Tognella99 (talk | contribs) →User:Ivanvector reported by User:Tognella99: new section |
m Signing comment by Tognella99 - "→User:Ivanvector reported by User:Tognella99: new section" |
||
Line 739:
1) claiming that this information comes exclusively from ''The Sun'' and ''The Daily Mirror'', whose use is discouraged by Wikipedia rules, when in reality there are far more sources claiming the same (and linked in the article, but removed by them) and quoting, among others (but not only), Prowse's own daughter;
2) opening a discussion in the talk page about what should be reported as CoD; failing to reach a consensus; and then proceeding to change the CoD anyway and rolling back any attempts (by multiple users) to restore the old version while claiming that the matter is to be discussed in the talk page - while ''they'' should have waited for a consensus to be reached before changing the page in the first place. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tognella99|Tognella99]] ([[User talk:Tognella99#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tognella99|contribs]]) 00:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|
Revision as of 00:36, 1 January 2021
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:CuriousGolden reported by User:Armatura (Result: No action)
Page: Battle of Shusha (2020) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CuriousGolden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
Looks like 4 reverts over 24 hours period. No signs of the user engaging in the talk page discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Shusha_(2020) - GA review . The user is well aware of the 3RR rule as they were previously sanctioned by 2 week abstinence from editing Nagorno-Karabakh related articles and at that point they claimed that they were unaware of the rule but would follow it from now now. Notified about this discussion on personal talk page and on 3RR violation on article talk page. Regards Armatura (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Didn't notice I had passed 3 reverts. I wanted to revert my 4th revert, but since there's been many edits since my 4th edit, I decided I shouldn't mess things up. Though, I have to say that this diff and this diff were me reverting obvious vandalism which is an exception in WP:3RR. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden You are an experienced user, hence I don't buy the argument that you AGAIN "were not aware of / did not realise / did not notice" your 3RR violation (while diligently counting another editor's reverts and reporting them for the same thing). The rule was explained to you by an admin just two months ago, again in relation to NKR-related articles, resulting in 2 weeks of editing abstinence], yet you continued the bad habit of reverting other users' edits over trying to reach consensus on the article talk page (and Battle of Shusha (2020) and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are good examples of it]. Vandalism is blanking the page or posting offensive stuff on the page, not good-faith changes done by Haydar Pamuk who was reviewing the article for academic accuracy to make it GA article, whom you and other pro-Azerbaijani editors reverted many times without engaging in discussion on talk page and whom you managed to get him blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation. Please take the responsibility for your actions and don't pretend naive this time, I can see signs of WP:GAMING in you activity in NKR-related topic, and it does not look like soft measures like warning / explaining / temporary abstinence resulted in any improvement of your behavior. Regards Armatura (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Didn't notice" wasn't an argument, it was there to inform that I didn't pass 3rd edit intentionally. And no, I wasn't topic banned as you implied, me and the admin made an agreement to avoid a specific article for 2 weeks, which I did. "and whom you managed to get blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation" The guy reverted 5 times, which means he can't self-revert and he was given 3RR warning before the report or else he wouldn't have got banned. If you have problem with his ban, talk to Ymblanter, not me. And no, I didn't call Haydar Pamuk's edits vandalism. I called this diff and this diff vandalism, both of which you failed to address. The diffs' bad faith and vandalism are further proven by the discussion opened by one of the vandals on the same article's talk page. Rest of your comment is baseless and offensive accusations (which cross the line for WP:ASPERSIONS), so I won't waste my time replying to them. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- CuriousGoldenI am sorry to say this but your habit of reverting rather than trying to reach a consensus goes above and beyond a single article or a single editor's edits, one can just have a look in your contributions log to see how many times you reverted others in various articles in last couple of months in NKR-related articles, pushing your POV, whenever you didn't like somebody else's edits; are you going to claim that all those editors were vandals? I have not "implied" anything, please do not skew my comment, you were given a choice between a ban and abstinence for 2 weeks by a very kind admin EdJohnston, not that you had a better option, and this repeated violation of the same rule within 2 months tells me the first measure did not result in improvement of your methods. I have elaborated about the case of Haydar Pamuk in the discussion above this one, to keep this one focused. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, still no mention of the fact that 2 of the 4 reverts you provided were me revering obvious vandalism, which is an exception in WP:3RR. If you have a problem with any of my reverts on any articles, point them out in the appropriate article's talk page and we'll reach a consensus, like I have done so many times. Unfortunately, when you don't do that and come here and complain about my edits on random articles, I see nothing except WP:JDLI. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden Just one of the possible examples, where you were repeatedly asked by another user Sataralynd to stop repeated reverts and engage in discussion to reach a consensus. Roughly at the same time when you have done 14 reverts within 48 hours in 4 NKR-connected articles as reported by another user Գարիկ Ավագյան. This is despite being alerted to the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions back in April 2020. Also, perhaps before labeling others' edits as "vandalism", I think it would be useful to have a refresher on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism, especially the section on "Disruptive editing or stubbornness" ("Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. All vandalism is disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism"). Armatura (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, still no mention of the fact that 2 of the 4 reverts you provided were me revering obvious vandalism, which is an exception in WP:3RR. If you have a problem with any of my reverts on any articles, point them out in the appropriate article's talk page and we'll reach a consensus, like I have done so many times. Unfortunately, when you don't do that and come here and complain about my edits on random articles, I see nothing except WP:JDLI. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- CuriousGoldenI am sorry to say this but your habit of reverting rather than trying to reach a consensus goes above and beyond a single article or a single editor's edits, one can just have a look in your contributions log to see how many times you reverted others in various articles in last couple of months in NKR-related articles, pushing your POV, whenever you didn't like somebody else's edits; are you going to claim that all those editors were vandals? I have not "implied" anything, please do not skew my comment, you were given a choice between a ban and abstinence for 2 weeks by a very kind admin EdJohnston, not that you had a better option, and this repeated violation of the same rule within 2 months tells me the first measure did not result in improvement of your methods. I have elaborated about the case of Haydar Pamuk in the discussion above this one, to keep this one focused. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Armatura, did you look carefully at the fourth revert you put in the list above?. CuriousGolden was removing this fascinating bit of unsourced speculation by an IP editor who said that Erdogan was planning to settle Syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh:
- There Syrian Jihadists participating in the battle on the Azerbaijani side sent there with weapons after they crossed on foot into Turkish borders. They were sent by Erdogan, where he plotted a plan to settle syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh. It is now a confirmed fact. This article left out everything about the Syrian Jihadists and its a shame they are hiding the fact that Armenia was fight a war against terrorists whom said themselves that the Azerbaijanis stayed at the lines getting drunk while they sent the mercenaries forward to die. If this truth is removed than this article is nothing more than a make believe trophy because all shit floats to the surface one day..
