Line 240: | Line 240: | ||
::::::Another quick note is that both the JSB and Blue Star articles make extensive use of actual primary sources on the government side, which GSS doesn't have a problem with, so "primary" has nothing to do with any of this, this is all just [[WP:IDLI]]. [[User:Sapedder|Sapedder]] ([[User talk:Sapedder|talk]]) 23:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC) |
::::::Another quick note is that both the JSB and Blue Star articles make extensive use of actual primary sources on the government side, which GSS doesn't have a problem with, so "primary" has nothing to do with any of this, this is all just [[WP:IDLI]]. [[User:Sapedder|Sapedder]] ([[User talk:Sapedder|talk]]) 23:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Here you go so you are finally here. FYI the edits I and Abecedare reverted on [[Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale]] had multiple issues and you and others were explained by both of us (see the talk page). [[User:GSS|<span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS</span>]] [[User talk:GSS|<sup>💬</sup>]] 03:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::Here you go so you are finally here. FYI the edits I and Abecedare reverted on [[Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale]] had multiple issues and you and others were explained by both of us (see the talk page). [[User:GSS|<span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS</span>]] [[User talk:GSS|<sup>💬</sup>]] 03:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Happy to see me? :) Let's get one thing straight, Abecedare held all the constructive discourse, was civil throughout, and helped enormously to improve the edits, you just tried to retroactively justify your reversions by parroting what he said. You made no salient points of your own, so don't claim joint credit for his hard work. You contributed nothing of value before he started to help. Again, leave the evaluation of sources to those who have a clue what they're talking about. [[User:Sapedder|Sapedder]] ([[User talk:Sapedder|talk]]) 04:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:GrammarDamner]] reported by [[User:Vice regent]] (Result: Withdrawn) == |
== [[User:GrammarDamner]] reported by [[User:Vice regent]] (Result: Withdrawn) == |
Revision as of 04:05, 23 August 2020
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: Lizzydarcy2008 reported by User:CherryPie94 (Result: )
Page: The King: Eternal Monarch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lizzydarcy2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:41, August 17, 2020
- 04:06, August 18, 2020 This is a fantasy adn we'
- 05:20, August 19, 2020 @CherryPie94: Stop bashing me and this drama. You're the one making disruptive edits. This is a fantasy drama and you're talking of historical inaccuracy?
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:42, August 17, 2020 See WP:CSECTION
- 04:13, August 18, 2020 stop causing disruptive edits and being stubborn. Read WP:CSECTION. You can’t make up your own guidelines and rules here.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Explaining to the user my word choice but I suggest seeing the full discussion Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch#Historical inaccuracy
- A long argumentum ad nauseam here Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch.
Comments:
This editor is a fan of the series who has been causing disruptive edits and edit warring for weeks now. They have been edit warring on May on the same page and warned by another editor but they still keep revert changes for no reason.
I already filed a dispute resolution days ago, but still no one volunteered and I’m tired of this user reverting good changes that follow the guidelines for no reason and always claiming we are bashing the series. This is becoming a case of wikipedia:Advocacy or wikipedia:conflict of interest. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
User:CherryPie94 thinks only fans can see how negative this page is. Compare it to pages of other kdramas - Crash Landing On You, It's Okay To Not Be Okay, Backstreet Rookie, Mr. Sunshine, etc. They are not half as negative as this. Those who see this injustice only want this page to be FAIR. It is already unfair and she still wants to make it even less so by highlighting another stone detractors have been throwing at this FANTASY drama - that it is historically inaccurate. She wants to rename a section of the page of a FANTASY drama from "Controversy" to "Historical Inaccuracies..." I have already noted my reason for reverting her change yet she still keeps on reverting my changes. She keeps on calling me an obsessed fan but it's looking like she is an obsessed detractor. I am not the only editor whose attempts to keep this page FAIR she has reverted. She is also using dirty tricks to keep me from making more edits. She has filed a dispute resolution request yet keeps making changes that make this page even more negative. She has reported me for sock-puppetry. And now this. The 3-revert rule is not even applicable since I did not make the reverts within a 24-hour period. Yet she jumped at my third revert which makes me suspect she was trying to trap me into violating the 3-revert rule. For more information, please see the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#The_King:_Eternal_Monarch
Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- To the admin reading this: This is not to report 3-revert rule, this is to report edit warring due to wikipedia:Advocacy. Also, I just want to say that since filing the dispute resolution, I have not touched the main sentence of the dispute (like the user claims on top), I worked with another user adding source and completing the original soundtrack and cast section instead. Now while trying to make the page neutral as possible and after reading WP:CSECTION (Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident"), I tried changing the section title from "Controversy" to "Historical inaccuracy and broadcast warnings", but this user keep reverting it for no reason, and they did not even try to changing the title if they have an issue with the use of "Historical inaccuracy". This is a clear case of wikipedia:Advocacy and I really don't know what to do. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CherryPie94:, you made changes a few hours before submitting the dispute. Very tricky. Please remove your detractor hat and compare this page with those of other kdramas, e.g. Crash Landing On You, Mr. Sunshine, It's Okay To Not Be Okay, etc. Those who are seeing how negative this page is just want it to be FAIR. "Historical inaccuracy" is biased. It is one of the incongruous charges detractors of this FANTASY drama have been throwing at it, and now you're making it the title of a section. It is a FANTASY drama, so historical inaccuracy is obviously nitpicking and you want Wikipedia to be party to it? These allegations of historical inaccuracies are already detailed in the section, yet you still want them to be highlighted in the title? As I noted in my summary response to your dispute resolution notice, this page is looking like Wikipedia just cannot help taunting this drama.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- If WP:Reliable Sources are generally more negative about this particular TV series, then there's nothing Wikipedia can do about it. If you think that there's a Point of View issue here, then please bear in mind that the POF tag at the top was added because you were removing negative comments, not the other way round. However, I think we'd rather you didn't edit-war over your preferred revision of the page, which violates WP:CSECTION for no good reason (as far as I can see).
