Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive404

User:BaldiBasicsFan reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: no violation)

Page

101 Dalmatian Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941676693 by CrypticalFiery (talk) Again, they need to be like in the overall"
2. 23:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941579190 by 184.63.190.254 (talk) My god would you please stop! This page definitely deserves some protection"
3. 06:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "I literally meant by how the overviews supposed to be, they are supposed to have their confirmed overall and not like how are they released"
4. 15:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941410751 by 184.63.190.254 (talk) No! That is not how it goes!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 101 Dalmatian Street. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has repeatedly reverted other users' edits. Considering how active they are on the page, I suspect there might be a case of WP:OWN here. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Outside a 24 hours span. And several parameters were left blank in this report. Also, your dates don't match the history for some reason, which is strange. Anyway, please feel free to relist if further reverting (even ones falling short of 3RR) by the user persist in the immediate future — but it's possible for ownership to be conflated with simple stewardship. El_C 19:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Ustun YILDIRIM reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: protected)

Page

Selman Akbulut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ustun YILDIRIM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Well good if it is being discussed at the moment. We should refrain from writing wrong things."
2. 05:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "It says "due to the determination that he continuously attacked several of his colleagues by email". The quoted article does not state so. If it does please tell me exactly where it says that."
3. 05:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941540622 by Mr. Vernon (talk) It is a quotation not the official reason. There is a difference between the two. At the moment article represents a quotation from a person as if it was juries decision. So, this must be undone."
4. 05:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "No where it says he is fired due to determination that he attacked people by email."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Selman Akbulut. (TW)"
2. 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Selman Akbulut. (TW)"
3. 05:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Selman Akbulut. (TW)"
4. 05:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* The statement regarding allegations in the Career section needs to go */"

Comments:

There's a discussion on the talk page of the article trying to hammer out good wording - which I've participated in. I get being bold, but edit wars are not that. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Page protected. El_C 19:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Kavin Mudaliar reported by User:Xenani (Result: stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [6]
2. [7]

Comments:

This user has been involved in an ongoing edit warring since August. There has been several attempts at the talk page to try gain consensus with the user, however due to among other pov-pushing, lack of knowledge of wikipedian policies and language barrier, have consensus not been reached. The user has already been banned before. However, the ban has not changed anything with the users edit warring approach.Xenani (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenani: When was the ban? I see a DS warning and a 24-hour block for edit warring, but I don't see a ban. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, sorry I meant the user have been blocked, not banned. Xenani (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Stale. El_C 19:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Olly7 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result:Indef blocked)

Page

Clonazepam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Olly7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941836419 by Praxidicae (talk) Vital information correctly formatted is here and could stop people falling ill. So why Praxidicae removes this I'm not sure? Doesn't sound very professional - medically does it?"
2. 23:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "My modifications contain VITAL information about drug interactions and are presented/fornatted correctly. This knowledge could maybe prevent someone from have a dangerous drug Interaction. WHY Doc James removed it,...no one knows! SO MUCH FOR A DOCTOR."
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC) to 17:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 17:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Adding new source as previous was apparently "spam" according to whom shall not be named. All corrected, official "no spam" source :)"
   2. 17:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 17:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 940588242 by Praxidicae (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* February 2020 */"
2. 23:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

persistently adding unreliable spam and predatory sources despite multiple warnings from other users. See also Diazepam and Alprazolam Praxidicae (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely I've blocked Olly7 indefinitely with specific instructions on how they can be unblocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:EG 1991 reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: Declined)

Page

Toronto FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

EG 1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Updated logo to reflect 2020 version."
2. 21:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Updated the logo to reflect the current version."
3. 21:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "Updated the logo to reflect the current version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Declined. New user. No warning given. Only three reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: no violation)

Page

Caroline Flack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "(edit conflict) Twks"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC) to 16:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Principal shows */"
   2. 16:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Career */ Replacing Primary source; tweak"
   3. 16:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Career */ Twk"
3. 16:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ For this one too?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC) to 15:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ twk"
   2. 15:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Principal shows */ Twk (It's not "today", and I don't know what a "tabloid world" is supposed to mean)"
5. 15:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ Grammar"
6. Consecutive edits made from 14:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC) to 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 14:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Strictly Come Dancing */ If it's not going to be hidden, then we should remove it: too much, particularly given the fact we have an article about the series where all these scores are held. The information is also sourced to an unreliable source and fails BLP by that"
   2. 14:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Career */ Putting this back into the chronological runthrough where it should be"
   3. 14:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Career */ Have her look 'into' the page, not 'out' of it"
   4. 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Career */ ~sigh~"
7. 10:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941568603 by Thursby16 (talk) Per BLP - needs a very good source"
8. 22:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Death */ One individual's opinion shouldn't have any more weight than any other."
9. 17:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Death */ This is trivia and something that we would expect from nearly every celebrity."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Cause of Death */ side comment"
2. 23:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Cause of Death */ r"

Comments:

And I'm apparently a "petty troll" for reporting and notifying the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat: Walter was incorrect with their report, and it was malformed, but that's still no reason to take WP:ABF seriously. Please keep that in mind. (Whoops. Seems the Reply script broke. Moved.) —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moony; I do take it seriously but, as I've outlined before, when there has been disruption by an editor over three talk pages including untruths told about me and explanations of my actions being completely ignored because of a trifling grudge, my reservoir of GF runs a little dry. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• No, you're a petty little troll for being disruptive on my talk page, the article talk page and the lies you wrote on MelanieN's talk page.

A couple of things I already mentioned on MelanieN's page: 1. Well done, this is a list of edits to the page, not reverts. I have no idea why you thought it necessary to list all my edits, but it's clear you're grasping at straws and don't understand diddly sqaut. 2. reverts on BLPs are sometimes exempt from 3RR (and I have pointed you to WP:NOT3RR already, but it looks like you've ignored it entirely). Many of the actual reverts I have done have been because the sourcing is missing, or it is claiming something that is untrue - it is entirely acceptable to revert such breaches of the BLP policy. Once you take that on board, you will see that there are a few true reversions, and these are spread over an extended period. Many of these are for breaches of WP:ENGVAR or because of woeful grammar. 3. As I've said before, I cannot take someone like you seriously after you edit warred over adding spaces (and bringing in some awful formatting too): you have been extremely petty and disruptive in your approach since then. If anyone wants me for anything useful, you'll have to ping me, because I won't be watching this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Any change to another editor's content is a revert. See WP:3RR. You've made four more since the report. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

By that logic any edit made to existing text is a revert, is that really your argument here? MPJ-DK (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, Yeek. Hate to say this, Walter, but you should withdraw this, take a careful moment to think this over, clean up your argument, and not present every single one of SchroCat's edits, and very carefully decide if this is even a valid report at all. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the following are exceptions:

# Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").

# Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.

# Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.

# Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

# Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first.

# Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.

# Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial.