- Armatura, do you seriously think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to keep these words in the article (including 'all shit floats to the surface one day'), and with no source? EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I definitely don't (I just noticed the fascinating piece you mentioned, sorry, and I have already warned the author of those lines on the talk page for violating civility on talk page, before even reading those lines), but I would still like admins to have a look at the history of reverts by CuriousGolden, please, and not only in this article. As I said earlier, it is not just this article that I worry about (already asked for 1RR limitation for it to admins familiar with NKR topics) , but the user's very low threshold for reverting others' edits in general (e.g. > 10 reverts in various articles just for 27/12/2020). For my information, perhaps the most effective way of dealing with perceived recurring vandalism would be reporting to admins rather than engaging in edit warring? Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Armatura, I have also seen signs of WP:GAMING in CuriousGolden's activity regarding NKR articles over the past few months. Time and time again the user's pro-Azerbaijani agenda becomes more evident. The user has a habit to make edits which clearly have a pro-Azeri bias. I've noticed the user tends to make vague edit summaries while sneakily altering information to tip articles towards a more pro-Azeri stance. In the case of Uzundara, the user and I came to a consensus in September, the editor then made edits in October contrasting the consensus (without engaging in any discussion). I proceeded to leave a message in the talk page of that article, which was ignored. Meanwhile, over at Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the user ended up making changes to the article while on-going talk page discussions were taking place and before a consensus was reached. When I advised the user of this, the user was very quick to point fingers and talk about "maintaining etiquette". The user has been very quick to accuse myself, Laurel Lodged, and others of either POV pushing or edit warring in the past, when they themselves have been sanctioned from editing due to edit warring. Quite hypocritical behaviour. All in all, this user knows exactly what they are doing and I also urge Admins to have a deeper look into their general pro-Azeri bias and manipulative editing tactics. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can confirm that gaming is afoot; his modus operandi is to revert edits he does not like, accuse the reverted editor of edit warring and then leave boiler plate, passive-aggressive-official-sounding warnings on the talk page of the offending editor in the hope of bullying him away from making further reversions. See my edit log for a sad litany of these kinds of edits and bullying behaviour. He is protected and supported in this behaviour by a coterie of like-minded editors with Turkish/Azeri sympathies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- And if you think that my reversion log with him is impressive, you should have a look at @AntonSamuel: who must have the patience of Job. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well said, Laurel Lodged. He has been and is unrelenting in pushing his pro-Azeri views; backed by a loyal band of followers. It is more then clear that the user has a biased WP:POV and WP:UNDUE agenda. Glancing at their edit history, this becomes self-evident. The user has switched language translations and de jure/de facto status in several articles to put Azerbaijan first and Armenian second, has removed or re-adjusted wordings to tip information in favor of Azerbaijan, and so forth (often times providing zero explanation). When editors try to restore balance/neutrality, the user is quick to revert and/or proceed with a hostile critique. This uncivil behaviour, backed by their aggressive editing tactics, is by far constructive... yet alone appropriate. Furthermore, nothing has changed since they were sanctioned last- so, "not knowing" cannot justify as an excuse anymore. I fear this behaviour will continue indefinitely. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- And if you think that my reversion log with him is impressive, you should have a look at @AntonSamuel: who must have the patience of Job. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can confirm that gaming is afoot; his modus operandi is to revert edits he does not like, accuse the reverted editor of edit warring and then leave boiler plate, passive-aggressive-official-sounding warnings on the talk page of the offending editor in the hope of bullying him away from making further reversions. See my edit log for a sad litany of these kinds of edits and bullying behaviour. He is protected and supported in this behaviour by a coterie of like-minded editors with Turkish/Azeri sympathies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Armatura, I have also seen signs of WP:GAMING in CuriousGolden's activity regarding NKR articles over the past few months. Time and time again the user's pro-Azerbaijani agenda becomes more evident. The user has a habit to make edits which clearly have a pro-Azeri bias. I've noticed the user tends to make vague edit summaries while sneakily altering information to tip articles towards a more pro-Azeri stance. In the case of Uzundara, the user and I came to a consensus in September, the editor then made edits in October contrasting the consensus (without engaging in any discussion). I proceeded to leave a message in the talk page of that article, which was ignored. Meanwhile, over at Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the user ended up making changes to the article while on-going talk page discussions were taking place and before a consensus was reached. When I advised the user of this, the user was very quick to point fingers and talk about "maintaining etiquette". The user has been very quick to accuse myself, Laurel Lodged, and others of either POV pushing or edit warring in the past, when they themselves have been sanctioned from editing due to edit warring. Quite hypocritical behaviour. All in all, this user knows exactly what they are doing and I also urge Admins to have a deeper look into their general pro-Azeri bias and manipulative editing tactics. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I definitely don't (I just noticed the fascinating piece you mentioned, sorry, and I have already warned the author of those lines on the talk page for violating civility on talk page, before even reading those lines), but I would still like admins to have a look at the history of reverts by CuriousGolden, please, and not only in this article. As I said earlier, it is not just this article that I worry about (already asked for 1RR limitation for it to admins familiar with NKR topics) , but the user's very low threshold for reverting others' edits in general (e.g. > 10 reverts in various articles just for 27/12/2020). For my information, perhaps the most effective way of dealing with perceived recurring vandalism would be reporting to admins rather than engaging in edit warring? Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Didn't notice" wasn't an argument, it was there to inform that I didn't pass 3rd edit intentionally. And no, I wasn't topic banned as you implied, me and the admin made an agreement to avoid a specific article for 2 weeks, which I did. "and whom you managed to get blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation" The guy reverted 5 times, which means he can't self-revert and he was given 3RR warning before the report or else he wouldn't have got banned. If you have problem with his ban, talk to Ymblanter, not me. And no, I didn't call Haydar Pamuk's edits vandalism. I called this diff and this diff vandalism, both of which you failed to address. The diffs' bad faith and vandalism are further proven by the discussion opened by one of the vandals on the same article's talk page. Rest of your comment is baseless and offensive accusations (which cross the line for WP:ASPERSIONS), so I won't waste my time replying to them. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: No action at this time. But if reverting continues at Battle of Shusha (2020) more serious admin action is possible under WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Curious to know how this decision was made, considering the above testimony from 3 different editors? Archives908 (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I too am baffled as to how the evidence above could result in a "No action" decision. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, I believe this case should be reviewed by another Admin. No valid explanation or rationale was provided why (despite all the evidence/testimony) this resulted in "no action". The biased WP:POV and WP:UNDUE edits, general WP:GAMING, continual violation of WP:3RR, and "bullying" tactics described by 3 different editors deserves recognition. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Guys, do you think we can not see anything? Do you think we do not see that there are requests here against Armenian editors with Azerbaijani editors piling up, and there are requests against Azerbaijani editors with Armenian editors piling up? Do you think we do not know that some of you support the Armenian side in 100% cass, and other support the Azerbaijani side in 100% cases? And that all of you clearly demonstrate battleground behavior? We block the most egregious cases, but, fine, we can start blocking in all the cases for edit-warring or even for disruptive editing - then all of you are going to be blocked within a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- That statement is a tad bit dramatic, and generalizing is very dangerous. While I don't disagree with you that tensions are high, this is more then just simple "vandalism"- we are noticing a pattern of behaviour here. It's best to stay focused and examine the information presented on a case-by-case basis, rather then making generalizations or rash assumptions. Archives908 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Furthermore, nothing is wrong with asking for explanation as to why this case resulted in "no action". Especially since, no explanation was even provided. Archives908 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Ymblanter, EdJohnston, elaborating on the logic of the decision would be appreciated. It is understandably easier to diagnose/rule out an issue in a given article rather than in the user's general behaviour, but as others mentioned there are systematic signs of gaming the system, article ownership, chronic edit warring in users log, have you looked into it carefully? No action is going through mean green light for further reverts, and if the user avoids revert warring in Battle of Shusha, he will continue in other NKR/Armenia/Azerbaijan-related articles, as befire. I don't see why you would treat Azerbaijanis and Armenians differently from the rest of the editors - could you please apply the same WP rules regardless of nationality, race, color, gender, religion and other protected characteristics? Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Guys, do you think we can not see anything? Do you think we do not see that there are requests here against Armenian editors with Azerbaijani editors piling up, and there are requests against Azerbaijani editors with Armenian editors piling up? Do you think we do not know that some of you support the Armenian side in 100% cass, and other support the Azerbaijani side in 100% cases? And that all of you clearly demonstrate battleground behavior? We block the most egregious cases, but, fine, we can start blocking in all the cases for edit-warring or even for disruptive editing - then all of you are going to be blocked within a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, I believe this case should be reviewed by another Admin. No valid explanation or rationale was provided why (despite all the evidence/testimony) this resulted in "no action". The biased WP:POV and WP:UNDUE edits, general WP:GAMING, continual violation of WP:3RR, and "bullying" tactics described by 3 different editors deserves recognition. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden You are an experienced user, hence I don't buy the argument that you AGAIN "were not aware of / did not realise / did not notice" your 3RR violation (while diligently counting another editor's reverts and reporting them for the same thing). The rule was explained to you by an admin just two months ago, again in relation to NKR-related articles, resulting in 2 weeks of editing abstinence], yet you continued the bad habit of reverting other users' edits over trying to reach consensus on the article talk page (and Battle of Shusha (2020) and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are good examples of it]. Vandalism is blanking the page or posting offensive stuff on the page, not good-faith changes done by Haydar Pamuk who was reviewing the article for academic accuracy to make it GA article, whom you and other pro-Azerbaijani editors reverted many times without engaging in discussion on talk page and whom you managed to get him blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation. Please take the responsibility for your actions and don't pretend naive this time, I can see signs of WP:GAMING in you activity in NKR-related topic, and it does not look like soft measures like warning / explaining / temporary abstinence resulted in any improvement of your behavior. Regards Armatura (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Βατο reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Page protected)
Page: Apollonia (Illyria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Βατο (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]
Comments:
Clear cut 3RR violation. Four reverts in the space of 10 hours. He and his friends will WP:FILIBUSTER this report to turn into tl;dr. But the diffs speak for themselves. The article falls within the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions area. The reverts are particularly disruptive, as they not only remove sourced material, but also misrepresent sources (e.g. here [11] he removes a source (Stocker) and adds a source (Cabanes) that does not support the "joint trading settlement" claim, as explained here [12]). He has received plenty of edit-warring warnings in the recent past [13] [14]. Didn't seem to have done any good. Khirurg (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is not 3rr violation: here I removed
{{qn}}