>>BEANS X2t
06:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- If WP:Reliable Sources are generally more negative about this particular TV series, then there's nothing Wikipedia can do about it. If you think that there's a Point of View issue here, then please bear in mind that the POF tag at the top was added because you were removing negative comments, not the other way round. However, I think we'd rather you didn't edit-war over your preferred revision of the page, which violates WP:CSECTION for no good reason (as far as I can see).
- @CherryPie94:, you made changes a few hours before submitting the dispute. Very tricky. Please remove your detractor hat and compare this page with those of other kdramas, e.g. Crash Landing On You, Mr. Sunshine, It's Okay To Not Be Okay, etc. Those who are seeing how negative this page is just want it to be FAIR. "Historical inaccuracy" is biased. It is one of the incongruous charges detractors of this FANTASY drama have been throwing at it, and now you're making it the title of a section. It is a FANTASY drama, so historical inaccuracy is obviously nitpicking and you want Wikipedia to be party to it? These allegations of historical inaccuracies are already detailed in the section, yet you still want them to be highlighted in the title? As I noted in my summary response to your dispute resolution notice, this page is looking like Wikipedia just cannot help taunting this drama.Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @BEANS X2: This page is currently negative because we are repeating negative points about the drama. I am not suggesting we remove the negative points. I am suggesting we avoid repeating them. In some cases, we are mentioning them three times. I have been removing the repetitions. The duplicate remarks I am removing are already covered in their respective sections. The ratings are already in the Ratings section. Why repeat them in the Reception section? Other kdramas don't mention them outside the Ratings section. The production costs are already mentioned in the Production section and at the right side of the page. Please see the pages of other kdramas like Arthdal Chronicles and It's Okay To Not Be Okay. They are not half as negative as this page. Arthdal Chronicles incurred higher production costs. Do you see mention of those production costs in the second paragraph of the page? No, because they are already mentioned at the right side of the page. For The King Eternal Monarch, the production costs are mentioned three times in the page. It's Okay To Not Be Okay has lower ratings than this drama. Do you see those ratings mentioned outside the Ratings section in that drama's page? No. Do you know how many times the ratings are mentioned for The King Eternal Monarch? Three times. This repetition not only makes the page negative, it also makes it sloppy. Kdramas with second paragraphs list their achievements in this paragraph, yet we are repeating negative remarks that are already mentioned in other parts of the page in the second paragraph of this kdrama. My suggested text for the second paragraph follows the form of the second paragraphs of other kdramas - just a listing of their achievement in a straightforward manner. Please see Crash Landing On You and Mr. Sunshine. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
User:CatCafe reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Blocked indef)
Page: Yasmine Mohammed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CatCafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/973902186
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of the Rosguill's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Yasmine_Mohammed#Toronto_Sun_op-ed
Comments:
Continuation of behavior previously reported here (Diff of the close in case it gets archived [4]), CatCafe is now insisting on adding a claim that does not exist in the cited source, a hypothetical claim that I invented to provide a hypothetical example of when it might be appropriate to cite an opinion piece, claiming that I agreed to this despite having done no such thing. Mind, this all occurred after I had already objected to the use of the source in question on the grounds that the author has a conflict of interest with the subject [5].signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Rosguill suggested taking any issues to WP:DRN[6], so it's heavy handed bringing it here. I suggest he takes it to WP:DRN if he has problems. It is disappointing that Rosguill uses WP:PLAYPOLICY overly - I am not up to speed on every angle of every policy -but I usually try to use my little knowledge of policy to add to an article not detract. I introduced the sentence "Yasmine Mohammed is an important voice in Canadian discourse" as I felt the source says that after she spoke in Canadian Parl House - It was based on a previous suggestion by Rosguill (so I thought) - and asked him to modify the sentence if he felt it was inaccurate. Now he's reporting me for that? I am trying to retain secondary sources as per the 'prim source' tag requires - that is the main aim of editing the page at present. I have tried to introduce content and sources inline with the rules Rosguill keeps on finding - but he is not willing to work with others constructively in trying to retain secondary sources. He option is now being provocative calling me "daft". Considering that should I just give up? CatCafe (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely, subsequently unblocked with conditions, including to move on from the article. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Zefr reported by User:Александр Мотин (Result:Warning)
Page: Gam-COVID-Vac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11][12]
Comments:
According to the block log of this user [13], a long-term blocking may be required.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- My edits speak for themselves. Александр Мотин is perpetuating unverifiable Russian sources and propaganda, which I have replaced with WP:RS sources (article history). No other editors are disputing my edits. Zefr (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- His block log speaks for itself. In the articles Morinda citrifolia and Phyllanthus he probably also opposed the "Russian propaganda" and... was blocked for edit warring.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't believe previous blocks should be admissible here. For comments and edits like these, you should use a reliable source. If one cannot be found, the information does not belong on such a current topic like a potential COVID vaccine (regardless of its effectiveness.) WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 03:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- To be objective, the non-MEDRS sources were used for non-medical claims, and 4 reverts did happen. It is another matter that the content inserted by Мотин and removed by Zefr (like here) was included without consensus or approval by any other contributors on the page. This complaint also looks like "gaming the rules" by Мотин. My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't believe previous blocks should be admissible here. For comments and edits like these, you should use a reliable source. If one cannot be found, the information does not belong on such a current topic like a potential COVID vaccine (regardless of its effectiveness.) WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 03:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- His block log speaks for itself. In the articles Morinda citrifolia and Phyllanthus he probably also opposed the "Russian propaganda" and... was blocked for edit warring.