is such a gross exageration. Brazil did not even receive all those Arab immigrants to have such a high number of Arabs. Moreover, very few Arabs live in Brazil. Those people are second, third, ou fourth generation Brazilian, not Arabs"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Arabs."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Figures for "Arabs" in Brazil are incorrect */"

Comments:

• Please note that: a) diff number 3 is a revert (having failed to change the numbers, they removed them and their supporting sources), b) they are also edit warring on the Arab diaspora article, and c) there was a previous discussion in which Xuxo failed to convince anyone. They came back to the article 3 years later to force their POV through an edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User M.Bitton is trying to act as the owner of articles Arab and Arab diaspora. All I did was to add sourced information about the actual number of Arabs living in Brazil. My sources come straight from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, which is the agency responsible for official collection of statistical information in Brazil. User M.Bitton is removing my contributions under the argument that I need to ask his permission to write in those article. He is not the owner of those article, I am free to add any information there as long as they are sourced - and they are, and I even used the talk pages to prevent any useless edit-warring - user M.Bitton is the one who started edit-warring, not me, and he is the one commiting vandalism though removing sourced information. Xuxo (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Xuxo removed properly sourced content and edit warred over their POV (against The Sr Guy and myself), while refusing to acknowledge that consensus is needed for such change. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Not true, I used the talk page to explain my removal. The source used in these articles claimed that the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics found that there were 15 or 20 million Arabs in Brazil. I showed that this is not true, because the 2010 Brazilian census conducted by IBGE found only 12,000 Lebanese in Brazil - Far from the 20 million as that secondary source was claiming. I have added several Brazilian sources showing that the real figures of Arabs in Brazil is much smaller. I have explained everything in the talk pages but you removed my sourced contribution, acting as the owner of the articles. Xuxo (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It does not change one bit to the fact that you edit warred over your POV and broke the 3rr rule. M.Bitton (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It was you who started edit-warring, removing sourced information and trying to owner the articles, not me. Xuxo (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Xuxo: This would be a very good time for you to, as a show of good faith, self-revert your last edit to Arabs. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred, I can revert myself as a show of good faith; however all the information I added are backed by realiable sources (Brazilian sources coming from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), so there is no reason for them to be removed. Xuxo (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Then discussion at Talk:Arabs should lead to a new consensus. Problem solved after that happens. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action taken, since User:Xuxo agreed to revert their last change. Both parties are advised not to revert again until consensus for their proposed edit is found on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:75.166.140.195 reported by User:Asukite (Result: Warned)

Page: Ruby K. Payne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.166.140.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000787163 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
2. 18:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000786669 by Asukite (talk)"
3. 18:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000733016 by JPxG (talk) - criticism sections are deprecated and this one is irrelevant to the article. Add criticisms in line."
4. 08:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000698966 by Rancidhole (talk) Criticisms should be made in line in the article, update the article with criticisms."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (softer wording for newcomers) (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

Sorry, I will add more content to the talk page later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.140.195 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanya Ilcheva reported by User:Jingiby (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158]
4. [159]
5. [160]
6. [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: [163]

Comments:

The user attacked me on my talk-page personally in Bulgarian: [164] Jingiby (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours by User:Hut 8.5 for edit warring and personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Obsidian Soul reported by User:Stricnina (Result: Both warned)

Page: Filipinos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Obsidian Soul (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. [165]
2. [166]
3. [167]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments: Tried to edit something in the article in order for it to be compatible with a source (W.H. Scott). Explained to the other user that an edit has been performed so that it may align more with the W.H. Scott, in particular the one regarding the very early usage of the term Filipinos being used to refer to the indios and about the nuanced relationship between the term Filipino and the Spanish-born insulares. The other user does not get what the edit was about, and resort to make accusations which is only making a hostile environment.
Stricnina (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

*facepalm* User talk:Obsidian Soul#"Filipino" for context. Note that I have specifically already done all the changes he asked for. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: You were confused as to what was being edited, and your first instinct was to undo everything. If it continued, it would have ended in an agonizing edit warring. Stricnina (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Your first instinct was to undo everything"

LOL. May I remind you that you were the one who reverted first with a mysterious rationale of "That previous version was actually sourced, which you just ignored"? I have done exactly as you asked, once I understood what your problem was. So why are we here again?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you know that I am undoing and integrating information? Did you understand what was the version you were undoing in the first place? You were just in confusion and your first instinct is revert, undo, revert. Stricnina (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties are warned not to revert without discussing on the talk page. There seems to be a high level of mutual misunderstanding. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you, if the misunderstanding continues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Xxxhrxxx reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked)

Page: Malays (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001034441 by Austronesier (talk) This is the stable version before the vandalism edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malays_(ethnic_group)&oldid=1000823020). Be considerate the actual content before you reverted back to the vandalist edit."
2. 22:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000904642 by The Bangsawan (talk) As you said, this is online encyclopedia, for educational purpose, then educate yourself first before doing vandalism. Learn what does SUB-ETHNIC means, don't embarass yourself with your stupidity."
3. 04:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000869972 by The Bangsawan (talk) Dear Malaysian, don't change the history based on your own persception. Take your nation evil behaviour somewhere else. Learn the differences between Malay ethnicity and sub-ethnic of Malay. You can learn what does "sub-" mean on dictionary."
4. 03:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 1000855359 by The Bangsawan (talk). Learn the differences between the main ethnic and sub-ethnic. This topic about sub-ethnic of Malay not the main Malay ethnic."
5. Consecutive edits made from 00:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC) to 00:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 00:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000840647 by The Bangsawan (talk)"
   2. 00:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000836025 by The Bangsawan (talk). Sub-ethnic is different than the main ethnicity, so this information is correct."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Malays (ethnic group)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Bacan, Batin, Papuans, Larantukans Malays. */"

Comments:

The user also makes personal attacks, with edit summaries such as "don't embarass yourself with your stupidity".[169], and frequently refers to other people's edits as "vandalism". Austronesier (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Austronesier, I tried to resolve this differences in the talk page, instead the request was ignored by the user and was instead being attacked personally. --د بڠساون (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Davefelmer reported by User:Snooganssnoogans (Result: One month ban)

Page: Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davefelmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [170]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [171] (initial edit)
2. [172] (violation of the 24-hr BRD restrictions on the page: "24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (1) Editor was alerted on their talk page about the editing restrictions, that the content added was false, and that they should self-revert[173] (the editor has subsequently edited but not self-reverted), (2) Talk page comment demonstrating that the content added was false (per reliable sources)[174] (the editor has subsequently edited but not self-reverted).

Comments:
In early January, Davefelmer was blocked for edit-warring on White supremacy by User:Acroterion[175]. They were unblocked after promising to stop edit-warring. Less than two weeks later, they are violating editing restrictions, refusing to self-revert, and adding plainly false content to controversial articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, as you can see from my interactions with User:Acroterion, I was banned on false pretexts and a misunderstanding, which to Acroterion's credit he realised after our discussion before I had served a day of said ban. As you can see from our discussion and the relevant links within it, I was not edit-warring on white supremacy and have since abided by my promise to Acroterion and resolved the dispute on the article talkpage amicably, as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_supremacy#Captain_America_vs_alt-right/Nazis_comment. There was also no explicit promise or condition to "stop edit-warring" which I had not done in the first place, as he literally says "I've unblocked based on your discussions with Binksternet" which proved it wasn't an edit war.

And this is typical of what User:Snooganssnoogans is doing here: manipulating the facts for his own narrative. The only reason I reverted his edit on Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign in the first place is because he WP:STALKED me to the page from Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape, where he reverted an edit of mine at 00:06 on January 16, 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape&diff=1000630708&oldid=1000628460 before he immediately went and reverted my edit on the 2016 campaign article at 00:08 on January 6, 2021, having never edited on the article before going back through 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign&diff=prev&oldid=1000631373. Furthermore, Snooganssnoogans is giving away his agenda here when he says "Talk page comment demonstrating that the content added was false (per reliable sources)" and then even tries to link a source to show you, when the comment I added to the intro had been literally the exact same comment with the same occompanied source as is listed in the relevant section of the article body, seen in the last line here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign#Russian_interference_in_the_2016_election. It is also the same exact sentiment used to summarise the content in the intro on the Donald Trump page, one of the most frequently edited and scrutinised pages on the project, where it says, "A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign benefited from Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia." Hence proving this is the project standard and consistency for how the information in question is interpreted (but that's besides the point here). So when Snooganssnoogans says that I'm "adding plainly false content to controversial articles" as one of his chief complaints, he is simply telegraphing that he hopes to manipulate facts and evidence in the hopes of getting me banned so that he can revert information that he doesn't personally like since he couldn't quietly do it via his WP:STALKING.

In spite of all this by the way, I remained and remain committed to finding a compromise with the editor if he is willing to come to the table so to speak and discuss it, as shown by my reply on my talkpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davefelmer#Violation_of_editing_restrictions_on_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign. Snooganssnoogans does not appear to desire this though, as he came to my page a few minutes after I posted back, evidently saw my reply, and decided to file a noticeboard complaint instead without even engaging with me first. And if he wants to make the claim that he didnt see my reply, well he's made several edits since filing this nonsensical complaint and there's been ample time for him to see it by now. It all highlights how not in good faith this entire charade is, and I trust that anyone reviewing this will be able to see it as clearly as it is. Best, Davefelmer (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I blocked Davefelmer for edit-warring, but unblocked when they presented diffs that appeared to be a good-faith resolution. Other editors did not subsequently agree, but I felt that it represented an appropriate effort. I remain concerned that Davefelmer is a little too eager to jump into edit wars, and that this behavior continues. Acroterion (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean no offence but I'm a little confused by this weighing in. You see above that I've similarly offered a good-faith resolution here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davefelmer#Violation_of_editing_restrictions_on_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign that the other user has simply refused to engage with. In fact, it was soon after I posted it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davefelmer&diff=1000745316&oldid=1000645876 that he visited my page to tell me he had filed a complaint on the noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davefelmer&diff=1000745688&oldid=1000745642 without so much as replying to my attempted resolution, and he's similarly not even engaged on here apart from his initial comments. This despite posting a number of edits spanning OVER EIGHT HOURS since he last visited my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Snooganssnoogans where he's had ample time to see my comments both here and there if he had not done so previously, so what else can I do?