Are you suggesting the multiple edits made by SchroCat are exempt based on one or more of this criteria? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

"Any change to another editor's content is a revert"? Ouch. I have already explained on several occasions that many of the reverts (the real reverts, not the things you think are reverts) were because of the BLP violations. I have explained this to you FOUR times (1, 2, 3 and 4) and I hope the message is now getting through. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Walter Görlitz, I am, by not being reverts in the first place. No 3RR occured. Alongside that, it looks like you're attempting to "inflate" the charge against them by filling it with edits. I'm not going to review every single one, so how about you pick out the ones you feel are actually edit warring. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If you won't do the work, I will assist. I have removed the trivial and unnecessary edits. What now remains are changes to other editors' work. Despite what SchroCat's understanding is the criteria is clear, that a change to another editor's work is a revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation. A change to another editor's work is not automatically a revert. There needs to be a Previous version reverted to shown —a parameter that was left blank in this report— to demonstrate that an edit constitutes a revert. El_C 18:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Also, that list of "reverts" includes typo fixes, correcting bad English, MOS fixes, moving text from one place to another, and even removing a BLP violation. We can't look at an EW report on the basis of that. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Gosh darn it, El C, For some dumb reason, I spent way too much time reviewing each of the diffs from the original poorly-formed report, only to find that (a) it had been shortened, and (b) you've just closed it. For what it's worth, here's my intended post:

  The report is malformed, and I probably should have closed it without reviewing all of the diffs to discourage future reports like this. Walter Görlitz is encouraged to review WP:reverting to better understand what a revert is; changing a previous edit is not a revert, it's just incremental improvement. You need to substantially undo someone else's edit, going back to a previous version, to be considered a revert. However, I went ahead and reviewed all of the edits. It appears there were only 4 or 5 actual reverts that weren't subject to a BLP exemption, spread over 2 or 3 days. In a page with such high-frequency changes, this doesn't come close to "edit warring", much less a violation of WP:3RR. I also note that, unless I missed one, it does not appear any of them were repeats of a previous revert. No violation.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. In the future, I will link to this exact link if I'm ever brought here again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Or indeed if you ever bring something here again - I mean you were "brought here" by you logging the complaint. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:MJC8104 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]
6. [13]
7. [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Comments:
This has been an ongoing edit war since August of 2019. Multiple editors have pointed out the same facts using different reliable references, yet their edits are quickly reverted. An RFC was published and the results were split but there seems to have been instances where reference articles were using the Wiki article as one of their sources.

I am trying to make the band's page current and accurate (including using all caps for their name which is accurate) using many different and reliable references, including the official announcement by their previous label where the band was said to be "Alternative", and nothing else. Examples of other band pages that fit this exact issue were given to make a point that references used in their pages seemed to not be allowed on this page. One major reference discrepancy is that other pages used band interviews as references yet it seems that this page cannot use similar articles. Some of these examples are listed in the talk page.
I understand the need for accurate references and multiple editors, including myself, have provided many accurate articles in support of the correction I am trying to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJC8104 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• No violation – This page is for recent edit warring; Walter has made only one revert so far in 2020. It takes four reverts in a 24 hour period to break the 3RR rule. Consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. By the way, the question of putting VERIDIA in all caps was considered in a move discussion. There was consensus to use lower case per the Wikipedia WP:Manual of style. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:bunch of ips reported by User:Johnbod (Result: protected)

Page: Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Rotating ips 213.205.194.236 , 213.205.240.146 and others

• On Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There's been a string of ips with big unreferenced changes to data, (which is correct & referenced), starting with this on 12 February - string of ip addresses. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]
7. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

This article gets over 2,000 views a day.

Page protected I have semi-protected the article for some days. Lectonar (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Superbookfan reported by User:Movies Time (Result: Both warned)

Page

Superbook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Series 5 (2019–20) */"
2. 17:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Series 5 (2019–20) */"
3. 11:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Series 5 (2019–20) */"
4. 20:25, 13 February 2020‎ (UTC) "/* Series 5 (2019–20) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Superbook. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I'm currently involved in edit warring with this user because of the section "Series 5 (2019–20)" in which did not meetup with MOS:TVUP where the user reverts it from (2019–20) to (2019–present). Movies Time (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. User:Superbookfan and User:Movies Time are both warned. Each of them is risking a block if they revert again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for the steps you should consider if agreement can't be reached. You might find other opinions by asking at WT:TV. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:71.30.162.5 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: Page protected)

Page: Bluegrass music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.30.162.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]
5. [34] (IP hopped to 50.205.155.70. Identical edit and edit summary. Both in Texas.)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] opened by User:Meters after 3RR report

Comments:
Sundayclose (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I opened a talk page thread and undid to status quo, but didn't realize there was a 3RR report until I went to the new IP's talk page to leave a message. Meters (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:FOX 52 reported by User:Horse Eye Jack (Result: Both re-warned)

Page: Republic of China Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FOX 52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37] "reduce image overload WP:IMAGEMOS"
2. [38] "→‎Equipment and procurement: stagger" Forms a pair with above edit
3. [39] "update sourcing 2020"
4. [40] "no, those adding that amount of images should gain consensus - this is not a picture book” Forms a pair with above edit
5. [41] "for starters you don't revert update sourcing”
6. [42] "nope updates with added sourcing is does not warrant the talk page"

Comments:
Refuses to seek consensus for a multitude of changes (some of which I support and would have happily helped him implement after a talk page discussion) to the article on the talk page. In response to reversion they escalated their revisions of the page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

First three edits were not reverts, they were changes regarding image over usage per:WP:Image dos and don'ts. last two were information update(s) adding content, I left the image issue alone. Editors adding content or update(s) with sources, shouldn’t need to open a discussion on the talk page. That’s what I thought edit summaries are for. - FOX 52 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not the added content which was questioned, it was the considerable amount of removed content. The point about picture over use is a good one, what needs to be discussed on the talk page are which images are to be removed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also don’t know if you noticed but your edit [43] resulted in a near duplication of the armaments section (as well as the Air Defense section), one of which had the TC-2 picture you keep insisting on removing removed. A review of [44] suggests that you've been using WP:IMAGEMOS as the justification to remove that image of a 737 since 2015[45]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes noticed and repaired on my last revision - and all information in the table is still the same, just placed trainers in their proper sections i.e.: F-16B / F-5F per the source – variants are horizontal as opposed to the vertical like the way it was, back you edited (May of 2019) - FOX 52 (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a point of order, it was my reversion which repaired the damage caused by your edit. Your most recent edit which moved the F-CK-1 Ds to “conversion trainer” is factually incorrect, which is something we should be discussing on the talk page rather than on a noticeboard. You have not demonstrated the necessary competence (e.g. basic knowledge about Taiwan’s munitions and platforms) to make such sweeping changes to the ROCAF page. In addition if you want to use paywalled sources be prepared to explain what those sources say on the talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

From his own admission, HEJ is more concerned with reverting than content creation. Recommend immediate WP:BOOMERANG in light of HEJ finding themselves at the center of yet another noticeboard thread in the span of less than two weeks. The continued cheeky comments (derogatory), as admonished by others, are but an attempt at WP:GAMEing by circumventing outright violations of WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA while acting in a condescending manner, and must stop. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be worse than outright violations of WP:NPA and persistent refusal to abide by basic standards of civility? If you want to invoke the most dangerous of weapons, the WP:BOOMERANG, be wary of its sting[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You are the one who filed this report on a third user; by definition, the only WP:BOOMERANG that could be applied here would be against you. Your filibustering cannot alter that immutable definition, which is as basic as arithmetic.

That is inaccurate, per WP:BOOMERANG “Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny.” You brought up WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, that wasn’t part of the original discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The dispute central to this thread is about content at Republic of China Air Force. Yet another example of an "over-the-top irrelevancy" designed to derail discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Again a desperate attempt at WP:NOTTHEM-style deflection...this thread is about the conduct of FOX 52 and yourself, who has been admonished by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor as reverting for the sake of it, not myself. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM only applies to blocked users. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is a guide whose spirit can be applied at will elsewhere. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, its part of "an explanatory supplement to the appealing a block guideline page.” Its “spirit" can not be applied outside of an extremely specific contextHorse Eye Jack (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Horse Eye Jack and FOX 52: You obviously can both talk and engage on the talkpage, because your doing it. Do that so I don't have to use my tools. This page is on my watchlist, and I'll intervene if the edit war continues. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Editor1377 reported by User:Jotamar (Result: Declined)

Page: Pupusa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editor1377 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]
6. [60]
7. [61]
8. [62]
9. [63]

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

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

Comments:
I've been waging an edit war with user:Editor1377 in the page pupusa for about a month now. The question doesn't seem very serious at first sight but you should consider all this:

• The first edition by user:Editor1377 was a deletion that I immediately spotted as an attempt to hide the name of the country Honduras from the page, and consequently I reverted it, with an explanation in the edit summary.
• Since that moment, user:Editor1377 has systematically unreverted my edition, typically with just a few hours of delay.
• In his/her edition summaries, user:Editor1377 tries to conceal the fact that the editions are (un)reversions.
• user:Editor1377 has only ever made one single edition that is not related to this edit war in pupusa or to his/her user page.

