Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Semsûrî reported by User:Dortana (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:

Breaking the 3RR within 24 hours. Dortana (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a sockpuppet investigation going on pertaining to Dortana and I did involve an admin just an hour ago in regard to Dortana's blatant POV-push[9]. Dortana (an two or three dozen other sockpuppets) have been disrupting Wikipedia since at least 2015(!). My frustration with this sock made not aware that I would have reverted a fourth time instead of a third time. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A user (admin?) active on German Wikipedia notified me of a list they had created of all of the sockmaster's accounts which includes the "Dortana" account[10]. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

---

On another note, there was no 3RR warning from Dortana. Dortana has linked to the notice on my talkpage of this discussion. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

---

178.243.110.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I suspect that this is a sockpuppet of Dortana as they just continued Dortana's disruption. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked At this point he hasn't edited the page in a day. Any suspected sockpuppetry should be reported at SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Look at the page history. He has edited the page in a day on 13 June 2022 four times with reverting.[11] Dortana (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"four times with reverting". Yes, but that's not four reverts of the exact same edit. He made the same revert three times, reverted a different edit twice, and then doesn't seem to have edited the page much since. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR): "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." And also per Wikipedia:Edit warring: "The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Dortana (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue at this point is the report is stale. I don't see anything to be gained by action. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The result of this report is against the rules. According to 3RR the User should be blocked for 24 hours and maybe this is not the first time that the User has breaked the 3RR and was blocked for edit warring. Dortana (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:STICK Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

See and read Wikipedia:Edit warring and also Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia Dortana (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

User:TheRealSerenaJoy reported by User:Throast (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1092967237

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1093301322
2. Special:Diff/1093419822

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1093313579, Special:Diff/1093306481 (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1092969142

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1093423746

Comments:

Although a discussion was initially started on the talk page by the editor themselves, they've repeatedly reintroduced the disputed material in the meantime on grounds that their version is the "accurate" one. The talk page discussion is ongoing, and consensus appears to move contra to the editor.

Although 3RR has not yet been broken, the editor has explicitly stated their intention to do so here in order to get editors to "concede". Additionally, the editor has insulted editors involved in the dispute, implied COIs on their part without evidence, accused them of bad faith (edit summary), and of "collaborating on misinformation" and discrediting the subject of the article. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I also hope that the purely retaliatory decision by the editor to report both Popoki35 and me below is taken into account. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked C.Fred seems to have had an effect with this edit summary, for now. While TRSJ's tenacity, bordering on tendentiousness, exasperated the other editors in the discussion, most of their edits were to that discussion and only a couple to the actual article. Those latter do not yet rise to the level of block-worthy edit warring, IMO, although as I think even TRSJ realizes here they were headed that way if they continued.

Frankly the whole episode might well reach LEW if it goes far enough (Edit-warring over, in part, the wording of the short description?) Since I assume good faith, I take TRSJ at their word when they believe that they are interpreting policy correctly. I think a higher level of dispute resolution, probably an RfC, might be effective here where the voices of five very involved editors have not been so far. When everybody's calmed down a little. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No action whatsoever (not even a strongly worded talk page message by someone with actual authority?) seems unreasonable looking at the toxicity I laid out in the second paragraph above. I'm afraid editors involved with the article will have to endure much more of that, if not worse, if the editor is not reined in somehow. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Throast: Sanctions should be preventative, not punitive. The behaviour has ceased, so there is no need for further action at this time. I have the article on my watchlist, so I would see if that were to change. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Daniel Case and @C.Fred for the feedback. I agree with LEW status, which is why my replies to the editor group involved reached a passionate level as it's hard to believe that anyone would fight me so hard against adding one word — and an accurate one at that — to a short description and the title in the article when fully supported by wikipedia rules and sources. The page still contains some inaccuracies, which I will chitty-chat out on the talk page with my new friends. The fact that they 1) reported me when they initiated reversions to my super-benign edits; and 2) want me punished my my "toxicity" for attempting to edit a page, which anyone should be free to contribute to. It all further supports my thinking that where theres smoke, there's fire and I stumbled into something other than simple editing of a BLP of one-of-a-million producers. I would hope that Wikipedia and it's tiers of support volunteers and admins are good at recognizing good and proper behavior, along with questionable behavior and dig a little into the pages to see what's really going on. Hopefully, they will not continue to block contributions to pages as its conduct that is quite unseemly of an experienced editor. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 00:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is quite ironic that you agree with the LEW comment since you seem to be just as passionate, if not more so, about changing ROLEBIO in the lead as others are about leaving it be. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Throast & User:Popoki35 reported by User:TheRealSerenaJoy (Result: Declined)