tags because the quotes were already included into the relevant parts of the article; here I fixed a source using the Harv-style reference and I added further sources into the lede. In those two edits, the article's content was not changed. – Βατο (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. They're both reverts. You returned the article to a previous state in both of those edits. The only exceptions are covered by WP:3RRNO. This is not the case here. Khirurg (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- With this edit I fixed a source that included a citation error, it is definetly not a revert to one of my preferred versions, also this edit concerning the
{{qn}}
tags was not a revert to one of my preferred versions. – Βατο (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)- What counts as a revert is defined in WP:3RR. Specifically
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
. In all 4 diffs, you reversed the actions of other editors and returned the article to a previous state. It doesn't matter if you don't consider them reverts. Khirurg (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)- No, this is definetly not a revert to my preferred version. – Βατο (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you say it's not your "preferred version". It's still a revert. This is alarming. Khirurg (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- A revert of what? – Βατο (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- A revert of this [15]. Don't play obtuse. You know what you did. Khirurg (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- This [16] edit is definetly not a revert, Administrators can check it. It's a cite error fix with Harv-style reference. – Βατο (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- It definitely is a revert, because you removed the quote ("At Apollonia, these early Greek mariners encountered..."). You're not fooling anyone here. Khirurg (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- This [16] edit is definetly not a revert, Administrators can check it. It's a cite error fix with Harv-style reference. – Βατο (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- A revert of this [15]. Don't play obtuse. You know what you did. Khirurg (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, this is definetly not a revert to my preferred version. – Βατο (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- What counts as a revert is defined in WP:3RR. Specifically
- With this edit I fixed a source that included a citation error, it is definetly not a revert to one of my preferred versions, also this edit concerning the
- Doesn't matter. They're both reverts. You returned the article to a previous state in both of those edits. The only exceptions are covered by WP:3RRNO. This is not the case here. Khirurg (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment by uninvolved editor. As far as I can see, there is no 3RR breach. In any case, nobody should rush to block Bato who is an established editor with clear block and AE logs. He even did not get warned for edit warring. Instead, I would like to have an admin keep an eye on the article, as it is having many edits and some reverts by several editors. As for the "friends" comment made by the filer, well he is the one here sanctioned at AE as part of a group of disruptive editors. I suggest everyone focus on improving content rather than on accusations and redundant disagreements. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- You should be blocked for making blatantly false claims and trying to derail the report with attempted smears
he is the one here sanctioned at AE as part of a group of disruptive editors
. Khirurg (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)- Dear Khirug, your continuous attempts to block user who significantly contribute to Wikipedia are ridiculous and shameful. Somebody has to report you and your other Wikipedia accounts (or "friends") too for your numerous disruptive edits!--Lorik17 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Bato: It's really sad you pretend that the quotes were already included into the relevant parts of the article. In fact they are not, to name a few tags you removed: Wilkes p. 96, Wilson 2006, p. 594; Chamoux 2003, p. 97. I assume you need to rephrase your defence in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- The updated information of the lede was taken from the article's body referenced with full quotes from the relevant sources that were recently added. The other sources were already included into the lede, no one changed them. – Βατο (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Bato: It's really sad you pretend that the quotes were already included into the relevant parts of the article. In fact they are not, to name a few tags you removed: Wilkes p. 96, Wilson 2006, p. 594; Chamoux 2003, p. 97. I assume you need to rephrase your defence in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Khirug, your continuous attempts to block user who significantly contribute to Wikipedia are ridiculous and shameful. Somebody has to report you and your other Wikipedia accounts (or "friends") too for your numerous disruptive edits!--Lorik17 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- You should be blocked for making blatantly false claims and trying to derail the report with attempted smears
- Response to Khirurg.There you were sanctioned as part of a "travelling circus" (an admin's words), not to mention that in the other AE cases you have in your log you were sanctioned together with two other disruptive editors, I pakapshem and ZjarriRrethues. This clarification was needed aa you said you expected "friends" of Bato to come here. I did not come here as a "friend". Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- TF are you talking about? I was never sanctioned at AE at any time for any reason. On the other hand it's impressive you dug irrelevant stuff up from 2010 for someone who supposedly started editing in..2016. Anyway, what does this have to do with Bato's breach of 3RR? You should be blocked for trying to derail the report with irrelevant junk from 2010. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are no quotes about those reference (Wilkes p. 96, Wilson 2006, p. 594; Chamoux 2003, p. 97... a quick search can confirm this) even in the article's body. @Bato: The placing of a qn tag is a polite way to say that something is needed. But you responded with instant reverts. That's a non-constructive pattern.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wilkes, Wilson, Chamoux were already into the lede before its updating with other sources, while the relevant quotes were already included into the article. – Βατο (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are no quotes about those reference (Wilkes p. 96, Wilson 2006, p. 594; Chamoux 2003, p. 97... a quick search can confirm this) even in the article's body. @Bato: The placing of a qn tag is a polite way to say that something is needed. But you responded with instant reverts. That's a non-constructive pattern.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- TF are you talking about? I was never sanctioned at AE at any time for any reason. On the other hand it's impressive you dug irrelevant stuff up from 2010 for someone who supposedly started editing in..2016. Anyway, what does this have to do with Bato's breach of 3RR? You should be blocked for trying to derail the report with irrelevant junk from 2010. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Is @Khirurg: seriously asking to block a highly productive editor via counting as a "3RR violation" and
particularly disruptive
the fact that Bato changedApollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria
toApollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony
[17]? The report is also invalid because no warning was ever sent to Bato even about the above "revert". This is the very definition of WP:GAMING 3RR. Khirurg has a history of this. Here's a similar failed report against another editor with whom he was in a dispute [18] for "maxing out 3RR"; he likewise supports another report against an editor he had a dispute with[19]. Noticeboards shouldn't be instrumentalized to win disputes. Now, Khirurg and Alexikoua whose report he recently supported have a total of 4 reverts and Khirurg is attacking other editors even when fixing minor edits ("fixed incompetent editing"). - Alexikoua was recently reported for a crystal clear violation of 3RR which nobody disputed [20]. Khirurg then argued that Alexikoua shouldn't be blocked because of "tagteaming" (not withstanding the fact that constantly they and Alexikoua find themselves on the same side of every dispute I've observed, which shows a much more consistent pattern than the collection of editors he's ever made this claim against). One can see highly representative behavior on that thread: although Khirurg claims the most minor of edits are sanctionable when put forward by editors he disagrees with, when an editor he constantly finds himself on the same side of the aisle is reported for obvious edit-warring, Khirurg barrages the filing editor and others with personal attacks and bewildering claims that they are "motivated by a desire for revenge".
- If we as a community are serious about fixing the problems that are glaringly evident here, the obvious fix is at the very least a reprimand for Khirurg to stop using reports in this manner. But at the very least, the WP:GAMING of noticeboards should stop.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Is @Khirurg: seriously asking to block a highly productive editor via counting as a "3RR violation" and
- As expected with the filibuster and spin. Your friend Βατο breached 3RR. There is no requirement that he be warned beforehand. He has been warned plenty of times in the past [21] [22], to little effect. He recently has been edit-warring like mad all over these articles on Epirus/Illyria, especially here [23]. Τhat article is now a cluttered, unreadable mess, largely due to the badly written, ham-fisted, additions of Βατο. This topic area has spun out of control. If we as a community are serious about fixing this, violations of 3RR should be dealt with promptly. Khirurg (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's actually not the first time Bato misunderstands the use of citations and the placing of tags. In general this instant reverting pattern is highly disruptive not to mention that he new that he would breach 3rr. He has been warned in his tp a couple of times recently but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- You should warn editors whom you consider to be edit-warring (
Warn the user if you have not already done so.
). Now, I think that you didn't warn Bato because there was nothing to warn him about. Despite your claims that he has been "edit-warring like mad" you are asking from the community to count as aparticularly disruptive
revert an edit by Bato which changedApollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria
toApollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony
[24]. It really highlights the instrumentalization of the report function and the very bad use of community discussions. Editors are reported in order to stop an active disruption. Such minor edits are neither disruptive or worthy of any discussion at ANI. You can't ask for anyone to be blocked or even warned about something like that. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- You should warn editors whom you consider to be edit-warring (
- It's actually not the first time Bato misunderstands the use of citations and the placing of tags. In general this instant reverting pattern is highly disruptive not to mention that he new that he would breach 3rr. He has been warned in his tp a couple of times recently but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- As expected with the filibuster and spin. Your friend Βατο breached 3RR. There is no requirement that he be warned beforehand. He has been warned plenty of times in the past [21] [22], to little effect. He recently has been edit-warring like mad all over these articles on Epirus/Illyria, especially here [23]. Τhat article is now a cluttered, unreadable mess, largely due to the badly written, ham-fisted, additions of Βατο. This topic area has spun out of control. If we as a community are serious about fixing this, violations of 3RR should be dealt with promptly. Khirurg (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, so it went from "it's not a 3RR violation", to "it was just a minor change". What's "minor" to one user is not minor to another. Βατο has been pushing a very strong "Illyrian" POV for years now. In the diffs from today alone, he removed a reliable source (Stocker) and misrepresented another (Cabanes). For that alone he should be blocked. Khirurg (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC
- There was no 3RR violation and the change of
Apollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria
toApollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony
is not aparticularly disruptive
edit/revert in any way, shape or form. I don't think that anyone should be blocked about anything if there is no disruption. I'm not even fond of blocks per se. And I am of the opinion that no editor should be dragged through a report which hypes minor edits as something which they're not. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)- You're not fond of blocks, eh? That's why just recently you wrote 10 kb of text in a futile attempt to get another editor blocked [25]? Yeah, you're not fond of blocks, but only if it's from editors that share your POV. The "minor edit" was mine [26]. The fact that Βατο reverted even that, shows strong WP:OWN tendencies - he doesn't even allow the most minor edit by me to go unchallenged. This by itself is alarming. When you combine it with source misuse and removal of reliable sources, this is grounds for a topic ban, let alone a block. Khirurg (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because they were using bibliography in a very bad way and had made 4 clear content reverts. The lesson from that discussion was that many issues should probably be discussed at AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The one who is guilty of source misuse is Βατο, who in one of the reverts above used a source to make a claim not backed by the source. And it doesn't matter if "you are not fond of blocks". You are not an admin around here. Why are you trying to sound like one? Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Source misuse with original research interpretation is Alexikoua's pattern, not mine. The false statement