For all that, I think that user:Editor1377 can clearly be defined as a disruptive user, and some kind of measure should be taken about him/her. Jotamar (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Declined @Jotamar: Waging an edit war, especially for this long is not appropriate regardless of the content. You never warned the user or attempted to engage in dialogue with them. Try that instead of trying to get the editor blocked or WP:BOOMERANG may apply. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Jotamar reported by User:Editor1377 (Result: Declined)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=937873318
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=938393186
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=939180708
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=939319857
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=939846186
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=940821046
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=941623718
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pupusa&diff=next&oldid=941657040

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

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

• I've been an edit war with user:Jotamar in the page pupusa. He has been uploading claims with no factual base.

• user:Jotamar claims the origin of the pupusa is also from another country which is clearly incorrect. The correct orgin of the pupusa is the country of El Salvador with no facts to back his claim he submits revisions.

• user:Jotamar makes edits as an assumption without any supporting evidence whatsoever should not be allowed and that is why his claims are reverted.

• The actions user:Jotamar should be considered as Disruptive editing and he or she case should be treated with the appropriate measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor1377 (talk • contribs)
• Declined See the next report and start talking. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Migsmigss reported by User:Michella Aprillia (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Template:Top Ten Indonesian Badminton Players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Michella Aprillia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC) "STOP REVERTING EDIT! YOURE VERY EGOIST AND DUMB !!!"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC) to 10:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 10:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC) "adding source, preventing vandalism from non-indonesian users."
   2. 10:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC) to 10:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 10:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Template:Top Ten Indonesian Badminton Players. (TW)"
2. 10:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Template:Top Ten Indonesian Badminton Players. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent inclusion of unreferenced/unsourced information, with edit summary comments 'STOP BEING STUPID HERE! BWF RANKING IS UPDATED EVERY WEEKS!!! CHECK THE SOURCES LAH STUPID!," "STOP REVERTING EDIT! YOURE VERY EGOIST AND DUMB !!!" and "...YOURE THE ONE THAT VERY STUPID HERE... STUPID!" Migsmigss (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

THIS IS THE SOURCES!!! ARE U BLIND OR WHAT!!! YOURE THE ONE THAT DONT WANT TO CHECK THE SOURCES INSTEAD OF ACCUSING ME DOING VANDALISM AND REVERTING MY EDITS, SO RUDE!!! (snip sources) Michella Aprillia (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked Both blocked for edit warring on this very page and for the vitriol. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Noting that I have unblocked Migsmigss. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:178.40.136.239 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: semiprotected)

Page: Dáil Éireann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.40.136.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]
6. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70], [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:
An editor also tried to intervene on the editor's talk page: [73]

Page protected for a period of one week. El_C 02:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

User:ThecentreCZ reported by User:Concus Cretus (Result: no violation)

Page: Czech Pirate Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]
4. [78]
5. [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80] [81] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments:

User ignores all warnings and refuses reply and explain their edits on talkpage and continues edit warring - deleting the word "liberal" and "liberalism" from the page based on a series of WP:OR statements; while the term is widely sourced by mainstream sources: Pirate party, a liberal group the liberal, youth-powered Česká pirátská strana, the Czech Pirate Party Concus Cretus (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

That is not true, the one who started edit warring is User:Concus Cretus. As the first one he broken rule of 3 reverts within 24 hours. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the point here is that you repeatedly remove reliably sourced material without an explanation backed by any guidelines on encyclopedic content, ignoring discussion.--Concus Cretus (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation. There needs to be four reverts made in the span of 24 hours for 3RR to be breached, which is not the case here. El_C 02:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Flchans reported by User:Sulfurboy (Result: No action)

Page

Maryna Tkachuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC) to 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and Commendations */"
   2. 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Professional activities */"
2. 16:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 942428411 by Justlettersandnumbers (talk) Dear JLAN, I am tired of mentioning that I am NOT a paid editor. I am still expecting proof of your false assumptions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Maryna Tkachuk. (TW)"
2. 16:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Maryna Tkachuk. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "/* removing unsourced info on BLP page */ new section"

Comments:

User keeps adding back unsourced (or at the very least lacking inline cites) information on a BLP. User has been warned a couple times on their talk page. They have now removed those warnings from their talk page. User has also posted borderline attack comments on my talk page. User is just in general a loose cannon. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to keep this concise. There's been a conflict/misunderstanding around this article involving Wikipedians such as Sulfurboy, ArnabSaha, JLAN and Barkeep49. Original article about Dr. Tkachuk has been in place on Ukrainian Wikipedia for over a year - uk:Ткачук Марина Леонідівна ; I used that, as well as the openly available information at the university website to create a similarly fashioned article here on English Wikipedia. Please mind the Ukrainian article has never had any issues with notability, validity of information or otherwise. It was very amusing to find out people from India and Texas know much more on the subject than them. Since this is already turning into more text than it should, I'll just point out the chain of events:

1) I present the draft, which, after some tweaks, is approved by Sulfuboy. The article is created. 2) ArnabSaha flags is for G12 speedy deletion because of assumed/suspected copyright infringement of NaUKMA website materials. JLAN deletes the article and flags the Commons photograph for deletion as well. 3) Following the necessary declarations, both the photo and the materials are verified, and the article is undeleted. 4) I start working on it in order to improve it, add citations and the like. 5) I face the article being vandalised by Sulfurboy, the information outright deleted, although being perfectly cited etc.

Throughout this experience I faced lots of frustration with how English Wikipedia operates already. There were unbacked claims that the person isn't notable, unbacked claims that I am paid for writing this article. I am tired of all this and of how bureaucratic your enviroinment is. My aim is improving Wikipedia and making Ukrainian educational and scientific enviroinment better known to outside world. I am not a hired editor or paid employee, I just want people to leave me alone and let me make a decent article. I am open to criticism and advice, but when in a couple of hours someone deletes it based on a wild assumption - that's not advice, that's spit in the face.

So, at this point, because I'm tired of all this story and furthermore just to prove the point I am not paid for this or anything - you can go ahead and delete the article alltogether, forever. Shame that English Wikipedia is not an accumulation of humanity's knowledge where people are equal and can work together, but instead is merely a bunch of bureaucrats feeding their egos. Peace. Flchans (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I've requested G7 on the page as the author has requested deletion and they look to be the only one that has made any significant contribution to the page.Sulfurboy (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sulfurboy, there is a world of difference between "You can go ahead and delete" and "You should delete" or "Please delete". BUT, I honestly have nothing against you viewing my words as such and placing your G7 or whatever you call it. By all means. Would be a great victory for Wikipedian bureaucracy. Best. Flchans (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hello User:Sulfurboy. The creator of the article, Flchans, placed a {{db-author}} tag on the article but the tag was removed by User:Pigsonthewing in the belief that the subject is notable. After reading the discussion above, are you OK with closing this AN3 complaint with no further action? EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• EdJohnston, Yep should be fine, editor has seemed to calm down so we should be good. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Closing with no action per agreement of the submitter, and per the discussion above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User:MB reported by User:Sulfurboy (Result: AWB revoked, warned)

Page

Dan Lam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC) "clean up, added orphan tag"
2. 16:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "clean up, added orphan tag"
3. 15:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 942576311 by MB (talk): Per user talk page reasons (TW)"
4. 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 942514093 by AuthorAuthor (talk): Per WP:INFOBOXIMAGE (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dan Lam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Infobox image */"

Comments:

I warned both parties making edits to Dan Lam about the three revert rule. I even attempted to mediate the conflict over the infobox image on the pages talk page. Yet, user User:MB has persisted with yet another revert. I don't like reporting an experienced editor as he seems to be, but I'm afraid if his actions on the page continue to go unchecked it will further discourage the original page creator User:WriteIncunabula who is a new editor to Wikipedia from continuing to contribute. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, I don't follow this. The issue on the infobox image was resolved after you rendered your opinion that the image did not belong in the infobox. I have made some other unrelated changes to the article after that. I restored the orphan tag and explained on the other user's talk page that the article was still an orphan, contrary to their belief, and explained to them how to check that. MB 03:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As you should be aware MB, there is no valid excuse to edit war, especially with AWB, the restoration of {{orphan}}. Hell, there is a tool linked directly in the box that shows two other articles. Continue to revert, and a block will be issued. For now, your AWB access is revoked. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked 48 hours, reversed)

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

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Earlier today I made a comment on the talk page of another editor, then quickly thought better of it and thought better and withdrew it. There were no intervening edits between the two and I withdrew it to not become involved and to avoid the drama. Since then Debresser has

1. re-added the comment
2. again
3. and again
4. and again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this edit summary (not on the talk page, as I have no wish to discuss anything with someone so abrasive.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: it's on a talk page, and an aggressive battlefield approach is the last thing I want to discuss with.

Comments:

I don't want the comment there, and I don't want to get involved with the battlefield idiocy displayed. It speaks volumes of that individual that a request not to re-add a deleted comment was ignored. - SchroCat (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Am I seeing this right? We blocked someone for editing there own user page?--Moxy 🍁 23:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Moxy The blocked user edit warred to keep in place a comment that its author withdrew before it was replied to. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

331dot, how many times did the OP do the same? This block is not a good block. You don't go to someone's user talk page and then keep reverting. You blocked Debresser but not the OP, why? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

So you seem to be saying that a user is not permitted to withdraw their un-replied to comment? 331dot (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I didn't say any of that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

OK this looks very odd.....the user was restoring a post so they could reply to it but it was removed over and over again by original poster? Why cant the user reply to the post....what gives the poster the right to comment but not have to deal with a reply?.You can see how this looks backwards right. Odd an edit war on a user page ends up with the page owner being blocked.--Moxy 🍁 23:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah kind of odd. I count at least 5 reverts by SchroCat. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of which I will note have replies to them. PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a grey area between the right to withdraw comments and the desire of some users to keep all material that's been on their own user talk page. I'm not sure if there's a policy governing that. But to block one edit warrior and not the other, when both broke the 3RR, looks a bit like taking sides in the dispute.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not taking a side. I am respecting the desire to attempt to deescalate a situation. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Generally reverting on your own page is exempt per WP:3RR point 2. Closest I could find to a policy on this. PackMecEng (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

But reverting to keep a comment withdrawn by its author on the page to carry on a dispute is okay? I'm genuinely asking. 331dot (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point once it was reverted and replied to I would say yes. The over 4 reverts from SchroCat become less de-escalation and more just rubbing it in. PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, right, OP could have brought this to EW a few edits ago, but to only block one person is wrong when the OP violated 3RR on someone else's talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) So once a user posts something to another's user talk page, if that user removes it, the page's owner can restore it and reply to it against the poster's wishes? 331dot (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I see, technically yes. Is there a policy that goes against the 3RR exemption? Because from what I see Debresser gets the exemption and SchoCat does not. Perhaps they should be more careful what they post on other peoples talk page and then not edit war with them about it? That could probably go for both people honestly. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

So SchoCat gets penalized for attempting to deescalate a situation because he made the error of posting something he would like to take back on to someone else's user talk page? Talk about a way to discourage communication between editors on their user talk pages. 331dot (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

After the first or second revert I would agree with you, they are trying to deescalate. After the fifth and it was replied too? Hard to say with a straight face they were trying to deescalate isn't it? PackMecEng (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree as I don't feel the persistence of the person desiring to carry on a dispute should be rewarded. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• As this is proving to be controversial, I have reversed my action pending further discussion. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No way should an editor be able to go to a user page..... insult them or make any comment then remove it and subsequently get the user blocked for wishing to reply. Baiting and Block is not a precedent we should set--Moxy 🍁 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What evidence do you have of deliberate baiting on the part of SchoCat? 331dot (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a precedent in behavior.....just imagine I go to your talk page insult you then remove it knowing there's going to be an edit war... because you (as most would) want to reply and because of that the user will be blocked. This is not what we want to see happen....in my view the OP should be blocked for messing about in another user space.--Moxy 🍁 00:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's clear to me this is much more complicated than it initially seemed to be to me, I'm going to hit the sack soon for the night and re look at this tomorrow; I apologize to all for causing difficulty. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If other reviewers wish to do something here, they may without waiting for me. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest a WP:TROUT to both users for escalating the dispute into a five-way revert war, rather than taking it to a forum such as this one ealier. But there's no need for blocks over this. On balance, per Moxy's comments above, I'd also suggest that the user talk page comment by the OP and the reply should be restored to the user talk page if that's what Debresser really wants. Withdrawn or not, they obviously saw the comment and wished to reply to it, on what is their own talk page.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree no need for Block in this case. Both users have the same history and one more block probably won't make a difference here.--Moxy 🍁 01:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, kudos to 331dot for withdrawing their earlier block. I think that was the right decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes 331dot decision shows a willingness to see other people's point of view and great maturity in an administrator that is lacking in many talks.--Moxy 🍁 01:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Debresser didn't just re-add SchroCat's comment. What Debresser did was re-add and at the same time reply to SchroCat's comment. It is understandable that a person would want to reply if they were called "arrogant". Bus stop (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll add it for you again, Bus stop, and maybe you could take the time to read it more carefully. What SchroCat did was to call the actions of Debresser "arrogant". Still, never let a little thing like the truth get in the way of a bit of axe grinding. Cassianto^Talk 07:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"The truth" encompasses the whole post, Cassianto, which reads: "You call someone insolent for presuming you were shouting because you made an error in keeping your Capslock on, but you throw accusations of incompetence because someone erred in something they did? Can you see how that looks staggering arrogant, Debresser?" It was responded to. Simultaneously it was restored. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think the only thing I have to add is that it would be good if we all(including me) moved on from this and I think this will serve as a good reminder to us all to consider our edits carefully before making them. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• It is a good thing I was unblocked, because I think I should have the right to say something before being blocked. I am familiar with the idea that a user should be able to remove a comment he regrets having made, as long as no other edit has resulted from it. Frankly speaking, I don't much agree with that rule, even if the reason is to deescalate a conflict, because the real way to deescalate a conflict is to think before posting. In any case, I can respect it on other talkpages. Not so however on my own user talkpage. I think it is my right to restore something that was posted on my talkpage. After all, I received a notification of it, so one can't say nothing happened.

What I probably should have done right away, and have done in the mean time, is restore is with <s>...</s> code, that is, as something that was strikken. I hope that compromise will satisfy all involved.

On a sidenote, I strongly reject the WP:BATTLEFIELD accusation, and regret that editors start WP:WIKILAWYERING as soon as something happens they don't like.

Also on a sidenote, I don't see the mandatory warning regarding this discussion on my talkpage.