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- For the moment, the edit war seems to have temporarily stopped, so let me try this, @Zefr and Александр Мотин: from my perspective, you are both edit warring. I could block both of you, but I hope this can be resolved in an adult manner. Please, take your disagreement to the talk page and try to find consensus on a possible wording. If you can't reach a compromise, you can try other forms of dispute resolution. Is that an acceptable way forward for both? Salvio 08:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- ANI request (11/08/2020): When he or someone reports then there is only one guilty party (me) and when I report – "you are both edit warring" and "this complaint also looks like "gaming the rules"? Interesting... --Александр Мотин (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, dispute resolution is a good idea but this does not cancel the violation by Zefr. Especially here, at least, opinions were expressed indicating signs of disruptive editing from his side.--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Look, Александр, speaking as someone totally uninvolved, my impression is that the two of you are in the middle of a content dispute and are basically talking at each other by now. That is why I suggested DR. Discuss the issue on the talk page and, if that doesn't work, involve other people, either through WP:DRN or an WP:RFC. That, in my view, is the proper way forward. In addition to that, blocks are not meant to be retributive, they are not punitive, but rather preventative. So, if disruption has stopped, a block is no longer necessary or appropriate. In this case, I hope that the situation can be solved without resorting to the use of my tools. Salvio 10:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's right, and 3RR rule is intended for this case. When they filed a 3RR request against me, this was interpreted as a violation despite the fact that I deleted openly boorish attacks against the President of one of the countries of the world (Talk:Gam-COVID-Vac#"Guinea pig"). UPD: I got it mixed up with this: Talk:Gam-COVID-Vac#General sanctions. But a "Guinea pig" case is also very revealing. They demand strong MEDRS for Putin's qoute and just simply put qoutes into the article about "foolish Russian Government", "Guinea pig" and "I feel shame for our country" without MEDRS. Is it normal? --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is a content dispute. I am not saying that either of you are right or wrong on the merits, I haven't familiarised myself with the underlying topic enough to form a well-thought-out opinion. However, none of the edits (yours or his) appear problematic enough to constitute exceptions to edit warring. Salvio 16:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Salvio giuliano: You're right about the edit warring, but I'm not convinced this is a situation that can be resolved "like adults". This is apparently an intractable dispute between these two editors that was previously at AN/I. It was most recently resolved by Александр Мотин taking a break from the article, but now his break is up and the conflict has resumed. Zefr seems to have a fervent, passionate belief that this vaccine is not scientifically valid, to the degree that Wikipedia should suppress any notion of even discussing it as a real vaccine. This had led to edit warring, personal attacks, stonewalling innocent edits mentioning the vaccine, and an obsession with calling everything propaganda. I have previously tried to reason with him at AN/I and he was so fixated on his views that he came across as completely impossible to reason with, and I was inclined to block him for his behavior. Александр Мотин, the article's creator, is hardly innocent either, having posted dubious claims sourced to the Russian government without including the widespread disputations from the scientific community and edit warring. Both users have called for the block of the other. At this point, I don't even think a block would be useful, we're probably in DS territory. I think the obvious solution is a TBAN of both users from the subject of this vaccine. At the very least, a 1RR page restriction. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Swarm: thanks for the heads up. You seem to be much more familiar with this situation than I am, so I will defer to your judgment, but, yes, in the light of the pattern you describe, topic banning both under the Covid-19 GS may be appropriate. Do you know if they were made aware of the sanctions? Salvio 10:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sigh, probably not. I didn't recall awareness criteria applying to general sanctions. ~Swarm~ {sting} 13:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I know, GS are basically the same thing as DS, the only difference is that they are authorised by the community rather than ArbCom and, so, an alert is required, prior to the imposition of any sanction. The template is:
{{subst:Gs/alert|topic=covid}}
. Salvio 13:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC) - @Swarm: I have just warned both users. Александр, however, seems to be aware of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE and, so, can already be sanctioned under those. Salvio 14:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I know, GS are basically the same thing as DS, the only difference is that they are authorised by the community rather than ArbCom and, so, an alert is required, prior to the imposition of any sanction. The template is:
- Sigh, probably not. I didn't recall awareness criteria applying to general sanctions. ~Swarm~ {sting} 13:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Swarm: thanks for the heads up. You seem to be much more familiar with this situation than I am, so I will defer to your judgment, but, yes, in the light of the pattern you describe, topic banning both under the Covid-19 GS may be appropriate. Do you know if they were made aware of the sanctions? Salvio 10:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Salvio giuliano: You're right about the edit warring, but I'm not convinced this is a situation that can be resolved "like adults". This is apparently an intractable dispute between these two editors that was previously at AN/I. It was most recently resolved by Александр Мотин taking a break from the article, but now his break is up and the conflict has resumed. Zefr seems to have a fervent, passionate belief that this vaccine is not scientifically valid, to the degree that Wikipedia should suppress any notion of even discussing it as a real vaccine. This had led to edit warring, personal attacks, stonewalling innocent edits mentioning the vaccine, and an obsession with calling everything propaganda. I have previously tried to reason with him at AN/I and he was so fixated on his views that he came across as completely impossible to reason with, and I was inclined to block him for his behavior. Александр Мотин, the article's creator, is hardly innocent either, having posted dubious claims sourced to the Russian government without including the widespread disputations from the scientific community and edit warring. Both users have called for the block of the other. At this point, I don't even think a block would be useful, we're probably in DS territory. I think the obvious solution is a TBAN of both users from the subject of this vaccine. At the very least, a 1RR page restriction. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is a content dispute. I am not saying that either of you are right or wrong on the merits, I haven't familiarised myself with the underlying topic enough to form a well-thought-out opinion. However, none of the edits (yours or his) appear problematic enough to constitute exceptions to edit warring. Salvio 16:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's right, and 3RR rule is intended for this case. When they filed a 3RR request against me, this was interpreted as a violation despite the fact that I deleted openly boorish attacks against the President of one of the countries of the world (Talk:Gam-COVID-Vac#"Guinea pig"). UPD: I got it mixed up with this: Talk:Gam-COVID-Vac#General sanctions. But a "Guinea pig" case is also very revealing. They demand strong MEDRS for Putin's qoute and just simply put qoutes into the article about "foolish Russian Government", "Guinea pig" and "I feel shame for our country" without MEDRS. Is it normal? --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Look, Александр, speaking as someone totally uninvolved, my impression is that the two of you are in the middle of a content dispute and are basically talking at each other by now. That is why I suggested DR. Discuss the issue on the talk page and, if that doesn't work, involve other people, either through WP:DRN or an WP:RFC. That, in my view, is the proper way forward. In addition to that, blocks are not meant to be retributive, they are not punitive, but rather preventative. So, if disruption has stopped, a block is no longer necessary or appropriate. In this case, I hope that the situation can be solved without resorting to the use of my tools. Salvio 10:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright. Looks like there is no currently active edit war at this time, so going to close this with a warning. Both Zefr and Александр Мотин are warned that there will be no more tolerance for disruption in an article which is protected by both Arbcom-imposed and community-imposed discretionary sanctions. This includes, but is not limited to, personal attacks, aspersions, edit warring, addition of unsourced content, contentious removal of sourced content without a policy justification, or baiting the other party into committing an offense. If we see any more disruptive behavior, both parties will be subject to editing restrictions and/or topic banning without further warning. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Contra10 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Sam Hyde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Contra10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC) "I suppose Alan Dershowitz also supports white suppremacist causes."
- 19:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC) "See talk page"
- 11:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC) "Outright support of "white supremecist" causes is not verified and the story in question is already featured in "life and career""
- 13:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sam Hyde. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 20:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */ No."
- 21:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Neutrality */ Irrelivant."
Comments:
This and a SPA are repeatedly removing sourced, unflattering content about a performer who is popular in the alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
User:209.151.250.145 reported by User:Οἶδα (Result: Blocked 1 month)
Page: Mark Kozelek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 209.151.250.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]
Comments: IP is already involved in a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents##Legal threat for making a legal threat in their edit summary. Οἶδα (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
User:90.154.71.115 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: Blocked)
Page: List of things named after Évariste Galois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.154.71.115 (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 is also a sockpuppet and should be blocked for edit warring and personal attacks JBL (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Joel, for the warning. The warring is a result of some deep emotional troubles some stupid fellows are experiencing. I feel sorry for them for they must be either hospitalized or, at least, prevented from destructive editing. Any way, all their actions must be recorded for competent people to eventually evaluate. 90.154.71.115 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandro78/Archive - MrOllie (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked Salvio 13:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
User:223.191.53.27 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)
Page: License to Kill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 223.191.53.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ""
- 14:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ""
- 14:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ""
- 13:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ""
- 13:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ""
- 13:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Licence to Kill. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Same user who keeps edit warring instead of discussing on the talk page. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: Possible block evasion/sock puppet/meat puppet: 223.191.53.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DonQuixote (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 31 hours by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Ankhi88 reported by User:GSS (Result: )
Page: Operation Blue Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ankhi88 (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:
- 11:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Edit warring, constantly added primary sources to a controversial article and not willing to read the guidelines they were pointed to. GSS 💬 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- The protection log for this article is very long. The party reported above is a new account that has only been here two weeks, and may not yet be familiar with our sourcing standards. I would consider WP:ECP which could be imposed under WP:ARBIPA if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I mean looking at the content, the user is trying to discuss on the talk page, and OP here is stonewalling their edits. They're somewhat dubiously claiming that a book is not a reliable source without an explanation, and also claiming that it is a primary source, which doesn't even appear to be true. I don't see them making any case to support these claims, but when another user suggest they take it to RSN, they refused, falsely claiming that they had already refuted the source, even though I can't even figure out what their objection to the source is. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Swarm:, I'm not stonewalling their edits nor I'm dubiously claiming anything. Books published by involved parties and organizations are always primary and we can't use them for controversial articles such as this one. GSS 💬 04:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not sure if you saw my comment on the talk page regarding the book "Reduced to Ashes", the book is a collection of account from the involved people and survivors so it could only be used as a source if that survivor's quote is needed not for facts or claims. GSS 💬 04:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- The book contains witness testimony, it is not only a collection of witness testimony. The authors themselves are not primary sources and record their own claims, interpretations, and conclusions in the book. It is, by definition, a secondary source, with the exception of the primary sources recorded within it, and even still, there's nothing wrong with using primary sources to begin with. If a primary source is being used to cite a contentious fact, that's a minor fix, just a few extra words to attribute the claim to the source. You don't edit war and stonewall good faith edits. Also, it's absolutely dubious to claim that it's unreliable, you have not substantiated your claim that the organization is biased, and you refuse to make such a case in order to seek a consensus at RSN. You can't just unilaterally declare sources to be unreliable, and you should know this by now. So, yes, from an uninvolved perspective, you're hardly innocent. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not an involved party but noticed this discussion, and would like to throw in my two cents. This M.O. is sort of typical of GSS at this point. He reverts edits quickly, then projects onto his opponent what he is doing (edit warring) and often subsequently calls for bans and article locks, but getting him to address counterpoints is impossible; he calls for discussion then barely participates in good-faith discussion, and never further substantiates claims. It's all one big stalling strategy.