misrepresented another (Cabanes)
highlights your unconstructive pattern in Wikipedia, you haven't even checked the sources. Kyle et al. and McIlvaine et al. are not commenting on Hammond's suggestions, they used them along with Cabanes' and other scholars' proposals to make their own conclusions, it can be easily seen if you read the sources, but for you it is better to WP:CHERRYPICK sources and to add only what you like, ignoring other scholars' considerations. In that specific edit I added further quotes from the sources because Alexikoua used them incorrectly as considering the information supported only by Hammond, when actually it was not the case. Anyway, that is just one of the edits, and it is content dispute that should be discussed in the article's talk page, not here. Returning to this discussion, there is not 3rr violation, one of the presumed reverts was actually a source fix with the use of Harv-style reference. Also I fail to see a warning in my talk page, which clearly shows that there was not edit war. – Βατο (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)- You have the nerve to break 3RR and then claim "there was not edit war", because of a technicality. Speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- But there is no 3RR disruption and you shouldn't have filed a report which asks from the community to block someone you disagree with because they changed
Apollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria
toApollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony
. As we're getting close to a day after the supposed "disruptive editing" nothing has happened in terms of editing. If there was disruptive editing which required for anyone to be blocked, where is the continued disruption? The fact that you're still trying to put forward a narrative that requires for Bato to be blocked even though nothing has actually happened in my book looks like instrumentalization of the report in order to score points against another editor. Such use of community noticeboards lowers the quality of the project and makes collaboration very difficult.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- But there is no 3RR disruption and you shouldn't have filed a report which asks from the community to block someone you disagree with because they changed
- You have the nerve to break 3RR and then claim "there was not edit war", because of a technicality. Speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because they were using bibliography in a very bad way and had made 4 clear content reverts. The lesson from that discussion was that many issues should probably be discussed at AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're not fond of blocks, eh? That's why just recently you wrote 10 kb of text in a futile attempt to get another editor blocked [25]? Yeah, you're not fond of blocks, but only if it's from editors that share your POV. The "minor edit" was mine [26]. The fact that Βατο reverted even that, shows strong WP:OWN tendencies - he doesn't even allow the most minor edit by me to go unchallenged. This by itself is alarming. When you combine it with source misuse and removal of reliable sources, this is grounds for a topic ban, let alone a block. Khirurg (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- There was no 3RR violation and the change of
- Oh, so it went from "it's not a 3RR violation", to "it was just a minor change". What's "minor" to one user is not minor to another. Βατο has been pushing a very strong "Illyrian" POV for years now. In the diffs from today alone, he removed a reliable source (Stocker) and misrepresented another (Cabanes). For that alone he should be blocked. Khirurg (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC
- But there is a breach of 3RR, and he even reverted my change of
Apollonia in Illyria was an Ancient Greek trade colony
toApollonia was an Ancient Greek trade colony in Illyria
, because even that was too much for him. I made the minor edit, and he reverted it instantly, with the edit summary "not an improvement". What kind of behavior is that? It's clear WP:OWN. Of course he has been lying low since I filed the report. And we both know what will happen if the report is closed as no action: He will immediately resume WP:OWN edit warring. Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- But there is a breach of 3RR, and he even reverted my change of
- Page protected – 5 days. Please air these disagreements more fully on the talk page. WP:DRN might be an option for you all to consider. The questions about Illyrian involvement in this colony seem to be a reflection of modern nationalism about Albania and Greece, and thus fall under the WP:ARBEE sanctions. If the quality of discussion doesn't improve, admins ought to consider indefinite full protection of the article, with changes being put in only through edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: As soon as the specific article was protected a new round of revert-warring by the same editor has been launched in similar articles:
- Amantia: 2rvs: [[27]][[28]] (erasing a specific part about Greek-Latin bilingualism)
- Bylliones: 1rv: [[29]], accompanied by commentsthat reveal complete lack of AFG [[30]].
- It's really sad that instead of a providing some kind of apology or explanation above Bato preferred to launch a new round of disruption without even waiting for this report to close.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Editors must stop characterising as disruption their disagreements with other editors. Khirurg has two reverts at Bylliones, but you don't consider that disruptive since his reverts are supporting edits which you have put forward. I don't consider any revert(s) to be "disruptive" per se, but I do consider disruptive the instrumentalization of reports as a tool for content disputes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's really sad that instead of a providing some kind of apology or explanation above Bato preferred to launch a new round of disruption without even waiting for this report to close.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Doggy54321 reported by User:GngZack (Result: No violation)
Page: Positions (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Doggy54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [31]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
User has reverted the same article upwards of 4 times in the span of 24 hours despite the summaries of the edits explaining why they were necessary to remove WP:SYNTH material. A talk couldn't be initiated in the Talk Page because the page was changed to semi-protected status soon after the 4th reversion. GngZack (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Um...the third and fourth reverts were cleaning up vandalism. The page was semi-protected to prevent vandalism (I was out for a walk as this was all happening), and after I came back, I saw the page was protected because of vandalism. I went to check the edit history to see if there was any vandalism needing to be cleaned up (there was), so that is what the third/fourth reverts are for. Please keep in mind that those two reverts are exempt to 3RR per WP:EW#EX4. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 14:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @GngZack: you can open a talk discussion on the talk page, as it is not semi-protected. Talk pages usually are never protected. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 15:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why the user claims the third and fourth reverts are due to vandalism when they're reverting the same changes that the first two were reverting. All four reverts are reverting edits made to help the wiki article adhere to the guidelines. GngZack (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- The page was protected to prevent vandalism because there was persistent vandalism that was being added to the page. Per WP:VAND, an example of vandalism is
illegitimately blanking pages
. The user in reverts 3/4 was blanking parts of the page out, so I reverted it. I would have used the rollback tool/the "restore this version" Twinkle tool to revert their edits in one go, but there had already been more edits to the page (such as more vandalism being reverted and the page being protected), which I couldn’t revert. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 14:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)- No violation – Successive edits count as at most one revert. Even so, the IAR defence is not convincing and I't suggest it not be relied on in the future. The claim by User:Doggy54321 that they were reverting vandalism is not credible. Many content removals are done in good faith. Removal of content is only considered vandalism when it is done for the purpose of damaging the article, which was not the case here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: oh ok, thank you for clarifying. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 17:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- No violation – Successive edits count as at most one revert. Even so, the IAR defence is not convincing and I't suggest it not be relied on in the future. The claim by User:Doggy54321 that they were reverting vandalism is not credible. Many content removals are done in good faith. Removal of content is only considered vandalism when it is done for the purpose of damaging the article, which was not the case here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
User:152.86.164.35 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked)
Page: Animaniacs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 152.86.164.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 23:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Hello Nurse and Minerva Mink are too sexual they don't allow that in educational shows that's why this show can't be educational because of them"
- 22:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Yeah for toddlers this show got some some violence and a couple of sexual characters like hello nurse and minerva mink that is too inappropriate for younger children"
- 22:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Leave educational out of this they'll think this show is for babies"
- 21:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "This show can't be educational because of the violence, stupidity and sexual stereo types"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Animaniacs."
- 23:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Animaniacs."
- 23:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Animaniacs */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Blocked – 6 months for disruptive editing by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Two editors warned)
Page: Torwali people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 01:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC) to 01:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- 01:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ religion; enough to say Dardic language"
- 01:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ better geog description"
- 01:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* History */ removing dubious POV history section; do you think I don't know when POV history is created by piecing together obscure sources; you don't have anything on the culture which is what the article is about and you are waxing about the history; take it to the Swat District page"
- Consecutive edits made from 01:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) to 01:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- 01:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Language */ again this is not about the language; cutting the bloated language section; you don't have anything other that a content fork of the language."
- 01:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "language is a part of culture"
- 01:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ AGAIN this is not about the language;"
- Consecutive edits made from 01:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC) to 01:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- 01:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ this page is not about the language; it is mentioned in the infobox. the language has a separate page where you can wax about indo-aryan; the culture has little to do with indoaryan"
- 01:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ it is not just sitar; it is also a percussion instrument; the naming of the instrument does not belong to the lead"
- 22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 996824946 by Kautilya3 (talk): Anupam has been promoting toxic Hindu supre4mecist POV espeically in Pakistan related pages for nearly 14 years; he is now joined by LearnIndology and Zakaria; rv to K3's last"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
No 3RR warning given, but the editor is experienced enough to know. The edit summary #5 is also quite toxic personal attack. I think given the situation a serious warning at least is in order. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The editor that was targeted did take it quite hard, understandably. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't have the sense that I had reverted three times. Have I checked Kautilya3's accounting? I have not. Why? Because I think the more important issue here is something else.
- India-POV-promoting editors have been relentlessly editing Pakistan-related pages, promoting Hindu majoritarian- (or anti-Pakistan) POV. It is toxic, utterly, and shamefully toxic. They don't know anything about Pakistan, but because the Pakistani editors on Wikipedia are exhausted, tired, and unable to counter, the Indians or India-POVers are getting away/ They promote cultural irredentism. They claim Pakistan by some fantasy of Indian reunification, claiming Pakistanis, who are Muslim, as converted Hindus, or rubbing this in by whatever it takes. Someone has to come to the Pakistani's defense. I am the author of the FA India and the prime author of the History of Pakistan, Kashmir, British Raj, Company rule in India, Indus Valley Civilization, Partition of India, Indian rebellion of 1857, in other words, most things in Indian history that have anything to do with the current impasse between India and Pakistan. Do they really think I don't know what is going on here?
- Do what you must, but please don't forget that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the creation of NPOV content, not nickel and diming rules and playing gotcha.