And on a further sidenote, I agree with the editors above commending User:331dot for undoing his block when he saw that it was disputed. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Krish990 reported by User:Noobie anonymous (Result: stale)

Page: Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Krish990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84] on 9 February 2020
2. [85] on 2 February 2020
3. [86] on 29 January 2020
4. [87] on 28 January 2020 at 18:07 (UTC)
5. [88] on 28 January 2020 at 13:15 (UTC)
6. [89] on 28 January 2020 at 09:12 (UTC) and many more times

Comments:
User Krish990 has been edit warring the article Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke since a long time stating the supporting characters Rithvik Arora and Kaveri Priyam also as main cast while the original main cast are only Shaheer Sheikh and Rhea Sharma. Despite discussions in talk page of the series by providing reliable sources to prove that incorrect, the user still reverts back and is firm in his point without properly supported sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobie anonymous (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Result: This was filed a long time ago, and there doesn't seem to be any extant issue, so closing as stale.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Gleamian2 reported by User:Deacon Vorbis (Result: Page protected)

Page

David Eddings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gleamian2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 942482169 by Deacon Vorbis (talk)"
2. 22:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 942476520 by Deacon Vorbis (talk)"
3. 21:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Sources aren't reliable. There are numerous of people with the names of " David Carroll" and "Judith Leigh/Lee" and there are numerous people with the last name of "Eddings" that reside in USA. Unless there is actual court/police evidence of D. Eddings and J. Eddings committing crimes, this article will be continuously updated to edit/remove misplaced/misunderstood statements/documents concerning the Author David Eddings."
4. 21:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Sources aren't reliable. There are numerous of people with the names of " David Carroll" and "Judith Leigh/Lee" and there are numerous people with the last name of "Eddings" that reside in USA. Unless there is actual court/police evidence of D. Eddings and J. Eddings committing crimes, this article will be continuously updated to edit/remove misplaced/misunderstood statements/documents concerning the Author David Eddings."
5. 15:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941577388 by 94.247.8.8 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Why is everyone so content on David Eddings being a child abuser? */"

Comments:

Note, my own last revert was only made after it seemed that Gleamian2 had decided to abandon his objection: "Whatever. I'm out. See ya.", and I wouldn't have otherwise. Also note he had removed old discussion from the article's talk page that was also about this same subject. Appears unwilling to discuss rationally, and only interested in whitewashing the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected All of you, including @Millahnna: consider yourself warned. @Gleamian2: @Millahnna:user didn't violate, but came close to, you both violated WP:3RR and can be blocked. Deacon, you didn't even try and join the discussion on the talkpage, but decided to avoid 3RR and just edit war. None of this is appropriate. Either contribute like civil editors, or if it continues, i'll be issuing blocks after the protection ends. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted and thank you for the ping. For the record, and I absolutely should have been more clear about this on talk or in the edit summary, my last revert on that page was attempting to give a clean edit for reversion if it was decided to remove the content in question (the removals were also removing a ref we needed for other content on the page and a sentence that should be easy enough to source. I didn't want the material we actually needed to get lost in a blind deletion. But again, I absolutely should have said something about that being my intent. Millahnna (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

OK wait a second. I just looked at my edit history on that page and I'm now confused as to how I 3rrd. I first reverted the edit in its entirety because it broke something in the ref list and said such here. Glemian did not respond to my concernes about breaking the code and reverted. After the content was removed again, I left the removal in place but edited to restore the reference that had been removed but is used elsewhere in the article here. My final edit was the one I detailed above (and I have now dropped a note on the talk page to be more specific about my intent there) but here is is again for consistency. I have 3 edits on the page and they aren't even flat reverts of Gleamian's ideas, save the first. THe other two are both attempts to rescue a reference that was needed. Millahnna (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, Deacon is in the talk page discussion. They absolutely participated. Has yet to specifically answer the questions. I'm concerned by this ANI; the facts don't seem to match the interpretations. Millahnna (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Millahnna: You are correct about the talkpage part, I missed that. That said, your correct you didn't BREAK 3RR, but you were on the very edge of breaking it. It required 4 reverts, and I must of missed that. Even then though it still doesn't justify this. Any revert, regardless of it being the same content or not, counts as 3RR. 21:42 Feb 24, 22:06 Feb 24, 07:10 Feb 25. These three reverts count towards your 3RR. Had you reverted again you would have broke it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Well shoot. I only did anything because of the broken ref in that first removal. I'm not sure what I could have done different to make sure the ref got retained then. I tried keeping it both with and without the contested material but since that's being viewed as part of the content dispute, I guess I should have left it broken. I'm really confuddled by this. Millahnna (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Johan764538 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: no violation)

Page: Olivier Dubuquoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johan764538 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: last good

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:
Editor is removing sourced material, is skirting the line of ownership with this edit summaryVViking_TalkEdits 14:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation I see three reverts above, but the fourth link represents a new addition of material to the article, so is not a fourth reversion. After which editing appeared to stop. Both parties need to calm down and discuss the issue rationally at the talk page, rather than engaging in further edit warring.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Wallyfromdilbert reported by User:CaptainPrimo (Result: Protected)

Page: Rodney Reed (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: Removing content negative to the subject.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942720663
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942799078
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942799691
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942799882

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallyfromdilbert#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rodney_Reed

Comments:

This user has been engaging in edit warring against multiple users removing content from a page for months. Just today he did 4 reverts. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The content is a clear WP:BLP violation because it is stating allegations as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Even if the other issue of whether WP:BLPCRIME and "public figure" could be interpreted differently, that would require actually engaging in the discussion on the talk page or reopening the discussion at WP:BLPN, which already reached a consensus regarding the use of primary sources. Also, note that the filing editor is continuing to restore this content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see you engaging in any discussion on the talk page. I've posted multiple things there and you've barely responded to any of them. And when you have you have just repeated the same claims. The information is presented as stated in the sources. If you feel the language is not netural, you can change it. CaptainPrimo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 days by User:NinjaRobotPirate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Cypriot Chauvinist reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:72 hours)

Page

Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cypriot Chauvinist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943099184 by Dr.K. (talk) Some of the information here is false given that the ROC does not recognize the TRNC, information such as "turkish Cypriot" belongs in a TRNC related wikipedia which can be located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus.--- If there is anything turkish that anyone would like added it goes in that wikipedia. If you want, you can visit the ROC and prove me wrong."
2. 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943098759 by Dr.K. (talk) Some of the information here is false given that the ROC does not recognize the TRNC, information such as "turkish Cypriot" belongs in a TRNC related wikipedia which can be located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus.--- If there is anything turkish that anyone would like added it goes in that wikipedia. If you want, you can visit the ROC and prove me wrong."
3. 20:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943097598 by GreenMeansGo (talk) Reason: Some of the information here is false given that the ROC does not recognize the TRNC, information such as "turkish Cypriot" belongs in a TRNC related wikipedia which can be located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus.--- If there is anything turkish that anyone would like added it goes in that wikipedia. If you want, you can visit the ROC and prove me wrong."
4. 20:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941592072 by Vif12vf (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cyprus. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

POV editing. Look at the username. Started edit-warring in multiple Cyprus-related articles as soon as he started editing here. SPA. Will not stop. An indef is recommended. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Dr. K. 20:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I have my doubts as to whether they will be able to edit collaboratively and productively once the block expires as they appear to have a significant battleground mentality, but they'll get one shot at it. If it goes pear shaped, an idef will be next. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:98.156.51.206 reported by User:Hzh (Result: )

Page: American Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.156.51.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: In article's talk page - [102], also in the editor's talk page [103]

Comments:
The IP editor added a table objected by two different users including me since it was poorly made and largely duplicate information given elsewhere and in other tables, no response to my attempts to get the editor to discuss it. Hzh (talk) 01:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Colonel Pritchard reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Blocked)

Page

Hickory Hill (Ashland, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Colonel Pritchard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943071573 by Eggishorn (talk)"
2. 16:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943064470 by OhKayeSierra (talk)"
3. 16:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943055445 by OhKayeSierra (talk)"
4. 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 943046933 by Viewmont Viking (talk) viewmont viking is a troll"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[104]

Comments:

fourth revert within 24 hours after warning. Warned here by Creffpublic. related ANI thread Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. Blocked by Jauerback while I was making this report: [105] Please feel free to close as Moot. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Jauerback. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:RPGAdventurer reported by User:Nohomersryan (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RPGAdventurer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [106]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. #1 03:21, 28 February 2020
2. #2 07:38, 28 February 2020
3. #3 08:04, 28 February 2020
4. #4 16:30, 28 February 2020

Comments: User is going hog wild adding "(commonly confused as an RPG)" and similar to the lead of various articles. They've been reverted various times by several different users, and have been warned on their talk page to knock it off, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears, because they've been reverting without discussing even after the messages were sent. The above page is the most blatant, as they're not even justifying their edits with an edit summary anymore. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The user has continued to revert since this report was opened. 'Blatant' is a good word. Another option would have been an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Quenreerer reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)

Page

Nina Dobrev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• [107]
• [108]
• [109]
• [110]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• User talk:Quenreerer#February 2020

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk:Nina Dobrev#Can we stop pretending that mentioning the fact that she's a Bulgarian Canadian is a big issue?

