Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring 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. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) 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.
Click here to create a new report

User:82.3.47.254 reported by User:Megainek (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Diane Lane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.3.47.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Lane&oldid=955154813

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

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

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

Comments:
Anon user keeps adding back "Oscar nominated" to first sentence without explanation despite this being discouraged per style guide on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#On-going_projects/to_do_lists. Also done on List of Diane Lane performances.

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours No 3RR violation, but slow-mo edit warring, failure to respect WP:BRD and no talk participation suggests a block may be the only way they'll get the message. Megainek, please let me know if they come back, as I've given them a warning that they'll also be blocked again if this continues. Cheers, Number 57 20:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Akmal94 reported by User:Yoonadue (Result: User warned, later blocked)

Page: Kakar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Akmal94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 8 May
2. 8 May
3. 8 May
4. 8 May
5. 9 May

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

Mind how all those reverts are completely unexplained despite warnings on user's talk page to stop making them.[7] Yoonadue (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Warned They've been told that if they remove the material again without gaining consensus on talk, they'll be blocked. Please notify me if this happens. Number 57 23:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained? I explained my reason for my edits on the talk page of the article but you failed to respond to me there or ignored me. I even left a message on your page explaining my reasons but you failed to respond to me on there either. Either way i fail to see how my edits worth me being reported. Akmal94 (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoonduae:You seem to have a problem with ignoring me and even deleted my reply to you on your page regarding my reason for the revert. The source is NOT reliable period. But you seem to enjoy reporting people to discourage them from editing on Wikipedia. This is practically online bullying. Dear @Number 57: none of my edits validate as "vandalizing." I removed the source strictly because its a primary source and to my knowledge, those are not accepted in Wikipedia, yet this user insists on re adding it back in. You can check my reverts as well, they are in good faith and Wikipedia should be about quality not quantity. Akmal94 (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Number 57: Akmal94 is continuing his unexplained reverts per this. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 
  • @Yoonadue: Thanks, I have now blocked them for 72 hours. Number 57 11:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Skjoldbro (Result: No violation)

Page: Julius Streicher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:
I see you both making three reverts, and nobody breaking 3RR. Am I missing something? ‑ Iridescent 22:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BMK didn't break the 3R rule and the edits in question seem like a trivial change to the size of a picture. I agree with Iridescent, what am I missing? Springee (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent and Springee: BMK does them all within 24 hours: 23:44, 19:02 and 20:46. And yes, it is trivial but it hasn't stopped him from attempting to change it many times, while being repeatedly told not to Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 3, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#We have a problem, Talk:Eduard Dietl etc... Skjoldbro (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To repeat my question which you've not answered, what am I missing? You can't just claim someone has broken 3RR and not present any evidence that they've done so. ‑ Iridescent 07:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Well, I don't really understand your question. I have provided three links which all shows that BMK did three reverts within 24 hours. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

BMK used a really good edit summary in the third diff above: "Actually, you take it to talk and explain why you want to glorify a reprehensible Nazi anti-semite with a photograph presented larger than the photos of American presidents in their articles." Why not engage with that? Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Sure, it is a "really good edit summary", if you ignore: 1) per WP:BRD, it was his edit which was undone, so he would have to explain why it should be added, not the other way around. 2) This was still after the 3 Revert. And most importantly 3) this issue has been discussed Multiple, Times, Ad nauseam, with each discussion reaching the same agreement: Standardization does not equal glorification! But BMK refuses to accept it. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: (a) A user must make more than 3 reverts in 24h to violate 3RR. (b) BRD states: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus" (emphasis mine). MrClog (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog and Iridescent: Well this is super embarrassing. Sorry to waste your time. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No violation – Only three reverts were listed. But I hope this war will not continue across multiple articles. Past discussions that were linked seem to favor keeping the default image size. For example at Talk:Eduard Dietl#Image size. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:986:8001:D134:B1C7:54F4:A9A8:3192 reported by User:Galendalia (Result: No violation)

Page

Queen of Hearts (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:986:8001:D134:B1C7:54F4:A9A8:3192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955643591 by Galendalia (talk) I have backed my the corrections of the blatant rape denial/apologetism which solid logic, Danish law, and a lot of academic research in the discussion. Thus the undo of your undo."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Queen of Hearts (2019 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Plot Changes */ new section"
2. 03:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Plot Changes */"