Kautilya3, the reporter, engages in India-promotion himself. He routinely does this in India-China and India-Pakistan issues. What does he know about Swat? Nothing.The India-POV promoters, moreover, adopt comical identities: they pose as Pakistanis. As Pakistanis, they make only gnomish edits on Pakistan-related pages (why? because to do anything more would require knowledge). But they make reams and reams on Hindu-majoritarian topics. They award Pakistan Order of Merit barnstars to Pakistan-bashers from India. They award barnstars to each other at the drop of a hat. Have they written anything of consequence on Wikipedia? They haven't, nothing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do what you must, but please don't forget that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the creation of NPOV content, not nickel and diming rules and playing gotcha.
- Comment: I am a Pakistani from the the KPK province and have seen your edits on Wikipedia. They in no way "defend Pakistan" but promote your British imperialist POV in Pakistan - you wrote an essay in one of your subpages defending colonialism in pre-partition subcontinent. Look at the talk page and see that everyone reached a consensus and then you Fowler&fowler came and started edit warring on the article. You Fowler&fowler have made what I perceive as prejudice statements like the one you have in your edit summary and have been warned before, yet you still make them. Will you say you're sorry and stop? These are some I found disturbing:
If Hindu practice results in the deaths of thousands of individuals, as it does in this case, through water borne diseases, why should I "understand" why Hindus cause these deaths. Concern for human life is more important than cultural relativist kowtowing to a religion.
[36]We don't need papers in palaeogenomics to see that. We have only to look around to see the vast and brutal inequalities Hinduism has created in Indian society.
[37]During our visits to India, my family and I have very likely buried more stray dogs and cats, all either run over, or otherwise killed, by Ahimsa-loving Hindus, than the number of times editors here have uttered aloud the word Ahimsa. (Especially, cats (domesticated cats): have you wondered why their yowling is never heard in Hindu neighborhoods in India, except in the hills? That is because they are all shooed-away, or have rocks or sticks thrown at them, by superstition-loving Ahimsa-loving Hindus. You have to go to a Muslim neighborhood to see a cat.)
[38]Goodness knows, there were plenty European evangelists around to help them spiritually and British administrators to grant them economic and educational favors. But most Hindus chose to reassert their caste status or assert even higher caste status.
[39]If it is not old-fashioned racism, it is the kind that makes Indians (and I don't mean any WP editor) unload their insecurities about being equated with blacks (the Lord forbid).
[40] Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- A case in point. A relatively new editor, who knows more about my edits (with diffs to boot) than he does about anything substantive on WP. He pulls these diffs out of the hat on every occasion. He awards a barnstar a day to his POV pals. His POV pals pull the same diffs out of their hats and grant a barnstar every other day to him. See his talk page, and theirs; they will appear here soon enough. Is WP about this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Are some of these editors sockpuppets of the banned Hindu- and India-POV pusher user:Highpeaks35? The vehemence against me is tell-tale. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- The edit summary like
Anupam has been promoting toxic Hindu supre4mecist POV espeically in Pakistan related pages for nearly 14 years; he is now joined by LearnIndology and Zakaria; rv to K3's last"
is really problematic. Also, portraying Wikipedia as a battle ground for editors of different nations and casting aspersions against other editors, including the editor who filed the report won't be helpful. See this diff. You need to avoid such behavior. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)- If it weren't a battleground, ARBIPA sanctions would not be there. If it weren't a battleground, I wouldn't need to do work for the NPOV lead and map in place in all Kashmir-related pages, especially Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Aksai Chin, and Azad Kashmir. Do you see that they all have the same NPOV format? That did not happen overnight; it took an enormous effort, mostly by me. See the RFC and map discussion. View the admins on board there. I received thanks from them. But did I get any from the people here who are champing at the bit to have a go at me, including you? None at all. I do all the thankless work. But if in quickly fixing a POV-fork of the stub Torwali language I make a transgression, I'm dragged to ANI. Kautilya3 could not have left a message on my talk page? When he needed me to fix the 2020 Delhi riots page (see it's NPOV state which has now held for 11 months) he was quick to ask for help on my talk page. Where were you, my friend, The Aafi? I've never seen you anywhere on these pages, but you apparently watch my edits with the eyes of a hawk and make sanctimonious admonitions here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Arbcom needs to take another look at India-Pakistan. There is entirely too much India-POV-tinkering going on in Pakistan-related pages, all by Indian or India-POV editors. The Pakistanis, in contrast, do very little on Indian pages. This has created an untenable and iniquitous situation. Just imagine: if someone like me, with a history of integrity in India-Pakistan issues, am being dragged to ANI for a relatively minor sin (which I haven't even bothered to examine because I think bigger issues are at stake), what chances do Pakistani editors have in stemming the rot of the Indian-POV on their pages? Arbcom really does need to take another look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- If it weren't a battleground, ARBIPA sanctions would not be there. If it weren't a battleground, I wouldn't need to do work for the NPOV lead and map in place in all Kashmir-related pages, especially Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Aksai Chin, and Azad Kashmir. Do you see that they all have the same NPOV format? That did not happen overnight; it took an enormous effort, mostly by me. See the RFC and map discussion. View the admins on board there. I received thanks from them. But did I get any from the people here who are champing at the bit to have a go at me, including you? None at all. I do all the thankless work. But if in quickly fixing a POV-fork of the stub Torwali language I make a transgression, I'm dragged to ANI. Kautilya3 could not have left a message on my talk page? When he needed me to fix the 2020 Delhi riots page (see it's NPOV state which has now held for 11 months) he was quick to ask for help on my talk page. Where were you, my friend, The Aafi? I've never seen you anywhere on these pages, but you apparently watch my edits with the eyes of a hawk and make sanctimonious admonitions here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- The edit summary like
- Are some of these editors sockpuppets of the banned Hindu- and India-POV pusher user:Highpeaks35? The vehemence against me is tell-tale. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- A case in point. A relatively new editor, who knows more about my edits (with diffs to boot) than he does about anything substantive on WP. He pulls these diffs out of the hat on every occasion. He awards a barnstar a day to his POV pals. His POV pals pull the same diffs out of their hats and grant a barnstar every other day to him. See his talk page, and theirs; they will appear here soon enough. Is WP about this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- 50 kbytes on talk this month (almost none of it by F&F) for a very poor, repetitive article at 7 kbytes! Talk page quotes to 3rd parties being dragged up from 3 years ago or more.... Business as usual in this area. Suggest close. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Considering that User:Fowler&fowler has engaged in an edit war on the article without engaging at all in the talk page [[41]] means that they are not following wikipedia protocol WP:BRD. Since the issue is being discussed in the talk page, User:Fowler&fowler must discuss his ideas in the talk page first before engaging in editing the article again. I understand that it is a controversial article, but there has to be control and restraint by all editors before it gets out of hand. Find better sources, ask for an RFC, suggest another section in the article where Fowler&fowler's sources or views can be presnted, and above all try to reach a consensus in the talk page before editing once your edits are disputed. If such behavior persists then a temporary article block or temporary user block would be in order to enforce cooperation between.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know who this editor is, but s/he has misunderstood my revert. I reverted Anupam because he had removed the POV tag added by Kautilya3, then moved the disputed text into the viewable quotes of the citations, and expanded that text significantly. After my revert, Anupam did not first open a talk page discussion per BRD, he reverted my revert, then posted on the talk page. Look, the article's talk page discussion has been going on for a long time. Anupam has been trying throughout to sneak in common POV insinuations (converted Hindus or Buddhists, etc, etc) by way of the most obscure sources (whose use can support the craziest assertions). I am going back to my vacation. Before I do so, I would like to apologize to Kautilya3 for some uncharitable things I said in my statement (which I have now scratched). He is an admirably neutral and NPOV editor with a much longer fuse than mine. I'm glad that he continues to be there on the article's talk page. I am a little disappointed by his filing this AN3. He could have left a note on my talk page. To the overseeing admins: do what you must. As I said, I am returning to my vacation. I do think that Indian (i.e. India-POV promoting) editors have swamped Pakistani pages. Arbcom needs to take another look at India-Pakistan 1RR etc does nothing because there are many more Indian editors than Pakistani. Consequently, many Pakistan-related pages are no longer neutral, the faults on average lying at the doorsteps of the Indians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Fowler&fowler. I don't really need an apology, but Anupam does. His approach is different from yours or mine, but it is a stretch to brand him a "Hindu supremacist" (if at all anybody can be so branded). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know who this editor is, but s/he has misunderstood my revert. I reverted Anupam because he had removed the POV tag added by Kautilya3, then moved the disputed text into the viewable quotes of the citations, and expanded that text significantly. After my revert, Anupam did not first open a talk page discussion per BRD, he reverted my revert, then posted on the talk page. Look, the article's talk page discussion has been going on for a long time. Anupam has been trying throughout to sneak in common POV insinuations (converted Hindus or Buddhists, etc, etc) by way of the most obscure sources (whose use can support the craziest assertions). I am going back to my vacation. Before I do so, I would like to apologize to Kautilya3 for some uncharitable things I said in my statement (which I have now scratched). He is an admirably neutral and NPOV editor with a much longer fuse than mine. I'm glad that he continues to be there on the article's talk page. I am a little disappointed by his filing this AN3. He could have left a note on my talk page. To the overseeing admins: do what you must. As I said, I am returning to my vacation. I do think that Indian (i.e. India-POV promoting) editors have swamped Pakistani pages. Arbcom needs to take another look at India-Pakistan 1RR etc does nothing because there are many more Indian editors than Pakistani. Consequently, many Pakistan-related pages are no longer neutral, the faults on average lying at the doorsteps of the Indians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: User:Fowler&fowler and User:Anupam are warned. F&F says that Anupam is promoting a 'toxic Hindu supremacist POV', while Anupam says F&F is a 'long-term communal POV pusher'. If these attacks continue it's going to cause trouble. No other action taken. WP:AE sanctions, if they were imposed, would make it harder to edit in this area.