Furthermore, when you say 'other editors did not subsequently agree', what are you referring to exactly? I see no users that objected to the contents of our conversation regarding the ban and asked that it be upheld or anything of the sort, so can you point me in the direction of these editors that didn't agree? I also don't really understand how my 'behaviour continues' in regards to edit-warring, as I've engaged on around half a dozen talkpages since our last discussion and have had no disputes with any other editors apart from this one. So if you refer to this instance in particular when saying it, I'd like to point out that even if we go with me violating the 1RR of a page, that's not the same as edit warring per say. And I only did it because, as previously mentioned, the user making this complaint WP:STALKED me to said page to deliberately keep reverting my posts, which is against project policy itself. And I've STILL been trying to take steps to engage him in a compromise since then but he will not respond! Davefelmer (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that this edit by Davefelmer on 16 January is a plain old violation of the discussion requirement prominently posted on the article talk page ("24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit"). (1) He didn't wait 24 hours after his original edit, and (2) he didn't discuss on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

OK but, as documented extensively above, I only reverted because the other user WP:STALKED me from another page to revert my initial edit. And I have tried to work out an effective resolution on my own talkpage with him since, as also shown above extensively. But he doesn't answer, despite himself editing extensively since, which proves he's had ample time and opportunity to do so. So what is there to do? My initial comment, the one in question here, has already been reverted on the main article, and the user I was in discussion with over it won't answer me back. Plus there is the WP:STALKING issue, and whether the 1RR rule should apply to trolling/stalking behaviour. Because that can create a situation where a user reverts an edit once a day, doesn't engage with you over it and effectively gets what he wants by breaking project rules and not letting information he or she personally doesnt like into an article with a 1RR. Davefelmer (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be willing to close this complaint with no block if User:Davefelmer would agree to make no edits to articles covered by WP:ARBAP2 for one month. I don't believe that Dave has made a good defence to an edit warring charge, and his response doesn't give me any confidence that the problem won't recur. The committee has allowed very specific remedies to be assigned to some articles and it's not logical to have these remedies in place unless admins are willing to enforce them carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would agree to the condition, but ask that it be reduced to a period of 2 weeks considering the circumstances. I feel like it sets a bad precedent to allow for WP:STALKING to go unpunished and give someone that does it exactly what he/she wanted without repercussion. Such policy is bound to incite and embolden stalking and trolling behaviour in the future which will only make the jobs of editors that much harder. I accept that I violated the 1RR, but you see that not only did it come as a result of project stalking but I also faithfully tried to engage in a resolution on my talkpage that the user never answered to. In light of that, I ask that the length of my condition be halved, but would accept it in full otherwise if no compromise can be reached. Best, Davefelmer (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Under arbitration enforcement, User:Davefelmer is banned for one month from editing all articles covered by WP:ARBAP2 but may still post on the talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Endymiona19 reported by User:David notMD (Result: Warned)

Page: Catholic Church and abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Religion and abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Endymiona19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Catholic Church and abortion [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] Endymiona19 replaced "anti-abortion" with "pro-life"
2. [diff] same
3. [diff] same
4. [diff] same
5. [diff] same
6. [diff] same

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Endymiona19 was first warned on own Talk page and on article Talk page

Comments: This article has a 1RR

• A minor correction to the above: the article no longer has 1RR, because of a recent ArbCom decision removing 1RR from abortion-related articles. However, Endymiona19 has violated 3RR as well, despite repeated warnings. NightHeron (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed the page back to the version they wanted, and I'll probably stay away from§ editing it any more. I do have very strong feelings on the whole issue of abortion so I guess that's why I was so insistent on keeping my version of the page. But I will stay off the page now. Endymiona19 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As a new user, Endymiona19 is not familiar with our policies and guidelines. I am working with her on expanding an article in a less-controversial part of the project, and suggest she should not be sanctioned for breaking a rule that she did not know existed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So I was thinking that maybe I should just not edit any pages about abortion since I do have a very strong opinion about it and thus cannot be "neutral" when it comes to that subject. Would it be possible to let this incident go if I don't edit any more pages about abortion? I really don't want to be blocked. Endymiona19 (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Endymiona19 is warned for edit warring. Your offer to stop editing about abortion is noted, and I encourage this plan. You've already been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAB. If you can't be neutral then you shouldn't be editing in this area. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Khirurg reported by User:Randam (Result: Both warned)

Page: Human rights in Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khirurg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

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

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

Comments:
The editing of User:Khirurg includes the following 5 types of disruptive editing:

1. The user is reverting my edits as a whole (see 1 and 2), instead of doing precise editing of only the parts that the user thinks are questionable. It hurts me that not even one sentence is spared given my effort and time.
2. The user deletes sourced information. (see 1)
3. The user is WP:HOUNDING me. After he reverts my edit on this page, minutes later he reverts another of my (10 day old) edit on a page he never edited before.
4. The user does low effort reverts. He is caught red-handed of not checking the references. Because he is saying here that "right to health is not an human rights issue". I can't blame him for not knowing everything, for example that Right of health is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But if he took the time to check out the reference of the section he reverted, he would clearly have seen that the reference (human rights organization Amnesty International) has literally a section called Right to health.
5. In talk page, he discusses me (Ad hominem) instead of discussing the quality and content of my edits. He questions my "interest in human rights in Greece". The pages I prefer to edit is nobody's concern but mine. He also accuses me of trying to "portray Turkey and Turkish regime figures in a positive light". I refuse this personal accusation. But again, he should talk about the CONTENT of my edit. If needed, I even write a positive fact about Adolf Hitler, assuming that the fact is true and not clashing with Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. --Randam (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment:Randam has been aggressively pushing pro-Erdogan regime POV across wikipedia for some time now, and recently came very close to being blocked for extensive edit-warring across numerous articles [176]. He is also indefinitely partially blocked from COVID-19 pandemic in Greece [177] for the same aggressive behavior he is displaying at Human rights in Greece. Instead of trying to resolve things in the talkpage, he is belligerently pursuing frivolous, non-actionable reports. That is unfortunate, and only makes it harder to resolve things. Khirurg (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Khirurg's defence consist of more ad hominem attacks against me, and why that would legitimize his disruptive actions is beyond me. I'm also not sure why he brings up cases from the past that has been dealt with and closed, but it's worth mentioning that as of writing this (18 January 2021) I'm not blocked from any page of Wikipedia (anymore). Feel free to try to WP:BOOMERANG me, but I'm confident that nothing significant will come out from it. --Randam (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. Randam has added some new material twice and Khirurg has removed it twice. If this continues without any agreement being reached on Talk, blocks are likely. There is a possibility that User:Randam is here on Wikipedia with a pro-Turkey and anti-Greece agenda. If this continues it may not end well. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Vojtaruzek reported by User:IHateAccounts (Result: Blocked)

Page: Project Veritas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Tried talking to XOR about this, was immediately reverted without answer, usually the rules are to try to settle a dispute on the talk page, but that seems to be impossible."
2. 02:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "This is really undignified, I literally provided 4 sources for it, and it is also on PV twitter and webpage, literally a video that anyone can watch. But then again, this page is obviously hijacked, as the article is basically pure slander. Local "patrollers" obviously won't accept any source about this, you propably want it covered (There goes the idea of Wikipedia being politically neutral)."
3. 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Attempt No. 2: Federalist is not on the black or yellowlist and Fox news is reliable on non-political (this is about Twitter), but seriously, just go watch the video if you have doubts about whether this is real. I would just post a link to O'KEefe's Twitter page, where it is posted, but I doubt it would last long."
4. 02:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Federalist is not on the black or yellowlist and Fox news is reliable on non-political (this is about Twitter), but seriously, just go watch the video if you have doubts about whether this is real. I would just post a link to O'KEefe's Twitter page, where it is posted, but I doubt it would last long."
5. 01:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Added info about the Twitter CEO leak again. I really hope NY post is considered reliable and that reliability is not decided by the news page not speaking about this."
6. 01:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Project Veritas."
2. 03:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Project Veritas."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* User:Vojtaruzek edits */ new section"

Comments: User has broken 3RR, and is attempting to edit-war in items that track back to a Project Veritas video that has only been picked up by right-wing, non-RS outlets at current time. They also claimed to have participated in the article talk page and accused "the guy who keeps reverting" editor of reverting there [178], which is untrue. Multiple users have reverted this disruptive attempt to edit-war inappropriately. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That comment may refer to my User Talk page (rather than the article's), where they left a comment that violated WP:CIVIL. I don't mind a certain amount of nonsense on my own Talk page, but that was too tedious to keep around. XOR'easter (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Vojtaruzek reply: Most of those revisions were not reverts, but rather re-edits with new sources (all of which were rejected), while IHateAccounts stated in one of the reverts (the first one), that the source is unreliable simply because it has shared a thing posted by PV (a bit of circular logic) and as you can see, they also said that what I say is nonsense (bias). There was no "disruptive editing" or "Edit war", as I really tried to fulfill the demands of editors who didn't agree with the message being posted. Trying to talk to them was pointless, since they simply reverted the questions without answering.

01:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001056120 by Vojtaruzek (talk) The Washington Times is not a reliable source, especially when they are pushing disinformation from mills like PV."