Comments:

Edit warring against long-standing WP:CONSENSUS. See talk page and its archives. Amaury • 04:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, Amaury who reported me for adding dual citizenship in the lead has his own nationality in his own profile as Mexican-American. oh... the hypocrisy. Anyway, my reasoning:

• Bulgaria allows dual citizenship. As you can see [111]. Nina Dobrev is a Bulgarian citizen by birth and has not renounced her citizenship. She even stated she resides for a time in the country every year. As you can see [112]. She's a dual national. Consensus was made on faulty information, therefore needs to be updated. Quenreerer (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• She is stated not to be a big deal in Bulgaria, which is false. She is a big celebrity in her home country. Source: [113]
• There is no information that Dobrev ever rescinded her Bulgarian citizenship. And given Bulgarian citizenship law, as you can see in the link i posted above, the burden of proof is on proving Bodbrev not being a Bulgarian citizen, not that she is. As for WP:ETHNICITY, it doesn't apply here, since that is referring to a persons ethnicity, which is different from a persons citizenship. Example, we don't specify someone being a Hispanic and Latino Americans or african american in the lead, we just write American. Same applies here, only there is an issue of dual citizenship, which apparently is not a problem on any other article, besides this as I gave the example off Sienna Miller being of both British and American citizenship.Quenreerer (talk) 04:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours The talkpage is the place for that discussion, and it should take place without edit-warring in the meantime. An aggravating factor is the personal attack against Amaury. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: Both warned)

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

---

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert 1

• Krakkos adds that Goths are "frequently" referred to as Germani.[114] (17:04, 24.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster switches "frequently" to "sometimes".[115] (20:28, 25.02.2020)

1. Revert 2

• Krakkos adds a source from Peter Heather.[116](08:39, 26.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster changes the date of the source added by Krakkos.[117] (09:34, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 3

• Krakkos rewrites the lead through the use of quality sources.[118] (17:45, 24.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster rewrites content Krakkos added to the lead.[119] (11:12, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 4

• Krakkos corrects the date of a source from Peter Heather.[120] (09:56, 26.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster reverts Krakkos.[121] (11:16, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 5

• Krakkos adds a citation needed template.[122] (15:50, 26.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster removes the citation needed template added by Krakkos.[123] (18:25, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 6

• Krakkos adds quotations.[124] (18:20, 26.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster removes the quotations added by Krakkos.[125] (19:02, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 7

• Krakkos adds the source The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather[126] (17:04, 24.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster switches the date of publication of The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather.[127] (20:09, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 8

• Krakkos adds a source from page 467 of The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather.[128] (17:04, 24.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster removes the source from page 467 of The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather added by Krakkos.[129] (20:19, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 9

• Krakkos adds a citation from Peter Heather in the Oxford Classical Dictionary about Jordanes' claims of possible Gothic origins in Scandinavia.[130] (17:45, 24.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster rewrites what is cited from Peter Heather, claiming that Jordanes' "reliability is disputed" and that he writes about things which happened "more than 1000 years earlier".[131] (20:26, 26.02.20) In the cited source, Heather writes no such things,[132] and Andrew Lancaster is therefore deliberately misrepresenting the sources (he does this all the time).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warning 1 [133][134] (17.01.20)
• Warning 2 [135] (20.01.20)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Andrew Lancaster has recently flooded Talk:Goths with sections and arguments, and i have replied to most of them. The section most relevant to the reverts is at Talk:Goths#describe where the Goths lived.

Comments:

• One month ago, Andrew Lancaster and i had an intense edit war at the article Germanic peoples. As a result, we were on 17 January 2020 both[136][137][138] warned by Fram about future edit warring.

• Edit warring continued, and on 20 January 2020, Dougweller protected[139] the article for 2 weeks, and warned[140] us both that future edit warring would result in a block.

• As soon as the protection of Germanic peoples ended, Andrew Lancaster resumed his aggressive editing, entirely rewriting the lead at Germanic peoples.[141] I refrained from any more editing warring, but instead tried to discuss the issues at the talk page.[142] Several editors openly agreed with my concerns.[143][144][145] Several other editors have only dared to express their concerns with me privately, as they are afraid of Andrew Lancaster. My attempts to resolve the situation at the talk page were ignored by Andrew Lancaster, who because of my refusal to engage in more editing warring, has exploited the situation to completely rewrite the article.[146][147]

• I significantly improved the article Goths in September 2019,[148] and nominated it for WP:GA in December the same year.[149] On 3 February 2020, Jens Lallensack began reviewing the article,[150] stating that it was in good shape.[151] Almost immediately afterwards, Andrew Lancaster becomes active at Talk:Goths, complaining about the quality of the article.[152] Over the next days he starts making numerous drastic, unsourced and unhelpful edits to the article.[153][154] He had never edited the article before noticing that i had put it up for for a GA review.[155] This is clear WP:HOUNDING.