- It does not seem to me that producing a neutral version of Torwali people should be all that hard. In other topic areas I doubt we would take any notice at all of a 'deeply-rooted oral tradition' that could very well be completely mistaken. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Anupam reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: No action)
Page: Torwali people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996881998 by Fowler&fowler (talk) rv mass deletion by long-term communal POV pusher User:Fowler&fowler; gain consensus on talk page for contentious edits"
- 01:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996880886 by Fowler&fowler (talk) rv - gain consensus on talk page for contentious deletions"
- 01:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ partial rv: the DYK reviewer specifically requested that the lede be expanded to summarize the article; discuss on the talk page if you disagree"
- 22:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996853356 by Fowler&fowler (talk) rv - use the talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
No 3RR warning given, but the editor is experienced enough to know. See also the above report for User:Fowler&fowler. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I admit that I was not paying attention to the number of reverts that I made and I humbly apologize for this. For the past few days, I and other editors were working on the talk page to reach consensus on the talk page. We did that today and when the other editor started blanking sections of the article, I became a bit frustrated, especially after I tried using the talk page and received no response besides continued edit warring. If the reviewing administrator would like me to revert any of my changes or to revert all of my recent edits, I would be happy to do that. I am sorry for any inconvenience that this has caused anyone. I wish you all a joyful holiday season and a Happy New Year. Respectfully, AnupamTalk 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Anupam is a good faith editor who has positively contributed to WikiProject Pakistan and WikiProject India for a number of years. They have apologized for edit warring and are willing to revert. I don't see the need for any remediation here. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:Anupam seems to have been following wikipedia protocol of WP:BRD and was and still is in discussion of the changes with Kautilya3 and another editor in the talk page [42]. The issue is how User:Fowler&fowler just stepped in all of a sudden and started to revert without ever engaging in the discussion in the talk page. See the talk history of that page [43]. Fowler&fowler is not even found there. Since the issue is being discussed in the talk page, User:Fowler&fowler must discuss his ideas in the talk page first before engaging in editing the article. It looks a bit messy because of all of this. From my past intersections with User:Aniupam, I have not seen much edit wars of this kind so I think that if reverting stops, then there should be no further action aside from a warning. Clearly User:Anupam is trying to redirect User:Fowler&fowler to go to the talk page and stop edit warring with the reverts.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Anupam and Fowler&fowler were both warned per another complaint of the same dispute above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:94.35.25.239 reported by User:Gwennie-nyan (Result: Blocked)
Page: Mary Mouser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.35.25.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 20:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC) to 20:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- 18:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User has been warned many times for disruptive editing ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 02:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 month Materialscientist (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
User:72.80.139.114 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page: Almah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.80.139.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 01:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) to 01:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- 01:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Editors lying about the citations, which actually state the opposite."
- 01:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 16:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC) to 18:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- 16:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Citations removed do NOT make the claims attributed to them."
- 17:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "You are lying about your citations, which actually state the opposite of what you claim."
- 17:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
- 17:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
- 17:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
- 18:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
- 18:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 16:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) to 16:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- 16:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
- 16:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Reversions are inaccurate, citations do not support what reverter claims"
- 16:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Citations removed do NOT make the claims attributed to them."
- 16:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "fixing grammar"
- 16:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Fanatics are lying about the citations and making frivolous claims."
- 15:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "citations do no support claims made"
- Consecutive edits made from 06:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC) to 15:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- 06:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Corrects citation, which actually says the opposite of what's been claimed."
- 14:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ""
- 15:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "The citations removed do not support the claims made."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 03:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
User:The.Barbaryan reported by User:Politanvm (Result: The.Barbaryan blocked from Zero Hedge)
Page: Zero Hedge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The.Barbaryan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 05:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996873996 . Vandalism"
- 00:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996853815. Vandalism."
- 13:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Lack of consensus. Vandalism."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 00:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Zero Hedge."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 02:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC) on User talk:The.Barbaryan "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Zero Hedge."
Comments:
Edit warring at Zero Hedge with multiple warnings on users talk page and directing user to a discussion on talk page. User has responded with personal attacks at User talk:Politanvm and User talk:Ratel. POLITANVM talk 05:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:The.Barbaryan continued to revert the Zero Hedge article after their block expired, but I've now put the article under WP:ECP using authority of the WP:ARBAP2 case. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- You EdJohnston do have some nerve to drop censorship on a page like ZeroHedge. Little people like you is what's wrong with society. Enjoy your "wiki authority" from your parents' basement.The.Barbaryan (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User: Politanvm reported by User:The.Barbaryan (Result: The.Barbaryan blocked from Zero Hedge)
Page: Zero Hedge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Politanvm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 00:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by The.Barbaryan"
- 02:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edits by The.Barbaryan"
- 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by The.Barbaryan"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 06:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC) on Talk:ZeroHedge "General note: Some editors insist with their bias reverting any meaningful edits on Zero Hedge."
Comments:
Edit warring at Zero Hedge with user User:Politanvm ignoring the summary, facts and resorting to unnecessary reverts while patronizing editor User talk:The.Barbaryan
- New COI(?) user The.Barbaryan, a single-purpose account devoted to mass removal of consensus edits from one article (Zero Hedge), with absurd edit comments like "Opinions from MSM competitors (constantly criticized by ZeroHedge) are too biased in order to be considered accurate. Gossip are not facts." This new editor considers RSes to be "gossip", and any other source to be "competition" to Zero Hedge and therefore unreliable. He/she does not know how WP works and should be temp banned for disruptive editing. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- This looks more like political censorship, editwarring and bludgeoning other editors by The.Barbaryan to me. I see six removals of sourced information, including the sources, since the last protection ended 27-12-2020(protected for exact the same reason as the present edit war). I see three reverts by User:Politanvm (not a breach of 3RR) and 3 reverts by User:Ratel (also not a breach of 3RR). The Banner talk 14:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
User: Ratel reported by User:The.Barbaryan (Result: Barbaryan blocked from Zero Hedge)
Page: Zero Hedge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of edit warring:
- 22:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 996728633 by Ratel (talk): Restore consensus version, again"
- 08:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 995341274 by Citation bot (talk): Non-consensus changes reversed"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 07:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC) on Talk:ZeroHedge "There is no consensus on labelling ZeroHedge "far-right", "fake-news" or "conspiratorial" on Zero Hedge."
Comments:
Edit warring at Zero Hedge with user User:Ratel whom is ignoring the summary, facts and resorting to unnecessary reverts while misleading editors with claims of "consensus"User talk:The.Barbaryan User also patronizing editor editors, claiming User:The.Barbaryan is "a single-purpose account devoted to mass removal of consensus edits" and that "He/she does not know how WP works". The.Barbaryan (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)talk
- This looks more like political censorship, editwarring and bludgeoning other editors by The.Barbaryan to me. I see six removals of sourced information, including the sources, since the last protection ended 27-12-2020(protected for exact the same reason as the present edit war). I see three reverts by User:Politanvm (not a breach of 3RR) and 3 reverts by User:Ratel (also not a breach of 3RR). The Banner talk 14:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
User:2A00:23C5:2313:CD00:CC20:4DCD:9984:D963 reported by User:JJPMaster (Result: Semi)
Page: GeoWizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A00:23C5:2313:CD00:CC20:4DCD:9984:D963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This user is rapidly adding test edits and disruptive edits to the article on GeoWizard, such as "he plays an urban world sexy" and "ccole". JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is vandalism, not edit warring. AIV would have been more appropriate. Closing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) :While it appears to be edit warring, perhaps the issue could also be raised over at WP:AIV? This is pretty blatant vandalism. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 17:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: The GeoWizard article has been semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Zhmailik42812 reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: Blocked)
Page: User:Zhmailik42812/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Zhmailik42812 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zhmailik42812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Not available (user started the page)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Please check the user's contributions for the reverts. They are doing it on multiple pages.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
Comments:
User is a sock (see here for SPI), and they are edit warring with me on multiple of their user/subpages. Long story short, they copied a bunch of text off of my userspace. My main userpage, my userbox page, my articles page, my sandbox, my talk page and more. For some (sandbox, talk, articles), they copied verbatim what was there. For others (main, UBX), they adjusted it to their own fit (but it was minor things like changing my username to theirs, specifying the userboxes, etc). I normally don't have a problem with the latter (User:JackReynoldsADogOwner is an example), I find it quite flattering. But, this is a sockpuppet who has annoyed me for months, and has caused me to catch every single one of their sockpuppets. I also requested speedy deletion of their userspace (by criterion G5), and they keep reverting me. Yes, I know technically we are both exempt to 3RR (it's their userspace but I'm reverting a blocked sockpuppet), but I felt the need to report them anyways. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 00:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Herbfur reported by User:OfficerCow (Result: No action)
Page: Windows XP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Herbfur (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- I am very sorry. I didn't realize that my actions could constitute edit warring. I've opened a discussion on the dispute and I won't make any further reverts until a consensus is found. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Herbfur: Me too - seems I may have skipped a step or two, this is my first time trying to file a report. OfficerCow (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Result: No action. User:Herbfur has agreed to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:2601:4A:4201:AF0:7951:6DBD:A5B8:3A5E reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Semi)
Page: List of horror films of the 2020s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:4A:4201:AF0:7951:6DBD:A5B8:3A5E (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
- Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:3Kingdoms reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Rob Schenck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3Kingdoms (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:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=997143622&oldid=991819594
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&diff=next&oldid=997154273
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&diff=next&oldid=997187565
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&diff=next&oldid=997255255
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&diff=next&oldid=997265027
AND
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&oldid=prev&diff=997306142 - AFTER I started this discussion, posted the Edit-warring post on the user's talk page, and they added their comment below (note the timestamps).