Comments:

Numerous times this editor has been asked not to revert changes and I told them I would revert back to the original before they started. They have once again, instead of waiting on discussion reverted the changes. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 05:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC) See full edit's here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_of_Hearts_(2019_film)&type=revision&diff=955844219&oldid=955634102&diffmode=source; consistent edit warring; keeps injecting POV despite being told not to. This was there latest un-due "Undid revision 955844219 by Galendalia (talk) User is holding an 'official' rape apologist POV, is refusing ing to discuss to his POV in good faith, is imposing his onesided edits, and is engaging in a covert edit war with straw manning, false accusations and distractions. Reverted until he completes discussion in good faith." I have not even had a chance to respond to the discussion and I have made my stances pretty obvious. Refuses to let discussion happen without them editing the article first and as I type this they are still making edits adding their POV. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 05:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I now need to add that shortly after I added this User:MarnetteD made a change to the genre (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_of_Hearts_(2019_film)&diff=next&oldid=955854456&diffmode=source) and made it “Sex Crime” of which this film has never been categorized as such until now. Possible SPI or they know each other? Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I now need to state that I simply reverted it to the same version that Galendalia had left it at. To quote Galendalia's edit summary "Restoring back to original version prior to IP editor changing". Galendalia should be a little more thorough before making silly allegations. It does look like Galendalia got turned around with all their reverting so maybe they are a sock of themselves :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• No violation IP has only reverted three times over the course of three days. Number 57 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: - Rest assured I am not a SP. I am one user, with one IP address. It is not a 'silly allegation', however, that is your POV so I am not going to argue, as this is pending administrator involvement.I reverted back to the version which was before the IP editor started making all of the changes and injecting undue weight, POV, etc. as stated above. Now that you reverted to my last change, that included all of that editors changes. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 17:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Rest assured I reverted to the version that you left the article at. Why you can't figure that out is hard to explain. MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Delerium2k reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)

Page

5G (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Delerium2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [REVERT] 14:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955916918 by (talk) --- The paper makes specific reference to WHO recommended exposure limit of 1mW/cm^2 as motivation and results show clear neuronal suppression in that range (see fig. 4 in ref). By suppression by biologic structures, you mean neurons? Neurons are ubiquitous, not only behind the skull -- please don't pull published research and leave blog articles and op eds on this page"
2. [REVERT] 13:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "NPOV. Primary experimental research published in well-established journal. Please do not censor proper scientific data relevant to topic, thank you --- Undid revision 955911366 by Alexbrn (talk)"
3. 13:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Health */ added primary neurophysiological finding"
4. [REVERT] 13:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Health */ added back ref --- a peer reviewed analysis, itself citing 125 peer reviewed sources is not a 'dubious pov'"
5. 03:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Health */ added published meta analysis of mm wave bio effects"
6. 01:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Health */ added citation from the literature"
7. [REVERT] 01:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "The link provided is a blog article and does not point to scientific consensus. If consensus is claimed it must be supported in reference material , thanks"
8. 23:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Health */ link does not point to scientific consensus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 5G. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Unreliable sourcing / POV-pushing / edit-warring */ m"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Number 57 17:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User:KevTYD reported by User:Romartus Imperator (Result: Watching)

Page

User talk:Romartus Imperator (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

KevTYD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Did you know you just broke 3RR? Also... just saying, I think you should cease attempting to evade the truth."
2. 18:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Written on Template:Retired: - Please do not use this template simply to hide from discussions. You are attempting to hide from a discussion right now (a SPI), which is why it is correct for me to undo your attempts to vanish."
3. 18:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Romartus Imperator: Attempting to deny the truth. Behavior mirrors BFDIBebble (sock of PKHilliam)'s final talkpage edits at User talk:BFDIBebble. (A)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Harassment of other users. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by KevTYD (talk) to last revision by Romartus Imperator (TW)"
2. 18:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by KevTYD (talk): I am not hiding from a discussion. This is my personal choice. Please respect it or I will report you. (TW)"
3. 18:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Tornadosurvivor2011 (talk) to last revision by Romartus Imperator (TW)"
4. 21:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC) on User talk:Romartus Imperator "Undid revision 955956641 by KevTYD (talk): Editors can choose to blank their talk page per WP:BLANKING"

Comments:

User is breaching WP:BLANKING, Hounding and WP:NPA. User also has a strong conflict of interest with the Uncyclopedia article and is attacking me for this reason. Romartus Imperator (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I am doing this because of WP:SPI/PKHilliam. This user is trying to evade the SPI by claiming oneself has retired, something explicitely forbidden by the Retired template. See SPI for more info. An admins has even suggested to block Romartus Imperator, most notably at the Rock-O-Jello SPI where Romartus Imperator is attempting to report me for socking. Potentially a continuation of or a revenge attempt following my initial 3RR report against one of PKHilliam's sockpuppets. KevTYD (wake up) 22:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am closing this to limit the damage from the Uncyclopedia battle where new users miraculously appear. In a few hours I'll work out if anyone needs to be blocked but a discussion on my talk suggests the matter is resolved. @KevTYD: Do not edit war, particularly if you suspect a sock: hello, what do you thing edit warring with a sock is going to achieve? Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Welp, warring with a sock will most likely damage my reputation and make me seem less credible... getting deeply involved within the BFDIBebble case last week and seeing this new sock pop up really got onto my nerves. I'll try to take a break soon in order to "forget about this" and eventually move on to editing other articles. KevTYD (wake up) 23:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User:JoeShmo978 reported by User:Zefrrr (Result: Article protected)

Page: Jenifer Rajkumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JoeShmo978 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

Sockpuppet accounts seem to be used in these revisions; suspected NPOV conflict and whitewashing of political candidate.  Zefrrr (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected No 3RR violation (by this user) but clearly plenty of SPAs and socks active on the article, so I've semi-protected it for two weeks. Number 57 20:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Skllagyook reported by User:Dalhoa (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=prev&oldid=955974321

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&type=revision&diff=955984089&oldid=955974321
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955984089
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955986396
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955986758

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955984089
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955986396
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalis&diff=next&oldid=955986758

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User made no attempt to resolve issue on article talk page instead user reports editors to Doug Weller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

User added his pov to the page based on his racial classification of Negroid and Caucasoid, the source does not mention anywhere those terms, when I removed the addition user started to edit war while threatening to report me for edit warring, user later reported me to Doug Weller, user has a habit of adding pov content based on genetics, heritage and race.

Dalhoa (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My edit followed the source and was not based on any personal classifications or POVs of mine. I also never used the terms "Negroid" or "Caucasoid" on that page (I mentioned "autochthonous African" and "non-African" populations, as supported by the source). My edit merely summarized the source at the beginning of the section on autosomal ancestry to make its findings clearer to the general reader (that was its purpose). I am entirely unclear why User:Dalhoa was/is so determined to delete it, as they refused to engage with my edit notes or explain their deletions other than to insist that my addition was POV without explaining why and to claim that I had stated things I had not said, nor why they characterized it as "racist", as they did here in this diff: [[19]]. In the edit notes, I repeatedly asked Dalhoa to stop edit warring while explaing my reasons for my addition, but they nonetheless continued to revert me with unexplained accusations of POV. Also, I am not sure/do not think that I have violated the 3-revert rule (as I did not revert more than three times, unless I am misunderstanding it - I reverted three times but not more). If I did in fact violate the 3RR rule then I will of course self-revert until this is resolved. The page's edit history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Somalis

I did not in this instance attempt to discuss/begin a topic with User:Dalhoa on the talk page because I have tried to do so many times in the past in the attempt to have reasonable discussions, but this has allways failed. Dalhoa has a long history of assumptions of bad faith, seeming bad faith, inexplicable and puzzling hostile/combative and unreasonable attacks toward other users including myself, and a seeming refusal or failure to listen. Some examples of which can be seen on their user Talk page.

Some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dalhoa#Personal_attacks_and_assumptions_of_bad_faith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dalhoa#January_2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dalhoa#Okay_let’s_hash_this_out.

And in these exchanges which I had with them in the past and posts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skllagyook#A-Group_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Horn_of_Africa#Jebel_Irhoud_in_Morocco_obsession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#recent_changes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive_34#Behavioral_modernity

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=937046997#Deliberate_well_orchestrated_tactics_to_spread_pov_and_fringe_theories.