Page: Ryan Kavanaugh
User being reported: Throast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Popoki35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1093179064

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1093216109
2. Special:Diff/1093306481
3. Special:Diff/1091096628

Diff of ANEW posted to users' talk page: Special:Diff/1093434441 and Special:Diff/1093434441

Comments:
I hope I've done this correctly as I've never had to report anyone as my experience in Wikipedia so far, has been pleasurable. I *really* hate to even be involved in this, but I did not initiate an editing war. I did not insult anyone, but asked same questions that were asked of me and stated my personal observations on the page activity clearly and honestly. I initially made typical cleanup type edits to what I've learned is a contentious page. The edits were all in good faith. The two editors immediate accused me of COI among other things.

Popokie35 accused me of trying to "take over" the Ryan Kavanaugh page rather than engage in discussion with me about the page in question and instead asked GOCE editors to "do something" to which I responded clearly and accordingly to explain my participation in the dispute. I responded to all on my talk page, as well as the BLP talk page.

I made some additional relatively minor edits to the content to correct misinformation, placing full and detailed explanation in the edit summary and the talk page The talk page discussion and those edits were reverted. I then reverted them and now I have four editors who won't agree to fact on a page of a BLP, and in the various discussions, I noted several guideline violations. Four editors collectively agreeing to misinformation does not equal consensus nor accuracy. Is that a tactic to control content here? Just ignore facts? I don't believe that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work...

Four editors on BLP page appear to be collaborating to prevent 'any' edits to the page regardless of how accurate — and/or how benign those edits are. Denying the facts written in reliable sources is not unbiased. Reverting good edits multiple times and then complaining about edit warring they've begun is improper. I've presented neatly, clearly facts to support all of my edits, which they've taken turns reverting. It appears that all editing on this page is not unbiased as evidenced by some of the minor, yet accurate changes I've made which have been reverted. I welcome admins input if they are willing to check it out. Please feel welcome to ask any questions as some of the discussions are hard to read/follow without clean formatting. Thank you in advance.The Real Serena Joy^Talk 16:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)}}

• Declined This is a purely retaliatory report. If any action were to be taken, it would be full protection of the article to stop The Real Serena Joy's one against many reverts—which TRSJ would not like, because in their eyes, The Wrong Version would be protected. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  @C.Fred agree - the wrong version would be protected and that would discredit Wikipedia and all the good and honest editors who volunteer their spare time to improve the content here. And yes, it was retaliatory because I am not going to allow overly-zealous editors who misrepresented some facts and got angry when I fixed it push me around. I honestly should have reported them first since they initiated the ridiculous battle. But that wouldn't make it any less ridiculous. Thanks for not locking it down. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 00:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Knowingly submitting retaliatory reports that you know are not going to be effective is disruptive and deeply disrespectful of any patrolling admin's time. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

2001:56a:7431:ce00:6de8:2014:8039:b342/64 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Blocked)

Page: Crystal Pepsi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:56a:7431:ce00:6de8:2014:8039:b342/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]

Diff of edit warring warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – /64 blocked 31 hours. The user continued to revert while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

User:HaT59 reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Malawi (1964–1966) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HaT59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Truthseeker2006 reported by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus (Result: User notified)

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

User being reported: Truthseeker2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093664224 by ElderZamzam (talk)no it does not not,they are 2 different sources which claim different things"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC) to 00:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093561576 by Griboski (talk) a serbian source from the milosevic era about kosovo is not reliable,also the quotation needed was never provided"
   2. 18:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC) "added"
   3. 00:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 09:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC) "removed some content due to WP:AGEMATTERS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not only have you broken 3RR, but you've also done it by citing the "Ali Hadri Institute", no less, which has used violence and intimidation against Serbian Orthodox pilgrims and clerics to promote its ethno-nationalist agenda of usurping the Visoki Dečani monastery. [26] Don't edit war, discuss this with your peers. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