- The same thing happened during the editing process at Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, where in the face of overwhelming consensus (four editors in support of changes, plus a reasonable admin helping out), he has singlehandedly managed to stall the process for four months now (since April). (The admin helping with the process, Abecedare, appears to be on a sort of hiatus, so we informally sort of agreed to hold off on edits, until he returns and can continue his help.) So yes, stonewalling is essentially all GSS does.
- Dragging people to this very noticeboard instead of engaging in discussion is also another strategy to bypass said discussion by trying to get people banned instead on having to collaborate with them. An instance of GSS doing the same thing with another user (and it nearly backfiring then as well). @JoyceGW1: if you would like to chime in here regarding that....
- Another quick note is that both the JSB and Blue Star articles make extensive use of actual primary sources on the government side, which GSS doesn't have a problem with, so "primary" has nothing to do with any of this, this is all just WP:IDLI. Sapedder (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here you go so you are finally here. FYI the edits I and Abecedare reverted on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale had multiple issues and you and others were explained by both of us (see the talk page). GSS 💬 03:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Happy to see me? :) Let's get one thing straight, Abecedare held all the constructive discourse, was civil throughout, and helped enormously to improve the edits, you just tried to retroactively justify your reversions by parroting what he said. You made no salient points of your own, so don't claim joint credit for his hard work. You contributed nothing of value before he started to help. Again, leave the evaluation of sources to those who have a clue what they're talking about. Sapedder (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Here you go so you are finally here. FYI the edits I and Abecedare reverted on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale had multiple issues and you and others were explained by both of us (see the talk page). GSS 💬 03:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- The book contains witness testimony, it is not only a collection of witness testimony. The authors themselves are not primary sources and record their own claims, interpretations, and conclusions in the book. It is, by definition, a secondary source, with the exception of the primary sources recorded within it, and even still, there's nothing wrong with using primary sources to begin with. If a primary source is being used to cite a contentious fact, that's a minor fix, just a few extra words to attribute the claim to the source. You don't edit war and stonewall good faith edits. Also, it's absolutely dubious to claim that it's unreliable, you have not substantiated your claim that the organization is biased, and you refuse to make such a case in order to seek a consensus at RSN. You can't just unilaterally declare sources to be unreliable, and you should know this by now. So, yes, from an uninvolved perspective, you're hardly innocent. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not sure if you saw my comment on the talk page regarding the book "Reduced to Ashes", the book is a collection of account from the involved people and survivors so it could only be used as a source if that survivor's quote is needed not for facts or claims. GSS 💬 04:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Swarm:, I'm not stonewalling their edits nor I'm dubiously claiming anything. Books published by involved parties and organizations are always primary and we can't use them for controversial articles such as this one. GSS 💬 04:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- I mean looking at the content, the user is trying to discuss on the talk page, and OP here is stonewalling their edits. They're somewhat dubiously claiming that a book is not a reliable source without an explanation, and also claiming that it is a primary source, which doesn't even appear to be true. I don't see them making any case to support these claims, but when another user suggest they take it to RSN, they refused, falsely claiming that they had already refuted the source, even though I can't even figure out what their objection to the source is. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
User:GrammarDamner reported by User:Vice regent (Result: Withdrawn)
Page: Rape in Islamic law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GrammarDamner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Each of the reverts adds 3 sources to the lead along with the following sentence "However, it allows men to have sex/marry with female slaves and captives of war without any regard to their consent."