Attempts to discuss with Dalhoa in Talk pages have always failed as they seemingly refuse to listen or to refrain from assumptions of intent, hostility, aspersions, and the mischaracterizations of others' statements and positions. I, in this instance, did not know what else to do other than to seek help from an administrator such as User:Doug Weller Skllagyook (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Warned @Skllagyook and Dalhoa: You are both edit warring and Talk:Somalis was last edited in December 2019, and that was by a bot. Engage with the issues on talk to avoid sanctions. Get input from a wikiproject or start an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Are you the Admin overseeing this notice? if that is the case then wouldn't this represent a conflict of interest? The user added that addition based on this pov about the race of Horn Africans being a "mixture" of Caucasoid and Negroid. [[20]] The user is also lying when he/she says they did not revert more then 3. I did not revert the user because of the 3RR but the user saw no reason to follow that rule and as per the WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. His addition represents pov and have racial motivations. Dalhoa (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: I never on the Somali page said anything about Negroids or Caucasoids. And in that discussion you linked on the other page I said: "In addition, people from the Horn of Africa are generally mixed as well ("Caucasian" and sub-Saharan African) and not fully Caucasian as the map incorrectly indicates." I said nothing about "Negroids". The discussion was about old-fashioned racial terminologies. (Notice that I put "Caucasian" in quotes.)

Horn Africans have been considered to have a mixture of ancestry from so-called "Caucasian" groups (West Eurasians or what would have sometimes historically been termed "Caucasian") and native sub-Saharan Africans (which were historically termed "Negroid" according to older terminology). My comment was in response to an map image that inaccurately represented the Horn of Africa as entirely "Caucasoid". That was the context of the comment. Please try not to misrepresent others' statements.

And it has little to do with my edits to the Somalis page. I do not have "racial motivations" (which is an extremely inaproriate, baseless, and uncivil accusation - and I also do not understand what the racial motivations are supposed to be). My edits to the Somali page followed the source (Hodgson et al.). Can you please explain your objection to my addition to the Somali page in which I added the statement (following the source) that Somalis (and other Horn Africans) have a mixture of African ancestry of a type autothonous/indigenous to the Horn of Africa and ancestry derived from back-migrating non-Africans? This edit here: [[21]]. That (what I just summarized) is exactly what Hodgson et al. says. How is it POV? Skllagyook (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the edit warring noticeboard—claims of COI or POV pushing are off-topic here. Blatant cases might influence an outcome, but they would have to be obviously against the principles of Wikipedia. I am unaware of the implications of the links presented and I don't see any clear problems suitable for this noticeboard. I see that Doug Weller commented at Talk:Negroid and he might like to express an opinion but the edit warring issue should be solved in the normal WP:DR manner, starting by engaging with each other's positions at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no issue to resolve, his addition is pov and has no consensus, the user also reverted my addition of sourced content to the Ethiopid page [[22]]. The user has a habit of adding pov content to anything related to the Horn of Africa and often will revert other users based on pov and wp:synth. I did not violate the 3RR, the other user did, his violation should be addressed otherwise what is the point of having the rule or is there some kind of good will towards the user. Dalhoa (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not revert three times without discussion. The talk page still has not been edited since December 2019. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Should I thus self-revert/revert my most recent edit to Somalis? Though since Dalhoa is currently blocked for 72 hours, I would (presumably) not be able to discuss with them on the Talk page at present. Skllagyook (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: In the future, you must not edit war that much! Get help somewhere. I'm not into bureaucracy so I would say to leave the article as it is. However, please put a brief explanation justifying your edit at Talk:Somalis. Do not address it to the other editor—your audience includes onlookers like me who need an explanation of what "clearly based on/following the source" (your edit summary) means: what source, roughly what does it say. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding edit warring, understood and noted. Regarding my addition, it briefly summarizes the findings of the Hodgson et al. (autosomal) dna study, which is discussed and excerpted in more detail further down the paragraph/section. But I can of course also add something in the article's Talk page explaining something to that effect, and will do so later (soon) when/as soon as I get the chance. Thank you for your response. Skllagyook (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Break

It is hopeless for anyone to try to have a talk page discussion with User:Dalhoa, and I suggest that admins might need to take stronger action. Dalhoa has been repeatedly warned for personal attacks but it makes no difference. For a sample of the problem, see a note that I left for Dalhoa on their talk page on 11 January ('Mentioned at ANI'), and all the interactions that follow. Here are a few statements by Dalhoa on their talk page:

• "if you tried to correct that misinformation you are met with pov, stonewalling, stalking and threats of report."
• "This misinformation is spread to many Wikipedia pages and so I called it obsession
• "I don't know if you are the other editor but Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism pov should not be spread in the wiki.
• "You are spreading pov...
• "The term is Cushi not Cushite, you are vandalising the page by removing sourced content..
• "if editors are rewriting things to suit their European/Caucasian view they should not be engaged in revisionism..
• "this is just the usual Eurocentric views everyone is accustomed to..
• "good faith should not be used as an excuse to write misinformation..
• "His addition represents pov and have racial motivations.." (this is part of Dalhoa's response above to the 3RR)

• People who have tried to reason with Dalhoa include: User:Johnuniq, User:Bishonen, User:Doug Weller, User:MusIbr. and User:Dcljr
• Two unblock requests have been denied by: User:Yamla and User:331dot.

I suggest that User:Dalhoa should be indefinitely blocked for WP:ADVOCACY with the right of review after six months. Previous admins may have overlooked that the good advice they leave for Dalhoa simply bounces off and has no effect. Thirty seconds after the good advice, they are back to doing the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I can see that it looks bad, and it looks like Dalhoa is on the wrong track, but I haven't understood the problem enough to justify an indef myself. I would support that if another admin thought it appropriate. Certainly something has to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston and Johnuniq: I don't see any other solution. Dalhoa is clearly a pov warrior with an agenda concerning the Horn of Africa, more specifically Ethiopia. I was puzzling over this seemingly irrelevant addition to the obsolete racial classification Ethiopid race[23] - see the edit history as well[24] where Admin User:JoeRoe reverted him and Dalhoa's edit summary "Undid racially motivated removal of sourced content related to Horn of Africa". His boilerplate about human origins seemed inappropriate there until I read [25] on his talk page. It's just another case of his making fringe claims about Ethiopia, identifying it with Cush in the Bible. But that's enough on content except for the aspect that I noticed months ago, that he is pushing his certainty that "According to both genetic and fossil evidence Archaic Homo sapiens evolved into Anatomically modern Homo Sapiens solely in the Horn of Africa around 200,000 years ago" despite the fact that that isn't the current consensus. See Homo sapiens which clearly does not support this. The only way to stop this is to block him indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 05:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I'll extend it to an indefinite block. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Gizapink reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: 48 hours)

Page

COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gizapink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956007852 by -sche (talk) We use consensus image until a new consensus can be reached"
2. 01:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC) "Revert vandalism"
3. 16:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955744127 by EelamStyleZ (talk) Revert disruptive editor, vandalism"
4. 14:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955719887 by EelamStyleZ (talk) Please use talk and get consensus to use dark/low quality image you took"
5. 05:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955661482 by EelamStyleZ (talk) per talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Highway sign image

Comments:

The second and third "Revert vandalism" is particularly egregious in light of their previous block for blatant personal attacks; they responded poorly to the advice given, too, once the last block expired CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Another potentially relevant diff: [26]. As a watcher of the page, there is clearly edit warring happening over that photo. I'll leave it to others to figure out who the responsible parties are. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding a link the talk page discussion, which appears to have been ongoing when Gizapink reverted. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours They didn't violate 3RR, but making false claims of vandalism when edit warring make this worthy of a block IMO. Number 57 20:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:DifferentialCalculus reported by User:Triyambak Gupte (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments: Hijacking the page

• No violation From what I can see, DifferentialCalculus has not broken 3RR. The second and third diffs above are part of a consecutive series of edits by the user. Number 57 20:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Lobsterthermidor reported by User:Smalljim (Result: )

Page: Thomas Walsingham (died 1457) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]
6. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39] (no actual warning issued, see below)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:

3RR line not crossed, but in view of the fact that this was going on at the same time as and just after this 3RR report was active, I think the actions are significant.  —SMALLJIM  12:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Pxstar12 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Stefan Pejic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pxstar12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]
5. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
The user User:Viewmont Viking kept reverting back to false information in an old edit when the correct information about Stefan Pejic was added. The new information is public information on his official website stefanpejic.com and is correct. Obviously User:Viewmont Viking doesn't know what the correct information is otherwise they wouldn't keep reverting back to false information. Wikipedia is about displaying true and correct information/content is it not? Look at Stefan Pejic's Wikipedia page and compare it to his biopgraphy information on his official website. It is the same. Therefore I ask that User:Viewmont Viking stop incorrectly and unfairly reverting to incorrect and false past content and quit reporting a true, correct, informative, unbiased edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pxstar12 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the edit warring I found that the information is from a copyrighted webpageVViking_TalkEdits 17:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Pejic has allowed this information to be published on Wikipedia - what is wrong with you [[User talk:: Viewmont Viking]] - you need to seriously get over this now. Your points are invalid. Why are you looking to cause trouble and why are you intent on carrying this on?!! Not copyright has been violated. You have serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pxstar12 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Viewmont Viking, this looks like an SPA that will probably return to continue the edit war. If they do, let me know and I'll indef them. Number 57 19:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Zarcademan123456 reported by User:Selfstudier (Result: )

Page: Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zarcademan123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. This

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warn

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt resolution

Comments:
Editor has as well breached 1R for Is-Pal (not for the first time and here as well). Editor is engaged in a crusade to prove that there was a Jordanian occupation of the West Bank (not only at this page) and that it can be equated with Israeli actions over the same territory and is engaged in disruptive edit warring in pursuit of this objective.Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is where I comment...upon notification I immediately self reverted. As noted on talk page at Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, I had gotten confused, thought it was Tuesday (this May 12, and outside 24 hour rule) not May 11 ( inside 24 hour rule)Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Please note as well that I have undone actions upon proper understanding. I may be guilty of incompetence, but not malfeasance Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please show me where you self reverted? Selfstudier (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Either I was misremembering this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_peace_plan&oldid=954719509; which I don’t think I was seeing as it was a week ago) or, more likely I was notified between my revert and when I went to went to revert I think it had already been reverted on the page (although looking through log, I can’t find evidence of my being “pinged”, so why I am so damned sure I reverted is really annoying g me right now...) As I said before, lack of memory/mistakes are a case of incompetence not malfeasance (I must admit I enjoy using those lawyerly terms lol). Incompetence of course perfectly prosecutable...I guess what I’m saying is I’m an honest fool but not some trickster Also please ping me next tine you write here, had I not checked I wouldn’t have seen your question, thank youZarcademan123456 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Hell yes I knew I wasn’t completely crazy!! i Saw your notice at 12:26 am, may 11...then went to revert but it had been reverted on the page already. My intention to revert convinced me I had already reverted. I then reverted just hours later, somehow losing a day (I guess I thought 36hours had passed and not 12 hours)(I wish I could blame drugs, but alas I cannot) thus violating 3RR. In summation, my intention to revert convinced me I had reverted even though I had not. My only defense for what probably looks like a complete lie is that I have got to be pretty dumb in order to claim a revert when I hadn’t reverted...and think I could get away with something fact-checked so easilyZarcademan123456 (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Crispsoaks reported by User:Wjemather (Result: one week)

Page: Never Have I Ever (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crispsoaks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]
6. [55]
7. [56]
8. [57]
9. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:
Three editors involved in extended edit war. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week I counted at least 16 reverts in the last 24 hours. I strongly suspect this account may also be a sockpuppet of one of the others engaged in the edit war, as it appears to have been created just to participate in it. Number 57 16:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Factcheck2020 reported by User:Wjemather (Result: one week)

Page: Never Have I Ever (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factcheck2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]
5. [65]
6. [66]
7. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

Three editors involved in extended edit war. This user was previously warned twice for disruptive editing, if not specifically edit-warring ([69], [70]). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week 12 reverts in 24 hours? Shocking behaviour. Number 57 16:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Dru alexandro reported by User:Wjemather (Result: one week)

Page: Never Have I Ever (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dru alexandro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]
5. [76]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

Three editors involved in extended edit war. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week Number 57 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sunderland Renaissance reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: )

Page: China Global Television Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sunderland Renaissance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Also some pretty aggressive PA and aspersions. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The user in question keeps repeatedly reverting legitimate cited content for no good reason, out of bad faith, POV motivations. It is Horse Eye Jack who is known for this kind of aggressive behaviour on China related topics Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note I see no evidence that any editor is acting in bad faith in editing the article. Accordingly, no exemption to 3RR for reverting vandalism would apply here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm inclined to leave the article in its condition as of 17:23, rather than roll back to a status quo ante version, but I invite all parties involved to discuss the matter at the talk page and not make any reverts beyond that point. I think that is more constructive than either partial-blocking multiple people or protecting the page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jontel reported by User:Hippeus (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [83] version on 2 May after Jontel removed more than half the article and added additional content (discussed in Talk:Gilad Atzmon#Tendentious editing). Jontel's 200+ edits make this complicated, will show how each edit below is a revert