Per WP:3RR, A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material (emphasis added). Swapping out new (and still inadequate) sources for old ones doesn't change the situation, in that regard. XOR'easter (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Alex Duilius reported by User:Lukewon (Result: Both warned)

Page: Miss Universe 2007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

1. Alex Duilius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user reverts:

1. [179] Alex Duilius
2. [180] Alex Duilius
3. [181] Alex Duilius
4. [182] Alex Duilius

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Found out that this user receive so many edit warring warning, related with his edits on Miss Universe event:

1. [183] warning by NewYorkActuary
2. [184] warning by NewYorkActuary
3. [185] soft warning by EdJohnston
4. [186] warning for Miss Universe 2007 edit warring

Comments:

I was editing Miss Universe 2007 using a references plus adding a citation needed signs on per paragraph that was not cited with any reference. I do expect Users are came to collaborate with others, But It's ended up this user >Alex Duilius appeared disruptively deleting my referenced edits + deleting citation needed signs, and trying to Attacking me by using "CAPSLOCKED words" and "!!!!!" so many times on Edit summary, engaging war. I think he is having a interest issue, I saw that this user has been focusing on this kind of related pages about Miss Universe event for a long time and he kept on deleting and reverting everyone who is trying to contribute to the pages. I have tried to engage in discussion at the Talk:Miss Universe 2007 but it's ended up that he is "being bossy" to me to ask me finding more references and Unreasonable reason here he revert my referenced edits just because he believed that what he did is right, saying that he's staying in Mexico city and following the Miss Universe 2007 on set (Which is weird for me, if a Wiki editor only edits based on self proclaim, personal experience and own interpretation). while for me 2 references is more than enough for a single topic, If u ask more than that, I think it would be excessive and overlinking. It's like Me the one who came with the references VS. an editor who's not open to collaborate, provoke edit-warring, being bossy and edits based on his own personal experience. --Lukewon (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The user uses a source that is not in English to state that Indonesia received an award in that edition of the contest. That award was never officially awarded, nor was it seen on television or any other medium reported the awarding of that award. It is strange, beyond what the user claims that I assume, that many years later an informal Indonesian media reported that Indonesia won. It is clear that it is a hoax and the user does not accept that, to sustain said information, he must present sources with more reliability, such as a statement from the Organization of the contest, or an article that presents where and how said prize was awarded. The user not only insists on using his untrustworthy source, but he also edited the article's discussion page with the clear intention of downplaying what I am arguing for.--Alex Duilius (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. Each of you has gone past past 3RR. If this continues, blocks are possible. Consider raising your sourcing question at WP:RSN. If, as claimed by the IDN Times in 2017, Indonesia really did win the Best National Costume award in 2007, why would there be no trace of that on the Miss Universe website? Who would know better than the awarding body? Regarding the quality of the source, there is no Wikipedia article on the IDN Times. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jingiby reported by User:Vanya Ilcheva (Result: filer blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

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

(talk) (Vanya Ilcheva) — Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the remarks left on User:Jingiby's talk page: Special:Diff/1000919900, Special:Diff/1001378354. I find these disruptive, as Jingiby is asked “how, as Bulgarian, can you support such nonsense?”, accusing him of being “anti-Bulgarian” and calling him “Make”, that is “Macedonian” (obviously, the latter isn't derogatory per se, but in the context of the decidedly chauvinistic rhetoric of User:Vanya Ilcheva it very clearly seems like such). As a long-standing sysop on bgwiki, I'd say as well that the MO of User:Vanya Ilcheva seems very close to the one of long standing sockpuppeteer PavelStaykov who had been active on bgwiki for years (bg:Уикипедия:Разследвания на марионетки/PavelStaykov-Модернатор/Архив) before apparently switching to enwiki.
— Luchesar • T/C 12:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

These writings by User:Vanya Ilcheva above are some kind of nonsense, but the personal attacks on my talk page continue. Maybe this is really a sock of User:PavelStaykov.Jingiby (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: No violations, the filer blocked for a week for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ILIL reported by User:Sulfurboy (Result: one week, partial)

Page: Phil Spector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* top */ WP:LEADCITE"
2. 13:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Health, illness, and death */ not improvements"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC) to 12:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 12:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* top */"
   2. 12:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* top */ +Dream pop"
4. 12:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* top */ Proposed temporary(?) compromise for first sentence in lead, placing his principal notability in proper context while acknowledging his murder conviction"
5. 04:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "What the?? You just wiped away 75% of the lead!!! This is unbelievably disruptive and none of it is based on any consensus. You aren't even responding seriously to the objections raised on the talk page. WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote." / WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.""
6. 04:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Sulfurboy (talk): WP:CONSENSUS, not enough editors have weighed in"
7. 00:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 1001041364 by Erik Kennedy (talk): American date formatting"
8. 22:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 86.26.155.235 (talk)"
9. 21:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 1001020953 by Alexcalamaro (talk): Rvt vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Phil Spector."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Him being a murderer seems incredibly glossed over Suggestion */ Replying to ILIL (using reply-link)"
2. 04:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Him being a murderer seems incredibly glossed over Suggestion */ Replying to ILIL (using reply-link)"
3. 04:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Him being a murderer seems incredibly glossed over Suggestion */ Replying to ILIL (using reply-link)"
4. 04:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Him being a murderer seems incredibly glossed over Suggestion */ Replying to ILIL (using reply-link)"
5. 08:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Him being a murderer seems incredibly glossed over Suggestion */ Replying to Ghmyrtle (using reply-link)"

Comments:

Over the past 48 hours, User:ILIL, and in part Ghmyrtle, has made it their life's work to paint Phil Spector in the cleanest way possible and have railroaded any editor's attempt to try address neutrality in the article. Any addition made by basically anyone that doesn't address Spector as as a genius music producer (who just happened to commit a tiny bit of murder) has been reverted, revised or otherwise ignored. The addition of "convicted murderer" to the lead sentence is WP:MOSLEAD 101 in accordance with how the subject is reported and covered in the media. "No consensus" is continuously thrown out by the two, when the fact of the matter is, it's only those two who oppose it or additional information about the murder being added, never mind they've never had consensus at any point to revert dozens of editors additions. Some of the comments in the talk page by both are highly questionable (happy to quote some if needed) and question either's ability to neutrally address the subject (in addition to each's stated interests on their user page). Zero progress can be made on a page with outstanding neutrality issues as it's being completely railroaded by these two. Ghymyrtle actively tried to suggest that of all sources, Reuters and Associated Press are only interested in selling headlines. There's no reasoning with these two.

I've attempted resolution initiatives, ILIL at one point even agreed it needed to be added. Other times he's responded with complete fiction or egregious statements that make their bias known. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 18:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me that the admin taking the blocking action has taken Sulfurboy's claims at face value when they clearly do not tell the whole, or correct, story. On the comments referring to me, it is categorically untrue to suggest that I have "made it their life's work to paint Phil Spector in the cleanest way possible and have railroaded any editor's attempt to try address neutrality in the article" - I made one or two edits to revert changes to long-established text, mainly by IPs, that clearly seemed to me to be unsupported by any consensus. It's also untrue to state that I suggested that Reuters and AP (specifically) are "only interested in selling headlines", though I did make the point that other established sources (by which I meant textbooks, encyclopedias, etc.) were a better guide to establishing reasons for permanent notability than news media. "How the subject is reported and covered in the media" should not be the only, or even the foremost, consideration when we are writing an encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: I believe this 3RR constitutes a clear instance of report abuse.

First of all, just for background, there have been numerous talk page discussions over this issue, and the (unofficial) consensus has always been NOT to describe Phil Spector as a convicted murderer in the first sentence of the lead. [187] As such, for a large part of this article's history, it has been the standard practice between me and other editors to revert the addition whenever it's made (of course not to the extent that it would break 3RR)

At 04:52, the user Sulferboy warned me that they would file a 3RR if I were to remove the fact that Spector was a convicted murderer from the first sentence of the article again. If you look over my edits past that time, you will see that I never did. Additionally, most of my edits that Sulfurboy listed from prior that time were addressing completely different issues, such as the improper use of DMY date styles, and a modification of the first sentence to "Phil Spector is a an American murderer, record producer, musician, murderer, and songwriter". These edits should NOT qualify as evidence that I've warred over "dozens of editors additions".

Throughout this dispute, I have been on the talk page discussing this matter with other editors, two of which (@Ghmyrtle: and @GuzzyG:) have also opposed Sulfurboy's suggestions (odd that Sulferboy only mentions Ghmyrtle in this report). I think if those editors were to chime in here, they would agree that Sulferboy has been unduly antagonistic and uncooperative. For example:

• At 04:33, Sulferboy appeared to deliberately remove 75% of the lead and later accused me of "asserting bad faith" when I referred to their edit as disruptive.
• At 18:08, he accused Ghmyrtle and I of being unqualified to contribute due to "inherent bias".
• At 1:33, after I had stated my initial counterargument, Sulferboy immediately told me that I "should highly consider removing [myself] from this discussion".