i only reverted twice i dont know why for some edits where i added studf it said reverted,also i quoted ali hadris research not political opinions about ur church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker2006 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note Given nature of the edits, I have placed a discretionary sanctions alert on the reported editor's page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Warned This report is premature. No user talk page warning, no discussion. Closing with no action. C.Fred has already provided a warning. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you C.Fred for alerting the new editor about the discretionary sanctions covering the Balkans. While I strongly suggest to Truthseeker to seek consensus on the talk page for every change that is challenged by another editor, I also want to highlight the fact noted by Anachronist that AB reported a new editor without a warning or advice or an effort on the talk page. AB got an AE warning a year ago when he tried to defend a pro-Serbian nationalism editor who got topic banned Several unconstructive edits and this report show that a new report at AE should filed, as admins need to take a look at AB's editing again. An editor with an AE warning needs to be more careful. The Balkans are a controversial topic but everyone should try to stay calm and give their best. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Ktrimi991: The Balkans are a controversial topic. Editors do need to stay calm, yes, and work toward a positive solution. I'm willing to give a little grace for AB coming to a noticeboard to seek outside assistance—especially since when I drilled into the article's history, this wasn't TS's first flirtation with 3RR (see edits on 5 June). That said, I do agree that Amanuensis Balkanicus was premature in the report, given that the user had not been warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed C.Fred, hence I suggest to User:Truthseeker2006, like I have suggested to many other new editors, to edit uncontroversial edits for some time to gain experience with consensus building processes etc and then to start editing controversial articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I should have been more patient with TS and will try not to bite the newbies. They seem very precocious judging by their edits, however, so I figured they knew what they were doing. I am engaging in multiple TP discussions with one of the other users. TS hasn't taken part at all. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Mahato King reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Partial block, 48 hours)

Page: Kurmali language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mahato King (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 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
   3. 15:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade language */"
   4. 15:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
   5. 15:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   6. 15:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   7. 15:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Language variation */"
   8. 15:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
   3. 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   4. 15:69, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   5. 15:69, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Kurmali language."
2. 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kurmali language."
3. 15:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Kurmali language

Comments:

New user keeps removing sourced content without reaching a WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD despite multiple warning, comments and requests at talk page. Makes a comment that "Some people's who edit Wikipedia from outside India manipulate Kurmali writing with false information." here Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Broke 3RR [27], also removing hatnotes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Also note accusation here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

To demonstrate that the user is being disruptive, the sentence And bilingually spoken by Bhumij, Ho, Kharia, Lohara/Lohar, Mahli, Munda, Oraon, Santal, Savar and Bathudi communities which was removed by the user here is cited from a Indian Govt source [28] (page 410). And the hatnote "and Karmali language, a dialect of Santali language" abides by WP:HATNOTE since the spelling is similar. I've explained this in the article talk page as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

More accusations against me [29] [30] [31] even after I asked them to maintain WP:CIVIL here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring continues [32]. I wonder whether it is a case of WP:CIR, since the user still keeps on reverting sourced content instead of seeking a WP:CONSENSUS. Pinging Peaceray. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the 6th revert. Also note uncivil comments [33] "You support a crime Mr peaceray". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have just told the user very clearly that they must discuss at the talk page rather than revert.[34] I'm watching closely to see what their next action is. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from the Kurmali language page only. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  @C.Fred, another account has started removing the same content from the same page (1, 2).... Kpddg ^(talk) 04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  • This new user came up immediately. They are removing the same content [35] [36] [37]. Possible sock. Requesting page protection as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    I have requested protection. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    Page is now semi-protected. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    Both users blocked. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Toa_Nidhiki05 reported by User:Aunger67 (Result: No violation)

Page: Factions in the Republican Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toa_Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[43]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [45]

Comments:
Toa_Nidhiki05 regularly demonstrates gatekeeping behavior over the article "Factions of the Republican Party (United States)." The user regularly reverts edits by merely responding "no" or "This is not helpful" instead of clarifying his position or making adjustments. I have tried my best to outline the case against Toa_Nidhiki05 and will help provide clarification as much as I can in this process. Thanks.