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]. However, this warning was given after the 4th revert. GrammarDamner has been editing wikipedia since January 2019.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]
Comments:User:0eaceful has also violated 3rr on the article and warned. I am also requesting page protection for that article - once again. I request 1) an admin warning both users against edit-warring and 2) protecting the page. I don't think a block is necessary. From past experience, people don't stop edit-warring until they are specifically told to stop by an admin.VR talk 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this constitutes edit warring. I have not violated 3rr, making only 2 reverts per day. Furthermore, I have used the talk page to discuss the issues, and I wasn't planning on making any more edits. The situation appeared to be resolved. Vice regent posted a 3rr template (which, frankly, was a little patronising) on my talk page 40 minutes after my last edit to Rape in Islamic law and started this almost one hour after. I think this whole thing is Vice regent trying to stir something up when, again, I thought the issue was basically resolved. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to clarify something. While I had made more than 3 edits within a 24-hour period, they were not simple reverts. The edits were different, reflecting the issues that had been discussed on the article's talk page. The language used in the sources was brought up in discussion, and my edits reflected the necessary changes. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Each one of your edits cited above restores the exact three same sources and the same sentence (with a slight modification). The dispute is not resolved. I think admin warning (not block) and page protection will allow this to be resolved via discussion not reverting.VR talk 18:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- No issue with the sources had been brought up on the talk page, only the language used. I addressed that. And again, I had backed away. I think you jumped the gun with this unnecessary report. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're constantly restoring the near-exact same edits made by a banned user (not the first time) with a few tweaks (one word changed), without seeking consensus. The claim on the talkpage that you had taken our "valid points" into account is simply not true considering you used the exact same sources that had been criticized as not supporting the statement. Ignoring the issue while trying to be polite isn't resolving anything. 39.37.165.118 (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- What were the issues with the sources? I'm sorry if I missed it, I thought the sources were fine, but issues with what they actually said had been pointed out. I addressed those issues. If you and Vice regent want to keep mentioning a banned user, then perhaps I should point out the the changes you two make are very consistent with another banned user, User:Arsi786. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Is Arsi involved here and are we reverting to his edits? The issues can be discussed on the talkpage as long as you don't jump the gun. 39.37.165.118 (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- What were the issues with the sources? I'm sorry if I missed it, I thought the sources were fine, but issues with what they actually said had been pointed out. I addressed those issues. If you and Vice regent want to keep mentioning a banned user, then perhaps I should point out the the changes you two make are very consistent with another banned user, User:Arsi786. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're constantly restoring the near-exact same edits made by a banned user (not the first time) with a few tweaks (one word changed), without seeking consensus. The claim on the talkpage that you had taken our "valid points" into account is simply not true considering you used the exact same sources that had been criticized as not supporting the statement. Ignoring the issue while trying to be polite isn't resolving anything. 39.37.165.118 (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- User:GrammarDamner should be aware that their four edits that are listed at the head of this report are within a 24-hour period, so they break 3RR. They might avoid a block for the 3RR violation if they will agree not to edit the article for a week. Per WP:EW, a revert is anything that undoes other editors' actions, either in whole or in part. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fine, I agree. I believe that the second two edits had addressed all the concerns that had been brought to the talk page, and to be perfectly honest, I would appreciate it if User:EdJohnston and/or any other admin would take a closer look at the behavior of some of the other editors involved. But I guess at this point I simply have to move on. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston and GrammarDamner the article is already protected for a week so no one can edit it. I would prefer if GrammarDamner agrees to always follow WP:BRD (even after the article is unblocked). This means if GrammarDamner's edit is reverted they shouldn't revert back until they have discussed the material in detail on the talk page.VR talk 20:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree to follow BRD. I feel that I did follow BRD. 2 issues were brought to the talk page, I addressed both of those issues, and then I put the information in the article. However, I will go even further and ask to see if consensus agrees with a new proposed edit before adding it, unless consensus says that the first edit shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Great! I agree to withdraw this report.VR talk 21:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Result: Complaint withdrawn by the submitter, per the assurances made in this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Great! I agree to withdraw this report.VR talk 21:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree to follow BRD. I feel that I did follow BRD. 2 issues were brought to the talk page, I addressed both of those issues, and then I put the information in the article. However, I will go even further and ask to see if consensus agrees with a new proposed edit before adding it, unless consensus says that the first edit shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston and GrammarDamner the article is already protected for a week so no one can edit it. I would prefer if GrammarDamner agrees to always follow WP:BRD (even after the article is unblocked). This means if GrammarDamner's edit is reverted they shouldn't revert back until they have discussed the material in detail on the talk page.VR talk 20:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fine, I agree. I believe that the second two edits had addressed all the concerns that had been brought to the talk page, and to be perfectly honest, I would appreciate it if User:EdJohnston and/or any other admin would take a closer look at the behavior of some of the other editors involved. But I guess at this point I simply have to move on. GrammarDamner how are things? 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- No issue with the sources had been brought up on the talk page, only the language used. I addressed that. And again, I had backed away. I think you jumped the gun with this unnecessary report. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Each one of your edits cited above restores the exact three same sources and the same sentence (with a slight modification). The dispute is not resolved. I think admin warning (not block) and page protection will allow this to be resolved via discussion not reverting.VR talk 18:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to clarify something. While I had made more than 3 edits within a 24-hour period, they were not simple reverts. The edits were different, reflecting the issues that had been discussed on the article's talk page. The language used in the sources was brought up in discussion, and my edits reflected the necessary changes. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Virs1 reported by User:Asterix757 (Result: Indef)
Page: Ramanuja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Virs1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]
Comments:
There where two messages (from user:Materialscientist and then me) on the talk page of the User:Virs1 because of his massive removal of reliable sources, but he doesn't care, and is not open to discuss, then pretends to me :" Stop you appear to be a troll! Stop this religious harassment !" Asterix757 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Then in his response to the An3-notice he calls me a "harraser" [32]. Asterix757 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours, obvious POV-pusher ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Upon additional examination of the user's contributions, Blocked indefinitely ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
User:24.29.56.240 reported by User:NZFC (Result: Warned user(s))
Page: Mike Patton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.29.56.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 06:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 974295777 by NZFC (talk) NZFC, I posted on the talk page, but I am reinstating my edits because I believe they are correct. Drop the attitude and stop making threats. You don't get to decide what belongs on this page and what doesn't and then threaten to block editors that disagree."