Diffs of the user's reverts: (note article is 1RR)

May11:

1. [84] partial revert of [85]
2. +5 hours [86] partial revert of [87], has intervening edits
3. +8 hours [88], partial revert of [89], has intervening edits
4. +9 hours [90] partial revert of [91], has intervening edits

May9:

1. [92] partial revert of [93]
2. +23 hours [94] partial revert of [95], has intervening edits

May6:

1. [96], partial revert of [97]
2. (+9 hours) [98], partial revert of [99], has intervening edits
3. (+31 hours, 1rr from prev) [100], partial revert of [101], has intervening edits

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: alerted by User:Shrike on 30 April

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Gilad Atzmon#Tendentious editing and multiple sections below where User:RolandR, User:Tritomex, User:Drsmoo, User:Bobfrombrockley, User:Bondegezou, User:Nedrutland, and myself have all objected to Jontel's edits.

Comments:
Article is under WP:1RR due to WP:ARBPIA. There is a huge edit notice and Jontel was alerted. Despite this he broke 1RR multiple times and has even got to 4 reverts yesterday.

Jontel's editing practices, which include over 200 small edits to the article over the past two weeks, inundate the article's history and make examination of the history difficult, and therefore I have specified what each edit above is a revert of. Jontel made a large series of edits to completely change the article, faced opposition of multiple users on the talk page, and has since been re-instating their changes piecemeal and in the face of talk page consensus into the article. Jontel's ownership of the article led them to break 1RR many times, reverting multiple other users, while other users aren't close to 1RR. The talk page has also become a mess, devolving into multiple sections in which Jontel argues against everyone else.

Also, legal threat by Jontel: " (Libel law applies; no agreement to this change)" [102] Hippeus (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry I made more than one edit every 24 hours and will avoid that in future. I have got frustrated. In this single edit, User:Hippeus made over 30 discrete changes with a general edit summary. Some were as petty as removing the number of children. Others were as significant as adding the serious charge of Holocaust denial to the lead, which had not been there, without discussion or specific sourcing. By contrast, I have been making small, multiple edits so that my justification for each is clear. Additionally, already tendentious and poorly evidenced source material is being frequently cherry picked to add phrases and sentences whose meaning is at variance from the sources to the article, or which omits the detail which allows for correct interpretation. This is particularly reprehensible in a BLP. Other material comprises extremely minor events or even overheard comments, even when they are disputed by the subject, included on the 'if you throw enough mud' principle. Further, User:Hippeus removes material such as the father's profession, Atzmon's years active and the number of translations of his novels. These are all common inclusions in BLPs and it is entirely unclear why they should be seen as contentious. I did remove material which was often poorly sourced, as has User:Hippeus. I do add material, as does User:Hippeus. The talk page consensus was vague and did not of course prohibit any future improvement to what was a highly slanted article. I am willing to engage in discussion on edits on the talk page, which is what it is for. That is not arguing: it is trying to reach a consensus. I was not making a legal threat, simply pointing out a Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Libel. I will abide by 1RR. Jontel (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to think that everyone here has been acting in good faith. Jontel had reasons to clean up aspects of the article, but, in my opinion, was mistaken in going too far given the abundant RS material that is critical of Atzmon's politics. I believe there is a path forward that recognises the weight of RS and editor views (as per WP:CONSENSUS), while acknowledging Jontel's concerns about some material. Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed my edits. A great many are minor stylistic/ grammar changes. Others apply Wikipedia policies, improve the structure or add relevant career details. Only a small minority have proved controversial. Material I removed often duplicated other material or were limited to a phrase or a quote, even in the source. This was in general a one off exercise. Jontel (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jaydoggmarco reported by User:Darouet (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [103]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [104]
2. [105]
3. [106]
4. [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108] and [109], dismissed without engagement [110] and [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: January 2019 at article talk [112]; April 2020 at BLPN [113] and [114].