You're clearly a new-ish editor here, so I would advise you read up on WP:3RR and WP:BRD in particular; when adding new content, the onus is on the person adding it. Toa Nidhiki05 19:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. @Aunger67: The warning you gave Toa_Nidkihi05 does not really serve as a warning about edit warring, and there has been no violation of 3RR. Further, you are wading into the area of American politics, which is subject to discretionary sanctions by administrators. Thus, it is especially important for new editors to go slowly and follow accepted norms and practices at articles, including the need to get consensus for changes like the ones you attempted to make. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Watercheetah99 reported by User:Amaekuma (Result: )

Page: Peter Obi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Watercheetah99 (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. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Watercheetah99#Hello

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

Comments:

As I noted on my talk page and in edit summaries, the other user has been removing sourced content and adding falsehoods in an attempt to promote a politician. These edits fall well within grounds to maintain neutrality and avoid bias. I noted three falsehoods on my talk page:

• "However this was proven to be wrong as Obi on an interview with Arise TV, stated that he resigned from all his companies before taking the office of Governor of Anambra State." - This has no proof, it's a denial.
• "The investigation by the EFCC didn't yield any incriminating evidence and all charges were dropped." - This is just a lie, the EFCC have never released a statement clearing him nor did they file charges in the first place.
• "Although no law was technically broken by Obi regarding the Pandora papers leaks" - This is also false. First, Obi remained as a company director for over a year while being governor (against the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act); second, Obi did not declare his offshore companies when he became governor (against the Constitution); and lastly, he maintained foreign accounts while being governor (that is against both the Constitution and Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act). All of these were directly addressed in the source.

Let me make some things abundantly clear. Give me a minute of your time and read please

* First I need you to understand that the subject here isn't a government official presently, he is in the opposition. If you know anything about politics in Africa and other developing countries, you will know that the incumbent government go to any length to silence the opposition. With that said, I hope you get the context with which I'm writing this below

* Premium Times newspaper (the media house who brought out the article) isn't a court nor is it official anti-corruption body of Nigeria. So their investigation is neither conclusive nor damning. The official anti-corruption body of Nigeria, the EFCC called the subject in for questioning, investigated him and dismissed the case. If there was something on him, he'll be in jail today but was never been charged to court on the matter. So neither the article above nor the wikipedia editor above can't be police, judge and executioner.

* Wikipedia is built unbias and balance. There is always two sides to a story. Yes, His name was listed in Pandora papers. Yes, a damning article came out about the matter. But there rebuttals from the subject. There were also rebuttals from other reputable media houses condemning the approach of Premium Times who brought out the first article. Is that article a court sentence? Why can't I append the articles of the subject defending his innocence? Why can't I append the articles where the approach of Premium Times was condemned? Why must premium times be allowed as citation and the others can't?

* In conclusion, I dare say if the subject was guilty in any way, they present government would have thrown him in jail by now. This is Africa, opposition gets squashed, blackmailed or neutralized and The subject is the main opposition running for the President of Nigeria. With all that said, tell that Wikipedian to stop interrupting and reverting my well sourced edits. Wikipedia is a community and everybody has a right to edit any article within his technical purview as long as it is backed with good citations. Amaekuma (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's address these:

• "the EFCC called the subject in for questioning, investigated him and dismissed the case." - Again, this is a lie. The EFCC have never released a statement dismissing the case.
• "Why can't I append the articles of the subject defending his innocence?" - The article already notes his denials, what you are trying to do is pretend like his denials are proof of innocence.
• "if the subject was guilty in any way, they present government would have thrown him in jail by now" - This is just laughable. Decades of politicians (in the ruling, main opposition, and/or minor parties) getting away with massive corruption with no issue and you claim that some tax evasion would have sent him to jail? Tinubu has hijacked the Lagos State funds for 20 years (mainly in opposition) and is free, Atiku was accused of corruption as a major opposition figure in the 2000s and never went to jail, Obiano was immediately arrested for corruption but is perfectly free, Ali Modu Sheriff literally started Boko Haram while in opposition and nothing happened to him; the law does not apply to these people for major offenses so why would it apply to Obi for a relatively minor one? Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What is laughable is that you think Wikipedia is the place to pass your judgement. You have no right to do this, and that isn't what Wikipedia is.

I say again, the anti corruption body has never charged him to court regarding the matter. I am not saying he was charged to court and judgement hasn't been passed. There isn't any matter in court. Nothing. That is even the most crucial thing.