Tl;dr, Sulferboy disingenuously cited my corrections against obvious vandalism and improper style/formatting – on an article that had been subject to extraordinarily heavy editing on many different sections of the page – as "edit warring reverts". In truth, only 2 of my edits (04:19 and 22:08) involved me removing the description of convicted murderer from the first sentence of the lead. I've noticed that this user has similarly threatened to file a 3RR against Ghmyrtle using the same deceptive tactics. Please do not enable this user's abuse – and I ask respectfully that you undo this result.. ili (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ILIL, I'm not sure any of that is really within the scope of this board to attend to (or that I, myself, have the time to look into due to sheer complexity and length). Also, my block did not confirm or deny the various claims made by the filer beyond the raw evidence submitted. The evidence reveals a bright line rule violation (WP:3RR), and that is the only reason why I imposed this block on you. I will note that if you were operating under the notion that your reverts fell under the BLP exemption, that is something which you are expected to announce in advance, like in your edit summaries, and so on. Hope that makes sense. Good luck in resolving the dispute amicably. El_C 21:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, also I forgot to point out that I discounted several alleged violations —like you reverting Alexcalamaro the IP, for example (though calling their edit "vandalism" may have been too strong as it could just have been a mistake)— but there was still a WP:3RR violation even after those omissions. El_C 21:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Added: sorry, I meant IP — Alexcalamaro is a user in good standing. My mistake. El_C 22:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you, but I'm terribly confused by these implications. Suppose there's an article that's been bombarded by more than 200 edits in less than 15 minutes. If I revert four of those edits for introducing spelling errors, improper formatting, accidental blanking, or any other reason that could not be reasonably disputed — those edits aren't exempt from 3RR??? ili (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) It can't be ignored that this disagreement is all about how to describe, in an introductory summary, a prominent individual who has just died. There have been many, many edits over the last day or so, many from IPs, many of which have been knee-jerk reaction edits based on news reports, many of which have been directly contrary to long-established consensus on the article. To penalise one editor for attempting to defend establish consensus against editors who clearly have very strongly held views but whose views go against the established consensus and have yet to establish a new consensus, seems disproportionate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ILIL, in answer to your question: I, myself, stretch the 3RR exemptions to also include any correction of technical errors (outright). Even if they were not vandalism and simply mistakes due to carelessness. Where it gets a bit more hazy is for WP:MOS-nuanced changes, and so on. So, for example, unlike with that IP adding "murderer" twice — again, that edit may not have been WP:VANDALISM (per se.), but reverting it also "could not be reasonably disputed," either. Does that make sense? El_C 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: If you're saying that my technical edits were exempted – including the arguable "vandalism" at 21:59 – then I don't understand which reverts of mine that you actually counted, because I only see three that were relevant to the dispute: 22:08, 04:19 and 12:33 (the last one is arguably not even a revert, since I did not remove the murderer descriptor from the first sentence, and I explicitly described it as an attempted compromise). ili (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

ILIL, I'm not saying that, and partial reverts do count, notwithstanding calling it a compromise or whatever. In answer to your question: also 4:33 and 13:36. Anyway, you're welcome to launch an unblock appeal on your talk page. Such an appeal will be evaluated by a different admin. Good luck. El_C 14:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ili (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, while I recommend that the spirit of WP:ONUS be respected and observed (on the part of those who advocate for the contending version as opposed to those who advocate for the longstanding version), strictly speaking, it is not mandatory, like when the Consensus required restriction gets introduced. El_C 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Canadianr0ckstar2000 reported by User:IHateAccounts (Result: No violation, but COI notice and DS alert pave the way for any potential future enforcement)

Page: Rumble (website) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001274350 by Grayfell (talk) It exactly matches what the Fortune article says, word for word. Did you miss the new citation?"
2. 00:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 23:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001249226 by X-Editor (talk) "right wing" not referenced in WSJ or Globe citations, undoing."
4. 20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rumble (website)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC) to 00:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Rumble (website)

Comments:

• Comment by involved admin: I'm beginning to wonder if Canadianr0ckstar2000 has a COI or paid relationship with Rumble, given the nature of their editing. I've run into them at alt-tech where they are doing everything they can to have Rumble removed from the list of alt-tech services, which they seem to believe is a stain on the platform's reputation. I've left a COI notice on their talk page, and in doing so I noticed this discussion was open, so figured I'd mention it here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No violation. Not technically a WP:3RR breach, but definitely an WP:ACDS matter (WP:AP2), as well, as mentioned, possibly also a WP:COI one. Seeking any future enforcement for any perceived violations as WP:AE enforcement is recommended. El_C 18:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:Floydian (Result: No violation)

Page: Ontario Highway 401 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FobTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. article history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link - Note that this user has been engaged numerous times in the past several months to no avail.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion on User talk page. See also attempts by other users at Talk:Stack_interchange#Inclusion_of_three_level_cloverleaf_interchanges

Comments:

User notified: diff

• So I've been trying to avoid bringing this here, but FobTown (talk · contribs) seems to prefer to revert without explanation than respond (or responds and promptly reverts). The user has come to my attention through the articles Ontario Highway 401, Conestoga Parkway and Ontario Highway 8, but similar behaviour can be observed at Dooly the Little Dinosaur, Stack interchange, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flower_of_Evil_(TV_series)&action=history Flower of Evil (TV series). FobTown refuses to acknowledge that their contributions are unsourced, add undue weight to trivial information, are often poorly worded, and in some cases, are verifiably incorrect. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Floydian and I were actually working constructively on Ontario Highway 401, as I did agree not to mention Highway 7187 there. He did revert my latest contribution but he seems fine with my previous edits to 401. The dispute over Conestoga Parkway and Ontario Highway 8 is still ongoing, as I preferred explaining when Highway 7187 was used, but Floydian doesn't want it mentioned at all.

Floydian also had no prior involvement with Dooly the Little Dinosaur nor Flower of Evil (TV series), but intervened anyway by reverting rather than weighing in or suggesting improvements to the content.FobTown (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You make a signficant number of edits that are unsourced or simply reverting other people who have reverted your unsourced contributions, so I checked your contributions to see if this is a trend across other articles, and of course it is. That explains the reversion of your unsourced contributions to an article with which I was not previously involved. -- Ace*YYC 18:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot of that section in Dooly the Little Dinosaur isn't sourced, so Ace*YYC was just being vindictive and nitpicking on my contribution.

Ontario Highway 401 is another example of Ace*YYC not even bothering to read my edit, but just reverting.[188] FobTown (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Both were unsourced additions as per WP:V, so I was well within reason to revert them. That said, your consistent addition of irrelevant information to stack interchange is the topic at hand here, after that information has been rightfully removed numerous times by several editors. -- Ace*YYC 21:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ace*YYC, if you can actually provide a valid reason to dispute my edits to Ontario Highway 401, at least say so rather than a blanket excuse of claiming unsourced additions as per WP:V. FobTown (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You realize the onus is on you to source the material you add? WP:V states that unsourced additions can be removed, and in this edit [189] you added unsourced material so it was reverted, i.e. the most valid reason for reverting any content added. -- Ace*YYC 22:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – There isn't a 3RR violation here. If there is still a dispute, see the advice at WP:Dispute resolution. Try to at least put something on the article talk page that outsiders can understand. People who don't work on these topics may be unaware of the sourcing requirements for highways. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  @EdJohnston: So I'm fine to just revert his re-addition on this page until the end of time, as long as it's not 3 times within 24 hours? Honest question, because it appears that WP:V does not matter as long as it's not 3 reverts within 24 hours. -- Ace*YYC 17:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This board handles 3RR violations and long term edit wars. So far, we don't appear to have either of those. But, if all of you keep reverting, you can make the 'long term warring' part come true. If so it is likely that blocks will be issued. Can you say why there is no discussion of this sourcing issue at Talk:Ontario Highway 401? Would you like admins to apply a month of full protection to ensure that some discussion happens? Many statements in the article already seem to lack sources (like paragraphs 2 and 3) so perhaps things are different for highways. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The page I was referring to was stack interchange, where editors have been reverting FobTown since July. I was going to make a post here in reference to that article, and made a warning on the talk page to that end, but then an editor reported FobTown for the same antics on a different page. -- Ace*YYC 18:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This board can only do so much. Open a full discussion on a talk page and collect opinions pro and con. The result of an RfC (or even an informal discussion) can be enforced by admins provided you reach a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Lard Almighty reported by User:109.155.148.247 (Result: No violation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: International School of Geneva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lard Almighty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [190]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4
5. diff5

Note: that three reverts are persistent restoration of an unreferenced claim. The claim is that Elizabeth_Young is an Alumnus of the International School of Geneva, when no reference supporting that claim has been provided. The target article, Elizabeth_Young, also makes the claim but it is unsupported by a reference there either. There are two additional reverts to the same article within the 24 hour time frame.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [191] Though a 3RR warning, was actually made when user was at 4RR. It was dismissed as a 'bogus' warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] This is uncited material. This user has been around long enough to know that all claims must be properly supported by references (account created Feb 2014).

Comments:

109.155.148.247 (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not broken WP:3RR. Some of my edits have been to clarify which article was being linked (it is now linked to the correct article) and my most recent edit (in the supposed edit war) was re-adding the deleted content having provided a reference on the subject's article. In fact, the IP had removed the content subsequent to me adding the ref and I was simply adding it back since the IP's objection had been overcome.. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The specific person's target article is Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet (not the Elizabeth Young disambiguation page). Lard Almighty added a ref there supporting the claim[192] prior to this case filing. That doesn't excuse the simple re-insertion problem on the school's page, but it does appear to contradict the claim that this statement is completely uncited anywhere. DMacks (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It was uncited anywhere when the claim was made. It was and still is uncited on the subject article will he was reverting the claim back. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia. 109.155.148.247 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if you had provided a reference at the linked article, you did not do so at the subject article so it is still unreferenced. There is precedent as several of the alumni are supported by reference even if not all of them are. And it is still a revert regardless. You made a total of 5 (five) reverts in 24 hours as linked above.

Further the source provided is a WP:PRIMARY source and not the required WP:SECONDARY source. 109.155.148.247 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The source was added at 13:49 and the IP removed the content from the Ecolint page at 13:57. So I considered that I had addressed the IP's concern and was OK to re-add the link. We are not dealing with a WP:BLP here, and so a primary source (especially as it is in the subject's own words) and published in a magazine is acceptable.