- Consecutive edits made from 02:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC) to 02:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- 02:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 973957656 by Armadillopteryx (talk) remove material that is not important or encyclopedic and is very awkwardly worded"
- 02:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 973968686 by NZFC (talk) remove unencyclopedic quote that adds nothing to the encyclopedia"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 05:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Mike Patton. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User:Sajaypal007 reported by User:LukeEmily (Result: )
Page: Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sajaypal007 (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]
He keeps deleting academic content - including quotes and references (books/journals). He needs to get consensus to delete such high quality references. The quotes accurately reflect what is on the page. There is no WP:OR
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeEmily (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @HebaAisha I already reverted both of these and gave reason of reversion on both of them This user User:LukeEmily reverted back this edit is what I reverted again please see the earlier revert where I gave specific reason for the removal and he reverted back. Before removal I tried to build consensus on talk page but this user didnt engage on the talk page. He kept on adding content. Even after removal she reverted back. He has done heavy editing on that page and most of the article added are not related to the subject but only has running reference about it. It was pretty one side view which he kept on adding with such sources. I also asked him about work which really address the subject. But he did not participate in the talk page. I also tagged the top mods twice regarding the matter but they didnt reply yet. There is one more user HebaAisha and both of them working together for this. I myself was about to file complaint against LukeEmily but she did it first. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sajaypal007 is interested in particularly glorification of Rajput community hence in an edit dispute with us.I recommend protection of Rajput article to have administrator consent required for edits.I have just moved image to gallery section and not done heavy edits as he is saying.Another editor has done sourced changes which are from publisher like oxford press etc.This user don't like whts written as it is like degradation of a community for him.WP:Uncensored should be seen before complaining.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- second accusing us of working together is like personal attack.It is possible that two users like same topic and area so they can exchange thought.see WP:No personal attackHeba Aisha (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Also Sajaypal007 has created similar chaos on various Rajput related pages . which can be seen from his talk page msg and contributions.Not assuming good faith and adding personal opinion always.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Its 11:31 p.m in India i need a sleep.Good night everyone.🙏Heba Aisha (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Sajaypal007 is promoting the Rajput caste all over wikipedia. He does not have the right to delete academic references without discussion. I told him many times that wikipedia is not a place for caste promotion. So just because some source mentions something unpleasant does not mean it can be deleted. I have been attacked by other Rajput editors too - calling me Rabid dog etc. My fault has been adding academic high quality sources that they do not like.LukeEmily (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- As I mentioned earlier in talk page both of these user are working together and I didnt even tagged this user and he is here. In fact if someone can look their history they will know how both of them operating. They were also discussing about exchanging emails. If I bring some user here by messaging to accuse LukeEmily will it make any difference. You guys are accusing me of glorofication of castes that can be considered personal attack as well. Admins will themselves see what is going on. I myself am asking for admin intervention since a couple of days. I am not interested in any glorification. I already asked you to stop accusing without any basis. I can accuse you of sockpuppetry too by looking over both of these accounts. As i explained earlier I gave sufficient explanation for removal just see the edit history. I am saying this for 2nd or 3rd time these are not rajput history its history of rajasthan which I was a student and know about. Anyone can see my contributions, for an outsider rajasthan history may look like Rajput history but there is a lot of difference. I suggest you read something about rajasthan history. I never created any chaos. And if controversial topic I already tried to build consensus first but you guys didnt participate and LukeEmily went on adding without hearing on talk page. @LukeEmily please read Rajasthan history you may say its Rajput caste glorification. I am improving rajasthan history articles not rajput caste. I removed the citation and gave the reasons probably you didnt read them and reverted back. Again accusing me of caste promotion. Please I again request you guys to maintain civility. I am not talking about whether its unpleasant or not. You probably didnt read talk page thats why you are saying such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sajaypal007 , admins have intervened and two who were attacking me were blocked indefinitely and one was blocked for 3 days. My study/interest is in varna mobility and Rajput caste is a big subtopic- I will be editing other pages too - not just Rajput. I am not interested in Rajasthan or wars and Rajput historic figures. I discussed everything with you multiple times on talk page. Just see the Rajput talk page and search for my name. Deleting sources that someone adds - especially if they are scholarly is like throwing away their hard work. You should have discussed on talk page waited for feedback from me and senior editors like Sitush and then we could have edited more. But you simply deleted sources - all academic. There sources are not only WP:RS but top quality. I check your history too. That does not mean I am working with you. LukeEmily (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- As admins will see i only edited twice after so much talking on talk page, you made a series of changes and when asked about in talk page you ignored it. As for what that guy called you, I have my sympathies. But both you and HebaAisha are issuing various warnings and lodging complaints here. I am alone but I stand by what I did, both of you are trying to hound me when I edited with giving proper reason, it looks like you guys dont want any opposition to your views and for 2 edits you created so much chaos everywhere. You should have built consensus over edits but you repeatedly ignored. Now both of you guys are here too to try to get me banned so you can do whatever you feels. Thats not correct approach. I request admins to look at the talk page of the Rajput page and also its edit history before coming to any judgement. PS: Both of these accounts are fairly new like 1-2 months old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- You have not discussed here at all yet. See Talk:Rajput#lede_section. In any case, the sources are academic and accurate. And the bottom line is that you deleted academic references. Your edits clearly show that.LukeEmily (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- ok....i m new but abide by policy of wikipedia and none of them say that new ppl can't edit😁Heba Aisha (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- And you are requesting on talk page of Utcursch the indian admin to revert back the article so that Shudra origin get abolished along with high quality sources and WP:puffery prevail which told about origin of Rajputs from sacrificial fire pit.plz.....they are myth there is consensus among historians that they are a heterogeneous group and contain Shudra too.An uninvolved foreign admin should see into the matter as we can't rely solely on indians given their preferred choice related to caste.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ur proper reason should be supported by proper source too. NOT ur personal feeling and ideas.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- [35] This is WP:Primary but this is not the only thing from where origin section is derived but Sajaypal007 u should have idea that primary sources could be used with caution supported by other sources and it was fairly used in origin section.but u reverted it as u don't liked it.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- And just a small doubt?...why all ur edits are related to Rajput caste related topic only.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Davidt1996 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked 1 day)