• Andrew Lancaster's strategy of aggressive edit warring and flooding talk pages with incoherent walls of text paid off at Germanic peoples, and inspired by his success he is now utilizing the same disruptive strategy at Goths to cause me frustration. Andrew Lancaster's aggressive editing has already succeeded in driving numerous productive editors away from important articles,[156][157][158][159] and i'm about there myself. This kind of behavior is harmful to Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• What edit war? An extremely dishonest summary by @Krakkos:, who continues to surprise. Krakkos is the main editor. My edits have very detailed edit summaries, and come with lots of attempts to get pre-discussion on the talk page.
• I suppose that technically revert 4 is a revert and maybe 5, But as the edsums show, with 4 I thought the book publication year "errors" of Krakkos would be accepted as straightforward mistakes! And 5 (cn template removal) was after a talk page discussion which showed there was no sourcing concern [160]. However, it turns out these are not mistakes, and Krakkos is routinely making preferred sources look more recent than they are. Krakkos now wants disruption. I have seen a few cases before in the editing of Krakkos, but the pattern and the insistence did not strike me. As this became clear I did no more reverts after the 1st and started a talk page discussion [161]. Very soon after Krakkos suddenly initiated drama and smokescreens, posting an extremely dishonest explanation on the talk page of an admin [162]. @Doug Weller: I suppose this here is the next step.
• As the talk pages of various articles show, Krakkos is desperately doing anything (such as this) to avoid meaningful discussion, and is consistently unable to show an empathy with our policy and norms, with the sources, or other editors. It makes things very messy. This is because Krakkos does not want to talk about things like why these publication years keep getting switched in the same direction, and only for authors Krakkos wants "promoted". How could I have expected Krakkos to say this was not a mistake?
• Behind all the patterns in the edits one desire can be defined which is central at least to the recent cases I have contended with, and that is that Krakkos wants no mention of any of the newer more critical scholars such as Walter Goffart to be used in Wikipedia, and if they are to be used, Krakkos wants POV forking and walled gardens within articles and/or between articles, in order to quarantine them away from material based purely on sources with the "good old" theories with nice simple Germanic categories. Krakkos also can not explain how this can fit with our policies.
• Further in the background is the whole career of Krakkos as a Wikipedian which mainly involves categorizing people and things by a language family (Slavic warriors, Germanic warriors, Germanic religion, etc.) The problem with the highly respected new criticism in the Germanic subject area is that people like Goffart are saying this way of categorizing has basic methodological problems. Categorising people as Germanic is VERY important to Krakkos!
• I think the summary by Krakkos already makes it clear, anyway, that there are lots of things going on, but "edit war" does not quite capture it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• BTW this is not the first time Krakkos has tried to use this forum against me in recent months, and perhaps the past cases should also be looked at. In my opinion there is a pattern of deliberate efforts to make life awkward for other editors, and abuse the system's flexibilities against them. With Krakkos AGF is difficult, but if you manage it, the alternative is that Krakkos has an incredibly incompetent understanding of how most Wikipedians think we should work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He usually adopts these attrition tactics against those who get in his way, often with success. You got in his way, resisting his attempts to impose his grand ethnic scheme. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I recommend a month of full protection for our Goths article. This protection might be lifted just as soon as somebody opens an WP:RFC on the talk page (about any of the matters in dispute) and both User:Andrew Lancaster and User:Krakkos engage in a good-faith discussion there, without attacking one another. The filing of a report here represents a sort of escalation from the earlier dispute about Germanic peoples which led to two weeks of full protection on 20 January by User:Doug Weller. As Doug said the last time around, 'to my surprise and disappointment both of you seem to be both teetering on the edge of being blocked'. It would be logical to block both of you at this time, but you have no prior blocks so it may be worth offering a last chance. Reading the talk discussions, it is hard to feel sympathy for either party ('aggressive', 'drastic' and 'incoherent' from one of the parties and 'dishonest' from the other). You aren't supposed to be solving your problems here, you are supposed to be solving them yourselves with RfCs and other methods. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: but is this an edit war at all? I certainly agree that this is not the place for the discussion, and I have tried incredibly hard to maintain some level of functioning talk page discussion, and have not given up. The sudden rush of efforts to depict me as edit warring when I discovered the systematic falsification of source information is obviously a strategy trying to make that impossible, so certainly nothing to do with my approach. And not for the first time. Discussion should be happening somewhere else. Locking the article up is fine by me, but honestly in this particular case there is a history of clear community consensus and actions having no impact on the long term editing patterns. I believe:

• The history of Krakkos needs to be looked at more. I think sometimes we need to go beyond saying that "dishonest" is a word to avoid. Other editors over the years, including me, have tried hard to AGF, and developed similar concerns about such systematic patterns of problems.
• Discussion on the talk page about such edits as the ones mentioned above could also benefit from having more experienced editors give comment there. Many of the positions Krakkos takes there are problematic in a clear-cut way (insisting on wrong publication years would be justified how?), and so participation by others would make it clear that this is not a simple POV dispute between two individuals. See the comment of Johnbod.

Concerning Germanic peoples I have summarized some of the extraordinary events here, but note that bit by bit the article has been improved by me. (Krakkos says it has been ruined, but refuses to explain how. No one else has supported this position. I believe other editors all agree the article is improved.)

...But in terms of what this forum is for, do you say I was edit warring? Please help me out with how you and others would define the above described edits as edit warring, and I'll try to take that one board. Not all editing is an edit war though, obviously, so can you explain your remarks about potentially blocking me? Let me know any advice about edits I should not have done and why? NOTE: I didn't see my edits of yesterday as particularly controversial, and despite everything else the reaction of Krakkos surprised me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: As soon as the two-week protection imposed by Dougweller at Germanic peoples expired, Andrew Lancaster resumed edit warring.[163] I refrained from further warring, and Andrew Lancaster thus rewrote the entire article.[164][165] In the meantime, i have been working to improve the article Goths. Andrew Lancaster has now exported the edit warring to Goths, an article which he has NEVER edited before.[166] I'm not the one primarily responsible for the escalation. Krakkos (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

...BTW, Krakkos started this complaint supposedly about edit warring but then did a new real revert (which my edit was not) [167] of one of the edits described above. No discussion about the concerns with this paragraph I raised in detail, in this case, and in past editing. (On Germanic peoples, relatively uncontroversial sentences by Krakkos had up to 14 long footnotes, all with long un-needed quotes not relevant to the sentence, often identical or near-identical.) So for Krakkos it is always only a question of whatever you think you can get away with, and this edit warring complaint was only part of a strategy of constantly working on the edge of community rules. Krakkos very rarely accepts any advice or gets into any constructive discussion. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

In the last few days you have flooded Talk:Goths with more than ten sections and huge amounts of text. I have engaged in "constructive discussion" in almost all of them, as can easily be verified. Please stop with these misrepresentations of the facts. Krakkos (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Like this one which is still open, unbelievably? [168] Normally you do not expect other editors, even in a dispute, to be so insistent that even a wrong publication date must stay, and that if someone tries to change it, they will claim an edit war. Normally also, even in a dispute, constructive editors might even say thanks when their interlocutor says that a statement with lots of footnotes is not controversial and can do with a simpler footnote. In your case, this too, is brought into an edit warring claim, and so on. I guess it is good that since this discussion here started you have answered a couple of talk page issues today but these are not really exemplary discussions either. You never come to a clear point, and you insist on even the most obvious problems like the publishing dates and your argument that a dictionary article not mentioning something is all we need to justify not mentioning large parts of the field. I am really not wanting to edit this article, but you make it hard to avoid by taking such irrational positions. (And if not me, someone else will eventually change the article if you insist on such things. That is why I keep advising you to aim for something "stable" and lasting which means in agreement with other editors, and more sensitive to the concerns of others.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• As the GA reviewer, this fight sadly makes it impossible for me to finish the review right now. Please note that 1) content never gets perfect and 2) opinions differ largely what to consider best. If there is no clear error or violation against Wikipedia policies, the main author is usually is given the last word. I would like to give it one last try and make the following suggestion: Andrew Lancaster finishes listing his suggestions to the talk page. When done, he promises to stay away from the article, and I will check and take those points into account for my GA review. Could you both life with that? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about the situation, coming from the dramatic style of description my interlocutor likes to use.

• Krakkos has been changing the article quite a lot before any of this, and I think Krakkos and I would agree that much of what is being done is really needed.
• This means the article was not really ready for GA, and I am presuming Krakkos is not really used to GA norms in that respect? So it was always going to involve some delays. This has nothing to do with me, or any "edit war".
• Indeed I am trying to mainly just comment on the talk page. OTOH there are policy-related concerns, which Krakkos should give some priority to, and I presume that is also something for a GA reviewer to watch. Hopefully Krakkos will not continue to react in pointy or stubborn ways to that. Indeed some third party advice on basic policies such as WP:RS, publication dates in citations, etc etc, could be helpful.
• At this stage I see no "killer" disagreement which needs a special community RFC. There are lots of smaller issues which could eventually go to WP:RSN for example if they don't get clearer up. A background theme to watch is bias towards one author, which sometimes seems to be getting worse.
• Actually the article is improving, bit by bit! I just wish it were not so hard to discuss every little concern.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Thank you yet again for your constructive suggestions. I'm sorry for the frustration this has caused you. I'm perfectly willing to comply with this solution. Krakkos (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It is good to see Andrew Lancaster and Krakkos having a discussion here. But if this report is closed with no action, we should have some assurance that the previous disputes won't just keep going. For example, how are the two of you going to decide the question of 'wrong publication dates'? Will User:Jens Lallensack try to resolve that himself? And User:Andrew Lancaster has said "At this stage I see no "killer" disagreement which needs a special community RFC." With no RfCs, and with Andrew and Krakkos on opposite sides of so many issues, how will you gather and summarize opinions on the disputed matters? Will the two or you agree to wait for consensus? If so, how will a consensus be determined? If you had said 'hold RfCs' we would at least have some idea. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes the article may or may not have future problems, but is/was there an edit war, and if not then is this the correct place to discuss? The fact is that Krakkos came here with many complaints including that I should not edit on the article because I do not have a past record there, and that I have posted too many things on the talk page, but I still see no two-party edit war unless you define edit warring so broadly that you literally accept almost any editing is edit warring? As far as normal tasks for this noticeboard, I do see a case for a pattern of inappropriate abuse of it by Krakkos.