Other edits I made were for to fix the disambiguation that the IP had changed and to remove content that had been restored with no discussion despite one having been started on the talk page. So I really don't think that I have overstepped here, and in fact have gone out of my way to address the IP's concerns. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So you admit that you made two reverts in addition to the three reverting my removal of unsourced content. That's five reverts then. Q.E.D. 109.155.148.247 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I made one revert to fix the link you broke to Lady Kennet's article, so that doesn't count as it was fixing a problem. That leaves four edits and as I said, the last was perfectly justified as I had addressed the referencing concerns on the Lady Kennet article. So that leaves three, so no violation of WP:3RR as I initially said. If that assessment is wrong, I am happy to revert my edit.

I should also point out that throughout all this, the Lady Kennet article stated that she was an alumnus of the school. In these types of lists, it is not usual to put a ref in the list (as I pointed out to the IP the first time I reverted his deletion) but rather to rely on what is stated in the linked article. That is why I reverted, given that it did state in her article that she had attended the school, and I took the IP to be deleting it because there was no ref on the entry in the list, which as I had noted was not needed. When the IP added the cn tag to the Lady Kennet article, I quickly found a ref and added it to allay the concern. I should also point out that I was not the person who originally added Lady Kennet to the list. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – Since adjacent edits count as at most one revert, there are only two reverts here. The dispute was about whether Elizabeth Young attended this school. Since her attendance at the International School of Geneva is now supported by a reference, I assume the dispute is over. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I am afraid that you are going to have to clarify this rather bizarre response. You are saying that two users can serially revert each other hundreds of times in a 24 hour period but because the reverts are 'adjacent reverts' each user has only made one revert and not violated the rule. I do not believe that the WP:3RR rule intends this, but this is exactly what you have said. Lard Almighty made five separate reversions ('adjacent' or otherwise) in the 24 hour period, non of which qualified for any of the exemptions under the rule and all five of which stated that they were reversions in the edit summary.

I was worried that I was going to be sanctioned for making four reverts, but am relieved to discover that because they were 'adjacent reverts' that I am not guilty having only made one revert. The next time that I am warned or accused of 3RR violations, I shall refer the accuser to this case as precedent that 'adjacent reverts' only count as one revert. 109.155.148.247 (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello 109.155.148.247. Sorry that I miscounted the reverts. Both you and Lard Almighty *did* break 3RR. (You did so, with four reverts beginning at 18:05 on 17 January where you removed Lady Kennet again). What should admins do now? Protect the article? Block both of you? Is there really still a dispute, or do you just want to see justice done? EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I acted in good faith as I believe that two of the five edits were exempt from 3RR. Fixing vandalism is an exemption. I consider this diff to be vandalism as 109.155.148.247 deliberately broke the link to Elizabeth Young's page where the claim (now referenced) is made that she attended the school and which I had earlier fixed (not as a revert). Fixing vandalism doesn't count as a revert. It would be totally against the spirit of 3RR if a revert simply to fix something that has unarguably been broken on the page counted as one of the three reverts.

I also consider that this diff doesn't count because I made it after I had referenced the claim in Elizabeth Young's article at 13:49, and therefore 109.155.148.247 objections to not including her in the list had been dealt with before he reverted me at 13:57. 109.155.148.247's fourth revert still claiming the claim was unreferenced was incorrect and therefore could count as vandalism (although I'm happy to self-revert if an admin rules that is not the case) so I felt justified in reverting it, although it does seem that the question of whether Elizabeth Young should be included is now resolved. So as I say, that leaves three reverts that count toward 3RR IMO. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP reported by User: ValiumColoredSky (Result:)

IP number: 2600:1007:B0D1:A5D9:6948:7379:1929:9AC4

Edit warring at John Money — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValiumColoredSky (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:171.61.9.144 reported by User:NZFC (Result: Blocked)

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

User being reported: 171.61.9.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC) "corrected grammatical mistake. Chandan nagar. The Last Name of city that is Nagar must be written in capital letters"
2. 09:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 04:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Sarat Chandra Bose."
2. 03:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak."
3. 09:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sarat Chandra Bose."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reported here but is edit warring and most of the edits made are disruptive NZFC^(talk)(cont) 14:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours by User:Materialscientist for adding unsourced content. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Abhirajdas0612 reported by User:137.9.236.76 (Result: )

Page: List of Dell PowerEdge Servers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abhirajdas0612 (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Dell_PowerEdge_Servers&diff=1001575102&oldid=1001574847
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Dell_PowerEdge_Servers&diff=1001576200&oldid=1001576018
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Dell_PowerEdge_Servers&diff=1001576803&oldid=1001576240
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Dell_PowerEdge_Servers&diff=1001577382&oldid=1001577230

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

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

Comments:

Adding external links to a business page. I'm all three IPs that reverted Abhirajdas, so I'm not gonna revert any further. However, the user simply seems intent on injecting the links and not providing any constructive material to the article. 137.9.236.76 (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sweetkind5 reported by User:Jonathan Deamer (Result: )

Page: Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sweetkind5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001621432 by Chipmunkdavis (talk)"
2. 13:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001608083 by Jonathan Deamer (talk)"
3. 12:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001605172 by I dream of horses (talk) The explanation for my first edit pertains to all my other edits, too. How can I make it more clear?"
4. 12:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001600562 by Jonathan Deamer (talk) The explanation for both edits is in my first edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Discretionary sanctions alert */"

Sorry to break it to you, but that didn't look like a warning at all. The sentences used were messed up and unintelligible.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Balkans and Caucasus */ new section"
2. 13:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC) on Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict "Reverting edit(s) by Sweetkind5 (talk) to rev. 1001605172 by I dream of horses: Reverting good faith edits - suggest we maintain status quo while discussion is ongoing at User talk:Sweetkind5 (RW 16)"

Comments:

69.116.73.107: reported by User:NedFausa (Result: Semi)

Page: National Garden of American Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.116.73.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [193]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [194]
2. [195]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [196]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [197]

Comments:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NedFausa (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 January, 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:CapChecker123 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)

Page: Afghan–Sikh Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Battle of Gujrat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CapChecker123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [198]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [199]
2. [200]
3. [201]
4. [202]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [204]

Comments:

Capchecker123 has been edit warring a poorly written, OR-ridden version of their personal opinion into the article since 14 January 2021. Using Khushwant Singh as a source, with no volume number or page number Capchecker123 has chosen to use personal attacks and personalized comments, and another one, and another one. I have requested the relevant information 5 times on the talk pages. You can read CapChecker's responses to my requests above. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It is quite clear that CapChecker123 is not here to build an encyclopedia. Their inability to provide page number(s) and quote(s) for their edits, yet have plenty of time to make personal attacks paints a pretty clear picture. Their latest attempt to keep edit warring is their logging out to revert me on Afghan-Sikh War. I seriously doubt a "random" IP has arrived out-of-the-blue to revert me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

CapChecker123 still logging out to edit war on Battle of Gujrat article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef for personal attacks, "Shutup KansasBear, you’re already a delusional person I ain’t dealing with you." Three other similar attacks are listed in Kansas Bear's first paragraph above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Endymiona19 reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: Sock block)

Page: Abortion debate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Endymiona19 (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. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

This user was warned about one day ago not to be edit warring on this board: [208] ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked from abortion and abortion debate for 48 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, it would help if these abortion editors would bring the discussion to the talk page rather than edit-warring themselves. It takes two to war, and even when there are 3+ people reverting Endymiona19, not a single one started a talk page discussion as is required to defuse an edit war. If this happens again, then I will request that they also be sanctioned per WP:GS. Elizium23 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: SOME discussion can take place in the EDIT SUMMARIES, and this new editor Endymiona19 made no effort to justify/explain their edits, while some of the editors reverting that person did. (I *ALWAYS* give an explanation for my revertions.)---Avatar317^(talk) 23:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, you discuss on the talk page, not through edit summaries, because edit summaries are by definition attached to edits, and if you think you can just jump into an edit war and send an "edit summary discussion" at this relatively new user without starting a civil talk page discussion, I don't know what else to tell you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to alert the user to the discretionary sanctions EvergreenFir (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As the first of the three users who reverted this person, I want to note that I did inform the user about the need for discussion rather than re-reverting. It is Endymiona19's responsibility to gain consensus for these changes by starting the discussion, not mine. To say that my revert is worthy of sanctions because other users also reverted them, as if we were working in tandem, is absurd. --Equivamp - talk 23:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I did say earlier on this page that I'd stay away from the abortion topic here, and I should have held true to that. I just saw some grammar/wording issues I thought needed to be fixed, and then it led to edits that others didn't like. I guess I'll stay away from the whole abortion topic here so I don't get into more trouble here. And I will stick to that for real this time. Endymiona19 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – User:Endymiona19 is now indef blocked as a sock by User:NinjaRobotPirate per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skiyomi/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:108.211.255.26 reported by User:NZFC (Result: )

Page: Bob Stoops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 108.211.255.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Oklahoma */The purpose of wiki is for people to be able to access information. Preventing people from being able to view this information on Bob Stoops wiki doesn’t make sense. You can even go back in this edit history and see that this information was around for years and updated over time. It wasn’t until recently that anyone had issue with Bob’s coaching tree being on his wiki, just like every other coach."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User changing to different IPs 108.211.255.26; 2600:100A:B105:CDB0:3C49:BD53:EF95:8FAE and 2600:100A:B105:CDB0:74B7:8881:380D:3D03 so far along with this one to edit war on the article. Trying to get a coaching tree added NZFC^(talk)(cont) 01:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:XiAdonis reported by User:Ayleks (Result: )

Page: Nikkei, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XiAdonis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [209]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [210]
2. [211]
3. [212]
4. [213]
5. [214]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: XiAdonis (talk)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rising_sun_flag XiAdonis (talk) I initially messaged the user XiAdonis on his user talk page instead of the article talk page. he has yet to respond on the article talk page. Comments:

The user XiAdonis has reverted several of my personal edits and contributions to the Nikke Inc. page and has broken the 3 revert rule. He has also reverted several of my edits on the rising sun flag page but since he hasnt broken the three revert rule I will seek resolution through third party there. Looking through his user talk page he has broken the 3rr before, as well as what looks like several other rules.