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (this is the link to the talk page discussion which started from the previous edit warring on this page over this same subject, for which this same user received a block) Talk:Rob Schenck#Inappropriate_edit_warring_re:_Norma_McCorvey_situation
Comments: Please note that there are really FIVE reverts in 15 hours, because the first edit is the continuation of an edit war on this page that this user was blocked for about a month ago.
Here is the link to the previous ANI discussion on this same edit warring from a month ago (Note that there are two posts about the same edit warring, one directly above the other, same editor was reported by IHateAccounts and NorthBySouthBaranof) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive420#User:3Kingdoms_reported_by_User:IHateAccounts_(Result:_Blocked_24_hours) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 (talk • contribs)
- I have asked the person in question to provide reasoning for the issue with my edit, but they only reply with edit warring and false accusations of burying. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – Indef. User:3Kingdoms is here at this noticeboard for the second time in a few weeks, after a previous block. (He has now made six reverts on 30 December). The user seems to have no intention of following our edit warring policy. At Talk:Rob Schenck#Inappropriate edit warring re: Norma McCorvey situation 3Kingdoms he displays WP:IDHT. In a line just above, 3Kingdoms asks others 'to provide reasoning for the issue with my edit'. If he was paying attention, the fact that he's here at the EW noticeboard ought to be a clue. Though the block is indefinite, other admins might consider an unblock if they become convinced that the problem will not recur. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have asked the person in question to provide reasoning for the issue with my edit, but they only reply with edit warring and false accusations of burying. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Al-Burcaawi reported by User:SultanSanaag (Result: )
Page: Badhan, Sanaag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Al-Burcaawi (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]
Comments:
User actions evidently indicate failing the edit warring policy on multiple account, It appears to me that he is doing WP:PLAYPOLICY, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is driven politically and in favor of the unrecognized de factor State of Somalia (Somaliland) he has refuse to get the point and it's been 4 reverts in less than 24 hours period. Not good faith signs of the user engaging in the talk page discussion. Whereby this matter should have been rather simple and if you ask globally or any community about rightful details about this article here a few external maps as reference Badhan, Somalia or here [54] and here [55]. Please urgently stop this user. Iappreciate your assistance in this matter. SultanSanaag (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Somalia has no jurisdiction over Somaliland, it is therefore misleading to indicate this area as being under Somalia, as that would indicate Somalian control, which is false.
Just like how Taiwanese towns aren't marked as part of China, Somaliland towns shouldn't be marked as part of Somalia either. I believe a consensus has already been reached earlier in regards to this.
It seems you're driven by your political affiliation and your bias is at play here. No one is disputing Somaliland's lack of recognition, but marking its towns as part of Somalia is very misleading. Somalia isn't a complete state either.
Regards, Al-Burcaawi (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Doug Weller reported by User:Haerdt (Result: Withdrawn by OP)
Page: Stop the Steal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doug Weller (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:
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Comments:
My apologies for any errors in the reporting of this incident. Wikipedia user ‘Doug Weller’ aggressively and abusively censored my attempts to contribute in the discussion of the above mentioned ‘Stop the steal’ page. Now, I understand this is a politicized topic, but an editor such as ‘Doug Weller’ should tread carefully. Wikipedia’s reputation is already shoddy when it comes to politicized entries. Aggressively shutting down individuals interested in collaborating to improve the neutrality of the entry is not a good tack. ‘Doug Weller’ posted obnoxiously on my own Talk page and then challenged me to report them. They clearly need a check. I understand that senior Wikipedia editors might revel in their ability to use this platform’s complex system of codes, rules, and procedures to their personal political advantage. I have been bullied by senior editors already. I’m sure ‘Doug Weller’ has done their best to portray themself as a very experienced, very fair moderator of knowledge. Perhaps, to some degree, they are. I’m sure ‘Doug Weller’ has a good deal of respect. However, this person and any editor should never abuse their power for the sole purpose of pushing a political agenda. We are dealing with the organization and preservation of the knowledge of humanity. I urge you to take a step back from power politics and consider what it means to be fair, balanced, and neutral when approaching our task here.
- This is a malformed request which should be promptly closed. Doug Weller has done nothing but patiently point out to the reporting user that we require reliable sources for all material on Wikipedia - that "being "fair, balanced, and neutral" does not mean treating all viewpoints or ideologies equally. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a written lie. Look at Doug Weller’s Talk page. There are multiple reported instances on his Talk page of him overstepping his bounds and abusively interacting with well-intentioned well-sourced contributors Haerdt (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haerdt (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Haerdt: Providing WP:DIFFs would support your case a lot more. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
~~~~
. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 02:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I deleted his posts off of my Talk. Thanks, I’m doing my best to follow all of these guidelines and codes. Haerdt (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- You have not provided a single example of Doug Weller not being
a very experienced, very fair moderator of knowledge
. To the contrary, they have shown nothing but patience with your bizarre insistence that we take the word of charlatans and grifters over every reliable source and court of law in the United States. We're not going to do that, ever, period, the end. You can stop demanding it, because it's not going to happen. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, and you have three rights here - the right to your contributions (as licensed), the right to fork, and the right to leave. That you disagree with our policies and guidelines as applied to Stop the Steal is unfortunate, but irreconcilable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is NorthBySouthBerenof taking such a passionate stand here? He has been censoring me repeatedly in the past several hours in my attempts to bring some rational balance to one of Wikipedia’s pages. I have reported him separately for bullying me and posting abusively on my Talk page. See the report below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haerdt (talk • contribs) 06:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Balance" does not mean even-handed or 50/50 or taking both sides at their word. That would be a ridiculous violation of core rules on neutrality. Perhaps WP isn't for you if you can't accept that we give due weight based on external sources, not based on editors' desires to see certain viewpoints. That's a problem that can get you blocked. But again, I emphasize that if you are reporting Doug for edit-warring and wanting to see action taken against them, it is your responsibility to back up that concern with specific evidence. No evidence==no action. DMacks (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand, thank you DMacks. I will withdraw my report on Doug Weller. I appreciate the clarification. Haerdt (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Jib Yamazaki reported by User:55go (Result: )
Page: Elaiza Ikeda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jib Yamazaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [56]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:37, 26 December 2020 UTC
- 03:45, 27 December 2020 UTC
- 05:42, 27 December 2020 UTC
- 11:52, 30 December 2020 UTC
Comments:
Persistent addition of unsourced content.--55go (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Roy McCoy reported by User:Feoffer (Result: )
Page: Stop the Steal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roy McCoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [57]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Removes "Conspiracy Theory" from predicate nomitive using a misleading edit summary (talk page does not indicate support for proposed change), reverted by Feoffer: "per existing inline comment and talk page, this change will require consensus that does not presently exist"
- Again removes "conspiracy theory", reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof: "that's not consensus."
- Roy McCoy removes third time, writing: "It's far closer to a consensus than Stop the Steal is to a conspiracy theory." , reverted by Aquillion: "extensively sourced."
- Fourth removal after three reverts from three different editors.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]
- Roy McCoy disputes CONSENSUS is necessary for their changes, WP:BATTLEGROUNDs: "I'm not going to plead to correct a misplaced comma or misspelled word, and I'm not going to beg on my hands and knees to correct this obvious error either. What I may do is go through the archives and bring a complaint against the whole bunch of you."