But I am interested to hear any proposal about RFCs, or different ways or working. Please explain any such ideas you have. I presume you looked at the examples given by Krakkos? (But that direction of discussion would be more suitable for the article talk page?) I am not being sarcastic here. I can surely always do better.

In case you did not check the original complaint independently though, it is very twisted. I did some small rounds of carefully explained edits which were largely reverted very rapidly, and with misleading edsums (E.g. [169][170][171][172], which I suppose Krakkos counted out as 3 clear reverts), and then I stopped and focussed on talk, and then Krakkos started forum-shopping to try to keep me away from the article. So there were no rounds of tit-for-tat editing from me, except in the two special cases I explained above, one of which I honestly understood (at that time) as a typing error or something similar. So I am apparently missing something.

The article talk page could certainly do with some more experienced editors giving considered feedback, preferably on an on-going basis, because there will be on-going problems when Krakkos is interested in a topic. Of course there can be problems when even obvious publication date concerns are (still) impossible to resolve on the talk page. See the post of Johnbod above. My point about an RFC was only that I don't know of any honest question which an RFC would help right now, and in this respect it perhaps helps to look at the history of Germanic peoples mentioned above which involved the use of tendentiously defined "surprise" RFCs. ( Summary.) Such formal steps are not always neutral and can be "gamed". OTOH you seem not to have noticed that I mentioned one major issue that is on-going might eventually be addressed at WP:RSN. But even then the main reason to need to go there would be behavioural, as per Johnbod, and clearly not necessarily best described as an "edit war" or a real policy misunderstanding. It would just be one possible example of the need to go through many steps to get even simple corrections made, on anything. I don't see any simple formal solution - only a case where discussion is awkward. Lots of WP:IDNHT etc. on the talk page, but that is not what this noticeboard normally discusses I guess.

Sorry for the long response!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW I hope noticeboard commenters consider the diffs given in the "Warnings" section? (Hint: there were no warnings, so diffs from old cases have apparently been filled in.) As mentioned above, deliberately "tricky" patterns of behavior, and inappropriate abuse of this noticeboard should be considered. In the meantime, to be clear, I am open to clear contextually-relevant feedback on anything I should do, or not do, but for now I am just doing my best according to my own judgement. (To be honest though, editors doing things like faking publications dates don't usually get as much of a hearing here as this one? I guess there are some assumptions being made?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Now that the 24 hour limit on 3RR at Goths has expired, Andrew Lancaster is back at it with his reverting. He does not appear to be abiding with Jens Lallensack's compromise solution. He is removing,[173] against consensus,[174] a citation from Professor Joshua J. Mark, which was added by me.[175]

Why is he continuing with this behavior one might ask? Because it works. At Germanic peoples, Andrew Lancaster flagrantly violated 3RR, and got away with a warning.[176] After continuing the edit war, he simply received another warning,[177] and the article was protected for two weeks.[178] As soon as that protection expired, he escalated the edit warring even further.[179] I refrained from edit warring and tried to resolve the situation at the talk page,[180] and my concerns were shared by several other editors.[181][182][183] Andrew Lancaster meanwhile flooded the talk with dozens of long sections, thereby creating confusion and discouraging other editors from participating in the discussion.[184][185] My concerns were ignored and the article was completely rewritten to its present poor state.[186][187] The lesson learned from the Germanic peoples dispute is clear and simple: Edit warring, stonewalling and gaslighting works.

Andrew Lancaster is applying this lesson flawlessly at Goths. As soon as the GA-review on Goths started,[188] he began complaining about the quality of the article,[189] and made fundamental rewrites of key parts of the article.[190] He had never edited the article before becoming aware that i had nominated it for GA.[191] This is obviously WP:HOUNDING. In the last few days, he has started more than a dozen new sections at Talk:Goths, posting long walls of text containing the same arguments and attacks over and over again.[192] He has yet again violated 3RR.[193]

Because of his habit of completely rewriting quality articles, and apparent immunity from sanctions, many productive members of the community are afraid of him. His editing style has already successfully driven away a number of long-time productive contributors.[194][195][196][197] As long Wikipedia continues to reward his edit warring (as happened at Germanic peoples), he will grow even bolder, and additional productive editors will be driven away. Something needs to be done about this, but adding a protection template (as happened at Germanic peoples), will only give him more encouragement and make the situation even worse. Krakkos (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties are warned for edit warring. From here on, if either of you makes any change at all on the Goths article without a prior consensus on the talk page, you may be blocked. Both of you are free to make arguments on the Talk page. I would particularly like to see an RfC on the issue of source dating, since changes of source publication date were made in three of the diffs cited above (#2, 4 and 7). If Krakkos's changes of the publication dates are indeed an example of poor behavior, as claimed by Andrew on Talk ('insistence on this silliness'), then Andrew should find it easy to get support from others in an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I will work with any ruling of course. (I was already avoiding the article itself, though such good faith efforts now appear to be pointless.) But my request before for advice about whether I did any "edit warring" was quite honest, and I would like a good faith reply. One obvious reason is that I don't want future misunderstandings.

Another honest reason, which I hope will not be taken as argumentative, is that, in all honestly, it looks like Krakkos just had to say there were reverts, place any diff at all, and that was enough. Obviously I would think that you might also be interested in making sure you have an answer to that. BTW, I think the post of Krakkos above is, well, yes, dishonest in many ways. I know most of us can't believe someone would shamelessly place a diff which does not lead to what they say it leads to, but, can you please just check and help me understand?

As context BTW, I am quite an transparent editor, constantly explaining my ideas, and I suppose Krakkos also knows very well that I've been editing many Germanic related articles for years - far more actual content and source editing than Krakkos who normally edit categories, see also lists and such. The Goths and Germanic peoples articles themselves were big projects for a rainy day, and the rainy day came. There are also some other connected articles. Krakkos clearly moved to Goths because of the work I started on Germanic peoples. He knows very well it is a related article.

Concerning RFCs I guess you are just saying you don't care what I tried to explain about RFCs not being obviously useful. I am disappointed in that part of your comment. We are dealing here IMHO with an editor who makes masses and masses of small edits to footnotes, categories, extra words here and there, key words removed, distorting what authors, works and fields have published. It is very difficult for any editor to follow, even though many editors have noticed this, and so RFCs would be about what? A footnote? Please look at the talk page of Goths? In that case I have spent hours typing out what sources said and tabulating them to show the distortions. That is for a small selection of sentences! How to work like this for the whole article? For that matter please look at the long term history of the talk page of Krakkos. I will refer again to the comment of Johnbod above. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

TLDR version. Block or no block, registering the events correctly seems important, especially given the wording chosen by EdJohnston: I really feel the whole case has been posted based on diffs which, when you look at them, do not show edit wars, and strikingly often do not match their descriptions at all. (Also in the comment texts.) I am asking for some type of cross-check of the evidence, based on my concern. To me the whole case appears to be triggered by talk page discussions, specifically two about wrong publication dates (still in the article) and new posts showing source misrepresentation (still in the article). Immediately before posting here, this editor demanded I should stop all activity related to that article because they have been editing it longer. [198][199] and that is also a repeated topic in comments above. The noticeboard is, it seems, being used as a tool, and the diffs were not looked at, or at least that is my honest impression for now. This editor has also been criticized for using this noticeboard wrongly in the past. I would be very happy to be shown that I am mistaken.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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