All what has been used to nail him is an article that has been rebuffed, picked apart and labelled a witch-hunt. And yet the Wikipedian above won't let me post those links and citations. I took my time to read what Wikipedia is and his behaviour goes against all the principles, pillars and ethics if Wikipedia. He is rude, seriously trying to push a narrative and unwilling to work with others. Amaekuma (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Dentren reported by User:Bedivere (Result: Dentren blocked 48h; Bedivere warned)

Page: Izkia Siches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093751406 by Bedivere (talk)-discuss in talk before such massive removals"
2. 16:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093750576 by Bedivere (talk)-discuss in talk before such massive changes"
3. 16:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093623195 by Bedivere (talk)-refrain from making POV-pushs"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Izkia Siches."
2. 16:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Izkia Siches."
3. 16:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on El Líbero."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Disputed material */ Reply"

Comments:

User has been making POV-pushing edits in several Chile-related articles, including Gabriel Boric, inflation in Chile, and lately Izkia Siches and El Líbero. He started RFCs in the first two ones' talk pages, only to be told his actions were incorrect (POV-pushing). Since they are not listening first to advice, second to warnings, I suggest sanctioning them. This is not the first time they engage in such behaviour. Bedivere (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Bedivere is Diego Grez-Cañete, a user who is permanently banned from Wikipedia [52]. 2) Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete refuses to engage in constructive discussions on talk pages (see Gabriel Boric, inflation in Chile). Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete is strongly into left wing-politics by his own account (former member of Socialist Party of Chile and current supporter of Social Convergence), and is an open supporter of Gabriel Boric [53]. This is not the first time Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete engages in conflict of interest (see Diego Grez-Cañete old saga of warnings and bans). It would be of further interest to have Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete disclose all his current and past link to Chilean politics and political activism. Dentren | ^Talk 01:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You have absolutely no proof about that supposed sockpuppetry, for which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever. Now there's another problem here: this user is not assuming good faith, making totally groundless accusations and ultimately disregards politics, disrupting the project in order to prove a point. They should be definitely stopped. I am not reverting once again their edits, but an admin should call them out at last. Bedivere (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Both User:Dentren and User:Bedivere are edit-warring at Izkia Siches. I think page protection may be the best option, to encourage everyone to discuss on the talk page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Mx. Granger, agree this is what Bedivire-Diego Grez-Cañete should have done from the biggining instead of warriyng. Dentren | ^Talk 11:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop calling me like that. You have no proof at all and I consider that a personal attack. You should apologize. Bedivere (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Mx. Granger. Not to mention it should be restored to its stable version Bedivere (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Dentren for 48h for edit-warring and for the personal attacks here. Another reason for the block is that Dentren reverted yet again today, well after this report was filed. Bedivere, you too were edit-warring and are warned that any future reverts at the article will probably result in a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:86.30.52.72 reported by User:Wolfdog (Result: )

Page: Essex dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.30.52.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]

Comments:
A user named Judeobasquelanguage was warned about edit warring on the relevant page. Scope creep, Czello, and I have been trying to maintain the page status quo ante. Then the anonymous user listed above appeared on the scene and continued the process of reverting. Possibly a case of block evasion? Canterbury Tail may concur / know more. The anonymous user has been the only one to take to the talk page, but when I responded, they responded in turn with off-the-rails ad hominem-style gibberish. Wolfdog (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)}}

This is Judeobaquelanguage's IP address, they've confirmed it in the past including on the IP talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

IP id blocked and Judeobasquelanguage has been indeffed for complete inability to operate in a collaborative environment without calling people racist just because they disagree with them. Canterbury Tail talk 21:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: )

Page: 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "rv editor whose account was created the same day"
2. 14:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "rv anon...sockpuppet?"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) to 13:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "have both viewpoints represented"
   2. 13:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "ABC source"
4. 02:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "RV as that editor's account was just created today"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User FobTown continues edit warring with other users in the page and also making accusations of being sockpuppets of mine towards other users without opening any sockpuppet investigations on these accounts. Even the reason for reverting is claiming they are sockpuppets In addition there are also threats like Your account was just created today so you will be under scrutiny. Read the following before you give your cookie-cutter arguments that are similar to those made by User:UtoD Considering that sockpuppet accusations in talk page and edit summaries pretty much drags me back into the dispute and using these accusations as reasons for revert/attacks rather than reporting them is WP:ASPERSIONS. I am putting this in the edit warring reports but also want to report the casting of aspersions. UtoD 18:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It is true that User:Simpleshooter99 created an account right away and went right to editing 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. Plus User:Simpleshooter99's first edit was similar to User:UtoD [59], and both use similar rhetoric on their edit summaries and article Talk page.[60] In addition, I was about to call out User contributions for 49.186.67.124 for being a potential sockpuppet, however User:Simpleshooter99 later admitted to forgetting to log back in.[61] Ending up User:Simpleshooter99 and I did have a discussion on the Talk page, with User:Thriley and User:Qiushufang being involved, and so far we seem to have come to a compromise. [62] FobTown (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)