Comments:
Roy McCoy argues our articles should not be based on reliable sources. They dispute the Five Pillars and they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Feoffer (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- There's an interesting discussion at User talk:Roy McCoy#December 20 with User:Guy Macon where Roy says " Moreover, the actual fringe theory in regard to 9/11 is the official fantasy, which if I'm not in error only a minority of the population believes despite the relentless propaganda in its favor." At Talk:Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist)#No consensus for Page move after failing to get "conspiracy theorist" removed we have "Speaking of sources, Wikipedia's are often duplicitous and unreliable, so one can keep regurgitating the RS policy till the cows come home, and it will still fall flat with anyone aware of the dubiousness of the WP-approved sources and of the frequent value and acceptable quality of the disapproved – for example the Gateway Pundit on the 2020 Election. The graphic at Investment Watch provides a picture of the ideologically motivated division of sources and "explains a lot of the bias". If the purpose of Wikipedia is to serve as a propaganda rag, the childish "conspiracy theorist!" finger-pointing/name-calling may make some sense. Otherwise I'd say that what the encyclopedia actually needs, Hob Gadling, is fewer tired reiterations of the policy of aping often-discreditable sources. I think it could use less of that even if propagandizing is the purpose, since the RS policy perhaps shouldn't be over-advertised given current public disillusionment with "the lying media" – a phrase today yielding over a million estimated Google finds." Doug Weller talk 08:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Feoffer, Doug Weller: I'm not sure there's a violation here, as I don't consider [60] to have been a revert. At least I started counting from what I considered to be the first revert, [61]. I have since seen and understood that the 3RR rule "is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times", but honestly I feel that this is a case in which WP:IAR might rightfully be invoked in any event, as well as perhaps another guideline whose name I don't remember that says (or used to say) that a proper consensus doesn't necessarily require a majority. I've been drenched with this reliable sources, reliable sources recently, and my edit in this case is perfectly in accordance with the RS while Feoffer's totally isn't, as I've clearly established in detail. Thank you, Doug, for saying my posts were interesting. I think Feoffer means "nominative", and if I really must say so my preferred pronoun is "he". –Roy McCoy (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Roy McCoy suggests the first of four edits does not qualify as a revert. That suggestion is without merit. On December 27, McCoy similarly removed "Conspiracy Theory", which was reverted by GorillaWarfare with the warning "discuss on talk page before making this change, per inline note". Anachronist then posted an even clearer warning to get consensus before making the change. Feoffer (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Haerdt (Result: Article ECP protected)
Page: Stop the Steal Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: [[User:<!— NorthBySouthBaranof -->|<!— NorthBySouthBaranof -->]] ([[User talk:<!— NorthBySouthBaranof -->|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<!— NorthBySouthBaranof -->|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<!— NorthBySouthBaranof -->|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<!— NorthBySouthBaranof -->|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<!— NorthBySouthBaranof -->|block user]] · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The editor ‘NorthBySouthBaranof initially took a stand for his similarly minded editor friend ‘Doug Weller’ — see my previous filed report. ‘NorthBySouthBaranof’ then aggressively twice censorsd my attempt to provide a legitimate link supporting the claim that evidence exists, which has been disputed in the Talk section of this article at length. ‘NorthBySouthBerenof’ then aggressively posted in my personal Talk section citing Wikipedia guidelines and claiming that in his opinion the weblink I provided was not legit. I have linked another website above in the diff section to a website I just discovered was on Wikipedia’s ban list. I will be attempting edit with another news article from The Gateway Pundit. Despite the reality that these are right wing news sites, the article cites only left wing news sites. Haerdt (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I will be attempting edit with another news article from The Gateway Pundit.
Q.E.D. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBerenof is now abusively bullying me across several fronts, while preventing legitimate additions to the StoptheSteal page. He is citing Wikipedia code to support censoring information from legitimate right wing news sites. Clearly this contributor is an activist on the left wing. Haerdt (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
censoring information from legitimate right wing news sites.
As clearly expressed by the community, The Gateway Pundit is not a "legitimate" news site, and is in point of fact notorious for publishing fabrications, falsehoods, lies, and patent nonsense. As I alluded to above, that Haerdt believes anything published in The Gateway Pundit is fit for Wikipedia suggests that they lack the competence required to effectively edit Wikipedia, as they are unable to appropriately distinguish between the use of acceptable and unacceptable sources. They're welcome to find some other project to contribute to, such as Conservapedia or Metapedia, where standards for sourcing are... different, and possibly more to their liking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBerenof is championing a movement among Wikipedia contributors to censor the entire right wing of political news. This is an extremely dangerous practice. Haerdt (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- No action seems necessary other than the ECP protection of Stop the Steal which was performed by another admin as a result of a request at WP:RFPP. @Haerdt: You have not identified which edits are supposed to be an edit-warring problem. A look at the article history shows edit warring but not any problem from the reported editor. Please do not accuse an editor of "abusively bullying me" when it appears that all that has happened is that the basics of editing in accord with policies have been outlined. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:InsulinRS reported by User:Elizium23 (Result:blocked 72h)
Page: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: InsulinRS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [62]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]
Comments:
I am presenting a combined report for 3 articles, because they all involve exactly the same content which has been added by InsulinRS. He took umbrage at my talk page message and a single revert I made of his work, and while I worked at three articles tossing out unreliable sources, he proceeded to undermine that, without reading any diffs of what was being deleted. He doesn't seem to comprehend that this is not about today's edits. Elizium23 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This user is covering up Henryk Gulbinowicz's burial and is uncooperative. The user has also described this source describing the disciplinary action against Gulbinowicz as "unreliable" in edit summaries. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-gulbinowicz-dies-ten-days-after-vatican-sanctions-67629 I also later included a source from Gulbinowicz's Wikipedia page which noted he was cremated and buried in his family's tomb https://www.onet.pl/informacje/onetwiadomosci/gulbinowicz-henryk-nie-zyje-kardynal-mial-97-lat/2qb37rw,79cfc278 I wanted to report the user for edit warring too.InsulinRS (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours, angelfire.com and Youtube are not reliable sources Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Elizium23 reported by User:InsulinRS
OP blocked as per above
|
---|
This is not intended to be disruptive of other administrators. I just don't like edit warring against reliable edits. Page: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) If there should be compromise edits, such as consensus, then so be it.InsulinRS (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
User:Bishonen reported by User:Haerdt (Result:Not a 3RR report)
This is not a 3RR report - this is the wrong place to make this sort of complaint. WP:AN or WP:ANI would be better places. SQLQuery me! 21:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
Page: Stop the Steal Page-multi error: no page detected. Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Diffs of the user's reverts: Warning Look, you are not supposed to keep on attacking people after my small sanction (a mere block from one article and its talkpage). I'm referring to this (implicitly accusing Beetstra and others of fascism) and this (various offensive accusations against Doug Weller, and why twice?). Quit it or you'll get a sitewide block. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is policy. Bishonen | tålk 14:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC). Excuse me? I make a simple legitimate edit with factual information and I get constantly attacked. Haerdt (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC) By six different editors. Haerdt (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Comments: Bishonen is consistently attacking me for posting legitimate links to factual information that is widely available on the internet, yet suppressed through censorship techniques on websites that he seems to frequent and support. He has banned me for making legitimate edits, and strongly upheld policies that I was not aware existed. Once I was informed of those policies, I abided by them and will continue to. Nevertheless, Bishonen aggressively amd obnoxiously banned me temporarily from editing the oage in question and then posted on my Talk page threatening to ban me further. This is abusive and bullying. I am providing legitimate informational sources to real events and occurrances. Bishonen, do not make your blindness to world events my problem. Bishonen has taken offense to me pointing out to other editors that their censorship of my edits is fascist. Well, I am calling a spade a spade. When you throw the book at me for legitimate attempts to provide factual basis for a Wikipedia entry, and then restrict my access, that is a fascist technique. Perhaps you should learn how to hold civil discussion and collaboratively build an encyclopedia with people of differing viewpoints from your own instead of directly applying censhorship techniques. Bishonen, NorthBySouthBerenof, and Doug Weller could have assisted with finding a legitimate source for the information I presented to the community for the above mentioned article. Instead, they harshly applied standing policy and aggressively bullied me. This is not the conduct of an open and free project. Freedom does not necessarily mean you bbully ithers and treat them with disdain. You have the option to be kind and take a supportive and nurturing tact, and others are watching your actions and words. Haerdt (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
What a messed up report. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
NorthbySouthBerenof continues to attack me and bully as seen above in his posts here. RealClearPolitics, a website that is not blacklisted or whitelisted from Wikipedia to my knowledge, yet, provides plenty of accounts of verifiable election fraud. I have linked it on the Talk page for Stop The Steal. Here is another link: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/23/propaganda_election_fraud_and_the_death_of_journalism_144705.html -- I will read and understand all of the Wikipedia politics and guidelines that I can find. I have read the ones that i have been linked to by these other editors, in between dealing with their abuse and bullying. I am attempting to provide a legitimate, factual citation to real life world events from a source that is legitimate according to Wikipedia code (to my knowledge at this point in time) and I have been aggressively attacked and threatened by three editors - NorthbySouthBerenof, Bishonen, and Doug Weller. I am extremely frustrated, and I am engaging with you politely using all of the established community guidelines that I am aware of. I am not disagreeing with election results, as I have written before. I am linking to established, widely read, legitimate sources demonstrating verified election fraud that occurred. Ymblanter - thank you for your support. I will open complain at WP:ANI. I do not appreciate the abusive tone from these three editors and I believe that it goes against Wikipedia's purpose and spirit. Haerdt (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
|
User:Ivanvector reported by User:Tognella99
Page: David Prowse
In co-operation with User:Eggishorn, this user has vandalized the David Prowse page by removing the information that he died of COVID-19 and deleting all sources that state this, while replacing them with others that use the euphemism "short illness". These users have abundantly engaged in WP:Gaming the system, namely:
1) claiming that this information comes exclusively from The Sun and The Daily Mirror, whose use is discouraged by Wikipedia rules, when in reality there are far more sources claiming the same (and linked in the article, but removed by them) and quoting, among others (but not only), Prowse's own daughter;
2) opening a discussion in the talk page about what should be reported as CoD; failing to reach a consensus; and then proceeding to change the CoD anyway and rolling back any attempts (by multiple users) to restore the old version while claiming that the matter is to be discussed in the talk page - while they should have waited for a consensus to be reached before changing the page in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tognella99 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)