Comments:

Despite all the scholarly and news articles on the topic, and multiple attempts to bring them into conversation about these sources, Jaydoggmarco insists on reverting without participation in discussion. They haven't violated 3RR over a 24 hour period but at a certain point, slow edit warring without even bothering to engage, and describing reliable sources as "fringe" without explanation, is just disruptive. It appears Jaydoggmarco's only other primary contributions to Wikipedia are the listing of various people as scientologists using highly dubious sources [115][116], [117], [118], etc [119]. -Darouet (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Wallyfromdilbert reported by User:SummerPhDv2.0 (Result: )

Page

Gravity (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by SummerPhDv2.0 (talk): Removing unsourced material and redlinked category. see response on talk (TW)"
2. 16:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 956244205 by CapnZapp (talk) stop restoring unsourced content"
3. 19:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by CapnZapp (talk): No, you need to show WP:BURDEN (TW)"
4. 22:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ removing unsourced information and generic statements like "received critical acclaim" are not helpful in an article. these aspects, where relevant, are discussed by the cited reviews in the section. this type of editorializing is not necessary"
5. 21:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by CapnZapp: That's not really how the lead works. this material needs to be support in the main body before it would be included in the lead (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring at Gravity (2013 film) */ new section"
2. 17:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit warring at Gravity (2013 film) */ c"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Comments:

There is no 3RR violation here as 2 of the edits listed above are from 2 days ago. Also, I think it should be noted that SummerPhDv2.0 has stated that they refuse to discuss the content they restored [120]. CapnZapp has also not provided any reasons or sources for restoring the content when I brought up the issue and a recent MOS discussion (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Reception details in lead) on their talk page: [121]. I am more than willing to discuss the content where ever. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:DifferentialCalculus reported by User:Triyambak Gupte (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [122]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [126]
5. [127]

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

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

User:Gardo Versace reported by User:119.93.40.241 (Result: Filer blocked for a week)

Page: Ivana Alawi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gardo Versace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [128]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [129]
2. [130]
3. [131]
4. [132]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

Page: List of programs broadcast by Jeepney TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gardo Versace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [135]
2. [136]
3. [137]
4. [138]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]

Comments: constant editwarring

I'm not the one engaged in edit-warring. You are. In fact I actually flagged you for it right here. What you are doing is deflecting the blame on me instead of acknowledging the fact that you are engaged in an edit war. I mean you also got flagged for edit warring on another article right here. So if anybody should be reported for edit warring, it is you User 119.93.40.241 and not me. Also, didn"t you try to cover your tracks by removing your edit summaries that contained cuss words? Gardo Versace (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Added 3RR violation against other user. Tends to revert people so he gets what he wants. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: So you're telling everyone here I'm the one engaged in edit warring when you are clearly the one engaged in edit warring. Heck, you're not exactly popular here on Wikipedia that somebody has outright requested that you be banned here as can be seen here. So stop deflecting the blame for a problem which you yourself has caused. I'm not the one with a WP:OWN problem, you are. Gardo Versace (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: I also have to point out that I wasn't edit warring with Jon2guevarra in the diffs you showed. The user was clearly engaged in unconstructive behavior. If I was the one engaged in an edit war, then how would yoi explain the fact that that user was banned? This is just petty, you are smearing my name just to spite me and get me banned. Why don't you show them this or this where I clearly warned the user not to engage in unconstructive behavior. Again, if I was the one edit warring, then why is the "opponent" the one blocked? I humbly ask the administrator reviewing this to dismiss this complaint for being baseless. Gardo Versace (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Filer blocked IP has been edit-warring themselves, as noted, but with extremely abusive edit-summaries, and this filing which brings up a dispute which they weren't even party to, and for which othe other editor was justifiably blocked. Please don't waste people's valuable time. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I took a look at the article and it appears that Gardo Versace was edit warring to restore a BLP violation (i.e. restoring contested unsourced citizenship to the lead). As you've just blocked the IP for removing the content, I'm hesitant to do so myself, but it either needs to be cited or removed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Hi, I'm just about to go AFK for a while, so please remove it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; didn't want to step on any toes. I think I've brought the subject article and her sister's related article in line with BLP. Hopefully that will help quell the dispute.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Good day! I apologize for that bit with putting Moroccan in the lead section. I'll be noting that, only the citizenship should be placed on the lead and not the ethnicity for the next edits that I'll be doing. Am really sorry about it. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)