Page: Mohammad Zeraat Pishe Jouyani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davidt1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 18:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC) to 18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- 18:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Official sources"
- 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Official sources"
- 18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Official sources"
- 18:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Official sources"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 18:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Mohammad Zeraat Pishe Jouyani. (TW)"
- 18:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Mohammad Zeraat Pishe Jouyani. (TW)"
- 18:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mohammad Zeraat Pishe Jouyani. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user is engaging in 3RR by removing speedy delete notices repeatedly. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 day 11pm here so if issues with page recreation and CSD aren't resolved by morning will address as well. Glen (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Springs24 reported by User:Namiba (Result: Blocked)
Page: 2020 United States Senate election in Maine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Springs24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [36]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]
Comments:
- It should be noted that the editor, User:Springs24, vandalized my talk page after I left notice of this discussion [43] using a sock puppet account (which appears in the signature of the comment below.)--User:Namiba 20:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
NO reliability in complaint (Springs25i (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC))
- Strangely enough, the Spring25i account does not appear to be a sock. Anyway, Spring24 has been Blocked Salvio 20:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Binksternet reported by User:Voteins (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page: Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 08:07, August 22, 2020 removing joebaugher conflation... Lockheed had been making tricycle fighters since 1939. Bell's XP-59 was a high mid-wing. The P-80 wing was all Kelly Johnson's laminar flow work, a 13% thick NACA 65-213.
- 16:08, August 22, 2020 Rv... Giant problems with these edits. See Talk.
- 19:09, August 22, 2020 (reporter's note: also posted on my user page warning me of edit warring)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:06, August 22 2020 Please do not remove sections of an article without providing alternate sources of your own.
- 18:54, August 22, 2020 I replied to your comment on the talk page. Do not revert this edit, and please review Wikipedia's Three revert rule
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Me responding to post editor made after their first revert but I made a few revisions to it immediately after so see Talk:Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star#The_XP-59B_connection
- Note that the user did not respond to my talk page post before their second and third reverts
Comments:
This editor appears to have taken grave offense to one of my sources (their comment on the talk page post they made after their first revert was "not Baugher again"), accusing me of repeating a false claim that Bell's XP-59B influenced Lockheed's P-80 fighter aircraft. I have replied to them on the talk page stating that I relied on multiple sources for this section of the article, and even provided more in my post. I also checked the only one of the sources they provided I was able to find online, which did not deny the claim and even confirmed a section of my edits this editor saw fit to remove.
I then asked them to provide more explicit sources for the claim that the XP-59B had no influence on the P-80. Instead this editor has chosen to revert my edits within minutes of me making them, asserting unspecified "problems". I'm more than willing to examine sources, compare their credibility, and find consensus on the talk page but continually reverting my edits without justification is simply unproductive. Voteins (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Salvio 20:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help with this issue. If I could just ask one thing, the latest version of the page was a revert by the user I reported for the 3rr, and now that version is protected. Seeing as this was essentially what this user wanted, to prevent my edits from showing up, I'd ask the page be left with my edits intact. Voteins (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's right, the WRONGVERSION was kept. <humor> Actually, the WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to add or retain disputed text. The article is appropriately protected in the state it was before you brought disputed ideas. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- When protecting a page, admins can either protect it as they find it, unless that version contains policy-violating content (which wasn't the case here) or revert to the stable version of the article. In this case, either choice would have led to the same result... Salvio 20:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Worth a shot at least. Binksternet I'm working to your reply to your post on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voteins (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help with this issue. If I could just ask one thing, the latest version of the page was a revert by the user I reported for the 3rr, and now that version is protected. Seeing as this was essentially what this user wanted, to prevent my edits from showing up, I'd ask the page be left with my edits intact. Voteins (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Hangsun.577 reported by User:Struthious Bandersnatch (Result: )
Page: Patrisse Cullors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hangsun.577 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 08:17, 22 August 2020
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:09, 22 August 2020
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ongoing RfC on talk page which User:Hangsun.577 was informed of via reverting edit comments and on their user talk page.
Comments:
User:Hangsun.577 has edit warred in an attempt to insert the appellation "Marxist-trained" into the first sentence of the WP:BLP Patrisse Cullors. An active RfC on the article's talk page is discussing this term, which the user was informed about, and they were also warned about NPOV policy, disruptive editing, and edit warring, but they persisted in reverting to reinstate the content they'd added. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 23:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)