This is my first time reporting and I am still unfamiliar with the template so please let me know if there is more info needed or if i should change anything. Ayleks Ayleks (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted 3 of your edits on that page within 24 hours, i did so because i view those additions as being unencyclopedic, if that constitutes edit warring then im fine accepting the concequences, i listed my reasoning in the edit summaries. 2 of those reverts you listed however are from seperate additions made by a different user. XiAdonis (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:82.54.100.238 reported by User:Jonathan Deamer (Result: )

Page: Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 82.54.100.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "you're behaviour is shameful"
2. 15:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001801349 by B732 (talk)"
3. 11:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001800729 by Jonathan Deamer (talk)"
4. 11:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "don't use your political ideology on a murder. Reinoehl was obviously the killer, the videos show it clearly and don't tell me that he wasn't a far-left, antifa, activist. Please keep you ideological ideas away and respect the victim."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Final Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Why politic on WIkipedia?? */ Reply"

Comments:

User:Crunchynotsmooth reported by User:Moxy (Result: )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Conservative Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Refer to talk and RfC. Undid revision 1001751135 by Moxy (talk)"
2. 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Refer to RfC on changing “centre-right” to “centre-right to right” on talk page"
3. 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Please do not engage in an edit war over this. Instead, you should refer to the talk page for discussion."
4. 13:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Implemented change supported by incumbent member of arbitration committee. Any issues, see talk page"
5. 17:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC) "Expanded idelogy to account for RW factions"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
2. 04:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Some basic reading */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "/* RfC on changing “centre-right” to “centre-right to right” */ ce"

Comments:

Just need the RFC to run its course without disruption to the article itself. Editor in question has been told the social norms here but is not willing to abide by our basic editing norms. Perhaps a warning from an administrator will help...would also be nice to clear up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru as this situation is causing difficulty as well. Tried a usertalk page conversation to no avail.Moxy 🍁 05:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Moxy, you beat me to it. Yes, this is almost certainly a sock of Politialguru. Clearly passes the WP:QUACK test. His previous socks have appeared on this notice board for edit warring in the past, with exactly the same strategies used. — Czello 08:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:86.132.155.244 reported by User:Jonathan Deamer (Result: )

Page: Otto Skorzeny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.132.155.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Death */ No verification."
2. 13:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001811667 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)See note on talk page. The Telegraph is 100% wrong, as the videos show."
3. 13:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001811401 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)The sources are 100% FALSE. See the videos of his funeral service."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Funeral */ Reply"
2. 13:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC) on Otto Skorzeny "Undid revision 1001812449 by 86.132.155.244 (talk) I saw the note, you saying "The Telegraph is wrong" does not make it so."

Comments:

User:Saucysalsa30 reported by User:Qahramani44 (Result: Page protected)

Pages: Iraqi invasion of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saucysalsa30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [215]
[216]
[217]

Lengthy report. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Diffs of the user's reverts: diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 diff6 diff1 diff2 diff3 diff1 diff2 diff3 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [218] (he actually deleted it afterwards here [219] calling me a "harasser" and "stalker") Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [220] -- Talk:Iraqi invasion of Iran My attempt to explain the sources for this statement were immediately met with personal attacks and baseless accusations, so there was little room for discussion here. [221] -- Talk:Ba'athism I didn't participate much in this particular discussion, as I felt there wasn't much to add beyond supporting User:TheTimesAreAChanging's points. Again as you can see the entire "debate" is full of WP:Wall of Text and constant random accusations by User:Saucysalsa30 against all disagreeing parties. The edit-warring user repeatedly made claims of "copyright infringement"[222] even though the mod in question self-reverted his removal of the paragraph [223] after a brief discussion on the mod's talk page here [224]. [225] -- Talk:Racism in the Arab world I had attempted to refute some of the points he was making (bringing up historical events completely unrelated with Iraq to attempt to "disprove" a source I had posted), yet he still showed no room for discussion and continued moving the goalposts and/or making random accusations. Comments: As a preliminary note, Qahramani44 did bring back copyright violating content. What they showed Berrely was a completely different revision that happened after being warned for the copyright violations in earlier revisions, which, whether intentional or not by Qahramani44, had the effect of confusing Berrely. See the diff here [226] [227] for the timeline, with the diffs of events provided within. I don't know why the user believed they could get away with lying. TheTimesAreAChanging also admitted on Berrely's talk page to the copyright violation taking place [228], despite lying on this noticeboard along with Qahramani44 claiming that there was no copyright violation. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC) This is a classic case of WP:BOOMERANG. The user not only started edit warring in the first place, as explained below, but has been engaging in stalking, personal attacks, admission of ideological WP:BATTLEGROUND editing (stating in various comments and revisions notes about his efforts against "Arabs" and "Ba'athists", edit warring, and general lack of WP:COMPETENCE, such as regularly tagging sources on any content even if it has no relevance and engaging in very slanted WP:OR regularly. Most of his revision history is simply reverting/removing content he doesn't like across Wikipedia and harassing and attacking users who contest his blatantly poor editing and conduct. While I engage in WP:BRD and discussions and showing what multiple sources say (e.g. a detailed explanation of general academic consensus on a topic here[229]) before fixing/adding things, Qahramani44 has engaged in personal attacks and edit warring on no basis at all. To provide some background, this is series of WP:HOUNDING and other harassment because Qahramani44 was upset that a poor blog-style site called Iran Chamber Society he claimed to be RS was unanimously disregarded as being non-RS in various discussions such as this RS noticeboard discussion. Following almost 2 months of discussion regarding the bad source, the user's outburst in the last 24 hours only started after I went ahead and removed the bad source in the article in question, with the first revision in the barrage across a few Wikipedia articles coming just 7 minutes later[230], with Qahramani44 starting edit warring on Iraqi invasion of Iran. In addition to their starting and continuing edit warring on Iraqi invasion of Iran, Qahramani44 then via WP:HOUNDING stalked my contribution history and started edit warring on two unrelated articles as well, Ba'athism and Racism in the Arab world (same exact content), including reverting to bring back copyrighted content on both in violation of WP:CV. [231] [232]. From the previous 2 citations, that is where Qahramani44 started edit warring on these two articles. You can see that's where he begins. As a result of Qahramani44's careless edit warring, he brought back copyrighted content in 2 articles, for which he was warned by the mod Berrely. [233] Furthermore, some of the diffs linked by Qahramani44 were with respect additions/corrections following Talk page discussions which he would then revert (albeit, I was the only one doing research and making points, while Qahramani44 simply engaged in more hand-waving and personal attacks). For example, I fixed continued copyright violation and some OR he added in that wasn't stated in the source, and he responded with another revert. [234] In another example, Qahramani44 was removing a on content in which he haphazardly added a source on content it not only doesn't support, but contradicts. [235] Here is a display of one of the three articles of Qahramani44 stalking me and starting an edit war on Racism in the Arab world and continuing to engage in it on no basis or substantiation: [236] - Qahramani44 stalking my activity on this article and making a spontaneous revert for no reason, despite the copyright violation resulting from the revert. This is where Qahramani44 starts edit warring on this article. [237] - Despite moderator warning regarding his copyright violation [238], he reverts again with slight modification that still includes some WP:CV copyright violation along with some evident OR that isn't said in the source as well as failed verification on a second source. [239] - Qahramani44 continuing edit warring. [240] - After fixing Qahramani's copyright violation and the OR he added in to be in line with the source, they reverted yet again. Unlike in Qahramani44's case, I substantiated and justified things in Talk. Qahramani's only Talk page involvement were some ad hominems and combative statements. TheTimesAreAChanging was engaging in the same WP:HOUNDING [241] [242], edit warring, and unconstructive insults and sarcastic replies. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I noticed Qahramani44 is either unaware or being deceitful regarding the copyright violation, so here's the timeline. His first revert each on Ba'athism and Racism in the Arab world, as part of WP:HOUNDING and starting his edit wars on those two articles, was them reverting back copyrighted content. [243] [244] After I had a brief IRC discussion with Berrely (I can provide transcript if needed), Berrely warned Qahramani44 for the copyright violation.[245] If you'd like to compare to the book's text, it's almost verbatim the exact same as the original content on the Wiki articles. https://imgur.com/a/eOjxV8O What Qahramani44 is referring to with regards to Berrely came later, after Qahramani44 had brought back the content back again with slight rewording [246] only AFTER being warned by Berrely. Hopefully that clears up any confusion there. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I'd also like to ask @TheTimesAreAChanging: if he'd like to participate too, since he was a party in this edit war. I likely should have opened this a few hours earlier rather than continuing to respond and inadvertently prolong this edit war. I'm not too familiar with making Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring sections so if there are any formatting issues please let me know. Thank you. --Qahramani44 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Saucysalsa30 is a uniquely tendentious and incompetent editor who has been edit warring and bludgeoning across multiple articles/talk pages for a very long time, calming down for a period only after his previous 60-hour block. He has been reverted by three different editors (including Wikaviani, Qahramani44, and myself) at Iraqi invasion of Iran and there is no support for his WP:FRINGE views there (namely, that Ba'athist Iraq was an innocent victim forced to "preemptively" invade Iran during the Iran–Iraq War, as well as the easily-debunked lie that Iraq had absolutely no territorial demands, based on a self-serving official statement from Saddam Hussein two months after the invasion had stalled and which Saucysalsa30 takes at face value). (In fact, if any admin here has the time and feels qualified to review it, I have complied massive evidence of Saucysalsa30's systematic misrepresentation of sources and aspersions directed against other users here and here, although I suspect that may be a matter for ANI rather than AN3... it's pretty stomach-churning stuff.) In any case, admins should know that Saucysalsa30 seeks to deliberately mislead you, on two fronts: The admin that Saucysalsa30 cited above has already determined that there is no WP:COPYVIO in any of the text currently being disputed (here is a diff of Saucysalsa30 arguing with said admin), yet he continues to just ignore that and pretend otherwise (cf. WP:IDHT). In addition, despite making unsubstantiated assertions of stalking and hounding, it is actually Saucysalsa30 who followed me far outside his area of interest/expertise (i.e., the Middle East) to defend naked WP:OR designed to cast doubt on the near-universal consensus of reliable sources and cybersecurity experts that Russia hacked the DNC at 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. At Ba'athism and Racism in the Arab world, Saucysalsa30 has been systematically whitewashing the (if anything, rather tame) discussion of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party's sordid racial history, despite being called out for OR by impartial observers. For example, Saucysalsa30 has denigrated the research of highly-respected academic specialist Fred Halliday by stating that Halliday was "published by a small indie publisher ... the work itself includes various dramatic, exaggerated language and some rather unique conjecture theories, so it's a questionable source at best. ... Halliday makes a profound stretch. The overall passage in the book itself is a hand-waving and inaccurate / minimal coverage aside to the topic to make a unique claim with exceptional implications and with further hand-waving ... it's quite a stretch by Halliday ... Again, this copy-pasted content in this article is Halliday's own strange associations and redflag-leaning claim ... overall this is an evident mix of WP:REDFLAG, WP:ONUS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE in addition to the it being a poor source both in general and specific to the content," despite Halliday's findings being commonplace in the academic literature and Saucysalsa30 providing zero sources of his own. In sum, Saucysalsa30 should face an escalatory block for his continued misconduct (including for attempting to deceive administrators at this forum in an effort to get an opponent blocked over a non-existent COPYVIO and thereby "win" an edit war that he initiated).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC) The fact that your response to your relentless WP:HOUNDING [247] [248], WP:CANVASSING with Qahramani44, and personal attacks on various articles is to engage in further personal attacks here and your own starting and engaging in edit wars is rather ironic, and your claims that don't amount to slander have been refuted or simply wrong. For example, Qahramani44 lied to Berrely about which revision involved copyright violation, showing him one that took place AFTER the copyright violation warning. You can see that timeline here [249]. Secondly, the things you bring up had been already been discussed in Talk pages (prior to your WP:HOUNDING) and noticeboards, so your accusations fall further flat on their face. I understand you are upset because you attach so much emotional value to being refuted and have a very poor track record of combative conduct, harassment, and editing (as you've been doing in the last 24 hours), but your pettiness is really starting to show. I mean the fact you're engaging and defending things like copyright violations proven OR and failed violation with the exact sourcing provided in maintenance tags and Talk pages, among other things, while simultaneously engaging in WP:HOUNDING and WP:NPA, is reprehensible and representative of all-around reprehensible conduct. Also, considering I added content and revised back, but without the blatant copyright violations and baseless WP:OR that Qahramani44 was vandalizing with, the rest of your claims are equally baseless. And oh, could you explain why you admitted to lying about the copyright violation? You admitted it happened on Berrely's talk page. [250] So why do you lie about it on this noticeboard saying it didn't happen? :) As an aside, please review WP:BOOMERANG. This precisely describes what you and Qahramani44 are doing here. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC) The short version of Saucysalsa30's comment above is merely that Qahramani44 restored very long-standing text from Halliday 2000 that Saucysalsa30 deleted on the basis of ever-shifting, frivolous pretexts, only to be warned by Berrely that the text violated copyright, although not obviously so. In response, Qahramani44 immediately rewrote the section. Berrely mistakenly reverted the revised version, prompting a concerned Qahramani44 to ask Berrely for guidance and clarification regarding how best to avoid violating copyright in the future. At that point, Berrely acknowledged his mistake and reinstated the revised version, confident there was no longer any COPYVIO concern. Everyone has since moved on except Saucysalsa30, who has continually accused Qahramani44 and myself of telling unspecified "lies" about the incident, and who still insists that Berrely's mistaken second revert was correct "as the content still contains some copyright violation." Despite the lack of any policy-based support for the latter assertion, Saucysalsa30 employed the pretext of continued taint from the earlier COPYVIO to justify reverting the Halliday material, either in whole or in part, an additional four times across two articles after the matter had already been resolved (diffs: [251], [252], [253], [254]). In sum, Qahramani44's consistent efforts to seek guidance and mediation from administrators suggest that he made a good-faith error, quickly corrected, but Saucysalsa30's continued edit warring, WP:PAs, and attempts to mislead others into thinking that a COPYVIO is still present long after the fact are harder to understand as good faith behavior. (As an aside, Qahramani44's mistake is also relatively minor compared to that time Saucysalsa30 copied a whole paragraph directly from the Chicago Tribune into List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots and it had to be rev-deleted by Diannaa, but at no point did Qahramani44 bring up Saucysalsa30's past history, even as Saucysalsa30 berated him and called him a "liar" over and over again. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses...)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I have no idea why the edit-warring user is so fixated on this alleged "lie to Berrely", when my question to User:Berrely wasn't even about the original warning he made on my talk page, but the subsequent reversion he made on my post after I had reworded it to remove the copyright violation. Here at *18:45* Jan 19th [255] he reverts my reworded post. Here at *18:54* Jan 19th [256] I ask him whether the *revised* edition still breaks copyright. Here at *18:57* Jan 19th [257] he responds acknowledging the new version was fine and then self reverts his removal immediately after [258]. There is no conspiracy going on so there's no need to lash out at everyone here, or make baseless accusations of WP:CANVAS or of lying to admins. --Qahramani44 (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) As seen above, Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging are changing their story now that they got called out on the blatant lie. They went from "there was no copyright violation" to "Oh, yeah there was, but it was about something else." Qahramani44, you literally said in your opening post here: "made claims of "copyright infringement", so now you admit that you did do copyright infringement as you were warned for? It was only after the admin's warning did you go ahead and show them a completely different revision to play ignorant like you didn't carelessly edit war to bring back copyright content before their warning. Not sure if they're attempting to be funny or if this is simply backtracking. And as discussed on the pertinent Talk pages, Qahramani's "fix" mentioned by TheTimesAreAChanging still 1) included copy-pasted phrasing from the source text and 2) blatant OR not in the source text at all. This is just one example of these two users engaging in bad faith editing, stalking/harassment, and other poor conduct. Considering most of both users' history is reverting things they don't like, even a very simple addition of a source in random articles such as this most recently by TheTimesAreAChanging [259], it's very evident that they engage in unilateral reverting across Wikipedia (and edit warring, stalking, and harassment if contested). For example, most of Qahramani44's commits are reverts based on his own personal opinion such as this, with no other basis. [260] [261]. The user's only contributions are removing anything he doesn't like on the website, ironically. And Qahramani44, you should really check this out: WP:BOOMERANG. You not only started all the edit warring in the first place, engaged in stalking and harassment, further edit warring, and personal attacks, but lie and change your story every time you get called out on your false claims. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC) @Saucysalsa30, Qahramani44, and TheTimesAreAChanging: What a clusterfest. I wish I could mute people sometimes. I tried to review this. All 3 editors here need to stop casting aspersions immediately and turn down the temperature. Saucysalsa30, you did violate 3RR. But the tagteam reverts effectively do the same and frankly don't seem innocent. For now I'm adding full protection to 3 articles to address the immediate issue. Drmies, have you any thoughts? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC) User:EvergreenFir, same thought as you: MUTE. Sweet Jesus, what is all this about, with the eternal paragraphs, the bold, the blue, the bickering. I can't follow that discussion on Talk:Ba'athism either, but what I did see was some bullshit by Saucysalsa about an academic publisher. Rienner is not "some" indie publisher; Saucysalsa seems to think that "independent" is a bad thing. It is not. Rienner is absolutely fine, until proven otherwise. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Sorry, but to clarify, they consider themselves a small mom-and-pop type indie publisher. [262] [263]. The point being I don't think anyone would claim they have anything close to the sort of reputability and scale of Wall Street Journal, Harvard University Press (a university academic publisher), Routledge, etc. But anyways that was just one among several issues brought up. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I just woke up to this. I reverted the edit as a copyvio per request in IRC help, and left a note on the users talk re it. I really did not intend to engage in an edit war, or be pinged 7 times. Nonetheless these are some very unstable articles, and following WP:BRD seems to be non-existent. I would just like to correct I am not a mod, or administrator, and am not in a position to make blocks, etc. I hope this sorts itself out. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 08:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I would like to apologize for that, Berrely. (I count three pings by Saucysalsa30 and one ping by Qahramani44 in this thread alone.) For the record, however, the content of all three of these articles has been extremely stable for many, many years—prior to Saucysalsa30's appearance, nothing like this occurred, and I can easily demonstrate that virtually all of the content that Saucysalsa30 has been removing is just about as long-standing as it gets. Moreover, I've been on Wikipedia for more than 10 years and while I have made many mistakes, I've never been known to WP:BLUDGEON discussions in the way that Saucysalsa30 tends to do wherever he makes an appearance. When it comes to the question of both article stability and who bears primary responsibility for the length of what should have been a fairly routine AN3 report, I would urge you and EvergreenFir to look a little deeper before declaring "a pox on both your houses!"—especially in light of Saucysalsa30's very recent sanction for edit warring on this same article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Please spare the continued slander, deceit, and whitewashing of your own WP:HOUNDING across various articles, personal attacks, and other harassment, and bludgeoning across almost every article you participate on and reverting anything you don't like on the website. The stalking and tag-teaming is not an indication of good conduct, esp. considering Qahramani44 started and engaged in edit warring and you decided to join in again. The articles were not "extremely" stable, and the "stability" has more to do with the fact that they're very low traffic articles with little to no scrutiny. For example, the fact I found verbatim copy-paste copyright violations in 2 articles that had been up since 2012 and 2015, respectively (which carry heavy legal implications), among other fixes, indicates the poor shape of the articles. Reflecting, it's ridiculous to think this all happened because you and Qahramani44 became enraged that after I spent 2 months of discussing the legitimacy of a random blog website unacceptable per Wiki guidelines in various boards (only because Qahramani44 and yourself claimed on no basis was a reliable source), it was removed as a source. Qahramani44 jumped into action to start this craziness within 7 minutes of its removal, incredibly. Seriously, you both put way too much emotion and energy into vengeance after being "wrong". Saucysalsa30 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Stop with the aspersions and bickering. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC) The articles are only "stable" (not really) because editors are scared of confronting the excessive number of people police watching articles like it's their personal pet project. Not just of getting reverted for no reason but also for getting harassed and having things in other articles reverted and changed. Articles reach a status quo depending which POV pushing group "owns" it and everyone afraid to edit out of fear their "own" status quo articles get ruined in revenge. The fact that there's a lengthy process going on that escalated to this level after starting with merely removing blogs and unreliable sources (which should have been straightforward and standard) are a good demonstration. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC) As a result of Qahramani44's filing, we have determined that Saucysalsa30 (who was blocked for editing warring on this same article less than three months ago), violated 3RR again (per EvergreenFir) and used a "bullshit" excuse to denigrate the highly-reliable academic expert Fred Halliday (per Drmies). That seems to be the cliffnotes version, for anyone interested in keeping score.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Who is the "we"? Only you, who not only started along with Qahramani but were directly involved in the harassment, personal attacks, and edit warring. Sorry, but a verbatim copy-paste copyright violation [264] [265] which is what Qahramani44 was originally reverting when he started his WP:HOUNDING and edit warring in the first place is not "bullshit". Perhaps review WP:CV if you're unfamiliar with copyright infringement. If you're going to give a "CliffNotes" version, at least don't lie in the process. And has already been demonstrated but just to be perfectly clear, Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging not only started the edit warring in the first place, coupled with WP:HOUNDING to war on 2 other articles and other forms of misconduct like the canvassing and personal attacks, but continued to engage in it. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC) @Saucysalsa30: where exactly is the copyvio? I see a few snippets that could use rewording but no sentences directly lifted. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC) EvergreenFir Here is a screenshot from the book itself, as I'd shown to Berrely over IRC. https://imgur.com/a/eOjxV8O Then compare it to the reverts on the two articles bringing back the copyvio [266] [267]. Word-for-word copy pastes from the book. Just to give an example here of a couple of the sentences from the Wiki articles: "the Iraqi Baathists brought the ideas of Sati' al-Husri to their full, official and racist culmination. For the Baathists, their pan-Arab ideology was laced with anti-Iranian racism and it rested on the pursuit of anti-Iranian themes." And then from the book as shown in the screenshot: "it was the Ba'athists who brought his ideas to their full official and racist culmination. For or the Baathists, their pan-Arab ideology was laced with anti-Persian racism and it rested on the pursuit of anti-Persian themes." Oddly, the only thing that was changed was changing "Persian" in the book to "Iranian" in the Wiki articles, which also creates a different meaning. Basically, put the linked diff on the Halliday section in the Wiki articles side-by-side with the screenshot from the book's text and you'll see sentences directly lifted from the book, same wording used and all. Please let me know if that's still not clear. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC) This should make it more straight-forward to visualize. https://i.imgur.com/5QYbWCA.jpg Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC) @Saucysalsa30: That 2nd sentence is indeed close paraphrasing and a problem. But there are ways of dealing with it that do not involve blanking. I might be "too lenient" but just fix it and move on. However, I don't see the copy-paste you mentioned. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC) EvergreenFir Please see this screenshot that puts the book text side by side with the Wiki diff. https://i.imgur.com/5QYbWCA.jpg To give another example in that same passage: Wiki diff: "over the decade and a half after coming to power, Baghdad organised the expulsion of Iraqis of Iranian origin, beginning with 40,000 Fayli Kurds, but totaling up to 200,000 or more, by the early years of the war itself. Halliday says that it was the Ba'athists too who, claiming to be the defenders of 'Arabism' on the eastern frontiers, brought to the fore the chauvinist myth of Iranian migrants and communities in the Persian Gulf region." Book: "over the decade and a half after coming to power, the Ba'th party organized the expulsion of Iraqis of Persian origin, beginning with 40,000 Fayli Kurds, but totaling up to 200,000 or more, by the early years of the war itself. ... It was the Ba'thists too who, claiming to be the defenders of 'Arabism' on the eastern frontiers, brought to the fore the chauvinist myth of Persian migrants and communities in the Gulf" The only differences were changing "Persian" in the book to "Iranian" in the Wiki article, changing "Ba'th party" in the book to "Baghdad" in Wiki, and adding "Halliday says". Otherwise, straight copy-paste. Hopefully that's clearer. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC) To avoid any confusion, there was no edit war over the text above, which was not reinstated after the COPYVIO was pointed out by Berrely. The text that Saucysalsa30 reverted an additional four times (diffs: [268], [269], [270], [271]) across two articles after Berrely stated that the matter had been resolved to his satisfaction read (in full): The Ba'athists in Iraq portrayed Iran and Iranians as an ancient enemy of the Arabs, with rhetoric often tinged with pan-Arabism and blatant racism and heavily inspired by the works of Arab nationalist Sati' al-Husri. In the late 1970s and early 1980s Saddam oversaw the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Persians and Feyli Kurds from Iraq. In the name of "defending Arabism" the Ba'ath also promoted chauvinist myths of Iranians being migrants to the Persian Gulf region. This snafu also has nothing to do with Saucysalsa30's violation of 3RR at a completely different article, Iraqi invasion of Iran, where he has been both warned and sanctioned previously. There are no extenuating circumstances in that case, so this entire lengthy conversation is essentially a distraction.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected – 2 days by User:EvergreenFir. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:69.142.142.173 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )

Page: Creation science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 69.142.142.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Everyone knows wikipedia is incredibly biased, you could at least pretend to be non-biased and neutral"
2. 21:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Everyone knows wikipedia is incredibly biased, you could at least pretend to be non-biased and neutral"
3. 21:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Everyone knows wikipedia is incredibly biased, you could at least pretend to be non-biased and neutral"
4. 21:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Everyone knows wikipedia is incredibly biased, you could at least pretend to be non-biased and neutral"
5. 21:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [272]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sheer creationist POV-pushing edit warring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Blocked by Barkeep49. Darren-M talk 21:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:JaMongKut reported by User:Giraffer (Result: PBlocked )

Page: List of largest Hindu temples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "I've told you many times, Please just don't claim it by your own knowledge. Use reliable source to claim it. And Don't just Undo without proper reason, if someone is correcting your mistake."
2. 08:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Please just don't claim it by your own knowledge. Use reliable source to claim it. correct your sentence, it IS not Hindu temple It WAS Hindu Temple."
3. 08:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Are you not understanding what I'm saying??? You are just going on changing the article without proper source."
4. 06:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Lots of the time I've asked you for not doing such big changes without any Proper cited source. If you wanna make such changes please cite the reliable source then. And PLEEAAASSEEE DON'T DO EDIT WAR."
5. Consecutive edits made from 04:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC) to 04:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 04:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Please don't make such big changes without PROPER cited source claiming the SAME."
   2. 04:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001633670 by Naveen Ramanathan (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:

Edit warring on List of largest Hindu temples, List of Hindu temples outside India, and Angkor Wat. They've also been removing talk page warnings, having recieved a 3RR warning and another page-specific edit warring warning. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Partial Blocked from List of Hindu temples by Callanecc. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Tennineeighttwo reported by User:203.18.34.190 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [273]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [274]
2. [275]
3. [276]
4. [277]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This user continually removes a short referenced and sourced paragraph I attempt to add to this article about the father of several band members (given the band had been in the media for the fathers connections to Australia's immigration detention regime, it is what I would consider to be relevant). I had lodged a potential COI as their only edits are to revert my edits, however they have denied any COI. The edit warring still persists. 203.18.34.190 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I posted a proposal for dispute resolution on Talk:Sheppard (band), then I saw that was report was filed. 203.18.34.190 also opened a WP:COIN complaint [279] accusing Tennineeighttwo of a COI. Tennineeighttwo has stated they do not have a COI. [280] Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have engaged in discussion on the talk page, which I will repeat here. Another editor has stated their agreement in the content being removed, please see the most recent update of the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheppard_(band)

1) As previously stated on the talk page in 2019, User:203.18.34.190 edits conflict with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Has the "implication into money laundering of money from PNG into Australia" been placed at Greg's doorstep in a court of law (or similar)? If he has not had a legal opportunity to defend himself against any allegations made, then wikipedia articles should not impugn his professional reputation, even tangentially, by using this phrase.

2) Again, as previously stated on this page - Relevance: This article is about Sheppard, the band, and not directly about Greg. The possibility of his firm being linked with alleged political corruption is not relevant to the band's history. In an article on Greg himself, it could be relevant; He is notable enough for his own article.

3) The suggestion is that this is relevant to the band because Greg was the financier and manager of Sheppard at the time (2015). As you can see from this industry article in June 2014, the bad were managed by Chugg and Scooter Braun. There are several other articles out there confirming these dates. https://tonedeaf.thebrag.com/justin-biebers-manager-to-launch-aussie-band-into-america/ I have searched and there are ZERO industry articles to be found that state Greg Sheppard as the manager of the band at any time, or the financier of the band. Therefore it is a)false information, and b) any information about Greg Sheppard is not relevant to the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennineeighttwo (talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Tennineeighttwo (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)